Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Options
1…663664666668669…1190

Comments

  • Options
    #19952
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,276 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120553504#Comment_120553504

    Define in a sentence as to what you term as 'woke' just so we're on the same page



  • Options
    #19953
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 6,040 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120553607#Comment_120553607

    And THAT right there is the issue.

    How can anyone have a pro or anti "Woke" agenda when there isn't even a definition of "woke" that people can agree on? A quick google will turn up any amount of different definitions.

    Anti-woke campaigners proudly wear their anti-woke credentials on their arms without even being able to describe their belief.



  • Options
    #19954
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,333 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120553504#Comment_120553504

    They're not trying to destabilise anything - that's just hysterical.

    If we're talking lunatic-fringe then fine, but you're best of pointing that out instead of just going all in and foaming at the moment with the buzzwords.

    Trump was equally hysterical and that's exactly WHY he failed to get his message across. He had the perfect vehicle but his narcissism took control of the wheel.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #19955
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Back to more current stuff.

    The E Jean Carroll case continues to go pretty poorly for Trump.

    Yesterdays evidence was yet another woman providing details of an alleged sexual assault by Trump along with testimony from a Psychologist detailing the impact that the assault had on Carroll.

    They also showed excerpts from Trump deposition which included multiple easily disproved lies from Trump (surprise surprise).

    In further bad news for Trump his one and only defence witness will now not appear due to illness apparently so Team Trump will present no defence evidence whatsoever other than anything that came up during cross examination.

    Summing up from both sides will be today , with a day off Friday and then the Judge will give their instructions to the Jury on Monday with deliberations starting on Tuesday.

    Trump apparently is leaving (or has already gone) Ireland earlier than planned because of this case , which could be significant.

    The general consensus from all that I have read is that all the Prosecution witnesses were compelling and largely believable and that Trumps lawyers didn't really land many shots in terms of trying to discredit the them.

    It comes down to who the Jury believes which is subjective and as such could go either way , but it doesn't look like Trump can relax about this case yet.



  • Options
    #19956
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,603 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Hence why the rabbit is trying to pull on every thread possible to pull us down rabbitholes, as per usual. To distract from the fact that the subject of this thread, a former President and possible future presidential candidate, is currently on trial in a defamation lawsuit regarding comments he made when accused of raping a woman years earlier.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #19957
    I.R.Y.E.D
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭I.R.Y.E.D


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120553942#Comment_120553942

    While championing people who think gay people are scum and are actively trying to implement legislation to undermine them.



  • Options
    #19958
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554208#Comment_120554208

    Given the specifics of the case , should he lose he will be convicted of Sexual battery and by default if he loses the defamation charge it also confirms him as a rapist.

    Will that change anything for GOP voters?

    Obviously it won't change anything for the hard-core MAGA crowd , but what impact will an actual conviction have for those that are just "GOP" voters I wonder.

    It certainly not going to improve his chances with independent voters.



  • Options
    #19959
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 6,040 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554043#Comment_120554043

    Que the obligatory:

    "HE didn't do it. He is innocent!".... I mean "He'll never get prosecuted!" (They don't care if he did it or not. Pffft)



  • Options
    #19960
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,185 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554043#Comment_120554043

    This may have been asked before but how is Trump allowed to travel when there's an ongoing court case involving him close to being concluded back in America?



  • Options
    #19961
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554363#Comment_120554363

    It's a civil case which I don't think carries the risk of incarceration and attendance at civil cases is not mandatory unlike a criminal charge.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #19962
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    I see a quote from Trump saying that he is returning to NY early to "confront his accuser" - Not sure if he can get back in time but is he possibly planning on testifying?

    If his lawyers allow him to to do that it would be madness.

    Otherwise the only "confronting" he could do would be to tweet/truth about it , which he has already been warned about or maybe he's planning to stand in the court room and stare at her.



  • Options
    #19963
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554503#Comment_120554503

    Ultimately, what matters is the jury decision at the end.

    Until then, Trump should be considered innocent until proven guilty (even then, what a jury decides cannot be considered 'proven' in any literal sense). Some might even say, how convenient, given that Trump has decided to run again in 2024.

    Too many times, what turn out to be false allegations are hurled against US presidents. Trump isn't the first in that regard. Even allegations of sexual misconduct were levelled against Joe Biden.

    And you'd alone need an entire shelf to cover the allegations made against Bill Clinton.



  • Options
    #19964
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,407 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554503#Comment_120554503

    Apparently it's more Bullsh1t from Trump...

    https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1654109978754441220?s=20




  • Options
    #19965
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,407 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554525#Comment_120554525

    Unless the jury is woke, in which case..... Blah blah blah



  • Options
    #19966
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,276 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554525#Comment_120554525

    How many of those previous accusations have been credible enough to make it to trial? They're not all the same as the current one



  • Options
    #19967
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554525#Comment_120554525

    "what a jury decides cannot be considered 'proven' in any literal sense"

    That is EXACTLY what it means.

    If a jury finds him guilty then he's guilty , that's how courts work.

    But now you are saying that if a jury find him guilty it's not proof of guilt????

    FFS



  • Options
    #19968
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554587#Comment_120554587

    Proven in a legal sense, not any literal sense.

    So legally, Trump will be guilty - and, of course, we must accept their conclusion. That's how the legal system operates.

    But let's not pretend, at the same time, that what a jury decides is the supreme and ultimate arbitration of truth.

    You could, for example, have 9 sets of jury teams - and half could balance in favour of innocent, and half could balance in favour of guilt.

    That's the nature of cases. It doesn't necessarily follow that what any individual jury decides is the literal truth.



  • Options
    #19969
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 6,040 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    FFS



  • Options
    #19970
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554587#Comment_120554587
    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554620#Comment_120554620
    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554322#Comment_120554322

    A civil trial not a criminal one. There is no "guilt". there is only liable or not liable.

    Proven in a legal sense, not any literal sense.

    About the dumbest thing I have read in a long time.



  • Options
    #19971
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554620#Comment_120554620

    I admire the level of moral gymnastics you seem to be willing to subject yourself to in defence of someone you claim not to be a particular fan of.

    And by "admire" I mean , "find it incredibly sad and deflating that someone could prostrate themselves to such an extent in defence of someone who wouldn't pi$$ on them if they were on fire"



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #19972
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 6,040 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554620#Comment_120554620
    Untitled Image

    And just like that, any remaining credibility is gone.



  • Options
    #19973
    Hoop66
    Registered Users Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554620#Comment_120554620

    One of the worst posts I have seen on this website.

    The foundational framework of western canon law is pointless because we can't know if he's really guilty or not? The law that our civillisation, that you seem so determined to protect from the "woke", was built on is pointless?

    If that's not what you're saying, then what is the point of your post? It would seem that is simply to aggravate other posters.



  • Options
    #19974
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554652#Comment_120554652

    I accept your point re: liable versus guilty; that's a nuance I should have included in my post.

    But with respect to my wider point about the jury system; that's undeniable.

    A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. The study, which looked at 271 cases in four areas of Illinois, found that as many as one in eight juries is making the wrong decision – by convicting an innocent person or acquitting a guilty one.

    In each case, while the jury deliberated, the judge filled out a questionnaire detailing what his or her verdict would have been had it been a bench trial. The verdicts only matched in 77 percent of cases. The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.

    Added to that is the existence of various types of bias. And this is particularly acute when dealing with a politically controversial figure like Donald Trump.

    So yes, it's entirely possible for a jury to legally make the correct decision, by arriving at a decision, but that doesn't necessarily always establish the truth of the case in question.

    Often yes, but not always. Let's not kid ourselves.



  • Options
    #19975
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub



    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554724#Comment_120554724

    So, the defence here is that humans are fallible - And????


    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #19976
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554688#Comment_120554688

    They had some?



  • Options
    #19977
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,408 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554503#Comment_120554503

    This is a terrible development for trump.

    Last time I saw a defendant change their mind about taking the stand it was Alex Murdaugh and it did NOT go well for him. Not much choice though either- the prosecution had caught him in a well evidenced lie, if he had just left the case on his deposition he’d be toast anyway, he had to take the stand to attempt ‘okay I lied in that instance but I was truthful about all this other stuff’ routine.

    For Trump’s legal defense to suddenly shift gears midway/backend of trial? They miscalculated somewhere and this is one of their few recourses left to try and mitigate the opinions of the jury. I’d say he’s not above trying to say things on the stand that were inadmissible, trying to get his own case (once again) thrown out for mistrial.



  • Options
    #19978
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554739#Comment_120554739

    I don't think the people falsely convicted of various crimes would appreciate your blithe, sarcastic dismissal of what is a serious and legitimate point.

    I would go as far as saying that, given how divisive Donald Trump has been over the past number of years, the prospect of a false conviction is probably even higher than the average of 1 in 8.



  • Options
    #19979
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,603 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554724#Comment_120554724

    I generally agree with the overall point you're making. A verdict of guilty doesn't always mean the defendant is. Likewise a verdict of not guilty doesn't always mean the defendant is, as there just may not have been enough evidence, or evidence poorly presented, which didn't convince the jury to the right standard.

    But it's f*cking rich to be throwing out "He's innocent until proven guilty" and then instantly follow with "Even if he's found guilty, he might still be innocent...."

    Basically what you're inferring straight off the bat is that you're still going to put forth what your opinion is regardless of the outcome of the trial.



  • Options
    #19980
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554763#Comment_120554763

    trump is not accused of a crime. well not in this case anyway.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #19981
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120554761#Comment_120554761

    He said he may attend the trial. Which I doubt.

    He will not testify, the court was notified Tuesday that no witnesses will be called.

    Can you imagine putting that lunatic on the stand? he would admit it and deny it 19 times over in some incoherent rant. Then blame Hilary.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement