By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
An Australian professor of Data Analytics from Griffith University who predicted Trump’s first win, the Australian Federal Election(when all the polls said the opposite) and Brexit has called it - Trump will be re-elected for another 4 years. You heard it here first.
Yeah, I used to really like Guiliani, he did an amazing job as mayor of NY. Cracked down on the mafia, was very pro active in improving the poorer inner city areas and was liked and respected by all New Yorkers.
I found it very hard to reconcile that man with the one stood outside the Four Seasons garden centre literally shouting mad bullsh!t at reporters.
He's an absolute disgrace now.
Very true. It’s like he’s become a totally different brainwashed man now. He did a lot for New York but his words a few days ago were arguably more divisive than Trump’s.
Just playing devils advocate here but bringing criminal charges against former Presidents could set a dangerous precedent moving forward.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most presidents have done something which could be deemed criminal (Nixon/Watergate and Bush/Iraq off the top of my head). I’m sure Republicans could point to the actions of Obama (he’s already been accused of spying on Trump) and claim it was criminal.
If they go after Trump once he’s left the White House then it wouldn’t be surprising to see Trump loyalists try to find a way to bring criminal charges against Biden or Harris in future.
I’m not sure what the solution is here as Trump probably deserves it but it could potentially open the floodgates and make the role untenable.
So Trump has called out the mob for the storming of Capitol. Its like a man organising a hit job and then saying how terrible they are for carrying it out!! Bizarre!!
Just playing devils advocate here but bringing criminal charges against former Presidents could set a dangerous precedent moving forward.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most presidents have done something which could be deemed criminal (Nixon/Watergate and Bush/Iraq off the top of my head). I’m sure Republicans could point to the actions of Obama (he’s already been accused of spying on Trump) and claim it was criminal.
If they go after Trump once he’s left the White House then it wouldn’t be surprising to see Trump loyalists try to find a way to bring criminal charges against Biden or Harris in future.
I’m not sure what the solution is here as Trump probably deserves it but it could potentially open the floodgates and make the role untenable.
I get that, but think it’s a far more dangerous precedent for the US to effectively say, the President is completely above the law, and a terrible example for the “leader of the free world” to be engaging in. Unless the US is on a par with some country emerging from a dictatorship/civil war, where you often have to grant immunity to secure a peace. Based on what we know about Trump, it wouldn’t be shocking to discover he’s been a one man crime wave during his time in office. An independent DOJ has to pursue any serious cases that come to light.
I get that, but think it’s a far more dangerous precedent for the US to effectively say, the President is completely above the law, and a terrible example for the “leader of the free world” to be engaging in. Unless the US is on a par with some country emerging from a dictatorship/civil war, where you often have to grant immunity to secure a peace. Based on what we know about Trump, it wouldn’t be shocking to discover he’s been a one man crime wave during his time in office. An independent DOJ has to pursue any serious cases that come to light.
I think it may be his tax affairs that will get him in the end, dodgy deals are fine but make sure you pay whats due.....
I get that, but think it’s a far more dangerous precedent for the US to effectively say, the President is completely above the law, and a terrible example for the “leader of the free world” to be engaging in. Unless the US is on a par with some country emerging from a dictatorship/civil war, where you often have to grant immunity to secure a peace. Based on what we know about Trump, it wouldn’t be shocking to discover he’s been a one man crime wave during his time in office. An independent DOJ has to pursue any serious cases that come to light.
Given his behaviour, rhetoric and even the awful way he delivers his speeches, it seems to me that he’s been well and truly got at!
Undoubtedly - possibly by Ivanka. I read a report that she phoned various members of congress yesterday to tell them that a more acceptable statement would be coming out. His inner circle is so fractured now it's not hard to imagine that he's only listening to his kids.
It's normally roughly 48 hours till he goes back off message in a big way - the Charlottesville statement and later rant was a classic example.
So as one of the biggest arse saving exercised he now "conceded"
I know he obviously didn't write it but still, the hypocrisy of the man is incredible. We've gone from the China virus to a menacing pandemic and condemning the insurrectionists supporters who just two days before he told how much he loved them and how special they were.
Also bare-faced lies "I immediately deployed the National Guard" errrr no you fcuking didn't.
No apology for the part he played or condolences to the loved ones of those who lost their lives, no admission he lost the election. He looked like a naughty schoolboy who has been made to apologise by his dad when he really doesn't think he's done anything wrong and as usual, is full of self-preservation and little else.
I have no time for Greenwald, whatsoever, I'm afraid. Hunter Biden has obviously financially gained due to his name/connections, just as thousands of people do every day in every country, and whilst that might be unpalatable, it doesn't make his Dad corrupt.
And there might not be any evidence that Hunter Biden's emails are Russian disinformation, but the whole story is hugely problematic in terms of its credibility; hence even Fox News wouldn't touch it, and no-one wanted their byline against the story in the NY Post.
I find elements of the suppression of the story hugely problematic, such as twitter locking the ny post after it posted details of the alleged leak. When People like Chris Hedges ('the ruling elite's war on truth') are questioning what's going on, I believe there is a problem.
I agree that the allegedly leaked info is not particularly harmful to Biden, especially considering the nepotism trump has been guilty of.
I worry about the new culture of removing 'disinformation' from media platforms, as obama recently endorsed doing in a speech, and as is happening. While there is obviously a problem with what you and i would call disinformation regarding covid, who calls disinformation? Our leaders misinform us, we know that.
Key members of facebook and google were among those who put $100m into biden's electoral coffers through PAC's,as referred to in the hedges article. Are they really to be trusted as to what we can and cannot see? for all it's faults, if something is truly unacceptable, surely that should be a matter for the judiciary.
The fact that I detest trump doesn't make me detest biden any less, the chris Hedges article voices my fears in a far more articulate way then I could ever hope too!
Thought for the day: The person with the nuclear codes is deemed too dangerous to have a Twitter account. And the man with dementia is about to inherit them. But don't worry, he won't remember where he left them. However, no problem, the Chinese spy-cam in the chandelier will know where he put them.
I liked how he said on the video above that his only goal in terms of the legal claims (none of which actually had any evidence provided) was to ensure the integrity of the vote. I don't recall him being too bothered 4 years ago when he won even though Clinton actually had more overall votes and it was only the interesting way the voting system there works that he won. Would he have even been bothered had he got re-elected? of course not. He would have waffled on about how great the systems is and how democracy won etc.
As others have said, he only started questioning the system when he felt he may lose and got his excuses in first.
That speech must have been really hard for him but at least he said it. Now stand down with some humility at least.
Just playing devils advocate here but bringing criminal charges against former Presidents could set a dangerous precedent moving forward.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most presidents have done something which could be deemed criminal (Nixon/Watergate and Bush/Iraq off the top of my head). I’m sure Republicans could point to the actions of Obama (he’s already been accused of spying on Trump) and claim it was criminal.
If they go after Trump once he’s left the White House then it wouldn’t be surprising to see Trump loyalists try to find a way to bring criminal charges against Biden or Harris in future.
I’m not sure what the solution is here as Trump probably deserves it but it could potentially open the floodgates and make the role untenable.
Nixon really did carry out a crime, or at least encouraged one, people did time for the Watergate break-in. Nixon probably would have too if Ford hadn't issued a pre-emptive pardon.
But, no, Bush did not commit any crime under US law in the Iraq War or anything like and there isn't a hope in hell of an allegation that Obama spied getting near court.
It's not enough for some loon to come up with an allegation, you do to meet basic standards of prima facie evidence before you can start throwing charges around and expect them not to be simply thrown out by the courts (just as we've seen countless crackpot allegations about the election thrown out by numerous courts.) In something like your Obama case they'd refuse to even hear it.
Trump's different because on the two counts he might face charges there's a tape recording of his call to the Georgia SoS and TV footage of his call to supporters to march on the Capitol. The actual facts aren't in doubt, merely whether or not a state or federal offence (e.g. sedition) has been committed.
The other difference is that Trump has tried to overthrow democracy. That's what it comes down to, he has spent weeks trying to stop whole US states from being allowed to vote on who should be President. (As pointed out, e.g, by the Republican senator for Pennsylvania.) If you're worried about opening floodgates, that one's the size of the Thames Barrier.
Nixon really did carry out a crime, or at least encouraged one, people did time for the Watergate break-in. Nixon probably would have too if Ford hadn't issued a pre-emptive pardon.
But, no, Bush did not commit any crime under US law in the Iraq War or anything like and there isn't a hope in hell of an allegation that Obama spied getting near court.
It's not enough for some loon to come up with an allegation, you do to meet basic standards of prima facie evidence before you can start throwing charges around and expect them not to be simply thrown out by the courts (just as we've seen countless crackpot allegations about the election thrown out by numerous courts.) In something like your Obama case they'd refuse to even hear it.
Trump's different because on the two counts he might face charges there's a tape recording of his call to the Georgia SoS and TV footage of his call to supporters to march on the Capitol. The actual facts aren't in doubt, merely whether or not a state or federal offence (e.g. sedition) has been committed.
The other difference is that Trump has tried to overthrow democracy. That's what it comes down to, he has spent weeks trying to stop whole US states from being allowed to vote on who should be President. (As pointed out, e.g, by the Republican senator for Pennsylvania.) If you're worried about opening floodgates, that one's the size of the Thames Barrier.
The gerrymandering of the USPS should also be taken into consideration as a tool to supress voting against voters likely to vote Democrat.
Very true. It’s like he’s become a totally different brainwashed man now. He did a lot for New York but his words a few days ago were arguably more divisive than Trump’s.
Similar to a good chunk of the people I've been connected to on social media for a number of years. People who used to be very reasonable and relaxed have turned into raging bigots over the last 4 to 5 years.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
