Labour To Ban Zero Hours Contracts.
News1 min ago
Man Of The People, Salt Of The Earth
58 Answers
Our Nige, what a trouper. No merely representing his constituency for him, not enough hours in the day, etc.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
12:37 bang on judge and thank you for once again explaining to a largely empty vessel. A masterful assesment, you are armed with a great deal more patience than I could muster in replying to this idiot who continually says that anyone that has a different view must be some sort of thicko. I am happy to be one of the 52% of the country's "thickos" because we got what we vote for, freedom from the EUSSR. Hymie continually posts is rubbish because to him that goal does not count as a goal, he just does not get it. Further, he and others, fail to see the genius of the most successful politician in history who achieved all the above without ever entering parliament.
As I alluded to before the USA electorate have an uneviable choice & if they think their future will be better served by a Trump presidency than by a Harris one then any other considerations are secondary.
(If only the Tories had realised that here Boris would have remained leader & they might still be in power!)
> Man Of The People, Salt Of The Earth ...
Add Stochastic Terrorist to that list ...
https:/
... stochastic terrorism is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence. A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric.
"NJ - Farage is actively seeking to help a convicted criminal and sex offender to become elected as President of the USA, and yet you still support his views."
As I said, my knowledge of US politics is very limited. However, as far as I know Mr Trump is not a convicted sex offender. That aside, who Mr Farage befriends and what he does in his spare time is of no concern to me. He's done what I wanted him to do. Though I will continue to follow his political activities in the UK because I believe that it will not be too long - if it hasn't happened aready - before it dawns on the electorate (those who need to be the "dawned on" anyway - not all of us do) just what they are in for over the next five years.
Mr Farage is acutely aware of that and I'm hoping that the 4m votes his party garnered last time out will play on the new government's mind - though I doubt it.
There are increasing numbers of people in the UK who do not like the status quo. They do not like the cosy existence that politicians from the main parties enjoy between themselves, the "Blob" and the various movers and shakers who believe their views should trump those of everybody else. They feel ignored. When that happens they turn to what mainstream politicians like to call "extremists" (i.e. those they disagree with).
Mr Farage is among them. For many years there was a huge undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the UK's membership of the EU. But the electorate was told basically to keep quiet and mind their own business. Neither main party advocated leaving. Now, strangely, neither main party advocates re-joining.
At his first appearance in the EU Parliament following the referendum, Mr Farage recalled how the other MEPs and the EU's Politburo laughed at him seventeen years earlier when he announced that his ambition was to see the UK leave the EU. He finished by saying "Well you're not laughing now."
It is unwise to laugh at Mr Farage. Whether you like it or not (and I'm sure you don't), many people are in tune with some of his ideas. It will take more than attempts to trash his reputation because of the company he keeps to change that.
> It is unwise to laugh at Mr Farage.
I certainly don't laugh at him. He's a very dangerous individual. Happy to listen to Andrew Tate, and share it with his own audience. And when it turned out that Andrew Tate was completely wrong, as was completely predictable given that what the authorities said was true was actually true, Farage disavowed it ... but only after the rioting had already happened. "Nothing to do with me, guv." Preaching and whipping up the already-converted ...
If you take a look at this link, Trump has a Wikipedia entry on his sexual misconduct allegations, longer than most people have an entry in Wikipedia.
In this small extract, Trump was found guilty in a civil case of effectively raping E. Jean Carroll, who was awarded US$5 million in damages (and subsequently US$83.3 million for defamation).
In June 2019, writer E. Jean Carroll alleged in New York magazine that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in 1995 or 1996.
Two friends of Carroll stated that Carroll had previously confided in them about the incident. Trump called the allegation fiction and denied ever meeting Carroll, despite a photo of them together from 1987 being published by the magazine.
In November 2022, Carroll filed a suit against Trump for battery under the Adult Survivors Act.
On May 9, 2023, a New York jury in a civil case found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll, but found him not liable for rape.
They awarded Carroll US$5 million in damages. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan stated that the jury had actually found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word as they had ruled that Trump had forcibly and nonconsensually penetrated Carroll's vagina with his fingers. New York state's definition at the time defined rape as solely nonconsensual penetration of the vagina by a penis.
A September 2023 partial summary judgment again found Trump liable for defaming Carroll. On January 26, 2024, Trump was ordered to pay Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages.
https:/
"Are you disagreeing with me, claiming Trump not to be a sex offender?"
As I said, I'm no expert on US politics and I stand to be corrected. But from what I understand, Mr Trump lost a civil case for compensation brought by a person who said a sexual assault was committed on her by him some twenty years earlier, though she could not recall in which year it allegedly happened. The court ruled in her favour and Mr Trump was ordered to pay compensation.
If I am correct, this does not make Mr Trump a sex offender and he has not been convicted of an offence. It's rather like being involved in a car accident, a civil court ruling you were to blame and orders you to pay compensation to the Third Party. But you have not been convicted of careless or dangerous driving.
Anyway, all a bit academic. I imagine the US electorate knows far more about Mr Trump than I ever will but about half of them still believe he will best serve their interests if elected.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.