RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:

UGagain wrote:Broken record. Stick to the issues if you can recognise them.

Do you really think that this sort of outright lying is dignified?

and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise.

This poster lives under a bridge.

So, I'm commenting on the comment made and you are making a personal attack, again.

I don't care whether you like me or not. Just stop whining will you? It's not going to make me change my views or my politics.

I'm perfectly happy to talk about issues - but not when you are around .

Says it all really.


Look there's a really big issue that you could comment on here ....

http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... f=17&t=862

Have a go. Don't be shy. But leave the personal abuse elsewhere. OK?

UGagain wrote:
and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise.

This poster lives under a bridge.



I don't care whether you like me or not. Just stop whining will you? It's not going to make me change my views or my politics.

I'd contend it's not trolling to make clear in politics you'll need to work with others even where you don't agree with them to try and reach a compromise position, it seems self evidently the only common sense approach going if we're to approach this as grown ups. The notion that you should instead hold out for a time and place from which you can enact what you want seems the preserve of those on the loony left, or perhaps as we might see in the US lunatic Tea Party supporter - both seems groups possessed of ideological zeal and purity, that see compromise as a foible, unbending in the face of evidence, facts or reality and unswervingly parochial. And just to add I note the loony left as I wouldn't deny there's space for a sane left in politics.

In advance of this next I'd grant you may simply be trolling and seeking responses, which at least passes the time, but on the off chance you're accurately reflecting your views I shouldn't imagine anyone would think having such an individual change views to support the other would in any way advance their position, you're welcome to stay as you are.

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:
and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise.

This poster lives under a bridge.



I don't care whether you like me or not. Just stop whining will you? It's not going to make me change my views or my politics.

I'd contend it's not trolling to make clear in politics you'll need to work with others even where you don't agree with them to try and reach a compromise position, it seems self evidently the only common sense approach going if we're to approach this as grown ups. The notion that you should instead hold out for a time and place from which you can enact what you want seems the preserve of those on the loony left, or perhaps as we might see in the US lunatic Tea Party supporter - both seems groups possessed of ideological zeal and purity, that see compromise as a foible, unbending in the face of evidence, facts or reality and unswervingly parochial. And just to add I note the loony left as I wouldn't deny there's space for a sane left in politics.

In advance of this next I'd grant you may simply be trolling and seeking responses, which at least passes the time, but on the off chance you're accurately reflecting your views I shouldn't imagine anyone would think having such an individual change views to support the other would in any way advance their position, you're welcome to stay as you are.

I have no issue with this but, like the media, you are framing this as being an entirely one sided thing. The day after Corbyn was elected he was being undermined and it hasn't stopped, where did they "work with others even when they didn't agree to try and build a compromise position"? His politics didn't fit theirs, they conspired to remove him from day one.

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:
and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise.

This poster lives under a bridge.



I don't care whether you like me or not. Just stop whining will you? It's not going to make me change my views or my politics.

I'd contend it's not trolling to make clear in politics you'll need to work with others even where you don't agree with them to try and reach a compromise position, it seems self evidently the only common sense approach going if we're to approach this as grown ups. The notion that you should instead hold out for a time and place from which you can enact what you want seems the preserve of those on the loony left, or perhaps as we might see in the US lunatic Tea Party supporter - both seems groups possessed of ideological zeal and purity, that see compromise as a foible, unbending in the face of evidence, facts or reality and unswervingly parochial. And just to add I note the loony left as I wouldn't deny there's space for a sane left in politics.

In advance of this next I'd grant you may simply be trolling and seeking responses, which at least passes the time, but on the off chance you're accurately reflecting your views I shouldn't imagine anyone would think having such an individual change views to support the other would in any way advance their position, you're welcome to stay as you are.

It is just an outright and obvious lie to suggest that Corbyn etc didn't try to negotiate and compromise.

Dude, you're an ideologically pure neoliberal zealot as far as I can see. What would you know about the left?

I maintain that you are a concern troll.

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:
and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise.

This poster lives under a bridge.



I don't care whether you like me or not. Just stop whining will you? It's not going to make me change my views or my politics.

I'd contend it's not trolling to make clear in politics you'll need to work with others even where you don't agree with them to try and reach a compromise position, it seems self evidently the only common sense approach going if we're to approach this as grown ups. The notion that you should instead hold out for a time and place from which you can enact what you want seems the preserve of those on the loony left, or perhaps as we might see in the US lunatic Tea Party supporter - both seems groups possessed of ideological zeal and purity, that see compromise as a foible, unbending in the face of evidence, facts or reality and unswervingly parochial. And just to add I note the loony left as I wouldn't deny there's space for a sane left in politics.

In advance of this next I'd grant you may simply be trolling and seeking responses, which at least passes the time, but on the off chance you're accurately reflecting your views I shouldn't imagine anyone would think having such an individual change views to support the other would in any way advance their position, you're welcome to stay as you are.

It is just an outright and obvious lie to suggest that Corbyn etc didn't try to negotiate and compromise.

Dude, you're an ideologically pure neoliberal zealot as far as I can see. What would you know about the left?

I maintain that you are a concern troll.

In hindsight it was letting some of them into leadership positions that has been his downfall. If he'd culled them all from the start he would have copped a barrage at the time, but like all news stories it would have fallen by the wayside and their would be a more unified party now. Leaving them there and the constant chipping away has made the situation much worse, even if they go now I can't see Corbyn recovering. The public perception of him has unfortunately now been framed.

jared_7 wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Digby wrote:

I'd contend it's not trolling to make clear in politics you'll need to work with others even where you don't agree with them to try and reach a compromise position, it seems self evidently the only common sense approach going if we're to approach this as grown ups. The notion that you should instead hold out for a time and place from which you can enact what you want seems the preserve of those on the loony left, or perhaps as we might see in the US lunatic Tea Party supporter - both seems groups possessed of ideological zeal and purity, that see compromise as a foible, unbending in the face of evidence, facts or reality and unswervingly parochial. And just to add I note the loony left as I wouldn't deny there's space for a sane left in politics.

In advance of this next I'd grant you may simply be trolling and seeking responses, which at least passes the time, but on the off chance you're accurately reflecting your views I shouldn't imagine anyone would think having such an individual change views to support the other would in any way advance their position, you're welcome to stay as you are.

It is just an outright and obvious lie to suggest that Corbyn etc didn't try to negotiate and compromise.

Dude, you're an ideologically pure neoliberal zealot as far as I can see. What would you know about the left?

I maintain that you are a concern troll.

In hindsight it was letting some of them into leadership positions that has been his downfall. If he'd culled them all from the start he would have copped a barrage at the time, but like all news stories it would have fallen by the wayside and their would be a more unified party now. Leaving them there and the constant chipping away has made the situation much worse, even if they go now I can't see Corbyn recovering. The public perception of him has unfortunately now been framed.

Agreed.

I'm no fan of Corbyn tbh partly because he didn't sweep out the B;airites. But the alternatives are worse.

The Labour Party has to be purge the neoliberals from its ranks or it will cease to be a political force in the UK. Forever.

If Corbyn doesn't win, Labour is finished and UKIP will be the UK's second party.

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:
and they might even claim it's about conviction politics, though conviction politics seems to describe a refusal to negotiate and seek a compromise.

This poster lives under a bridge.



I don't care whether you like me or not. Just stop whining will you? It's not going to make me change my views or my politics.

I'd contend it's not trolling to make clear in politics you'll need to work with others even where you don't agree with them to try and reach a compromise position, it seems self evidently the only common sense approach going if we're to approach this as grown ups. The notion that you should instead hold out for a time and place from which you can enact what you want seems the preserve of those on the loony left, or perhaps as we might see in the US lunatic Tea Party supporter - both seems groups possessed of ideological zeal and purity, that see compromise as a foible, unbending in the face of evidence, facts or reality and unswervingly parochial. And just to add I note the loony left as I wouldn't deny there's space for a sane left in politics.

In advance of this next I'd grant you may simply be trolling and seeking responses, which at least passes the time, but on the off chance you're accurately reflecting your views I shouldn't imagine anyone would think having such an individual change views to support the other would in any way advance their position, you're welcome to stay as you are.

I have no issue with this but, like the media, you are framing this as being an entirely one sided thing. The day after Corbyn was elected he was being undermined and it hasn't stopped, where did they "work with others even when they didn't agree to try and build a compromise position"? His politics didn't fit theirs, they conspired to remove him from day one.

I think in basic terms if Jeremy wants to see the change he wants it's going to have to come in increments and mostly long after he's gone, he's simply not going to be able to effect widespread change of the sort he seeks within a decade never mind in the 2-3 years. And it started from the off as from the off he told a group who'd just lost badly in a general election by moving to the left that they needed to move way further to the left, his first meeting with the Labour MPs was an utter disaster of him (perhaps understandably) wanting to establish control or perhaps (less understandably) as he let his vitriol over where Kinnock, Smith, Blair and Brown had taken the party to take over and poured scorn on a group of people he'd spent the last 20 years trying to undermine.

I don't think Corbyn actually has a chance of effecting the change he wants as it's a country that typically in my lifetime returns a Conservative government, but if he can actually lead people the left may take the country their over time, but Corbyn has to be the start of that process, and in attempting more than the merest start has played out extremely badly. Having lacked any sense of the bigger picture and lacked the necessary patience I don't know how he recovers, and I'm rather annoyed he's wasting our time until he and his ilk are put back in their box, but we'll see

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

I'd contend it's not trolling to make clear in politics you'll need to work with others even where you don't agree with them to try and reach a compromise position, it seems self evidently the only common sense approach going if we're to approach this as grown ups. The notion that you should instead hold out for a time and place from which you can enact what you want seems the preserve of those on the loony left, or perhaps as we might see in the US lunatic Tea Party supporter - both seems groups possessed of ideological zeal and purity, that see compromise as a foible, unbending in the face of evidence, facts or reality and unswervingly parochial. And just to add I note the loony left as I wouldn't deny there's space for a sane left in politics.

In advance of this next I'd grant you may simply be trolling and seeking responses, which at least passes the time, but on the off chance you're accurately reflecting your views I shouldn't imagine anyone would think having such an individual change views to support the other would in any way advance their position, you're welcome to stay as you are.

I have no issue with this but, like the media, you are framing this as being an entirely one sided thing. The day after Corbyn was elected he was being undermined and it hasn't stopped, where did they "work with others even when they didn't agree to try and build a compromise position"? His politics didn't fit theirs, they conspired to remove him from day one.

I think in basic terms if Jeremy wants to see the change he wants it's going to have to come in increments and mostly long after he's gone, he's simply not going to be able to effect widespread change of the sort he seeks within a decade never mind in the 2-3 years. And it started from the off as from the off he told a group who'd just lost badly in a general election by moving to the left that they needed to move way further to the left, his first meeting with the Labour MPs was an utter disaster of him (perhaps understandably) wanting to establish control or perhaps (less understandably) as he let his vitriol over where Kinnock, Smith, Blair and Brown had taken the party to take over and poured scorn on a group of people he'd spent the last 20 years trying to undermine.

I don't think Corbyn actually has a chance of effecting the change he wants as it's a country that typically in my lifetime returns a Conservative government, but if he can actually lead people the left may take the country their over time, but Corbyn has to be the start of that process, and in attempting more than the merest start has played out extremely badly. Having lacked any sense of the bigger picture and lacked the necessary patience I don't know how he recovers, and I'm rather annoyed he's wasting our time until he and his ilk are put back in their box, but we'll see

What utter nonsense. They lost because they were neoliberals preaching austerity.

Austerity that you believe in.

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
I haven't argued we were better off in and just after the Great Depression, have I?

Look at the home ownership rates over the last 20-30 years, for all generations after the boomers specifically. The aging population of baby boomers obviously own a ton of property, not going so well the rest of us is it?

Older people in owning more property shocker.

Ok so here is a link to the facts.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... using.html

If being an owner occupier is a virtue then the peak is 2001. Trying to say that things are worse now by virtue of one cohort who aren't doing particularly well is odd and obviously statistically nonsense. I might as well pick the wealthy and say "See they're doing really well so it doesn't matter what's happening elsewhere".

Eug, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. I get Digby is basically a walking Friedman manifesto, but are you trying to suggest housing, probably the most imperative purchase in someone's life, isn't getting more unaffordable?

The average home was about 3 times the average wage. It is now 8 times. Those are in real terms.

Your brought home ownership rates into it which confuse the matter. Why? Because they say nothing about the level of debt services to own those homes. I showed you trends showing ownership rates in younger generations, which directly suggests affordability is getting worse and it is taking longer for people to get on that rung.

But people need a roof over their head, and they have the best part of 50 years of working solely to achieve that. So home ownership rates will be sticky.

But my original point was a single father could support a wife and 2 kids and own a decent sized home on unskilled wages.

Now you would need 2 university educated parents working full time to buy a small flat over a similar time period.

Home ownership statistic is the same, affordability and financial pressure are most certainly not.

This stuff is quite literally plastered everywhere on a daily basis.

Your contention that we're basically going to hell in a handcart has thus far been entirely based on the ratio between average earnings and house prices. That only matters if one is arguning that there should be more owner occupiers. Leaving aside whether or not that's a good thing it would be wrong to ignore that the rate of home ownership is way ahead of whatever golden period you are claiming is better than now.

That a "single father with a wife" could support a family was almost entirely down to the fact that woman were culturally oppressed. You may think it's best to go back to the time when people scorned the working woman but I don't. In circumstances that both men and women work it is inevitable that house prices are going to reflect that.

I'm assuming it's based on a poll, and those can of course be misleading through to downright wrong, but from a report on Today earlier there are 2.5 million people who voted Labour in the last election who now feel May is a better choice for PM than Corbyn. Also worth noting even if it's right May is new into the job and should lose some popularity as time goes by even without austerity cuts. But it makes sense people would think in such fashion, and it's hard if not impossible to see where Labour are going go get the votes to challenge

Digby wrote:I'm assuming it's based on a poll, and those can of course be misleading through to downright wrong, but from a report on Today earlier there are 2.5 million people who voted Labour in the last election who now feel May is a better choice for PM than Corbyn. Also worth noting even if it's right May is new into the job and should lose some popularity as time goes by even without austerity cuts. But it makes sense people would think in such fashion, and it's hard if not impossible to see where Labour are going go get the votes to challenge

YouGov. It would have to be one hell of a margin of error for it not to be an awful result for Corbyn.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm assuming it's based on a poll, and those can of course be misleading through to downright wrong, but from a report on Today earlier there are 2.5 million people who voted Labour in the last election who now feel May is a better choice for PM than Corbyn. Also worth noting even if it's right May is new into the job and should lose some popularity as time goes by even without austerity cuts. But it makes sense people would think in such fashion, and it's hard if not impossible to see where Labour are going go get the votes to challenge

YouGov. It would have to be one hell of a margin of error for it not to be an awful result for Corbyn.

We shouldn't discount it's a conspiracy to deny the masses the chance to blah, blah, blah...

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:

I'd contend it's not trolling to make clear in politics you'll need to work with others even where you don't agree with them to try and reach a compromise position, it seems self evidently the only common sense approach going if we're to approach this as grown ups. The notion that you should instead hold out for a time and place from which you can enact what you want seems the preserve of those on the loony left, or perhaps as we might see in the US lunatic Tea Party supporter - both seems groups possessed of ideological zeal and purity, that see compromise as a foible, unbending in the face of evidence, facts or reality and unswervingly parochial. And just to add I note the loony left as I wouldn't deny there's space for a sane left in politics.

In advance of this next I'd grant you may simply be trolling and seeking responses, which at least passes the time, but on the off chance you're accurately reflecting your views I shouldn't imagine anyone would think having such an individual change views to support the other would in any way advance their position, you're welcome to stay as you are.

I have no issue with this but, like the media, you are framing this as being an entirely one sided thing. The day after Corbyn was elected he was being undermined and it hasn't stopped, where did they "work with others even when they didn't agree to try and build a compromise position"? His politics didn't fit theirs, they conspired to remove him from day one.

I think in basic terms if Jeremy wants to see the change he wants it's going to have to come in increments and mostly long after he's gone, he's simply not going to be able to effect widespread change of the sort he seeks within a decade never mind in the 2-3 years. And it started from the off as from the off he told a group who'd just lost badly in a general election by moving to the left that they needed to move way further to the left, his first meeting with the Labour MPs was an utter disaster of him (perhaps understandably) wanting to establish control or perhaps (less understandably) as he let his vitriol over where Kinnock, Smith, Blair and Brown had taken the party to take over and poured scorn on a group of people he'd spent the last 20 years trying to undermine.

I don't think Corbyn actually has a chance of effecting the change he wants as it's a country that typically in my lifetime returns a Conservative government, but if he can actually lead people the left may take the country their over time, but Corbyn has to be the start of that process, and in attempting more than the merest start has played out extremely badly. Having lacked any sense of the bigger picture and lacked the necessary patience I don't know how he recovers, and I'm rather annoyed he's wasting our time until he and his ilk are put back in their box, but we'll see

They didn't lose because they moved to the left.

HTH.

Stooo wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
I have no issue with this but, like the media, you are framing this as being an entirely one sided thing. The day after Corbyn was elected he was being undermined and it hasn't stopped, where did they "work with others even when they didn't agree to try and build a compromise position"? His politics didn't fit theirs, they conspired to remove him from day one.

I think in basic terms if Jeremy wants to see the change he wants it's going to have to come in increments and mostly long after he's gone, he's simply not going to be able to effect widespread change of the sort he seeks within a decade never mind in the 2-3 years. And it started from the off as from the off he told a group who'd just lost badly in a general election by moving to the left that they needed to move way further to the left, his first meeting with the Labour MPs was an utter disaster of him (perhaps understandably) wanting to establish control or perhaps (less understandably) as he let his vitriol over where Kinnock, Smith, Blair and Brown had taken the party to take over and poured scorn on a group of people he'd spent the last 20 years trying to undermine.

I don't think Corbyn actually has a chance of effecting the change he wants as it's a country that typically in my lifetime returns a Conservative government, but if he can actually lead people the left may take the country their over time, but Corbyn has to be the start of that process, and in attempting more than the merest start has played out extremely badly. Having lacked any sense of the bigger picture and lacked the necessary patience I don't know how he recovers, and I'm rather annoyed he's wasting our time until he and his ilk are put back in their box, but we'll see

They didn't lose because they moved to the left.

HTH.

They did and they didn't. Ed Milliband stood up and pandered to he unions in his run for the leadership, much to the derision and disgust of his brother and many others, and then once elected pretended he hadn't done that and was a centrist candidate. So he moved to the left, and then didn't even have the courage to back his own position. Gutless.

Sadly the lesson Jeremy learned from that is a need to move still further to the left, which might be where he's comfortable but it isn't where the votes are. And given his history of attacking party leaders to now insist such actions be put aside makes him looking at best something of a deranged hypocrite, it'd be like Gove talking about loyalty

Ed Miliband wasn't elected because he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich and was a bit "special", it had very little to do with policy.

jared_7 wrote:Ed Miliband wasn't elected because he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich and was a bit "special", it had very little to do with policy.

I never actually saw Ed eating the sandwich, at least not that I recall, but whilst I know it was mocked a fair amount I don't recall it being a factor in my not voting for Ed.

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Ed Miliband wasn't elected because he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich and was a bit "special", it had very little to do with policy.

I never actually saw Ed eating the sandwich, at least not that I recall, but whilst I know it was mocked a fair amount I don't recall it being a factor in my not voting for Ed.

The reason Ed didn't win was:
a) Media onslaught (incl. anti-semitic jibes)
b) Tory election fraud (alleged)
c) He didn't refute successfully the Tory myths around austerity and the recession

jared_7 wrote:Ed Miliband wasn't elected because he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich and was a bit "special", it had very little to do with policy.

That's no doubt comforting to those who believe in his policy platform (such as it was) but obvious nonsense.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Ed Miliband wasn't elected because he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich and was a bit "special", it had very little to do with policy.

I never actually saw Ed eating the sandwich, at least not that I recall, but whilst I know it was mocked a fair amount I don't recall it being a factor in my not voting for Ed.

The reason Ed didn't win was:
a) Media onslaught (incl. anti-semitic jibes)
b) Tory election fraud (alleged)
c) He didn't refute successfully the Tory myths around austerity and the recession

Point A gets a lot of attention from the parties, but the newspapers are what they are and we're not suddenly going to see the Guardian sell ten times the number, and I think all parties react too much to the Mail and the Sun anyway. Point B, I doubt that was much of a factor. Point C, well that's where the problem was, and even supposing you've got great policies if not enough people believe you then you will tend to lose the vote. I've some sympathy for point C, not least as a bunch a morons just voted Brexit without any idea what they voted for, but our system is a first past the post one, and that's not going to change either.

" not least as a bunch a morons just voted Brexit without any idea what they voted for"


You've gotta love the right. They love their country but they hate most of the people in it.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Older people in owning more property shocker.

Ok so here is a link to the facts.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... using.html

If being an owner occupier is a virtue then the peak is 2001. Trying to say that things are worse now by virtue of one cohort who aren't doing particularly well is odd and obviously statistically nonsense. I might as well pick the wealthy and say "See they're doing really well so it doesn't matter what's happening elsewhere".

Eug, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. I get Digby is basically a walking Friedman manifesto, but are you trying to suggest housing, probably the most imperative purchase in someone's life, isn't getting more unaffordable?

The average home was about 3 times the average wage. It is now 8 times. Those are in real terms.

Your brought home ownership rates into it which confuse the matter. Why? Because they say nothing about the level of debt services to own those homes. I showed you trends showing ownership rates in younger generations, which directly suggests affordability is getting worse and it is taking longer for people to get on that rung.

But people need a roof over their head, and they have the best part of 50 years of working solely to achieve that. So home ownership rates will be sticky.

But my original point was a single father could support a wife and 2 kids and own a decent sized home on unskilled wages.

Now you would need 2 university educated parents working full time to buy a small flat over a similar time period.

Home ownership statistic is the same, affordability and financial pressure are most certainly not.

This stuff is quite literally plastered everywhere on a daily basis.

Your contention that we're basically going to hell in a handcart has thus far been entirely based on the ratio between average earnings and house prices. That only matters if one is arguning that there should be more owner occupiers. Leaving aside whether or not that's a good thing it would be wrong to ignore that the rate of home ownership is way ahead of whatever golden period you are claiming is better than now.

That a "single father with a wife" could support a family was almost entirely down to the fact that woman were culturally oppressed. You may think it's best to go back to the time when people scorned the working woman but I don't. In circumstances that both men and women work it is inevitable that house prices are going to reflect that.

Rental levels?

Diversion of national income to the financial sector?

Good luck in retirement if you don't own the roof over your head.

Some actual policies! Not from Corbyn obviously, but from Smith.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36896944

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Some actual policies! Not from Corbyn obviously, but from Smith.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36896944

Obviously. of course if you weren't biased you might check how many are based on Corbyn policies completely or in part. Only 7/20 are original ideas according to the mirror (not my usual source)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ow ... es-8502852

If only we had less unthinking drone behaviour like yours, we might have a far better democracy...

It's pathetic and depressing how consistently the Right's propaganda is propagated by the same posters on here without any critical examination whatsoever. I guess due to confirmation bias they automatically accept that in tune with their pre-programmed ideology.