Jump to content

lharman7

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,060

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lharman7

  2. Posted

    4 hours ago, horsefly said:

    You asked Elastic to tell you what his interests were, he told you, business. And if you could be bothered to do any research you would find that Trump is being criminally investigated for using government money (and indeed election campaign money) to put on conferences etc at his personally owned hotels at vastly inflated charges. Since 2017 $2.5m of government money spent at Trump hotels and $5.6m from his reelection campaign funds (https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/10/27/report-us-government-paid-over-25-million-to-trumps-businesses/?sh=76107e421a62)

    Love this bit in that Forbes article.

    "The president’s clubs often charged high prices for their services, billing the government $7,700 for a dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s staff, $17,000 a month for a cottage at the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster used by the Secret Service, and even $3 for glasses of water for Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe".

    Was President Trump not allowed to use government funds to host other nations leaders and the secret service? Strange. 

  7. Posted

    1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

    Probably because they legally have to before they dismiss.

    Can you tell me different ?

    There is as others have noted bound to be small cases of voter fraud but nothing systemic as there are here both for and against all candidates. Was any of it significant. No.

     

    However I take it you do believe Trump 'won' despite everything to the contrary - and your funniest & saddest contradiction (hypocrisy writ large) is that you uphold the Senate vote in not convicting Trump on a 57 : 43 vote in favour so to do (he has however been impeached twice) but then question the House in certifying Biden.

    Very sad. No more need be said. 

    Yes, best you keep quiet then.

  8. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

    Do you still seriously believe Trump 'won' the election ? Just so we know who we're talking too.

    It appears that even the House didn't in spite of all Trumps numerous legal gambits and certified Biden as the winner.

    Could you tell me why SCOTUS are considering looking at the legal cases for voter fraud in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia?

  10. Posted

    20 minutes ago, horsefly said:

    There are two main reasons why not one of Trump's 60 failed legal challenges to the election introduced any evidence of fraud. First, even Giuliani's keystone cops were not stupid enough to perjure themselves in court and risk finding themselves in clink for making knowingly false claims about fraud. Secondly, the standard numbers of fraud cases that are typical of an average election are infinitesimal small compared to the numbers that would be needed to overturn the results. Thus it was that all their suits attempted to disenfanchise millions of voters on claims of technical irregularities. And thus it was that even Republican appointed judges threw out all their cases, typically with scathing comments about the egregious nature of their attempt to steal the democratic votes of US citizens.

    So why would SCOTUS consider the cases now?

  12. Posted

    38 minutes ago, Herman said:

    You lost by millions of votes. You're going to have to hope there were a record breaking amount of fraudulent ballots. Or accept that you lost by millions of votes. 

    I didn't lose anything. Maybe President Trump didn't either. It's intriguing that SCOTUS didn't want to even look at the case a few months ago but now they may be considering it.

  15. Posted

    4 hours ago, horsefly said:

    Perhaps you had better let Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the senate, know that. He holds Trump absolutely responsible for the violence:

    Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said on Saturday that Donald Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January.  "They [the mob] did this because they’d been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth because he was angry he lost an election"  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/13/mitch-mcconnell-trump-republicans

     

    Fortunately for President Trump and unfortunately for you this all means nothing. You can go back to crying he was acquitted now.

  16. Posted

    7 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

    You see the thing is, they care more about 5 dead people and over a hundred injured more than you do.

    Yes they must do, after all they planned the whole thing. I wish they had called Parasite Pelosi up as a witness. She'd of been obliterated. 

  18. Posted

    4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

    Better that they turn their backsides to the camera and drop their shorts really ain't it? 

    People keep upping their anti-woke agenda but it overlooks what the original intentions are which are perfectly valid.  

    I think this is a retrograde step from Brentford and I call them out.  They are Trump-ist ideologists, and its a short step to suggesting that the current environment will generate the change that is necessary.   Sorry but more is required, whether taking the knee is that for one am not convinced but its continuance keeps the debate alive.

    What a sensationalist view. Not surprised by the left at all.

  19. Posted

    4 hours ago, horsefly said:

    Yep! Exactly that. Trump still lost the election even though he actually increased his vote. Of course he also managed to increase the Democratic vote by far, far more. Since the failed insurrection the Republican party have been hemorrhaging many thousands of their more moderate supporters. If he is found not guilty of inciting insurrection then he will prove more of a hinderance to the Republicans than the Democrats. Anyone not persuaded of conspiracy theory tripe will have watched the astounding video evidence and have little doubt about Trump's guilt or complicity, and will find it extremely hard to lend him their vote in the future.

     The good of America, and indeed the good of the GOP would be best served by finding Trump guilty by a resounding majority. That would enable the country to move on from this awful four year experiment in the subversion of US democracy. It would also alllow the Republican Party an opportunity to expunge itself of white supremacist filth and the politics of hatred. However such is the moral cowardice and naked self-interest of individual Republican politicians, that they will find him not guilty. So it looks like a win-win for the democrats whatever the outcome. However, it won't be much of a win for US society which will continue to be riven by Trump's insistence on igniting hatred wherever he can persuade the deplorables to do his bidding.

    And the hypocrisy blinds yet another.

    Calling for support is not inciting violence. President Trumps lawyers show that very aptly in there video evidence. 

    The hatred has only come from the Democrats and msm for the last 4 years! Fact! 

  20. Posted

    5 hours ago, Surfer said:

    And just like that ... 

    The Provisionals caved to Lennin’s Communists. 

    The Weimar Republic caved to Hitler’s Fascists. 

    The Liberals granted Boris his GE and inflicted Brexit. 

    And the Democrats just caved to Trumps’ corrupt and anti-democratic Republican Party. 

    I just f....’n give up.... 

    Definitely think you should give up.

    You and your Democratic socialists are nothing but hypocrits. You are vile and disgusting. 

    The hate on your side blinds you.

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    6 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

    ...he didnt take them

    Thete were a few things he could have done to teplace Burndia, Placheta was well down that list.

    I could understand picking him for one of the games, but both?...particularly after it hadnt worked in the first game..not for me

    It's why i said it was a big if.

    And again, it wasn't just him that didn't take chances.

    You are just singling out Placheta which is unfair and using him as a stick to beat Farke with.

    He has shown signs of promise for a lad that has never played English football before this season so he needs time on the pitch.

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

    I just want Farke to utilise the players he's already got correctly

    Still mystifies me that he thought the best course of action to cover Buendia's suspension was to play Placheta in both games...

    Not sure you'd be saying this if Placheta had taken his chances.

    I know its a big "if" but the whole team hasn't taken their chances of late so to single out Placheta who's most definitely a work in progress is a tad unfair. 

  23. Posted

    20 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

    If you buy an experienced player who was captain at a Premier League side and club top scorer for 4 years in a row, and presumably make him one of your highest earners, you probably aren't looking for him that play that role. 

    I suspect tolerance levels are commensurate with performance. In other words.... perhaps they'll put up with a bit of sh*t if you are banging them in.  

    He also refused to move to the area I believe... if you hand a player a 3 year deal you could probably expect them to find a local property? 

    It always did smack of being one last payday for him if I'm honest.  

    Perhaps Wigan should have done their due diligence and looked into Holtys character then. 

    Then again, it was Owen Coyle that signed him before being sacked after 4 months.

    I'd be more willing to bet a culmination of player role, injuries and change of manager (opinions) had more of an impact over Holtys time at Wigan than him being a big time Charlie after his last payday! 

  24. Posted

    2 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

    Always get very one sided stories from these, e.g. Instantly want to hear Uwe Rosler's side of the story.

    At the time Wigan fans were claiming that Grant Holt was a clown in the dressing room, including having a Dad's Army ring tone and getting his team mates to phone him during team talks.

    In which case, taking him out of the group would be a reasonable course of action.

    Its probably a cultural thing, if he'd join a Norwich City managed by Daniel Farke could it be that he wouldn't have lasted long? Like Ben Marshall? If Holt enjoyed playing for Owen Coyle who he admits had no discipline and acted like one of the lads, then I'd guess him and Farke probably wouldn't have got along too well?

    Understand where you are coming from but i think sometimes you need a bit of a jack the lad in the squad as it brings a togetherness and team banter among a group of pros that can often take their job a little too serious. 

    Suppose it's all a matter of opinions as Holty says in the podcast a few times.

  25. Posted

    Great to watch every minute of that. The banter between the 4 of them was hilarious and it's strange that whatever level of football you've ever played, you can relate to some of the stories being told by ex pros.

    I played for the same Australian side that Holty did while he was here (Sorrento FC) but I had left the club the season before. My younger brother played along side him up front in a reserves match for Holtys first game. They won by a big margin and my brother scored 7 I think with Holty setting all of them up. Holty got a call up for the 1st team.

    It's interesting what Holty says about Hughton and for me it makes me wonder if Hughtons footballing philosophy may have stifled anyone else's career at NCFC? The Wolf? 

×
×
  • Create New...