johnnybangkok

Another Trumper trying to excuse what actually came out of Trumps mouth (how long do you need to keep doing this). No-one forced him to say what he said about Kamala, especially when the interviewer was only (and rightly) bringing up his past indiscretions regarding race and ethnicity. The man suffers from serious foot-in-mouth disease and can't be expected to answer anything in a diplomatic or indeed Presidential manner. He just opens his mouth and the vitriol just pours out.

Why does it have to have anything to do with religion or nationality or a perceived slight by the UK government? Isn't the most likely scenario being a VERY troubled young man who finally flipped and went on a killing spree? Thomas Hamilton went on a shooting spree in Dunblane some 30 years ago, killing 16 kids and their teacher before turning the gun on himself. Was he motivated by religion? Was he 'humiliated' by the government of the time or was he simply a nut-job who took out his frustrations and inadequacies on those poor children? In 2021, Jake Davison from Plymouth, shot and killed five people (including his mother) and injured two others before fatally shooting himself. Did anyone question his religion? Were mosques attacked? Or was it because their very British sounding names didn't illicit the same response from the usual racist/Islamophobic quarter? By all accounts this young man was born and brought up in the UK. Maybe he was radicalised (I'm sure that will come out over time if he was) but religious nuts usually don't take it out on children. So when looking for reasons perhaps many of you should take off your racist/Islamophobic blinkers and start looking at the most obvious reason of a very troubled boy finally snapping and taking his frustrations out on those poor kids.

You are more than welcome to debate any of the FACTS in my original post but I can imagine your echo chamber doesn't allow for anything much more than name calling. VERY predictable. You don't have to be 'woke' to know that Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is a hypocritical POS, with only one VERY racist/Islamaphobic agenda.

Firstly there's no Islamification of the UK. The often quoted sharia courts may hold some sway in the local Muslim population but they have absolutely no standing in UK law and never will have. The UK legal system supercedes all and any other 'courts' despite what Tommy and his minions would have you believe. Secondly, ol' Tommy was convicted of libel for the film you mentioned (and ordered to pay the 100k) but importantly the ruling also came with an injunction prohibiting TR from showing the film. This was obviously flaunted, hence the arrest. TR has garnered much fame and notoriety by highlighting a gang of Muslim paedophiles but tellingly, he didn't have too much to say when his own close friend and ally Richard Price was convicted of making four indecent images of children, nor the other 20 members and supporters of the EDL (his own group for those not in the know) convicted of child sexual exploitation offences (https://hopenothate.org.uk/2022/01/11/tommy-robinson-is-a-hypocrite-when-it-comes-to-opposing-child-sexual-exploitation/. He also didn't have much to say about the Glasgow paedophile ring (https://news.sky.com/story/seven-members-of-paedophile-gang-guilty-of-running-monstrous-child-sex-abuse-ring-13008082) nor this one https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/paedophiles-behind-biggest-ever-child-26640341. Wouldn't have to do with the fact they are obviously NOT Muslims. The man is a hypocrit and a racist and I for one would be delighted if they just locked him up and threw away the key.

Quite the reverse by the looks of it - they are looking to hold it more accountable than it currently is regardless of whoever is in power. The stacking of SCOTUS by Trump in particular has enabled a biased SCOTUS to upend many sensible laws and who in their right mind wouldn't want a binding code of conduct when we have seen the likes of Clarence Thomas being treated to luxury holidays by his billionaire chums? It all looks VERY sensible to me and only someone wearing MAGA blinkers would ever disagree.

I really don’t understand the assumption that Trump will not do EXACTLY what he is saying he will do. He has outlined his plan to anyone that cares to listen and that’s to manipulate the executive to do exactly what he wants as he was so frustrated the last time. It’s why he stacked the SC when he got the chance and if given another shot, just watch what he tries to do to the executive part of the government. And the border issue has been around for an awful long time and won’t be sorted by anyone any day soon but Trump manipulates it to appeal to a rabid base who think immigrants are the problem rather than things that actually have an affect. It’s the politics of fear and Trump and the GOP in general stoke these fires with continued impunity that will see (if he gets elected) some 11 million people deported to include children who have known no other life other than being American. These Dreamers are born in the US to undocumented parents but that doesn’t matter to Trump and his cohorts; they’re fair game as far as they are concerned. I wish I could be quite so blasé as to what Trump will/wont do but I genuinely think this man is VERY dangerous and if given the mandate of POTUS is much better prepared this time round to enact much of what he has promised. It might not happen but why oh why would you even risk it?

I'm not entirely sure why you don't know what a Trump 2nd administration would bring as he's been VERY vocal about what he plans to do. Whether it's stopping all climate change legislation or closing the US Department of Education (as well as many other departments that don't fall into line with his thinking), he also wants to walk back aid to Ukraine as well as to continue to question the viability of NATO. To appease his Christian base, he wants individual states to set their own laws on abortion which in effect would mean outright bans from many of the more extreme states and of course his pièce de résistance is his immigration policy that would see the biggest deportation and border arrest program in American history with plans for law enforcement and the National Guard to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. He denies backing Project 2025 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-project-2025-trump-conservative-blueprint-heritage-foundation/) but with so many of his 'team' backing it, much if not all of it is seen as being scarily close to what he wants and with it comes an all-encompassing re-defining of the executive branch that will put his sycophants in charge regardless of their ability to do the job. This information is out there and it doesn't take much to find it so there really is no excuse for being 'Not sure exactly what a potentioal (sic) second Trump administration would bring'.

It's not just since 1980.........it's been going on for quite some time. I try not to argue facts with Trump supporters for the same reason I don't bother trying to teach my dog how to drive a car but here goes: Forbes magazine - 'It is simply a fact that since World War II, Democratic presidents have seen 24.4 million more jobs created on their watch—an average of 78.6% more jobs created per year of Democratic administrations—than have Republican presidents. Ditto real GDP growth, 44% higher under Democratic presidents. On the flip side, unemployment has been 18% higher under GOP presidents. Oh and whilst we are on the subject of facts:- 9 of the last 10 recessions have been under Republicans. And don't just take my word for it, Trump himself was absolutely right when he told Wolf Blitzer in 2004: “I’ve been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/

And that was just 1 year.

So you think Kamala 'slept her way to the top' despite someone pointing out that after 2003 all the very serious and high profile roles she attained were voted by the public? If she did 'partially' sleep her way to the top at the beginning then at least the majority of her senior roles were acheived entirely on merit and her ability to do the job and in the end, who really cares other than those trying desperately to dillute her considerable acheivements. I would much rather this than Trumps nepotism that saw both Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump given roles as senior White House advisors despite absolutely no experience in government whatsoever. He even gave Jared the job of 'sorting out the Middle East', something that has eluded even the best and brightest for decades but also (coincidentally) managed to get him 'investments' of $1.2 billion from Qatar and $2 billion from Saudi. Oh and by the way, Chomper is right. You wouldn't be saying any of this if it was a man 'sleeping his way to the top'. THAT'S what makes it mysogony.

Seems you don't know how things are done these days Mr. Dinosaur. No need to do TV when there's X (it's called that now) available. Just ask Trump, the king of direct messaging.

Well the good news is you don't have to worry about that any more; Biden has pulled out of the race (in case you hadn't heard) so you now need to vent your anger and frustration elsewhere. Here's a hint though; now you don't have the 'dementia' argument' please try not to use racism nor misogyny. Now I know it's not going to be easy but you can do it champ!

And Vance publicly called Trump an "idiot" and said he was "reprehensible." Privately, he compared him to Adolf Hitler J.D. Vance once compared Trump to Hitler. Now they are running mates | Reuters The hypocrisy from the right knows no bounds.

Why not? When you go to a lawyer you want someone with experience, knowledge and wisdom; who better then to educate you all on the evils of a lack of check and balances and identity politics than a continent who suffered most from it's realisation? Have any of you read Project 2025, the plan by many of Trumps closest 'top' people and former White House staff for when he gets into power? Trump is trying desperately to distance himself from it but it's backed by soooo many of his choice of candidates to make it almost a foregone conclusion (after all he IS the great deal maker and they ALL have backed him to get a deal). It's bad. REAL bad. You don't have to fully understand the USA to fully understand democracy (it was invented a tad before you after all) and therefore how to defend it. You're extreme identity politics (completely started by Trump) will be the downfall of you. But hey, as long as he's keeping the immigrants out who cares eh?

For people who hate “cancel culture “ you sure do a lot of cancelling

If there was ever a need for an eye-roll emoji, this would be it.

Excellent point.

Another pearl clutcher extraordinaire. That's a whole heap of words about something that just isn't happening. I've followed this thread from the beginning and the only thing I can find to even slightly support you is one poster saying 'I am not glad that he was not murdered'. Where are all the posts saying "Too bad the assassin missed'? If anything the VAST majority of posters who don't like Trump are being their usual conciliatory selves and condemning every bit of this. As they should be. As usual, you right-wingers are putting your own projections into situations that are just not occurring in a pathetic attempt to paint all those that don't support Trump as people with 'Leftist extremist views' who condone violence. We don't, so how about YOU give it a rest?

Firstly there's a substantive difference between a 'bull's eye' and 'crosshairs'. If Trump had suggested 'crosshairs' then there's only one connotation you can take from that and he would have been rightly condemned for it. He didn't but you are still trying to justify your stance by doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing i.e. saying people would be blaming Trump when you are actually blaming Biden by inferring his statement of 'It’s time to put Trump in a bull’s-eye' led to the shooting. No sane person would think this. You've even got the quote wrong. It was 'It’s time to put Trump in a bull’s-eye' not 'the'.

Enough of the pearl clutching....especially when you end your nonsense with 'maybe Killary'.

It's this kind on nonsense that adds nothing to the narrative. As is usual in ALL of these situations ((Reagan, Lincoln, Garfield. William McKinley, JFK, Roosevelt and now Trump), you can only draw one parallel and that's America does like to solve its grievances from the end of a gun and this like all the assignations and attempted assignations will prove to be the work of a lone gunman (or small group) and will have absolutely nothing to do with the Dems.

They were aiming for his brain

Sorry for all the repition with the posts. System kept on saying to wait '10 seconds to post'. Maybe the moderator can delete all the repeats?

Thank you for this. It's pretty much what many of us already know which is cannabis isn't for the young. But neither is alcohol nor cigarettes and both of these are regulated through age barriers to entry, so rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, just make sure age restrictions are strictly adhered to. I suspect that this will never happen though as Thaksin has a REAL thing about ANY drugs - as was evident back in 2003 when his 'war on drugs' led to 2,800 people being simply executed https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailands-war-drugs.

Thank you for this. It's pretty much what many of us already know which is cannabis isn't for the young. But neither is alcohol nor cigarettes and both of these are regulated through age barriers to entry, so rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, just make sure age restrictions are strictly adhered to. I suspect that this will never happen though as Thaksin has a REAL thing about ANY drugs - as was evident back in 2003 when his 'war on drugs' led to 2,800 people being simply executed https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/03/12/thailands-war-drugs.