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 the Megathread part II - threadbans and mod warnings in OP

Options
14951535455

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,901 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    I’d love to know the real Golden Shower story in a Moscow hotel 😷😷

    It was an outlandish story to come from no-where



  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭Maxface


    At this stage, why not just go out and lie. Just straight out lie. Just lie about everything about Trump. Have the other crowd start having to call out lies. Say that one of Trumps children is having a sex change, Melania had 3 abortions last year and all three were after they were born. Trump has dug up his ex-wife and was seen driving her around the golf course, a la, weekend at Bernie's. Trump has no toes as they have rotted away and it is contagious. Trump plans to put all children from age 9 to work in oil farms and coal tunnels. He is also raising the age of consent up to 14 in Southern States. Stuff like that, and keep it going.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,519 ✭✭✭brickster69


    “The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.”

    - Camille Paglia



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,356 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Trump's a convicted felon, and you're dumping rubbish about 'Crooked' Joe.

    So obviously fake news. Repeat the lie often enough eh?

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭nachouser


    I remember noting back in the middle of May that there was no upside for Biden agreeing to a debate with Trump. And here we are. If they don't get Newsom involved, they're fupped for 2024.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭Detritus70


    Aand I don't have to read or watch anything after "Crooked Joe", because it's horseh1t.

    Don't even try to claim otherwise.

    "I'm not a Trump supporter, but..." is the new "I'm not a racist, but...".



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,698 ✭✭✭✭briany


    MSNBC are trying to spin away from the debate debacle with Lawrence O'Donnell saying it was fine because the ratings for the debate were so low that hardly anyone saw it, so it's not that big a deal.

    A pathetically weak attempt to downplay the seriousness of Biden's decline, and also comes off as incredibly out of touch with the modern world whereby clips of Biden looking frail and confused will be lighting up Tiktok and Twitter for weeks to come, if not months. Everybody may not have seen the whole debate, but many will have seen Biden struggling to finish points, looking out of it and missing open goals on the ridiculous lies which Trump tells.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,445 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    SCOTUS immunity ruling Monday. This ought to be interesting, in likely a bad way.

    Best to expect the worst from this reprehensible SCOTUS. They're making up rulings as they go along, precedent doesn't matter, rule of law doesn't matter, just what the Federalist society and MAGA wan.t



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,682 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    Absolutely. After the comical ruling about bribes gratuities now being legal, I won't be surprised about anything from them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,782 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    There only hope is to down play it, and keep Biden away from unscripted events or interacting with the media till election day and no more debates.

    There are problems with that but it may be the only hope for them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,698 ✭✭✭✭briany


    If that's their only hope, then they're well and truly fúcked, because there is no way that's going to work. The clips of Biden looking senile are going to be doing the rounds all over social media regardless of what the Biden campaign do. In that way, doing/saying nothing is a worse strategy because it gives MAGA trolls huge control of the narrative. Not that they need to do much spinning in this case. The reality of the situation is fairly plain.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,782 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    When he has the next episode, even if it is just a genuine mistake it'll be a massive story again.

    Given his situation, if he is off script. It's going to make the news quickly .

    Theyll be able to manage to a significant degree. Auto cue speeches, friendly interviewers with prepared questions, editing and breaks .

    Even just limiting the damage he does to the party would be a great success.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,698 ✭✭✭✭briany


    This is a zero sum game, as far as I can see. No good for the Biden campaign to be able to say, "Well, we lost the election, but I'll tell you what, we did some job of managing Biden's media appearances in those last few months…"

    Not that it even matters. As I've said, they have little to no way of controlling how much hay the Trump campaign will be making hay of Biden's senile appearance at the debate by flooding social media with clips of it. They can give MSNBC a script to use, but it's not going to be enough. The ratings for that debate may have been low as far as debate ratings go, but it's still a hell of a lot more viewers than are going to be watching whatever feeble damage control the Biden campaign can muster on MSNBC and CNN et al in the coming months if they decide to stick with Biden.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,782 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    It may save congress and senate seats.

    Look i agree it's horrific but when you are running a candidate with advanced dementia, best options are all absolutely shi7.

    The clip of Biden will be part of presidential history and shown for a long time to come.

    It may have been watched by a few but everyone will have seen clips or heard about it, as debates go it's the biggest in many years.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Have you actually read the ruling, or are you only cross-posting talking points from Democratic Underground?

    There certainly are arguments both ways over how to interpret the law because Congress wrote it poorly, but what the opinion doesn't do is say that bribes or gratuities are legal. The prohibitions against bribes and against gratuities (They are categorised differently in the legislation) remain on the books and such things remain illegal for federal employees pursuant to federal law, and any state or local prohibitions against either bribes or gratuities also remain in force.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Ahwell


    So you have no issue with a town mayor walking into a company offices, who he had awarded $1 million worth of city contracts to, asking for money and been given $13,000?



  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭Maxface


    Regardless of if Biden should even be there because he is too old and cognitively dodgy, the other guy is the same, but also a criminal and abuser. Wants to take all the money and give it to the rich because he thinks people like him deserve it. Does not care one bit about the average American and super dangerous for the rest of the world.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/StandUpComedy/comments/1dsamtw/the_presidential_debates/



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    As a larger matter, having personal issues is nothing to do with what the law says. Something is either proscribed or it is not.

    In this case, federal law prohibits both bribes and gratuities to federal employees under different sections. Indiana State law seems to prohibit both for Indiana "public servants" under a single section (42 IAC 1-5-9). Mr Snyder was tried by a Federal court using Federal law under an interpretation which read that the Federal section was intended to apply against bribery and gratuity to state and local employees, but against bribery only to federal employees, while federal gratuity rule-breaking would have a lesser punishment than if the federal law were applied to the state/local employees (which would get the bribery-level punishment), an odd conclusion. Had he been tried by an Indiana court under Indiana law, the Supreme Court would have not had to say anything at all.

    Perhaps you should have more issue with why the Feds decided to try the case and not the State.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,442 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    I suspect that the ruling will be "Presidential Immunity applies in some cases".

    Essentially they will say that the President has immunity for "official acts" but not for personal acts but that whether something is "Official" or "Personal" needs to be clearly documented/codified and potentially argued in court.

    Which on its face is the most accurate outcome , but for Trump it's a complete win as it punts any case against him more or less indefinitely as he can tie them all up in endless legal back and forth over the nuance of Official vs Personal.

    Of course if he wins in November he'll just cancel all the cases anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 421 ✭✭Stanley 1


    Trump will ask the rich then to donate funds to GOP but also to him personally offshore, intention is to sort out personal finances and Trump Inc., borrowings.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Ahwell


    No, I do have an issue however with two Justices, who have received $4,780,720 and $170,095 in "gratuities", not recusing themselves from this case. I also have an issue the conservative members of the court denying the meaning of the word "reward".



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    How so? From the opinion.

    "Consider a bribe where the agreement was made before the act but the payment was made after the act. An official might try to defend against the bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not have “influenced” the act. By including the term “rewarded,” Congress made clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timing of the payment, and thereby precluded such a potential defense. And think about the official who took a bribe before the official act but asserts as a defense that he would have taken the same act anyway and therefore was not “influenced” by the payment. To shut the door on that potential defense to a §666 bribery charge, Congress sensibly added the term “rewarded.” "

    What part of the above do you take issue with?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Ahwell


    …because "rewarded" also encompasses gratuities.

    JACKSON, J., dissenting

    "Dictionary definitions confirm what common sense tells
    us about what it means to be rewarded. A “reward” is
    “[t]hat which is given in return for good or evil done or received,” including “that which is offered or given for some
    service or attainment.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2136 (2d ed. 1957). The verb form of the word is no
    different. To “reward” means “to . . . recompense.” Ibid.
    (defining “to reward” as “[t]o make a return, or give a reward, to (a person) or for (a service, etc.); to requite; recompense; repay”). Both definitions thus encompass payment
    in recognition of an action that an official has already taken
    or committed to taking. And neither requires there to be
    some beforehand agreement about that exchange, i.e., a
    quid pro quo."



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,315 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    But as the majority observed, and Justice Jackson seems to have missed, the verbiage in 666 specifically requires that the reward be made 'corruptly', thus differentiating it as a bribe from gratuities. Jackson's quoted definition encompasses both corruption and non-corruption possibilities. In order for there to be corruption involved, there must be some form of expectation, understanding or agreement, either express or implied.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Ahwell


    No, you're misrepresenting what Jackson actually stated…

    "In short, §666(a)(1)(B) makes it a federal crime for state,
    local, or tribal officials to corruptly solicit, accept, or agree
    to accept certain payments in connection with business
    worth $5,000 or more."

    Post edited by Ahwell on


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,817 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    .. .



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Given not just his age but also his unhealthy diet, it is astonishing that Trump recovered from Covid in 2020. It's also astonishing that his recovery didn't cause many voters to think, "Maybe Covid isn't as serious as it has been claimed to be".



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,442 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    "Man with 24/7 access to the absolute best possible available medical support recovers from illness" is not the same as "that illness can't be all that serious"



  • Registered Users Posts: 421 ✭✭Stanley 1


    Always suspected he never had Covid, he played the popularity PR game to show how tough he was, isn't he a germophobic anyway………unless he was ordering in from Maccy Ds.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,265 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    SCOTUS has ruled that Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in Trump v. United States.



Advertisement