This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 Teddy Eagle  01 Jul 19 11.46am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That made me smile! Now I realise the peace prize is sometimes given to odd recipients in order to encourage a process but the Norwegians aren't stupid. I know Trump would love it, and doubtless believes he deserves it, but I cannot see them risking the potential devaluation of the honour that such a decision would bring. To say it would be controversial is an understatement. Some might say it’s already been devalued - Bob Dylan? Hasn’t produced much of any value for forty years and even then it wasn’t exactly Literature.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Badger11  Beckenham 01 Jul 19 12.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That made me smile! Now I realise the peace prize is sometimes given to odd recipients in order to encourage a process but the Norwegians aren't stupid. I know Trump would love it, and doubtless believes he deserves it, but I cannot see them risking the potential devaluation of the honour that such a decision would bring. To say it would be controversial is an understatement. Like President Obama you mean, even he thought he didn't deserve it.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 01 Jul 19 1.13pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
The peace prize is like any other prize given outside the hard sciences.....a bit 'meh' due to the extra subjectivity. You really have to stand out head and shoulders for a wide ranging consensus. When you look at the people who have won the peace prize....quite a few of them promote belly laughs......Yasser Arafat, Mandela, Kissinger....all people who are responsible for the deaths of opponents. And of course, perhaps the most comical....the EU.
'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 01 Jul 19 1.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It's connected to nothing other than Trump's ego. He is being played like a hungry fish. The idea of the US President, and leader of the free world, meeting with a despotic tin pot dictator disgusts me. It gives Kim Jong-Un legitimacy and has the potential for great future harm. If all any such dictator has to do in future to secure the personal attention of a POTUS is to start a nuclear programme and fire a few rockets whilst making threatening noises then heaven help us all. Meanwhile Kim's appalling human rights record is ignored. By all means make diplomatic contact but keep the detail below the radar. Pressure via sanctions backed by the UN and especially China is the way forward. A POTUS needs to stand above such matters and not get personally involved. The only reason Trump does so is that it looks good to the ignorant masses in his base. This is just reality TV window dressing. It's disgusting theatre. All politicians seek photo opportunities but most have some purpose standing behind them. Not so Trump. Appearance is all that matters to him. Your opinion is a sad reflection of your politics. These meetings are very important and go far beyond what you think of Trump.....and his 'ignorant' base as you call them. When Obama ordered the killing of Bin Laden I didn't spend my time on here criticising the motives of Obama....I recognised the importance of what had to be done......the scale is far more important than any one politician, just as these negotiations are far more than two people.
'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 |
|
 becky over the moon 01 Jul 19 2.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Thanks for the laugh! You have been watching far too much Fox "News", which is the epitome of fake reporting. Nothing you suggest is true. Congress decide what regulations govern how social media companies monitor content and it's them that have required tighter oversight to avoid the problems we have seen. FB in particular have been under the spotlight. There is nothing political involved by the companies themselves. It just seems that the majority of the recent manipulation has come from the right, and from Russia supporting the right in order to sow dissention. It is therefore entirely correct to try to ensure that the deliberate planting of false stories be curtailed. The Clinton Foundation has been investigated many times and given a clean bill, yet still the mud gets thrown. There is some of your fake news from the right, alongside things like Obama's birth certificate and his wife's gender. Trump's approval rating, measured as a weighted average of all the major polls has been around 44% for about the last year. Only one poll has ever approached 50% but of course that's the only one Trump ever uses, plus those he invents. People are more than willing to accept democratic votes. What they won't accept is outside interference in the process or having a criminal in the WH. In the UK we had a referendum which is not part of our democracy and have been arguing ever since about what it actually means.That doesn't mean we don't accept democratic decisions. It just means we don't agree what they are. No moral superiority involved. Just different opinions. But according to all your previous posts, what the people say is of no import, as we elect our MPs to make the right decisions on what's best for the electorate. That is what you claim as being our democracy. Well, it was those very same MPs who voted for us to have a referendum, presumably as they felt it was in our best interest to do so, and who thus made a referendum a part of our democratic process in this particular instance. You can't have it both ways.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Jul 19 2.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Your opinion is a sad reflection of your politics. These meetings are very important and go far beyond what you think of Trump.....and his 'ignorant' base as you call them. When Obama ordered the killing of Bin Laden I didn't spend my time on here criticising the motives of Obama....I recognised the importance of what had to be done......the scale is far more important than any one politician, just as these negotiations are far more than two people.
I think that is a sad reflection of your lack of realism! These "negotiations" are entirely about just two people. One is a despotic leader who murders critics, keeps his people isolated from the outside world, restricts free speech, controls the media and promotes a God like devotion to himself. The other is the current POTUS who probably envies the other's ability to do many of those things. They are feeding off one another. Just imagine if all of this leads to a "deal" in which Kim "gives up" his nuclear weapons and receives masses amounts of US aid in return? Kim won't change the regime. His very life depends on it. So a dictator succeeds through blackmailing a narcissistic President desperate to show his "base" he can do deals. It's just nuts!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Jul 19 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
But according to all your previous posts, what the people say is of no import, as we elect our MPs to make the right decisions on what's best for the electorate. That is what you claim as being our democracy. Well, it was those very same MPs who voted for us to have a referendum, presumably as they felt it was in our best interest to do so, and who thus made a referendum a part of our democratic process in this particular instance. You can't have it both ways. I don't want it two ways! There is only one and your confusion over this issue, which to be fair is pretty commonplace, is unfortunate. Cameron decided to hold a referendum and the Tories, holding a majority, backed him. Cameron vowed to "respect" the result as did both the major parties at the 2017 GE. Article 50 was triggered. Respect was shown. What was never clear was what a withdrawal from the EU actually involved, as a template for it doesn't exist. It had to be created as the situation evolved. Political parties cannot commit individual MPs to anything. They are representatives in their own right who can leave a party, go independent or join another. As some have. Parliament is sovereign. If it decides that a commitment given by a party is no longer viable then they are not bound by it. Our democratic rights start and end when we choose who represents us. Until we are asked to choose again ALL decisions then transfer to the MPs. Including what "respecting" a referendum result means.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 02 Jul 19 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I don't want it two ways! There is only one and your confusion over this issue, which to be fair is pretty commonplace, is unfortunate. Cameron decided to hold a referendum and the Tories, holding a majority, backed him. Cameron vowed to "respect" the result as did both the major parties at the 2017 GE. Article 50 was triggered. Respect was shown. What was never clear was what a withdrawal from the EU actually involved, as a template for it doesn't exist. It had to be created as the situation evolved. Political parties cannot commit individual MPs to anything. They are representatives in their own right who can leave a party, go independent or join another. As some have. Parliament is sovereign. If it decides that a commitment given by a party is no longer viable then they are not bound by it. Our democratic rights start and end when we choose who represents us. Until we are asked to choose again ALL decisions then transfer to the MPs. Including what "respecting" a referendum result means. ALL decisions? Nothing affected by EU legislation? Human Rights laws? Devolution?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| becky over the moon 02 Jul 19 9.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I don't want it two ways! There is only one and your confusion over this issue, which to be fair is pretty commonplace, is unfortunate. Cameron decided to hold a referendum and the Tories, holding a majority, backed him. Cameron vowed to "respect" the result as did both the major parties at the 2017 GE. Article 50 was triggered. Respect was shown. What was never clear was what a withdrawal from the EU actually involved, as a template for it doesn't exist. It had to be created as the situation evolved. Political parties cannot commit individual MPs to anything. They are representatives in their own right who can leave a party, go independent or join another. As some have. Parliament is sovereign. If it decides that a commitment given by a party is no longer viable then they are not bound by it. Our democratic rights start and end when we choose who represents us. Until we are asked to choose again ALL decisions then transfer to the MPs. Including what "respecting" a referendum result means. No-one, least of all me said anything about respecting or not respecting the referendum, so the confusion would appear to be all yours. Your post stated: " In the UK we had a referendum which is not part of our democracy" My reply was: ".. But according to all your previous posts, what the people say is of no import, as we elect our MPs to make the right decisions on what's best for the electorate. That is what you claim as being our democracy. Well, it was those very same MPs who voted for us to have a referendum, presumably as they felt it was in our best interest to do so, and who thus made a referendum a part of our democratic process in this particular instance." So to put it more simply, if you believe that democracy is our elected MPs doing what they decide is best for the country, and those self-same MPs decide that a referendum is that very thing that is best for us, then by your definition THAT IS DEMOCRACY. In which case you cannot then claim that a referendum is not part of our democracy, when our elected MPs vote for it democratically in Parliament. Respecting or not has Bu**er all to do with the price of oranges!
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 02 Jul 19 10.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I don't want it two ways! There is only one and your confusion over this issue, which to be fair is pretty commonplace, is unfortunate. Cameron decided to hold a referendum and the Tories, holding a majority, backed him. Cameron vowed to "respect" the result as did both the major parties at the 2017 GE. Article 50 was triggered. Respect was shown. What was never clear was what a withdrawal from the EU actually involved, as a template for it doesn't exist. It had to be created as the situation evolved. Political parties cannot commit individual MPs to anything. They are representatives in their own right who can leave a party, go independent or join another. As some have. Parliament is sovereign. If it decides that a commitment given by a party is no longer viable then they are not bound by it. Our democratic rights start and end when we choose who represents us. Until we are asked to choose again ALL decisions then transfer to the MPs. Including what "respecting" a referendum result means. You do half talk some Carabao s***
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 03 Jul 19 1.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
ALL decisions? Nothing affected by EU legislation? Human Rights laws? Devolution? Ultimately yes, all of them. If some are delegated then that delegation is capable of withdrawal. Parliament is sovereign.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 03 Jul 19 2.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
No-one, least of all me said anything about respecting or not respecting the referendum, so the confusion would appear to be all yours. Your post stated: " In the UK we had a referendum which is not part of our democracy" My reply was: ".. But according to all your previous posts, what the people say is of no import, as we elect our MPs to make the right decisions on what's best for the electorate. That is what you claim as being our democracy. Well, it was those very same MPs who voted for us to have a referendum, presumably as they felt it was in our best interest to do so, and who thus made a referendum a part of our democratic process in this particular instance." So to put it more simply, if you believe that democracy is our elected MPs doing what they decide is best for the country, and those self-same MPs decide that a referendum is that very thing that is best for us, then by your definition THAT IS DEMOCRACY. In which case you cannot then claim that a referendum is not part of our democracy, when our elected MPs vote for it democratically in Parliament. Respecting or not has Bu**er all to do with the price of oranges!
It wasn't you, me or any other voter who said, or had to say, that the referendum would be respected. It was the politicians who hold the actual decision making powers. In doing so they did NOT transfer the democratic process to the referendum. They undertook to respect it, whilst retaining the responsibility to enact ALL of the necessary legislation. That's our democracy. Referendums are no part of it. Let me ask you something. If you told your kids, assuming you have some, that you were going to the shop to buy them something they had seen on TV but when you got there found it was over priced rubbish and potentially dangerous, what would you do? Buy it anyway, because you had made a promise and felt obliged to respect it? Or buy something else that was more suitable, safer and better value for money? Everyone is entitled to change their mind in the light of new information or second thoughts. You have a responsibility to do what is right for your kids and not just give them what they want. Our MPs have that duty towards us too.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| 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.