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

Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Options
1141142144146147165

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭political analyst


    I was referring to Trump's comments about individuals (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Megyn Kelly, the late John McCain), not his comments about the political establishment.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,269 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    So like the individuals in the post you're mentioning



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Someone broke into the Pelosi residence. A member of the capital police was killed on Jan 6th and many more assaulted. The oathkeepers were stalking the House floor with tie wraps and others were trying to kick in doors where members of Congress were being protected by police


    A plot to kidnap a governor was thwarted.


    The fact no one else has been killed is a testament to the stupidity of his followers not a defence.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭Field east


    I hope that he continues on in the same vane and hopefully he might even double down on their severity And I hope he adds more comments like shooting people stone dead in the middle of NY and in broad day light and suchlike and that he would not be touched because of who he is. The REASON. People will eventually get fed up with such behaviour and drop him when it comes to the primaries. Biden just needs a small swing in swing states to guarantee a win



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,367 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked and "came to physical harm". It was an attack on her \ her household because of her status as a Democratic politician. She has been the subject of abuse from Trump. And the nutjob who did it referenced nonsense about Democrat persecution of Trump.

    Your comments were not accurate on any level, and served only to obscure the reality of the consequences of the hysteria whipped up by Trump's lies about a stolen election and 'persecution' i.e. holding him to account for his many crimes and offences.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,087 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout



    Whatever about the general election - the Republican Primary electorate would lap all of that stuff up. The more unhinged, cruel, violent and despicable the better for that mob. It's actually difficult to think of a line that he would need to cross to lose their support. The only thing I could think of is if he came out and apologised for all of their past behaviour and admitted that he had in fact lost all of those elections etc etc. That's never gonna happen though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭dinorebel


    Couldn't agree more it's insane that the only way he could lose support is by acting as a decent human being.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,626 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Its worth keeping in mind that it's just over 8 years ago {Jan 23, 2016] since he made that statement while electioneering in Iowa. Its not amongst the electioneering ploys he pulled there this year, just his threats to have his GOP opponents investigated by PEOPLE and make those funding the candidates pay for doing so.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Ah yes , Iowa 2016 , the fresh green shoots of his Election Denial - Back then is was Ted Cruz doing the election stealing...



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,626 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    The RNC reportedly had a plan to pass a resolution naming Trump as the presumptive nominee but Trump asked it, in a wise legal move, not to pass it. The RNC resolution would have interrupted the ongoing GOP caucus being held in the different states and would have denied the party voters the ability to choose the candidate of their own choice.

    I reckon, if the RNC had gone ahead with its planned motion, it would have ended up in the courts with Haley [and maybe the different GOP parties still to hold their caucus] as complainant/s and the RNC as defendants [with Trump as a named party] causing him problems not of his making. It seems Trump either saw the obvious danger to his election or decided to accept his lawyers advice in this case.

    Edit: There is a precedent for such an RNC move. Reince Priebus, the RNC chair in 2016 did it for Trump back then. Priebus went on to become Trump's White House Chief of Staff before losing that job in 2017.

    Post edited by aloyisious on


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,184 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Trump has to pay Ms Carroll $83.3m. That is going to sting.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    Presumably it'll be appealed to reduced amount



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,580 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Presumably Trump won't keep his mouth shut and he'll be back in court for further awards against him.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭kingtiger


    ahh, surely the fuckers goose is cooked with the moderates

    Nicky Haley may of played her cards very well



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,643 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Of course, this case is a result of Trump further libelling the victim, hence the punitive damages.

    The appeal might result in the doubling of the punitive damages of $65 million to $130 million.

    I am surprised he was not instructed to pay over an amount of $10 million immediately.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,074 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2



    You don't win any sort of primary with her favorability numbers within your party especially GOP nomination in 2024.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,557 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    On what basis? His terrible lawyers have also left him limited approach to appeal. An appeal is not a re-trial, and they would have to show that the court erred in law somehow. Which, given his lawyers do not appear to know much law, will be difficult.

    Supposedly he must deposit the entire aware in escrow in order to appeal anyway.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    The punitive damages are essentially an attempt to inflict sufficient financial pain on him that he finally learns to STFU and stop defaming her.

    Given that he STILL hasn't stopped calling her a liar even after they hit him for 65 Million in punitive costs an appeal is only going to increase it.

    His clown car of lawyers f*cked him six ways from Sunday and have left him with virtually no angle for appeal. And the judge didn't rise to the constant baiting so they can't claim judicial overreach and look for a mistrial which was clearly what they were trying to do.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,945 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    This really is the perfect case to take him down as he will never learn to shut his mouth, especially when its a woman telling him to, and that is what is costing him every time now. On paper e jean could easily be worth a quarter of a million before the end of the year due to his inabilty to shut his mouth and do what hes told. I say on paper because he is going to drag out paying her for as long as possible and thats even if he can manage it as we all know his total and liquid worth is far lower than he likes to claim



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,626 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Without taking any else's character, the only people who seems to be gaining from the ongoing court actions are a group of practiced persons supposedly working and representing one client who, in his turn, claims to be acting on behalf of disenfranchised US voters, unless those practitioners are not charging their client fees and are representing him pro bono. If they are being paid by their client out of his own pocket and not other funds, it's a nice earner.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,626 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    There's an entry on a Facebook page which posted that an Illinois judge has ruled that Trump participated in an insurrection and incited the insurrection. According to the entry, the judge supposedly found that Trump is disqualified under section 3 of the 14th amendment. I went looking for confirmation of the 34 minute-old entry and found this on the CNN politics page.

    Former President Donald Trump engaged in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol but should stay on the ballot in Illinois, a retired judge told the state election board, which is set to vote Tuesday on his recommendation.

    Retired state judge Clark Erickson — a Republican — issued the recommendation after presiding Friday over an evidentiary hearing at which lawyers from both sides clashed over whether Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

    In his written recommendation to the Illinois State Board of Elections, Erickson concluded that the board doesn’t have the authority to vet candidates based on federal constitutional considerations. Therefore, he recommended that the board dismiss the case against Trump.

    However, he also said that if the panel believes it does have the statutory authority to review Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment, then they should remove Trump from the ballot because he “engaged in insurrection” in connection with the January 6 attack.

    The Illinois State Board of Elections, which will vote on whether to accept Erickson’s recommendation, is a bipartisan panel with four Democrats and four Republicans. Their decision can be appealed in Illinois state courts — and Erickson concluded that some of these key questions “belong in the courts,” instead of the election board.

    Regarding the events of January 6, Erickson concluded that the former president led “an elaborate plan” to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and later tried to give himself cover by halfheartedly calling for peace.

    Other online pages, like Chicago Sun-Times, included most of the judges ruling in their reports on the breaking news. The judge was sitting as an Illinois election board hearings officer when he made the ruling, according to the Chicago Sun-Times report.

    As to whether this will have any effect on the GOP is still to be known.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,956 ✭✭✭Christy42


    It should definitely be in the courts. The let the people decide point is complete nonsense. You could just as easily say that the people should be able to decide that Obama should be able to be president again or that they should have their say on Arnold Schwarzenegger. Neither of them can run due to various rules around the presidency and Trump breaks a different one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,517 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    In potentially good news for him, it looks like there may be trouble for Fani Willis in the Georgia case.

    Article in the FT so would be pay walled but in essence, it appears she had an undisclosed relationship with an outside DA which they hired to help with the prosecution as there I allegations that some of the money that was being paid to him was being used for holidays and trips with Willis.

    It doesn't change the facts or evidence of the case, but it could see her removed, which could see the case thrown out or delayed long enough to play into Trumps hands.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,626 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    It looks like it will run through the Illinois state court system first, thought Trump's legal team presumably would like to attach it to the case they have asked the USSC to rule on on the 8th Feb and get a block across the boards. Illinois state supreme court has a 5-2 Democrat/GOP split on its judicial membership. It seems local citizens have raised legal objections to Trump running on the state ballot papers in 18 separate states. One thing I haven't been able to find out is whom represented Trump at the Illinois board of electors hearing Judge Erikson sat on as adjudicator, as in was it the same team in NYC or was it constitutional & state law specialists?

    Edit: When it comes to a "let the people decide" soft option, apparently the Illinois State supreme court has ruled sometime in the past that the Illinois Board of Electors is the body fit to decide on issues involving ballots in the first place. If that is correct and the board decides to follow with a decision against Trump on at least a 5/3 decision, it would mean that at least one GOP member voted that Trump WAS and IS an insurrectionist.

    Post edited by aloyisious on


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,626 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Fani Willis hit back several days ago putting the blame for the allegations on the wife of the other DA, as the couple were in the process of divorce. Claims were made then that Fani Willis and the husband of the other woman had gone on foreign trips at the same time not at his expense.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Legally speaking it doesn't look like there is anything there at this stage.

    It will be very hard for Trump to try and take the moral high-ground on this one but of course he will try to play the "Moral outrage" card about a woman in a relationship with a married (but separated) man.

    The GOP will row in behind the Criminal Fraud & Rapist and try to tell the world that Willis is clearly an untrusty harlot and should not be allowed to try a case against their God-King.

    It's all just so pathetic.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,517 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Georgia GOP are already talking about talking about setting up a special senate committee to look into allegations of misuse of public funds



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,444 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Oh I'm sure they will , but thus far there's no indication of anything illegal.

    Poor optics to some extent , but nothing illegal.

    At this stage what we have is "He was paid money for work he did and then went on holiday with Fani Willis" , poor optics but not "misuse of funds".

    Won't stop the GOP shouting from the roof-top and selectively leaking information to twist the story however.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,626 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    I'm watching how Trump is trying to use the dispute between Gov Abbott of Texas and the Feds at the border involving the Texas Nat Gd and Federal officers to his advantage. There's a peculiarity about the dispute as the USSC ruled that the Border patrol can take down razor wire erected on Abbott's order. The USSC had vacated a lower court order stopping the Feds from removing the razor wire. It doesn't mean [yet] that Abbott is in defiance of the USSC, just that he arguing against the supremacy of federal law over state law where the wire is involved by impeding the Feds from removing the wire. There have been direct clashes between Texan and Border Patrol officers in respect to immigrants crossing the river border between Mexico and the US. Trump doesn't give a fig for the immigrants and anyone involved down there.

    Trump wants to link the row with a difference of opinion between the Senate GOP members over a deal linking funding for the Govt and immigration. Mitch McConnell is pro a deal with the Admin while the GOP hardliners want to block it. Naturally any setback for the Admin will be broadcast by Trump as a sign of Admin weakness and he doesn't like McConnell anyway.

    Speaking of that deal, Senator James Lankford [R] Oklahoma has just been on the Beeb news saying the deal is on. Sen Lankford does not seem to like Trump: https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8e2965bb1f7c642aJmltdHM9MTcwNjQ4NjQwMCZpZ3VpZD0wYjkyYjAwZC1mOGE4LTY4ZDktMzIxOC1hM2I3ZjllNTY5YzMmaW5zaWQ9NTU3MA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=0b92b00d-f8a8-68d9-3218-a3b7f9e569c3&psq=Senatro+Lankford&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdyZXB1YmxpYy5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS8xNzg1MzAvZ29wLXNlbmF0b3ItamFtZXMtbGFua2ZvcmQtdHJ1bXAtbWFnYS1ib3JkZXItc2NhbQ&ntb=1



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,626 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    The Illinois State Board of Electors has voted unanimously to leave Trump on the state ballot papers.



Advertisement