President Elect's 'top team'

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
There is a longstanding convention in our UK democracy the outcome is based upon those who actually bother to vote, and the winner is the one getting most votes.

If you don't vote your views are of no account.

That folk believed B / S fed to them by the Brexiteers does not change the outcome. Responsibility rests with Remainers who failed to communicate so convincing a story, and (perhaps) general public naivety arising from and inadequate educational system.
There's an as long convention in UK democracy that referendums aren't used and are advisory in nature only. That folk believed the lies coming from the Brexit campaigners underline the nature of the referendum - in a properly run e.g. Swiss-style referendum those lies wouldn't have been possible.
 
The people campaigning for remain should've told bigger lies, like the other lot. So it's their fault really. Same with the US elections. Fight liar with liar, that's the way forward.
The problem is, the baddies can easily tap in to deeply held prejudices and base impulses. They're no good to the goodies, who instead have to rely on more complex, enlightened argument. Which, it seems, bypasses much of the electorate.
 
Did the wealthy people want Brexit?
Yes. Very wealthy and very stupid.

farage, trump.png
 
Brexit was the first big event where social media took a big part.

The American election was the next big step in the power of social media being used to manipulate.

Social media is the primary reason for the rise in right wing populism.


Trump propaganda is powerful, as this thread shows
 
Did I actually say I supported Saddam Hussein? If so where did I say it?

I said the war criminal Tony Blair was complicit with Bush in engaging in an illegal war with a sovereign nation and effecting regime change based entirely on LIES and Western propaganda looking for any excuse to justify their attacks which arguably had an underlying agenda which not only laid waste to an entire sovereign nation but was also responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of innocent people from which that nation let alone the region still hasn't recovered and then you have the audacity to ask me why did I support Saddam?

It's not a case of supporting Saddam, it's a case of supporting what is right and what is not and you appear unable to differentiate between the two.

Pointing out that Blair and Bush are arguably war criminals is not supporting Saddam. Putin has had the same accusations levelled at him by the very people who were quite willing to support the illegal war created by Blair but they have not called for Blair to be held accountable for his monstrous lies and the death and destruction he was complicit in.

That's the problem with debating with left wing zealots and extremists, they are so shallow minded and lacking mental capacity that they inevitably look for any ways to attack the person with whom they're debating rather than enter a debate which is clearly above their heads and your question is a perfect example of that.

Now who's being economical with the truth? Did you just "forget" that Iraq had invaded and taken occupation of another sovereign nation? (LOL - it's that word, again, so well beloved by Brexiters - sovereignty...) Saddam just didn't get the hang of "brinkmanship" and took the situation over the actual brink.

So in supporting what is "right", from what you're saying, you would have happily accepted for Kuwait to have been entirely annexed by Iraq, right?



PS - I think tony has stopped engaging with me a while ago now - having not tackled a single facet of any of the credible evidence I've set out for him, in at least half a dozen posts, appearing to prefer to rely on nothing but his own entrenched, biased and unsubstantiated opinions - perhaps he's put me on ignore?
 
The problem is, the baddies can easily tap in to deeply held prejudices and base impulses. They're no good to the goodies, who instead have to rely on more complex, enlightened argument. Which, it seems, bypasses much of the electorate.

'Twas always thus. Except it used to be the amoral characters creating the narrative were held in check. That's all over, anything goes.
 
And ordinary working people believed them. And the intelligent who wanted to remain were incapable of putting forward a sufficiently convincing argument to persuade them otherwise.

That a democratic debate and vote goes against your strongly held view is not some kind conspiracy - the success of the Brexiteers is a reflection of an inadequate Remain campaign.

I think there is another dimension to this that isn't being aired here:

I disagree that there was not a "sufficiently convincing argument" from Remain - the details were absolutely crystal clear - all of the negative things that have happened were predicted and evidenced.

The other factor is that the Leave camp pursued a deliberate campaign of lies and deceit. Alongside this were the "Brexit Aligned" press, who desperately wanted Brexit for their own aims and profit - and broadcast the lies and deceit even though they knew it was a lie. And alongside all of that were the Social Media Echo-Chambers where the people who had swallowed the lies - mostly because they wanted to believe them and wanted the outcomes they were lied to about - and were singularly not able to entertain the "opposing opinion", despite the mountain of credible evidence that supported it...

Finally, alongside and supporting all of that - the deliberate lies, the deliberate precipitation of the known lies, and the entrenched partisan Echo-Chambers - alongside all of that was the social media Bot Accounts (funded and supported by shady sources such as the Kremlin and Tufton Street) flooding those Echo Chambers and empowering the entrenched partisan followers to deny the evidence mounted against their views. Those bot farms disappeared very quickly after the referendum (but have also been used to equal effect in the recent US Election - and again the activity disappeared very quickly after the Election).

^^All of these things were actively pursued by the very wealthy, in pursuit of their selfish aims, and targeted the least well educated in society to vote against their own best interests.

And alongside all of that, the ghouls of the Brexit Press were active in pursuing what they nick-named "balance" from all other media outlets, including the BBC - but this was definitely not "balance" - and instead simply a counter-argument based on known lies - and insisted that this pack of "known lies" was also propagated by the "responsible" media, threatening to call them biased if they did not meet with the blackmail and represent a known lie - which was the "opposing view".


I think that covers most of it.

Sadly, the least well educated cannot accept that they were lied to, even when they discover they were lied to, and deep down know that their opinions are based upon known lies, because human nature is a fickle master. People are known to dig their heels in even when their views are demonstrably based upon an easily proven falsehood. The most well educated are more likely to accept the evidenced view and allow the facts and truth to guide their opinions.

If you feel uncomfortable with the above paragraph, you ought not to, because it is a very well evidenced field of research, and if you try to refute the body of evidence supporting it, that basically signals a pre-existing bias and an unwillingness to accept credible facts and truths. Which is poignant, don't you think?
 
I disagree that there was not a "sufficiently convincing argument"
Terry is working from the premise that each side can vote and therefore democracy is working.

But this is wrong, democracy can be manipulated, the U.K. evidence shows 90% of the mainstream press media is owned by 3 companies and the power in the U.K. media swings widely in favour of the right.

This thread is about America and I’m not sure the media there is mostly right wing, but behind the scenes it is the wealth and power of the right that is used to spread misinformation.

Conspiracy theories which drive populism are seeded by the right.

The powerful lobby groups and “think tanks” like turning point, Koch foundation, Heritage foundation are all funded by wealthy billionaires trying to buy influence


Sure we all have a vote, but we can be manipulated, so democracy is more nuanced than having a free vote.


In America and U.K. there is a need to stop malign influencing of lobby groups.

Take the Institute of Economic Affairs, these people are allowed to appear on current affairs programmes and appear as impartial experts when in fact they are insidious pushers of a hidden agenda. The IEA refuses to publish who funds it, but it talks about wanting free speech.

(For those who don’t know, the IEA is a highly influential lobby group)
 
Can we please get over brexit, it has been done and we now have to move on, in what direction who knows but Starmer seems to be looking at China for something just hopefully not ideas about leadership.

The UK will never resolve it's issues until it accepts that it is no longer the country it once was and now needs to settle into a new position where it can be stable and it's economy can maintain, at the moment we are using a lot of energy trying to remain at the top table where we no longer belong and living way above our means. The EU is also not doing well and so can only prop each other up for so long before someone like germany gets tired of supporting the EU and decides to breakaway. Maybe Starmer has got something right, looking to the east for new markets but the limiting factor in all of this is that the global markets are only so big and there are now to many stalls and increasing as the east continues to grow and develope.
 
Terry is working from the premise that each side can vote and therefore democracy is working.
Democracy can only work if we have a truly democratic system, this means wealthy lobbying groups need to change and people need to vote in an enviroment that only contains factual information without influence. Also the political system has to change to a more proportional system where everyones vote counts and voting is mandatory. Remember Labour got in with a very low proportion of votes as the turnout was low and in many seats with only a small majority. It would be interesting to know how people would have voted if the election had been after the American election and had known that Trump had won.
 
The EU is also not doing well
The EU is a global economic superpower with a gdp of $17 trillion.

With the nutter in power in the USA, the EU will need to step up.

The U.K. needs to realign itself with the EU and away from USA

Also the political system has to change to a more proportional system where everyones vote counts
Totally agree.

Under PR the Tories would no longer be a powerful force
 
NATO didn’t threaten Russia
Ukraine never threatened Russia
Countries neighbouring Russia didn’t threaten Russia
USA didn’t threaten Russia
You're right, NATO, Ukraine, neighbours & USA haven't threatened Russia but they have threatened Putin and his regime. Putin's sole aim is to remain in power and the only people who can change that are the Russian population. Putin is aggressive to the west because he can see that 'his' people would much prefer a western style democracy which would see his demise.
Brian
 
You're right, NATO, Ukraine, neighbours & USA haven't threatened Russia but they have threatened Putin and his regime.
Relations were quite normal before he invaded Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk (with his little green men and mercenary militias so on).
 
I don't think either of the main parties would be, is that a bad thing !
but Tories are the most successful political party in the world and have been in power for most of the last half a century

also the Tories have the weight of the wealthy behind them

under PR Labour would split, its 2 parties in reality, the Corbyn left and the more centre left
 
Very difficult to reason with anyone who's knowledge of history appears to be confined to what they had for breakfast.
The Soviets started the war as allies of the Nazis, and joined them in invading and committing countless atrocities in Poland.
When their former ally turned on them they came to us for help, and it was given.
How did they behave afterwards?
You really do need to do some research on the forced annexation of countries by the Soviets after the war, the circumstances surrounding the Berlin airlift and so forth.
Very hard to see how you can blame the west for these things, they were entirely the result of aggressive expansion on the part of the Soviet Union.
None helped by the extremely naive view of Stalin and his motives by FDR and Eisenhower. Both were taken for mugs. Churchill was probably the only one of them who saw Stalin for the monster that he was.
I think you've been reading far too much Western history to get the bigger picture. The issues between Russia and the West started the moment the revolution took place.
The West was so afraid of communism back then that they even refused to give the Romanovs sanctuary in case it triggered a similar revolt in Britain so left them to their fate which we all now know of. That is historical fact. Someone with your grasp of history surely must ask why they weren't given sanctuary?

Of course I know about aggression-pact between Germany & Russia and their expansionist intentions but irrespective of the intentions, Stalin knew that Hitler had eyes on Russia and that transpired to be true so all this historical bluster from you doesn't change the fact that the West was also just as duplicitous and it's been said in some quarters that the Allies secretly hoped that Germany would destroy what was the then communist Russia.
Stalin knew exactly what the West thought of him and his nation so played the West at their own game.

I am blaming no one I am just pointing out that there is mistrust on both sides and for good reason but to apportion all of the blame for the mistrust on Russia is not looking at the evidence.

Putin is not going to change his tune by the threat of long range missiles. The West was on the back foot when Putin's army invaded Ukraine on day one when he issued his cloaked threats. The West have tried starving the Russian people out by trying to destroy their economy but it's not working and he knows that they won't risk an all out war which could eventually escalate to the use of nuclear capable weapons.

At least there will be someone in the White House in 8 or 9 weeks if he's not assassinated that could broker a deal without further escalating the conflict which I'm sure Putin would want to end sooner rather than later.
 
The people on here who think making a deal with Putin will bring peace are simply wrong.

Trump is definitely wrong, he has made it clear he will cut all funding to Ukraine…..that simply sends a message to Putin that he has won.

Trump agreed a surrender deal with the Taliban….that worked out well eh.
Perhaps there are many people in the USA who are now actually sick and tired of funding other people's wars, the killing of their soldiers and expected to be police service of the world!
WHY should the Americans always be expected to pay the lion's share of NATO etc and then because Trump comes along and objects to this he's a monster according to the hard of thinking left wingers?
It's about time the EU/Europe stood on its own feet and got it's own army instead of expecting the USA to be the main player every time.
 
Back
Top