Trump Turnberry now sponsoring Rangers

[Briton 314]

Disgusting.

[gaspard 562]

I played there in September,  and can confirm that the turnberry starter will be delighted at this announcement. 

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

It's interesting to see people going mad about a partnership with a golf course, who say nothing about sponsorship deals with gambling and alcohol firms.

 

I can't stand golf, by the way.

Talking about gambling and alcohol. I'm a recovering golf addict and there's no way that awful affliction should be allowed anywhere near our football club.

[Gonzo79 13,609]

In all seriousness, the amount of people in the UK with serious gambling problems is beyond belief (I see it on a daily basis due to my job) and I'm sure we've all witnessed, first hand, the problems caused by alcohol.

 

Golf may be very boring but boredom is rarely hazardous. 

 

Trump may be an objectionable politician but he's a democratically elected foreign head of state - and there are far worse unelected foreign heads of state who hardly anyone in the UK ever get worked up about. 

 

There's plenty of shady Russian and Arabic money tied up in the EPL.

 

Football is a business (unfortunately).  

 

Gambling and alcohol cause far more damage in Scottish/UK communities than Donald Trump does.  Aim your anger where it might make a difference. 

[MacK1950 2,231]

For goodness sake this started with a post re partnership with a golf club and descended into farce.

If it is to be kept as a topic should be removed into one of the other forums.

[Bill 13,717]

44 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

For goodness sake this started with a post re partnership with a golf club and descended into farce.

If it is to be kept as a topic should be removed into one of the other forums.

 

 

[Uilleam 5,424]

15 hours ago, Bill said:

The sort of trial that didn’t want to be deliberately stalled for months to provide a posturing platform for Democrats who had already said they were presenting enough evidence to guarantee conviction. 

It's either a trial, or it's not, and if the hearing takes months, then so be it. This does not mean that it  would have been a 'posturing platform', it would have been an exposure of  evidence from witnesses to the cold light of day, and to the public view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Uilleam

[Uilleam 5,424]

16 hours ago, craig said:

Even had they heard witnesses they would have voted for an acquittal.  It was a pointless exercise to hear witnesses.  Same as it was for Clinton i.e. Democrats and Republicans would have voted along party lines.

 

The trial aspect was a complete waste of time.

Try that line at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

 

Exposure of witness testimony under oath to public view is hardly pointless. In fact it may be argued that it a major point of any trial, including an impeachment. 

 

As for the Trump outcome, it is not satisfactory to him personally, as the verdict was nothing other than  a partisan judgement; I should say it offers him less than a Scottish 'Not Proven', where the jury is offered, generally, all the evidence.

It is not satisfactory for the Republican Party, as it is exposed as an organisation which puts Party interests above the rule of law.

Of course, it is also unsatisfactory for the Democrats, who ballsed the whole thing up, and now look incompetent, and, themselves, perhaps, vindictively partisan.

 

From what I have read, Trump appears to have use his position wrongly, to coerce a foreign power for the benefit of his own electoral interests. Whether this represents 'high crime and misdemeanour' is one for American Constitutional lawyers. 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Uilleam

[compo 6,133]

9 hours ago, Uilleam said:

Try that line at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

 

Exposure of witness testimony under oath to public view is hardly pointless. In fact it may be argued that it a major point of any trial, including an impeachment. 

 

As for the Trump outcome, it is not satisfactory to him personally, as the verdict was nothing other than  a partisan judgement; I should say it offers him less than a Scottish 'Not Proven', where the jury is offered, generally, all the evidence.

It is not satisfactory for the Republican Party, as it is exposed as an organisation which puts Party interests above the rule of law.

Of course, it is also unsatisfactory for the Democrats, who ballsed the whole thing up, and now look incompetent, and, themselves, perhaps vindictively partisan.

 

From what i have read, Trump appears to have use his position wrongly, to coerce a foreign power for the benefit of his own electoral interests. Whether this represents 'high crime and misdemeanour' is one for American Constitutional lawyers. 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by compo

[Uilleam 5,424]

1 minute ago, compo said:

I suppose I must be a guilty person because I used a lot of influence on some planning committees,  even some Brown envelopes. 

Well, yes; the question might be who was the more guilty, you, or the Councillor(s) trousering your bribe(s)?

Did they solicit, or did you offer?