- Popular Post

JCauto
-
Posts
2,056 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by JCauto
-
-
1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:
I doubt your understanding of capitalism and the free market is any greater than mine. But our definition of what constitutes a philanthropist is clearly very different.
I agree with your initial sentence, although I fail to see how it relates to my point. My point was "why Soros?" when:
1. Any other financier/capitalist who noticed what Soros did would have done exactly the same thing, and had he not done it the next one who did would have. Therefore the ultimate blame for the currency "manipulation" was the governments whose policies weakened their currencies who then decided to artificially prop them up when they didn't have the finances and political will to sustain it. That's capitalism. I'm not a big fan of untrammeled or unregulated capitalism, and certainly not in favour of crony capitalism, but that's the way things are currently working.2. I haven't talked about philanthropy even once. So you haven't the slightest idea what I define it to be.
-
Just now, Krataiboy said:
What makes you think I loathe the bankers any less than our George? If you really believe currency markets are free, read Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope and/or Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island.
Precisely my point. Okay, you loathe the bankers. How many angry posts have you made about them? How is it that Soros is the boogeyman rather than, oh, the Wall Street firms and Banks that caused and made massive profits from the financial crisis and then lobbied to remove any rules that would prevent them from doing it all over again? Or was that Soros too? And with respect to Soros and the currency issues, is it your position that had he not existed the next guy to notice would not have done the exact same thing?
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:
You must have a short memory.
Millions of people of ALL political persuasions suffered when Soros destroyed the pound in 1992 and the baht five years later - and will again if the regressive lefty billionaire's meddling in the UK's internal affairs results in Brexit being reversed.
His is the kind of "philanthropy" our world can do without.
Okay, so you're saying that, had Soros seen the weakness of the Sterling and Baht positions and decided "don't want to hurt all them lil' people", then nothing bad would have happened to the Sterling and Baht, no other major investor/shark would have noticed the weakness and moved to take advantage of it, and things would have been all just fine eventually as the British and Thai Governments implemented policy to shore up their financial weakness as governments always act in the best interest of their people and would never artificially mess with their currencies for their own benefit.
Uh huh. Write back when you have gained a bit of understanding about capitalism and the free market. If Soros is so brilliant that he's the only guy who could see it and act upon it, then you have to give the devil his due, he used the system legally to make an enormous amount of money. If he was just the first of several who would have seen and done the same thing, then the next guy who realized it would be the one who did it. If he had a pang of conscience (something we know many financiers are prone to), then the third guy would have faced this oh-so-difficult dilemma. Soros was just one of the many horses in the race that he won.-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Krataiboy said:
Not sure that destroying the pound in 1992, the baht five years later and latterly pouring zillions into trying to reverse the UK's decision to leave the EU can be said to have made the world a better, fairer place.
One thing that's for sure is that they have made an already wealthy and powerful man even more so. Sheer coincidence, of course.
Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttttt. You're against a free market in currency? You believe that people smart enough to recognize, for example, that the Thai Gov't was unsustainably propping up the baht and took advantage of it are criminals?
How do you feel about the banks who manipulated the LIBOR rate? How do you feel about Goldman Sachs and the blatant manipulation they've done to the markets and precipitating the financial crisis? Why do those people, who have already been caught illegally trading and whose actions definitely caused the financial crisis, get a pass? Why only Soros? And was anything he did illegal?-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
11 hours ago, robblok said:He is breaking the law and its only logical not to let convicted criminals influence a countries politics while not being subjected to the same rules as other politicians. Thaksin influences the government but does hot have to show his assets can do his dirty deals behind the scene with far less checks and balances then those that apply to normal leaders of parties.
So i fully understand why they are going after him. I am of two minds here, i want the PTP to run in the election. But if this finally separates Thaksin from the PTP then its worth it. Disbanding until the others in his party understand he is a liability and and gives more problems then advantages and they ditch them.
I'll give you one thing. You're consistent. We've been down this discussion rabbit hole so many times, yet you still cannot get it. Let me try again.
1. When a non-elected military takes over, it is a coup, it is illegal. Any "law" stemming from this is illegitimate. Particularly laws that seek to entrench the illegal usurpers of power.
2. How can one be a convicted criminal when one rewrites the constitution and laws to exempt one from conviction for what are clearly, unequivocally, criminal activities to usurp power?
3. "Subjected to the same rules as other politicians" - how about the Junta? Are they subject to the same laws as the other politicians? They're currently campaigning and spreading government largesse while all other political parties are sidelined until they decide whether they're allowed to do anything and what exactly it is they're allowed to do. They only way this would be even slightly "fair" would be for them to state, clearly and on the record, that they have no intention to run for office. They haven't and anyone who thinks they aren't is a rube.
4. So have you seen the checks and balances working with the Junta? How about their assets? Watches, etc.? What's your remedy for this? Where's your outrage?5. So you're all for having no opposition just so long as the Boogeyman is eliminated. The same BS that precipitated the coup, the last several years of misrule, and the upcoming several years and however many hundreds of Dead Red protesters that it will take to finally dislodge this mob of military strongmen. Great to have such fine principles. I hope that you're willing to own them when you're watching the mangled bodies.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
So where was the Nation when the coup happened? Happily complicit and shamefully silent. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
-
6
-
28 minutes ago, stud858 said:
That's, the problem. People think to much.
Australia has gone through 7 leaders in about 10 years(?). And it's not because each leader was evil Hope US doesn't follow suit.
When individuals put their conclusions above democracy it all falls apart. Well not really. Completely remove government for years and society keeps functioning.
Do we need a government?. Maybe just a dictator. Maybe Trump will deny a democratic vote next election. Now, that would be evil. If that happens I'll jump on your bandwagon. Until then God bless the United states of America, and God bless Trump.
The USA has only had one President who didn't complete their term because of being impeached, so it's not really much of a risk. Where exactly have you seen where government has been removed completely and society continues to function? I don't mean in movies. This is just another facile viewpoint that ignores history and facts.
As to your points about democracy, you seem to misunderstand how it is supposed to function. Individuals do not just have the right to oppose the elected party and President, that's actually a critical part of the system. If your memory allows, recall the previous President and your likely views of him. They're of course supposed to do so within the limits of the law, but so should and must the elected representatives and President.
Conservatives used to tell us that they had core Christian values that were immutable and based on strong traditional moral and ethical standards. And then of course they tell us that God is on their side as they follow a philandering, sexual assaulting, lying, cheating, scumbag who very likely conspired with the Russians (who have compromised him) to pervert American democracy. Ronnie Raygun is spinning in his grave.-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
11 minutes ago, stud858 said:Not only decent Americans. Just say decent people who had their democratic vote, and even outside onlookers are feeling threatened.
There is no such thing as an angel president.
I am sure Trump has just as many poor traits as those before him. After all, human is human.
So because there are schitty humans out there, that means that ALL humans are schitty because, after all, human is human. Interesting.
So you don't attach any value to the things people say, the things people do, their hobbies, the folks they hang out with, their public statements, their charitable works, their religious predilections, their interactions with others less powerful than they, etc.?Let's compare Jimmy Carter (yes, yes, I know, the worst president ever yada yada yada) with Donald Trump. Carter was a Nuclear Engineer who worked in the USA's nuclear submarine fleet and managed the family peanut farm in Georgia. Donald inherited 413 million dollars and continued his father's business of slumlord then expanded it to include casinos and dodgy real estate dealings. Jimmy confessed to having "lusted in his heart" and was roundly condemned and mocked for it on the Right but has been happily married to the same woman for over 70 years. Donald confessed to grabbing women by their genitalia whenever he wants even if they don't and how he can get away with it because he's famous. He has proven this to be true. He's on his third marriage, having cheated on the previous two while they were pregnant. He's clearly cheated numerous times on the current wife, including with a famous porn star and with women who claim they were coerced or forced into sexual situations. Jimmy is an Elder in his church and attends regularly. Donald claims to be a Christian and hasn't been recorded in a church on Sundays since he's been president as far as I can recall whereas he's set a record for number of rounds of golf played by a sitting president that will never be touched. Jimmy is over 90 and works building houses in the hot sun as a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. Donald has no discernible human empathy to those who are not White and Male or White, Female and Attractive and has never attempted to physically labour for anyone in his entire existence.
So no, I don't think your point is well thought out or valid. Just because you or your chosen leader is a horrible person does not mean everyone else is too. Our horror at this person is because we're very unlike him and can't see how others relate to his repulsive worldview.-
2
-
1
-
3 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:
I met my Thai wife in London back in the mid 1980s. Today, I doubt there are many, if any, Thais working illegally in Britain, but I can tell you that back in the 1980s, thousands of Thais entered Britain on education visas and then marriages of convenience where arranged for them. This means that there are thousands of Thais living in Britain today that should not be there. But the British government back then as is today, consider illegal immigrants as very low priority. This is why I believe in the immigration policies of the Thai government that are trying to nip this problem in the bud now before it becomes uncontrolled as what`s happened in Britain.
I don't think that there's any correlation between the two situations at all. No Thai government has ever invited or wanted a lot of foreign people working in Thailand without visas, but government employees no doubt have often found it profitable to look the other way. When you see the "law" being applied in Thailand, that only means one thing - the ones applying it are doing so in order to punish people who are paying someone other than them off. When you discuss illegal immigration in the UK, I presume your concern is primarily those in blue collar jobs. In Thailand, the concern is the lack of blue collar workers willing to work for less money than minimum wage, and hence there's a strong demand for workers from neighbouring countries to fill that need. They're not at all concerned about this.
I also find it hard to believe that there was a need for "arranged" marriages for Thai women who were in the UK. -
So beyond the usual rhetoric, would you support a constitutional amendment that basically says "The President shall not appoint any Supreme Court Justices within the last calendar year of their Presidency to ensure the voters have a say in the direction of the Court" or words to that effect?
6 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:That sounds like a good idea.
I don't have an objection to it. But I think it seems these things now need to be codified and regularized. Up until the last 10 years or so, Americans could rely on the institutions and their standards and norms to ensure fair process, but with the polarization that has happened the equilibrium that kept politics polite and relatively centrist has evaporated. The wild swings in policy and continued destruction of the checks and balances have already germinated the seeds of America's downfall. This will be painful, but was perhaps inevitable and needed as we shift from raw capitalism in its ultimate and corrupt form (corporatism) to the next phase.
-
9 hours ago, vinegarbase said:
Now if our home countries can start rounding up and sending back all the Thai illegals to replace the foreign illegals they are deporting their Thai heaven will be complete!
I am glad these things are happening in Asian countries because when foreigners come here and see how strict and unwanted they are in Asian countries it contributes as a result to more people becoming nationalist when they return to their own countries. We need more nationalists back home!Erm...so you're under the impression that there are a lot of Thai illegals working somewhere? Where is that?
According to the statistics, there are 3 countries who provide by far the most remittances to Thailand: #1 Saudi Arabia, #2 India, #3 Mexico and #4 Spain. Now, #1 makes sense, there's lots of labourers in Saudi from Isarn and the South. Are they illegal? Do you have an interest in Saudi nationalism? India? Sounds a lot like locals who have immigrated from India and managed to acquire Thai citizenship. Mexico? Sounds like money-laundering unless there's some large Thai presence there that I'm completely unaware of. Spain? Sounds like seasonal work in the ag sector and highly unlikely to be illegals.
So not sure about your point, which ultimately seems to be "I'm a nationalist and I think everyone else should be one too!"
https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/remittances -
11 hours ago, riclag said:
The Mantra of the Far Left before and during the committee meetings
"We Will Stop At Nothing".
Decent American's are sick of the search and destroy mission tactics of the resistance and those who support it,MSM,Dem's and Far left.
So beyond the usual rhetoric, would you support a constitutional amendment that basically says "The President shall not appoint any Supreme Court Justices within the last calendar year of their Presidency to ensure the voters have a say in the direction of the Court" or words to that effect?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, iroc4life said:
All of you arm chair keyboard jurist sure do know a lot about something that supposedly happened 36 years ago, and without ay evidence, all witnesses deny ever happened, dont know time, date, place it happened etc. I truely hope noone make accusations against you from years ago to the media. Public opinion means nothing, accusations alone condemn no one except people like you who believe anything they hear without proof evidence etc.
Let's first dispense with the lies of this post. There is evidence, and eyewitness reports. No, "all witnesses deny ever happened" is not true. Several have provided corroborating evidence, and the 65 Trump supporters are starting to crumble. Public opinion means everything in this case, had there been no public outcry, they'd have simply swept this under the rug.
I have no fear of people making accusations about me from years ago to the media (notwithstanding the fact that it is highly unlikely that the media would be interested in me). The reason is that I never did anything like what was alleged by this women, the other women who have come out with stories or any other thing that we did back in the day. This was a bunch of privileged frat boys in an all-male school who were engaging in male bonding rituals that were degrading to and physically inappropriate with any girls they came across. Based on the stories of the others who knew him in University, this laddish and inappropriate behaviour continued.
Now is he on trial for sexual assault here? No, most assuredly he is not. But is this the sort of person who should be on the highest court in the land? And particularly the case when it becomes apparent that he has perjured himself? No, he is not. Some of the colleagues on the Right on this board have identified that there are four alternative possible judges they've had lined up in case this one doesn't get through, one of which is even female. Why not just withdraw gracefully and put one of those up? If this continues, it's not going to look good or go well for Kavanaugh.-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:
IMO the makeup of the SCOTUS reflects the reality that till recently, law was something men did and in the US probably mainly white guys. To get to the stage of being considered for SCOTUS requires a lot of experience, which probably isn't available in many female lawyers at present. Give it a few years for that to become reality.
For very good reasons, SCOTUS isn't elected by a popular vote, and may even be in the constitution to be done as it is. That would require a constitutional amendment to change.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about the membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Your point with respect to non-White guys on SCOTUS is taken, although if we look at an average appointed age of 50-55 for Justices, you'd be talking about 1995 or so from when you'd think you'd have some viable candidates. Understood that changes on SCOTUS take longer. -
2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:
Comes down to she said he said. Who to believe is the question.
Of course she may have some actual evidence, like a dress with his ( dna tested ) semen on it, or an eye witness that corroborates her version, but I doubt it.
Some people need to be careful what they wish for, as if, in the future, a Dem majority wish to nominate a candidate they like, GOP women may be making accusations of their own to pay back the Dems.
If any lessons can be learned from this fiasco, it should be that before any accusations can be made in public in such a situation, a police report or definitive proof of the event should be available, or the accusation is ignored.
Disagree. There's a very strong disincentive to deciding to bring these accusations forward and the ones who do inevitably have their lives turned upside down and not for the better. Should a Dem Jurist be accused similarly, they should immediately have the claim investigated by the FBI and if it's determined to be credible the person should be disqualified immediately. People willing to do this once will do it again and again, so an initial accusation will inevitably unearth others who will come out when it's finally exposed. I don't think this sort of behaviour is common even among frat boys; the vast majority of people know the lines that must not be crossed even in High School. So I don't think there is a shortage of non-sexual predator judges on either side of the aisle.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, riclag said:Yes I see the pattern of the intolerant left.You blew it out of the water when you mentioned 11 old white men. Are you against old ,men and most importantly white.... . Skin color has nothing to do with this radical left attack on JK. Their volatile resistance mantra is well documented ( we will stop at nothing,specifically JK).It's been a pattern of the volatile left,to force their will and ideas in university's ,colleges and in challenging the Constitution with radical changes.
She(ford) will get no sympathy from me ,after seeing the activist pretending to be a lawyer Katz on videos saying resist, while in my opinion using women's rights as a facade.It will be disappointing if he doesn't get confirmed,but there will be another time and place for what's meant to be !
Not against them (I'm actually one of them) but have you looked at the demographics of the United States lately? Why is it that a country where the old white males (let's say > 55) comprise approximately 10.25% of the population do they comprise 72.73% of the Republican Judiciary Committee members? Is Justice something only for old white guys? How about if we drop the age to 45 so we include all the "older" white guys? That's 100% of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee. Let's compare them to Democrats - 6 out of 11 are Old White Guys or 54.55% Still too high, but at least somewhat representative as it includes 4 women and 2 black people (one is a Black Female). Wouldn't you agree that the results of a democratic election ought to reflect to some extent the demographic representation of the population?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States
Now as to the rest of your points...erm...I don't see any actual facts. You keep mentioning the "volatile left" which is a new one to me. Who is that? Why are they volatile? Do atmospheric or chemical conditions cause them to change to Right-Wingers? When was the last great Leftist Constitutional Radical Change? Would you be referring to the last amendment (#27) which "delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives." That was in 1992 and doesn't seem to be particularly exciting in terms of its radical-ness. Perhaps you're referring to the 26th Amendment that allowed people over the age of 18 to vote? Another Radical Leftist Amendment! Wow, the Radical Leftists passed that one during Nixon's Presidency in 1971. Who knew Tricky Dicky was a Commie? Maybe he was just too tricky.
I'm sure that you approached the case of Ms. Ford with open objectivity, and were greatly disappointed in the credulity of her case due to the activist pretending to be a lawyer Katz. Let me look into that...again, what a bombshell! This pretend lawyer has undertaken an awful lot of steps to maintain the pretense, including founding her own respected firm (Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLC) and being regularly named one of the top lawyers in Washington DC. The lengths these pretenders will go to! And no doubt it's all just a facade, why would that person be interested in women's rights, just because she's a woman?
Finally, you tantalize with your knowledge of "what's meant to be". How can you let your readers know that you have such precious information and then refuse to share it? Inquiring minds need to know!-
3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
15 minutes ago, riclag said:Yes, Do me a favor,while your at it don't insult me for my lack of grammar skills. You caught my meaning
Since when did the GOP call rape and throw themselves to the chamber floor screaming and flailing like sick pathetic intolerant parasites. Hopefully the Independents will see the pattern of violence of the left and their sick behavior in the next couple of weeks to encourage more to vote for the less volatile party of change
I didn't insult you, I presumed that English wasn't your first language since you didn't understand the meaning of "paraphrase", a common word. That's vocabulary, not grammar. Grammar would be my pointing out that "your at it" ought to be "you're at it". But yes, I caught your meaning and hence why I responded underneath. Just trying to be helpful to others, it's our way as liberals to try to improve society and help individuals who aren't as fortunate as we are. Now to your point...
So when did the GOP behave hypocritically with respect to sexual assault? Well, there was the way they demanded that the Democrats return all donations to the Party from Harvey Weinstein, a major donor of theirs accused of sexual assault. The Democrats then did so because they actually think that sexual assault by powerful men is wrong. Yet shortly afterwards, Steve Wynn, a major donor of theirs, was accused of sexual assault. The Republican National Committee, who took the lead in demanding the Democrats return Weinstein's money, then of course did NOT return Wynn's money. Does that seem hypocritical to you?
Then there was Al Franken, accused of minor improprieties and hounded out of the Senate by the Republicans for those transgressions. You will note that this happened because the Democrats agreed that it was not right for someone in Congress to be tainted by these accusations, even though they were far below the level of what Kavanaugh is accused of. And Kavanaugh's going for an even higher office that is responsible for interpretation of the laws of the land, which should be held to even higher scrutiny. Or was that "O'Kavanaugh"?Then there was the way they refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland even though the President had been elected and there was over a year before the end of his term, with the Senate insisting that it should only take place after the people had a chance to express their views at the ballot box. Yet here they are railroading this Supreme Court selection through while trying to avoid providing sufficient documents about his views and actions and knowing that he's already lied under oath and desperately trying to do so prior to the Mid-terms. Note that Garland was a moderate centrist, whereas this guy is a radical right-winger who has already indicated he doesn't believe in limits on Presidential power and is being appointed by a President under active investigation by the Justice Department.
Then there's the President, who has been accused by 19 women of sexual assault or rape, and who has been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because he is famous. Then there's his latest major WH appointment Bill Shine, the FOX News exec who had to be fired because of his history of sexual assault which even the misogynists at Faux News couldn't abide. There is the fact that the Republicans control the Congress and have pretty much eliminated women from any positions of power or on committees - the optics of the 11 Old White Men grilling the woman who was assaulted should pretty much end the Republican control of Congress at the mid-terms regardless of whether this odious human manages to weasel his way on the highest court in the land.
See any patterns here?-
1
-
2
-
10 minutes ago, riclag said:
Source up
Are you really asking for a source for something that started "Allow me to paraphrase"? I guess English isn't your first language, so I'll explain. A "paraphrase" means "a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else".
-
19 minutes ago, riclag said:
“Democrats have signaled for months they’d put on whatever performance the far left special interests demanded and throw all the mud, all the mud they could manufacture,” McConnell said. “Even by the far left’s standards, this evil, evil smear campaign has hit a new low.”
Be prepared and don't be shocked especially the fake left predictable crocodial smears of tears ! I would have sympathy but this was all orchestrated many months ago probably before July! Sick! What the despicable deranged left is doing
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-decries-kavanaugh-accusations-smear-campaign
What's a crocodial? Is that a new kind of shoe-phone, like Maxwell Smart would use if they updated that TV series? When you can't spell basic English words, your other ones lose their effectiveness.
Allow me to paraphrase what McConnell's words really were. "We are shocked to observe that the Democrats have abandoned their weak-kneed tendency to allow us to manipulate the law and railroad this terrible Supreme Court choice through the Senate with as little scrutiny as possible. To behave exactly as we Republicans have for the previous 10 years by discarding all principles in favour of naked self-interest and using sneaky rules and sympathetic press to get what they want is appalling. We should at least get royalties for our intellectual property having developed these tricks."
-
1
-
-
Why are people still believing this <deleted>? The site is 3 km from a local village. You really think nobody would have heard the plane come down, and nobody would have ventured 3 km into the jungle to check it out?
Satellites take imagery from above the level planes fly. When a plane flies under the satellite, then the satellite image captures a picture of a plane from above. The plane is flying, it is not on the ground. -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
19 hours ago, Nyezhov said:Amazing how the accusers are all of a sudden just showing up 55555. Sort of like copycat school shooters.
There is something called overplaying ones hand, neh?
No, there's something called serial sexual abusers, guys who don't understand boundaries and feel privileged to take what they want from others. Thing about this, is they tend to do it over and over again. And when they become prominent, the victims finally have a chance to gain their revenge for being wronged way back when. So they do, despite the trouble it brings. And once one is willing, it makes it easier for the others to come out. Wouldn't be surprised if more do too.
You must be proud to endorse such a fine individual for what is supposed to be the pinnacle of American justice. Why is it so difficult for the Right to find a morally sound conservative jurist?-
3
-
11 hours ago, mcambl61 said:
"we" ?
"Professionals" at the FBI that invent a narrative by leaking it to the press to out it in a surveillance warrant? you mean those "procedures"?
The FBI that was founded on illegally taping and photographing people to blackmail them into going along with what J Edgar wanted while he was wearing women's clothing and getting turd burgalled?
you mean that impeccable "justice" dept that hid Bruce Ohr's obvious illegal contact with the inventor of the bogus dossier? The one that refuses to release information for a year until threat of contempt? Then releases it 90 percent redacted. What are they afraid of? What are you afraid of?
the texts and the implications are obvious, but keep on hoping
The "we" was in reference to your comment which was directed to "those on the left" of which I am one.
Your pathetic attempts to distract and divert have been destroyed by several other posters already, so no need for me to point out the obvious rebuttals (Hilary's investigations of several years and millions resulting in ZERO indictments, Trump's team 6 already many more to come, timing of the Strzok/Page texts and FISA warrant, etc.). I do believe you're going to lose the plot completely when the Democrats retake the House and Senate and the President gets impeached.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:
They are evidence in an ongoing investigation, by making them public it hampers their chance of being used in court against them, this is not about scoops, this is about removing a tyrant, shame the NRA aren't on this.
Oh, but they are! The NRA was used to funnel Russian dirty money to the campaign. This is going to be great, so looking forward to the trial.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
9 hours ago, mcambl61 said:fortunately, he is the one that makes that decision.
Why is it that no one on the left is curious as to why the DOJ and FBI are ignoring and delaying releasing information? If you are so sure he is guilty then wouldn't you want to see as much as possible?
No, we trust that the lifelong (and politically Republican for the most part) professionals at the DOJ and FBI will undertake their investigation as per their procedures and then present the evidence at trial where it belongs, rather than to the media where this absurd farce is currently taking place. Trump has stated numerous times that he has nothing to hide, and that he's willing to interview with Mueller so all is good and he's in the clear, right? What's your hurry? When the great big nothing-burger of an investigation is finished and Mueller presents what you believe to be evidence that's obviously not credible your man will be puffed up so bigly the world will never have seen such a Phoenix-like rise from the ashes. Why take away the man's glory by giving up the game now?
-
3
-
1
Pheu Thai Party Could Be Dissolved If Under Thaksin: EC
in Thailand News
Posted
Uh, do you recall the case of the "borrowed watches"? Do you recall the case of the very expensive monument? Do you recall...
You can't keep holding Thaksin to a standard that Prayut and his unelected Junta do not accept or conform to. You keep saying how you "would like the PTP to run in the election but if this forces Thaksin out for good to cut ties to the PTP then its a good outcome too". Well, you've had how many years of forcing Thaksin out for good. How's that working out for you? How many decades of military dictatorship are you willing to stand for in order to "force Thaksin out for good", a goal that's not been achieved despite taking everyone's rights away to do so? How does what the Junta has done to "force Thaksin out for good" give you confidence that they should continue to keep usurping power to achieve this goal? Is it working? Not according to you.