This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Originally posted by Rubin
Ok, looking elsewhere it appears the smears bit could be tenuous, but it's a bit wrong in my opinion to claim you're a president for children and women when you're prepared to knowingly defend a guilty child rapist. With regards to the emails, again, we'll have to wait and see what happens, but it's come out that she instructed her maiden to print classified emails for her [Link] which could spell trouble. She also 'couldn't remember' a lot of things during the investigation [Link] , and now that she's not running for the presidency, the FBI might not be as lenient (the case is still open). The smear was more than tenuous. It was factually incorrect. She was a public defender who was assigned a case and followed the consitutional right for an individual to have representation. Anything else is just bollocks. As I said, on the emails I think I have less sympathy. And yes getting the maid to print stuff off (who have never been vetted and I believe the FBI have been obstructed from interviewing) may constitute inappropriate behaviour (illegal?). HRC was a poor candidate. Her saving grace was meant to be that she was against an even worse one. Given the turnout in this election was down to 2000 levels and the candidates picked up materially less votes than their predecessors (Trump 2m less than Romney, HRC 6m less than Obama) I think it is fair to say that neither of them come out looking good. But in the end he walks into the WH. In the long run it may be benefical for the Democrats. Changing demographics still favour them (Texas for example will be in play within the next decade) and they can now try and find a genuinely exciting candidate. Plus the Donald will likely be frustrated at every turn. He is naturally a socially liberal, despite what he has said. And that the Senate and Congress will block. And he is a fiscal conservative but wants protectionism, which the Senate and Congress will block. He's going to have to fight to get through his reform packages and in 2 years time the houses may be winnable for the Democrats. Then 2 more years of completely frustrated Trump and a 2020 defeat. In the long run the Republicans have to find a way to win in a new environment. This election defeat was meant to give them the impetus to do that soul searching. Instead they've won and it's the Dems who will go away and regroup. Edited by OknotOK (09 Nov 2016 4.06pm)
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
|
Originally posted by Michaelawt85
The lazy arguments all over social media that America has showed itself as racist. Not everyone who voted for trump is a racist, not every one would have voted for reasons of race. There are so many more factors at play and as I say the Clinton era probably has a lot to do with it. I wouldn't bet against Michelle Obama being a democrat candidate one day Make that President. Will probably run against Pence in 4 year's time....
"Deviance is a freedom enjoyed in a city of lightly engaged strangers" |
|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
The smear was more than tenuous. It was factually incorrect. She was a public defender who was assigned a case and followed the consitutional right for an individual to have representation. Anything else is just bollocks. As I said, on the emails I think I have less sympathy. And yes getting the maid to print stuff off (who have never been vetted and I believe the FBI have been obstructed from interviewing) may constitute inappropriate behaviour (illegal?). HRC was a poor candidate. Her saving grace was meant to be that she was against an even worse one. Given the turnout in this election was down to 2000 levels and the candidates picked up materially less votes than their predecessors (Trump 2m less than Romney, HRC 6m less than Obama) I think it is fair to say that neither of them come out looking good. But in the end he walks into the WH. In the long run it may be benefical for the Democrats. Changing demographics still favour them (Texas for example will be in play within the next decade) and they can now try and find a genuinely exciting candidate. Plus the Donald will likely be frustrated at every turn. He is naturally a socially liberal, despite what he has said. And that the Senate and Congress will block. And he is a fiscal conservative but wants protectionism, which the Senate and Congress will block. He's going to have to fight to get through his reform packages and in 2 years time the houses may be winnable for the Democrats. Then 2 more years of completely frustrated Trump and a 2020 defeat. In the long run the Republicans have to find a way to win in a new environment. This election defeat was meant to give them the impetus to do that soul searching. Instead they've won and it's the Dems who will go away and regroup. Edited by OknotOK (09 Nov 2016 4.06pm) Great post. I think the tensions between the President and Congress which notionally gives the Republicans complete control may prove very interesting
|
|
|
Originally posted by Rubin
Ok, looking elsewhere it appears the smears bit could be tenuous, but it's a bit wrong in my opinion to claim you're a president for children and women when you're prepared to knowingly defend a guilty child rapist. With regards to the emails, again, we'll have to wait and see what happens, but it's come out that she instructed her maiden to print classified emails for her [Link] which could spell trouble. She also 'couldn't remember' a lot of things during the investigation [Link] , and now that she's not running for the presidency, the FBI might not be as lenient (the case is still open). OK, she was a public defender, she was assigned to the case despite her protests.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Sedlescombe
Elizabeth Warren? Not sure I'd grab her by the pu**y. Mind you, it'd be impossible to grab Michelle there if you believe the conspiracies...
|
|
|
Originally posted by Sedlescombe
Which criminal and immoral matters are they? How about Clinton Foundation that is a non-profit making organisation of charitable status with millions being hived of to...guess who? Much more than just that, including political favours made possible via unscrupulous means: In the meantime, Trump's pledge of rebuilding America esp. where its finances are concerned, could've been aided by the new President if he hadn't chosen to embroil himself within tax avoidance scheming. Will he choose now to close such loopholes? It all reads as being not that dissimilar to Westminster.
|
|
|
Originally posted by twist
OK, she was a public defender, she was assigned to the case despite her protests.
|
|
|
Originally posted by ex hibitionist
patronising my *rse ... you don't have to be a pseudo intellectual bleeding heart liberal to be depressed at having a psycho pussy grabber as president. Either introduce an IQ test to disbar brainless freaks from voting or have some jury service element brought into democracy ... old fashioned REPRESENTATIVE democracy is failing, it's being subverted by a conspiracy of evil jokers and morons. I like and respect thoughtful open-minded people from whatever class thy choose to be identified with, but sod democracy - Trumpers should all definitely be shot - not all Brexiteers mind, just most of them Lol. In other words, you like people who agree with you or....people who are the exact opposite of yourself judging by this post.
|
|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Tell me, what does Michelle Obama stand for and what are her policies? Don't know, don't care as they aren't relevant to why I thought it wasn't a bad shout to think she might stand next time around. 6/10 Matt, can do better.
Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune) |
|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Lol. In other words, you like people who agree with you or....people who are the exact opposite of yourself judging by this post. here are some facts mate, not opinions - FACTS: 2 + 2 = 4, the sun will come up tomorrow, Trumnp is an evil sh*t head, anyone who tolerates him is either of the above two or most probably both. You laugh away - petty arguments on serious issues which very few of us have the wherewithal to do anything about don't interest me. I was being a bit jokey - I respect the opinion of Brexiteers a la Voltaire, not Trumpers though, hence my selective leniency in the choice of who is to be lined up against the wall (now there's a wall I'd happily see built) - but I do not some of the bile that was released after the leave vote, and I think the broadcasters were being spontaneous rather than selective when they did their vox pops after both votes - and the Trumpers and Brexiteers do have a distinct aura of the pikey about them. Onwards and downwards!
|
|
|
Originally posted by ex hibitionist
here are some facts mate, not opinions - FACTS: 2 + 2 = 4, the sun will come up tomorrow, Trumnp is an evil sh*t head, anyone who tolerates him is either of the above two or most probably both. You laugh away - petty arguments on serious issues which very few of us have the wherewithal to do anything about don't interest me. I was being a bit jokey - I respect the opinion of Brexiteers a la Voltaire, not Trumpers though, hence my selective leniency in the choice of who is to be lined up against the wall (now there's a wall I'd happily see built) - but I do not some of the bile that was released after the leave vote, and I think the broadcasters were being spontaneous rather than selective when they did their vox pops after both votes - and the Trumpers and Brexiteers do have a distinct aura of the pikey about them. Onwards and downwards! Lovely.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle
Don't know, don't care as they aren't relevant to why I thought it wasn't a bad shout to think she might stand next time around. 6/10 Matt, can do better. Thank you. Your answer speaks for itself.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
|
Originally posted by Mstrobez
Anyone else think that Trump didn't actually want to win? Just wanted to create the biggest political s*** storm Americas ever seen and coin it for years afterwards? Either way, watching it all unfold over the past few months just confirms how comedically stupid Americans actually are. I found it strange that a billionaire would want a less than 200 grand a year job. Trump already has a plane too so Air Force One has little appeal. Can't be the perks of feeling up or shagging interns because he seems to have done enough of that kind of thing already.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
I found it strange that a billionaire would want a less than 200 grand a year job. Trump already has a plane too so Air Force One has little appeal. Can't be the perks of feeling up or shagging interns because he seems to have done enough of that kind of thing already. And for someone who's been so successful in business, which requires communication skills, he seemed to lack them hugely. Almost as if his aim was to really gain support and devotion from the highest earners but piss off the majority. Suppose we won't ever know but if this was the plan he probably should've considered how shambolic the opposition was first. Edited by Mstrobez (09 Nov 2016 9.44pm)
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| .TUX. |
|
|---|---|
|
Many many people are unhappy, and rightly so. Slim > none.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
I found it strange that a billionaire would want a less than 200 grand a year job. Trump already has a plane too so Air Force One has little appeal. Can't be the perks of feeling up or shagging interns because he seems to have done enough of that kind of thing already. Mike Bloomberg Billionaire many times over worked for a Dollar a year when he was NYCs Mayor.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
|
Originally posted by soulboy
Make that President. Will probably run against Pence in 4 year's time.... No chance. Elizabeth Warren will though.
Pro USA & Israel |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.