The EU debate - Part III

the point I was making that you are deflecting from is that when people pointed out that clinton had been accused of criminal offences people defended her by saying that she hadn't been found guilty and so should be presumed innocent but that seems to be ignored when it comes to somebody working for trump.
double standards

 

And, before I check it - because I will, who is the responsibile for this video?..

Or, shouldn't I even bother to guess?...

 

Police report: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-c3f8-dd14-abfe-fbfbbe310001
Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/

Am I saying that nobody who's worked for a big business should be in government? No.
Trump's promise to "Drain The Swamp" looks rather hollow with his latest round of appointments though, doesn't it?
He's giving jobs to the exact kind of people that he's moaning about, barring any blacks or Mexicans, of course.

 

Reports that Trump didn't realise what a big job the Presidency is. Epic

 

Don't bother. I've already checked in this Steve Crowder. An alleged comedian, who just happens to work for Fox News too!....

His slant is obvious. And he's a nobody, with a biased, bigoted agenda.

Absolutely worthless! ..

 

Just someone on YouTube.

 

I don't know about any of his other work, I don't follow him.

 

Then why bother to use that rubbish as a justification?...

 

All that is wrong with the US is detailed in that video. Some of them may have committed crime and others acted unwisely but none had been convicted of a capital offence and the state was not entitled to execute them. The fact that the majority of the police involved have not been convicted of some level of homicide is all you need to know.

 

I think you are confusing individuals and the establishment - not everybody who has worked in big business is incapable of preferring to change things
you should understand a person rather than giving them glib labels
clinton has been accused of criminal offences and not been found guilty
bannon has been accused of criminal offences and not been found guilty
the left wingers say clinton should be treated as innocent until found guilty
the left wingers say bannon has committed criminal offences without him being found guilty
that is hypocrisy
can anybody justify this hypocrisy?

 

How have I deflected? I asked you which points you were objecting to.

Being a white supremacist isn't illegal, nor is working for Goldman Sachs or being a complete dick.
He's not being accused of criminality in any of those cases, so the comparison's irrelevant.
As for the wife beating, he appears to have rolled over in the divorce to escape charges, as his missus had him over a barrel.
He threatened her to get her to avoid testifying against him, according to their divorce filings.

 

So you've posted a link to unsubstantiated nonsense? Great work

 

"The left wingers"?

You're off your tree you daft old ****

 

A load of right wing racists, defending a right wing racist

Who'd have thought it

 

Oh right, you're going to disregard it because you think it's right wing... This isn't how things work, you know that right?

 

No. it says that on his wiki profile, Conservative commentator and contributor to Fox News.

QED

 

But not all of them are innocent and unarmed as it is continuously claimed, and then those claims are used as justification to destroy cities and murder innocent police officers.

 

I think that you're ignoring Trump's actions and words, because you want to. Again.
These are the people that he promised to remove.

People understand Bannon well. That's why he's given those labels. He's a hateful ****house.

Clinton wasn't charged. There was no evidence to support any charges.
Bannon intimidated the witness into leaving the jurisdiction, according to his own divorce filings.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/2...ign.html?_r=1&referer=https://www.google.com/
Note that his own lawyer won't even deny that he did it.

 

Have you watched it? Or are you too scared?

 

If people were shouting 'Lock him up' at Bannon then I would agree with the double standards. It seems to be too subtle for you but there is a difference between accusing people of criminal activity and having doubts about their character. So the Clinton emails certainly raise issues about character but there was no proven criminal activity. The issues raised about Bannon go to his character. They were sufficiently serious that he was actually charged with the offence which is beyond what Clinton was.