USA news & politics

[dirty harry]

Thanks. Just to be clear my views are based on the BBC article, who and what they report, how they do that etc. That is impartial and suits everyone

The line between censorship or only reporting facts or just scientific fact and possible issues with that.

I agree, I enjoyed the article, it was crisp, well written, knowledgeable and IMO a credit to what the BBC stands for. It criticised RFK where it needed to, but recognised his role and stance on issues that are universally agreed upon in the US (certainly nutrition and safety concerns around food).

If only more journalism was considered, and professional, I genuinely think the level of trust would be higher, and Trump's 2015 run would have ended in whimper at the primary.

 

[Welsh Exile]

If only more journalism was considered, and professional, I genuinely think the level of trust would be higher, and Trump's 2015 run would have ended in whimper at the primary.

Interesting. So in your view the press is very left centric and is much more influential than the right wing press?

 

[ncurd]

I think 3/10 British scientists think gender is not binary. A number of other scientists think differently, and the UK Supreme Court agrees with that as well.

Citation needed on the 3 fifths claim.

The Supreme Court decision was also about a specific piece of legislation and how it had to be in interpreted. They were not ruling there was a gender binary at birth just the law said there was. The ECHR are now in a shambles over it due to their guidance being deeply flawed.

Even if true then 30% is way more scientists than anti vaxxers have. Especially when it comes to peer reviewed studies.

 

[ncurd]

And I don't think the BBC said anything he said was fact. To be honest everything you could say that was "positive" was countered quite strongly. Any RFK supporters out there will be screaming bais about this. I don't see anyone reading that and thinking "you know what that RFK has some interesting points" ..... apart from Harry I suppose

Okay so again Im not complaining about the article (which I've not read) its the headline. The person skirting over it (like myself) and the implication he has points from that.

 

[dirty harry]

Interesting. So in your view the press is very left centric and is much more influential than the right wing press?

Not particularly, I think a lot of credible sources have let themselves down at times, and the Trump hysteria got to them, but you could argue that the rise in online media has forced them into being more extreme and relatable to try to hold on to audiences.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Not particularly, I think a lot of credible sources have let themselves down at times, and the Trump hysteria got to them, but you could argue that the rise in online media has forced them into being more extreme and relatable to try to hold on to audiences.

So why attribute the outcome of the election in 2016 to the left wing press and not saying that the right wing press also had an influence on people's views and therefore the outcome?

Your post implied if only the left wing press were truthful and not so hysterical about Trump then he never would have won. But surely the right wing media had a hand in this as well with running cover for Trump

 

[Saintjay]

Citation needed on the 3 fifths claim.

The Supreme Court decision was also about a specific piece of legislation and how it had to be in interpreted. They were not ruling there was a gender binary at birth just the law said there was. The ECHR are now in a shambles over it due to their guidance being deeply flawed.

Even if true then 30% is way more scientists than anti vaxxers have. Especially when it comes to peer reviewed studies.

Survey conducted by the Torygraph on 200 scientists i believe.

The legislation was the Equality Act so pretty specific.

As far as i am aware for the purposes of the Act they did rule the "concept of sex is binary"

I don't know what evidence or information they based that opinion on. I'm guessing they looked at something

 

[Which Tyler]

I see it's been feeding time this morning - way too much chum in the water for my liking

 

[dirty harry]

So why attribute the outcome of the election in 2016 to the left wing press and not saying that the right wing press also had an influence on people's views and therefore the outcome?

Your post implied if only the left wing press were truthful and not so hysterical about Trump then he never would have won. But surely the right wing media had a hand in this as well with running cover for Trump

Well firstly I didnt mention wings, I mentioned Journalism.

Trumps victory in 2016 was a master stroke, not only use of social media, but the total media blackout of Hillary.

Hillary gave a speach, everyone was reporting on a secret recording about Trump getting laid by groupies.
Hillary held a rally, Trumps fave eating tacos was front page.
Hillary visited the troops, everyone was reporting on Russian hookers urinating on Trump. (Not official citations, just general idea)

Journalists obsession, and attempts to all be the one to bring him down eroded trust in them, and all Americans saw was the establishment attacking one candidate. Fox was already a joke in 2016, them running cover wasnt considerable.

I honestly think, had the entire of late night, news, comedians, journalists and celebs not all laughed their entitled and pro establishment heads off at him, we wouldnt be talking about him now.

Journalists could have been rational, professional and considered, criticised Trump when needed, but not tried to blow everything up into a career ender, and accuse huge swathes of the country to be deplorable, on behalf of the Democrats, but also gave Trump credit when it was appropriate, he would have lost the primary. He became a juggernaut from the idea no coverage is bad coverage.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ultimately RFK gutted the entire vaccine board, has held up the discredited report saying there is a link between vaccines and autism and was wholly unaware of what was actually going on in the department he runs and what the bill currently going through Congress does for it, as shown in his recent hearing.

He is correct in that prevention is better than cure and US food is a mess of all sorts of stuff that isn't healthy, but his actions on one of the key areas of prevention is to make it worse. He says it's for safety concerns, which is fair but he's not presented anything to demonstrate that previous vaccine policy was dangerous, he's simply asserting it.

His most recent act for example is opposing vaccines containing thiomersal. There hasn't been any evidence that it is dangerous, with many people simply concluding it must be bad because it contains mercury. These same people seem to have no problem with consuming sodium or chlorine when in salt though.

 

[ncurd]

Survey conducted by the Torygraph on 200 scientists i believe.

The legislation was the Equality Act so pretty specific.

As far as i am aware for the purposes of the Act they did rule the "concept of sex is binary"

I don't know what evidence or information they based that opinion on. I'm guessing they looked at something

I'll never take evidence from a poll from as biased a publication as the torygraph without seeing the methodology and who conducted it. I trust them only smidgen more than the Mail. (This is the same for any poll not conducted by established polling agencies).

There's a difference between "purposes of the act" and "we believe there is a gender binary on a scientific basis". Your doing the ECHR did and believing the decision implicit to your world view and discovering its not the case. I've also been told by legal friends the decision was quite baffling to them and just about all their colleagues agree but that's another matter.
The law once said it was gross indecency to be homosexual I and many people would argue it was never that.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Well firstly I didnt mention wings, I mentioned Journalism.

Trumps victory in 2016 was a master stroke, not only use of social media, but the total media blackout of Hillary.

Hillary gave a speach, everyone was reporting on a secret recording about Trump getting laid by groupies.
Hillary held a rally, Trumps fave eating tacos was front page.
Hillary visited the troops, everyone was reporting on Russian hookers urinating on Trump. (Not official citations, just general idea)

Journalists obsession, and attempts to all be the one to bring him down eroded trust in them, and all Americans saw was the establishment attacking one candidate. Fox was already a joke in 2016, them running cover wasnt considerable.

I honestly think, had the entire of late night, news, comedians, journalists and celebs not all laughed their entitled and pro establishment heads off at him, we wouldnt be talking about him now.

Journalists could have been rational, professional and considered, criticised Trump when needed, but not tried to blow everything up into a career ender, and accuse huge swathes of the country to be deplorable, on behalf of the Democrats, but also gave Trump credit when it was appropriate, he would have lost the primary. He became a juggernaut from the idea no coverage is bad coverage.

So you do put the onus on the left wing press being responsible and the right wing media had no part to play in it? Breitbart had nothing to do with influencing anything. The anti establishment vote had nothing to do with it etc etc?

 

[Saintjay]

I'll never take evidence from a poll from as biased a publication as the torygraph without seeing the methodology and who conducted it. I trust them only smidgen more than the Mail. (This is the same for any poll not conducted by established polling agencies).

There's a difference between "purposes of the act" and "we believe there is a gender binary on a scientific basis". Your doing the ECHR did and believing the decision implicit to your world view and discovering its not the case. I've also been told by legal friends the decision was quite baffling to them and just about all their colleagues agree but that's another matter.
The law once said it was gross indecency to be homosexual I and many people would argue it was never that.

What information and evidence did the court use in reaching there decision?

I'd like to think they based in on more than there world view. Equaly you have no idea what my world view is on this

I have some legal friends who agree and some who don't. I don't know who's right or wrong.

 

[dirty harry]

So you do put the onus on the left wing press being responsible and the right wing media had no part to play in it? Breitbart had nothing to do with influencing anything. The anti establishment vote had nothing to do with it etc etc?

I mean the anti establishment vote is part of the problem as I said, when every establishment agency attacks one candidate, human nature kicks in. Trump played off that perfectly.

I dont know why your obsessed with right wing, its their job to promote the candidate with their ideals, but yes in Trump's case they were pretty irrelevant.

The win is down to complex issues, but the big 2 that stand out as game changers is the media playing into Trumps hands, and Hillary as a candidate.

If the media didnt blow everything out of the water, Trump doesn't get the victim points needed, and if Dems didnt all but cheat Sanders, Sanders also becomes president IMO.

Hillary had the near entirety of traditional media in her pocket, but they constantly attacked Trump instead of promoting Hillary.

Why do you think Trump won?

 

[ncurd]

What information and evidence did the court use in reaching there decision?

I mean A point of their judgement summary

2. It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domainon the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word "woman"other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited rolewhich does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresseson this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 inlegislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination.Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within theEA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 ("the GRA 2004").

Point 7 asserts there biological imperative at birth but doesn't state the scientific basis for that conclusion.

7. We also use the expression "biological sex" which is used widely, including in thejudgments of the Court of Session, to describe the sex of a person at birth, and we use the expression "certificated sex" to describe the sex attained by the acquisition of a GRC.

Which is moot the court didn't care about Intersex people which impacts a range from 0.018% (one in 5,500 births) to 1.7% (one in 59) stupid range there. Which further evidence biological sex has sod all to do with science and legal terms referring to gender you were assigned at birth not any biological or scientific imperative.

 

[Deleted member 53362]

So you do put the onus on the left wing press being responsible and the right wing media had no part to play in it? Breitbart had nothing to do with influencing anything. The anti establishment vote had nothing to do with it etc etc?

Trumps rise is absolutely down to the media coverage of him good or bad. In a media that's obsessed with ratings, Trump is good ratings. The more people attacked him the more popular he got, I do think Harry has a point there

 

[Deleted member 53362]

Okay so again Im not complaining about the article (which I've not read) its the headline. The person skirting over it (like myself) and the implication he has points from that.

So you haven't actually read it?

 

[ncurd]

So you haven't actually read it?

It wasn't the point I was making! you guys can debate the content.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I mean the anti establishment vote is part of the problem as I said, when every establishment agency attacks one candidate, human nature kicks in. Trump played off that perfectly.

I dont know why your obsessed with right wing, its their job to promote the candidate with their ideals, but yes in Trump's case they were pretty irrelevant.

The win is down to complex issues, but the big 2 that stand out as game changers is the media playing into Trumps hands, and Hillary as a candidate.

If the media didnt blow everything out of the water, Trump doesn't get the victim points needed, and if Dems didnt all but cheat Sanders, Sanders also becomes president IMO.

Hillary had the near entirety of traditional media in her pocket, but they constantly attacked Trump instead of promoting Hillary.

Why do you think Trump won?

Bannon, Breitbart, Fox et al were irrelevant? Ok

Why do I think Trump won? Multi faceted for sure. He's a populist who tapped into disadvantaged people's worries, much like Brexit vote here but the media had a big part to play in that as well.

Do I think the left played a part? Sure. They are the masters of scoring own goals (see Corbyn) but to ignore the part played by the right wing media is wrong

 

[Welsh Exile]

Trumps rise is absolutely down to the media coverage of him good or bad. In a media that's obsessed with ratings, Trump is good ratings. The more people attacked him the more popular he got, I do think Harry has a point there

I agree but he’s also saying the right wing media was irrelevant which is what I’m disagreeing with.