- Reaction score
- 5,660
He was on a parr with Hitler for the sheer destruction he could have caused had he stayed in power.
Discuss USA politics, recent events. in the Electricians Chat - Off Topic Chat area at ElectriciansForums.net
C'mon hippy ; I've told you a million times not to exaggerate ?He was on a parr with Hitler for the sheer destruction he could have caused had he stayed in power.
He was on a parr with Hitler for the sheer destruction he could have caused had he stayed in power.
Yes there are, except Trump supporters of course who think the election was rigged lolOf course they, did more than any president in history.....
Are there really people that believe that 80 million people voted for Biden?
Nowt as Queer as folk as me gran used to say, she's been dead thirty years so probably voted for him herself.
Hmmm didn't get any alerts after my last post; my conspiracy theory is Darkwood is trying the thwart me from replying ?I'm posting for myself and not as a representative of any 'guys'. I'm not looking for evidence to support any claims, but pointing out that much news is selectively reported.
The Biden video shows what I suggested it did: that Joe Biden sat on a stage and recounted how he'd pressured Ukraine into firing the prosecutor that was investigating his son This is 100% factually correct, regardless of whether you believe it was coincidental or by design.
I'm not sure how to reconcile you statement that "resulted in stirring hysteria and the resultant violent mob.", when in the same paragraph you admit to 'not really' having listened to his speech. Those conflicting statements could be construed as meaning you accepted news reports (that you now know to have carefully selected what they were reporting) at face value.
On a different note; Trump's twitter ban didn't actually result from him having gone too far, but was actually implemented after a surprisingly innocuous tweet. I'm not claiming that Trump didn't tweet a lot of contentious comments, but making the point that those weren't actually the reason for his ban.
The thing is this, with Trump I've seen with my own eyes the things he does and says. I don't have to rely on internet searches, it's all there to see, I've watched it over the years.
As far as I'm concerned his presidential campaign should have ended the day he mocked a disabled journalist during the 2016 primaries. Can anyone honestly claim that this would not have ended any British politicians career? let alone a bid to lead the party.
He does use spray tan though; that’s not normal, unless your from Essex. ?Not this again.....
No he didn't, he used the same gesture as he always did to demonstrate incompetence, there are other example available.
But, this is Trump all over he wouldn't be groomed for office, he wouldn't be guided and left himself open to this kind of attack.
While we're at it he never said he can grab women by their -------. He didn't put babies in cages, he didn't collude with the Russians, boo hiss, in fact you'd be very hard pressed to find any truth accusations from the left.
This is the problem with taking your lead from those who's panties come factory knotted is, they are always looking for something to be outraged by, someone to offend them. They build a good argument but its like a mural on a derelict shop window, they don't take much scratching to see through.
Trump didn't have the sense to see the danger in this kind of attack, or thought by drawing them he would spotlight what a bunch of sixth form student activists the modern left is.
I find it incredible that you can put out a post like this and then at the end call me a sixth form student with my knickers in a twist. Anyone reading this can see who's 'panties come factory knotted'.Not this again.....
No he didn't, he used the same gesture as he always did to demonstrate incompetence, there are other example available.
But, this is Trump all over he wouldn't be groomed for office, he wouldn't be guided and left himself open to this kind of attack.
While we're at it he never said he can grab women by their -------. He didn't put babies in cages, he didn't collude with the Russians, boo hiss, in fact you'd be very hard pressed to find any truth accusations from the left.
This is the problem with taking your lead from those who's panties come factory knotted is, they are always looking for something to be outraged by, someone to offend them. They build a good argument but its like a mural on a derelict shop window, they don't take much scratching to see through.
Trump didn't have the sense to see the danger in this kind of attack, or thought by drawing them he would spotlight what a bunch of sixth form student activists the modern left is.
What is occurring with Gamestop is sending shockwaves through the whole market, just look at global stock markets over the last 2 weeks as this story developed, also those who bet on the shortfall are often using finance tied to bigger companies who are all in on this insider trading, ultimately the panic here for many is not the loss of personal wealth but the fact this could be the catalyst for a financial crash that makes the one in 2007 look like small change, it has exposed illegal activities and now there is an attempt to use illegal activity to stop it running away and effecting everyone.How does this affect pensions DW? Surley this is about shorting, if any pension funds held shares in Gamestop, which I doubt, then they were due to lose anyway if the shorters (is that a word?) were correct in their gamble in the first place. Don't forget the shorters borrowed shares hoping the value would drop, so not good for pension funds.
The Biden conspiracy theory has been widely debunked. He wanted the prosecutor fired, but not for the reasons you think. I can't find any reference, that supports the theory, apart from that Republican report, which doesn't seem to be worth paper its written on
IMO, after reading looking at all the reports videos, Trumps behaviour before his speech & during fed the crowd, which resulted in the invasion of the Capitol building. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
But on your last point, at least we agree on something.
I didn't post any conspiracy therory, but pointed out Biden's crassness in relating the story and the convenient coincidence that this prosecutor's firing also impacted on an investigation into his son. At the very least he should have stepped aside from this issue, due to conflict of interests, and let someone else deal with it as would be the generally accepted path. You wouldn't defend Trump in such circumstances, so why would you not expect Biden to be held to the same standards?
The Trump speech does, and will continue to, divide opinion. I'm not asking that you change your opinion, but highlighted the fact that you had been unaware of the words he had spoken, due to selective reporting. We are all perfectly entitled to our own opinions, but should be able to form those opinions on the basis of having considered all the facts in any situation and not some of the facts as selected by those who might like us to share their views. It would be outrageous for a new outlet to edit most of those words and focus exclusively on the 'peacefully and patriotically' part, so I don't consider it to be any less outrageous when news outlets do the opposite.
Chances are we agree on quite a lot - all I'm trying to do is point out the ease with which media bias can skew our perspective.
If you have a read through the link I posted, you'll see his involvement was correct, as per his position as VP;
When Biden had his now-famous showdown with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in 2015, he was delivering a message not only from the United States, but from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. All three entities were focused on curtailing corruption in Ukraine, and all three were deeply suspicious that Poroshenko’s prosecutor was playing a familiar game of tamping down investigations as a form of political favoritism.
By all credible accounts, the prosecutor had slow-walked the investigation of the energy company that hired Biden’s son; so, if anything, the prosecutor was doing the Bidens a favor. Getting rid of him would do the opposite.
By contrast, Trump sought a public announcement from Ukraine that it was investigating the Bidens. Trump was pressing for something that fell outside the recommendations of federal agencies.
PolitiFact | Ask PolitiFact: Does a video show Joe Biden confessing to bribery? No
There are many other web sites with similar interpretation of this event. Interpretation I say, because us mere mortals would find it difficult to understand such a complex event. For my part, I don't consider Biden having any wrong doing here.
Yes yes, that’s what the Republicans report tried to show. But that didn’t have much evidence to back the accusations up.This demonstrates the game of ping pong of opinions that are surrounding this case but let's look at this above the perspective of bias..
Burismo was already under multiple investigations at the time including from the UK before Hunter joined the Board, the USA were also following the progress of these investigations too, when Hunter joined the Board it put a conflict of interest for the US government into the mix and Joe Biden was 100% aware, even if we remove and ignore what Joe Biden is did and boasted about it is still an intolerable situation for the Vice President to be linked directly to Burismo through his son, especially when evidence produced in trial shows Hunter receiving 66,000 per month if I recall the exact figures and Joe Biden receiving large sums.
This is not just about Sons involvement on the board of a corrupt firm here but more so bribery and corruption throughout, if you were to read up on the case itself you will realise that you can omit the actions of Joe Biden in getting the prosecutor fired and we still see Hunter and Joe biden tied into bribery and corruption of a foreign nation.
Recent affidavit from the case has acknowledged both Hunter and Joe Biden were receiving money which can be shown in financial transaction data.
What we are seeing here from the left is damage control, what is't been put into question at all is whether Joe Biden was taking bribes, what is in question is the amount, that is where the trial is at now, not the validity of the allegations but the actually amount in question.
If you have a read through the link I posted, you'll see his involvement was correct, as per his position as VP;
When Biden had his now-famous showdown with Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in 2015, he was delivering a message not only from the United States, but from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. All three entities were focused on curtailing corruption in Ukraine, and all three were deeply suspicious that Poroshenko’s prosecutor was playing a familiar game of tamping down investigations as a form of political favoritism.
By all credible accounts, the prosecutor had slow-walked the investigation of the energy company that hired Biden’s son; so, if anything, the prosecutor was doing the Bidens a favor. Getting rid of him would do the opposite.
By contrast, Trump sought a public announcement from Ukraine that it was investigating the Bidens. Trump was pressing for something that fell outside the recommendations of federal agencies.
PolitiFact | Ask PolitiFact: Does a video show Joe Biden confessing to bribery? No
There are many other web sites with similar interpretation of this event. Interpretation I say, because us mere mortals would find it difficult to understand such a complex event. For my part, I don't consider Biden having any wrong doing here.
Crass behaviour by Trump is bad.
Crass behaviour by Biden should be defended.
There's none more open minded than me here GB, I told you what I saw and you've just posted a video from some right wing christian nutters explaining why what I saw was not what I saw. The video is for people who want to believe and need something to help them overcome their cognitive dissonance. And it obviously works.The disabled mocking fully explained.
12minutes long.
Please try to be open minded as you'll see his action was habitual and, though optically awful, was not directed against the reporter, was not indicative of his disability and Trump didn't even know who the guy was.
As for the misogyny and racism these are banded about far to liberally and the issues much too complex to discuss in any reasonable time frame here but all I'll say is that women and people of colour that Trump agreed with and showed competence did very well in his organisations and Government. Those he didn't agree with or he thought incompetent did not, its only these people calling him racist and misogynistic, whodathunkit?
Finally I didn't call you personally anything and never will you chose to align yourself with a group I ridiculed, deservedly for being oversensitive attention ------.
I am not the only one who thinks this way, maybe the modern left has an optics problem, you know, their appearance doesn't reflect their intention, rather reminiscent of a great former president.?
There's none more open minded than me here GB,......
......you've just posted a video from some right wing christian nutters...
......no need to pick on people with different views who are not even on this forum.
Perhaps if he was advised a bit more, he would of active differently in that particular video. Or would he?See what you did there? Its a trap all to easy to fall into when online debating.
The facts of an argument are not affected by those presenting them other than for those looking to not hear the facts.
The video clearly explains Trumps gestures, his history of using the same gestures. It also explains why its highly unlikely he knew the reporter was disabled and his actions didn't even mimic the reporter's disability.
Typical left wing hysteria that they continue reporting as fact long after its been proven false.
Look at also,
Jussie Smollet.
The Covington kid.
Bubba Wallace.
Fentanyl Floyd.
I doubt he'd have listened.Perhaps if he was advised a bit more, he would of active differently in that particular video. Or would he?
Oi you, I had to Google hubris, and on learning the definition I think you're wrong.I doubt he'd have listened.
He is obviously a highly intelligent person but with that comes ego and hubris.
Technically, I didn't say it was a flaw the dictionary definition did. ?Oi you, I had to Google hubris, and on learning the definition I think you're wrong.
Hubris is the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that he or she may do no wrong. The overwhelming pride caused by hubris is often considered a flaw in character.
I don’t see it as a flaw.
P. S. I don, t or won't be getting involved in politics myself. I took that decision some time ago. My purpose in commenting on this thread (this will be my final comment on the matter) is because it has in my view crossed a line. It promotes idea, s which are simply not to anyone's advantage. Idea, s that are divisive. It would be a terribly pity if these type of thread was to become acceptable. This forum I have come to value. Its worth fighting for. Have a good day everyone?
?. Name change was a reflection on my historical dislike of IT, social media etc and my battle to avoid its influence on my life. You can guess who won?Unreleated to this thread, but I'd been wondering where you'd disappeard to and searched several times for posts under your previous user name.
We might disagree on the subject of this thread, but I'm pleased to have realised the name change and that you're still here ?
I’m intrigued..,.who were ya???. Name change was a reflection on my historical dislike of IT, social media etc and my battle to avoid its influence on my life. You can guess who won?
I learnt about the Hubris Theory some time ago with some of my bosses. I think Trump excels in this area. In fact he could teach a few leaders, a point or too. Makes Putin look like a -----. (Midwest ?)
Dr David Owen first raised (I believe) the concept 'A common thread tying these elements together is hubris, or exaggerated pride, overwhelming self-confidence and contempt for others (Owen, 2006)'.Oi you, I had to Google hubris, and on learning the definition I think you're wrong.
Hubris is the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that he or she may do no wrong. The overwhelming pride caused by hubris is often considered a flaw in character.
I don’t see it as a flaw.
Reply to USA politics, recent events. in the Electricians Chat - Off Topic Chat area at ElectriciansForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.