QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
So I won't go through all of this but I want to pluck out what others have: Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus.
Even if this woman was supposedly fine with him touching her chest, and that is a big if, it is still sexual assault in my country if he touched her crotch. There is no gray area there. It is a crime committed by someone currently running for president.
There is more evidence than just that on the bus, there are now nine women who have come forward, including former teenage pageant contestants who said he would walk in on them changing while they were minors. He made comments on I believe it was Howard Stern alluding to how he would do this.
Wether these allegations came out in January or October, they're sexual assault. And that is a crime. Contrary to what you may have read about the Wikileaks (because I read about those as well as reading the documents/emails themselves), there is not evidence or insinuation of any crime there. That is why there is far more coverage about Trump, and that's putting aside things he says at rallies and debates that threaten to undermine our far-from-perfect democracy.
Let me put this another way to you, how would you feel if a man you were sat next to on a plane started fiddling with your chest and then started grabbing you by the crotch?
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
So I won't go through all of this but I want to pluck out what others have: Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus.
Even if this woman was supposedly fine with him touching her chest, and that is a big if, it is still sexual assault in my country if he touched her crotch. There is no gray area there. It is a crime committed by someone currently running for president.
There is more evidence than just that on the bus, there are now nine women who have come forward, including former teenage pageant contestants who said he would walk in on them changing while they were minors. He made comments on I believe it was Howard Stern alluding to how he would do this.
Wether these allegations came out in January or October, they're sexual assault. And that is a crime. Contrary to what you may have read about the Wikileaks (because I read about those as well as reading the documents/emails themselves), there is not evidence or insinuation of any crime there. That is why there is far more coverage about Trump, and that's putting aside things he says at rallies and debates that threaten to undermine our far-from-perfect democracy.
Let me put this another way to you, how would you feel if a man you were sat next to on a plane started fiddling with your chest and then started grabbing you by the crotch?
And still nobody is focussing on his point re the Clintons. Or Bill, whose behaviour with women was just as shabby but that's OK.
Not defending Trump, it could be that like the Savile case, women were scared to come forward because of the perception of power they felt he had or felt they wouldn't be believed and now one or two have spoken out, others feel they can come forward.
Set aside the issues with women for a moment and take a look at what he's trying to get across re the Clinton's.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
So I won't go through all of this but I want to pluck out what others have: Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus.
Even if this woman was supposedly fine with him touching her chest, and that is a big if, it is still sexual assault in my country if he touched her crotch. There is no gray area there. It is a crime committed by someone currently running for president.
There is more evidence than just that on the bus, there are now nine women who have come forward, including former teenage pageant contestants who said he would walk in on them changing while they were minors. He made comments on I believe it was Howard Stern alluding to how he would do this.
Wether these allegations came out in January or October, they're sexual assault. And that is a crime. Contrary to what you may have read about the Wikileaks (because I read about those as well as reading the documents/emails themselves), there is not evidence or insinuation of any crime there. That is why there is far more coverage about Trump, and that's putting aside things he says at rallies and debates that threaten to undermine our far-from-perfect democracy.
Let me put this another way to you, how would you feel if a man you were sat next to on a plane started fiddling with your chest and then started grabbing you by the crotch?
And still nobody is focussing on his point re the Clintons. Or Bill, whose behaviour with women was just as shabby but that's OK.
Not defending Trump, it could be that like the Savile case, women were scared to come forward because of the perception of power they felt he had or felt they wouldn't be believed and now one or two have spoken out, others feel they can come forward.
Set aside the issues with women for a moment and take a look at what he's trying to get across re the Clinton's.
It's been discussed at length in this country. Bill Clinton is not running for president.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years.
You are so so wrong. Try watching the Jimmy Saville documentaries as a starting point and you'll see how wrong you are.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years.
You are so so wrong. Try watching the Jimmy Saville documentaries as a starting point and you'll see how wrong you are.
The shocking fact was many of the young woman didn't stay silent about JS, but even the ones who managed to get to a police station and make a complaint, found the information only went so far before being dismissed because of Saville's friends in high places. Margaret Thatcher and Prince Charles to name just two. There was no Chief Constable prepared to see Justice done or properly investigated when such powerful people were buddies of the pervert. Thatcher invited him to Christmas lunch and Charles went to some parties in a Scottish Cottage.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years.
You are so so wrong. Try watching the Jimmy Savile documentaries as a starting point and you'll see how wrong you are.
A real shame you lol the fact that women are sexually assaulted and don't scream out immediately.
I can't see the humour in sexual assault.
Watch this if you can. Louis Theroux on Savile. He did similar type things (and a whole lot more of course, although as it never came to trial perhaps you are a Jimmy Savile supporter as well ?
Well, yes that does appear to be untrue. I guess it would have made huge headlines had it been the case. The problem for Donald is that it could have been something he might have said, or at least it is the perception that it COULD have been the sort of thing he would have said. Even without this falsely attributed comment he has said enough deeply unpleasant things as it is. I hope he's toast already but who knows....
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism. But the primary bias, namely in 24 hours news networks, is toward laziness, sensationalism, and presenting a "red" and "blue" perspective, letting talking heads talk at and over each other for a while, and just leaving it as is. I think that has shifted a bit of late because there are some outlandish claims by the Trump campaign surrounding accusations of sexual assault and his open claims about being happy to sexually assault women. That has struck a nerve. Not wrongly because it's a crime. And that makes it newsworthy and worth scrutiny.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years.
You are so so wrong. Try watching the Jimmy Savile documentaries as a starting point and you'll see how wrong you are.
A real shame you lol the fact that women are sexually assaulted and don't scream out immediately.
I can't see the humour in sexual assault.
Watch this if you can. Louis Theroux on Savile. He did similar type things (and a whole lot more of course, although as it never came to trial perhaps you are a Jimmy Savile supporter as well ?
I'm lol'ing because I made a statement of fact (that you or anyone else on this board), are in no position to refute. I repeat: I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years. There's a little word at the start of it, the "I", it's kind of important ! Yes I saw the program, I know all about Saville. I also know about Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Freddie Starr, Dave Osman. Savile's victims were, in the main, young, or underprivileged, or disabled. The attacks did not take place on Planes, or in nightclubs or in rooms full of people, as is being alleged with Trump. Trumps accusers are nothing like Jimmy Saville's victims. The only similarity being that they are female. What's really abhorrent is that you, or those that "like" you, should imply that I condone the actions of a grub like Saville, simply because I made a statement of fact about the women in my life. As a father of two teenage girls, your post has really angered me.
For what it's worth Queensland, I'll admit that you've made one or two good points so far;
- The US is quite effective at curtailing the power of its president from what I gather, I think the example about Obama being unable to carry out certain actions has been given already in this thread. Combined with appointing knowledgable people as advisers, I suspect Trump wouldn't be as bad as people are saying.
- There is no way that Hilary should be running for president. Her conduct has been nothing short of criminal, and the contents of the leaks surrounding her have been quite worrying. I suspect much of her success is primarily because she's against someone who is rather controversial.
The problem is though, the first point is essentially saying that anyone could be president - when you undress it, you realise that either you or I could be president with knowledgable advisers and a system to ensure damage limitation. By that basis, Hillary would also be competent and the position of President is rather pointless - with the exception of making a few soundbites after tragedy.. (Something I'm not sure Trump would be good at, but with a decent speechwriter then of course he would... But then we go back to the fact that anyone can do anything with the right support.)
Do you really think the Republican conduct would look any better were certain nations/organisations trying to sabotage their campaign though? I suspect they have just as many skeletons in their closet, and I doubt the contents of their emails would make them look like poster boys for democracy and abiding by the rules.
It's like that old saying: it's only illegal if you get caught. Now for some peculiar reason there seems to be far more digging and intrusions in to the Democratic campaign.. Do you not feel uneasy at all knowing that - recently atleast - Trumps campaign seems to have relied upon a lot of leaked material that has been gained illegally, and potentially with backing from a foreign nation seeking to interfere with a US election.
This is where it gets murky. Someone is purposefully disrupting the Hillary campaign - in the weird notion of "transparency" - but refusing to do so with Trump's campaign.. That's the antithesis of democracy, and one could argue that after all the revelations that Hillary is actually "better the devil you know".
For what it's worth Queensland, I'll admit that you've made one or two good points so far;
- The US is quite effective at curtailing the power of its president from what I gather, I think the example about Obama being unable to carry out certain actions has been given already in this thread. Combined with appointing knowledgable people as advisers, I suspect Trump wouldn't be as bad as people are saying.
- There is no way that Hilary should be running for president. Her conduct has been nothing short of criminal, and the contents of the leaks surrounding her have been quite worrying. I suspect much of her success is primarily because she's against someone who is rather controversial.
The problem is though, the first point is essentially saying that anyone could be president - when you undress it, you realise that either you or I could be president with knowledgable advisers and a system to ensure damage limitation. By that basis, Hillary would also be competent and the position of President is rather pointless - with the exception of making a few soundbites after tragedy.. (Something I'm not sure Trump would be good at, but with a decent speechwriter then of course he would... But then we go back to the fact that anyone can do anything with the right support.)
Do you really think the Republican conduct would look any better were certain nations/organisations trying to sabotage their campaign though? I suspect they have just as many skeletons in their closet, and I doubt the contents of their emails would make them look like poster boys for democracy and abiding by the rules.
It's like that old saying: it's only illegal if you get caught. Now for some peculiar reason there seems to be far more digging and intrusions in to the Democratic campaign.. Do you not feel uneasy at all knowing that - recently atleast - Trumps campaign seems to have relied upon a lot of leaked material that has been gained illegally, and potentially with backing from a foreign nation seeking to interfere with a US election.
This is where it gets murky. Someone is purposefully disrupting the Hillary campaign - in the weird notion of "transparency" - but refusing to do so with Trump's campaign.. That's the antithesis of democracy, and one could argue that after all the revelations that Hillary is actually "better the devil you know".
Finally a sensible post to reply to ! Have you read the investigations I posted earlier in this thread ? Michael Smith here in oz and a guy named Charles Ortel in the US have been unravelling the Clinton Foundation frauds way before these Wikileaks recent revelations which simply confirm what we already knew, well I did anyway! Personally I want to see an end to corruption, and I don't care how, or who uncovers it. I've been following the Gillard fraud here in Oz for five years now. This women was able to work her way to the highest office, and bankrupted the country, because the Union movement had her in their pockets because they were fully aware of her previous fraud. I don't see Trump as a Republican or a politician at all, he's a non politician who wants what is best for the people and is unlikely to be corrupted by money like most politicians.
Trump would be a disastrous president for the US & for the wider world. It would be as sensible as giving a 9 year old a loaded gun to play with & free access to the parental bank account. The concern is for the majority of the rest of the world that Trump has got even this close.
As imperfect as Hilary Clinton is & some of the mistakes she had made, Clinton has some experience of the wider world. Trump as US president would be like putting an immature, selfish & not very bright 13 year old in charge. It is no wonder Putin would be happy with Trump.
Anyway, I am loath to spell it out but Trump is literally the result of 'corrupted by money', he is the literal breathing embodiment of Belial, he makes fucking palaces to himself and defines everything he does in financial terms while exploiting others as ruthlessly as he can, to say that he 'wants what is best for the people' is a complete and utter load of shit that (poorly) hides a probable extremist agenda.
For what it's worth Queensland, I'll admit that you've made one or two good points so far;
- The US is quite effective at curtailing the power of its president from what I gather, I think the example about Obama being unable to carry out certain actions has been given already in this thread. Combined with appointing knowledgable people as advisers, I suspect Trump wouldn't be as bad as people are saying.
- There is no way that Hilary should be running for president. Her conduct has been nothing short of criminal, and the contents of the leaks surrounding her have been quite worrying. I suspect much of her success is primarily because she's against someone who is rather controversial.
The problem is though, the first point is essentially saying that anyone could be president - when you undress it, you realise that either you or I could be president with knowledgable advisers and a system to ensure damage limitation. By that basis, Hillary would also be competent and the position of President is rather pointless - with the exception of making a few soundbites after tragedy.. (Something I'm not sure Trump would be good at, but with a decent speechwriter then of course he would... But then we go back to the fact that anyone can do anything with the right support.)
Do you really think the Republican conduct would look any better were certain nations/organisations trying to sabotage their campaign though? I suspect they have just as many skeletons in their closet, and I doubt the contents of their emails would make them look like poster boys for democracy and abiding by the rules.
It's like that old saying: it's only illegal if you get caught. Now for some peculiar reason there seems to be far more digging and intrusions in to the Democratic campaign.. Do you not feel uneasy at all knowing that - recently atleast - Trumps campaign seems to have relied upon a lot of leaked material that has been gained illegally, and potentially with backing from a foreign nation seeking to interfere with a US election.
This is where it gets murky. Someone is purposefully disrupting the Hillary campaign - in the weird notion of "transparency" - but refusing to do so with Trump's campaign.. That's the antithesis of democracy, and one could argue that after all the revelations that Hillary is actually "better the devil you know".
I had to go out, but would like to give your post more of my time. Firstly, when it comes to possible breaches of National Security, Hillary should hang her head in shame. Not only with her and Obama's foreign policy, which has created such mayhem and loss of life, but with her illegal use of a private server. So I think it's rather laughable that she is trying to now use this whole Russian red herring. Assange and his mother Christine (who incidentally lives about 20 minutes up the coast to me in Noosa) are both Lefty Activists from way back. If Assange had anything on Trump, I have no doubt that he'd release it, it would be against his political instincts not to do so. What Trump has achieved, to get this far, after only entering politics a year ago, is quite remarkable. I doubt there is another person on this planet who could have got so far and to be so close to such a seasoned political operator as Clinton. He has managed to get this far only because of his sometimes outrageous and brazen comments and behaviour. He is a showman and he has used those skills to incredible effect. Reagan proved that it is possible to make the transition from show business to the Presidency with great success. He is so close in fact, that they have had to resort to the old faithful favourite, hit him with accusations of sexual abuse, destroy his character with something that is incredibly hard to disprove. These are the kind of dirty tricks that the left always resorts to. Even on this thread, I personally have had to endure accusations of condoning Sexual assault, simply because I badly worded one line of a long post at 3am. Then above, I get tarnished as being an apologist for Jimmy Saville, WTF!!! How unbelievably nasty can these people get ! But Trump has struck a chord with a large proportion of the population who want change. He is quite correct when he says that the US should be doing far better than less than 1% GDP growth, when China and India are experiencing around 7%. His policies, if you actually take the time to listen to him, make sense. Apple is a great US company, it should be producing it's goods in America, giving Americans jobs and paying American Tax, any tax, even 15%. Reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% will encourage large corporations to, not only stay in America, but return to America, to employ people, produce things, stimulate economic growth. People want strong secure borders, rather than Hillary's open borders. The mainstream are very unhappy with this current form of PC, socialist crap, that allows a boy to "identify" as a girl, and enter girls toilets. They are saying enough is enough. Hillary represents a highly compromised (pay for play) corrupt politician who will simply deliver more of the same. Trump on the other hand, represents hope for a new beginning. They have a straight choice, more of the same, or the chance to make America great again.
Anyway, I am loath to spell it out but Trump is literally the result of 'corrupted by money', he is the literal breathing embodiment of Belial, he makes fucking palaces to himself and defines everything he does in financial terms while exploiting others as ruthlessly as he can, to say that he 'wants what is best for the people' is a complete and utter load of shit that (poorly) hides a probable extremist agenda.
Globalisation, with outsourced labour costs has allowed companies to make vast profits. The benefits have not been equally shared with the work force who have seen traditional jobs lost & pressure on living conditions. The people who have paid for the utterly corrupt sub prime business practice/ scam (watch 'The Big Short' film with Brad Pitt & Christian Slater) & complete & totally corrupt failure of business regulation. Ordinary people have paid for the fall out. This creates pressure for change.
Trusting this need for change / redress to Trump is as Ill conceived as you can get.
As Leuth said above Trump exploits situations as ruthlessly as he can for his own benefit with complete disregard for any negative impacts on anyone. Putting Trump in charge to fix things is like putting the fox, who has already taken chickens from the hen house, in charge of fixing the hole that let the fox in, in the first place.
For what it's worth Queensland, I'll admit that you've made one or two good points so far;
- The US is quite effective at curtailing the power of its president from what I gather, I think the example about Obama being unable to carry out certain actions has been given already in this thread. Combined with appointing knowledgable people as advisers, I suspect Trump wouldn't be as bad as people are saying.
- There is no way that Hilary should be running for president. Her conduct has been nothing short of criminal, and the contents of the leaks surrounding her have been quite worrying. I suspect much of her success is primarily because she's against someone who is rather controversial.
The problem is though, the first point is essentially saying that anyone could be president - when you undress it, you realise that either you or I could be president with knowledgable advisers and a system to ensure damage limitation. By that basis, Hillary would also be competent and the position of President is rather pointless - with the exception of making a few soundbites after tragedy.. (Something I'm not sure Trump would be good at, but with a decent speechwriter then of course he would... But then we go back to the fact that anyone can do anything with the right support.)
Do you really think the Republican conduct would look any better were certain nations/organisations trying to sabotage their campaign though? I suspect they have just as many skeletons in their closet, and I doubt the contents of their emails would make them look like poster boys for democracy and abiding by the rules.
It's like that old saying: it's only illegal if you get caught. Now for some peculiar reason there seems to be far more digging and intrusions in to the Democratic campaign.. Do you not feel uneasy at all knowing that - recently atleast - Trumps campaign seems to have relied upon a lot of leaked material that has been gained illegally, and potentially with backing from a foreign nation seeking to interfere with a US election.
This is where it gets murky. Someone is purposefully disrupting the Hillary campaign - in the weird notion of "transparency" - but refusing to do so with Trump's campaign.. That's the antithesis of democracy, and one could argue that after all the revelations that Hillary is actually "better the devil you know".
What criminal act are we talking about here? I've discussed at length, as someone who works in cybersecurity, what she's done and why it's not particularly criminal.
There is this notion driven by a large section of people in opposition to her in public positions that she is a criminal. We have more insight into the inner-workings of her campaign and her previous job than any other candidate in the modern era. I don't like her alignment with Wall Street banks, obviously. I think she can be very opportunistic in her public and policy stances (gay marriage, Iraq war). I think she has taken loads of money from loads of donors.
But before you condemn that, partilcularly the latter, I highly recommend looking in to how campaigns are financed in the States. They are financed, to the hundreds of billions of dollars level (presidential races), by private donations. This is true to varying levels of every election process in federal and state governments. It's shit. I want elections to be publicly funded. I've wanted this for 15 years. Not just when people I agree with more win, but always. But it is not criminal. In fact, it is more legal now than it literally ever has been thanks to the ruling of Citizens United handed down by the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts who said in the decision that corporations have the same rights as people, and thus can contribute as much to elections as possible. The same is true for the "pay for play" aspect of the Clinton Foundation. EVERYONE in Washington DC has charities or campaigns that people can donate to. The defense of this is money buys access, not influence. I think access is bad enough. I hate this in our system. But it is still not criminal.
The FBI was able to recover a large number of the deleted emails and have an extensive investigation found nothing criminal. After a thorough investigation lead by Republicans in Congress into Benghazi they found nothing criminal in their investigation that cost more than what was originally allotted for the 9/11 investigation. There were no charges brought, let alone no criminal conviction.
By the way I write this with love to you LR, because you're always smart, articulate, and well reasoned in your opinions, whether we agree (which is most of the time) or disagree. To be honest the whole "criminal" think is something I gloss over. There's a fair amount I gloss over in this election process because I literally cannot handle all of it, because we've seen so much of the worst of my country in one sitting. So I tend to just be like "oh yeah Hillary Clinton criminal stuff yeah that's a thing." But it's not. And it's part of what I wrote about maybe a week or two ago in terms of "this election has created a false dichotomy." Hillary Clinton is absolutely a "politics as they current are" candidate. But the man she is up against represents a far darker part of American society (and I really hate DC politics, I cannot stress this enough). This is my way of saying there may be a bit of bile in this post that isn't necessarily directed toward you it's just a subject that gets my back up a bit .
If something said enough times, it becomes true in the eyes in many, it doesn't matter if it is true or not. Not enough time for Trump for his suggestions to stick. Too many gaffes and mistakes in his own campaign for him to win.
If something said enough times, it becomes true in the eyes in many, it doesn't matter if it is true or not. Not enough time for Trump for his suggestions to stick. Too many gaffes and mistakes in his own campaign for him to win.
It's true, and it's true in all elections to some degree or another. This one is particularly extreme in so many ways, including the fact that Congressional Republicans have been in opposition to Hillary Clinton for years now knowing full well she would be the eventual Democratic nominee for President. That's not to say that if the Republicans had a clear nominee the Democrats wouldn't do the same.
For what it's worth Queensland, I'll admit that you've made one or two good points so far;
- The US is quite effective at curtailing the power of its president from what I gather, I think the example about Obama being unable to carry out certain actions has been given already in this thread. Combined with appointing knowledgable people as advisers, I suspect Trump wouldn't be as bad as people are saying.
- There is no way that Hilary should be running for president. Her conduct has been nothing short of criminal, and the contents of the leaks surrounding her have been quite worrying. I suspect much of her success is primarily because she's against someone who is rather controversial.
The problem is though, the first point is essentially saying that anyone could be president - when you undress it, you realise that either you or I could be president with knowledgable advisers and a system to ensure damage limitation. By that basis, Hillary would also be competent and the position of President is rather pointless - with the exception of making a few soundbites after tragedy.. (Something I'm not sure Trump would be good at, but with a decent speechwriter then of course he would... But then we go back to the fact that anyone can do anything with the right support.)
Do you really think the Republican conduct would look any better were certain nations/organisations trying to sabotage their campaign though? I suspect they have just as many skeletons in their closet, and I doubt the contents of their emails would make them look like poster boys for democracy and abiding by the rules.
It's like that old saying: it's only illegal if you get caught. Now for some peculiar reason there seems to be far more digging and intrusions in to the Democratic campaign.. Do you not feel uneasy at all knowing that - recently atleast - Trumps campaign seems to have relied upon a lot of leaked material that has been gained illegally, and potentially with backing from a foreign nation seeking to interfere with a US election.
This is where it gets murky. Someone is purposefully disrupting the Hillary campaign - in the weird notion of "transparency" - but refusing to do so with Trump's campaign.. That's the antithesis of democracy, and one could argue that after all the revelations that Hillary is actually "better the devil you know".
People want strong secure borders, rather than Hillary's open borders. The mainstream are very unhappy with this current form of PC, socialist crap, that allows a boy to "identify" as a girl, and enter girls toilets. They are saying enough is enough. Hillary represents a highly compromised (pay for play) corrupt politician who will simply deliver more of the same. Trump on the other hand, represents hope for a new beginning. They have a straight choice, more of the same, or the chance to make America great again.
1) Donald Trump is "pro-trans" at least in a bathroom sense, see Caitlyn Jenner's picture of herself in the women's room in Trump towers 2) No they're not. Not at all. The state of North Carolina is losing millions if not billions of dollars as a result of HB2. This is your opinion, it is not a popular one.
This is not PC socialist crap, it's human rights. If you want to spread that bile in your own country, please do, but we have enough bigotry in mine for you to be speaking on behalf of some dreamt-up populous.
For what it's worth Queensland, I'll admit that you've made one or two good points so far;
- The US is quite effective at curtailing the power of its president from what I gather, I think the example about Obama being unable to carry out certain actions has been given already in this thread. Combined with appointing knowledgable people as advisers, I suspect Trump wouldn't be as bad as people are saying.
- There is no way that Hilary should be running for president. Her conduct has been nothing short of criminal, and the contents of the leaks surrounding her have been quite worrying. I suspect much of her success is primarily because she's against someone who is rather controversial.
The problem is though, the first point is essentially saying that anyone could be president - when you undress it, you realise that either you or I could be president with knowledgable advisers and a system to ensure damage limitation. By that basis, Hillary would also be competent and the position of President is rather pointless - with the exception of making a few soundbites after tragedy.. (Something I'm not sure Trump would be good at, but with a decent speechwriter then of course he would... But then we go back to the fact that anyone can do anything with the right support.)
Do you really think the Republican conduct would look any better were certain nations/organisations trying to sabotage their campaign though? I suspect they have just as many skeletons in their closet, and I doubt the contents of their emails would make them look like poster boys for democracy and abiding by the rules.
It's like that old saying: it's only illegal if you get caught. Now for some peculiar reason there seems to be far more digging and intrusions in to the Democratic campaign.. Do you not feel uneasy at all knowing that - recently atleast - Trumps campaign seems to have relied upon a lot of leaked material that has been gained illegally, and potentially with backing from a foreign nation seeking to interfere with a US election.
This is where it gets murky. Someone is purposefully disrupting the Hillary campaign - in the weird notion of "transparency" - but refusing to do so with Trump's campaign.. That's the antithesis of democracy, and one could argue that after all the revelations that Hillary is actually "better the devil you know".
I had to go out, but would like to give your post more of my time. Firstly, when it comes to possible breaches of National Security, Hillary should hang her head in shame. Not only with her and Obama's foreign policy, which has created such mayhem and loss of life, but with her illegal use of a private server. So I think it's rather laughable that she is trying to now use this whole Russian red herring. Assange and his mother Christine (who incidentally lives about 20 minutes up the coast to me in Noosa) are both Lefty Activists from way back. If Assange had anything on Trump, I have no doubt that he'd release it, it would be against his political instincts not to do so. What Trump has achieved, to get this far, after only entering politics a year ago, is quite remarkable. I doubt there is another person on this planet who could have got so far and to be so close to such a seasoned political operator as Clinton. He has managed to get this far only because of his sometimes outrageous and brazen comments and behaviour. He is a showman and he has used those skills to incredible effect. Reagan proved that it is possible to make the transition from show business to the Presidency with great success. He is so close in fact, that they have had to resort to the old faithful favourite, hit him with accusations of sexual abuse, destroy his character with something that is incredibly hard to disprove. These are the kind of dirty tricks that the left always resorts to. Even on this thread, I personally have had to endure accusations of condoning Sexual assault, simply because I badly worded one line of a long post at 3am. Then above, I get tarnished as being an apologist for Jimmy Saville, WTF!!! How unbelievably nasty can these people get ! But Trump has struck a chord with a large proportion of the population who want change. He is quite correct when he says that the US should be doing far better than less than 1% GDP growth, when China and India are experiencing around 7%. His policies, if you actually take the time to listen to him, make sense. Apple is a great US company, it should be producing it's goods in America, giving Americans jobs and paying American Tax, any tax, even 15%. Reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% will encourage large corporations to, not only stay in America, but return to America, to employ people, produce things, stimulate economic growth. People want strong secure borders, rather than Hillary's open borders. The mainstream are very unhappy with this current form of PC, socialist crap, that allows a boy to "identify" as a girl, and enter girls toilets. They are saying enough is enough. Hillary represents a highly compromised (pay for play) corrupt politician who will simply deliver more of the same. Trump on the other hand, represents hope for a new beginning. They have a straight choice, more of the same, or the chance to make America great again.
Of the two views one seems credible and one is just a rehash of 30 years of fake scandals whipped up by rabid right wing media outlets. Not one has been proven.
QA, genuine question here mate, can you provide concrete examples of the so-called "biased lefty media" in my country? Because this is something else that I have issue with, like money in politics, there are plenty examples of the media doing a substandard job but that people only seem to take umbrage with when they're losing.
I was trained as a journalist and started my career in journalism and would have loved to have gone into print journalism, and in spite of my personal views, I do try very hard to look for bias in journalism.
So please, specific examples of your experience. And please no links to alt-right sites, Drudge or Breitbart-esque sources, the latter of whom is literally running the Trump campaign.
Mate, it's 3am, I really need to get to bed! Your definition of "concrete" will be different to mine. I try to look at things from a neutral perspective despite my conservative views. I read statistics recently that 96% of media stories were anti Trump, 23 odd minutes of air time were dedicated to his private "bus" comments, compared to less than a minute dedicated to the Wikileaks revelations about Hillary's open boarders comments, or the possible bribe to the FBI to downgrade her email classifications. I get a rough overview of news stories each day from logging on to Google News and Bing News and I have to say my personal experience is that the 96% anti Trump figure is about right. I've yet to read a positive story about Trump in this campaign. That simply doesn't correlate with a candidate who is only around 7/8 points behind in the polls, love him or hate him. The decision to release the infamous bus tape only 30 days before the election IMO, was a deliberate attempt by the media to ensure Hillary's election. Why for example couldn't they release it in January, when there was still time to find another Republican candidate? Why so many women coming forward in unison, and why has there been no checking of flight manifests, flight dates, no complaints to airline staff at the time, or even a mention to her friends or relatives? Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus. Yet we know Bill lied and got himself a blowjob from an intern in the oval office and had numerous affairs, and Hillary who backed her husband in the face of these acts (not just words like Trump) gets next to zero questioning about this from the media, or demands for her to apologise to the women involved. The media are there to report the News, not make the news, or deliberately try to influence outcomes by imposing their own bias on the populace. Almost every article I read these days should be labelled "opinion piece" because that is what reporting has sadly become. I would say that Silicon Valley is now totally dominated by the left and I am finding it harder by the day to find balanced reporting anywhere. Brietbart and Fox News are biased to the right, but really I like to hear and see unbiased facts so that I can make up my own mind. For example there was a very large march in Paris last week against Gay Marriage, I only found out yesterday, because it received next to zero press coverage. There was another one in Mexico last month, nothing about that either! Anyway must get some sleep now and will look forward to the deluge, of "sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, dinosaur, nutjob" jibes from my Charlton "mates" in the morning.
Setriously mate. When you wake up, read that sentence again and have a re-think. What you've put here (and I am sure it's a 4am comment that you might not have made when fully awake) suggests something pretty awful. "Well, Your Honour, she let me fondle her breasts, so she's fair game, isn't she?"
You've made some pretty daft comments in this thread, and you are by no means alone in that. But you really ought to have a re-think about that type of justification. Very poor.
I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years.
You are so so wrong. Try watching the Jimmy Savile documentaries as a starting point and you'll see how wrong you are.
A real shame you lol the fact that women are sexually assaulted and don't scream out immediately.
I can't see the humour in sexual assault.
Watch this if you can. Louis Theroux on Savile. He did similar type things (and a whole lot more of course, although as it never came to trial perhaps you are a Jimmy Savile supporter as well ?
I'm lol'ing because I made a statement of fact (that you or anyone else on this board), are in no position to refute. I repeat: I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years. There's a little word at the start of it, the "I", it's kind of important ! Yes I saw the program, I know all about Saville. I also know about Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Freddie Starr, Dave Osman. Savile's victims were, in the main, young, or underprivileged, or disabled. The attacks did not take place on Planes, or in nightclubs or in rooms full of people, as is being alleged with Trump. Trumps accusers are nothing like Jimmy Saville's victims. The only similarity being that they are female. What's really abhorrent is that you, or those that "like" you, should imply that I condone the actions of a grub like Saville, simply because I made a statement of fact about the women in my life. As a father of two teenage girls, your post has really angered me.
A couple of years ago we were on holiday walking along the promenade. Some bloke came up to me and my wife and started chatting to us about the history of the town and pointing out landmarks, etc.. He was a bit odd (I was thinking learning difficulties or something) but as he was walking the same way as us chatting I didn't think anything of it and we went our separate ways after a couple of minutes.
It wasn't until later that my missus told me that every time I looked away he was feeling her up! Nothing serious or worth pursuing with the authorities and we never saw him again. She had spent the entire time knocking his hands away or trying to get me between her and him. I was completely oblivious to any of this happening.
If you had said to me my wife would have put up with this sort of behaviour I'd have laughed at you. She did so because of any number of reasons not least of all because she was embarrassed and did not want to cause a scene. I expect those (9?10?!!) women who have now come forward with these allegations against Trump may well have similar legitimate reasons...or at least some do even if your "dirty tricks" theory is even partially correct.
My point being you simply cannot say what you did (and attribute your view as being evidence of a wider pattern of behaviour in a given situation) until the situation arises.
Comments
Why did this woman allow him to touch her boobs, but drew the line when he went lower? So far the only concrete evidence we have are his crude sexist words on that bus.
Even if this woman was supposedly fine with him touching her chest, and that is a big if, it is still sexual assault in my country if he touched her crotch. There is no gray area there. It is a crime committed by someone currently running for president.
There is more evidence than just that on the bus, there are now nine women who have come forward, including former teenage pageant contestants who said he would walk in on them changing while they were minors. He made comments on I believe it was Howard Stern alluding to how he would do this.
Wether these allegations came out in January or October, they're sexual assault. And that is a crime. Contrary to what you may have read about the Wikileaks (because I read about those as well as reading the documents/emails themselves), there is not evidence or insinuation of any crime there. That is why there is far more coverage about Trump, and that's putting aside things he says at rallies and debates that threaten to undermine our far-from-perfect democracy.
Let me put this another way to you, how would you feel if a man you were sat next to on a plane started fiddling with your chest and then started grabbing you by the crotch?
That should leave him dead and buried right there.
But maybe that's just some more locker room talk.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/bogus-meme-targets-trump/
Not defending Trump, it could be that like the Savile case, women were scared to come forward because of the perception of power they felt he had or felt they wouldn't be believed and now one or two have spoken out, others feel they can come forward.
Set aside the issues with women for a moment and take a look at what he's trying to get across re the Clinton's.
There was no Chief Constable prepared to see Justice done or properly investigated when such powerful people were buddies of the pervert.
Thatcher invited him to Christmas lunch and Charles went to some parties in a Scottish Cottage.
I can't see the humour in sexual assault.
Watch this if you can. Louis Theroux on Savile. He did similar type things (and a whole lot more of course, although as it never came to trial perhaps you are a Jimmy Savile supporter as well ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05qzmgd
Even without this falsely attributed comment he has said enough deeply unpleasant things as it is.
I hope he's toast already but who knows....
I know of no woman who would allow some random bloke to sit next to her and let him have his arms all over her "like an octopus" without either screaming, slapping him in the face, chucking red wine over his shirt, or at least tell a stewardess about it, then stay silent about it for 30 years.
There's a little word at the start of it, the "I", it's kind of important !
Yes I saw the program, I know all about Saville. I also know about Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Freddie Starr, Dave Osman.
Savile's victims were, in the main, young, or underprivileged, or disabled. The attacks did not take place on Planes, or in nightclubs or in rooms full of people, as is being alleged with Trump. Trumps accusers are nothing like Jimmy Saville's victims. The only similarity being that they are female.
What's really abhorrent is that you, or those that "like" you, should imply that I condone the actions of a grub like Saville, simply because I made a statement of fact about the women in my life.
As a father of two teenage girls, your post has really angered me.
- The US is quite effective at curtailing the power of its president from what I gather, I think the example about Obama being unable to carry out certain actions has been given already in this thread. Combined with appointing knowledgable people as advisers, I suspect Trump wouldn't be as bad as people are saying.
- There is no way that Hilary should be running for president. Her conduct has been nothing short of criminal, and the contents of the leaks surrounding her have been quite worrying. I suspect much of her success is primarily because she's against someone who is rather controversial.
The problem is though, the first point is essentially saying that anyone could be president - when you undress it, you realise that either you or I could be president with knowledgable advisers and a system to ensure damage limitation. By that basis, Hillary would also be competent and the position of President is rather pointless - with the exception of making a few soundbites after tragedy.. (Something I'm not sure Trump would be good at, but with a decent speechwriter then of course he would... But then we go back to the fact that anyone can do anything with the right support.)
Do you really think the Republican conduct would look any better were certain nations/organisations trying to sabotage their campaign though? I suspect they have just as many skeletons in their closet, and I doubt the contents of their emails would make them look like poster boys for democracy and abiding by the rules.
It's like that old saying: it's only illegal if you get caught. Now for some peculiar reason there seems to be far more digging and intrusions in to the Democratic campaign.. Do you not feel uneasy at all knowing that - recently atleast - Trumps campaign seems to have relied upon a lot of leaked material that has been gained illegally, and potentially with backing from a foreign nation seeking to interfere with a US election.
This is where it gets murky. Someone is purposefully disrupting the Hillary campaign - in the weird notion of "transparency" - but refusing to do so with Trump's campaign.. That's the antithesis of democracy, and one could argue that after all the revelations that Hillary is actually "better the devil you know".
Personally I want to see an end to corruption, and I don't care how, or who uncovers it. I've been following the Gillard fraud here in Oz for five years now. This women was able to work her way to the highest office, and bankrupted the country, because the Union movement had her in their pockets because they were fully aware of her previous fraud.
I don't see Trump as a Republican or a politician at all, he's a non politician who wants what is best for the people and is unlikely to be corrupted by money like most politicians.
As imperfect as Hilary Clinton is & some of the mistakes she had made, Clinton has some experience of the wider world. Trump as US president would be like putting an immature, selfish & not very bright 13 year old in charge. It is no wonder Putin would be happy with Trump.
Assange and his mother Christine (who incidentally lives about 20 minutes up the coast to me in Noosa) are both Lefty Activists from way back. If Assange had anything on Trump, I have no doubt that he'd release it, it would be against his political instincts not to do so.
What Trump has achieved, to get this far, after only entering politics a year ago, is quite remarkable. I doubt there is another person on this planet who could have got so far and to be so close to such a seasoned political operator as Clinton.
He has managed to get this far only because of his sometimes outrageous and brazen comments and behaviour. He is a showman and he has used those skills to incredible effect. Reagan proved that it is possible to make the transition from show business to the Presidency with great success.
He is so close in fact, that they have had to resort to the old faithful favourite, hit him with accusations of sexual abuse, destroy his character with something that is incredibly hard to disprove.
These are the kind of dirty tricks that the left always resorts to. Even on this thread, I personally have had to endure accusations of condoning Sexual assault, simply because I badly worded one line of a long post at 3am. Then above, I get tarnished as being an apologist for Jimmy Saville, WTF!!! How unbelievably nasty can these people get !
But Trump has struck a chord with a large proportion of the population who want change. He is quite correct when he says that the US should be doing far better than less than 1% GDP growth, when China and India are experiencing around 7%. His policies, if you actually take the time to listen to him, make sense.
Apple is a great US company, it should be producing it's goods in America, giving Americans jobs and paying American Tax, any tax, even 15%. Reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% will encourage large corporations to, not only stay in America, but return to America, to employ people, produce things, stimulate economic growth.
People want strong secure borders, rather than Hillary's open borders. The mainstream are very unhappy with this current form of PC, socialist crap, that allows a boy to "identify" as a girl, and enter girls toilets.
They are saying enough is enough. Hillary represents a highly compromised (pay for play) corrupt politician who will simply deliver more of the same. Trump on the other hand, represents hope for a new beginning. They have a straight choice, more of the same, or the chance to make America great again.
Trusting this need for change / redress to Trump is as Ill conceived as you can get.
As Leuth said above Trump exploits situations as ruthlessly as he can for his own benefit with complete disregard for any negative impacts on anyone. Putting Trump in charge to fix things is like putting the fox, who has already taken chickens from the hen house, in charge of fixing the hole that let the fox in, in the first place.
There is this notion driven by a large section of people in opposition to her in public positions that she is a criminal. We have more insight into the inner-workings of her campaign and her previous job than any other candidate in the modern era. I don't like her alignment with Wall Street banks, obviously. I think she can be very opportunistic in her public and policy stances (gay marriage, Iraq war). I think she has taken loads of money from loads of donors.
But before you condemn that, partilcularly the latter, I highly recommend looking in to how campaigns are financed in the States. They are financed, to the hundreds of billions of dollars level (presidential races), by private donations. This is true to varying levels of every election process in federal and state governments. It's shit. I want elections to be publicly funded. I've wanted this for 15 years. Not just when people I agree with more win, but always. But it is not criminal. In fact, it is more legal now than it literally ever has been thanks to the ruling of Citizens United handed down by the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts who said in the decision that corporations have the same rights as people, and thus can contribute as much to elections as possible. The same is true for the "pay for play" aspect of the Clinton Foundation. EVERYONE in Washington DC has charities or campaigns that people can donate to. The defense of this is money buys access, not influence. I think access is bad enough. I hate this in our system. But it is still not criminal.
The FBI was able to recover a large number of the deleted emails and have an extensive investigation found nothing criminal. After a thorough investigation lead by Republicans in Congress into Benghazi they found nothing criminal in their investigation that cost more than what was originally allotted for the 9/11 investigation. There were no charges brought, let alone no criminal conviction.
By the way I write this with love to you LR, because you're always smart, articulate, and well reasoned in your opinions, whether we agree (which is most of the time) or disagree. To be honest the whole "criminal" think is something I gloss over. There's a fair amount I gloss over in this election process because I literally cannot handle all of it, because we've seen so much of the worst of my country in one sitting. So I tend to just be like "oh yeah Hillary Clinton criminal stuff yeah that's a thing." But it's not. And it's part of what I wrote about maybe a week or two ago in terms of "this election has created a false dichotomy." Hillary Clinton is absolutely a "politics as they current are" candidate. But the man she is up against represents a far darker part of American society (and I really hate DC politics, I cannot stress this enough). This is my way of saying there may be a bit of bile in this post that isn't necessarily directed toward you it's just a subject that gets my back up a bit
2) No they're not. Not at all. The state of North Carolina is losing millions if not billions of dollars as a result of HB2. This is your opinion, it is not a popular one.
This is not PC socialist crap, it's human rights. If you want to spread that bile in your own country, please do, but we have enough bigotry in mine for you to be speaking on behalf of some dreamt-up populous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/why-hillary-wins.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Of the two views one seems credible and one is just a rehash of 30 years of fake scandals whipped up by rabid right wing media outlets. Not one has been proven.
It wasn't until later that my missus told me that every time I looked away he was feeling her up! Nothing serious or worth pursuing with the authorities and we never saw him again. She had spent the entire time knocking his hands away or trying to get me between her and him. I was completely oblivious to any of this happening.
If you had said to me my wife would have put up with this sort of behaviour I'd have laughed at you. She did so because of any number of reasons not least of all because she was embarrassed and did not want to cause a scene. I expect those (9?10?!!) women who have now come forward with these allegations against Trump may well have similar legitimate reasons...or at least some do even if your "dirty tricks" theory is even partially correct.
My point being you simply cannot say what you did (and attribute your view as being evidence of a wider pattern of behaviour in a given situation) until the situation arises.