The Science and Philosophy Forum

I just want to weigh in with something I find very disturbing in UK media.

Jeremy Corbyn has been under fire from the British press from the get go, yet people genuinely are still hearing him because he is actually a genuine and principled politician (yes, they do exist).

What annoyed me was this :

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3625757/jeremy-corbyn-again-refuses-to-condemn-the-ira-and-instead-he-praises-the-bravery-of-the-republican-leaders/

Okay, it is The Sun, so we know it is going to be shite. The issue is you type in Corbyn into the search engine and this comes up, saying he "refuses to condemn IRA bombings", even though in the interview he does anything but this.

I am guessing many will simply read this blatantly false headline and equate it to a "truth". Note this nonsense was being thrust at him quite deliberately trying to provoke Corbyn. Yet again though he simply responds politely and with dignity, but for the first time I saw him irked by the tone and candor of the line of questioning trying to paint him as someone 'Pro- Terrorism" which is plain silly and, I think, more than a little offensive

This story was being cast out onto the net about 24-48 hrs prior to bombing in Manchester too.

I just hope to God that May makes the dumb mistake of using this horrific incident to try and gain popular opinion. I say this because I know Corbyn will call it out and that people will trust him once he points out what is going on here.

Unlike Trump, Corbyn does not rile against the press. He has been asked about his portrayal in the media news sources, and he says nothing, he doesn't conplain, and simply gets on with the job at hand.

I just pray the UK citizens can see past the spin and get to the heart of the policies without being herded into some nonsense fearmongering about immigration and terrorism.

FIngers FIRMLY crossed on this. Turns out I do actually suffer from the disease of patriotism a little too :) I will be appalled if May gets an overwhelming majority, it will be terrible for the poor people of Britain, and for the country as a whole.

The press's entire attitude toward Corbyn from the outset has been offensive. The circular and intellectually insulting line they repeat, about opposing him because he's "unelectable", in itself makes me want to vote for him. Obviously whoever we elect is electable by definition. The journalistic "profession" don't want him in power, and they want us to think that that's our fault too. When an engine of democracy becomes as degraded as that, an example needs to be made of it.

If it comes down to a personality race Corbyn wins hands down.

"Dignified" and "principled" are two words that are very unusual for politicians. He has both. May ... I can only think of "combative" and "liar".

Anyway, I do apologise a LITTLE because this is not the kind of content I should be posting on a "political theory" forum. Let this one slide though please! It stinks and for those in the US who don't know much about the situation in the UK this is a HUGE deal for the future of Europe and the UK.

Unfortunately it is most likely going to be a Tory landslide. For as to whether British people are concerned about the noble Truth, one just needs to look at the 'civil' legacy they inherited - Athenian executions for denial of the gods, Romulan republicanism rooted in a man who was raised by a wolf and thus killed his own brother for glory, empire-building inclinations validated by a ruthlessly violent Christian God in whose name European emperors are coronated, and then there's the bad weather that prevented even the conquesting Arabs from wanting to invade from Spain.

Nah mate, even though Britain could be argued to have started the Enlightenment movement, there is very little entrenched appetite for the Truth, let alone peace or humility. That Enlightenment stuff is just for a few pipe-dreamers in London. The British way is 'bash n grab' - it worked for the Vikings, the Greeks, the Romans, the feudal Knights, and it continues with campaigns in Iraq and Syria. Corbyn's threatening the traditional thuggishness that has kept Britain relatively unmolested by outside forces for almost 1000 years. If it ain't broke (yet), then why fix it?

Give it twenty more years or so, and then maybe a Corbyn will be needed... But he'll likely be dead by then...

Oh boy

James Comey details Trump's 'lies' and reaffirms belief of Russian meddling in election

James Comey punched back hard – and put Trump's truthfulness centre stage

The Truth is fighting back!

Mossling » Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:36 pm wrote:Oh boy

James Comey details Trump's 'lies' and reaffirms belief of Russian meddling in election

James Comey punched back hard – and put Trump's truthfulness centre stage

The Truth is fighting back!

Actually, Comey confirmed what Trump said. Comey had told Trump - three times - that the President was not the subject of any investigation.

But feel free to interpret things any way you like. Everyone else does. :)

Paul Anthony » June 9th, 2017, 10:59 am wrote:But feel free to interpret things any way you like. Everyone else does. :)

If there were no verbal agreements, there would be no human society in the first place - so prosocial interpretations of the truth are normally 'the way people like', however in the case of US 'white culture' nationalists, beyond pre-enlightenment ideas, there is not much of global prosocial philosophy that I can detect... Thus, the POTUS' truth is often ugly - racist, theist, fascist, and bourgeois elitist, and he is doing his best not to appear that way - maybe not until he has built a strong cultural bridge between the US and the like-minded in Russia. And actually, I don't even think the Russians are particularly interested in that agenda beyond destabilising the US, tbh.

Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge. Congratulations, Mossling.

Paul Anthony » June 9th, 2017, 2:27 pm wrote:Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge. Congratulations, Mossling.

He also said that he regretted contributing to the invention of the atom bomb ;P

Republicans on the committee tried to protect Trump by highlighting how Trump had asked Comey to help Flynn, noting the president had said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go.” Expressing hope, they noted, is not a command. Yet Comey swatted that away, saying he was shocked by the request and interpreted Trump’s statement as an instruction. “I took it as a direction,” Comey testified, adding, “I didn’t obey.” This was solid testimony that the president was trying to block an FBI investigation of a close associate. Whether or not that qualifies as obstruction of justice—Comey told the senators that special counsel Robert Mueller will be reviewing this question—it is a serious charge. Moreover, Comey’s account directly contradicts Trump’s assertion that he did not ask Comey to let Flynn off the hook. Unless Comey is making up this tale, Trump has been caught in a bold lie. 

I think this reporter (David Corn) addresses the point that, if Comey has given accurate testimony, then Trump has lied. Interesting that some here side-stepped this part of the testimony. It seems pretty clear to me that when a powerful leader clears the room to privately tell you they "hope" you will do something, that's kind of like Don Corleone telling you he "hopes" you will accept his offer. It's meant as an order. I think people on both sides of the aisle can recognize the corrupt nature of the meeting with Comey. It may not be actionable in court, but it's still pretty clear that the quacking thing with webbed feet is a duck.

Braininvat » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:36 am wrote:
I think this reporter (David Corn) addresses the point that, if Comey has given accurate testimony, then Trump has lied. Interesting that some here side-stepped this part of the testimony. It seems pretty clear to me that when a powerful leader clears the room to privately tell you they "hope" you will do something, that's kind of like Don Corleone telling you he "hopes" you will accept his offer. It's meant as an order. I think people on both sides of the aisle can recognize the corrupt nature of the meeting with Comey. It may not be actionable in court, but it's still pretty clear that the quacking thing with webbed feet is a duck.

And yet, the same people who see this as troubling had no problem with Bill Clinton meeting privately with the DOJ while the FBI was investigating his wife.

I can't speak for all of "the same people," but I never cared for Clinton in Slick Willy mode. The fact that people can be partisan
does not render false the impression that Trump was pulling a Henry II, and asking "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" That Thomas Becket reference of Comey's was my favorite moment. I know Comey is biased, he admits he is, but I think the implicit order to torpedo the Russia inquiry was real.

I do wonder how much regret Comey has over his October surprise. I think there were plenty of people tepid about Clinton who may have, hearing Comey's October tempest in a teapot, just decided not to vote at all. It may have been a last straw for some voters who would otherwise have put a perfumed rag over their noses and voted for Clinton.

Hmm, how much weight is needed on Comey's side for his story to outweigh Trumps?
I mean, his witnesses to his reports of Trump's behaviour pre-firing are high-ranking FBI colleagues...



In a post-truth world does Comey have enough?

Read Comey's statements again. It's mostly about Comey's interpretation of Trump's words and actions based on how he felt about Trump. He wrote detailed memos after each meeting because he was afraid Trump might lie about what was said. Paranoia is not evidence.

People who think they know what other people are thinking are either prescient or delusional.

Paul Anthony » June 11th, 2017, 6:53 am wrote:People who think they know what other people are thinking are either prescient or delusional.

But you think you know what Comey is thinking?

He was head of the FBI and had access to information that you do not at present. How about giving him the benefit of the doubt? Innocent until proven guilty?

We all know Trump has a penchant for lying. Come on now, if there's one thing we do know, it's that. It's one of the main reasons this thread even exists.

Mossling » Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:16 pm wrote:

Paul Anthony » June 11th, 2017, 6:53 am wrote:People who think they know what other people are thinking are either prescient or delusional.

But you think you know what Comey is thinking?

He was head of the FBI and had access to information that you do not at present. How about giving him the benefit of the doubt? Innocent until proven guilty?

We all know Trump has a penchant for lying. Come on now, if there's one thing we do know, it's that. It's one of the main reasons this thread even exists.

Thanks, I was wondering why this thread exists. :)

Comey's testimony has raised a lot of questions, and not all of them are about Trump.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/11/top-democrat-calls-for-investigation-of-loretta-lynchs-clinton-probe/

I'm not so sure we're post-truth, I think we're still pre-truth intra-politics. Don't get me wrong, a foundational edifice is disintegrating, but it's not truth, it's only authority and credulity. This has happened many times before, on certain levels it's a constant, when people figure out that they've been bamboozled it takes them a while to find their feet. While they're reeling many do fall for conspiracy theories, "fake news", scapegoating, but eventually they'll work out new arrangements of power and synthesize a stable dominate narrative.

FOX News post-truth meltdown with Trump's lawyer - "Trump's not under investigation" sophistry and mind-reading doublethink logistical nightmares:



What a mess.

When Stalin was told that the Germans were approaching, he thought that he was being lied to, even though it was true. This is where tangled spaghetti post-truth interlocking lies gets one. It looks like we're going to have another lesson on this soon enough...

The truth doesn't matter anyway.

The police officer who shot and killed a black man seven times whilst he sat in his car has not been convicted.

He asked the guy to produce his license and then shot him SEVEN times when he reached for his wallet. He was in his car with his family.

Why does this happen again and again and again in the US? Should black men in the US now carry guns and shoot police on sight for their own protection? If they did would they dodge conviction?

These are the facts. Who cares? Certainly not the "law". The truth doesn't matter if the people in power don't care for it.

tangled spaghetti post-truth interlocking lies

We're not exactly in uncharted waters here, the last guy was throwing people in prison for telling the truth.

It's interesting to see how people think a POTUS firing the head of FBI who is investigating his suspicious ties to a traditional enemy state is on the same sociopolitical level as a military whistleblower being incarcerated for breaching a secrecy oath, for example, or a trigger-happy racist policeman shooting someone in cold blood.

From my perspective it's like comparing senile dementia to arthritis. Trump is the brain of the US, a police officer or military operative is not. That is a big difference.

When has a US president been so wayward as to apparently obstruct justice in a manner comparable to Trump? I don't even think this is Nixon territory anymore...

Mossling » June 20th, 2017, 4:46 pm wrote: a military whistleblower being incarcerated for breaching a secrecy oath

Journalists were prosecuted as well, and it was malicious prosecution for exposing illegal and unconstitutional actions like torture and mass surveillance. It was also used to threaten and intimidate anyone else who might be considering exposing government malfeasance. To my thinking that's far more outrageous than anything Trump has been accused of.

When has a US president been so wayward as to apparently obstruct justice in a manner comparable to Trump? I don't even think this is Nixon territory anymore...

Of all the scandals in the upper echelons over the last 15 years this one is comparatively minor. Backroom deals like this are pretty routine in Washington, it's just that Trump is at odds with the establishment and he's inept at speaking in subtleties and discreetly applying pressure. All of them do it, Trump was just a goon about it and his goonery got him into trouble.

Sivad » June 21st, 2017, 10:03 am wrote:

Mossling » June 20th, 2017, 4:46 pm wrote: a military whistleblower being incarcerated for breaching a secrecy oath

Journalists were prosecuted as well, and it was malicious prosecution for exposing illegal and unconstitutional actions like torture and mass surveillance. It was also used to threaten and intimidate anyone else who might be considering exposing government malfeasance. To my thinking that's far more outrageous than anything Trump has been accused of. ,

He's not just 'Trump' - he's the POTUS. You're apparently speaking as if you are comparing two colleagues at work, or a homeless guy and your manager, even.

If an old bum who sits outside your office lies all the time, then that's not such a big deal as when your boss lies all the time.

I don't think you can compare the value of truthfulness between Trump and a police officer. The police officer has a lot less power to influence every person's life in the nation.

When has a US president been so wayward as to apparently obstruct justice in a manner comparable to Trump? I don't even think this is Nixon territory anymore...

Of all the scandals in the upper echelons over the last 15 years this one is comparatively minor.

Oh, really? Please do share the ones that you think were more major...

Mossling » June 21st, 2017, 6:46 am wrote:It's interesting to see how people think a POTUS firing the head of FBI who is investigating his suspicious ties to a traditional enemy state is on the same sociopolitical level as a military whistleblower being incarcerated for breaching a secrecy oath, for example, or a trigger-happy racist policeman shooting someone in cold blood.

From my perspective it's like comparing senile dementia to arthritis. Trump is the brain of the US, a police officer or military operative is not. That is a big difference.

When has a US president been so wayward as to apparently obstruct justice in a manner comparable to Trump? I don't even think this is Nixon territory anymore...

I don't think it is necessarily right to call him "racist". No doubt the race factor played a part in this, but there is socially enforced tension between police officers and black men (true, due to racial tensions and racism.) My point being that the police officer may well have been influenced by the wider view in society. If such is the case I would call him incompetent and convict him of manslaughter, not racially motivated murder.

If I walk down the street and see a big muscly guy looking angry I will be on my guard. Sadly black men have a history of being portrayed as a threat. It will take a few more decades to reform this view. Just like it will be a few more generations before gay men are openly shown on comedy shows as little prissy girls with high pitched voices. It is a matter of easing societal views from one ideology to another. For black men and women it is a sad state of affairs.

It is even more difficult today because I don't know how we can deal with the media and entertainment industry. I guess we can just hope that the movies, songs and dramas can present a more balanced and responsible view. We've seen women's rights pushed in the music industry. NWO did a lot to rouse many people from their ignorance on racial tensions between police and black community (sadly a lot of the media were one-sided and only interested in sensationalism and stoking the fire of hatred.)

note: I have no idea about the character of this police officer, other than to say he was useless and danger to society. Certainly in the wrong job!

Mossling » June 20th, 2017, 10:42 pm wrote:Oh, really? Please do share the ones that you think were more major...

Well the war on whistleblowers was pretty egregious, and then there were the extrajudicial assassinations, the torture, the mass surveillance, pay for play operations, refusal to prosecute high level financial crime, taking the country to war on fraudulent evidence, all manner of war crimes, and the list goes on. What Trump is accused of is just run of the mill politicking in this country. I'm not saying it's acceptable behavior, but it's been pretty much normalized in the American political culture. If it was anyone else the system would of at least looked the other way and probably would have even defended it, but Trump has been shitlisted by the establishment for a number of reasons so they're going after him for it. I'm not a Trump supporter, I hope hey lock him up, I just deplore bullshit partisan hypocrisy more than I loathe Trump.

Lomax » May 23rd, 2017, 8:43 am wrote: When an engine of democracy becomes as degraded as that, an example needs to be made of it.

Yeah, they're definitely not going quietly, but after 40 years of neoliberalism Western society is starting to swing back towards social democracy and as the momentum builds they'll be dragged kicking and screaming into a new New Deal. Should be amusing to watch.

Sivad » June 22nd, 2017, 10:48 am wrote:Trump has been shitlisted by the establishment for a number of reasons so they're going after him for it. I'm not a Trump supporter, I hope hey lock him up, I just deplore bullshit partisan hypocrisy more than I loathe Trump.

But Trump's scandals are linked to the significant Russian interference in the election, which he has now recognised himself (and is trying to blame Obama for), which seems like it puts him beyond "regular politicking".

That very political system has been, and could very likely still be, under threat from a traditional foreign enemy, and via the office of the POTUS himself, which is something new.

Trump's lies upon lies - his general behaviour - appear to pour fuel on this idea that he is in bed with a traditional foreign adversary (who are presently facing off with American forces in Syria) who wish to upset American Democracy in general.

Another new awkward post-truth recent result is Trump admitting his inferring that there were Comey tapes was a conscious effort to create a threatening atmosphere so that Comey would be frightened into telling the truth. Trump says that it wasn't stupid of him to do that, and yet if it worked, then Trump is sort of saying that Comey did tell the truth about his obstruction of justice regarding the investigation into Trump's potential anti-American democracy collusion with Russia:



Not even Nixon had potential realistic connections with a traditional foreign enemy of the US which was at same time undermining the US democratic system while he was.

Mossling » June 25th, 2017, 7:28 pm wrote:

Sivad » June 22nd, 2017, 10:48 am wrote:Trump has been shitlisted by the establishment for a number of reasons so they're going after him for it. I'm not a Trump supporter, I hope hey lock him up, I just deplore bullshit partisan hypocrisy more than I loathe Trump.

But Trump's scandals are linked to the significant Russian interference in the election, which he has now recognised himself (and is trying to blame Obama for), which seems like it puts him beyond "regular politicking".

That very political system has been, and could very likely still be, under threat from a traditional foreign enemy, and via the office of the POTUS himself, which is something new.

It's not anything new, transnational elites have held sway over the office for some time. What's the difference between a "traditional enemy" and transnational corporations with inimical interests to the American public? I agree with you that Trump is really bad, but he's no worse than any of the other crooks we've had.