You know full well that investigations like this take years. The evidence that has already emerged is pretty damning - I daresay that if it were Clinton in the same position, you wouldn't be so desperate to wait until it's all finished.

 

However damning the evidence might be, the principle of innocent until proven guilty *must* apply.

 

I would feel the same way whoever it was.

However damning the evidence might be, the principle of innocent until proven guilty *must* apply.

 

I would feel the same way whoever it was.

 

and yet you read and defend The Daily Mail who find everyone guilty of anything they dont agree with, with nothing having been proven. Hypocritical much. Why aren't you criticising them? They virtually have to write weekly apologies (hidden away on page 347)...

 

Why do you believe Leaver politicians who have proven nothing and offered no evidence?

 

Why do you defend someone where there is already clear evidence, court or not? The point isn't that he hasn't been found guilty in a court yet, it's that he's doing his best to kill off the investigation because he's President. If you happily support every leader then please explain why you have expressed views against some political leaders who have also not (yet) been found guilty in a court of law of anything? Picking and choosing....

and yet you read and defend The Daily Mail who find everyone guilty of anything they dont agree with, with nothing having been proven. Hypocritical much. Why aren't you criticising them? They virtually have to write weekly apologies (hidden away on page 347)...

 

Why do you believe Leaver politicians who have proven nothing and offered no evidence?

 

Why do you defend someone where there is already clear evidence, court or not? The point isn't that he hasn't been found guilty in a court yet, it's that he's doing his best to kill off the investigation because he's President. If you happily support every leader then please explain why you have expressed views against some political leaders who have also not (yet) been found guilty in a court of law of anything? Picking and choosing....

 

The Daily Mail is not a court, therefore it's rantings carry no legal weight.

 

IRO Brexit, nothing can be proved either way until years after we have formally left - ask me again in 5 years time.

 

RE 'Picking & choosing' - did you have specific examples in mind?

The Daily Mail is not a court, therefore it's rantings carry no legal weight.

 

IRO Brexit, nothing can be proved either way until years after we have formally left - ask me again in 5 years time.

 

RE 'Picking & choosing' - did you have specific examples in mind?

One of these days the rantings of the Daily Mail will lead to a case being thrown out of court on the ground that its coverage has denied the defendant a fair trial. We can only hope that the defendant is someone who is genuinely innocent of any offence - and that they successfully sue the Mail for substantial damages as a result.

The Daily Mail is not a court, therefore it's rantings carry no legal weight.

 

IRO Brexit, nothing can be proved either way until years after we have formally left - ask me again in 5 years time.

 

RE 'Picking & choosing' - did you have specific examples in mind?

 

1. Yet you continue to argue that criticisms of Trump are not justified because he hasnt been found guilty (yet) but it's OK when the gutter press print provable lies and you don't condemn them. If you were being fair and consistent you would criticise everyone equally for crossing the line.

 

Example:

 

(3. Not one of yours but I'll give you the fair opportunity to make your opinion clear) How about that Bristol landlord that was accused and vilified for being a murderer and potential evil paedophile, found guilty in the gutter press...oops he was entirely innocent. You must agree that was reprehensible and the press were wrong to convict by media? They should just print the facts, not make assumptions? Not have an opinion about individuals caught up by chance in wrongdoings not of their making? Equally the Media is justified to report there is an investigation ongoing in the USA by the FBI which involves guilty staff working for Trump. That is a fact and should be reported?

 

2. No, I'll ask you in 12 months time because is that we were promised in the referendum. There is nothing on record about benefits not being visible until 2023 (or whatever date that is put back to fit in with ongoing changes in stance by the liars who made the vague promises). We were told we could stay in the single market and it would all be sorted in 2 years. Are you calling them liars as well?

 

3.

 

 

1. Yet you continue to argue that criticisms of Trump are not justified because he hasnt been found guilty (yet) but it's OK when the gutter press print provable lies and you don't condemn them. If you were being fair and consistent you would criticise everyone equally for crossing the line.

 

Example:

 

(3. Not one of yours but I'll give you the fair opportunity to make your opinion clear) How about that Bristol landlord that was accused and vilified for being a murderer and potential evil paedophile, found guilty in the gutter press...oops he was entirely innocent. You must agree that was reprehensible and the press were wrong to convict by media? They should just print the facts, not make assumptions? Not have an opinion about individuals caught up by chance in wrongdoings not of their making? Equally the Media is justified to report there is an investigation ongoing in the USA by the FBI which involves guilty staff working for Trump. That is a fact and should be reported?

 

2. No, I'll ask you in 12 months time because is that we were promised in the referendum. There is nothing on record about benefits not being visible until 2023 (or whatever date that is put back to fit in with ongoing changes in stance by the liars who made the vague promises). We were told we could stay in the single market and it would all be sorted in 2 years. Are you calling them liars as well?

 

3.

 

I am very much against trial-by-media, but unfortunately where Trump is concerned, that gets misconstrued as support for him.

 

2. You don't need to wait 12 months for my answer to that - I can tell you now what my answer will be : 'It's too soon to tell'

I am very much against trial-by-media, but unfortunately where Trump is concerned, that gets misconstrued as support for him.

 

2. You don't need to wait 12 months for my answer to that - I can tell you now what my answer will be : 'It's too soon to tell'

 

Your response would have more weight if you actually ever did condemn the gutter press for doing what you claim we are doing for Trump. As I've yet to see the evidence of your claim forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced.

 

I repeat, Trump is under investigation by the FBI and has admitted wrong-doings in his tweets and campaigning and is accused of multiple sex attacks (court cases pending because he's President and can avoid them) and has admitted grabbing women by the pussy whenever he feels like it because he's wealthy and famous. He called on Putin to discredit Clinton (failed to) and has disregarded instructions by democratic decision to put Russia on hold. Members of his inner circle have pleaded guilty to illegally meeting and working with Putin's cronies.

 

That is not trial by media, that is reporting facts. Do you have a problem with those facts being reported? Cos that's propaganda if you do.

 

 

Your response would have more weight if you actually ever did condemn the gutter press for doing what you claim we are doing for Trump. As I've yet to see the evidence of your claim forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced.

 

We seem to be stuck in a pattern - you accuse me of something, then challenge me to condemn what you accuse me of. I then agree that I condemn it, and that settles it - but only until the next time you accuse me of supporting something I don't.

 

And just to make it clear, I do condemn the gutter press for doing the above - it's just very wearying to have to do it *every single time*!

 

Edited February 4, 20187 yr by vidcapper

We seem to be stuck in a pattern - you accuse me of something, then challenge me to condemn what you accuse me of. I then agree that I condemn it, and that settles it - but only until the next time you accuse me of supporting something I don't...

 

Try answering the questions then.

Try answering the questions then.

 

What, so you can just accuse me of being brainwashed by the Mail again? :huh:

What, so you can just accuse me of being brainwashed by the Mail again? :huh:

 

Why would answering those questions lead to that? I also dont accuse you of being brainwashed, I accuse you of not reading material from a wide variety of sources, which you have confirmed is accurate. All I'm doing is pointing out the illogic in your beliefs, say one thing then contradict yourself.

 

It's easy, as always, let me do it for you:

 

"Yes, under free speech, reporting those facts about Trump is entirely justifiable and speculating on the ongoing investigations. Until he's found guilty in a court of law that he has committed treason, though, it's fair to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's definitely guilty of the facts as printed, which are not made up lies, unlike almost everything Trump says and claims (provable in every case)"

 

You can still love him to bits and choose to believe in his racist policies if you want, and suggest we all wait till he's found guilty (quite rightly) but you can't in any way object to verifiable facts being published and call it "bias". It's called "reporting".

Dow Jones reaches record highs. Trump: DOW up record high thanks to my presidency.

Dow Jones falls by largest margin in 1- day EVER (down 10%, 1600 points). Trump: *Silence*

Dow Jones reaches record highs. Trump: DOW up record high thanks to my presidency.

Dow Jones falls by largest margin in 1- day EVER (down 10%, 1600 points). Trump: *Silence*

 

Unfortunately his ego never changes size.

 

It's a wonder no-one here has tried to blame it on Brexit... :rolleyes:

Edited February 6, 20187 yr by vidcapper

Duplicate - please delete.

Edited February 6, 20187 yr by vidcapper

More cynical exploitation by Trump?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42952519

 

An NFL star's death by an alleged drunk-driver has sparked a political row after it emerged the suspect was in the US illegally.

 

Indiana police say the driver who killed NFL player Edwin Jackson was a Guatemalan who had been deported twice.

 

Manuel Orrego-Savala, 37, was allegedly drunk when he crashed his vehicle into Jackson, 26, and an Uber driver standing by the roadside, killing both.

 

President Donald Trump tweeted his death was a preventable tragedy.

More cynical exploitation by Trump?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42952519

 

An NFL star's death by an alleged drunk-driver has sparked a political row after it emerged the suspect was in the US illegally.

 

Indiana police say the driver who killed NFL player Edwin Jackson was a Guatemalan who had been deported twice.

 

Manuel Orrego-Savala, 37, was allegedly drunk when he crashed his vehicle into Jackson, 26, and an Uber driver standing by the roadside, killing both.

 

President Donald Trump tweeted his death was a preventable tragedy.

 

every drunk driver killing is a preventable accident, as is every accidental and deliberate gunshot killing. As he'd been deported twice it's fair to assume he was being chucked out long before Trump's legislation, and that he was back shows that thousands of miles of coastline are a bit of a problem to patrol.

 

So, yes, cynical exploitation as usual.

every drunk driver killing is a preventable accident, as is every accidental and deliberate gunshot killing. As he'd been deported twice it's fair to assume he was being chucked out long before Trump's legislation, and that he was back shows that thousands of miles of coastline are a bit of a problem to patrol.

 

So, yes, cynical exploitation as usual.

 

Much as I hate to be pedantic [Oh, who am I kidding ;)], a *deliberate* gunshot killing cannot, by definition, be an accident.

 

I agree about the cynical exploitation part.

23,860.46

−1,032.89 −4.15%

 

The Dow Jones is plummeting again! What happened to those record highs eh Donald?

23,860.46

−1,032.89 −4.15%

 

The Dow Jones is plummeting again! What happened to those record highs eh Donald?

 

Classic leader's mistake - claiming credit for something that is out of your control! :lol:

 

a top aide to Trump's Presidential campaign is about to plead guilty to fraud and co-operate with the Mueller investigation. Source: LA Times.

 

Tick, another one bites the dust.

 

Hello Donald, busy golfing again now the weekend's over after that pesky school shooting spoiled your fun? If only staff hadn't told him it would look bad to go golfing in Florida and he ended up having to watch Oprah instead...