Please note that not one second of this "interview" was even about what he said. The "journalist" claimed that he was "debunked" without saying what was even "debunked"!
Apparently, he cited something about an Israeli doctor about potential side-effects of the vaccine, and they called him an anti-Semite and someone who was debunked.
They cannot discuss any subject matter. All they have is: you are a heretic.
You seem to be sacrificing your political career to do this
I'd respect anyone who sacrificed his political career for any cause, no matter what it was, even if I disagreed with it. Because apparently, he believes in something so much that he'll act against his own personal interests. This "journalist", on the other hand, offers it as a point of criticism. Nice political career you have there, shame if a journalist got his hands on it.
You can see how desperately they don't want this discussed in a public setting let alone an official setting like the House of Commons.
Either this MP is aware of the issues and is trying to help stop more suffering of his constituents or he's aware of the growing public concern and is positioning himself ahead of the curve. Either way can't fault him as you can see a growing divide where those that swear by the vaccine a shrinking minority and the ones with concerns growing and growing.
I like this interview. In days of psychos and grifters, it is reliving to see a member of the political class bite his tong about this issue. I could swear this MP was thinking "fuck you paid shill" all the time during this interview but he managed to collect himself and to answer him in a more "diplomatic" way.
Does it make sense to try to do it or should we go directly underground, that is more my kind of question. Television will not survive this stage of history
The end of the clip says it all. 'This could be the end of your political career!'
Polticians shouldn't have careers. A politician with a career is a politician who is in someone's pocket.
His response, that is political career doesn't matter, is precisely what is needed. We need politicians who aren't shills for their donors, it's that fucking simple.
Frankly, as far as the UK goes, I’m not sure they even care about giving their electoral system an air of legitimacy anymore…
Which means things are basically back to how they were more than 200 years ago, when the public (literally anyone but the landed gentry - today’s “elites”) effectively had no say in ANY of the political machinery of state. Which is hilarious…
I hate to say this, but if he gets too close to the bone, I actually wouldn’t be surprised if “something bad” happens to him…
I sincerely hope not, but he is far, far too inconvenient for them to allow him to stay in that position. Like Rob Roos. Like George Christensen and Craig Kelly. Like Clive Palmer.
At the very least, I almost guarantee you he won’t be “allowed” to be re-elected, whatever his actual constituents might want…
Also worth noting that a Derbyshire councillor defending Bridgen has also been suspended.
We now have speech codes in the UK where the party will decide what is truth via fact checkers, experts and the elites. The press, broadcast and Internet mediums will only transmit and publish what is permitted. You as a citizen are only allowed to hold the thoughts and air the opinions, views and speech of what is approved by the party. Deviation and dissent will not be tolerated and will be dealt with by firm and decisive action. Dissenters are to be branded "debunked" as a first act toward their cancellation and ostracisation. Freedom of inquiry, scrutiny and speech which are not permitted by the party are banned without exception. The rationale given is to guarantee safety to social unity, cohesion and progression.
You may have also noticed why Labour and its leadership don't tend to be any opposition now, to the point where their presumed forthcoming election victory will be nothing more than a changing of the guard. The only thing that will change is the colour of the rosette pinned to the suit.
Establishment bingo: fact-checked, debunked, experts.
Please note that not one second of this "interview" was even about what he said. The "journalist" claimed that he was "debunked" without saying what was even "debunked"!
Apparently, he cited something about an Israeli doctor about potential side-effects of the vaccine, and they called him an anti-Semite and someone who was debunked.
They cannot discuss any subject matter. All they have is: you are a heretic.
I'd respect anyone who sacrificed his political career for any cause, no matter what it was, even if I disagreed with it. Because apparently, he believes in something so much that he'll act against his own personal interests. This "journalist", on the other hand, offers it as a point of criticism. Nice political career you have there, shame if a journalist got his hands on it.
You can see how desperately they don't want this discussed in a public setting let alone an official setting like the House of Commons.
Either this MP is aware of the issues and is trying to help stop more suffering of his constituents or he's aware of the growing public concern and is positioning himself ahead of the curve. Either way can't fault him as you can see a growing divide where those that swear by the vaccine a shrinking minority and the ones with concerns growing and growing.
I like this interview. In days of psychos and grifters, it is reliving to see a member of the political class bite his tong about this issue. I could swear this MP was thinking "fuck you paid shill" all the time during this interview but he managed to collect himself and to answer him in a more "diplomatic" way.
Does it make sense to try to do it or should we go directly underground, that is more my kind of question. Television will not survive this stage of history
The end of the clip says it all. 'This could be the end of your political career!'
Polticians shouldn't have careers. A politician with a career is a politician who is in someone's pocket.
His response, that is political career doesn't matter, is precisely what is needed. We need politicians who aren't shills for their donors, it's that fucking simple.
Correct! They used to say "years in public service" as they wanted to keep the illusion going. Now they don't care.
I remember when the question of "what are Obama's qualifications besides being black" was always answered with "years as a community organizer."
Which is the most obvious "political career only with no actual value" answer around.
Frankly, as far as the UK goes, I’m not sure they even care about giving their electoral system an air of legitimacy anymore…
Which means things are basically back to how they were more than 200 years ago, when the public (literally anyone but the landed gentry - today’s “elites”) effectively had no say in ANY of the political machinery of state. Which is hilarious…
oh my god what a know nothing, subversive, globohomo fellating, condescending cunt
FACT CHECKED
DEBUNKED
TALK TO THE EXPERTS™ TO SEE WHERE YOU'VE GONE WRONG
NO NOT YOUR EXPERTS
THE EXPERTS™™™
Eugh, the replies…
I hate to say this, but if he gets too close to the bone, I actually wouldn’t be surprised if “something bad” happens to him…
I sincerely hope not, but he is far, far too inconvenient for them to allow him to stay in that position. Like Rob Roos. Like George Christensen and Craig Kelly. Like Clive Palmer.
At the very least, I almost guarantee you he won’t be “allowed” to be re-elected, whatever his actual constituents might want…
Also worth noting that a Derbyshire councillor defending Bridgen has also been suspended.
We now have speech codes in the UK where the party will decide what is truth via fact checkers, experts and the elites. The press, broadcast and Internet mediums will only transmit and publish what is permitted. You as a citizen are only allowed to hold the thoughts and air the opinions, views and speech of what is approved by the party. Deviation and dissent will not be tolerated and will be dealt with by firm and decisive action. Dissenters are to be branded "debunked" as a first act toward their cancellation and ostracisation. Freedom of inquiry, scrutiny and speech which are not permitted by the party are banned without exception. The rationale given is to guarantee safety to social unity, cohesion and progression.
You may have also noticed why Labour and its leadership don't tend to be any opposition now, to the point where their presumed forthcoming election victory will be nothing more than a changing of the guard. The only thing that will change is the colour of the rosette pinned to the suit.
The interviewer looks like the "QUI????" guy.