Trump

Claig, have you ever actually read any Camille Paglia, or is this Orwell all over again?

Which bits have been discredited and by what means?

Still not clear on what the facts are that contradict the story.

Believe me I would love all of this not to be true.

Not really - rather a lot of leaps there

Kaija, a cursory glance would answer your questions. This wonderful russian propoganda article doing the MSM round today, are based on '2 independant expert research organisations'. The first War on the Rocks Established this month , Clint Watts and others first published their claims on November 6th. (Clint Watts, who describes himself as President of Miburo Inc amongst other things... www.fpri.org/contributor/clint-watts/....and Miburo Inc here.....www.manta.com/c/mb481tn/miburo-solutions-inc ......staff #1 LOL) Whilst they struggled to get credibility with their 6th Nov article, they needed a second independant expert to validate them. Up pops ProporNot. Established 16th November. www.propornot.com/2016/10/introducing-propornot-be-aware-of-and.html

Luckily for the USA, neither of these random newly discovered 'expert organisations', are providing intelligence for the US intelligence services. Phew.

However, to pad out a juicy spin story, throw in the whole 'russias behind the wikileaks' leak, which has been catagorically denied by both Russia and wikileaks, and you have what youve peddled today. No independant experts, no independant research, and a mass of padding thats already been discredited. Does that help?

Yes I heard part of that, Informal. The similarities of style between Trump and Idi Amin were quite uncanny.

Informal: No, but it sounds interesting. I've been out most of the morning, but I will try to find it on IPlayer. Thanks.

fourmummy: "So, how do we live when some believe A and some believe B?" When it comes to beliefs like like where we go when we die, the answer is often quite happily.
eg: My family do not all agree on this. We get along fine (most of the time). I don't think I know anyone who agrees with me on absolutely everything. Does that mean I should live alone?
And yes, human beings did use to live in much smaller groups. I think the way we live now is an improvement to then, and given the massive increase in population since we all lived in these tiny societies, I don't think that way of life would be practical without a huge decrease in world population. Which sounds pretty shit to live through.

squishysquirmy did you hear Trevor Noah on R4 this morning? I think you'd enjoy his take on truth having become a matter of opinion (and his view on African dictators).

I think in that scenario the fact of being smashed to a pulp on the pavement would be enough truth for me to be going on with.

Squishy - got to run but for now:

I am making the same arguments as you. The 'truth' of what happens to you when you jump out of the window is there but before we can get to it, we have to contend with a human interpretation of it. Some say you'll go to heaven. Others will think you'll turn to dust. That's what I meant when I said that there's always human interpretation that stands between us and an absolute truth (which is why there'll never be a universal one - because all humans have different interpretations of what they see). So, how do we live when some believe A and some believe B? Side by side (relativism)? Doesn't work. So how? The only way that I can see is via small societies that live according to how they want to live, where they prioritise one truth that works for them over another.

Experts - nothing wrong with experts. The problem is when the process between expert and non-expert becomes subverted and manipulated. If a doc tells me that I need some antibiotics because evidence shows that I might die without them, then I'll take them. If a doc tells me that I need antibiotics blah blah (fill in the reason here) because a pharmaceutical company has sold them to him for nefarious (profiteering?) reasons, then I might think twice about it.

Thank you, Shirley. Squishy, you are very much not alone.

I love Kaija's posts too, btw.

Thanks shirley. You just made me feel a lot less alone. .

Southallgirl: "If Trump's reasons for running for president are truthful, then he is to be lauded and applauded. If he was lying, then he will be found out."

What about the damage that could have been done before he is "found out"? Anyway, I am pretty sure that when if he fails you, it will all be someone else's fault.

And Kaija

Delurking again to say I think I love squishy. I know I'm adding nothing to this debate but I'm too slow to respond.

As you were.

"But the facts contradict the very basis of what your article was attempting to say"

Could you be specific about this?

This expert bashing is just anti-intelectualism masquerading as anti-elitism, a sort of metaphorical book burning.

takes: Really? You need a dead man to come and shred to pieces a well laid out post?
Spinflight brought him up by using his quotes to strengthen her argument, and Claig seemed keen to conscript him (along with Victor Hugo) into "the illustrious people's army", I am just a bit by people so confidently quoting from books they have never read.

(Claig, I don't know who you are and you will probably ignore this, but if you do ever get around to reading any Orwell start with Animal farm and pay particularly close attention to the fate of Boxer. Please.)

fourmummy: Orwell was writing about relativism. Is this your "truth"?
"there is no mechanism to determine absolute truth"
-No, but not all "truths" are equal. Not all opinions hold equal weight.
If I jump out of the window, the "truth" that I will fly is not as valid as the truth that I will fall. If I am unwell, the opinion of my doctor is worth a hell of a lot more than the opinion of my cat. The informed opinion of an evolutionary scientist who has spent many years studying is worth more than a hunch of Pence's.
" societies live according to their truth" - and some die by them.
As for the world splitting up into smaller nation states - why stop there, by the way? How small do the groups have to become before everyone in it is united by the same truth?

Your right Kaija, sorry, I should have started...."for example.."

But the facts contradict the very basis of what your article was attempting to say, hence , you can dismiss it pretty quickly, especially when you look at the 'media reach' of say Harry Styles in comparison.

millions of people's intuitions and gut feelings - these have enabled our survival for centuries. We tend to dismiss them because we have created a specific category of 'expert' in our societies, and have elevated these above all else, but before people could read, write and educationally reason en masse, they probably played a large role. Gut feelings are just another, very small column that goes into propping up what we know. Others are formal education, chatter, lectures, journalism, blogs, etc.. Importantly, the internet has destabilised the traditional divide between 'expert' and 'non-expert' without the sky falling in. In fact, a lot of effects of this destabilisation have been positive (increased medical knowledge among patients, increased political awareness among ordinary people, young girls following 'blogs' of snappy dressers as an alternative to the 'Bible' of Vogue).

Claig if you believe the current government are going to support the industry in the North East now we are free of the EU, well I just don't know how to respond to that. Some amazing utopia where regeneration is spearheaded by Theresa May and Boris Johnson. All along it was the EU preventing the conservatives recognising the issues faced by the people in those areas. Who knew? Immigration in Consett is negligible. But the people in this area have been 'spun' a tale that closing the borders will make their lives better. Farage is a master of spin, and I would bet any money that Trump is the same.

But that wasn't what was in the link that you were rubbishing

"Well if your position is a point blank refusal to believe anything in the msm unless it's Russia Today, you have a problem. Not sure where you go from there."

Gosh. All we want is evidence based reporting Kaija. Its not hard. If Putin says he has 3 military bases outside Russia, and hes right, hes right. If Obama impllies Putin has 100 military bases outside Russia, hes wrong. Obama will tell you hes right, because he only implied it, but the threat is there!!! He COULD have 100 bases!!!!! Spin spinny spin spin. The facts really dont matter, its the message.