matt-c

iTrader: (5)

Oh that, sorry.

OK, so the money was for a bail fund organization.

Anyone released as a result of that was eligible for bail anyway.

Not sure what the issue is here.

Tidgy

so trump didnt explicitly say go riot, yet your saying he told them too and condeming him for it. the dems funded the BLM rioters who were arrested yet you don't seem to see an issue with it. So one doesnt say exactly what you claim he said, the other pays for it, yet the one talking is wrong?

p.s. by you i more mean the wider scope of media, polititions and such.

mrtheedge2u2

You are clutching at straws. Trump knows his support base and he knows what his words will mean to them. And he knows exactly what he is saying and the implication that his words have.

If you are arguing with someone and I give you a gun and say 'solve it' then when I shoot the person I cannot say 'I had no idea. I just gave him a gun to hold. I did not know he would use it'

Tidgy

actauly im pointing out the hypocracy on both side, which is the point i've been making the whole time.

matt-c

iTrader: (5)

I don't understand the connection you are making.

Trump clearly whipped up his base with lies and rhetoric, got them to march on the capitol, told them to never give up, endorsed a comment that it was trial by combat (whatever that meant, from the incoherant Rudy G).
It's not neccessary for him to have said "Go trash the Capitol building" for him to be culpable.

Dems do not agree with bail as it's an unherantly unfair system biased towards those with priviledge. That is a perfectly reasonable position.
If they were eligible for bail, they would have been out anyway if they had the funds on hand.
This doesn't look good if they paid for people to be released who then reoffended.

You make it sound like they targetted certain people to be released so they could then go on the rampage burning down peoples houses, which i'm certain is not the case.

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

They're not funding their release. Read the Washington Post piece again. (MFF were set up in 2016 to address inequities in the cash bail system).
From the WP article you linked to: "According to an accounting by the American Bail Coalition, verified by The Fact Checker with a review of Hennepin County jail records, all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests between May 26 and June 2 were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released; in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested had to pay no bail — and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges. (The American Bail Coalition is a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds.)"
So when Trump said: "rioters — they’re getting them out of jail. Looters — they got them out of jail", he wasn't telling the truth, was he?

matt-c

iTrader: (5)

Impeachment process now in motion.

matt-c

iTrader: (5)

Thanks SW for that.

As a general rule of thumb for those who are not sure, if you seek a source of reliable truthful information i suggest to avoid Donald Trump, he's more or less incapable.

BMWhere?

In the link you posted, it only says that some Democrats had contributed to a fund which pays pre-trail bail bonds to people who cannot afford the bail to ensure people are not held unfairly in prison until they go to trial.

Tidgy

Few quotes for you,

1. 'protesters should not let up'
2. 'If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.'
3. 'I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be, when people realize that this is a policy that they defend.'

So todays quiz, when did trump say those?


p.s. he didn't, but can you guess who? (answers below)





1. Kalama Harris, June 2020
2, Maxine Walters, 2018
3. Nancy Pelosi, june 2018

So whos gonna claim no double standards?

matt-c

iTrader: (5)

I claim no double standards.

Those random quotes have zero context and each of them could be countered by Trump/MAGA inciteful comments x1000.

What are you trying to prove here?

Tidgy

yep your using double standards lol

matt-c

iTrader: (5)

Not sure i am, you litterally just posted some meaningless quotes.

But I am sure you are spending a lot of time trying to defend Trumpism or at least make out it's not so bad, and why you choose to do that is unclear, but I'll leave you to it.

Already got drawn in again when i said i woldn't lol.

Tidgy

so you take what you think trump means, but then say actualy quotes are meaningless yet im in the wrong? DO you not see the couble standard you are setting?

O and the trump speach that suposedly started the riot in washington, it hadn't finished before the riots started.

you need to think about what your typing, what your choosing to ignore and what your choosing to excuse to suit your views and dislike of one man.

so here's something interesting, pair of lawyers talking about it. And please dont try and claim you know more about law than these two and your opinion is more important.

IdonthaveaScooby

This is the thing about trumpies

everything is a ( profitable ) conspiracy that can be played online - when youve nothing else better to do

Since youd be thought a bit of a weirdo playing computer games as a middle aged person

Tidgy

If thats what you think then i dont think you have any comprehension of whats going on.

IdonthaveaScooby

lol, point proven

Tidgy

yes very much so, your ignorance is rather amusing.

matt-c

iTrader: (5)

I want to leave this thread alone, but i keep coming back

From a brief search Robert Barnes is some kind of Trump super fan, he also happens to be a lawyer and part time pro gambler who made money when Trump got elected in 2016.
It's hardly likely to be an objective opinion piece. It's also 2hours long which will not waste my life listening to.
I skipped forward and listened to 30 secs where Barnes is arguing that Pelosi and Schumer are a bigger threat to the constitution, so i guess the crux of it is that they argue that Trump was not calling for rioting?

Few issues with that. 1) You have republican senators coming out (Chris Christie) as example who is saying the opposite. 2) I know it's alien to Trump and his fans, but actions have consequences, accountability exists at some stage. They were his decipals, they interpreted what he and the others said (Eric was particularly aggressive in delivery) they then did what they did.
3) This was a crowd that had been inspired and worked up by constantly being told lies they had been conned out of an election, it was clearly a volotile situation that needed to be managed not stoked up.

I do think about what I type and in my view it's a lot more rational than what most Trump fans type.

It's not only that I dislike Trump the man (in so far as i can know him from his public persona), I also dislike almost all policy decisions he has made. The way he dishes out school playground type insults, makes threats etc etc, it's all abhorrent.
He's also a bit rapey which is not the most endearing character triat, pending law suits around that which look bad for him.

Perhaps you should think more about what you are typing, the moral bankruptcy of the man you are defending on a public forum.

If he's convicted of rape, which is quite possible then you are forever on record defending him, so maybe think about that.
Even Bob Barnes will struggle to spin that, of course it will be a "Hoax" and a "Witchhunt".

BMWhere?

Do random "experts" on the internet really have a comprehension of whats going on or are they just theorising?
I read on the internet that the earth is flat! Does that make it true?

I find it quite laughable how these crazies outright dismiss the main-stream media, and I'm the first to admit the MSM (in particular the Murdoch press) has significant bias issues, but to totally dismiss the MSM and then accept verbatim some random source from the internet is just flat-earth crazy!

Just because someone can make a plausible argument, doesn't make them correct!

You want to talk about double standards with Trump! Look at the level of policing at the Capitol building for a BLM protest which had no plan to visit the Capitol building and Trumps organised protest which was planned to march to the Capitol building. Lets talk about trump encouraging the Proud Boys to antagonise the BLM protests and turn them into riots! Lets talk about trump (righty) condemning the BLM rioters but telling the Capitol rioters that "we love you"!

Whatever anyone else is doing, fine, call them out for it, but they are not the president of the US and you can't use other peoples actions to justify the actions of Trump! Trump is the president and as such, he should be behaving accordingly and not stoking the flames of right wing extremists!

Tidgy

So you think you know more than a lawyer just becuase you disagree with his points? lol not exactly making a convincing argument there.

the mainstream media gets dismissed becasue it is so biased one way or the other, if you dont think that's the case then you have a very rude awakening, even on here its gets said as such time and time again.

so yet again your excuseing all other sides except those trumps side, so its ok for the speaker of the hosue, the new VP etc but not trump? good double standard there It's not acceptable from any of them, but there are much more overt words and actions carried out by other's yet all you;ce done is rag on the bloke for not saying exactly what you want to hear. Funny thing is you sound very much like the anti trump brigade who just want to block everything and have a safe space.

Tidgy

I agree he's a potty mouth and has an ego the size of a house, but what policy decisions he made don't you like?

mrtheedge2u2

Do you hold Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell up to the same level of reverence as the lawyer in the video you posted? After all, they are also lawyers.

matt-c

iTrader: (5)

I think we went through that earlier in the thread.

Tidgy

They know a darn sight mroe than we do, if they have done wrong then the law suits will be successfull, but that is a civil matter. But to answer your question yes i do, unlike you i hold them all accountable to the same level.

IdonthaveaScooby

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.i...438.html%3famp


failed administration

matt-c

iTrader: (5)

BBC streaming the impeachment hearing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...anada-55645957

Mr Fuji

His tax reform, basically gave billions to the rich without delivering any of the benefits he touted (lied about) for the average American

The wall, waste of money, ineffective

Separating immigrant children from their families (and no, it wasn't the same as what happened under Obama)

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement

Cutting environmental protection policies

Reducing workers rights

Blocked a rise in the minimum wage

Reduced safety regulation in the workplace

I could go on, but you can see what sort of country he wanted to create

BMWhere?

I suggest you read my post more carefully! I said the MSM has a bias and as you say, they have a bias one way or the other! If you only read Murdoch media, you will only get one side of the bias, you need to read the situation from both sides of the argument to get a clearer picture of whats going on. You can't simply discredit the MSM and rely on internet commentators who have as much if not more bias than the MSM! At least with the media, their biases are well documented!

I also wasn't excusing all other sides, in fact I stated that what others do is no excuse for Trump to behave the way he does. In his position as president, he holds the top job and his words and actions carry more weight, and therefore is more accountable and needs to be more responsible about what he says and does.

As for his policies, I actually think he has done some good, in particular his tough line on China and his attempts to garner peace with North Korea, even though that has come to nothing, but Trump is not to blame for that. He's certainly got further with Kim than any previous presidents. On the other side, pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal was a very grave mistake and pulling out of the Paris climate agreement and his support of fossil fuels over green energy is a very backwards step - thankfully US industry largely doesn't agree with his policy, but nonetheless it has been damaging. His decision to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has set the Middle East peace process back years and led to the complete stalling of the Middle East peace process. He appointed one of his friends/cronies as head of the US postal service, a man who had no credentials for running such a service, who has subsequently made cuts which have resulted in the postal services virtually collapsing - I posted a Christmas card to a friend in the US on the 3rd December, it arrived on Monday 11th January! Meanwhile the card I posted on the same day to my Brother in New Zealand was there a week later! I don't care one way or another about "The Wall", but he has build no more new wall than Obama did and Mexico didn't pay for it, so given that was his big election policy, you have to consider it a failure! Then there is the handling of Corona - 'nuff said!

I could go on! Sure, some of his policies are ok, but there are a lot of things he has done which are very damagaing both internally in America (particularly for poorer Americans) and to the international image of America, ultimately risking the security of the country and its people. His rhoteric of supporting right wing, white nationalist groups in the US while simultaneously labelling moderates as "loony left" and belittlement of the BLM movement have only served to widen the divide in the US and also endangered domestic security - culminating in the storming of the Capitol last week and now nationwide threats of armed protests leading up to inauguration of the new President!

Tidgy

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/intro-...ia-bias-chart/

have a look there, you'll see most of the considered 'main stream' media is on the left. I suspect you'll find if you go look into it deep trump is more centre than you think.

The parris accord and the iran deal is debatable as not all countrys were following the rules (India, china and the US it has to be said, amongst others). So why stay in a greement that people arn't bothering to follow? so i can understand why he did pull out, do i agree with it? i dunno, i have to conffess i don't knwo the full ins and outs (which can be said for most people) of the parris accord. But given iran is suposed to still be following the agreement yet has totaly ignored it and carried on shows how inefectual the agreement was.

By moving the embasssy he allowed other agreemtns to be reached, he was nominated for a nobl peace prize 3 times iirc for these. the middle easy is a total **** show and saying that single move put the peace procccess back is debateable as its been in the same unstable state for a long time.

Uh have you tried our royal mail recently? trumps had nothing to do with that and its a **** show. and he has no direct control over it.

The BLM movement has been ritoing for months and there is a growing feeling of people having enough, yet i dont see you calling them out, they have been funded by the dems (as mentioned above) and even told to riot by pelosi (again linked above but you wont accept it). Funding vs words? i know which is worse. It also begs the question is it a reaction to the lack of action stopping the riots by BLM? The more you push, the harder people push back.

Alot of the internal damaging stuff is based on opinion of the dems (which you seem to be the mouth peace of with what yoru saying), employment before covid was the lowest in the US it had been for years, the economy was booming yet you say thats bad? again thats what the dems are saying. How is low unemplyment and good economy bad? short version it isn't and is good even for the poorer parts of society.