Pie’s satirical rant against violent protest contains harsh home truths [EXPLICIT CONTENT]

This week’s Jonathan Pie video was darker in tone than the usual rants, and made a couple of important points in these bizarre times:

Firstly, you do not protest against fascism by acting like a fascist yourself. Violence against Donald Trump’s supporters only puts him on the moral high ground and he has far more media influence than anybody fighting him.

It just gives him and his cronies a wider platform from which to spread their lies. Sorry – alternative facts.

And there is a desperate need for real, factual reporting – not reporting what both sides of an argument say, in the name of balance; actually researching the facts of any particular matter and calling out the liars for what they are.

This Writer has been having a wonderful time in the comment columns of this blog recently, researching whether or not Trump’s Muslim ban (yes, this is relevant to the Jonathan Pie video) is actually Barack Obama’s Muslim Ban, because Trump supporters have been claiming he has merely continued an Obama policy.

Answer: No, it isn’t. The legislation mentioned by Trump’s apologists was introduced by a Republican. Obama signed it, yes, but it isn’t his Act. If he had not signed it, he would have laid himself open to attacks that he was betraying America to terrorists – in the same way Jeremy Corbyn’s critics would have said he was betraying democracy if he hadn’t whipped Labour to vote for the second reading of the Article 50 Bill.

In any case, Trump could have varied the names of the countries it affects, to more accurately reflect the list of nations from which terrorists have travelled to the United States but he didn’t. That means criticisms that he did not include countries where he has carried out business deals cannot be dismissed.

Facts. They trump (ha ha) opinions every time.

Here’s the clip:

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


7 thoughts on “Pie’s satirical rant against violent protest contains harsh home truths [EXPLICIT CONTENT]

  1. Iain

    Hi Mike, usually I am completely in agreement with you.
    Trump is probably
    bad news but there’s no need to go along with the rest of the media in overdoing the “monstering” of him. That’s what they are doing to Jeremy Corbyn. It just damages your credibility!
    Just report the facts – don’t act as an apologist for “St Obama”.
    Obama had a choice not to sign! Just as he had a choice not to personally authorise drone strikes with no regard for civilian deaths.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Did he?
      Look at the reasons I suggested he signed. We’ve seen similar behaviour over here very recently.
      I think your argument lacks evidence.

      1. Podge

        Obama and the Dems. could also have put amendments forward to more accurately reflect those countries supporting terrorists also. And if all he was afraid of was getting laid open to name calling/character assassination, you only offer evidence of his lack of conviction and principal. Such a bill should never have/nor should be signed, full stop.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        You think the United States should have done nothing to prevent potential terrorists from entering that country? Surely something is better than nothing? And I’m sorry but I don’t have access to a record of the deliberations in the House of Representatives so I cannot tell you whether the Act in question had amendments or not, nor can I tell you what happened with any such amendments. Why are you so sure none were put forward?

  2. Barry Davies

    I still don’t understand why people were marching against Trump in the UK, What was the aims and objectives of the march, wouldn’t it be better to march against, something in this nation happening such as the privatisation of the NHS or the attack on democracy by opposing the result of a legal referendum?

Comments are closed.