johnnybangkok

29 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

You fooled me, alot. You spend a lot of time bashing American values and promoting those of your globelist friends. Get over it with Trump's America First agenda the US is no longer the world's piggy bank. If you aren't jealous why are you so interested in events in the US. Plenty to focus on your home in the UK.

Trumps values are not American values. If anything they are the reverse.

And 'globelist friends'? Really? And just exactly who might they be?

(Anyone want to take a bet he mentioned Soros?)

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  Look away folks, nothing to see here.  Just an opinion hit piece.  LOL  When inconvenient facts come out just bury your head in the sand.

You demean your own standing by ignoring important points such as who wrote it and why is that person cherry picking the parts they want? It is important to know who is saying what and it's even more important to see the whole memo before understanding the whole context. From the VERY little that was quoted, it seems all the memo asks is to refrain from sexist and racist aspects when refering to Harris. Now I know this may seem like some sort of dictate for your average Trump fan but many would simply observe this as common decency which shouldn't have to be pointed out, but obviously in these times and under this presidency, obviously does.

58 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No criticism of Kamala Harris allowed.

 

Washington Times - Democratic Party sets rules for criticizing Biden's VP pick Kamala Harris

 

"Media organizations have just been warned by the Democratic Party machine that they better be very, very careful with how they cover Joe Biden’s vice presidential choice — just revealed to be Kamala Harris. Any criticism of the expected woman will be considered racist and sexist, we are told. Oh, they wrap up that threat in a word salad, but that’s the bottom line: There should be second and even third thoughts about any criticism of Mr. Biden’s VP pick."

 

If that's all well and good then perhaps any criticism of Trump should be considered hate speech.  Makes sense, doesn't it?  And it should be prosecuted as such too, no?  LOL  Crazy Dems.

Pleeeeeese!! 

Written by Tammy Bruce, president of Independent Women’s Voice, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk-show host. 

It is obvious whatever Dem wrote this was just pointing out the VERY obvious fact that when reporting on Harris, reporters shouldn't be racist or sexist tones in the report. That's all this was but aal it takes is a Fox News contributor to twist it to 'don't criticise Harris'.

Nice try but no cigar. 

It's good to see the usual Trump apologists are very absent from this thread. Could it actually be that even they can't find a good enough excuse for what is a very obvious attemp at voter suppression? 

Their silence speaks volumes.

4 hours ago, JCauto said:

Thanks to our TV British friends for providing further evidence, although not actually needed, that the observations were spot on.

Even an article specifically explaining why you are fools only spurs further behaviour of exactly the sort described. No hope for such selfish societies.

Here, here! I was thinking exactly the same.

The funny thing is I genuinely don't think they see the irony in disagreeing with an article that is literally explaining their actions. 

But in todays world of internet experts and anecdotal 'evidence' there really is no point in engaging. They will not be told and genuinely believe that scientists, scholars, teachers, economists and journalists have all devoted their entire lives to deceiving them in some sort of world wide conspiracy. And they've got plenty of other people to aid them in their echo chamber 'cos the internets REALLY good at bringing together nutters.

It would all be quite laughable if it wasn't quite so deadly. 

25 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

And today, trump encouraged people to question  Senator Harris' origins with his tacit support of the false claim that  she is not legally qualified to run for VP.

President Trump amplified a false claim Thursday that California-born Kamala Harris might be ineligible to serve as vice president, a smear that recalls the racist "birther" campaign he waged against former President Obama.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/baseless-birther-attack-on-kamala-harris-shows-how-trump-is-struggling-to-define-her/ar-BB17We3h

 

This man truly is a gutter dweller when he promotes and encourages this type of bigotry. It's wrong and yet no one, absolutely none of the  supposed law and order republicans has the   moral integrity to tell him to stop it.  Senator McCain  spoke out against the Trump promoted  lie on  President  Obama's origin, but McCain like the republican party's moral soul is dead.

 

Shameful. Judgement day can't come soon enough.

Trumps race to the bottom didn't even pause. Straight in with yet another load of birther nonsense. And the worse part is yet again his apologist will not see anything wrong with this and in a lot of cases, actually believe him with their usual 'well if there's smoke there must be fire' logic.

Time and time again this stain on the offcie of POTUS just spouts nonsense with every increasing impunity and a spineless GOP just sits back and lets it all happen. They all should be ashamed of themselves and again I only hope come November they start seeing there are real consequences to their complicity.   

34 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

Trump have righted many wrongs and got rid of bad actors like Comey. He had an uphill battle against the swamp and media. He also achieved the lowest minority unemployment rates ever. Something Obama/Biden said couldn't be done. Of course if you watch MSM you would never know anything good has happened. 

The cancel culture has made most people unwilling to express their political views (like in 2016) but they wont stay silent in the voting booth.

The MSN reporter was really not reporting but acting as a political operative and got shut out.

The swamp you say? Perhaps life would have been made easier for him if he hadn't surrounded himself with quite so many crooks. 7 convicted so far and counting.

And maybe defrauding his own charity wasn't the best of ideas....or paying off a porn star.... or not giving up his business interests....or not showing his tax returns....or, or......well i think you get the idea.

But yeah, poor Donald. It must be so bad to be picked on so often.

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Please explain where all the trained social workers will come from? They can't be just magiced up.

Also, how many will be willing to go in harm's way to carry out their job? It could be argued that they would be putting themselves at risk by dealing with many of the situations currently dealt with by cops, or are you suggesting that they be escorted by cops, which would make the entire policy worthless?

To be honest, I've gone over this far too much (and it's not the topic) so please feel free to Google every single one of the questions you are asking. The answers from much better qualified individuals than myself are there if you care to take the time and effort to research. One last point though. None of this is new. These suggestions have been around for many., many years and as my previous post clearly shows, they are supported by many police chiefs of all political persuasion. This is not just a 'mad liberal' idea, so please take a few minutes to research the points you are raising. I think once you do, you will hopefully start seeing this for the great idea it is. 

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In that case, expect the same treatment if Biden or any Dem becomes president. If one side breaks convention, no reason to expect it to be respected in future. IMO Harris can expect similar gottcha questions in future, and apparently she has a number of skeletons in her background.

I would absolutely expect the same treatment for Biden and Harris. A vigorous and free press should always be holding the fire to politicians feet, with no exceptions. 

So many Trump fans bemoan the 'unfairness' of the media to Trump but the true reality is he makes a rod for his own back with his constant lying, his constant pandering to every conspiracy theory going and his inane Twitter rants. He is POTUS for gods sake. He should be above so many things he gets involved in (including a Twitter spat with Bill Maher yesterday). Have some dignity man. Your country is in the midst of a pandemic that's killed 166,000 and counting . There's mass protests on most days in major cities. There's looters and degenerates causing chaos and all you care about is your ratings and whether a comedian is  '.... totally SHOT, looks terrible, exhausted, gaunt, and weak'. 

It truly beggars belief and I for one can't wait until the grown ups get back in the White House and the USA gets back to some form of former glory.

1 hour ago, checkered flag said:

Defunding the police simply means giving them less money and resources to do their jobs. Sounds like disaster. All the other things you write about are about reorganizing responsibilities. It OK but the reorganization and reducing the load on the police must come first and the forces left must be well staffed and trained. 

In the current environment stronger tools are needed so that the anarchy mobs know the police mean business. 

If the moderator allows this (we are going off subject), let me answer this for you.

As I explained before, the reallocating of funds does not neccessarily mean 'less money and resources to do their jobs'. The idea is the money goes to other support services, thus freeing the police to do what the police do best. Many police chiefs support this too. Let me quote this for you

'A first step may be knowing that, for decades, police chiefs have agreed with some of the protesters’ demands. For instance, they support removing police from contexts that can be managed without them. There is no police chief I know who does not share this conviction. Today, officers are often trained in conflict resolution within families, and critical substance abuse interventions — but these are all services we should hope public health professionals could administer. Many protesters favour transferring funds from policing to social programmes that can reduce the need for communities to rely on police. Again, this is something chiefs can support. Scott Thomson, the legendary former chief of the reformed Camden Police Department in New Jersey, said that he would “trade 10 cops for a new Boys and Girls Club”. 

https://www.ft.com/content/e3d60194-aa32-11ea-abfc-5d8dc4dd86f9

10 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

Certainly a tongue in cheek post.  No President in us history has had more enemies in the press trying to do him in.

And rightly so

8 hours ago, mrfill said:

Whereas... 'Since President Trump took office in 2017, US debt has increased from $19.9 trillion to $22.7 trillion (Sep 2019). This is a 2.8 trillion increase in two and half years. This is the fastest increases in dollar terms on record.'

 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/160723/economics/government-borrowing-under-trump-2017-20/

 

 

The only thing Trump has actually done in 3 1/2 years in office; a big tax deduction for himself, his mates and corporations at the expense of $3 trillion on the national debt. 

Now that this money is really needed, all we here from Trump fans is 'what about the national debt!'

You couldn't make this hypocracy up.

*Deleted post edited out*

That's not what defunding the police means. Let me explain.

Most cities police departments are called upon for pretty much everything; dealing with the homeless, the mentally ill, people on drugs, domestic problems, traffic crimes etc etc. In many cases the police are neither equiped or experienced enough to handle these situations which are better handled by other experts. By defunding the police, you are taking some of their vast budgets (and they are vast) and reappropriating these funds to other organistaions that are better suited to handling these issues. The benfits are two-fold; one, the problem is sorted out much better and without the need for an armed response (the police are trained to handle matters in a particular way that doesn't neccessarily involve de-escalation and therefore can make matters worse) and secondly, the police can then focus their attention on matters that they are best suited to (murders, armed robberies, looters, rape etc). It ensures the best people are doing the most appropriate jobs.

It also doesn't neccessarily mean a reduction in police numbers but it can in some cases. If it does, this is usually acheived through natural attrition and the scaling down of unneccessary units. The money can also be saved by the police not investing in military style equipment such as armored personnel carriers (APCs), assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police.

It does not mean scrapping the police. This is a different matter that is more to do with institutionalised racism and has only ever been done once in Camden, N.J., where the whole police force was disbanded and a new, better one built instead https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/police-reform-ideas-united-states-george-floyd-1.5601990

On 8/12/2020 at 6:18 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

First I think she was the best choice out of the names I heard being floated, much better than Abrams. At least Harris has a pleasing appearance.

 

 But my concern with Harris is two pronged. First, my concern is she weakens women generally by having used her feminine charms with Willie Brown to create a career. I am being polite. But this is not exactly what female empowerment is about - and will be a constant reminder/Achilles heel.

 

 Secondly her rush to push a false narrative without a seconds thought for common sense or credibility was laid bare with her gushing over the Jussie Smollett hoax. Remember she rushed out and in an incredibly divisive (and dumb) statement called the hoax  a "modern day lynching". How totally inappropriate! Extremely difficult to find an MSM source for this - almost as if it never happened - but it did, and it throws into question her ability to judge events rationally. 

https://nypost.com/2019/01/29/kamala-harris-attack-on-jussie-smollett-was-modern-day-lynching/

 

 Trump will seize on these 2 weaknesses. Gabbard was the sensible choice. But the word sensible doesn't belong in any sentence involving the democrat party, at least during the last 4 years.

Is that the best you've got? She overreacted to a hoax situation? 

And your misogyny is showing straight away; 'At least Harris has a pleasing appearance'. Only Trump fans and misoginists feel the need to comment on her appearance. You don't talk about Pences 'pleasant appearance' (or his actaul haunted gerbal look) so why does it matter for Harris? 

Already the narrative for Harris is being shaped and as usual it is utterly predictable and very, very basic. She is going to eat Pence for breakfast and show Trump for the divisive force he is, and if Trump can get away from Twitter battles with Bill Maher (because obvioulsy there's nothing else more important going on in the country) he'll find it VERY difficult to persuade the housewives of middle America and the black/Asian/Hispanic vote that she is nothing less than a very, very good choice for VP. 

2 hours ago, Nowisee said:

Useless street rat thugs doing what they do best, creating and perpetuating, causing and spreading.  
 

The US is a total disaster, parts of that country will be unlivable in 15 years and it's too funny how people blame the president.  Not taking ownership is the entitled American way.     

 

Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here'. Why isn't it Trumps fault? He is POTUS and should be trying to de-escalate problems rather than fueling the flames by sending in federal forces and calling everyone who is against him 'terrorists' (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/trump-letter-protesters/index.html).

For gods sake the country has 165,000 dead from Covid, mass protests and lootings in many cities and all he is doing is tweeting nonsense about Bill Maher, a comedian and TV personality (https://nypost.com/2020/08/12/trump-blasts-bill-maher-says-he-is-missing-in-action/). 

Do you not think the President of the United States should be above this kind of things and more importantly, focused on the real and deadly issues that are currently gripping the US? 

The man is a joke and in a job that is so far above his head it's not funny. But yeah, lets not blame him. 

Look at all you Trump fans salavating at the mouth with your faux indignation and 'law and order' rhetoric, blaming Democrats for everything when the facts are that not a single Democratic congressman/senator, governor or even major has condoned these hooligans and looters....and neither has any of us 'liberals' on this forum.

You are just trying to push through another failed GOP narrative that is desperately trying to blame Dems for all of this when all they have done is offer support and sympathy to peaceful protestors who are using their democratic right to protest. Not a single Dem has supported these miscreants, despite your best efforts to pretend otherwise.

You bring up one stupid person who condones the looters and expect us to believe she represents the whole of the BLM movement when the fact is no one person represents BLM as it is a mixture of different groups and different agendas. You say nothing is being done about the looters when hundreds of them are being arrested and imprisoned one of them was shot. The police are out in force in these cities, rightly trying to prevent further looting and all you care about is trying to pin the blame on the Dems. It's pathetic.  
The tactic is so basic and transparent as to be laughable but you just keep banging that drum without any evidence other than what Fox News is trying to (quite evidently effectively) ram down your throat and in the meantime, us less rabid observers will hopefully see these situations for what they are and once again try and cut through the partisan rhetoric and keep sensible heads on nuanced situations to a conclusion that doesn't involve the civil war I think you all secretly want.  

16 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

We are talking about the present day though, rather than what happened in the past .

The protestors are having live gun fights with the police .

The police are there to uphold law and order , when it comes to gun fights, thats the armys job

They are not protestors, they are looters.

I know Trump fans are desperate to lump everyone into the same boat but as has been documented many, many times, the protest are overwhelmingly peaceful and are hijacked (mainly at night) but lawless looters. Both the Chicago mayor and the Chicago police understand this and unlike Trump fans, are able to distinguish between the two.

How hard can it be to realise we are talking about two very different and seperate things? For gods sake, the social media call that went out specifically said 'lets go looting' not 'lets go protesting and then maybe a bit of looting afterwards'.

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Except of course 99.99% of NRA members do not kill 50 people or 28 children.

 

In 30, 60 or 90 minutes.

 

It's a nonsense argument.

 

There already is sensible gun control legislation.

 

And the real issue is people, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Yawn.

Guns don't kill people? Well they certainly help. 

If you are all about 99% of gun owners are sensible law abiding citizens then why would they need AR15's and the likes?

There is no sensible gun control legislation until it is made impossible for ANYONE to buy military style weapons. Something that sensible people should all be for but for which the NRA has thwarted at every available opportunity simply because they don't want to see ANY restrictions on any type of gun.

And they're corrupt.