• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Rorschach said:
This story is fudging mental
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

Insane! :eek: Listened to the podcast this story is taken from today, and I can recommend it. Trump’s last stand, currently three episodes long, full of more inside info on stuff that's happened since the election.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Jordinho said:
EsnirdOXEAEMd3a


President Trump will always and forever be a champion for the American People.
Click to expand...

Does he have special stationery for the kitchen and bedroom in Mara Lago too?

'The Bedroom of Donal J Trump would like The Kitchen of Donald J Trump for some hamberders forthwith'
 
Rorschach said:
Does he have special stationery for the kitchen and bedroom in Mara Lago too?

'The Bedroom of Donal J Trump would like The Kitchen of Donald J Trump for some hamberders forthwith'
Click to expand...

Golf just isn't the same if you don't have an office to sneak away from.
 
Series 2 kicks off with a new story line
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Let's see where this goes.
 
jts1882 said:
It's a pretty blatant piece of plagiarism.

It really shouldn't matter what the potential First Bimbo says, but it is funny and/or distturbing for a variety of reasons. One you have a message about working hard to succeed, like marrying an old billionaire. Two, we have the insistence that she wrote the speech which is complete nonsense. Then we have the fact that Trump is running for the office of US President and his wife is giving the key-note address and is handed a plagiarised speech. It shows a complete lack of professionalism.

For those interested in plagiarism on a grand scale, look up Biden and Kinnock. The current VP ripped off Kinnock's speech about his roots in working class Wales, about ancestors who were coal-miners, etc. Biden even coopted Kinnock's life story, included the coal mining ancestors when there were none. This was from a candidate for US President, not a former glamour model.
Click to expand...

I did not know that. Interesting.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
So the two key points to his legal defence, are based on him already being out of office (therefore unconstitutional to prosecute an ex president) and the language he used, wasn’t meant to taken literally. So saying we must fight wasn’t meant to be inciting violence. Bearing in mind (scientific research estimates) the average mental age of a proud boy is 13, I’m not sure the second point is going to wash.
 
awesome dawson said:
So the two key points to his legal defence, are based on him already being out of office (therefore unconstitutional to prosecute an ex president) and the language he used, wasn’t meant to taken non-figuratively. So saying we must fight wasn’t meant to be inciting violence. Bearing in mind (scientific research estimates) the average mental age of a proud boy is 13, I’m not sure the second point is going to wash.
Click to expand...

It is all beyond pathetic. The whacko fudges!!!!
 
awesome dawson said:
So the two key points to his legal defence, are based on him already being out of office (therefore unconstitutional to prosecute an ex president) and the language he used, wasn’t meant to taken non-figuratively. So saying we must fight wasn’t meant to be inciting violence. Bearing in mind (scientific research estimates) the average mental age of a proud boy is 13, I’m not sure the second point is going to wash.
Click to expand...
The latter is a solid defence - every politician for decades has spoken about fighting for what we want at some point or another.

The former is just nonsense though. Although never tested at presidential level, the precedent clearly leans towards being able to impeach after office.
 
scaramanga said:
The latter is a solid defence - every politician for decades has spoken about fighting for what we want at some point or another.

The former is just nonsense though. Although never tested at presidential level, the precedent clearly leans towards being able to impeach after office.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact I have little faith in the US constitution or justice system, I don’t think it would be particularly hard to convince a sane jury of the fact that he incited the mob to attack the Capitol building.
 
awesome dawson said:
Apart from the fact I have little faith in the US constitution or justice system, I don’t think it would be particularly hard to convince a sane jury of the fact that he incited the mob to attack the Capitol building.
Click to expand...
I think there's a fairly important distinction that keeps him on the legal side of the line. He certainly incited a mob, he certainly wanted them to march on the Capitol Building. I think it's a stretch of the evidence to suggest he told them to attack or enter the building.

Again, people seem to think that his use of the word "fight" is what will condemn him. It wouldn't take anyone particularly long (although Trump's legal team might struggle) to find hundreds of speeches from entirely peaceful political leaders telling their base that they need to fight for what they want. In fact, Obama was a keynote speaker for the Fight For Freedom Fund. I'm fairly sure they're not advocating physical violence in that name, merely a moral and political fight.

There is one caveat with that statement though. Trump does appear to be beyond terrible at choosing his legal representation. If he's asked for evidence at any point and if he has his lawyers helping, it's entirely possible they'll all brick the bed.
 
scaramanga said:
I think there's a fairly important distinction that keeps him on the legal side of the line. He certainly incited a mob, he certainly wanted them to march on the Capitol Building. I think it's a stretch of the evidence to suggest he told them to attack or enter the building.

Again, people seem to think that his use of the word "fight" is what will condemn him. It wouldn't take anyone particularly long (although Trump's legal team might struggle) to find hundreds of speeches from entirely peaceful political leaders telling their base that they need to fight for what they want. In fact, Obama was a keynote speaker for the Fight For Freedom Fund. I'm fairly sure they're not advocating physical violence in that name, merely a moral and political fight.

There is one caveat with that statement though. Trump does appear to be beyond terrible at choosing his legal representation. If he's asked for evidence at any point and if he has his lawyers helping, it's entirely possible they'll all brick the bed.
Click to expand...

I understand what your point and logic but these were exceptional and unprecedented circumstances. The guy was refusing to admit he'd lost an election and was deliberately lying to a seething mob in a desperate bid to hold onto that power. In the end I don't think this will be a matter of if he's guilty or not, but if it's worth the political heat (GoP) that comes with convicting one of their own.
 
awesome dawson said:
I understand what your point and logic but these were exceptional and unprecedented circumstances. The guy was refusing to admit he'd lost an election and was deliberately lying to a seething mob in a desperate bid to hold onto that power. In the end I don't think this will be a matter of if he's guilty or not, but if it's worth the political heat (GoP) that comes with convicting one of their own.
Click to expand...
In that case he's unlikely to be convicted.

Many Republicans don't have to defend their seats against Democrats, they're fighting against other Republicans. For most of them it's a case of having to out-Republican the next guy.
 
scaramanga said:
The latter is a solid defence - every politician for decades has spoken about fighting for what we want at some point or another.

The former is just nonsense though. Although never tested at presidential level, the precedent clearly leans towards being able to impeach after office.
Click to expand...
Of course they can impeach after office. Otherwise the president could just do whatever he wanted during the last day's in office.
Also there is precedent in that former state officials have been trialed after leaving their position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back