The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
PleaseNotPoll said:
Wife beater? Read the police report.
White supremacist? Read Breitbart.
Worked for Goldman Sachs? Factual and relevant, due to Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric.
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
The Zlatan said:
Watch this video, it goes over most high profile cases. The two most high profile I can ever think of off the tope of my head are Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, if you don't want to watch it all then those two bits are at 2:57 and 10:30.

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

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

Or, shouldn't I even bother to guess?...
 
petersaxton said:
have you got any links to the first two?
are you saying that anybody who's worked for a big business shouldn't be in government?
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Zlatan said:
Watch this video, it goes over most high profile cases. The two most high profile I can ever think of off the tope of my head are Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, if you don't want to watch it all then those two bits are at 2:57 and 10:30.

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

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! ..
 
The Zlatan said:
Watch this video, it goes over most high profile cases. The two most high profile I can ever think of off the tope of my head are Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, if you don't want to watch it all then those two bits are at 2:57 and 10:30.

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...
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.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
petersaxton said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
petersaxton said:
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?
Click to expand...
"The left wingers"?

You're off your tree you daft old **** <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
PowerSpurs said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
petersaxton said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
petersaxton said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back