You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC bias against Trump
November 23 2024 12.05pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 19 of 24 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

  

Stirlingsays Flag 11 Aug 16 12.26am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

And of course Trump is much more fun. Has to be worth some votes this straight-talking. Boris was a little like that in the past. Perhaps some of ours should try telling the truth, or how they honestly feel about issues sometimes. Still probably mainly point-scoring rhetoric than anything with substance but nevertheless entertaining.
BBC could be doing him a favour with more publicity - but unlikely to affect overall outcome one would imagine.

The BBC are just annoying when they so so obviously take sides politically.

Trump says what he thinks....of course he won't be able to most of what he says but at least he lays out what he thinks and be damned who likes it.

I prefer that to the Clintons....more sensible in their pronouncements and policies but also corrupt as hell.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Y Ddraig Goch Flag In The Crowd 11 Aug 16 8.01am Send a Private Message to Y Ddraig Goch Add Y Ddraig Goch as a friend

The man is getting more ridiculous by the day. We think our politics are on a bad way. 320 million people and they get it down to those two


 


the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 11 Aug 16 9.53am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I would agree though that the UK isn't republican by majority nature.

However Trump is quite left wing on quite a few republican areas....of course you wouldn't know that if you followed much of the coverage on him.

I'm drawn to Trump partly because of the lack of fairness and objectivity in how the media treat him.....of course I'm repelled by some of the stupidity of some of his comments but I'm also attracted to the straight talking....even if some of it is plainly BS.

Clinton is the establishment and more of the same.....I can't be bothered with that...especially as she is corrupt as hell.....Her daughter's wedding cost three million dollars....Oh how profitable public service is.

The Left Wing horse was beaten in the Democratic race (Saunders). Even his own party, in an presidential election year, have turned on him to sabotage his chances. It seems that a lot of republicans would rather Clinton won, than their own nominee.

I don't see much difference between the coverage of Trump and Corbyn.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 11 Aug 16 9.59am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The BBC are just annoying when they so so obviously take sides politically.

Trump says what he thinks....of course he won't be able to most of what he says but at least he lays out what he thinks and be damned who likes it.

I prefer that to the Clintons....more sensible in their pronouncements and policies but also corrupt as hell.

Do you really think that, because he's certainly spent a lot of time crafting himself to fit a particular demographic of the republican party and their views, that he has previously even opposed. It was the only way he could compete in the primaries.

Like Clinton, he's playing to a crowd and a market. He's no more a man of the people than the other elite.

Personally, I think the US is getting a s**ty choice either way. Although I think Trump would be much more entertaining, but cringing.

Its like the whole '2nd amendment advocates defence' of his statements about Clinton. Anyone who believes that was about 'getting them to vote' is blinded by their need to win. 2nd Amendment advocates aren't going to be voting Democrat in any significant numbers.

That was entirely about playing to the gun lobby, militias etc.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Ray in Houston Flag Houston 11 Aug 16 4.15pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Again...the sensible people who support the UK's independent nuclear defense see why its important....because none of us know what scenarios are possible.....France also realise this....But Europe in general....bunch of defence free loaders.

It's worth noting that the collective defense provisions of the NATO accord have been invoked only once in the entire history of the treaty.

That would be everyone else in NATO rising to the defense of the United States after 9/11.

Bunch of freeloaders...

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 11 Aug 16 4.49pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Conversely, I think the US media (probably the world media) would love it if someone like Boris stood for PM here. However, obviously someone has enough dirt on him to keep him quiet.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 11 Aug 16 8.54pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

It's worth noting that the collective defense provisions of the NATO accord have been invoked only once in the entire history of the treaty.

That would be everyone else in NATO rising to the defense of the United States after 9/11.

Bunch of freeloaders...


9/11 was 'rising to the defense of the US' was it?

Funny that, I seem to remember 55 Britons dying in those towers and 67 overall plus obviously also the nationals of many western countries.

The response to 9/11 was through Nato...an attack on one was an attack on all. You putting honouring treaty commitments as some kind of notable event is ridiculous....yeah well done.

The US pay 22 percent of direct funding for Nato, one third more than the next highest....This is fair as it is tracked to economics....However the US pay for around 75 percent of indirect funding for Nato.....intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.

The fact that most of Europe are defence free riders on defence isn't only a fact mentioned by Trump but its also been said by Obama.

So yeah, freeloaders.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 11 Aug 16 9.02pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


9/11 was 'rising to the defense of the US' was it?

Funny that, I seem to remember 55 Britons dying in those towers and 67 overall plus obviously also the nationals of many western countries.

The response to 9/11 was through Nato...an attack on one was an attack on all. You putting honouring treaty commitments as some kind of notable event is ridiculous....yeah well done.

The US pay 22 percent of direct funding for Nato, one third more than the next highest....This is fair as it is tracked to economics....However the US pay for around 75 percent of indirect funding for Nato.....intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.

The fact that most of Europe are defence free riders on defence isn't only a fact mentioned by Trump but its also been said by Obama.

So yeah, freeloaders.

There was a Russian Plane (Bear) flying over Ireland testing our air-defences. By God we sent them a telegram - they will think twice next time.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Ray in Houston Flag Houston 11 Aug 16 9.23pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

9/11 was 'rising to the defense of the US' was it?

Funny that, I seem to remember 55 Britons dying in those towers and 67 overall plus obviously also the nationals of many western countries.

The response to 9/11 was through Nato...an attack on one was an attack on all. You putting honouring treaty commitments as some kind of notable event is ridiculous....yeah well done.

The US pay 22 percent of direct funding for Nato, one third more than the next highest....This is fair as it is tracked to economics....However the US pay for around 75 percent of indirect funding for Nato.....intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.

The fact that most of Europe are defence free riders on defence isn't only a fact mentioned by Trump but its also been said by Obama.

So yeah, freeloaders.


I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. My post was simply a factual statement: yes, the common defense clause in NATO was invoked for 9/11, and it's the only time in history that this has been done. You can look it up.

As to the rest of of your rant, you are completely ignoring the value to member states - and the U.S. in particular - in having a stable Europe. That wasn't the case until NATO came along; before that it was a squabbling continent, with countries constantly popping off at each other, that occasionally dragged the rest of the world into its fights. When that happened, the cost in blood and money was catastrophic.

NATO - and the U.S. commitment to it - is the only thing keeping Putin from rolling his tanks back through Eastern Europe. This is why Trump's rhetoric around reneging on NATO commitments is so dangerous. If he gives Putin the idea that President Trump would sit back and let it happen, it will happen if Trump is President.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 11 Aug 16 9.24pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

There was a Russian Plane (Bear) flying over Ireland testing our air-defences. By God we sent them a telegram - they will think twice next time.

Don't you mean Eire?

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 11 Aug 16 9.39pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. My post was simply a factual statement: yes, the common defense clause in NATO was invoked for 9/11, and it's the only time in history that this has been done. You can look it up.

As to the rest of of your rant, you are completely ignoring the value to member states - and the U.S. in particular - in having a stable Europe. That wasn't the case until NATO came along; before that it was a squabbling continent, with countries constantly popping off at each other, that occasionally dragged the rest of the world into its fights. When that happened, the cost in blood and money was catastrophic.

NATO - and the U.S. commitment to it - is the only thing keeping Putin from rolling his tanks back through Eastern Europe. This is why Trump's rhetoric around reneging on NATO commitments is so dangerous. If he gives Putin the idea that President Trump would sit back and let it happen, it will happen if Trump is President.

I've studied 9/11 for years....its amusing to listen to you telling me to look up facts related to it.

Your post had nothing to do with the fact that much of Europe freeloads upon the cost of national defence. You equated Nato's response to 9/11 with Europe's defence spending......amazing.

Making justifications for America picking up the slack is ridiculous....of course it isn't in America's interest for enemies to invade Europe....that doesn't mean it's for America to pay for other countries defence.....this is absurd .

Also your simplistic view of how Putin would react to a Trump presidency is also ridiculous.....Even if Putin somehow thought that occupying Europe was somehow a good thing for Russia how the feck is he going to pay for this world war? Do you even know anything about their economy?

I'm actually communicating with someone who believes in simplistic fantasies.....You share more things in common with Trump than you realize.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 11 Aug 16 9.41pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Don't you mean Eire?

I only have an coupla focal of Irish but it was in the air. I always call it Ireland and it's team Ireland in the Olympics and Republic of Ireland in the football and Ireland in the rugby - which is slightly different as it's all-Ireland. You may be right with the official designation but there is always an argument here over these type of things. Usually opens a whole can of worms.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 19 of 24 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC bias against Trump