Molango's visa
Molango's visa
Neither was @Triggaaar . You have misunderstood. He was being facetious. All is goodIt was still a great piece
Sarcasm? I honestly find it difficult to tell I’m afraid! - I wasn’t defending Saunders in any way.
Neither was @Triggaaar . You have misunderstood. He was being facetious. All is goodIt was still a great piece
Sarcasm? I honestly find it difficult to tell I’m afraid! - I wasn’t defending Saunders in any way.
Thanks - I thought he was but as I said, I find sarcasm hard to translate - I just wasn’t sure if my post about Saunders defending Trump had been misunderstood as me defending her because I thought the sarcasm was directed at me rather than laughing with me - the trials and tribulations of a neurodivergent brain !Neither was @Triggaaar . You have misunderstood. He was being facetious. All is good
Me too (neurodivergent). Misunderstandings are a daily occurrence. Luckily on an anonymous forum one can assume the best without fear of actual jeopardy if you have misunderstood and reacted. One can apologise (also easy on an anonymous forum) and move on, whistling surreptitiously and hoping nobody has noticed. Ahem.Thanks - I thought he was but as I said, I find sarcasm hard to translate - I just wasn’t sure if my post about Saunders defending Trump had been misunderstood as me defending her because I thought the sarcasm was directed at me rather than laughing with me - the trials and tribulations of a neurodivergent brain !
Yep those 6 corporate bankruptcies don't happen on their own.
Sorry to be a little pedantic but you're continually misspelling Sanders. That's very Trumpist (see "stollen")Thanks - I thought he was but as I said, I find sarcasm hard to translate - I just wasn’t sure if my post about Saunders defending Trump had been misunderstood as me defending her because I thought the sarcasm was directed at me rather than laughing with me - the trials and tribulations of a neurodivergent brain !
First AC or Tony Blairs spin doctor, you don't get to change definitions just to suit your political agenda. I looked it up and its mercifully short(Below).Great post and brilliant narrative of the definition of populism described by Alastair Campbell recently.
1. Populism seeks to exploit problems rather than solving them.
2. Populism seeks to divide the population rather than unite it.
Both, of course, are highly effective distraction techniques for those who only seek money, power and influence through politics rather than a greater good for their electorate and Country.
Mr Trump and Mr Johnson personify this particular definition. And when they are called out, we’re reminded that politicians are all the same so you may as well vote for one with a bit of personality.
That’s ok - at least I can spell ‘Buonanotte’ which seems to be a stumbling block for 50% of NSC postersSorry to be a little pedantic but you're continually misspelling Sanders. That's very Trumpist (see "stollen")
I thought ‘popularism’ in politics a range of policies that embrace the idea that the ‘elite’ is set against the masses/the ‘people’ - it doesn’t presume corruption of the elitePopulism just means uniting the people against corruption... And irony alert, when you try to change the definition of words to suit your purpose thats corruption.
When was Trump in Fulton? I must have missed that - so many court cases and indictments over the years, it really has been impossible to keep up.Trump is trying to unite the people against the establishment, when he left Fulton Jail he drove through poor/black areas and was well received, that's one of the ways he reaches out to different groups.
Note the bond has been reduced, not the actual penalty. Just the amount he needs to put up prior to appeals being settled.I see Mr Trump has been given a ten day extension to pay a massively reduced bond of $175 million for the appeal on his fraud case (it was $464 million). Another example of how unfairly he is being treated.
Don't like piling on you but this is one of the main things I just don't understand in beliefs about Trump. How is this bloke anti establishment or anti The Man or whatever you'd like to call it? It's like that thing about voting for Bush Jnr because he seemed to be "the sort of bloke you could have a pint with". Is that really your overriding reason for voting for them? Don't get it.Trump is trying to unite the people against the establishment, when he left Fulton Jail he drove through poor/black areas and was well received, that's one of the ways he reaches out to different groups. He us not playing the divide and rule tactic of "White men evil".
As for the article you quoted "Sample of one" and Hmmmmmmmmm.
Trump is trying to unite the people against the establishment
The irony being that both Bush Jr and Trump are teetotal.Don't like piling on you but this is one of the main things I just don't understand in beliefs about Trump. How is this bloke anti establishment or anti The Man or whatever you'd like to call it? It's like that thing about voting for Bush Jnr because he seemed to be "the sort of bloke you could have a pint with". Is that really your overriding reason for voting for them? Don't get it.
And, as I understand it, paying a bond means you guarantee to pay the whole fine if the appeal doesn't go your way. If his word means anything that is.Note the bond has been reduced, not the actual penalty. Just the amount he needs to put up prior to appeals being settled.
Haven't yet seen the logic that led the judges to decide this.
I'm just going to drop this here, as I found it thought provoking, and also relevant in that I think we all need to be open to the possibility that we might be wrong:
It’s just an opinion piece, that I thought was really good, so I posted it. Rather than attack the source, why don’t you tell us all what the points are that you disagree with? I’m open to listening to opposing opinions, that’s the whole point of a forum isn’t it? If you’re convincing enough it may even swing my vote…So you've posted a link to a republican supporting site, and claim it's a really good opinion piece by the man who wrote 'The Case for Trump'?
You might as well get a really good opinion from Trump himself.
Yes, I thought that was a bit odd too, given the general tone of the piece. Though, I suppose you could argue that it handily illustrates the point he makes - viewing 'woke' as all bad is intelligent people believing stupid things.Like football, that video is a game of two halves.
It's interesting, but I don't know why the author felt the need to attack wokeism.