You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC bias against Trump
April 18 2024 6.39pm

BBC bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 22 of 24 < 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >

 

View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 15 Aug 16 2.10pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Hahaha probably true. More likely it'll be people declaring their choice the winner because of x.

That's why you need to have proper debates, not just asking a question and giving five minutes to each candidate. That's just glorified questions and answers.

Its to debating, what shouting is to arguing.

I just can't wait to hear 'because it will be good for America' over and over again. No actual issues - more just emotive flag- waving, anthem singing kind of stuff.
Any real debate to be consigned to PBS or political comment shows between the hours of 2 and 5 am. Prime time will be Trump with a Dallas ten-gallon hat and Hilary with a chicken hugging a black person/ ethnic minority - both with the Stars and Stripes rippling in the wind nearby (if only on a monitor).

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View nairb75's Profile nairb75 Flag Baltimore 15 Aug 16 3.22pm Send a Private Message to nairb75 Add nairb75 as a friend

Originally posted by Rubin

There's a bit more to it than just the super delegate issue.

They're not accusations. They're all provable. Perhaps it's worth actually looking in to, as having a person in power who's done the things she has is quite serious, and not just Americans. If Trump had done one of the things she's done, he would have rightly not have even been in the presidential race in the first place.

Trump may say stupid things, but she's done truly criminal things and gets away with it, mainly as she helped put her pal Loretta Lynch as attorney general and has the backing of the media.

and these crimes you speak of? they're proveable? charges have been brough, evidence has been reviewed, and she's been found guilty?

with all of the republicans trying to pin anything on her for 25 years, you'd think some of these crimes would have led to charges and guilt in a court of law.

more "hillary is the devil" over-reaction nonsense.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View nairb75's Profile nairb75 Flag Baltimore 15 Aug 16 3.23pm Send a Private Message to nairb75 Add nairb75 as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


Trump was asked about this, and said that he is ok that his abandonment of nuclear pacts would lead to proliferation. He mentioned specifically Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia.
[Link]

at least he can pronounce the word "nuclear".

scary. say what you want about hillary but she's not going to start ww3.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 15 Aug 16 5.30pm

Originally posted by nairb75

and these crimes you speak of? they're proveable? charges have been brough, evidence has been reviewed, and she's been found guilty?

with all of the republicans trying to pin anything on her for 25 years, you'd think some of these crimes would have led to charges and guilt in a court of law.

more "hillary is the devil" over-reaction nonsense.

The email server thing is probably easy enough to get a conviction over, but its also the kind of thing I'd hazard no one ever gets prosecuted for or goes to prison (and a lot of the evidence is out in the public domain, so inadmissible in court any how).

Especially as I'd be astonished if she actually set the server up and installed the software, connecting it to a restricted access network by her self.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 15 Aug 16 5.34pm

Originally posted by nairb75

scary. say what you want about hillary but she's not going to start ww3.

Trump might well end up being the first president to be removed from duty on medical competency grounds, whilst Clinton might end up being removed from office, to a prison facility.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 15 Aug 16 5.36pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I just can't wait to hear 'because it will be good for America' over and over again. No actual issues - more just emotive flag- waving, anthem singing kind of stuff.
Any real debate to be consigned to PBS or political comment shows between the hours of 2 and 5 am. Prime time will be Trump with a Dallas ten-gallon hat and Hilary with a chicken hugging a black person/ ethnic minority - both with the Stars and Stripes rippling in the wind nearby (if only on a monitor).

If anything, this election has proved quite clearly that America does not know what's good for America, and that most of it doesn't care either.

If the performance artist behind Bush and Trump succeeds in getting Trump elected, he's going to have to really struggle to top that.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View nairb75's Profile nairb75 Flag Baltimore 16 Aug 16 2.19pm Send a Private Message to nairb75 Add nairb75 as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The email server thing is probably easy enough to get a conviction over, but its also the kind of thing I'd hazard no one ever gets prosecuted for or goes to prison (and a lot of the evidence is out in the public domain, so inadmissible in court any how).

Especially as I'd be astonished if she actually set the server up and installed the software, connecting it to a restricted access network by her self.


the fbi director, and long time staunch republican, conlcuded his investigation this summer and isn't bringing charges. once again, where are the actual indictments for her crimes?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View leifandersonshair's Profile leifandersonshair Flag Newport 17 Aug 16 12.38pm Send a Private Message to leifandersonshair Add leifandersonshair as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

If anything, this election has proved quite clearly that America does not know what's good for America, and that most of it doesn't care either.

If the performance artist behind Bush and Trump succeeds in getting Trump elected, he's going to have to really struggle to top that.

I can't help but feel that, come inauguration day, Sacha Baron Cohen is going to pull off the mask, apologise, and say he really didn't mean for his joke to get quite so out of control

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 17 Aug 16 3.47pm

Originally posted by nairb75


the fbi director, and long time staunch republican, conlcuded his investigation this summer and isn't bringing charges. once again, where are the actual indictments for her crimes?

Well we know the server existed, and that it had confidential emails sent from it. But its a) not an offence most people would even be sacked for b) certainly not one that would be prosecuted unless it was being used maliciously.

As I said earlier, its a can of worms. Because a State Department Secure Network server should in no way be available outside of secure sites, and nor should it be able to send outside of secured addresses.

The real absurdity in this, is that the Department actually set up and connected a non-secure server, outside of a designated secure site, upon request. My suspicion is that a) its very common practice b) if they started bring charges, almost everyone in the state department IT and Communications would end up facing charges.

I also suspect it would demonstrate just how ridiculously poor digital security at the State Department has been for decades.

Because if I saw a request to do that, I'd reject it out of hand, irrespective of who wanted it, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL and UNSECURE to do so.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 18 Aug 16 3.59pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

The email server is only an issue because it's the only thing from the endless Benghazi investigations that had even a hint of stink which could be attributed to Clinton. Multiple Secretaries of State before her - including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice - had similar arrangements. It was a non-issue for them, it's only an issue here because it's Clinton, and they knew back when they started the Benghazi crusade that she was the likely Democratic nominee.

Republicans have even admitted as such.

Quote Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable.

[Link]

Now, I don't like Clinton. At all. She's a craven politician whose moral compass - if she has one - is subjugated to whatever it is she thinks people want to hear. In that, she is most certainly not unique. However, she is politically savvy and I trust her to be able to handle the job of President even if I do not think I will like everything she does.

Trump, on the other hand, is a complete fraud and a walking bag of mental issues. His claims of competency seem to be a combination of being very rich, having "a good brain", being able to make great deals and hire "the best" people. My take on these things is that:

(1) he got a head start on being rich from his dad and isn't as rich as he claims to be;

(2) his "good brain" does not seem capable of forming coherent thoughts or sentences, remembering facts - or even things he has said - from one day to the next, or even staying on topic for more than a minute at a time;

(3) with multiple bankruptcies and 3,500 lawsuits in his background, it seems that a lot of his deals aren't so great; and

(4) he has fired and replaced his campaign management three times now.


All this is somewhat moot as Trump is getting buried in the polls nationally and, more importantly, in the individual States (the electoral college being such that state-by-state results matter, not the nationwide vote tally - see Bush vs. Gore). Trump is losing not only in the traditionally Democratic "blue" states, but in all the traditional swing states and now even in some of the traditionally Republican "red" states. He's on course for a sweeping loss the likes of which hasn't been seen since Reagan beat Mondale in 49 of 50 states.

Edited by Ray in Houston (18 Aug 2016 4.52pm)

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BarEagle's Profile BarEagle Flag Monmouth 19 Aug 16 10.27am Send a Private Message to BarEagle Add BarEagle as a friend

[Link]


I don't usually do politics on here but the BBC are naughty on the bias this time.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View blackpalacefan's Profile blackpalacefan Flag 20 Aug 16 6.53pm Send a Private Message to blackpalacefan Add blackpalacefan as a friend

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

I just scrolled through the first 3 pages of the BBC's YouTube channel [Link] and attached a screenshot.

It has 5 stories on Donald Trump – all negative. It also has a positive story on President Barack Obama of the Democrats. Where's the balance?

Edited by Penge Eagle (10 Aug 2016 6.10am)

But that's because he makes completely outrageous statements that he knows will, and may I add intends to, grab the headlines. Ignoring what a person says and how they behave in order to arbitrarily include an equal number of positive and negative stories about Clinton and Trump is a very subjective and slanted understanding of what being unbiased means.


Edited by blackpalacefan (20 Aug 2016 7.01pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 22 of 24 < 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC bias against Trump