A recommendation for conspiracists/people who understand things the rest of us don't

[Terry - Somerset]

but Trump supporters are using the above points as "evidence" it is happening in Springfield

I immediately assumed that the "Springfield" referred to was the home of the Simpsons. It came as no surprise that the Trump supporting community might regard Homer, Marge, Bart etc as "real"

 

[Blackswanwood]

Nope, your flow chart description falls down at point 1. - in a false equivalence fallacy which conflates the acceptance of donations to be the sleazy behaviour in question.

That's simply dishonest.

No, many voters felt the Tories were sleazy. Accepting inappropriate donations or gifts are easily regarded as sleazy behaviour so "no false equivalence fallacy".

The ACTUAL sleazy behaviour was, for example, a minister acting unlawfully for the benefit of a donor to proactively and knowingly avert them paying £45million in tax. The catalogue of sleaze over the past 10 years is huge.

For the avoidance of any doubt "accepting donations" was never on anyone's RADAR as "sleazy". Because it just isn't. The two things are separate and distinct.

Yes, we could come up with a long list of sleaze. Accepting donations has been firmly on the radar - one example perhaps being Boris and his wallpaper. Inappropriate donations are sleazy.

Also for the avoidance of doubt, the nation's collective conscience has only just been awakened to the issue of donations by what can only be described as a forced narrative within some of the media and that forced narrative has attempted to do, and in some respects successfully, falsely conflate the acceptance of donations and sleazy behaviour.

Perhaps if Kier Starmer had not made a big thing about how he was going to be whiter than white or had actually been more thoughtful about accepting such an inappropriate level of gifts it would not have troubled the nation's collective conscience?

You may well have had the previous mindset that donations to politicians = fundamentally bad, however, my question to you and others will always be the same: When did you first put your mindset into writing on a forum or on social media? You may well be in a vanishingly small minority that previously have done so, but it is dishonest to declare that the forced narrative has always been an issue for those organisations and individuals who are now flooding the media space with their forced narrative.

I've certainly not held back on my views about Tory sleaze. Strangely I never felt Boris and co were hypocritical about it - it was almost expected. I actually believed Starmer would be true to his word. The press mirrors politics with a left and right wing leaning. "Forced narrative" is a rowlocks claim put forward by ether side when they are criticised.

The outlets that are forcing the narrative have always, always been actively and acutely aware of donations taking place to politicians (they even did it themselves...), however, they have singularly failed to take that to print in the past and it is only now that it is suddenly a thing? Pull the other one.

Google "Boris wallpaper" or "Tory Sleaze" - plenty of coverage.