Bias against Trump

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 421 of 573 < 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 >

Penge Eagle Beckenham 04 May 20 3.43pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I don't think the situation is in any way comparable. Kavanaugh was facing a Senate confirmation hearing during which a very credible witness was cross examined by the committee and told a compelling story, which were followed by Kavanaugh's crocodile tears. It is completely natural that the MSM would cover such an event and would do so whatever the assumed political leanings of the candidate. Biden has been conveniently accused during an election campaign. There has been no cross examination of his accuser nor is there any opportunity to do so. It's tittle tattle at best. A better comparison would be with Trump himself who has also been accused of sexual impropriety but never had himself, ot witnesses, cross examined, preferring in the past to buy them off but for which some have video evidence available. If I were an editor of one of the MSM I would also give this story a wide berth. Unless of course I was responsible for the propaganda arm of Murdoch, aka Fox "News". Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 May 2020 3.17pm) And the judge was about to be appointed on the supreme court. Timing convenient there also. Can you tell me what evidence you have that makes you think Tara Reid's accusation is less worthy is less credible than Christine Blasey Ford's? And why her voice should not be heard. Edited by Penge Eagle (04 May 2020 3.46pm)
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Penge Eagle

Beckenham 04 May 20 3.43pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't think the situation is in any way comparable. Kavanaugh was facing a Senate confirmation hearing during which a very credible witness was cross examined by the committee and told a compelling story, which were followed by Kavanaugh's crocodile tears. It is completely natural that the MSM would cover such an event and would do so whatever the assumed political leanings of the candidate.

Biden has been conveniently accused during an election campaign. There has been no cross examination of his accuser nor is there any opportunity to do so. It's tittle tattle at best.

A better comparison would be with Trump himself who has also been accused of sexual impropriety but never had himself, ot witnesses, cross examined, preferring in the past to buy them off but for which some have video evidence available.

If I were an editor of one of the MSM I would also give this story a wide berth. Unless of course I was responsible for the propaganda arm of Murdoch, aka Fox "News".

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 May 2020 3.17pm)

And the judge was about to be appointed on the supreme court. Timing convenient there also.

Can you tell me what evidence you have that makes you think Tara Reid's accusation is less worthy is less credible than Christine Blasey Ford's? And why her voice should not be heard.

Edited by Penge Eagle (04 May 2020 3.46pm)

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

mezzer Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 04 May 20 3.53pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I don't think the situation is in any way comparable. Kavanaugh was facing a Senate confirmation hearing during which a very credible witness was cross examined by the committee and told a compelling story, which were followed by Kavanaugh's crocodile tears. It is completely natural that the MSM would cover such an event and would do so whatever the assumed political leanings of the candidate. Biden has been conveniently accused during an election campaign. There has been no cross examination of his accuser nor is there any opportunity to do so. It's tittle tattle at best. A better comparison would be with Trump himself who has also been accused of sexual impropriety but never had himself, ot witnesses, cross examined, preferring in the past to buy them off but for which some have video evidence available. If I were an editor of one of the MSM I would also give this story a wide berth. Unless of course I was responsible for the propaganda arm of Murdoch, aka Fox "News". Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 May 2020 3.17pm) Tittle tattle at best? That's a pretty swift, dismissive and damning judgement on a lady's accusation of sexual assault. Based on what exactly? Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.
Alert a moderator to this post

mezzer

Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 04 May 20 3.53pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Biden has been conveniently accused during an election campaign. There has been no cross examination of his accuser nor is there any opportunity to do so. It's tittle tattle at best.

If I were an editor of one of the MSM I would also give this story a wide berth. Unless of course I was responsible for the propaganda arm of Murdoch, aka Fox "News".

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 May 2020 3.17pm)

Tittle tattle at best?

That's a pretty swift, dismissive and damning judgement on a lady's accusation of sexual assault. Based on what exactly?

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 May 20 5.58pm
Originally posted by Penge Eagle And the judge was about to be appointed on the supreme court. Timing convenient there also. Can you tell me what evidence you have that makes you think Tara Reid's accusation is less worthy is less credible than Christine Blasey Ford's? And why her voice should not be heard. Edited by Penge Eagle (04 May 2020 3.46pm) The difference is not the timing but that one was subjected to a full cross examination because they were being appointed by a President.The other is merely a candidate for office. If every candidate, including Trump, for President, also had to be subjected to a Senate confirmation committee hearing which investigated their suitability, called witnesses, and themselves, to testify then true equivalence would exist. I have no opinion on the worthiness, or not, of Tara Reid's accusation. I might after I had heard it myself and seen a full cross examination and defence. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 May 2020 6.02pm) 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 04 May 20 5.58pm

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

And the judge was about to be appointed on the supreme court. Timing convenient there also.

Can you tell me what evidence you have that makes you think Tara Reid's accusation is less worthy is less credible than Christine Blasey Ford's? And why her voice should not be heard.

Edited by Penge Eagle (04 May 2020 3.46pm)

The difference is not the timing but that one was subjected to a full cross examination because they were being appointed by a President.The other is merely a candidate for office. If every candidate, including Trump, for President, also had to be subjected to a Senate confirmation committee hearing which investigated their suitability, called witnesses, and themselves, to testify then true equivalence would exist.

I have no opinion on the worthiness, or not, of Tara Reid's accusation. I might after I had heard it myself and seen a full cross examination and defence.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 May 2020 6.02pm)

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 04 May 20 6.09pm
Originally posted by mezzer Tittle tattle at best? That's a pretty swift, dismissive and damning judgement on a lady's accusation of sexual assault. Based on what exactly? The Cambridge dictionary defines tittle-tattle as:- "talk about other people's lives that is usually unkind, disapproving, or not true" Pretty well sums this up don't you think? Until the accusations have been examined and substantiated that's all they are, whether they come from a lady or a man, or about anything. 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 04 May 20 6.09pm

Originally posted by mezzer

Tittle tattle at best?

That's a pretty swift, dismissive and damning judgement on a lady's accusation of sexual assault. Based on what exactly?

The Cambridge dictionary defines tittle-tattle as:-

"talk about other people's lives that is usually unkind, disapproving, or not true"

Pretty well sums this up don't you think?

Until the accusations have been examined and substantiated that's all they are, whether they come from a lady or a man, or about anything.

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

silvertop Portishead 04 May 20 7.43pm
Originally posted by Penge Eagle And the judge was about to be appointed on the supreme court. Timing convenient there also. Can you tell me what evidence you have that makes you think Tara Reid's accusation is less worthy is less credible than Christine Blasey Ford's? And why her voice should not be heard. Edited by Penge Eagle (04 May 2020 3.46pm) Do you have any evidence that she wants to be heard? I suspect the difference is legal. One gave evidence on oath where widespread reporting of what was said is allowed. The other is rumour which if reported and false will have the publisher on their knees on the wrong end of a colossal libel case.
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 04 May 20 7.43pm

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

And the judge was about to be appointed on the supreme court. Timing convenient there also.

Can you tell me what evidence you have that makes you think Tara Reid's accusation is less worthy is less credible than Christine Blasey Ford's? And why her voice should not be heard.

Edited by Penge Eagle (04 May 2020 3.46pm)

Do you have any evidence that she wants to be heard?

I suspect the difference is legal. One gave evidence on oath where widespread reporting of what was said is allowed.

The other is rumour which if reported and false will have the publisher on their knees on the wrong end of a colossal libel case.

Alert a moderator to this post

Penge Eagle Beckenham 04 May 20 10.11pm
Fcuk me, the first time I've ever agreed with Owen Jones! [Tweet Link]
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Penge Eagle

Beckenham 04 May 20 10.11pm

Fcuk me, the first time I've ever agreed with Owen Jones!

[Tweet Link]

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Penge Eagle Beckenham 04 May 20 10.20pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle The difference is not the timing but that one was subjected to a full cross examination because they were being appointed by a President.The other is merely a candidate for office. If every candidate, including Trump, for President, also had to be subjected to a Senate confirmation committee hearing which investigated their suitability, called witnesses, and themselves, to testify then true equivalence would exist. I have no opinion on the worthiness, or not, of Tara Reid's accusation. I might after I had heard it myself and seen a full cross examination and defence. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 May 2020 6.02pm) "Merely a candidate for office"? Are you serious? He's on the verge of being president of the USA. Your dismissive stance to a woman's claim that she was sexually assaulted is disgusting.
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

Penge Eagle

Beckenham 04 May 20 10.20pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I have no opinion on the worthiness, or not, of Tara Reid's accusation. I might after I had heard it myself and seen a full cross examination and defence.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (04 May 2020 6.02pm)

"Merely a candidate for office"? Are you serious? He's on the verge of being president of the USA.

Your dismissive stance to a woman's claim that she was sexually assaulted is disgusting.

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Mapletree Croydon 04 May 20 11.11pm
Originally posted by Penge Eagle Fcuk me, the first time I've ever agreed with Owen Jones! [Tweet Link] Why on Earth is this coming up now? Presumably as Biden is beginning to look like he stands a chance. But it makes you wonder what the benefit is to this lady in waiting until precisely this time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 04 May 20 11.11pm

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

Fcuk me, the first time I've ever agreed with Owen Jones!

[Tweet Link]

Why on Earth is this coming up now? Presumably as Biden is beginning to look like he stands a chance. But it makes you wonder what the benefit is to this lady in waiting until precisely this time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 04 May 20 11.26pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Why on Earth is this coming up now? Presumably as Biden is beginning to look like he stands a chance. But it makes you wonder what the benefit is to this lady in waiting until precisely this time. She must be part of the vast army of Hollywood Trump supporters. It’d be a refreshing change to see some showbiz types speak out against him.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

04 May 20 11.26pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Why on Earth is this coming up now? Presumably as Biden is beginning to look like he stands a chance. But it makes you wonder what the benefit is to this lady in waiting until precisely this time.

She must be part of the vast army of Hollywood Trump supporters. It’d be a refreshing change to see some showbiz types speak out against him.

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 05 May 20 12.22am
Originally posted by Mapletree Why on Earth is this coming up now? Presumably as Biden is beginning to look like he stands a chance. But it makes you wonder what the benefit is to this lady in waiting until precisely this time. The timing is suspect and designed to derail but has to be balanced against the fact that there should be no free passes on such allegations. It was Biden that said "Believe all women". These current allegations reveal the folly of his own statement. Ultimately these things should be based on the balance of probability, so we will we have to see how it goes. Franken opting out of politics following allegations wasn't the right approach for me. His career was effectively torpedoed over little or nothing. So Biden will try to ride it out. Trump of course is known to have low sexual morals. Sleeping with p*** stars while his wife is pregnant, his alleged sexual behaviour towards his ex-wife, the constant presence around dubious modelling circles. Trump's strength though is that he's not held up to or judged by any standard whatsoever. His power comes through fact that people realise that if you support someone come what may, you can brute force it. If you weigh up Biden's creepy hair sniffing with Trump's repeated revolting sexual comments about his own daughter, you may well end up just taking out your electronics with a sledgehammer rather than casting a vote. Edited by BlueJay (05 May 2020 12.23am)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 05 May 20 12.22am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Why on Earth is this coming up now? Presumably as Biden is beginning to look like he stands a chance. But it makes you wonder what the benefit is to this lady in waiting until precisely this time.

The timing is suspect and designed to derail but has to be balanced against the fact that there should be no free passes on such allegations. It was Biden that said "Believe all women". These current allegations reveal the folly of his own statement.

Ultimately these things should be based on the balance of probability, so we will we have to see how it goes. Franken opting out of politics following allegations wasn't the right approach for me. His career was effectively torpedoed over little or nothing. So Biden will try to ride it out.

Trump of course is known to have low sexual morals. Sleeping with p*** stars while his wife is pregnant, his alleged sexual behaviour towards his ex-wife, the constant presence around dubious modelling circles. Trump's strength though is that he's not held up to or judged by any standard whatsoever. His power comes through fact that people realise that if you support someone come what may, you can brute force it.

If you weigh up Biden's creepy hair sniffing with Trump's repeated revolting sexual comments about his own daughter, you may well end up just taking out your electronics with a sledgehammer rather than casting a vote.

Edited by BlueJay (05 May 2020 12.23am)

Alert a moderator to this post

SavoyTruffle 05 May 20 1.05am
Originally posted by Mapletree Why on Earth is this coming up now? Presumably as Biden is beginning to look like he stands a chance. But it makes you wonder what the benefit is to this lady in waiting until precisely this time. It’s not, she brought it up initially when it happened in 93 with her mother, brother and a friend. Her mother called Larry King show at the time and spoke about a congressman that had assaulted her daughter. As I’m sure recent history has taught us, these kinds of claims about powerful people were swept under the rug (often still are now...) Initial allegations were made in April last year and the longer the story has dragged on and reporters started looking into it more credible evidence seems to be emerging. If the democrats are serious about seemingly very credible allegations historically made about Trump they should be consistent and make sure this isn’t whitewashed. I don’t envy American voters the choice of two alleged sex offenders though...
Alert a moderator to this post

SavoyTruffle

05 May 20 1.05am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Why on Earth is this coming up now? Presumably as Biden is beginning to look like he stands a chance. But it makes you wonder what the benefit is to this lady in waiting until precisely this time.

It’s not, she brought it up initially when it happened in 93 with her mother, brother and a friend. Her mother called Larry King show at the time and spoke about a congressman that had assaulted her daughter. As I’m sure recent history has taught us, these kinds of claims about powerful people were swept under the rug (often still are now...) Initial allegations were made in April last year and the longer the story has dragged on and reporters started looking into it more credible evidence seems to be emerging.

If the democrats are serious about seemingly very credible allegations historically made about Trump they should be consistent and make sure this isn’t whitewashed.

I don’t envy American voters the choice of two alleged sex offenders though...

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 05 May 20 2.33am
Originally posted by SavoyTruffle I don’t envy American voters the choice of two alleged sex offenders though... Ain't that the truth. It's hardly best and brightest is it. It's a rigged game. Anyone genuinely honest and displaying integrity is filtered out well before they could ever become president. Better to propel compromised individuals into those positions. Easier to call the favours in that way.
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 05 May 20 2.33am

Originally posted by SavoyTruffle

I don’t envy American voters the choice of two alleged sex offenders though...

Ain't that the truth. It's hardly best and brightest is it. It's a rigged game. Anyone genuinely honest and displaying integrity is filtered out well before they could ever become president. Better to propel compromised individuals into those positions. Easier to call the favours in that way.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 421 of 573 < 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Bias against Trump

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors