You’re getting the box free? 
1 Like
Christ, even your attempts at bants are lame.
Sigh
1 Like
Cringe
In an astonishing backtrack, ABC have corrected their sensational story of yesterday that sent the entire Internet into a frenzy and caused commie posters @Sidney and @Turenne to declare premature victory. The phrase “candidate Trump” has been corrected to “President elect Trump”. Contacting foreign governments for discussions of common interest after an election and before inauguration is standard operating procedure. Flynn will get a slap on the wrist for lying to the FBI when there was no need to do so.
Fake News indeed.
In your absolute desperation to find anything to defend your beloved Trump, you yet again, hilariously, steam in and demonstrate your total lack of understanding of what fake news is.
Every news organisation that has ever existed has made mistakes. The difference between actual news organisations and “fake news” is that actual news organisations correct their mistakes, as ABC News did here, as well as disciplining the reporter involved.
Trump is the ultimate purveyor of fake news - deliberate disinformation put into the public domain as fake propaganda to corrupt public discourse. Just this week his press secretary admitted that the Trump regime doesn’t care about whether what Trump puts into the public domain is true or not.
There has never been a peep from you about actual fake news on this forum. In fact you’ve regularly posted actual fake news on this forum (ie. deliberate misinformation designed to corrupt public discourse).
Therefore, you are the ultimate fake news poster, which makes it all the more hilarious that you’ve gone postal over a mistake that was corrected, given that you’ve consistently proven that you have absolutely no regard whatsoever for truth.
By your rationale, all news is fake news, except the actual fake news you like to purvey.
By the way, what Michael Flynn did is in no way standard operating procedure. Materially collaborating with hostile foreign powers with a view to crafting policies which are favourable to that hostile foreign government, before you have taken office, is squarely against the law.
Michael Flynn was up on seven charges in the Mueller investigation. He’s being charged with one of them, because he has some very juicy information on those higher up than him and has decided to co-operate fully. And there were very few people higher up than him.
Tick, tock.
1 Like
The fact that you consider this Sam Harris chap to be “on the left” proves your bona fide credentials as a true far-right crackpot.
Harris is a hardline neo-conservative who supported the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, supports saturation bombing by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, supports torturing prisoners, supports racial profiling, and has uncritically broadcast the racist pseudoscience of Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve” which attempts to establish a racial basis for intelligence.
Harris has also said: “the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.”
Given that you were proposing mass ethnic cleansing on this very island the other night, nobody should be surprised at you considering such an insane ideology to be “on the left”, because it’s become increasingly apparent that there is pretty much nothing that isn’t to the left of you.
1 Like
Former US Labour secretary Robert Reich explains clearly how the Trump tax scam is a massive transfer of wealth to the top 1%, with the aim of gutting any sort of state support for those in need.
1 Like
Hilarious stuff last night as Trump basically admitted to obstruction of justice on Twitter.
Trump knew Flynn was lying to the FBI, then asked Comey, the head of the FBI, to “drop it”.
When Comey didn’t “drop it”, he was sacked.
Remember, Sean Spicer said that Trump considers his tweets to be “official White House statements”.
Trump is now trying to backtrack by claiming that his lawyer wrote the tweet.
Imagine having a lawyer that writes a tweet for you that admits to obstruction of justice.
Lawyers are supposed to defend you, not make the case against you, stupid.
By the way, @anon7035031, I’m still waiting for you to back up your allegation on the Joe Canning thread that Joe Brolly, Michael Clifford, NUIG Law Professor Tom O’Malley and any other legal and media professionals who explained how sentences are arrived at, are all “sympathetic to child molesters”.
Robert Reich is about as left wing as you will find in the US, he is a Professor at Berkeley which is a nutcase institution ran by nutcases.
Under the new tax plan a married couple pay no tax up to $24,400 and pay 12% on taxable income up to $90,000. Does a tax rate of under 10% up to over 100k in income sound unfair to you?
Working class and middle class pay very little tax in the US, for most people you have to be earning over 100K to even get into the 25% bracket.
The significant change is to corporate tax rates. Why does it make sense to have a 39.5% rate in the US when every other country in the developed world is 20% or lower? All it has done is incentivize large corporations like Apple to move their profit centers out of the US to lower tax regimes, like Ireland up to recently.
The big beneficiaries are small businesses, who employ more people than large corporations, and who have been crippled with high taxes and regulations.
It’s by no means perfect but it is a pro business tax plan, and at the end of the day businesses are the only ones who can fuel economic growth.
Did these people write letters to the judge in the case asking for a lighter sentence?
You could have saved yourself the bother of all that typing and admitted you were wrong (again).
All spoke out in favour of having Humphries having character witnesses.
Have you read Joe Brolly’s tweets?
To use Joe’s exact words, in your denial that a defendant should be accorded the opportunity to defend himself, “you’ve reached the normal limit for Compulsory Temporary Moral Outrage. Do not be concerned about this.”
You were asked to address the points Robert Reich made, the primary one being that it is a windfall giveaway for the top 1%, and designed specifically to gut social services for those in need.
You haven’t done so.
The kicker here is that Trump doesn’t even have the guts to do it himself - he’ll pass it on to the next administration, when Republicans will demand budgets for Medicare and social security be slashed because the budget deficit has spiralled, purely as a result of him slashing tax receipts by giving a windfall to the top 1%.
The irony is strong with this one, given that Berkeley, despite the insane attempts by Republicans to gut third level education in the US is internationally recognised as a world class seat of learning.
You are widely recognised on this forum as a far right, racist nutcase and a shameless apologist for the worst excesses of robber baron capitalism.
Sam Harris is a liberal mate, and while I may disagree with many of his opinions, he is a serious intellectual and scientist with a significant body of literary work. He is the exact opposite of yourself, a liberal with zero accomplishments other than ranting on an obscure internet forum.
Nobody is arguing that character witnesses should not be available to defendants. The argument is that those who wrote the character witnesses in this specific case have a very dubious sense of morality, given the already very lenient sentencing available to the judge. Clearly they (and you) feel that grooming and having sex with a minor is not that big a deal.
i) You said he was left-wing. That’s because you don’t know the difference between “left-wing” and “liberal”, because you’re stupid.
ii) He’s not a liberal. You also believe this because you’re stupid.
iii) He is not a serious intellectual. Serious intellectuals do not entertain and spread racist pseudoscience.
iv) You have no other argument than to make ad hominem attacks, and I’m living rent-free in your head. Well, certainly my online demolitions of you are.
I presume you’ll referring admiringly to the work of Kevin McDonald soon, the racist’s favourite pseudo-intellectual.
You have zero notion of the fiscal realities in the US. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are doomed to fail with the next few decades, regardless of the current tax regime or the proposed one. Economic growth is actually the only possible savior of these programs, given the demographics in the US. The same is true in Europe.