Donald Trump

orraloon

The emails! Hillary's emails!

imposter2.0

bianchimoon wrote:

You get the impression that Flynn is doing this to protect his son!

His son is also fked - but may now be slightly less fcked than before...

lostboysaint

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/britain-reluctantly-defends-may-against-insane-fascist-20171130140069

dinyull

Flynn prepared to testify that Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians".

Beginning of the end.

bianchimoon

Dinyull wrote:

Flynn prepared to testify that Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians".

Beginning of the end.

Heard a senior official, not heard the Trump one?

dinyull

bianchimoon wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Flynn prepared to testify that Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians".

Beginning of the end.

Heard a senior official, not heard the Trump one?

On ABC and Daily Heil.

Willing to testify against Trump, his family and white house.

bianchimoon

facing serious financial problems, has to put his house on the market, thinks it's now the right thing to do for the country... hmmm right

Lookyhere

With luck he ll be gone very soon, something May has belatedly started to realise, its probable she ll be dealing with his successor who (hopefully) will be a normal Democrat!

Surely even the most die hard Republican must realise he is a dangerous guy to have in the White house?

bendertherobot

Lookyhere wrote:

With luck he ll be gone very soon, something May has belatedly started to realise, its probable she ll be dealing with his successor who (hopefully) will be a normal Democrat!

Surely even the most die hard Republican must realise he is a dangerous guy to have in the White house?

His successor in three years? No way of getting rid of this lot till then and his supporters will see this as a move by the swamp to stop 'normal' people like Trump getting in. Lots of battles to be fought.

briantrumpet

Dinyull wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Flynn prepared to testify that Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians".

Beginning of the end.

Heard a senior official, not heard the Trump one?

On ABC and Daily Heil.

Willing to testify against Trump, his family and white house.

Yep, beginning to look fairly solid.

My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions.

lostboysaint

Lookyhere wrote:

With luck he ll be gone very soon, something May has belatedly started to realise, its probable she ll be dealing with his successor who (hopefully) will be a normal Democrat!

Surely even the most die hard Republican must realise he is a dangerous guy to have in the White house?

Only in the party. The Republican electorate still think he's untouchable.

bianchimoon

As soon a we found out he was born in mexico, we cut him loose, he then went to Hillary who advised him to contact the Russians saying Trump had sent him, we know the American public will see through this attempt by 'fake news' Mueller to stop us from Making America Great Again, we know Flynne will produce a fake birth certificate, so the president is crayoning up the real one as we speak - Sarah Huckabee Sanders


OK so that was fake news

dinyull

bendertherobot wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

With luck he ll be gone very soon, something May has belatedly started to realise, its probable she ll be dealing with his successor who (hopefully) will be a normal Democrat!

Surely even the most die hard Republican must realise he is a dangerous guy to have in the White house?

His successor in three years? No way of getting rid of this lot till then and his supporters will see this as a move by the swamp to stop 'normal' people like Trump getting in. Lots of battles to be fought.

Sadly, I think a lot of gun bearing goons will probably be feeling the same way.

bendertherobot

Dinyull wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

With luck he ll be gone very soon, something May has belatedly started to realise, its probable she ll be dealing with his successor who (hopefully) will be a normal Democrat!

Surely even the most die hard Republican must realise he is a dangerous guy to have in the White house?

His successor in three years? No way of getting rid of this lot till then and his supporters will see this as a move by the swamp to stop 'normal' people like Trump getting in. Lots of battles to be fought.

Sadly, I think a lot of gun bearing goons will probably be feeling the same way.

Yes. This was their boy. A person who came from nothing just like they have. One who fought the system. One who did all that hard work. Put in the hard yards.

lostboysaint

bendertherobot wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

With luck he ll be gone very soon, something May has belatedly started to realise, its probable she ll be dealing with his successor who (hopefully) will be a normal Democrat!

Surely even the most die hard Republican must realise he is a dangerous guy to have in the White house?

His successor in three years? No way of getting rid of this lot till then and his supporters will see this as a move by the swamp to stop 'normal' people like Trump getting in. Lots of battles to be fought.

I posted something very similar on another forum. He's coming out of this a hero if he isn't jailed - it was the political elite ganging up on me and I fought them off - or a hero if is jailed - a triumph of Fake News and the political elite protecting themselves from the everyday working man gatecrashing their party.

US politics has completely and utterly f@@ked itself.

imposter2.0

I think Mueller is aware that Trump's base is as deranged as Trump himself. Which is why the charges that Trump is likely to be indicted on will probably be enough to repulse even the most die-hard, Trump-supporting loon...

lostboysaint

What I find particularly bizarre is that for decades the USSR and then Russia were the root of all evil as far the US was concerned and the good old boys took that whole commy-hating, godless monsters thing to a new level. But here they are wholeheartedly supporting a President that's in their pocket - solely on his word that it's Fake News that it was ever the case!

bianchimoon

Senator Graham urges Trump not to pardon Flynn? was that ever likely after Flynn was flipped?

lostboysaint

Ricky Gervais just asked an interesting question on Twitter - could Trump fire Mueller now that he's closing in?

bianchimoon

Potentially he could, but how guilty would that make him look, he would definitely lose the GOP party if he did that

lostboysaint

Apparently it's harder than it looks (it would be a bloodbath of other roles as well) but he's mad enough to do it and think he can get away with it with the electorate - he has on everything else.

imposter2.0

lostboysaint wrote:

Ricky Gervais just asked an interesting question on Twitter - could Trump fire Mueller now that he's closing in?

Mueller is special counsel appointed by the DAG, so only the DAG can fire him - and even then only with cause. 'Concern that you might get nicked' does not really count as sufficient 'cause', IMO. Trump would have to repeal special counsel regs and fire AG/DAG first...not the sort of thing that happens overnight...

tangled_metal

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable"

A quote from the UN General assembly condemnation of terrorist acts.

Some definitions require politics others don't. You could say Daesh are religious not political so are they not terrorists?

I think this forum has discussed what is and isn't terrorism before. I'm pretty sure this not political = not terrorism point has been discussed too. Perhaps any ism could pretty much result in terrorism if there's ppl that bothered by it.

ISIS believe in political Islam so, yes, it is political. The UN General Assembly statement above does talk about politics.

Sorry wrong quote but I can't find it again. Mind you there are so many versions of terrorism you can pretty much pick your own. One source I saw identified over 200 definitions from national or supranational bodies, think tanks and academic bodies.

How about this quote from the FBI report on terrorism from a few years ago.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Restricting it to political is one way of letting the right kind of terrorists off the hook of course.

Again, that quote talks about politics... You seem to want to invent a new meaning of the word terrorism.

Political or social it doesn't have to be political. Did you miss that bit? Of course if you wanted to I'm sure there's a definition to suit most cases. Terrorism is currently undefined internationally. Every state uses its criminal law to cope with terrorist acts and acts as bad as the terrorist acts but don't meet your political requirement. If the las vegas shooter had survived a lot of his charges would no doubt be the same as a terrorist act involving mass shootings.

pinno

A) Can someone sum up the last 4 pages please?
Has it gone off topic?
C) Stevo: 'Liberal'. ROFL

veronese68

Pinno wrote:

C) Stevo: 'Liberal'. ROFL

It’s all relative. I can’t imagine Stevo defending nutters and saying they are not far right because they haven’t killed lots of people. He’s a Tory boy, but not completely insane.

rjsterry

Veronese68 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

C) Stevo: 'Liberal'. ROFL

It’s all relative. I can’t imagine Stevo defending nutters and saying they are not far right because they haven’t killed lots of people. He’s a Tory boy, but not completely insane.

There's still part of me that wonders whether the Join the Labour Party thread is an elaborate double bluff. Stevo's just a bit too textbook.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

C) Stevo: 'Liberal'. ROFL

It’s all relative. I can’t imagine Stevo defending nutters and saying they are not far right because they haven’t killed lots of people. He’s a Tory boy, but not completely insane.

There's still part of me that wonders whether the Join the Labour Party thread is an elaborate double bluff. Stevo's just a bit too textbook.

Subtle, but potentially libellous

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo's just a bit too textbook.

In other words 'square'.

nickice

Tangled Metal wrote:

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable"

A quote from the UN General assembly condemnation of terrorist acts.

Some definitions require politics others don't. You could say Daesh are religious not political so are they not terrorists?

I think this forum has discussed what is and isn't terrorism before. I'm pretty sure this not political = not terrorism point has been discussed too. Perhaps any ism could pretty much result in terrorism if there's ppl that bothered by it.

ISIS believe in political Islam so, yes, it is political. The UN General Assembly statement above does talk about politics.

Sorry wrong quote but I can't find it again. Mind you there are so many versions of terrorism you can pretty much pick your own. One source I saw identified over 200 definitions from national or supranational bodies, think tanks and academic bodies.

How about this quote from the FBI report on terrorism from a few years ago.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Restricting it to political is one way of letting the right kind of terrorists off the hook of course.

Again, that quote talks about politics... You seem to want to invent a new meaning of the word terrorism.

Political or social it doesn't have to be political. Did you miss that bit? Of course if you wanted to I'm sure there's a definition to suit most cases. Terrorism is currently undefined internationally. Every state uses its criminal law to cope with terrorist acts and acts as bad as the terrorist acts but don't meet your political requirement. If the las vegas shooter had survived a lot of his charges would no doubt be the same as a terrorist act involving mass shootings.

I thought I'd already admitted my mistake but I must have been replying to someone else. The dictionary definition of terrorism is that it must have a political aim. If some countries choose to give it a broader meaning I disagree with it, but that's their prerogative. What's more, I'm not arguing that the Las Vegas shooting wasn't awfukl just that it wasn't terrorism. The important point about terrorism is that it shows future intention and allows us to tackle the ideology behind it. That's why I think people who say things like 'more people die in road accidents' are completely wrong.

pinno

nickice wrote:

That's why I think people who say things like 'more people die in road accidents' are completely wrong.

Well, you mean the fact is correct but it misses the point. Agreed.

Las Vegas, Columbine etc - mass shootings but not terrorism.

Terrorism is an act of violence driven by an ideology/cause, surely.