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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 570 of 573 < 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 >

Matov 10 May 23 7.08pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I hope you never do jury service. You have just denied the first rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty. Your comment about Brexit exposes your prejudices and taints everything you say going forward. With much of the Wokies now, the notion of them actually believing in far-right concepts such as freedom of speech and innocent until proven guilty are actually now deemed no longer valid. Actually believing in them is something that only full on Neo-Nazis support. Remember these are people who want you to believe that people can change their gender at the drop of the hat and the onus is on everybody else to just take them at their word. And to be fair, maybe Trump did sexually assault this woman? Of course there is no evidence beyond some woman claiming he did so so last century but surely that is all that is required? Of course the woman said she was raped but it was a long time ago and how could she remember ALL the details? Hence why Trump was found not guilty of rape. Logic really. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

10 May 23 7.08pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I hope you never do jury service. You have just denied the first rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty.
Your comment about Brexit exposes your prejudices and taints everything you say going forward.

With much of the Wokies now, the notion of them actually believing in far-right concepts such as freedom of speech and innocent until proven guilty are actually now deemed no longer valid. Actually believing in them is something that only full on Neo-Nazis support.

Remember these are people who want you to believe that people can change their gender at the drop of the hat and the onus is on everybody else to just take them at their word.

And to be fair, maybe Trump did sexually assault this woman? Of course there is no evidence beyond some woman claiming he did so so last century but surely that is all that is required? Of course the woman said she was raped but it was a long time ago and how could she remember ALL the details? Hence why Trump was found not guilty of rape. Logic really.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ouzo Dan Behind you 11 May 23 7.34am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this. The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was. You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself. Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we? JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault. Ashley Biden's diary is confirmed to be real & she speaks of showers with her father where she was molested and yet (and I paraphrase slightly here) you called it the imagination of a child. The mountains are calling & I must go.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ouzo Dan

Behind you 11 May 23 7.34am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this.

The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was.

You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself.

Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we?

JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault.

Ashley Biden's diary is confirmed to be real & she speaks of showers with her father where she was molested and yet (and I paraphrase slightly here) you called it the imagination of a child.

The mountains are calling & I must go.

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 11 May 23 8.08am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this. The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was. You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself. Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we? JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault. Which is very strange, as hearsay evidence is no more acceptable in a US court that a UK one - there are very few exceptions where it may be, but they are rarely applied... A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 11 May 23 8.08am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this.

The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was.

You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself.

Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we?

Which is very strange, as hearsay evidence is no more acceptable in a US court that a UK one - there are very few exceptions where it may be, but they are rarely applied...

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 11 May 23 8.16am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger That is possibly because the CIA were covering up his dirty secrets while the FBI were watching his every move. That might have had a direct relationship to his assassination. I suppose you think that the highly suspicious death of Marilyn Monroe was also just another conspiracy theory. Maybe be it was maybe not, but I know this for sure. Trump is the victim of a witch hunt, just like he says. His guilt or innocence in this or any other case does not alter that fact. Only a blind moron can't see that. That's the logic of every conspiracy theorist. Ultimately such things are decided in a Court, where evidence is tested and independent jurors decide. Trump's team have lost every case in which they tried to establish a "witch-hunt" exists. You either trust a justice system, or you don't. If you don't you may as well take to the hills or leave the country because a functioning democracy depends upon it. Only a moron can't see that. In this age of equality, you cannot exclude the sighted. 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 11 May 23 8.16am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

That is possibly because the CIA were covering up his dirty secrets while the FBI were watching his every move. That might have had a direct relationship to his assassination.

I suppose you think that the highly suspicious death of Marilyn Monroe was also just another conspiracy theory.

Maybe be it was maybe not, but I know this for sure.

Trump is the victim of a witch hunt, just like he says.
His guilt or innocence in this or any other case does not alter that fact.

Only a blind moron can't see that.

That's the logic of every conspiracy theorist.

Ultimately such things are decided in a Court, where evidence is tested and independent jurors decide.

Trump's team have lost every case in which they tried to establish a "witch-hunt" exists.

You either trust a justice system, or you don't. If you don't you may as well take to the hills or leave the country because a functioning democracy depends upon it.

Only a moron can't see that. In this age of equality, you cannot exclude the sighted.

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 11 May 23 8.17am
Originally posted by georgenorman Bill Clinton didn't actually get charged with rape either ... Perhaps because he didn't commit rape? 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 11 May 23 8.17am

Originally posted by georgenorman

Bill Clinton didn't actually get charged with rape either ...

Perhaps because he didn't commit rape?

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

Badger11 Beckenham 11 May 23 8.20am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Perhaps because he didn't commit rape? Yeah funny that. Several women made allegations against Clinton over the years and they were not believed as it was only their word. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 11 May 23 8.20am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Perhaps because he didn't commit rape?

Yeah funny that. Several women made allegations against Clinton over the years and they were not believed as it was only their word.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.24am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays That is rarely the case with rape. This is a case based entirely on 'believe me bro' which has succeeded.....it shows precisely where the US are now. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 May 2023 6.07pm) Have you heard all the evidence then? I haven't, but I understand there was a lot more than simply one word against another. Some of the words spoken by Trump were used by the prosecution to prove the case, alongside corroborating statements from confidants. Sufficient for a "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold to be passed. 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 11 May 23 8.24am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

That is rarely the case with rape.

This is a case based entirely on 'believe me bro' which has succeeded.....it shows precisely where the US are now.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 May 2023 6.07pm)

Have you heard all the evidence then?

I haven't, but I understand there was a lot more than simply one word against another. Some of the words spoken by Trump were used by the prosecution to prove the case, alongside corroborating statements from confidants. Sufficient for a "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold to be passed.

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 11 May 23 8.28am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I hope you never do jury service. You have just denied the first rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty. Your comment about Brexit exposes your prejudices and taints everything you say going forward. He was proven guilty! That's what the jury determined. They heard the whole case. You have just read some tittle-tattle, read what Trump says, added it to your prejudices and decided it wasn't proven. You are wrong. You don't decide. The jury did. 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 11 May 23 8.28am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

He was proven guilty! That's what the jury determined. They heard the whole case. You have just read some tittle-tattle, read what Trump says, added it to your prejudices and decided it wasn't proven. You are wrong. You don't decide. The jury did.

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 11 May 23 8.34am
Originally posted by Matov With much of the Wokies now, the notion of them actually believing in far-right concepts such as freedom of speech and innocent until proven guilty are actually now deemed no longer valid. Actually believing in them is something that only full on Neo-Nazis support. Remember these are people who want you to believe that people can change their gender at the drop of the hat and the onus is on everybody else to just take them at their word. And to be fair, maybe Trump did sexually assault this woman? Of course there is no evidence beyond some woman claiming he did so so last century but surely that is all that is required? Of course the woman said she was raped but it was a long time ago and how could she remember ALL the details? Hence why Trump was found not guilty of rape. Logic really. Once again, that's untrue. There was other evidence, sufficient to convict. Why wasn't he found guilty of rape? Because there was not sufficient evidence to convict of the act that constitutes rape, but enough to convict of sexual assault. It's not complicated. 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 11 May 23 8.34am

Originally posted by Matov

Remember these are people who want you to believe that people can change their gender at the drop of the hat and the onus is on everybody else to just take them at their word.

And to be fair, maybe Trump did sexually assault this woman? Of course there is no evidence beyond some woman claiming he did so so last century but surely that is all that is required? Of course the woman said she was raped but it was a long time ago and how could she remember ALL the details? Hence why Trump was found not guilty of rape. Logic really.

Once again, that's untrue. There was other evidence, sufficient to convict. Why wasn't he found guilty of rape? Because there was not sufficient evidence to convict of the act that constitutes rape, but enough to convict of sexual assault. It's not complicated.

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 11 May 23 8.40am
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan Ashley Biden's diary is confirmed to be real & she speaks of showers with her father where she was molested and yet (and I paraphrase slightly here) you called it the imagination of a child. I cannot recall my words or the context but, so far as I am aware, no case has been brought and the evidence tested in court. Did she describe being molested or is that an interpretation of the event by others? 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 11 May 23 8.40am

Originally posted by Ouzo Dan

Ashley Biden's diary is confirmed to be real & she speaks of showers with her father where she was molested and yet (and I paraphrase slightly here) you called it the imagination of a child.

I cannot recall my words or the context but, so far as I am aware, no case has been brought and the evidence tested in court. Did she describe being molested or is that an interpretation of the event by others?

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 11 May 23 8.45am
Originally posted by becky Which is very strange, as hearsay evidence is no more acceptable in a US court that a UK one - there are very few exceptions where it may be, but they are rarely applied... We didn't hear the evidence, or know how much weight was put upon any part of it. It would have been subjected to cross-examination and probed for inconsistencies. I don't know but I suspect it was only a way of establishing credibility. 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 11 May 23 8.45am

Originally posted by becky

Which is very strange, as hearsay evidence is no more acceptable in a US court that a UK one - there are very few exceptions where it may be, but they are rarely applied...

We didn't hear the evidence, or know how much weight was put upon any part of it. It would have been subjected to cross-examination and probed for inconsistencies. I don't know but I suspect it was only a way of establishing credibility.

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 11 May 23 8.47am
Originally posted by Badger11 Yeah funny that. Several women made allegations against Clinton over the years and they were not believed as it was only their word. Were they taken to Court and the evidence tested? Unless they were they are not comparable. 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 11 May 23 8.47am

Originally posted by Badger11

Yeah funny that. Several women made allegations against Clinton over the years and they were not believed as it was only their word.

Were they taken to Court and the evidence tested?

Unless they were they are not comparable.

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

Page 570 of 573 < 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Bias against Trump

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors