This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Bias against Trump
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Maine Eagle  USA 09 May 19 6.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
As for obstruction.....that is a joke. I wholly agree with the President's attitude towards the movement to get rid of him. He should give them nothing and make their job as hard as possible. He was lied about and we had a twenty to thirty million dollar investigation to prove the lies. Now investigations will proceed into the liars. It's undemocratic to try to unseat a president outside of an election and as your attitude and words have implied on here.....they will do anything they can. I regard the movement to unseat Trump exactly as I regarded the movement to unseat Clinton and indeed Obama.....I view it very dimly indeed. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 May 2019 6.05pm) Sorry, Stirlingsays, but I dont think you have quite grasped the campaign finance issue. There was defrauding going on. PBS put it well: Prosecutors said the purpose of the hush payments was to influence the 2016 election, and treated them as campaign contributions, which are subject to restrictions under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Cohen’s payment to Clifford, they said, exceeded the $2,700 limit on personal contributions to a single candidate for an election. The payment he helped arrange for McDougal flouted the ban on corporations contributing directly to campaigns. That is fraud and is illegal. Its legality is not in question, as Cohen is already in JAIL for this!! Regarding obstruction, over 700 former federal prosecutors (from both sides of the aisle) have publicly stated that Trump clearly committed multiple counts of felony obstruction, and if he was not protected by DOJ rules, he would already be charged. Much as I respect ex-teachers from Wisbech on matter of US law, I think I will go with the 700 former federal prosecutors.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 May 19 6.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Sorry, Stirlingsays, but I dont think you have quite grasped the campaign finance issue. There was defrauding going on. PBS put it well: Prosecutors said the purpose of the hush payments was to influence the 2016 election, and treated them as campaign contributions, which are subject to restrictions under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Cohen’s payment to Clifford, they said, exceeded the ,700 limit on personal contributions to a single candidate for an election. The payment he helped arrange for McDougal flouted the ban on corporations contributing directly to campaigns. That is fraud and is illegal. Its legality is not in question, as Cohen is already in JAIL for this!! Regarding obstruction, over 700 former federal prosecutors (from both sides of the aisle) have publicly stated that Trump clearly committed multiple counts of felony obstruction, and if he was not protected by DOJ rules, he would already be charged. Much as I respect ex-teachers from Wisbech on matter of US law, I think I will go with the 700 former federal prosecutors. Paying brass to shut up being called fraud? Na, pure legalese waffle.....no different to calling the touching of a shoulder as assault. Trump can bang as much brass as he likes and pay them what he wants, it's between him and his wife.....and other mistresses. If the press find out then cool....that's the price he pays, but using it to try and unseat him? Well, the public laughed at it and I laugh at it....only moralistic blowhards take it seriously and half of them are hypocrites. As for what Cohen did.....Sorry but that just gets a big shrug from me. You just support unethical attempts to unseat an elected president for legalese. Like I said, I didn't support it for Clinton and I don't support it for Trump.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 09 May 19 8.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
I wanted to talk policies and get intellectual Penge Eagle, but in the end you bottled it. You still can, what's stopping you? Over 90% of your posts on Trump are attacking his character. All because you cannot attack his economic policies that are working and the US economy is booming!
|
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 09 May 19 8.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Racism is a cancer on the world, and should not be tolerated ever, in any way shape or form. I am not a "man of high morals" I just find Trump's moral makeup to be about the same as that of a used car salesman. 10 Questions Joe Biden Needs to Answer About His Views on Race [Link]
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 09 May 19 11.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Except I'm not referring about his tweets... (I actually think he should stop tweeting, sit back and watch the Dems implode for 2020). I'm talking about your hyperbolic post of no evidence to support it. Facts over feelings. Do you have evidence Trump has committed adultery while in office? Has Trump been convicted of anything in a criminal court? If no to both, then you are a smear merchant. You obviously don't believe in due process and the rule of law. Edited by Penge Eagle (09 May 2019 5.07pm) I am not referring though to things like adultery whilst in office am I? Indeed I said that such things are not really relevant. They are just the context around a man's character. Nor am I referring to him ever being convicted. Although he has been indicted many times he has either always settled out of Court or spent big money on attorneys to find ways to mount a legal defence. Of course I believe in due process and the rule of law and want to see it applied to everyone. Presidents included. Ex-Presidents already are as we will all find out in due course. What I referring to is his public behaviour in which he repeatedly lies, insults in childish terms anyone who criticises, attempts to wind up his "base" with ridiculous rhetoric and generally run the Presidency in a way which demands personal loyalty rather than loyalty to the country. In addition I was referring to your assertion that the Mueller report hasn't "nailed him" when the jury is clearly still out on that, despite the attempts of his supporters to whitewash him and sweep it under the carpet. There is a lot of water yet to pass under the bridge before that "case is closed", however much the GOP try to wish it away. There is no need to smear Donald Trump. He manages to cover himself in the brown stuff perfectly well all on his own. The problem is that some people seem to either like that smell, or not be aware where it is coming from. Anyone who cannot see that having Trump as the POTUS is both a clear and present danger to the USA, and the rest of the world, but also a dangerous example to other wanna be dictators needs to stop trying to defend the indefensible and do some quiet reappraisal.
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. |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 09 May 19 11.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I am not referring though to things like adultery whilst in office am I? Indeed I said that such things are not really relevant. They are just the context around a man's character. Nor am I referring to him ever being convicted. Although he has been indicted many times he has either always settled out of Court or spent big money on attorneys to find ways to mount a legal defence. Of course I believe in due process and the rule of law and want to see it applied to everyone. Presidents included. Ex-Presidents already are as we will all find out in due course. What I referring to is his public behaviour in which he repeatedly lies, insults in childish terms anyone who criticises, attempts to wind up his "base" with ridiculous rhetoric and generally run the Presidency in a way which demands personal loyalty rather than loyalty to the country. In addition I was referring to your assertion that the Mueller report hasn't "nailed him" when the jury is clearly still out on that, despite the attempts of his supporters to whitewash him and sweep it under the carpet. There is a lot of water yet to pass under the bridge before that "case is closed", however much the GOP try to wish it away. There is no need to smear Donald Trump. He manages to cover himself in the brown stuff perfectly well all on his own. The problem is that some people seem to either like that smell, or not be aware where it is coming from. Anyone who cannot see that having Trump as the POTUS is both a clear and present danger to the USA, and the rest of the world, but also a dangerous example to other wanna be dictators needs to stop trying to defend the indefensible and do some quiet reappraisal. So after digesting all this hyperbolic waffle... The Meuller Report cleared Trump of Russia collusion. Fact. You are unable to back up any of your smears with evidence. Can you explain how Trump "is a clear and present danger to the USA, and the rest of the world"? Maybe you should take some TDS pills also.
|
|
| Maine Eagle USA 10 May 19 1.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Paying brass to shut up being called fraud? Na, pure legalese waffle.....no different to calling the touching of a shoulder as assault. As for what Cohen did.....Sorry but that just gets a big shrug from me. You just support unethical attempts to unseat an elected president for legalese. Like I said, I didn't support it for Clinton and I don't support it for Trump.
Deliberately missing the point? It’s not about having affairs and making hush money payments. It’s about clearly violating well established campaign finance statutes. That is the law of the land. It’s legality is not in question as Cohen is going to jail for the crime I speak of. It is a crime, and people go to jail for crimes. It’s simple really. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that (now 800) democrat and republican former federal prosecutors have opined that trump would clearly be already charged with felony obstruction if he wasn’t protected by DOJ rules about indicting the president. That is a crime, and people go to jail for crimes. You can try to make breaking the law sound trivial or somehow acceptable, but it’s not ok in modern societies. Once again Stirlingsays, your viewpoint is your own right, but now 800 former federal prosecutors disagree with you. That fact should probably make you think twice, don’t you think? Edited by Maine Eagle (10 May 2019 1.57am)
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 10 May 19 1.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
You still can, what's stopping you? Over 90% of your posts on Trump are attacking his character. All because you cannot attack his economic policies that are working and the US economy is booming! Indulging in some selective replying I see. I already addressed a matter of policy but you seem unwilling to respond. Trump is engineering a trade war with China and has called himself a “tariff man”. Is that a sound economic strategy, Penge Eagle?
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 10 May 19 1.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
10 Questions Joe Biden Needs to Answer About His Views on Race [Link] Might wanna put that on the “bias against Biden” thread, Penge Eagle.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 10 May 19 2.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Might wanna put that on the “bias against Biden” thread, Penge Eagle. Has Biden confessed his love for 'Hot sauce' yet!!
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Stirlingsays 10 May 19 2.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Might wanna put that on the “bias against Biden” thread, Penge Eagle.
That'll be a good one....If he gets selected I look forward to you putting it up. Perhaps I'll do some Maine impressions as a kind of homage.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Stirlingsays 10 May 19 3.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Deliberately missing the point? It’s not about having affairs and making hush money payments. It’s about clearly violating well established campaign finance statutes. That is the law of the land. It’s legality is not in question as Cohen is going to jail for the crime I speak of. It is a crime, and people go to jail for crimes. It’s simple really. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that (now 800) democrat and republican former federal prosecutors have opined that trump would clearly be already charged with felony obstruction if he wasn’t protected by DOJ rules about indicting the president. That is a crime, and people go to jail for crimes. You can try to make breaking the law sound trivial or somehow acceptable, but it’s not ok in modern societies. Once again Stirlingsays, your viewpoint is your own right, but now 800 former federal prosecutors disagree with you. That fact should probably make you think twice, don’t you think? Edited by Maine Eagle (10 May 2019 1.57am) Missing the point? I thought I'd made myself clear. Of course I agree that Trump had this brass paid, but the guy did it intelligently without record and through proxy. Of course he did it....but like I say, for this to be considered a 'crime' is a complete nonsense.....legalese waffle. I'm happy that they can't get rid of him for this, whatever the rule circumstance....because I don't consider that stuff as important. When it comes to 'campaign violations' and dodgy money floating about I consider both main parties as bad as each other.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 10 May 19 10.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
So after digesting all this hyperbolic waffle... The Meuller Report cleared Trump of Russia collusion. Fact. No it didn't. It said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute which is very different. For me that is more like the "not proven" verdict in Scotland than a "not guilty" one. Alongside that the ongoing cases, details of which were redacted, need to be considered. There is a great deal of speculation on what they involve, some of it well informed by circumstantial evidence and leaks. The most interesting for me is the probability that one involves Roger Stone, Wikileaks, Assange and Russian interference. If, as seems likely, some of the Trump family are also involved then the collusion ball remains very much in play. It will just be prosecuted at State level and outside of "Executive Privilege". You are unable to back up any of your smears with evidence. All the back up anyone needs is available by reading Trump's Twitter and the responses to his tweets. It's all there, in open view. If you don't read it then you should. If you cannot see that it provides the evidence needed to prove Trump to be totally unsuited to be POTUS then I feel sorry for you. Can you explain how Trump "is a clear and present danger to the USA, and the rest of the world"? Oh please! Threatening Iran and thus increasing the chances of a hot war in the middle east that could then escalate. Starting trade wars with a variety of countries, but most dangerously China, that could damage economies, raise tensions and ultimately threaten stability. Break hard won international agreements, particularly on action on climate change, that threaten to destabilise efforts to ensure that the whole world works together to understand what needs to be done to prepare for it and counter the effects. Leadership of the biggest economy on the planet involves much more than being the manager of a big sports team, or being on a TV reality game . It's not just about "winning at all costs". It requires a subtle grasp of how to steer the whole world towards a successful and peaceful future. Trump is the proverbial "bull in a china shop" as a POTUS. Maybe you should take some TDS pills also. Repeating Trump's attempts at slurs adds nothing to anything, except perhaps questions about those who do it. So add yourself to a list that includes Fox, Breitbart and InfoWars. It's not company that I would want to be included in.
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. |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 10 May 19 11.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Mods should change the title to "The Donald Trump thread" for the sake of pedantry. I can think of some other titles too which would be amusing. Who wants to reverse a democratic result? I think you clicked on the wrong thread, Hrolf, this aint Brexit pal. No reversal is possible, only a correction in 2020. Then why don't you just stop whining and wait until 2020? And by 'correction' I presume you mean a President who will be happy to bend to minority interests and allow the whole of Mexico to settle in the US.
|
|
| Maine Eagle USA 10 May 19 1.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Missing the point? I thought I'd made myself clear. Of course I agree that Trump had this brass paid, but the guy did it intelligently without record and through proxy. Of course he did it....but like I say, for this to be considered a 'crime' is a complete nonsense.....legalese waffle. I'm happy that they can't get rid of him for this, whatever the rule circumstance....because I don't consider that stuff as important. When it comes to 'campaign violations' and dodgy money floating about I consider both main parties as bad as each other.
It’s not up to you, or I, Stirlingsays, to decide what is, and what is not a crime. If you get nicked for murder, you cannot appeal to the judge with “I don’t consider this a crime, your honor”. Laws are written down and are not negotiable. I don’t understand your position here. You cannot decide from Wisbech what is and is not a crime in America old chap. It simply doesn’t work that way. Campaign finance laws are actually very important with the way political campaigns are financed here. One thing they ensure is that no hostile foreign nation can interfere in a US election by funding one candidate or another. Obviously the Russians sought other ways to help Trump. But even forgetting the illegal campaign finance violations, over 800 bi partisan former federal prosecutors believe Trump would be criminally charged with obstruction if he was not protected by DOJ guidelines stating a sitting president cannot be charged. 800 former prosecutors. Democrats....Republicans.....stating that Trump clearly broke the law multiple times. I guess you think all 800 (including hundreds of registered republicans) are the “deep state never trumpers on the grassy knoll”?
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Stirlingsays 10 May 19 9.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
It’s not up to you, or I, Stirlingsays, to decide what is, and what is not a crime. If you get nicked for murder, you cannot appeal to the judge with “I don’t consider this a crime, your honor”. Laws are written down and are not negotiable. I don’t understand your position here. You cannot decide from Wisbech what is and is not a crime in America old chap. It simply doesn’t work that way. Campaign finance laws are actually very important with the way political campaigns are financed here. One thing they ensure is that no hostile foreign nation can interfere in a US election by funding one candidate or another. Obviously the Russians sought other ways to help Trump. But even forgetting the illegal campaign finance violations, over 800 bi partisan former federal prosecutors believe Trump would be criminally charged with obstruction if he was not protected by DOJ guidelines stating a sitting president cannot be charged. 800 former prosecutors. Democrats....Republicans.....stating that Trump clearly broke the law multiple times. I guess you think all 800 (including hundreds of registered republicans) are the “deep state never trumpers on the grassy knoll”? So the law is the law and it isn't up to us to decide what is a crime? Ok, then I guess you support the ban on transgenders not joining the Army now and the other stuff Trump has brought in....because the law is the law. I'll have my opinion on what I regard as valid in terms of persecuting a president and that's about it. You can waffle on in your way over how you think Trump is this or that and I'll treat each claim on its merits. I don't buy that the Russians had any more effect on the elections for Trump than the Saudis had for Clinton. She had far more money and far more favourable media coverage. The Democrats are losers who can't accept that their core message doesn't appeal to the majority of working class white people.....and they are right because any working class white person voting for this version of the Democrats is an idiot. I don't know about this 800 thing you keep referring to. If Trump's done something serious then I guess I'll hear about it. Until then, I'll regard it as the partizan waffle I've come across up to now. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 May 2019 9.31pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
10 May 19 10.08pm| Maine Eagle USA 10 May 19 11.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
So the law is the law and it isn't up to us to decide what is a crime? Ok, then I guess you support the ban on transgenders not joining the Army now and the other stuff Trump has brought in....because the law is the law. I'll have my opinion on what I regard as valid in terms of persecuting a president and that's about it. You can waffle on in your way over how you think Trump is this or that and I'll treat each claim on its merits. I don't buy that the Russians had any more effect on the elections for Trump than the Saudis had for Clinton. She had far more money and far more favourable media coverage. The Democrats are losers who can't accept that their core message doesn't appeal to the majority of working class white people.....and they are right because any working class white person voting for this version of the Democrats is an idiot. I don't know about this 800 thing you keep referring to. If Trump's done something serious then I guess I'll hear about it. Until then, I'll regard it as the partizan waffle I've come across up to now. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 May 2019 9.31pm) Whether or not I support a given law, one is best served to obey them lest they be thrown in jail. Campaign finance laws are not remotely contentious so comparing them to transgender topics is pretty nonsensical. One mans persecution is another mans oversight, and therein lies the rub. It would be nice to know who holds financial sway over trump considering he lost over 1 billion dollars in the 80s/90s and couldn’t get financing via American banks, and had to go with Deutsche Bank and God knows who else. DB has a well earned reputation for money laundering and other illegal acts. Incorrect comparison again, Stirlingsays. If you would actually read the Mueller report and not take the right wing media version, you would see details of a systematic, far reaching and widespread social media campaign. Comparing that to Clinton and the Saudis is a complete nonsense and I think you must realize that? Not familiar with the former federal prosecutor story? Perhaps more milkshake watching? It’s been all over the news here, perhaps not there. Allow me to bring you up to speed: I consider obstruction of justice serious, and now you have heard about it, as I have told you many times now.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
| Maine Eagle USA 10 May 19 11.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Politics has totally changed since the Lincoln era and in some ways the right and left have exchanged some of their ideals and beliefs. Not sure what was happening 170 years ago has any importance here, Teddy.
Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.