How do we decide who to believe?

Jump to Last Post 1-20 of 20 discussions (143 posts)
  1. Ken Burgess profile image76
    Ken Burgessposted 7 years ago

    The revelation to some, that Congress & D.C. has been in general hijacked by Corporate, Foreign, and Special Interests run amuck... is too much to swallow for many.
    CNN & MSNBC has long been the propaganda media for these Corporate, Globalist, etc. establishment forces, and so they, along with those cronies in Congress that have been there for 30 years or longer(Pelosi, Waters, McCain, etc.) who have continually passed new laws and agreements that bring us harm (Repeal of Glass & Steagall, NAFTA, ACA, etc.)  are fighting hard to keep their lies and deceptions propped up.
    Trump, as loathsome and despicable as he is to many people who have yet to open their eyes to the truths (noted above) is the one that has been trying to expose the corruption. The 'drain the swamp' candidate turned President has done more to expose the slow decay of sovereignty, of liberty, and the middle (working) class that has been ongoing for over 25 years, it started in earnest with Bush and continued through Clinton, Bush, and Obama unopposed.
    Yes, Trump as patriot, as defender of people's rights and American independence, of working class Americans, is a tough pill for many to follow.  He is seen by many as crude, crass, and obnoxious.
    And that is largely because CNN, MSNBC, W.Post and others have spent many months programming you into believing he is worse than Mussolini, he is everything you fear, and more.
    People have a choice, they can continue to believe the propaganda, the lies being fed to them by those 'news' sources noted above, or they can challenge those sources rather than just accept them... read the Wall Street Journal, go to alternate news sources (Bloomberg, Fox News) and begin to realize what is really going on.  There are literally alternate realities between some of these sources..
    How do you decide who to believe?

    1. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So you say it's "Corporate, Globalists". vs Trump

      Please explain how the multi-billionaire, CEO and sole owner of multinational company "Trump Incorporated" is NOT a corporate globalist.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Because he doesn't want to be?
        Because he is already so rich, he can't be bought off with 50 or 60 million like Obama and Clinton?

        Look take Trump out of the equation... too many of you are fixated on Trump.  He is not the one who has put this country 20 Trillion dollars in debt, he is not the one who has put 100 million people on Welfare...

        Trump didn't repeal Glass & Steagall, Trump didn't give us NAFTA, Trump wasn't pushing TPP... all that has occurred in the last 25+ years, and the decline in jobs, wages, benefits, etc. has nothing to do with him.

        Trump is the result of all the corruption and collusion going on in D.C.  he is the big F U people gave who are completely fed up, the people who lost their homes, or their pension plans, or had to declare bankruptcy, people who lost their jobs because of NAFTA, or CAFTA, or the lack of any tariffs or taxes on foreign imports from China.

        If I had been Trump, with his money, I'd have bought a place in Iceland, a place in Switzerland, and a place in the Bahamas, I would have renounced my citizenship... and watched in comfort as America collapsed in on itself, rather than do what Trump did, and spend his own money, and put up with loads of BS to take on the headache that is being the President.

        I give him credit for that.  He had better options IMO, and he chose to become President instead... thank Obama for that, if Obama hadn't ridiculed, harassed, and humiliated Trump for years leading up to 2016 (justifiable or not because of the Birth Certificate issue) I don't think he would have run, I don't think he would have gotten his dander up enough to get fixed into his thoughts "I'll Show him!  I'll show them all!"... that's how I think it started.  And as he traveled, met people, and truly saw Americans and heard their stories... I think he chose to become their champion, and actually go to D.C. to try and get things done for them.

        The people were ready for Trump because of a quarter century of the corrupt in Congress selling out the American people every chance they got.

        But Trump ran initially because Obama got under his skin, and chose to humiliate him, thereby motivating him to run... and when the media turned on him and tried to destroy him, that just got him more motivated and more serious about it.

        Trump's smarter than you or I could ever hope to be... that is why he is a Billionaire and the President.  What is amazing is that people buy into this belief CNN and others try to foster, that he is an idiot... well idiots don't become President when being opposed by the media and D.C. just like they don't become billionaires by being dumb businessmen.

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          There is a political establishment, and a corporate elite. They feed off each other, but they are distinct.

          Trump is not part of the political establishment. He is very much part of the corporate elite.

          This can be seen by:

          1) the actions he has already taken in office:
          FCC rolling back consumer protection regulations(1), which benefits the telecommunications industry, not consumers. Gutting the EPA(2), which benefits the oil and gas industry, not people who like clean water and air. Rolling back Dodd-Frank, which benefits the banking industry, not ordinary savers and earners etc (3).

          2) his own business practices:
          Where are Trump Inc. products made? China, Bangladesh, Honduras, Vietnam, South Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Germany, Taiwan, Israel and the US(4). How many of those products made abroad could have been made in the US? I'd wager a high percentage of them. Why aren't they? Because it's cheaper to make them abroad and ship them to the US. That doesn't help US manufacturers who can make those goods, or the ordinary people who work for them, but it does help Trump Inc. profits.

          So no, this man is not a champion of the working classes. Never has been, and in my opinion never will be. He is a CEO from a privileged background, who used his wealth and influence to lobby politicians to do his bidding. No different to the rest of the corporate elite. The only difference is that now he can bypass the lobbyists and tell politicians what to do directly.

          To use an analogy, imagine a hen arguing that their newly elected leader, Mr. Fox, is a real champion of hens. That hen is so naive he is telling other hens that the fox-like ears, nose and whiskers on the new leader are nothing to worry about. He's also blind to the fact that most of the people Mr. Fox appointed to assist him, all have fox-like ears, noses and whiskers too. In fact he's so desperate for a champion, he is telling the other hens to ignore the fact that Mr. Fox and the other foxes helping him, have already started dismantling parts of the hen house that protect hens from greedy foxes.

          Don't be a naive hen . . . Ken.

          (1) … /98894350/
          (2) … udget-cuts
          (3) … tions.html
          (4) … 4#comments

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Naivety... is reserved for those who think Obama who signed a nice 60 million dollar book deal, didn't sell out.  Or that Clinton, Podesta, Uranium One, Clinton Foundation, where hundreds of millions (combined) were garnered from Russia, and the Clinton Defense Fund (China), and their ties to Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. weren't sell outs.

            You have some nice links, Post and Times being the biggest BS papers still going in the USA.  Talk about biased, fabricated, and propagandized information... those two sources are it.

            Where is this better option than Trump?

            Trump is an international businessman that has taken advantage of all the idiotic laws and trade agreements this country has passed the last 25 years... and he admitted that openly, he has stated (correctly) that he would have been an idiot not to take advantage of those things.

            But he didn't help pass NAFTA... the Clintons did.
            He wasn't proposing to pass TPP.... Obama was.
            He didn't create the NOT ACA... Obama and the corrupt in Congress did.

            Trump isn't what has caused all the problems, Trump isn't what caused the 2007 collapse (Congress and the Clintons did when they repealed the Glass Steagall Act, when they revised the Community Reinvestment act of 94)...

            People that I would otherwise consider rational, even intelligent people, refuse to accept who is to blame for things... out of party loyalty, or some other bias... some of them probably because they are die-hard Marxists, or Globalists, and they just don't come out and say it.

            Trump was elected President, because the people felt all the other options were worse... except perhaps Bernie, who got screwed out of the Democratic nomination by the most corrupt and criminal politician to run for the POTUS in our lifetimes.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              This isn't the Blue Team vs. Red Team. It is corporate elite (with help from their political establishment sidekicks) vs. the rest of us. The choice in the election was always between the political establishment (Clinton) and the corporate elite (Trump).

              Don't insult mine and everyone else's intelligence by trying to suggest Trump is some kind of people's champion. He is the living embodiment of a corporatist, and you know he is. You're getting closer to the truth when you say you think he was the best of a bad choice. You're wrong, but at least that's more honest.

              Trump and his ilk are exactly who caused all the problems. Regulations intended to protect ordinary people get repealed because of lobbying by people with enough money to buy political influence. People like Trump. They lobby their way out of anything that threatens profits. Whether it be labor laws, banking regulations, safety standards, environmental protections, local planning regulations.

              Are politicians wrong to succumb to such lobbying? Of course. But don't pretend money from corporations just falls into the hands of politicians by accident. It gets there because CEOs like Trump make damn sure it gets there. Whenever a regulation gets repealed, you can bet there is a corporation behind it, or more likely a whole industry, with an army of lobbyists.

              They don't even have to do that now though, because gullible people have given them the keys to the White House. They fell for Trump's "I'm just like you" schtick. If they thought about it objectively though, they would realize there is nothing Trump has done that could lead anyone to believe he is interested in anything but his bank balance.

              And no, I'm sorry, it's not the fault of "globalists", or "marxists", or immigrants, or women who have abortions, or gay people, or black people, or transgender people, or Muslims, or any of the current right-wing targets. The politics of fear is just a tool to keep us fighting among ourselves. You, and those who spread that narrative, are only making it easier for others to control you, but you are too blind to see it.

              If you are so desperate to lay blame, then lay where it is deserved: at the feet of people who place profit above every other human consideration, i.e. the corporate elite, and the political establishment that enables them.

              Stop being the hen that praises the fox. He and his other fox friends are not on your side. You are deluding yourself if you think they are.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                It's not I that is "blind", or "desperate"  or "insulting" ... I may see things more clearly, or have a greater grasp on the bigger picture... perhaps I am not explaining the bigger picture well enough...

                "the election was always between the political establishment (Clinton) and the corporate elite (Trump)."

                No...  this is wrong.  This was an election against THE establishment, you separate two things that CANNOT be separated.  The political IS OWNED by the Corporate... not all politicians, many of those who have been elected post ACA and Bank Bailout... since 2010 still have some backbone and resistance to the corrupt and criminal entities in D.C.

                Pelosi, Waters, McCain, Reed, and any others that have been there for 30 years or longer, you can bet are the biggest enemies of the American people that there have ever been in D.C. politics... they are, like Clinton was, there to do everything possible to protect the 1% from the needs and best interests of the American people... they are the evil within.

                It is true that Trump may be a Capitalist 'pig', and he may be a corporate elite... but he is not owned by them... he is the OUTSIDER... he represented the anti-establishment sentiment in America... he represented the Middle Class that has been trampled and destroyed by the corporate friendly policies that were passed by CONGRESS the past 25 years.

                The Root of our problems stem back to the 90s and the Clinton Admin... which allowed and signed off on the repeal of the Glass Steagall act, the rewrite of the Community Reinvestment act, and most of all NAFTA... everything they did allowed the Banks, the 1% to rape the middle class of this country, and to gut the Industrial base and take their industry to 3rd world nations often AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, American tax dollars actually went into building most of the factories and industry in places like China and Mexico that took our Jobs!!!

                SO... where we are at now, is Trump fulfills his promises... he rewrites NAFTA or trashes it all together, he taxes China made products or certain commodities, he enforces the penalties for hiring illegals on major corporations... in other words his actions reinvigorate the Middle Class, the jobs, the wages...

                OR... the system will collapse on itself in ways no one wants to think of right now... in which case Trump will be gone and the system in place, will break down likely into Martial Law, followed quickly by global unrest and violent adjustments that lead to global conflict.

                We are in that grey area where things can correct for a sustainable amount of time.. admittedly this will be at the expense of countries like Mexico and China suffering economic hardships, and it being a scenario where companies are forced by fear of tariffs and taxation to stay in America.

                OR we are on the verge of major upheaval, if the economy worsens. In which case the tens of millions of discontented Americans that helped propel Trump into office, will be joining forces with the Bernie Supporters (the young Marxist/Socialist types) to essentially overthrow our 'Corporate' masters and their 'Political' front men.

                The system needs to survive ten more years, relatively intact and as is, after that technological developments will have advanced tenfold or more from where they are right now, and we will be living in a new age where we are connected in collective ways that many would consider sci-fi today...

                Maybe then we can begin on a massive, global effort to reduce the human population in a humane and conscious way, and reverse the poisoning of the earth with pollution and radiation that will soon be at levels toxic to all life... while at the same time, beginning our first steps to explore the universe and colonizing Mars.

                It will either be the Best of times... or the Worst of times... in the not to distant future.  There is a lot in play, and not everyone can win, but everyone can lose if it goes badly.

                1. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  "No...  this is wrong.  This was an election against THE establishment, you separate two things that CANNOT be separated. "

                  There is a symbiotic relationship between the political establishment and the corporate elite, but there has always been veil of separation between them (albeit a thin one). In fact an entire industry grew up around bridging the gap between the political establishment and corporate elites. What you call "the establishment" is actually three elements: a corporate elite, a political establishment and a lobbying industry that ties them together.

                  Tump is undeniably a member of the corporate elite, albeit it an unconventional one, but more importantly, he represents an alliance between several disparate factions whose agendas broadly align, and spell bad news for ordinary people..

                  The first is the corporate elite. The most powerful faction. The agenda of this faction is very simple. To resist anything that threatens profit, including (and especially) government regulations. To that end it has achieved significant success. Trump and several of the people he has appointed to key government roles are representative of this faction, as are George Soros, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch etc.

                  The second faction is the radical right (distinct from centrist/ moderate conservatives). The agenda of this faction is to destroy (or severely curtail) the state, specifically the federal agencies that form the executive branch. This faction also draws some of its key positions from the "alt-right" movement. Stephen Bannon is a representative of it. So are various members of the political establishment within the Republican party, and prominent members of international far-right parties such as Marion Le Pen of the National Front party in France, Nigel Farage of UKIP in the UK etc.

                  The third faction is the oligarchs, particularly of Russia and her allies. These are essentially business people with direct political power. The agenda of this faction is to 1) reduce the U.S. capability (and willingness) to use punitive measures that restrict aggressive Russian expansion ; 2) undermine the U.S. democratic process as much as possible.

                  In some cases these factions make for strange bedfellows (e.g. Russia and the Republican establishment). You can see that tension playing out as some Republicans express their dismay at the current administration's closeness to (and alleged collusion with) Putin and co.  But their agendas broadly align.

                  The common denominator is the goal to reduce the size, capability and reach of federal government. That single goal delivers the corporate elite more profit; the radical right smaller government; and Russia and her allies a more corrupt, isolationist US government that keeps out of her way.

                  How does Trump fit into the equation? Although he is the face of this malevolent triumvirate, and is himself part of the corporate elite, it's hard not to wonder how much he understands about the bigger picture. There are two possibilities as I see it:

                  1. He has no idea about the wider geopolitical situation. He thinks Putin respects him as a businessman, and Stephen Bannon is a wise advisor (rather than a misguided, harmful ideologue with all the makings of another Hitler).
                  2. He fully understands his role as the face of this unholy trinity of factions, but doesn't care as long as he profits from it.

                  So as I see it, this people's champion image you are trying to push is massively inaccurate. Trump is either a successful hustler who is in way over his head; or he is a very clever, but unpatriotic and unethical mercenary with no interest in anything but profit.

                  Based on everything we know about Donald Trump, I think it's more likely he is the unwitting pawn in a game being played by others, for their own ends. There are lots of reason to suspect Putin has his claws in him; lots of reason to suspect Bannon is taking advantage of him for his own agenda; and lots of reason to suspect the various industries that stand to gain from an emaciated executive branch are more than happy with his current actions.

                  Of course, time will tell. I'll be happy if Trump proves me wrong. I don't think he will though. I only hope the FBI and CIA are able to effectively do their jobs to defend the Constitution if the President and/ or Congress are unable (or unwilling) to.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                    Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Well you certainly made an effort to weave the web and show how they all connect together... extracting Russia, for which there is no evidence of ties.

                    The only evidence of Russian collusion and payoffs is with Podesta, Clinton, Schumer, etc.  the 'opposition' is in bed with Russia if anyone is.

                    Now you left out the military complex, and when you talk about the corporations that ties into the trade agreements, so time will prove your theory out... if he raises tariffs or taxes on Mexican made or China made products, I would say the debunks your theory that he is in the bag for the 'corporate elites'.

                  2. wilderness profile image92
                    wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    "The common denominator is the goal to reduce the size, capability and reach of federal government."

                    "So as I see it, this people's champion image you are trying to push is massively inaccurate."

                    Unfortunately for the whole web you're weaving, reducing the size, capability and reach of government is in the people's best interest.  Making Trump a true champion of the people...if he can accomplish that single goal.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How do I? I have to trust in Trump even though we do not know what he bases his decisions on. I listen to his speeches and I listen to him only. He seems to be trying to please himself and the Republicans who voted for him. He also does not want the Democrats to dislike him. He is a moderate in many ways and this is a good thing. He wants to protect the country from all illegal aliens, which is of course common sense. He wants to bring back jobs and get the economy percolating again. I still do not see why we should be hating him. Our other choice was an obvious criminal. Give him a chance, I say. Ignore the haters, I say.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Well the question wasn't directed at whether or not we should trust Trump, though it has drifted in that direction in many of the conversation threads here.

        What I was wondering, and trying to explore, was how do we decide who to believe, when it comes to those reporting to us what is going on?

        But yes... ultimately the best person to listen to about what Trump is trying to do, and why, is Trump himself... until he proves through his own actions and efforts, not to be trustworthy.

        And that we can only decide on, after we see what direction things go, with taxes, jobs, and the economy in general.  The ACA, NAFTA, etc. are parts of those issues which will impact people's  economic stability... at the end of the day, its all about the economy... the more who are doing better 3 years from now than they were 3 years ago.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
          Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Yes. The economy must percolate. How do we get that pot to boil? Get the people jumping. Jumping beans! What makes them jump? Have you ever held a jumping bean in your palm? I have! There is a little live worm inside of it!
          Q. What makes the worms within us LIVE????
          A. Freedom/ liberty, self reliance, low taxes, freedom of market ... 
          simple as that.

    3. Misfit Chick profile image74
      Misfit Chickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I just got done watching a movie on Amazon called, 'The Brainwashing of my Father' - and really, what an eye-opener (the reviews alone were eye-opening, ha!). Why are so many people being brainwashed by places like Fox News; and more importantly, how long has it been going on? There is a history and a trail of 'how we got here' since the 80's - and since I was actually around during that time, I remember when things like MTV & Rush Limbaugh were startups. Trump isn't mentioned anywhere, but its amazing the similarity between Reagan's 'up and coming' and Trump's.

      The point is, none of these 'media' or 'government' accusations are NEW - and all government, including BOTH major political parties are guilty of all kinds of atrocities. If you're one of those people who believes one side is evil and the other bears no blame - then your mind has been messed with.

      The reason why you read/watch news across a spectrum of sources while NOT limiting yourself to news outlets that cater to specific points of view - either conservative or liberal - is because they are all tainted and written toward their base audience. The broader your scope, the more complete of a picture you will get.

      As for Trump, I'm not sure why his supporters are so mad about media not covering many positive stories about him. If he would put away his twitter account, stop being such an *ss and give them some positive stories to report on... Things would be different. Essentially, there isn't much 'positive' there to report on. A cook is only as good as their ingredients and Trump keeps churning out semi-rotten stuff all by his lonesome - no 'twisting' needed.

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        A very astute answer.

    4. Nathanville profile image93
      Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ken, prior to citing further videos that distorts the facts about Europe, or making bold statements of a similar ilk; please ‘fact check’ your sources; then perhaps our discussions can be more productive. 

      The advice published today, to help people identity ‘fake news’, propaganda and biased reporting is the simple rule of the 3 W’s:-

      •    Who
      •    Why
      •    What

      Who is publishing the story; why are they publishing it; and what is their agenda (including any hidden agenda).

      These two videos give excellent guidance on achieving the 3 W’s.

      How to Spot Fake News: -

      4 Ways to Spot a Fake News Story: -

      While biased reporting is generally not good, in that it distorts the truth, and gives you a false image of reality, not all propaganda is bad e.g. it can be used for good to encourage people to change their attitudes in a positive way.  This video, covers this point, and helps you to distinguish between good and bad propaganda.

      How to Control What People Do: -

      Although you are blind to how the last video you posted in this forum was edited in a misleading manner; as you made quite clear in your last statement, this video below gives a simple example of just such a manipulation of video footage:-

      Leaked Video Exposed as Ridiculous Propaganda: -

      As regards your false claims that millions of Muslim refugees have overwhelmed Europe (when in fact it was only 1.2 million in 2015), inferring that Muslims are set to become the dominant religion in Europe (which is false information), this video below (which is factually correct from verifiable sources) spells out the facts, and puts the picture straight.

      The European Refugee Crisis and Syria Explained: -

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Hello again Nathanville, As previously mentioned, your, and Ken's exchanges are an interesting follow for me.

        Just as an effort to offer a spectator's view - I have found your counter points, (videos), to be no more credible than Ken's. Generally speaking of course.

        You seem to imply that the UK's immigrant influx is no great problem, but I would ask that doesn't your recent Brexit vote belie that contention? If our, (American), perspectives are so skewed, then doesn't that imply that your Brexit voter perspective is just as skewed?

        Granted that I have not researched the validity of either perspective, and that my only source of information has been what I have read, I must admit to a bit of skepticism regarding your explanation that all these UK immigrant problem stories are just biased news reporting.

        As a further explanation, I will offer that percentages mean beans to me. They can be presented to support almost any position desired. The reality of actual effects is what matters. Could it be that your Bristol perspective is less than intimately associated with the more directly affected Southern UK border areas? Would you say that Londoners would have the same perspective?


        1. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks for your feedback GA, it’s good to hear from you.

          Yes I can understand that from an American perspective it’s difficult to see things from a British or European perspective; equally there are many American issues which the British just don’t understand e.g. from the British perspective American’s obsession with guns just seem sheer madness to us.

          Yes you are right; the UK’s immigrant influx is an issue which tipped the balance in the Brexit vote; but not because of the refugee issue.  The immigration issue that relates to Brexit is linked to European citizen having an automatic right to live and work in any EU member State; just like someone from New York have the right to move to Texas.

          Boris Johnson and others who campaigned in favour of Brexit did a good campaign to make about half the population feel that Europeans from other member States were taking their jobs.  In reality, just as many British people live in other member States as people from other member States live in Britain.  So in trying to close our borders to other Europeans post Brexit could get politically and socially complex; but that’s for the British politicians to sort out over the next two years of negotiations with the EU.

          Having said that, the issue has split the country; not unlike the American population seems to be split on a number of issues since the election of Trump.  The result of the Brexit vote was marginal, 52% to 48%, so feelings on this subject within the population is strong on both sides; with no sign of reconciliation any time soon.

          Nothings perfect, of course we do from time to time have some immigration problems with refugees (just like any other country, including America); but they are no more significant than any other social issue that Governments have to deal with e.g. how to tackle issues relating to the poor, unemployed, homeless, sick, disabled etc.  In Britain’s case most of these issues are dealt with by the welfare state, NHS, Social Care, Government policies on employment etc., which on the whole is successful, albeit there are some who do slip through the safety net from time to time; usually because they don’t seek help when they should. 

          However, there is too much misinformation being published in newspapers and on the web, which blows things like the refugee crisis out of all proportion; and understandably (in the absence of personal experience) American’s seem to be content in believing what they read in the newspapers and on the web about Britain and Europe as being factual.  Yet American’s are quick to dismiss the accounts of people who have first-hand experience of actually living in Britain/Europe.

          As regards your last point, Britain is separated from Europe by sea, so the main point of entry into Britain from mainland Europe is Dover and London.   And in actual fact it’s the cities (including Bristol) that are most affected by immigrants; whether it be refugees, EU citizens or from outside the EU. 

          The population in Bristol for example is 77.9% British; so (like London and all the other cities) we are very dependent on immigration.  Which is what makes the Brexit vote interesting when you look at the results e.g. all the cities (except one) who are heavily dependent on immigration voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying within the EU; whereas the towns and villages in England, who don’t see much in the way of non-British people voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit. 

          The result in Bristol was 62% in favour of remaining within the EU; in London it was 59.9% in favour of remaining within the EU.

          To show how divided and split the nation is on the issue; voting to remain across the UK is as follows:-

          •    England voted 46.6% in favour of remaining within the EU.
          •    Northern Ireland voted 55.8% in favour of remaining within the EU.
          •    Scotland voted 62% in favour of remaining within the EU, and
          •    Wales voted 47.5% in favour of remaining within the EU.

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Nathanville, one part of your reply almost made me jump out of my seat in the grip of a serious "Wait a minute!" moment.

            It was your description of the distribution of the anti-Brexit vote;

            "...The population in Bristol for example is 77.9% British; so (like London and all the other cities) we are very dependent on immigration.  Which is what makes the Brexit vote interesting when you look at the results e.g. all the cities (except one) who are heavily dependent on immigration voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying within the EU; whereas the towns and villages in England, who don’t see much in the way of non-British people voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit.  "

            My Aha! moment was the instant comparison to our, (U.S.), distribution of the votes that elected Pres. Trump. In both cases, metropolitan voters had an opposite perspective of non-metropolitan voters regarding what is good for their nation.

            Wait... I know this is a Duh! realization - but it is not the surface obviousness of that realization that grabbed me. It is the nearly identical national reaction to similarly divisive national questions.

            I am certain there is something important to be understood, (maybe even a revelation), from this similarity. At least for my own personal understanding anyway.

            I will have to ponder on this awhile. I hope you catch the thread when I come back with it.


            1. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Pretty close to spot on... though I would classify CA, NY, D.C., ...the West Coast and North East in general as the hotbeds of progressive, liberal, social, and intelligentsia (huge number of colleges in CA and MA for instance)... and also the hottest of hotbeds for high taxes, and heavy dependency on Federal Funding... or in other words, major contributors to our massive national debt.

              Neither NY, nor CA, could stand on their own without the federal support that they get.  They are the most heavily taxed citizens in the nation as it is.

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Come on Ken, back up a few steps, and leave the labels and rhetoric in the bag for a moment. At least relative to the point of my comment you responded to.

                I haven't got it yet, not enough time to think about it since Nathanville's post. But, when I read the part describing the Brexit vote distribution, some thought, beyond the obvious ones that represent the Duh! parts of the explanation, (like the declarations you just made), was about to pop out. Alas, the flash of the Eureka! moment scared it away. I will have to coax it back out.

                Even though both nations have many similarities, we have more than a few ideological differences, (as Nathanville noted in his reference to Brit's views of our fixation on guns and our Second Amendment rights), so I think there is more than coincidence, and the reality of the obvious Liberal vs. Conservative, young vs, old, or 'Enlightened' vs non-enlightened, (that's on you Credence2), differences to be wiggled out of that almost-born thought of mine.

                Now, I am shooting from the hip, and thinking out loud, and I do wish I could think of a better explanation than a cliche', but, it might be something to do with what can be described as a major paradigm shift, (*sigh),

                I certainly think Donald Trump's election victory fits that bill for the U.S., and I am guessing that the Brexit vote might fit the bill for UK citizens.

                So, what factor could be the common foundation for those other obvious explanations, that might explain such similar voter reactions?

                Before hearing about the Brexit vote distribution, I was comfortable with the obvious explanations, (as mentioned above), of Pres. Trump's election victory. But now I am certain there is something more to understand.

                Of course, this could all be nonsense, and I am just imagining something that isn't there at all - the reality might be that it's just the old "that's life, and it is what it is,"  but I do intend to figure it out. It's nagging me that it is something more important to understand about basic human nature.


                1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                  Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not sure I can help bring light to it for you.  That would require me to be infinitely more familiar with Britain's wages, jobs, economics in general... however Nathan did say that those areas were high concentrations of foreign workers that supported staying in the EU.

                  Similar could be said for the various parts of America that went heavily for Clinton, also almost to a region they were heavy Sanctuary City states or regions.  If you super-impose the maps of the nation where voting Democrat was heaviest, with areas that are also Sanctuary areas... they are identical.

                  As I am just a couple years from having left NY, I have an interesting perspective on this... if you look into who has moved from NY since 2007... you would see that NY lost more than 4 million people over the last ten years, the majority of which were higher education (2 years of college or more) citizens.  Yet the number of people living in NY has roughly stayed the same at just under 20 million...

                  What has occurred over the past decade, is the more well educated, 'middle income' people have fled the state and those numbers have been replaced largely by immigrants (legal and illegal) and refugees.

                  In the area we lived in, IBM 'downsized' some 10,000 jobs during the course of a decade (2004-2014).  And that is a small microcosm for how everything in NY outside of the Capital region and NY City radius has been trending.

                  The 10,000 IBMers who lost their jobs, and some of the support businesses that survived off of the work created by servicing those people and IBM, making for 11,000+ lost jobs.  Make up the types of people who decided to move elsewhere, as their property taxes, school taxes, and costs to heat a home during the winter easily ran over 10,000 dollars a year.

                  What occurred to that county that lost those 10,000 IBM jobs, is similar to the stories occurring all over America for the last 25 years. 

                  Stories about people losing their homes, their pensions, their  401ks, and their jobs... in places like Ohio, Michigan, PA, and Upstate NY this is a prevailing theme.

                  And those millions of people who have fled NY... they have moved to places like FL, NC, AZ... and they remember all too well what occurred in NY, the taxes, the high costs, and the majority of them don't want a repeat of it.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Hello again Ken,
                    You may have helped more than you thought. Security might be a key. to what I am trying to discover.

                    Maybe the thought I am trying to develop is foundational(sp?). Again, remember I am thinking this through as I speak, but maybe an analogy to a structure, say a house, is an approach to try.

                    All the obvious explanations of ideologies and personal economic circumstances that appear to explain both instances may be the house. And maybe the thought I am looking for is related to the foundation of the house, not the house itself. Consider, when we see a structure - we see the obvious. Do we think about the foundation supporting that structure?

                    Many see Trump supporters as, well, you've heard the descriptions, but what if that is only the house? What if the real issue is a fear for personal security. A fear of deeply held beliefs being dashed. Nothing at all to do with partisanship or ideologies, but everything to do with having a primal view of life being threatened?

                    I'm thinking that same description might apply to Brexit voters also. What if all the obvious explanations are just unconscious camouflage to hide the real fear - the fear of having one's life views dismantled?

                    That would certainly seem to explain the almost identical behaviors of Brexit and Trump voters - folks that are an ocean apart. And it might also apply equally to metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan voters. Even if the life views - security - of each are different, the magnitude of the decision they faced would still be the same threat. A threat to their security of their core belief in their understanding of what is a right life.

                    A Liberal faces a refutation of their belief that theirs is an enlightened perspective. A Conservative faces a similar refutation of their belief of personal responsibility being their rock. The same dilemma would apply to all ideologies. Whether they are British, American, or Aboriginal - the real issue is a threat to the security of their personal core beliefs.

                    There is more, but it's almost 4am, and I intended to stop this three hours ago. My apologies to all. I am sure this has bored the hell out of you. It can't be anywhere near as interesting as jousting with an idiot that just doesn't see how wrong they are about whatever it is you are sure they are wrong about.

                    Sorry folks. Thanks for your new York story ken, I think it has set me onto the right track.


                2. Nathanville profile image93
                  Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi GA, your comments are enlightening; it’s given me a new perspective on American life, and I look forward to any further thoughts or observations you may make.

                  Ken quite rightly pointed out that to understand the similarities in more depth would require being more familiar with how Britain’s wages, jobs and economics compare to America; an area I’ve spent the past couple of years trying to better understand, but there are so many variables it’s difficult making direct comparisons.

                  The approach I’ve used is viewing hundreds of videos of American’s who’ve spent time in Britain (either working, studying or visiting) to gauge from them their impressions.  It’s been a useful exercise, but limited.  Some of the main themes that frequently come up in listening to such Americans include:-

                  •    The British are quite spoken and polite.
                  •    That there’s a lot of regional accents and dialects
                  •    Generally positive feedback on the NHS.
                  •    Healthier eating the UK.
                  •    Public transport in Britain is far better.
                  •    Houses and everything else are smaller.
                  •    We drive on the wrong side of the road and love roundabouts.
                  •    We get a lot more holidays e.g. up to six weeks (four weeks by law) a year, plus public holidays, and
                  •    Britain is very Green and Pleasant, etc.

                  Below are just a few of the hundreds of such videos on YouTube, just to giver a flavour of what Americans (who’ve been here) think of Britain.

                  Differences between Livings in the US vs. the UK: -

                  Differences between British and American Culture: -

                  Differences between England and US: -

                  Confessions of an American in England: -

                  1. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Hello again Nathanville,

                    I am a bit embarrassed to have gone-off so openly in those couple 'Eureka moment' posts. I still think there is an important  understanding to wiggle out of it, but I am the one that will benefit from it, and it didn't really add anything to the thread. I should have just pursued it quietly on my own.

                    But even so, I think that the result will be more important to understand than any number of cultural or economic efforts of understanding. So, Like Forrest said; "And that's all I have to say about that."

                    Regarding your point(s) relative to Ken's comment; I disagree with both of you on the need for more understanding of national economics, (jobs, wages, governmental program expenditures). I think that is a secondary consideration for support of either position. Such an understanding can only benefit the support of a perspective - not the formative factors behind it.

                    But I don't care to get into that discussion any further. It's just my opinion that that's not the deciding factor. And I would not agree with any foreseeable defense of your cultural decisions. No offense intended.

                    I will offer this American's explanation of my high of opinion of the British peoples;

                    After the portending year's events leading up to WWII - when you folks were knocked off your pedestal of Imperialistic arrogance - in colony after colony,  you faced the reality of those years, and the years of WWII, with a stoicism that I find admirable. That the future turn-out was inevitable doesn't diminish your acceptance of it. (A good read for this perspective, that I found highly informative, was "Churchill: The End of Glory' by John Charmley) It is well worth the time, and few bucks it costs on most used books sites.

                    Next might be my good opinion of your parliamentary style of governance. I can imagine that your Ministers and Lords might be equally as corrupt or corruptible as any of our Congress members, but I like the concept of the power of a "Vote of No Confidence." (as you mentioned). That doesn't mean I think that style would work as well for U.S. governance - just that I like the mechanism.

                    Lastly, and perhaps least importantly, you folks strike me a just so damn civil.

                    I will offer one thought, and it pertains to my 'Eureka Moment', relative to understanding the differences in our national perspectives. (a good effort would probably qualify as a candidate for a Master's thesis - a task well beyond my pay grade)

                    I think a look at American's reverence of Individualism - it was the perspective at the root of our nation's formation, will be at the base of a fair comparison. Nothing I have read of English history holds any understanding. You folks were always a nation, (or Kingdom), expanding. From your earliest Kings, you were groups combining to become a larger kingdom/Nation. Whereas American's were individuals combining to form a nation.

                    Once more, Will Aspe is proven right. I just can't help being long-winded. ;-)


      2. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Nathan, yes you keep providing me what I do consider properly constructed and politically correct sources that describe the refugee crisis, that supports your position.

        I do not agree with those sources, I do understand that they are likely the government backed viewpoints, they are the preferred outlooks by most in EU still.  I just don't accept them because they go counter to what I have researched already.

        Now... your last video link correctly explains the Syrian issue, but the 'refugee' problem is greater than that.  For instance, lets consider Sweden, tens of thousands of refugees that have been taken in by Sweden the past few years do not just come from Syria... they come from Somalia, and other parts of Africa.

        As of 2010, 1.33 million people or 14.3% of the inhabitants in Sweden were foreign-born. Of these, 859,000 (64.6%) were born outside the European Union.
        In 2013, immigration reached its highest level since records began with 115,845 people migrating to Sweden.
        47% came from Syria, followed by 21% from the horn of Africa (mostly Eritrea and Somalia).
        Nearly two weeks into October 2015, a record figure of 86,223 asylum applications was reached.

        And of course it is far worse for countries like Greece and Italy, which are far easier to reach than Sweden is. … 16_624.gif

        But please forgive my lack of full focus into this topic, and for giving video connections without also noting that I do not fully support their opinions... rather, I used them to show the overall seriousness of the matter.  So while I agree with the general overview of what was shown in those links I do not subscribe to every facet and fact spoken. 

        I am currently far more interested in figuring out what is transpiring with Russia, and how close we may be to a full blown military conflict with Russia, and the reasons for it.  That has absorbed the majority of my 'free time' researching... as I consider this a more problematic issue for America, and also the web involved far more compelling.

        The Immigration, or 'refugee' crisis is pretty self explanatory to me... I see that the EU has a very different outlook on it than I do, but in a couple of years, when the Welfare systems have been over taxed as they will be in some of the lesser populated nations, and as the violence skyrockets in the near future, you will see a very different outlook developing on the matter.

        1. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          If you remember Ken, I was talking about the Russian tensions when you digressed to the refugee crisis in Europe, insisting that you know the topic better than I do, based on the news reports and other sources on the web; in spite of the fact that you live over 4,000 miles away while this crisis unfolded on my doorstep, so I’ve seen and experienced it first-hand.

          Yes I have seen it first-hand, not just in Britain but from our annual two weeks holiday, driving all the way down from Calais to southern France; and then spending the day in Belgium before returning to Dover.  Also, we regularly nip across to France and Belgium in the spring and autumn on day trips to shop in their open air markets; and again in early December for Christmas shopping.

          Not only do we see the refugees for ourselves when we cross over to Calais, but we’ve also witnessed the convoys of private cars and vans of British people voluntarily taking food and clothes parcels, and toys for the children, to the refugee camp. 

          •    Even Banksy left his mark in the French refugee camp at Calais, when he painted the mural below of Steve Jobs (son of a Syrian refugee) who co-founded the Apple computer company in the USA.

          FYI:- Banksy is the renown world famous street artist from Bristol.

          Although I hardly every watch the Euronews TV channel on cable TV, because it tends to be rather boring and dry; we did have it on a lot during the height of the refugee crisis because at times like this their ‘No Comment’ broadcast gave continuous uninterrupted, unedited airing of the refugees as they made their daunting journey from Hungary to Germany. 

          Euronews TV is a multilingual European wide news channel, based in France, but which usually broadcasts either in English, or with English subtitles.  One of their programme formats (between on the hour news headlines) is what they call ‘No Comment; which most of the time seems pointless to me e.g. cameramen just film where the action is in Europe and just let the camera roll for hours on end without any comments, or voiceover.   I guess the advantage is that you can watch a march or a demonstration anywhere within Europe live, without any commentary or written comments on the screen to influence your thoughts; it’s left up to you to make your own interpretation of what you’re seeing.  Which for the Refugee crisis was extremely useful as you saw the events live (as they unfolded) e.g. the stress, the trauma, moments of occasion violence and chaos, the tears of joy etc. 

          This short ‘No Comment’ clip from Euronews is when Obama visited England in 2014: -

          As regards Russia, as I’ve previously made clear; I am as concerned about the tension with Russia as you are.  However if your research on the Russian issue is as flawed as your understanding of the European refugee crisis then I’m not sure how confident I could be with any conclusions you may come to.

          The one thing that concerns me is that we don’t make the same mistake of appeasement that Britain and France made to Hitler in the 1930’s right up to the end of 1938.  It meant that when we realised we had been duped by Hitler we were not prepared for war, and consequently Britain was ill prepared to defend its airfields, industries and cities from the daily bombing by Hitler for the first two years of the war; albeit Churchill was the first to deliberately bomb civilian cities, some claims being so that Hitler would retaliate to take the pressure away from British airfields and war factories being so heavily bombed.

          At this time, the only way Britain will disarm its nuclear warheads is if the current Labour Party wins the next General Election in 2020.  In Britain it’s only the extreme left wing Socialist parties that’s anti-nuclear bomb, and want to see Britain disarm our nuclear capability.  Britain’s Socialist Labour party lurched to the extreme left following the 2015 General Election, although the most extreme left wing Socialist Party in Britain is the Green Party; who also wants to see Britain abolish its nuclear weapons.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I've learned with age, that people can be right in the thick of things, be right at the scene, and still not see what is going on, or be able to project out years down the road to where it will lead.

            So lets just put an end to the debate on 'refugees' shall we, you seem intent now only on saying I am wrong or my opinion 'flawed'... I'll trust my first hand experiences in the world far more than I trust or value your second hand tales from your grandma, or from someone you know who has been to the Middle East.

            Your experiences of seeing refugees on a nice little trip to go shopping, do not match my experiences of spending six months of my life being part of a 'reactionary security force' overseeing a camp full of refugees. Your experiences about hearing about the wars in Iraq, or the upheavals in Egypt, or whatever your friends discussed with you does not equate to my being in those countries and dealing with the issues, the people, and the realities there.

            You... like most Europeans, are sheltered and secluded, and most of your views and outtakes on these issues are limited.

            Europeans from what experiences I've had, are great people, big hearts, want to do the right thing...but they really have no clue about the dark, dangerous, discontented forces they have let in.

            If you haven't been there, if you haven't seen it, my words can't do it for you... I can't explain Somalia to someone who hasn't been there, hasn't seen the savagery, the insanity, the inhumanity... but I can tell you, those depths of inhumanity just don't leave someone when they move to a new address, and are given some free food and money. 

            Wish I was wrong... but when I read a story of a women being beheaded in the streets in Sweden, of acts of arson, rape, terrorism... its what these dark and dangerous 'men' know... its what they teach others... its like a cancer.  You can't reason with it, you can't appease it... you can only destroy it wherever you find it...

            And such thoughts right now are an anathema  to you, to Europe at large... and that is why I say, sadly, you worry about the wrong 'enemy'... you fear that Putin and Russia will be the next Nazi Germany... but you don't know how to deal with the enemy within, the enemy you have let in.  It will hide behind women and children, it will hide behind seeming acceptance and niceties, until it is ready to show how ugly it can be.

            1. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Were the SS and the concentration camps in Germany, and the Japanese soldiers and the kamikaze pilots during the 2nd world war not as evil as you describe Muslims to be?  Now look at Germany and Japan.

              So I guess you’re horrified that Londoners elected a Muslim as their Lord Mayor last year; and that Bristol also elected a Black Socialist as its Lord Mayor.

              Sadiq Khan elected new Mayor of London 2016: -

              Labour's Marvin Rees elected as the Mayor of Bristol 2016: -

              Belittling the horrors of the 2nd world war in Britain because of tales from my grandma is rather insensitive.  The destruction of Bristol through years of continuous air raid bombings by Hitler’s war planes is every bit as real as the destruction of Syrian cities by the Americans and Russians; that’s historical fact and not some fairy tale.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You are focusing on the religious aspect of it... that is but part of it... what I am trying to focus your attention to... is that when you allow tens of thousands of murdering, raping, savage young men into your country as 'refugees'... do not expect them to change their ways, or how they convert others to their ways, simply because you give them a place to live and some free food and money.

                They are still the same 'people' they were.  They may hide this, for a while, until they are settled in and figure out the new rules, and build a new pecking order in their new home... then it will be back to normal.

                That's all I was saying... they will hide behind the women and children, and the media will run rampant with stories of how the children suffer, how the mothers are trying to care for their children, to gain sympathy and support.  But for every child, there are plenty of men, ten per child? twenty?

                Like you say... I'm probably wrong.  It's very possible my experiences in those parts of the world jaded my perceptions, and have me seeing a larger threat than what is really there. 

                Either way I don't have to live in those countries.  The religion issue is only an issue in regards to how it is preached, and used to convert discontented young men into careless wanton murderers, by various 'groups'.

                There are nations I would one day like to travel to, like Azerbaijan, which is one of the more civilized and progressive nations in the world, and it is more than 90% Muslim.  They don't have jihadists running around preaching unchecked in their country... they don't allow 'prophets' to stir up civil unrest and call for murder.

                I feel that your posts and positions taken, are a microcosm of EU's position on the matter, you don't want to recognize the threat and eliminate it, out of some strange fear of doing so would make you bigoted, racist, whatever label you want to put it under.  This is why the evil will gain strength and spread...

                If it were a White Supremacist group, that was supporting shipping people all over the world, to commit terrorism, to engage in wars, to rape and murder, to preach anti-government hate in the name of the 'prophet' Hitler do you think your government would be allowing it to fester because they were afraid of how they would be perceived as racists, or anti-whatever?

                As I said, I would like to end this line of discussion... I see no point in furthering it.

    5. rhamson profile image71
      rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't understand where belief can be a basis of anything when it comes to trusting what is being reported as evidenced by diametrically opposed reporting from news sources such as CNN and Fox. The mere opposite facts are suspect as to whether either are truthful. Believe one over the other based on what? Who they are based on their slogans?

      I would rather look at Trumps actions and actual words that come out of his mouth to make any estimation of the truth. Look into the background that is continuing through administrations in both parties and the people they appoint and re-appoint to run the government. Read about it because our precious news media is not allowed to report it as they are owned as well. Wall Street had nothing to loose as Trump brought them in just as Hillary would have. The IMF and World Bank have nary a mention by either the administration, Fed or news media as globalization and valueless paper is loaned to failing countries to in-debt them to the inevitable World Currency we are headed towards. Trump is a mere puppet in the grand scheme of things as we throw names at each other and quibble over failed policy blunders. The masters are well ensconced and are not even in the spotlight where real truth is.

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
    Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

    "And that is largely because CNN, MSNBC, W.Post and others have spent many months programming you into believing he is worse than Mussolini, he is everything you fear, and more."

    All they did was play the clips of things he's said.  He's shown himself to be who he is.  Nobody forced him.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      They have gone well beyond that, they have twisted his meaning whenever they could, belittled and demeaned when possible, they have deliberately chosen not to report a great many things, while outright fabricating information that was untrue.

      There is a good example of some of that here on this short video:

      This is not new or just related to Trump, though I admit they have taken it to newer levels these past months because of their disdain for Trump, which is not necessarily a bad thing, because more and more people who watch lose that 'suspension of disbelief' and determine that it is indeed BS... or as Trump has labeled it, correctly, 'fake news'.

      And this is good, because for a long time CNN has gotten away with egregious misrepresentations and falsehoods, and I know this for absolute fact, because I have been involved in situations they have reported on, and watched them spin a tale that was 180 degrees opposite of the truth... and this was back in the mid 90s.

  3. Nathanville profile image93
    Nathanvilleposted 7 years ago

    ‘The pot calling the kettle black’, an old saying dating back to the 17th century, which means that the person is guilty of the very thing they are accusing the other person of; back in the days when both pot and kettle were heated up over a sooty coal fire.

    This expression seems very appropriate when people dis CNN, while citing Fox News as being a reliable news source. 

    We don’t get Fox News in Britain (thank goodness), but we do get the American Bloomberg and CNN on Cable TV in the UK; not that I watch them often.  When I have switched over to CNN news briefly, and they’ve been reporting about events in Britain, all the facts are always twisted (political spin and propaganda); so I quickly switch to something much better. 

    However, Fox News does frequently get into the British News simply because of all the ridiculous lies they tell about Britain; the lies are so outlandishly false that it makes it comical to watch.  And it makes it even more comical (sadly), when Trump then quotes from Fox News as evidence for some ridiculous and false claim he’s making.

    Although, as yet, I haven’t seen anything on Bloomberg that I’ve been knowledgeable enough about for me to form an opinion on how creditable their news reporting is e.g. whenever I’ve briefly flicked channels to Bloomberg they’ve always been covering American news that I know little about.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      One thing I have found interesting... is that most people formulate an opinion about something, and that opinion sticks forever.
      40 years ago, the Washington Post broke Watergate, and people remember that paper for it, above all other things.  They formed an opinion.  Now that paper is under new ownership, has an entirely different staff... it is the same paper in name only, yet many people that formed their opinion of the paper 40 years ago seemingly don't realize that... they credit the paper with the same honesty and integrity it had back in the 70s.
      Same can be said for politicians...  we would have no Congressmen and women with 30+ years in office, if people realized how much they are changed by how things work in D.C.
      Same for CNN, 25 years ago it had a different staff, different ownership and was run with an entirely different modus operandi than it has today.
      You said a lot Nathanville, but didn't answer the question.

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Fair point, I did say a lot, yet didn’t really answer the question.

        I was just pointing out that Fox News, which you mentioned as an alternative new source, isn’t a reliable source; and neither is the Daily Mail, which Wikipedia banned from the 8th February as a source for its articles as Wikipedia has deemed the Daily Mail to be an unreliable news source.

        YouTube is also an unreliable source as it’s a free for all (as most of the Internet is).

        All I can do is give my opinion based on my experience and knowledge from the perspective of a Brit.  In that respect, few people would dispute that Wikipedia is a reliable source who can be believed and trusted because they are hot on using reliable sources that have been ‘fact checked’.

        Beyond that the only news sources I have any trust in are the:-

        •    British news media broadcast on British TV, and
        •    Al Jazeera

        British TV News, which includes the British Sky TV News and BBC TV News, is heavily regulated by independent government organisations, in accordance with a specific set of criteria which the TV news media has to abide by to ensure fair and balanced reporting.  It’s not perfect, but it does prevent the British TV news channels from making outlandish statements that can’t be verified with ‘fact checking’, and it also prevents the news channels from being openly bias in their reporting.

        Although Al Jazeera is a TV channel run by an Arab royal family in the Middle East, which I am sure will make many American’s baulk.  They operate using Studios, equipment and staff expertise they bought from the BBC when it had to make cuts in funding; and they take pride in unbiased reporting.  It’s a News channel I frequently watch on cable TV because so far, whenever they’ve reported on current affairs in Britain, their reporting has always been non-biased, and there’s been no political spin e.g. they’ve tried to report events ‘as is’ e.g. giving the views from both sides of the argument and leaving it up to the viewers to make up their own minds.  Unlike American TV news, who seem to almost always put political spin, or slant the story with propaganda, when reporting on events in Britain.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Well Damn, Nathanville! I am one of those Americans that "baulk" at the mention of Al Jazeera as a reliable news source.

          But, your two comments that I have read seem sensible, and whether I agree with your points or not, they were sensible enough to send me on a trek to check out Al Jazeera. I will get back to you with my thoughts. Hopefully they won't be the same as the ones I have on as a reliable news source.

          If you are right, thanks in advance. If my initial perception was right, damn you for causing me to waste more valuable time. ;-)


          1. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks GA, I am keen to hear your feedback on Al Jazeera, because I've only got the British prospective.  So it will be interesting to learn whether (in your view) Al Jazeera is as unbiased in reporting on American affairs as I find them to be on British affairs.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image76
          Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          AL Jazeera is a good alternate source... but it has a bias.
          RT is a good alternate source... but it has a bias.
          Fox Business (prefer it over Fox news) "" "" ""
          Bloomberg I like too.

          So lets take a look at some examples of what is being reported by various news agencies:

          RT on Vault 7 -

          PBS on Vault 7 -

          MSNBC on Vault 7 -

          I love this... so RT is talking about everything that was revealed by WikiLeaks, what it means, how it works, etc.   PBS is more the middle ground, not much on specifics, talk about how it effects things, but basically a non-informative piece.  And then there is MSNBC... 'well we aren't going to talk about it, but lets get right in to talking about how wrong Trump was in calling out Obama for tapping him' ... and then they go to a hearing in Congress, which seemingly shows/tells us that there is no way a President can spy on a citizen without a warrant... but if you know anything about the NSA... or if you paid attention to some of the other news sources... you know this is a falsehood, a cover up...or an oversight, CIA and FBI can't do it.... buuuuut the NSA (through PRISM)... the only one the NSA answers to IS the President.

          So, when you have the time, compare RT to MSNBC and see what they are saying... then check out PBS... or Bloomberg... do this every once and a while... and then check out Fox news.

          Fox on Vault 7 -

          Fox usually gives you more information, more facts to work with, than anyone... stay away from Hannity who is too biased... you'll find that if you aren't plugged into CNN or MSNBC and sucked in by their BS, that Fox usually is the best news source all around for facts and straight talk.

          1. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I am amazed that you consider RT as a good alternate source for news; especially as it’s funded by the Russian government and regarded by many in the free world as no more than a propaganda machine for Russia. 

            Several stories I’ve seen in recent years about the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria from RT, supports my feelings that RT is little more than a mouthpiece for Russia.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Well sure... when it comes to the Ukraine and Russia that is what is going to be spread, state propaganda.  They cater to the Russian perspective, got it.

              Do you think it is different for CNN & MSNBC when it comes to Liberal agendas in America?  You think they didn't bend over backwards to cover for Obama on everything?  How about the Iran deal?  How about Benghazi?  Did they dig into the tons of weapons shipped from Libya to rebels in Syria? No of course not.

              Here is the thing... RT reports news about America, about WikiLeaks... you very little news on what is going on in Russia, or Germany, or China on CNN or MSNBC, they even try to ignore WikiLeaks as best they can.

              RT is a good source of news, one of the best.  Because you can be confident that it is NOT corporate propaganda, conservative propaganda, or liberal propaganda... RT is not catering to those interests looking to dumb down Americans and keep them ignorant.

              You have to learn how to take the INFO from news sources without also taking their propaganda and swallowing it whole.

              1. Nathanville profile image93
                Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Being British I don’t know enough about MSNBC to have a view; but we do get CNN on cable TV in Britain, and as I’ve said previously, when it comes to reporting about events in Britain CNN do twist the facts, although unlike Fox News and the Daily Mail, they don’t create Fake News about Britain.  These are the basis on which I judge CNN and Fox News.

                As regards RT News, Russia is known to want to undermine democracy and the economies in the West, for its own political agenda.  If you live on the boarders with Russia, as we do in Europe, then by their own actions, it’s something you are constantly made aware of.

                Russia is forthright when it’s in a position to be so, but it’s also very good at subtlety and subterfuge.

                Russia is desperate to gain credibility in the West, so unlike Fox News and the Daily Mail who do at times tell outright lies, RT is very careful to keep its reporting to appear factual so there is no risk of them being discredited.

                However, from what I’ve seen of RT News, they are very good at reporting on the very things that helps to undermine democracy and economic stability in the West (which is what Russia wants), but I haven’t seen so much evidence of RT News focusing on the positive stories that would help to build confidence in a nation, and strengthen its economy.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                  Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree, an astute perception that goes beyond the norm if I may say so.

                  I would say you are spot on about RT, but that is why what they report is worth looking in to, they will talk about things American news sources will not, as will Al Jazeera, I never said to buy into everything they are telling you... but to consider it, and compare it to other sources.

                  For print news, there is still nothing better than the Wall Street Journal, you will find out more truths and news worth reading in one day's WSJ than you will find in a month's worth of the Washington Post IMO.

                  For news about foreign affairs a American HAS to go to outside sources where tv/cable/internet is concerned, there is literally next to nothing in terms of what is going on in China, Africa, anywhere on American (MSM)news compared to what you will learn from foreign news sites. Though there are some lesser known cable channels, and Bloomberg, that are more revealing in nature of the global scene.

                  Americans are probably the least informed non-3rd world nation in the world, the majority of Americans only speak one language, in many other nations, a good portion of their population speaks more than one language... and in most other 'developed' nations, they are aware of the goings-on of the rest of the world far more than Americans are.

                  That aside, I would love it if you could give a couple examples, or links, that would help better explain or show how RT is deliberately making an effort to undermine the economies of the west for its own political agenda.

                  I realize that every nation is more or less 'out for itself' that I expect... in many ways America (and most assuredly China) is as bad as any nation for this, or at this.  So what makes Russia or RT so untrustworthy or different?

                  1. Nathanville profile image93
                    Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I agree with you Ken, that “Americans are probably the least informed non-3rd world nation in the world”.  American’s I sometimes correspond with by email have a false image of current affairs in Britain and the rest of Europe; fed to them by American TV and News media.  Then when I try to correct them, they dismiss what I say and arrogantly insist that they know better because its in the News (even though they are over 4,000 miles away); it’s frustrating.

                    However, we Brits are just as bad as Americans at only speaking one language; fortunately, most Europeans speak English, so when we go on our annual holiday to France and Belgium communication isn’t a problem.  In fact at times it can be embarrassing because a lot of French and Belgium people we meet love to show off how good their English is; as soon as they realise we’re British.

                    As regards examples from RT on how Russia is deliberately making an effort to undermine the economies of the West for its own political agenda.  It’s difficult to give any simple examples in that Russia’s had over 45 years of experience from the ‘Cold War’ in covert propaganda e.g. they work on the subconscious mind to influence people’s thoughts.

                    The best way to understand Putin’s true intent is to spend hours carefully listening to him speak on RT; which I’ve done over the last few days in order to give this reply.  The RT News Channel targeting the Russian audience, frequently interview Putin; and copies are on YouTube, in Russian of course, but many of the videos do include subtitles in English. 

                    Usually, when Trump makes a statement that turns out to be publically embarrassing he accuses the ‘Press’ of ‘Fake News’.  When Putin makes a statement that turns out to be diplomatically embarrassing he accuses the ‘Press’ of misquoting him; as you might notice if you do spend time ploughing through some of his lengthy interviews on RT.

                    The only time RT shows its true colours is when Russia’s caged is rattled by the West.  This video (although not RT) might be of some interest: - 

                    Another (rather lengthy interview), which was on RT, Putin’s was diplomatic in his words, worded as to sound as if Russia respect America and wants to be its ally in keeping world peace; then in the middle of his speech he let it slip that the nation with the most nuclear weapons dominates the world; and that he (Putin) wants Russia to be that Nation.

                    This RT video also makes interesting watching (Russia and Balkans expert Marcus Papadopoulos interview with RT):-

                    With respect to this, Russia was furious last year when they (as the favourite) didn’t win the Eurovision Song Contest; adding insult to injury, Ukraine won with a political song which vehemently attacks Russia for its invasion of Ukraine; as per this video (again not an RT video):-

                    On this occasion, Russia’s song entry was by far the best, and under normal circumstances there’s no doubt they would have won; but they lost valuable votes due to protest voting because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.   However, rather than accepting they lost votes because of their invasion of Ukraine, RT went further by accusing the European Broadcasting Union of vote rigging; an accusation that was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

                    Ukraine’s, political song entry in last year’s Eurovision song contest, which rattled Russia’s cage is this one (the important bits that spell it out in black and white are sung in English): -

  4. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 7 years ago

    They quote what he actually said.  People draw their own conclusions.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image76
      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well that part is easy.  A quote is a quote right?

      But when one channel is telling you he is crazy, and that nothing at all happened, he was never spied on.
      And the other channel is giving sources and dates and telling you certain things did happen, and that (obviously) someone was 'spying' on certain people because they keep leaking these reports (IE - Flynn) ...
      Again... the question, how do you determine who to believe?

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Facts are what we need. Opinions based on facts. Are these so hard to get ahold of? I can barely read or listen to the news any more. Why do you ask the question? The obvious answer is we can believe in No One. We can only hope to believe in what Trump himself says. And if he lies or is mis informed or acts in ignorance, heaven help us. We are pretty much at his mercy, at this point. Everyone else is purposefully misleading us based on their own agendas or ignorance on the truth/facts of the matter.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Motivation = Joy of Life.
    Joy of Life = Motivation
    Independence is fun.
    Come on guys, do you want to live with your parents forever?
    Come on guys, can you really trust a government to take care of you?
    Come on guys, do you really want to sit around playing video games all day?
    Come on guys, do you really want to to collect what little you can obtain from welfare checks?
    No one will give you what you want in this life.
    NO ONE.
    Find your dreams, your passions and fulfill them.
    How can you do that if you are forced to pay overbudensome taxes??????

    1. Nathanville profile image93
      Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      As a Brit, I’m intrigued to frequently see in these forums how Americans often seem to equate the desire for low taxes, coupled with more of a laissez-faire government, for a better quality of life!

      I don’t know what taxes people pay in America, but in Britain the taxes on the wages most people earn at work is 32% (in simplistic terms), but no one pays any taxes on the first $15,000 (£11,500) of their wages; so the low paid pay little or no taxes on their income.

      On the flip side, we don’t pay the $10,000s on medical insurance, because in Britain Healthcare is completely free at the point of use for everyone (paid for by the government from taxes).

      The NHS Explained

      Therefore, in spite of what may be high taxes in Britain, because we don’t have to worry about how we’re going to pay for our healthcare, we do have a high quality of life.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Every penny earned is taxed in America, and even when we pay for insurance, it has this thing called deductible, which means we have to pay even more money, before the insurance kicks in... anywhere from a few hundred to many thousands of dollars depending on the insurance.

        Today wages aren't worth half of what they were thirty years ago. Jobs pay less, salaries are taxed more, and due to inflation what is paid is worth substantially less.

        1. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          On the whole, apart from the blip in 2008 (world rescission) the British economy has been relatively stable since the early 1990s; inflation has been very low, so wage rises have also been low, albeit they have generally kept up with inflation; unemployment has also stayed reasonably low; and apart from tweaks to the system when power switches between Labour and Conservative governments, taxes have generally stayed the same.

          Areas where there have been marked changes is house prices have rocketed, making it difficult for first time buyers; and fuel bills (gas and electricity) have also become very expensive, partly due to the introduction of the ‘Green Tax’ which is 13%.  The purpose of the Green Tax is to pay for the conversion costs from dependency on fossil fuels to being dependent on green, renewable energy; and partly to make every home in Britain more energy efficient.

          The main thrust of making British homes more energy efficient includes free loft insulation, free replacement of the central heating system, if over 10 years old, and free wall insulation; plus, in some cases, subsidised insulation of solar power panels on roofs e.g. if south facing.

          In my case, I already have the loft insulated and our central heating boiler is only 8 years old; however, I took advantage of the free wall insulation, which has reduced the amount of gas I use to keep our home warm during the winter; and therefore slightly reduced my energy bill.

          Obviously once the conversion to renewable energy is nearing completion the price of energy to consumers is likely to fall because the energy itself from the sun, wind and sea are free and plentiful.

          As regards switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy, the government target was to become 20% dependent on renewable energies by 2020, 30% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.  The British government is ahead of target; last year Britain became 17% dependent on renewable energy, and early this year 20%; and is set to become about 25% dependent by 2020.  Scotland, along with Germany and Denmark have done considerably better, all three countries are already near 100% renewable energy (at times, dependent on how windy it is, and the time of day or night).

          Germany’s and Denmark’s success as at May 2016:-

          One other thing that has improved significantly in recent years is the State Pension.  Currently in Britain, everyone who’s worked for more than 36 years of their life is automatically entitled to State Pension from the age of 66.  The government’s on going policy is to increase State Pension in ‘real terms’ each year.  The formula they use to determine the annual increase in the State Pension is to increase it by:-

          •    2.5% per year, or
          •    In line with inflation, or
          •    In line with the average increase in wages

          Whichever of the 3 is the greater.

      2. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The total % of taxation ?    Is  probably comparable , or is your higher ?
        And what do we "get for our money ?"

        1. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Good question ahorseback, I don’t know if the total % of all taxation in the UK is comparable with the USA?  I’ll try to give as a simplistic overview of taxation in Britain, and look forward to any views you may have on how you think it compares with America.

          In simple terms, taxation on spending (VAT) is a flat rate 20% on all Goods and Services e.g. food, clothes, meals etc. 

          Taxation on income in the UK is a lot more complex, taxation on employees is different to what the self-employed pay, and of course Businesses pay their own taxes on profits.  For simplicity I’ll just stick with taxes employees pay. 

          As an employee, what % of tax you pay on your wages is very dependent on how much you earn; complicated further because there are two taxes (NI and Income) and also ‘tax credits’ for the low paid and unemployed.  Tax Credit is the reverse of Tax e.g. the government pays you instead of you paying the government.

          For simplicity in the examples below I’ll combined the two taxes and any tax credits as a single figure.

          Below I’ll give different earnings before and after tax if single and over 16 e.g. Gross and Net (if married, disabled, have dependants etc. then you get more tax credits):-

          Annual Income:-

          •    Annual Wage £5,000 ($6,092); Net income after tax and tax credits = £6,960 ($8,480).

          •    Annual Wage £10,000 ($12,184); Net income after tax and tax credits = £10,563 ($12,869)

          •    Annual Wage £20,000 ($24,368); Net income after tax £16,868 ($20,552)

          •    Annual Wage £30,000 ($36,552); Net income after tax £24,444 ($29,783)

          •    Annual Wage £40,000 ($48,736); Net income after tax £32,019 ($39,012)

          •    Annual Wage £50,000 ($60,920); Net income after tax £39,820 ($48,517)

          •    Annual Wage £100,000 ($121,840) ; Net income after tax £75,534 ($92,031)

          •    Annual Wage £200,000 ($243,680); Net income after tax £144,463 ($176,014)

          In my case I’m married and retired on a full pension that’s just below the tax threshold; so I don’t pay any tax on my pension; and being over 60 (just) I get free travel on public transport, and other concessions.

          My wife now works part time so she doesn’t now pay tax.  However, because she has a bad back that affects her mobility she gets PIP (Personal Independence Payment) from the government; which is £2,865 ($3,491) per year.  Because she gets PIP, and because I’m her househusband e.g. I look after her for more than 35 hours per week, I qualify for the Carer’s Allowance from the government; which is £3,229 ($3,934) per year.

          Because of my pension, my Carer’s Allowance is pushed into the taxable bracket and therefore would normally be subject to 20% income tax.  However, because my wife doesn’t earn enough to pay tax she’s entitled to transfer some of her income tax allowance to me, and coupled with the marriage tax allowance, the two allowances offsets most of the tax due on my Carer’s Allowance; therefore I end up paying virtually no income tax.

  7. abwilliams profile image66
    abwilliamsposted 7 years ago

    Hear Hear!

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
    Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

    This is how you decide who to believe.  Start by eliminating any organization with a brand "Fair and Balanced" or "The Most Trusted Name in News".  If they label themselves liberal or conservation, turn them off too.  Of those that remain, read or listen to as many of them as possible. Pay attention to stories that several of them chose to report - not isolated articles that only one organization spends time and inches on.  Of those stories, cast off any that don't have at least three sources for what they are reporting.

    With what you have left, keep a healthy skepticism.  Six months later you'll find out (maybe) what was true and what was not.  That's the best you can do.

    1. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Kathleen, you are just too cynical. ;-)

      It doesn't take 6 months, it usually only takes minutes, (or at the most a couple days), to get the drift of what is going on.

      I listen to CNN most of the day. Not because I believe they are factual, (in some cases they may be), but because I can be sure that if there is a club to beat Conservatives with - they will be promoting it.

      So, if I hear something that I think is important to understand - then I go looking at the 'Right-leaning', (because yes, I do consider CNN a Left-leaning source), reporting, and then any other source that might have a perspective. Typically, a ten minute Google search fills my needs - but sometimes it does take a couple days worth of reporting to let the chaff settle and the facts, (as scant as they may be), to show their face.

      Just as a note; your postings leave me with a perception that our views aren't always very similar, but, I am always glad when I can respond to one of your comments.


  9. abwilliams profile image66
    abwilliamsposted 7 years ago

    Or...Just go with your gut.

    1. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Amen Sister! uh... except that you should take a few minutes to check out your gut before jumping off the cliff of a public declaration. Sort of like lemmings - their gut tells them to follow the leader.


  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    Because the English language is cool.
    such as,
    J'aime le week-end. cool

  11. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
    Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

    No.  Don't follow your gut.  Then you will only accept what you want to hear.  There is too much of that already.  Question every source.  Drill down to the basic information you can get to without anything added to it - from a variety of sources, from a variety of sources, from a variety of sources.  (Did I mention use a variety of sources? Do that.)

    GA Anderson: We seem to go back a forth upon that which we agree or not.  I don't really fit into one box very well and I have long suspected you don't either.  .

  12. lauren youngblood profile image53
    lauren youngbloodposted 7 years ago

    i think the same

  13. Kathleen Cochran profile image77
    Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

    This country made a serious turn in the wrong direction when Reagan took office, then again with Bush II, and now with Trump.  How do we fix this?  Well, what do those three have in common?  Let's start with that.

  14. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    I love it !   The left has been so politically disoriented  for  a couple of decades and now what changes ? You are Looking for an agenda , a plan , strategy , an offensive , ..........Trump has so upset your sensibilities as to render yourselves even further into the La La land of  dysfunction .

    Wake up call ,  Obama was a light-weight ,  he was simply up against  the right and you elected an absolute Image of progress  ! Trump on the other hand is doing battle with the right , the left and the total bias of media AND is a true mover and shaker .   But image and likeability isn't part of his plan . He welcomes your Face- Book  mentality.

    You're  losing again !  Congratulations.

    1. Misfit Chick profile image74
      Misfit Chickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No, you keep listening to your slanted news sources - that have been saying the same damn things for decades long before Obama came along. I don't hang out up on facebook, and I don't sit in front of a tv screen or radio all day listening to people brainwash me. I'm willing to bet that you do. How do I know that?

      Because everyone who is pro-Trump regurgitates the same erroneous stuff about 'the rest of us'. What do you listen to? That is what comes out of your mouth. Its not new - not even sort of. If it was, you might be able to make a point or two, but its not. It is this 'old stuff' that Trump was able to tap into and manipulate people with. He's a master at dividing, manipulating and conquering - and your wishy-washy minds (that apparently can't think for themselves anymore) fell for it.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Well that last picture explains what is going on right now with our 'liberal media' trying to tell us what a bad boogeyman Russia is... they 'hacked' the elections, they 'control' the White House, they are a threat to us all.

        Load of garbage, the biggest threats to our nation are in our Congress, and in our Courts... they are dooming us all to a bleak future.

  15. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    Harping about the conservative media  is a  -HAS BEEN issue ! .......  For instance  , take Fox News , Rush , Brietbart even ,..........You have effectively  covered  less than 3 to 4 % of the total mainstream news media !        Yet for years now CNN ,  MSNBC , CBS , ABC , CNBC ,  90 % of the rag news papers , 100%  of the internet TRASH  ,   and absolutely every news  APP known to "Smart Phones ", .......

    And what do you expose  ?      99 percent of ALL  News Media  ; Is Left-Stream News Media !  AND , not only that  but they have the total mindless  naiveté of the liberal ideologists believing  that THAT is a fair and balanced News Media !

    Welcome to Disney Reality !

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      +1  Thanks ahorseback!

      ( Interesting font/graphics)
      PS It just occurred to me that offering fake news =

                     Good Old Fashioned Lying.

      Why fancy it up, I wonder?

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

    <99 percent of all news is based on the left-stream mindless naiveté of liberal ideologists.> 
    You are too kind, ahorseback!

    How about,
    99 % of all news, today, is based on lies.

    It was not like this in the past … or  has it always been, to a some extent, since the founding of the country?

    Perhaps the game has been stepped up to the fever pitch we behold today over the years.

    No one is being honest.
    ….except Trump, who liberals constantly proclaim is lying.
    good grief.

    He really needs to be honest.

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well Trump does need to be more openly honest and less "twitter" page ,  sensationalized  Kathryn ,   We are seeing for one thing , a previous president  who passed the popularity test in the usual leftist
      " sophomore home room class  " that Trump never will , for the benefit of  likability , which doesn't effect leadership whatsoever .
      Liberals sure do  like- to- like their "leaders ".

      When did you ever "like"  the most productive  of the bosses you've ever had at work 

      Problem , Dime store novella's  and  10c  cowboy story  days are done ,  The left -stream media has bought into the dime store  novel days of the eighteen hundreds  lock ,stock and barrel . Sad part is ;  democrats all across America bought IT  ALL too !   

      The sensationalizing media HAS always been there  , today however  given our incredible ability to  broadcast immediate and up to date truths , current events  ,  politics and the incredible size of media alone , it SHOULD be far more honest and far less Bull Shyte oriented .

      I like your 99% better.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
        Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        … far less less  i l l u s i o n  oriented. lol  lol

        I notice you are nevertheless kind and respectful in tone, while the other side ain't ...
        at all.

  17. Yassine Ibrahim profile image57
    Yassine Ibrahimposted 7 years ago

    Maybe, but not always .

  18. Ken Burgess profile image76
    Ken Burgessposted 7 years ago

    If NAFTA had not been signed, the jobs would probably have gone to China or somewhere else. The U.S. has a trade deficit with Mexico of roughly 60 billion, but with China, it is close to 500 billion, so its far bigger with China than with Mexico.

    Most likely for every job we have lost in the U.S. to Mexico, five or more were lost to China.  (I completed a Hub on that BTW - … US-Economy )

    The majority of American high-wage manufacturing jobs were relocated to Mexico, China and other foreign locations as a result of NAFTA, and other treaties, and while this has not benefited U.S. Workers, it has benefited U.S. corporations and has accomplished the goals of the U.N., WTO, and other international bodies who wanted to raise the level of the world's population out of "poverty" (as they determined poverty to be).

    Myself, I think I would rather be living on a farm in the country, eating food free of poisons and drinking clean water... rather than living in a city being choked with air pollution, contaminated water, and toxic levels of chemicals in everything, just so I can spend half my day working like a slave in an industrial complex for pennies an hour... but that's just me.  The Chinese seem to be fine with this, I guess having a tv and toilet is worth the cancer and health crisis that will come with it.

    But the facts are there, you can say you have spent time researching this, I fail to believe you can miss all that is out there.  For instance the U.S. share of North American automotive jobs dropped from 64.5% in 2000 to just 53.4% in 2012. By 2012, 39.1% of all automotive jobs in North America were in Mexico, up from 27.1% of such jobs in 2000.  And its only gotten worse since 2012.

    A Good Read on the Trucking issue, and how it was decided by INTERNATIONAL powers (IE - WTO) and not our own National interests or politicians: … als-a-deal

    Now if you think Trucking Companies, and hence Trucking operations aren't going to move south of the border due to the changes occurring since 2015, and that it will cost Americans thousands of jobs, which will be replaced by Mexican drivers, then no amount of explaining can help... the same way Auto Manufacturing and all other jobs that can be exported to foreign nations HAVE been exported to foreign nations, will now also occur with Truckers.  Pretty soon all truckers on the roads will be Mexican, and all Trucking companies will be HQed in Mexico.

    That's just common sense.

    Various Supporting Articles: … 50207.html

    1. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ken, I think you have misunderstood my responses. They are not intended to support Nafta. And since China is not a consideration of Nafta, there is no point to including the real issues we have there, regarding trade,  in this conversation.

      I can see a possible North American trade agreement that would benefit our three involved nations. But I just don't know if the Nafta we have is the one. *(Your first supporting link doesn't seem to be nearly as anti-Nafta, or as supportive of your perspective, as I expected)

      Just this small piece - the trucking article, might make a good example of what I mean, (and what I think Pres. Trump means).

      From all that I read, the Nafta trucking article is one-sided. Our truckers don't appear to want to do long-haul into Mexico. But, as written, Mexico truckers do want to do U.S. long-haul - even with the restriction of empty back-hauls.

      So the question becomes; is this issue an example of a poor agreement for the U.S., or, was it a necessary trade-off to get the overall agreement? Then of course the conversation moves on to a realistic look at the entire agreement. Without the unsubstantiated dire declarations.

      With less than even a layman's understanding of the overall details of Nafta, I am not a supporter. But that is solely due to the 'squeaky wheel' effect of most media articles concerning it.

      Now, I am left wondering if my impression has been formed by less than factual input, or if the anti-Nafta predictions, (a la Ross Perot), have been proven accurate. Hmm...


      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I thought the link to the article about the battle over the trucking issue would show the history of that matter in simplest terms... the job loss has yet to be measured and tallied because it has yet to reach it ultimate impact.

        The additional links give more information.  But I think we can agree on certain indicators that the American people themselves have not been better served by NAFTA, or our trade policies in general.

        Many, as in a majority, of jobs pay no more salary now than they did 30 years ago.

        Most Full time jobs (a definition which was changed by the Obama Administration) do not offer the benefits people could expect 30 years ago.

        And yet, the cost of living has gone up, the cost of healthcare has increased, the purchasing power of the dollar has gone down from 30 years ago.

        The percentage of the American population unemployed has risen since NAFTA has gone into effect, to record levels.  But this has more to do with China's 'preferred nation' status than Mexico.  But both are problematic for similar reasons, bad trade policy.

        This is, reminds me at this moment of another major issue not getting the urgent attention it needs.  Autism.  We can see the number increasing almost yearly... ten years ago it was 1 in 100, today it is 1 in 70, tomorrow it is likely to be worse... 1 in 50, at what point do we admit there is something seriously wrong and address it?

        I know, its off topic... but there is no denying that the majority of jobs have not seen an increase in wages in decades. That our GDP has slowed to an imperceptible 1% yearly average.  Its obvious, and these efforts to deny it, or defend the current "free trade" agreements are ludicrous, they fly in the face of reality.

        Of course, the original topic of this thread was who to trust for information... and when your media sources are not telling you about the real problems, and are busy weaving a fantasy for people to believe in... about big bad Russians and a Trump Administration that stole an election, day after day, hour after hour... such a sad state to see our Nation, and our Media in.

        1. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You are right Ken - we did hijack the thread.

          But concerning your thought about our sad state of affairs, I think we are in almost the best state of affairs we could be. Consider that media has always been biased to some degree, and even if an opinion might be that it is worse today, (not one I hold) - consider our choices now.

          As late as only 30 years ago we, (the general public), had only the big dogs in broadcast and print news, half a dozen sources maybe, to get our news. Today we have 1000's of sources, and many are global - a perspective that was very hard to get in the past.

          The sad state of affairs that I see is our own. Our willingness to just accept stuff, without any thought of questioning if it is true.

          Folks probably wouldn't complain it was the snake's fault they got bit, or the mule's fault they got kicked, but they are positive it is the media's fault they didn't get the whole truth.

          See what I mean Vern?

          GA (henceforth to be known as The Wet Blanket)

  19. Ken Burgess profile image76
    Ken Burgessposted 7 years ago

    Very perceptive and wise.

    It's true... half the country is awake, questioning, knowing that sources like CNN lie, and often have ulterior motives.

    I suppose one can take heart in that, rather than focusing on the half that still has the wool pulled over their eyes.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I take offense at that remark, so what are the journalistic sources that do not lie and can be counted on to tell the truth to the satisfaction of those that harbor strong right wing biases?

      So, what qualifies you and people who believe as you do, that you are the ones without the wool over your eyes? You always say that you are neither ideological nor partisan, yet belie that in virtually all of your statements.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        We could have Yak wool pulled over our entire bodies and still know how biased the leftstream media is . All one has to do is listen with an open mind, and  turn off  your Hilary  audio tapes while watching Msnbc ,of course.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        As of today these are the best sources of news in America/Cable/tv -

        Bloomberg - also as -
        (OAN) One America News - also as -

        I love both those stations because they report all sorts of events and issues you will hear nothing about in the MSM (CNN, FOX, CBS, etc. etc.) they will talk about events in Syria, Switzerland, what Secretary is going to what nation, what is going on in China, Russia, etc. ... they spend little time on the daily drama of fingerpointing going on between one politician and another in D.C.... they spend little time on idiot hollywierd types who want to rant, or idiot stories like 'the alligator that made friends with a duck'.

        And they do so with a minimal amount of BIAS.

        Next on my list would come FOX news and BBC... unfortunately while you are probably going to get some worthwhile news and events, it is going to come with significant bias, and slanted to favor one side.

        And then come the totally worthless propaganda sites, whose entire existence is to tell you what to think, what not to believe, and who will sell you lies and fabrications, while hiding truth and real events from you.
        These of course are CNN and MSNBC.

        I really don't care what your politics are... Left or Right ... Conservative or Progressive ... or what your beliefs are.  What you believe has nothing to do with what those News sites report... some report unfettered truth with little bias... and some feed you outright lies and propaganda.

        That's the truth... one you can discover for yourself if you want to.

        1. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Ken; you’re last sentence starting:  “That’s the truth….” is only an opinion, not fact.  While I wouldn’t entirely agree with all your points e.g. in Britain Fox News has a reputation for its Fake News, I do however respect your views given in your analysis above.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I am sure that Fox has been guilty of what some would call 'fake news' as I said, they are biased and want to deliver the 'news' the way that suits their agenda and perspective.  But to a lesser degree than others.

            In general if you really pushed me... I would lump BBC, FOX, MSN, CNN, and the MSM at large into one large 'don't watch' group, and I'd stick to Bloomberg and One America News while peaking at RT or Al Jazeera every now and then to get the other perspective on events.

            1. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Ken, I don’t want to push the issue, we both have different perspectives on life and neither of us are going to be 100% right all the time; which is why (unless I’m absolutely sure in my own mind) I’ll often say ‘in my opinion’ or ‘from my perspective’ rather than stating a point as ‘fact’.

              However, my gripe with Fox News is when they make statements like “parts of London are no go areas that even the police don’t go there” as a factual statement, when in fact it’s a complete fabrication of the news; that’s what I call Fake News. 

              The problem with statements like that is if you don’t live in England and therefore don’t know it’s a lie e.g. you’re an American, then it can sound believable.  And if Americans don’t spend valuable time checking other sources to see how authentic such statements are then they are none the wiser. 

              This is then coupled with the problems that:-

              •    Some fake news tends to get republished in other news sources (sometimes deliberately, sometimes because those other sources didn’t bother to ‘fact check’ the story themselves), and

              •    When a news media like Fox News makes false statements about Britain (which they do all too often), then unless you spend your time double checking their news with other news media (which is one piece of advice you preciously gave) how do people know which news reports are truthful and which news reports are fabricated.

        2. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry Ken, I have meaning to get back with you on this topic.

          I did a little fact checking and there is a site that attempts to gauge the level of bias of lack of same from different journalistic sources. Bloomberg does rate highly, but I would feel more comfortable with Reuters or BBC simply for the reason that from the outside they may have a more objective view as to what is going on. Wall Street Journal was rated highly, until they attacked Trump on a policy or two and since have demoted by the administration to category of  'fake news".

          Fox is unacceptable as extremely partisan and ideologically rightwing biased. It is not a minor offenders but a  major one, at least a bad as some of the journalism that you say have substantial leftwing bias. 

          I don't know if it possible for anyone to claim objectivity because we all tend to see what we want and that will always be part of the equation. Just based on this forum, it can be easily seen that one man's propaganda is another man's truth.



          1. Ken Burgess profile image76
            Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            One man's propaganda is another man's truth... that is garbage...

            False is false... doesn't mean the truth will ever be reported... but false is false.

            We are seeing this right now with Syria and the chemical attack... its BS.

            But is anyone other than RT and maybe, maybe, Al Jazeera, or some other foreign news source going to point this out?  No, of course not.

            Bloomberg, Wall St. Journal, One America News... those are my sources, and for opposing RT and AJ.

            You are right, FOX which does give more real news, is still too biased to expect to get well rounded facts, still not as bad as MSNBC or CNN two stations that have become unhinged and totally detached to any sense of truth or facts in their reporting.

            1. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I’m sorry Ken, I can’t comment on how CNN and Fox News report on American matters because I don’t live in America; and I can’t comment on Bloomberg because I don’t watch it; but when it comes to CNN and Fox News reporting on current affairs in Britain, I’ve never seen CNN tell an outright lie (although they do bend the truth all too frequently), whereas Fox News do report Fake News about Britain all too often.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                CNN in America is one lie or totally unsubstantiated 'fact' after another ... Don Lemon is terrible, Chris Cuomo is a certifiable douchebag and probable pedophile who pushes the child-abuse agenda, all of them are awful, as soon as a guest takes a non-'progressive' or non-CNN position, their satellite feed dies, or they are yelled down by the others on the show... it is like FOX only even worse, even more bias, even less actual & true news.

                CNN in America makes FOX look like the bastion of truth and balance in reporting... which is why the majority of Americans watch FOX over CNN or MSNBC.  As bad as FOX may be, they look positively sane and reasonable compared to CNN, with the exception of a couple (IE - Hannity) that are just as bad as Don Lemon, only for the opposite side.

                1. Nathanville profile image93
                  Nathanvilleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks Ken, so from what you are saying it sounds as if while Fox News reports on American issues more factually than CNN; Fox News (from my experience) then broadcasts fake news about Britain, which CNN doesn’t do; albeit CNN can twist the facts when reporting in British matters.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                    Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Here is a good read on what I am talking about:
           … -to-cover/

                    You really need to read that article and watch those clips.
                    And then just for fun compare it to this:
           … s-in-intel

                    " Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period  -- -- The news about Rice also sheds light on the Nunes' explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons."

           … ing-trump/

                    Susan Rice, former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.
                    “What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

                    “The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

                    So what we have in this instance (one of many I could make an example of) is CNN fully and wantonly saying these reports are false, well... you saw for yourself if you checked out that first link.

                    There is no worse source of 'news' I have ever seen than CNN, there has never been so many obvious lies, cover ups, or total avoidance of reporting happenings.  They would rank right up there with Third Reich propaganda IMO.

  20. profile image49
    pete carilloposted 7 years ago

    Yes I agree! Any news company pending hidden motives and as to who is behind and influencing them can broadcast so called 'truths' about a matter which others pass on as lies. CNN against Fox News and vice-versa. Not one really is perceived to have it all. Each one can be suspect!


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)