tgw

Ukraine didn't poke anyone.

On 27 September 2009, Yushchenko said in an interview aired on Channel 1+1 that the testimony of three men who were at a dinner in 2004 at which he believes he was poisoned is crucial to finishing the investigation, and he claimed these men were in Russia. Ukrainian prosecutors said Russia has refused to extradite one of the men, the former deputy chief of Ukraine's security service, Volodymyr Satsyuk, because he holds both Russian and Ukrainian citizenship.[24] Satsyuk returned to Ukraine in 2012 and tried to relaunch his political career, but did not succeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko

no, it simply meant Ukraine was going to seek protection from Putin's crimes. Putin brought it onto himself by trying to stop the inevitable : Ukrainian people wanted to join Western Europe and its culture and prosperity. Evro-Standard. Paniatna ?

in 2004, Russia poisoned presidential candidate Yushchenko and rigged the vote in favour of Yanukovich. and you thought after that the people of Ukraine would still be favourable to Russia ?

As usual you are full of it. It started not very long before the Orange revolution (2004). Yushchenko was poisoned the same year by his own security forced paid by Russia. I was there.

Ever since Putin came to power in Russia, he has been trying to subjugate Ukraine, to dominate it, to control Ukraine's destiny, despite it being a sovereign independent state. Putin committed many crimes against Ukraine and even more were committed on his orders. Ex-Soviet states suffered a lot already under the Soviets, so it's understandable that they wanted to join the EU and NATO, but since Putin is in power, that wish for protection against Putin has increased at an accelerated rate. Putin is NATO's best recruiter.

What do you mean, media forgets to mention it ? can you please stop with the lies ?

both are still 500ml in a 1000ml container. you confuse facts with spin, which explains in part your posts.

you are a hero, glory to you!

so how many lies by Trump is that ?

yeah, okay. averaging at less than 2 lies a year. I guess all politicians lie every now and then. she should have been held accountable for it and publicly apologized and set the record straight. now, how many lies do you count for Trump ?

a link to a page listing the lies would be welcome !

one is provided here: if you want more, take your pick here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump I'm still waiting on your articulation of Biden's lies with supporting links.

BTW, regarding my hunch about Musk promoting disinformation and pro-Russian views, Ryan McBeth made some compelling points in a video. One can see how MAGA, disinformation channels and pro-Russian channels gain followers at an accelerated rate after Musk purchased Twitter Ryan McBeth is a Youtuber well known for providing factual analysis

In my world "certainty" is a rare thing. I reserve it for mathematics and for a small part of natural sciences. But I could certainly compile a list of enough examples of Trump's lies where I am 99% sure he lied. In German we say "mit an Gewissheit angrenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit" which translates to "with probability bordering on certainty". German is a very precise language. It doesn't mean I don't know. I leave 1% risk of being wrong, as a form of intellectual honesty and as an invitation to anyone to bring proof that I'm wrong. From the over 30.000 alleged lies listed in the Wikipedia link, I'd say there is also a high chance of finding some that weren't outright lies.

lol Trump has been caught lying often enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump I say "possible lies" because I hold myself to the same standards I want to hold others to

from the link (visible to me):

I could only provide examples of "possible lies" that should be investigated and prosecuted if the lie is proven. As Trump does it for political gain, every lie he tells to the media is worth a sanction. One example would be the phone call with the head of the scouts: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/those-calls-to-trump-white-house-admits-they-didnt-happen.html Appropriate in this case would be for the liar to cover the costs of the investigation and legal costs as well as being forced to publicly apologize for lying.

I'm different from you, I will gladly review any credible links/sources you cite for these claims.

350 million: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/18/boris-johnson-350-million-claim-bogus-foreign-secretary current lies ... of course Trump is a serial offender in this department. I don't know if you require examples of his lies, there are many to choose from. I have been looking for lies from the democrats or left-leaning politicians of other nations, but came short in the short time I searched, maybe you have some examples ? I'm sometimes watching pro-democrat commentators on youtube spinning some things and I get sick of it. yes, they misrepresent facts too.

sadly, disinformation is present in many media on all political sides and many countries. and I would say you pinning it on Western media is misrepresentation.

Prosecution should be mandatory for lies made in media and politics with the goal of political gain or monetary gain upon a citizen's complaint with proof of the lie. An example of a clear-cut lie is Nigel Farage's 350 million pound for the NHS lie. It was made for political gain in a matter of the highest importance for the destiny of a nation. He should never have been allowed in politics again. In your example of the flat earth, it is indeed a clear-cut fact. But here is to consider which claim is misleading - people saying Earth is round are approximatively correct, and the claim isn't misleading - it warrants a mandatory publication of a clarification. People affirming the earth is flat should be fined. Instead, they could have presented "physical or mathematical proof in favour of a flat earth theory". And neither should be silenced. They can publish what they want, and then suffer consequences if they lied. see:

"how to decide what is true and what not" research provides us with reliable facts. when reliable facts tell another story then the claim that was made is a lie. the goal is not to reach a conclusive end for each and every claim made, nor to control politics or media. the goal is to prosecute enough lies so that the deterrence effect is enough to keep media and politics for the most part honest. bias is the reason why I concentrate on clear-cut cases leaving no room for interpretation. bias can't apply there.

all speech should be free, but lies and disinformation will come back to bite their author with consequences if proven wrong. Neutral body, etc. courts, process, fact checking ... all details for which I already said I have no clear idea on. One thing I have a clear idea on, is that all sides of politics should be involved in fact checking. And then ideally, the goal would be to present clear-cut cases to some sort of court or even a proper court which will then rule about the lie and apply the statutory penalties. The clear-cut cases would have proven facts as a basis, leaving no room for interpretation and the court would then rule on that basis. In the wake of what happened on social media in the past years, I consider this to be a matter of national security for democracies. Truth in politics and media.

I already said that the question of what is truth and lie should be determined by some kind of neutral process, as well as a legal/judicial recourse. I don't know in detail how that would look, but of course, neutrality should be guaranteed, I guess one way is to let the opposing party research the facts and details and then present their case. the main thing is that lies, disinformation and misrepresentations should be outlawed from politics and media. (BTW, I am also in favour of banning lawyers from lying in legal matters) I don't get your insistence in dragging me and my personal opinion into the decision making process. is your real name "Tom Cotton" ?