This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Bias against Trump
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Badger11  Beckenham 27 May 19 7.06am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Meanwhile, CNN ratings are at a record low now that they cannot peddle the Russian collusion hoax anymore and have no decent reporting elsewhere. Take out all the hotel lobby views and ratings would be even less. [Link] Edited by Penge Eagle (27 May 2019 1.16am) I don't watch CNN but last week I was in Russia and caught a show, it was a panel of journalists. I don't like Trump and I haven't read the Mueller report yet the anti Trump bias of the show was obvious. Blonde Female reporter: Trump guilty of obstruction of justice. Pro Trump Reporter: Mueller did not say that. Female: Lists various Trump people who she claims are guilty of obstruction of justice "they all work for Trump he must have known, ordered them..." Pro Trump: If they're guilty why didn't Mueller prosecute these people he's already done that with other Trump people? Female: "I'm getting soo tired of this.." rolls eyes pulls face (I kid you not). Me: Yes but you haven't answered his question. If its so bloody obvious that these Trump flunkies are guilty why have they not been prosecuted like Trump's lawyer and others. Summary: Terrible program I learned nothing and the bias was obvious. I was hoping for some nuance such as what is obstruction of justice? If you are investigated by the police you are entitled to remain silent that is not obstruction. At what point does a refusal to help an enquiry become obstruction of justice? Well we never got into that no wonder CNN is losing viewers the female reporter showed no balance or even attempted to justify her views she just bleated "4 legs good..." I think even Question Time would have a better balance that that show.
One more point |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 27 May 19 3.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I don't watch CNN but last week I was in Russia and caught a show, it was a panel of journalists. I don't like Trump and I haven't read the Mueller report yet the anti Trump bias of the show was obvious. Blonde Female reporter: Trump guilty of obstruction of justice. Pro Trump Reporter: Mueller did not say that. Female: Lists various Trump people who she claims are guilty of obstruction of justice "they all work for Trump he must have known, ordered them..." Pro Trump: If they're guilty why didn't Mueller prosecute these people he's already done that with other Trump people? Female: "I'm getting soo tired of this.." rolls eyes pulls face (I kid you not). Me: Yes but you haven't answered his question. If its so bloody obvious that these Trump flunkies are guilty why have they not been prosecuted like Trump's lawyer and others. Summary: Terrible program I learned nothing and the bias was obvious. I was hoping for some nuance such as what is obstruction of justice? If you are investigated by the police you are entitled to remain silent that is not obstruction. At what point does a refusal to help an enquiry become obstruction of justice? Well we never got into that no wonder CNN is losing viewers the female reporter showed no balance or even attempted to justify her views she just bleated "4 legs good..." I think even Question Time would have a better balance that that show. But was she good looking though?
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 27 May 19 3.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I don't watch CNN but last week I was in Russia and caught a show, it was a panel of journalists. I don't like Trump and I haven't read the Mueller report yet the anti Trump bias of the show was obvious. Blonde Female reporter: Trump guilty of obstruction of justice. Pro Trump Reporter: Mueller did not say that. Female: Lists various Trump people who she claims are guilty of obstruction of justice "they all work for Trump he must have known, ordered them..." Pro Trump: If they're guilty why didn't Mueller prosecute these people he's already done that with other Trump people? Female: "I'm getting soo tired of this.." rolls eyes pulls face (I kid you not). Me: Yes but you haven't answered his question. If its so bloody obvious that these Trump flunkies are guilty why have they not been prosecuted like Trump's lawyer and others. Summary: Terrible program I learned nothing and the bias was obvious. I was hoping for some nuance such as what is obstruction of justice? If you are investigated by the police you are entitled to remain silent that is not obstruction. At what point does a refusal to help an enquiry become obstruction of justice? Well we never got into that no wonder CNN is losing viewers the female reporter showed no balance or even attempted to justify her views she just bleated "4 legs good..." I think even Question Time would have a better balance that that show. There is no longer any question that trump would be criminally prosecuted for obstruction if he wasn’t president.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 27 May 19 4.07pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
There is no longer any question that trump would be criminally prosecuted for obstruction if he wasn’t president. If Trump wasn't president the Democrats wouldn't give a monkey's......So it's another nothing burger.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 29 May 19 4.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
If Trump wasn't president the Democrats wouldn't give a monkey's......So it's another nothing burger. Mueller just gave his first public statement in 2 years. It was 10 minutes long and he made a point of saying: 1 - There was wide scale Russian interference in the 2016 election purely to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Trump lies and says that didnt happen. 2 - He specifically said he did NOT exonerate the president for obstruction. Trump lies and says he was cleared on obstruction. 3 - He is unable to charge a sitting president, as it is unconstitutional. Why mention that if there is no crime there? 4 - There is a process to take the obstruction further. That's called impeachment. So much for a nothing burger. He basically got up there and told Dems in the house to impeach the liar called Trump.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Invalid user 2019 29 May 19 4.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Mueller just gave his first public statement in 2 years. It was 10 minutes long and he made a point of saying: 1 - There was wide scale Russian interference in the 2016 election purely to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Trump lies and says that didnt happen. 2 - He specifically said he did NOT exonerate the president for obstruction. Trump lies and says he was cleared on obstruction. 3 - He is unable to charge a sitting president, as it is unconstitutional. Why mention that if there is no crime there? 4 - There is a process to take the obstruction further. That's called impeachment. So much for a nothing burger. He basically got up there and told Dems in the house to impeach the liar called Trump. He also stated that a President cannot be indicted while in office "even if sealed and hidden", so it appears that they explored that option too. They can impeach but it will be shot down quickly by the senate, so I'm not sure if there's any point. Dems would be better off trying to publicly push and highlight 2020 election security to ensure a fair election, rather than an obstruction of it
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 29 May 19 4.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dollardays
He also stated that a President cannot be indicted while in office "even if sealed and hidden", so it appears that they explored that option too. They can impeach but it will be shot down quickly by the senate, so I'm not sure if there's any point. Dems would be better off trying to publicly push and highlight 2020 election security to ensure a fair election, rather than an obstruction of it
I think what he essentially meant was he already knew he could not indict a sitting president therefore it was moot from the beginning. Reading between the lines I think he pretty clearly went as far as he could to say - I believe Trump committed obstruction of justice crimes. Impeachment wont remove Trump from office, but it will shine a light on his criminal wrongdoing in terms of obstruction. This wont affect Trump's base but the 15% - 20% of extra people he needs to get elected in 2020 might tune in and take notice of what comes out of those impeachment hearings. I think the pressure is going up by the minute on Pelosi to launch an impeachment inquiry.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Invalid user 2019 29 May 19 5.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
I think what he essentially meant was he already knew he could not indict a sitting president therefore it was moot from the beginning. Reading between the lines I think he pretty clearly went as far as he could to say - I believe Trump committed obstruction of justice crimes. Impeachment wont remove Trump from office, but it will shine a light on his criminal wrongdoing in terms of obstruction. This wont affect Trump's base but the 15% - 20% of extra people he needs to get elected in 2020 might tune in and take notice of what comes out of those impeachment hearings. I think the pressure is going up by the minute on Pelosi to launch an impeachment inquiry. I think with all things in politics, it's all about how it plays with the public, so I'll watch with interest whatever happens. I would certainly like a focus on election security though, as it's a worrying sign for a party not to be interested in that. The 2020 election will be completely no holds barred. Biden would be subject to a creepy uncle angle I suspect, so in my view would not be the best choice for dems.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| .TUX. 29 May 19 7.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
I think what he essentially meant was he already knew he could not indict a sitting president therefore it was moot from the beginning. Reading between the lines I think he pretty clearly went as far as he could to say - I believe Trump committed obstruction of justice crimes. Impeachment wont remove Trump from office, but it will shine a light on his criminal wrongdoing in terms of obstruction. This wont affect Trump's base but the 15% - 20% of extra people he needs to get elected in 2020 might tune in and take notice of what comes out of those impeachment hearings. I think the pressure is going up by the minute on Pelosi to launch an impeachment inquiry. As Mr. Assange pointed out many many times, they're all bloody criminals so nothing to see here. A quick edit........... US news now full of ''It's our constitutional obligation to begin impeachment proceedings'' blah blah blah. The Federal Reserve is also bloody UNCONSTITUTIONAL! (Do your own homework) Pick 'n' Choose benders.
Edited by .TUX. (29 May 2019 7.31pm)
Buy Litecoin. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Invalid user 2019 29 May 19 10.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by .TUX.
As Mr. Assange pointed out many many times, they're all bloody criminals so nothing to see here. A quick edit........... US news now full of ''It's our constitutional obligation to begin impeachment proceedings'' blah blah blah. The Federal Reserve is also bloody UNCONSTITUTIONAL! (Do your own homework) Pick 'n' Choose benders.
To my mind, TUX, you almost always make a very valid contribution and have a suitably sensible suspicion of the powers that be. That's why I think your focus on Bitcoin makes a lot of sense. You're right about the likes of Assange too, and Snowden too at that. Unfortunately, though, Trump just offers another guise, another disguised incarnation of exactly the same crap. Someone in it for himself, offering political positions to his billionaire friends, filtering money into his coffers through whatever means to benefit him and his. He has no genuine comprehension or care for the likes of us, other than how he can utilise it to benefit himself. He's taking people for suckers. If I lived stateside, in 2020, I'd vote for Bernie, as he's about the only person of either party with a proven history for practicing what he preaches. Not as though he'll win the nomination anyway but he's stood up to be counted when it mattered regardless of what was politically expedient, and comparatively speaking he's not in it for the money. He's consistently expressed concern for the neglected white working class, as well as being front and centre of the civil rights movement, so he doesn't fit into the cliched Hillary style 'let's reel off every minority going to the exclusion of whites' box, nor does he tick the nod nod wink wink nature of Trump's appeal to the white nationalism. He's just a decent guy doing his best for the country he loves. I'm not in perfectly alignment with him by any stretch, but to me what he stands for counts for something and is genuine and heartfelt. In politics that's a rare bird indeed. Beyond that, if I lived there all in likelihood I wouldn't bother voting for any of the parade of fools from either side of the isle.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 29 May 19 11.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Mueller just gave his first public statement in 2 years. It was 10 minutes long and he made a point of saying: 1 - There was wide scale Russian interference in the 2016 election purely to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Trump lies and says that didnt happen. It did happen but the scale and effectiveness has been wildly exaggerated by Democrats and believed by adherents like yourself. The Russians definitely favoured Trump, however theyr policy has always been to interfere on both sides to spread division....as with the Chinese. Originally posted by Maine Eagle
2 - He specifically said he did NOT exonerate the president for obstruction. Trump lies and says he was cleared on obstruction. I think I can agree with that. I agree however with Trump making the job of his opponents as difficult as possible because they are out to get him.....and like him, the ethics of it is trade-able. Originally posted by Maine Eagle
3 - He is unable to charge a sitting president, as it is unconstitutional. Why mention that if there is no crime there? As a sop to people like yourself. If he was serious why doesn't he come right out and say a crime has been committed. It sounds to me like he's tickling your balls to justify the years and cost of the investigation. Originally posted by Maine Eagle
4 - There is a process to take the obstruction further. That's called impeachment. So much for a nothing burger. He basically got up there and told Dems in the house to impeach the liar called Trump. Again, if that's what he wants then use plain language. You are inferring what you want to infer, maybe you're right maybe not. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 May 2019 11.19pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 29 May 19 11.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Bernie Sanders is one of the more ethical Democrats I will give him that. However, he has, like most of the Democratic party bought into identity politics and made anti white statements and pro black identity statements, such as supporting BLM. He is his infamous, 'white people don't know what's it's like to be poor' stuff. In a sense, I'm fine with that because....while I lament identity politics..... I believe that this is the new ground on which politics is based. The UK is just lagging behind because its demographic map, outside of cities, is still heavily white....so the potential for delusion, hypocrisy and finger pointing is strong. It's the right, not the left who are scared of identity politics, when the left have been playing it for a long time now.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.