Donald Trump
Comments
-
Another eye-watering stat, which I'm sure I mentioned before... in the year that the Guardian ran a feature on it, more people were shot and killed in the US *by police* in the first 35 days of that year as had been shot and killed by UK police in 35 years.0
-
Unfortunately ,I'm pretty sure most Americans only care about one of those figures.TheBigBean said:
I know you know this, but you need the "US soldiers" qualification as otherwise it omits the couple of million Vietnamese.surrey_commuter said:
To put that into context "only" 58,000 died in Vietnam and that was over 20 years and the highest in any one year was 17,000pinno said:
There were over 48,000 gun related deaths in the US in 2021 (most current complete data) but the one idiot they needed to pop...pblakeney said:WTAF?!!!!
Surely the time has come for an intervention.0 -
Be prepared for another outburst as yet another judge is being negative.
I find it strange that a judge would go public pre-trial but if that's the system...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66931855The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
Be prepared for another outburst as yet another judge is being negative.
I find it strange that a judge would go public pre-trial but if that's the system...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66931855
The more I read about US legal systems, the more bonkers it seems.0 -
Summary judgements on certain parts of a case are "a thing" here as well.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part24
All this judge has done is rule on one issue of the case. As I understand it, neither side contested the facts upon which the judgment is based, and the only defense was a disclaimer that the Trump organisation added to their accounts. So the only legal issue was whether, or not, that disclaimer got them off the hook.
It is perfectly possible that there is well established caselaw to say it doesn't, in which case there's no point wasting time at trial discussing it.0 -
Fair.
Trump's lawyers must actually be keeping him quiet as the silence is surprising.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Is he trying to make Trump senior look sane?
0 -
pblakeney said:
Fair.
Trump's lawyers must actually be keeping him quiet as the silence is surprising.
It never lasts.
0 -
Mostly surprised it took so long.briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:Fair.
Trump's lawyers must actually be keeping him quiet as the silence is surprising.
It never lasts.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Just to play Devil’s Advocate he doesn’t call for the guy’s death, he says in the past his (falsely alleged) actions would have resulted in his death although he does choose to use capitals for the word. I’m not sure misrepresenting what is already a deranged post is particularly helpful.0
-
You are applying logic to an illogical post read by people with little grasp of logic.Pross said:Just to play Devil’s Advocate he doesn’t call for the guy’s death, he says in the past his (falsely alleged) actions would have resulted in his death although he does choose to use capitals for the word. I’m not sure misrepresenting what is already a deranged post is particularly helpful.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Pross said:
Just to play Devil’s Advocate he doesn’t call for the guy’s death, he says in the past his (falsely alleged) actions would have resulted in his death although he does choose to use capitals for the word. I’m not sure misrepresenting what is already a deranged post is particularly helpful.
It's the mobster's way... make it obvious enough what you want other people to do on your behalf with a thin veneer of deniability.1 -
Without being explicit skirt around the subject and leave gaps for the easily-led to fill in themselves. This was the strategy for 6th Jan.briantrumpet said:Pross said:Just to play Devil’s Advocate he doesn’t call for the guy’s death, he says in the past his (falsely alleged) actions would have resulted in his death although he does choose to use capitals for the word. I’m not sure misrepresenting what is already a deranged post is particularly helpful.
It's the mobster's way... make it obvious enough what you want other people to do on your behalf with a thin veneer of deniability.
See also Russell Brand and his conspiracy theories etc.
0 -
I can't imagine this is going to endear Trump to the judges or prosecutors in his various cases, or do him any favours. He really doesn't know when to stop. I don;t know whether he's baiting people to charge him with contempt of court, or to put a gag order on him, or if he's just really really stupid.
In other news, his current trial is before a judge without a jury, for the simple reason his attorney forgot to tick the box requesting a jury. He only hires the best.0 -
So he is attacking the one person with the decision to be made?briantrumpet said:I can't imagine this is going to endear Trump to the judges or prosecutors in his various cases, or do him any favours. He really doesn't know when to stop. I don;t know whether he's baiting people to charge him with contempt of court, or to put a gag order on him, or if he's just really really stupid.
...
In other news, his current trial is before a judge without a jury, for the simple reason his attorney forgot to tick the box requesting a jury. He only hires the best.
I think you have the answer to your uncertainty.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
So he is attacking the one person with the decision to be made?briantrumpet said:I can't imagine this is going to endear Trump to the judges or prosecutors in his various cases, or do him any favours. He really doesn't know when to stop. I don;t know whether he's baiting people to charge him with contempt of court, or to put a gag order on him, or if he's just really really stupid.
...
In other news, his current trial is before a judge without a jury, for the simple reason his attorney forgot to tick the box requesting a jury. He only hires the best.
I think you have the answer to your uncertainty.
There's a counter theory that he chose not to have a jury because if he's found guilty he can just keep on telling MAGAloons he's a victim of a biased judge and the deep state.0 -
That strikes me as a distinct possibility.briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:
So he is attacking the one person with the decision to be made?briantrumpet said:I can't imagine this is going to endear Trump to the judges or prosecutors in his various cases, or do him any favours. He really doesn't know when to stop. I don;t know whether he's baiting people to charge him with contempt of court, or to put a gag order on him, or if he's just really really stupid.
...
In other news, his current trial is before a judge without a jury, for the simple reason his attorney forgot to tick the box requesting a jury. He only hires the best.
I think you have the answer to your uncertainty.
There's a counter theory that he chose not to have a jury because if he's found guilty he can just keep on telling MAGAloons he's a victim of a biased judge and the deep state.
It will also be his attitude regardless of result.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
I thought Biden sounded a bit odd in his speech yesterday but after watching that...0
-
Pross said:
I thought Biden sounded a bit odd in his speech yesterday but after watching that...
Biden's definitely getting old, and his delivery isn't helped by the way he's overcome his stutter, but Trump is just barking... I think he's like some terrible end-of-the-pier comic who gets a bit of laughter/applause for something weird he does or says, so keeps it in the act and amplifies it a bit more each time.0 -
How dare a judge cramp his style! How's he going to intimidate witnesses or officers of the court now?!
0 -
It's about time somebody told the man-baby, No!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
It's about time somebody told the man-baby, No!
He's been getting quite exercised by being dropped out of the Forbes 'Richest people' list... he's caught between two stools, wanting to claim very high values for all of his properties for the sake of securing loans and how rich he can claim to be, but declaring low worth for the sake of tax due.
Which is why he's in this current pickle (amongst a few others).0 -
0
-
It seems that Trump's control of the Republicans is now total: within two hours of the frontrunner for Speaker of the House being trashed by Trump on his 'Truth' Social, the winner of the latest vote amongst House Republicans drops out.
0 -
3 of his ex Lawyers have turned on him.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
I assume there's going to be quite a bit of argument over what evidence they can give and what is covered by attorney-client privilege.0
-
-
Indeed, it's republican politicians that need to be turning on him, not lawyers. Everything else is a side show.0
-
Critical mass?verylonglegs said:Indeed, it's republican politicians that need to be turning on him, not lawyers. Everything else is a side show.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
