If Trump has no interest in the Military Industrial Complex how come defence spending hit records under him? How come his defence secretarys were all tied to it? They could simply have been military men or politicians. How come he spent so much time talking up its products? Again, you’ll say anything, except answer what it means for your theory that the Russians were at the gates of Kiev.
Having the weapons, and bragging about them, is a show of strength, that, if done properly, can avoid further or new conflict. Trump also took on and defeated ISIS, whom Obama predicted would be in a forever war with the US. His interest in arms is defence and deterrant. Using them, via a proxy, to fight a war that potentially will lead to global catastrophe, or giving nearly a trillion dollars worth away to the Taliban, is very different thing; all, no doubt, be be replaced at tax payer's expense. Are you seriously saying that Trump spent more on arms than Biden? You are having a giraffe. Just because he gave the money to Ukraine to spend it on US arms, as well as the donation of arms, doesn't excuse Biden from funding the industrial military complex, whether it is through direct or proxy means. You need, in this case, to get woke.
There would have been no ‘negotiation’. Putin had been livid since Yanukovich was ousted in 2014, an event leading directly to Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea…an act illegal under international law. It also sparked the ‘separatist’ conflict in Donbas, where Russian support of the insurgents has been significant and obvious since its inception. Putin’s aims have been clear for a long time: Ukraine can only exist in the form he deems suitable. He has stated more than once that it is not ‘a valid, historical country’. His ‘special military operation’ (sic) was meant to have swiftly removed the democratically elected government of Ukraine so it could become a puppet state of Putin’s Russia. Is anyone seriously suggesting Ukraine should have stood by and accept it? And when they appealed for help, should everyone else just shrug their shoulders and say ‘tough’? To repeat, there would have been no negotiations if Russia had reached Kyiv and decapitated its government. And any putative ‘treaty’ Putin may agree to today would last as long as he feels suits his agenda and timetable. And who would face him down next time? Not the UN as any such move would be vetoed by China. Let us not forget, Hitler stated that the Saarland, Rhineland, Austrian Anschluss, and the Sudetenland were all successively his ‘final demand’, until the next one. Putin would be no different.
That was ultimately Hooters argument previously. Anyone can come in and claim any land they decide they suddenly want, with the other side having no say in it and should cede to their demands. Hilarious really.
You show me where I called anyone on this forum a fascist first. Actually called them a fascist. And I'll answer your question. Fair's fair.
State of this reply. Unable to answer a simple question about Russia’s invasion, when you thought you were going to school everyone. Dismal stuff. Laughing.
State of you. Accusing posters of calling people fascists for no reason. Play ground stuff Moose. You have clearly lost the argument, and now you are going into a melt down trying to deflect from your own behaviour by talking utter rubbish about another poster. Justify your comment Moose, or shut up. Take your own advice and leave your sordid past behind you. You know it never works well when you stir it up. Calm down. Put me on ignore, as you promised to do only a couple of days ago, and lead a Hooter free life for a while. Love you mate. ‘Cause you are a Horn. But you do make it tough some times.
Democrat Reps: Your report exonerated Joe Biden. Hur: No. The report did not… Democrat Reps: Shut up. You exonerated Joe Biden. Hur: No. The report did not… Democrat Reps: It’s my time Mr Hur (smug smile). Hur: Maybe. But the report still didn’t exonerate Joe Biden. Democrat Reps: Waaaah. Someone make the nasty man shut up! Hur: Excuse me, my phone is ringing. Hello. The IRS? Why are you calling me now? Turns out he was obliged to write it after all. No he wasn’t. Yes he was.
That is a lie. I never said this, and it is not the implication of anything I have said. Why do you chaps insist on lying about me? Does it make you feel adequate? On a political thread on a Football Forum. How would you like it if I said "Reids said that Jurado is a midfield tactical genius with the technical skills of Messi"?
You know that incredibly incriminating phone call Trump made, attempting to get Brad Raffensburger to cheat in the election? Well, it turns out that, if I may borrow the terminology of Democrat Congressional Representatives, Donald Trump has been completely exonerated of the charges brought regarding it. People may not like Trump’s language, but it amounted to a plea for reconsideration, and not an act of coercion. Turns out that the DA, in her indictment, was unable to describe how Orange Man was breaking the law. Much like people on here who decided it was the most obvious and egregious violation of the law, she provided no description of that phone call that implied any breach of the law, that lived up to her accusations. “We’ll, I think it is illegal”, apparently, is not enough to charge a person in Georgia. It’s a small victory for Trump, but an enormous victory for Hooter, who described the call as a run of the mill plea to an official to reconsider the outcome of an election, for the reasons that Trump found compelling. Raffensburger disagreed with him, but Trump was within his rights to express his concerns to the powers that be, and did nothing illegal to subvert the election. The indictment failed to allege any felony in Trump asking Raffensburger to reconsider the outcome of the election. If he had sent twenty guys with sticks down to Raffensburger’s office, to force him to change the outcome, he would have been bang to rights. But given that he didn’t, it was entirely legal for him to put his concerns across. The judge has given them time to re consider the charge, but Willis will have to take it back to a grand jury, that will have to be persuaded, again, for completely different, new, reasons.
I think you're possibly getting ahead of yourself with this one in an effort to take a victory lap. These are just the cut and thrust things that happen in court cases. Not only has the judge said they can go back to the grand jury to seek an indictment which corrects the defect(s) he's pointed out, he's also given them 6 months to do that even if the statute of limitation has expired. And he even said in his judgment the flaw could be 'easily remedied'. He also didn't get close to the merits of the charges, so it's quite the leap to be crowing about it or claiming you're vindicated off the back of it. I see today old Fani's been told to choose her or her boyfriend to take the case forward though. Another pyrrhic victory for Trump. The Georgia judge sure is making this case watertight for the inevitable appeals though.
You cope with it whatever way you feel best. I am unsure how "you have failed to state a case, after nearly four years of trying" can be seen as a positive. It didn't even get to the jury. What makes you think they will do better with another six months? But I am sure they can come up with something. And I'm already way past a victory lap. I think my view, that Trump was within his rights to have a conversation about his concerns using frank language, has been vindicated by the difficulty with which the DA is struggling to make her case. I have only ever argued against the assumption of guilt and dismissal of any opposing view. The hard line absolutism is not coming from me. He may well be guilty. He may not. And that last bit, illustrated by the quashing of those charges, is what I consider to be my victory.
Utter rubbish. It is said that the prosecution presented an awful case because they had no case and were instead attempting to make an ill advised political point. Rittenhause ONLY fired at people who were attacking him, and lowered his gun when people backed down. He was chased down by the first guy, who had earlier told him that he would take his gun and kill him with it. The second guy he shot was swinging his skate board at Rittenhaus’s head, the third was doing a flying kick at his head, and the fourth raised a gun at Rittenhause, but lowered it when Rittenhause raised his own. Kyle then lowered his gun, only for the guy to step towards him, raising his gun again. As the guy actually said in court, he was pointing his gun at Rittenhause when Kyle shot him once in the arm. That, most prominently, was the reason their case was considered a piece of rubbish. Rittenhause is a nob for his obsession with guns, but he is typical of hundreds of thousands of young Americans, and he acted within the law. Unlike those who attacked him. That last guy, who raised the gun, had travelled hundreds of miles with an illegal fire arm (he was not allowed to carry a gun, as a convicted felon), and clearly was prepared to use it. His Glock was far more powerful than Kyle’s AR. Everything that you accuse Rittenhaus of, he was genuinely guilty of. And when he raised his illegal gun, it was not to defend himself. Rittenhause was running away, and that guy had followed him down the street, with his gun, and drew people’s attention to him. You seem ill informed on this. And if you have ever said you could do something unpleasant to a referee after a game, even said a ref should be shot, then you should watch out mate. On your own standards, that could be enough to put you in gaol. It was a stupid comment, but it was in a context where many, many people might say or think the same thing. Could you be arrested for the things you have said about Trump?
Yes. I'm still absolutely confident that Aileen Cannon has absolutely no intention of letting the case get to trial, yes. And anything she can do along the way to derail it or make outright bizarre legal judgments (or in the case of this latest jury instructions sideshow, avoid making a legal judgment) is all part of the circus.
Any comments then on Judge Engoron and his 0.5 Billion fine? If we are allowed to attack judges now for being political hacks, I think Trump has some far more convincing grounds for whinging. I suspect a person making such comments is throwing stones from a glass house made from spun sugar.
If Engoron is wrong about New York law Trump will win his appeal. It's a civil case, something he's very very used to. The fine does seem high but then Trump professes to be an extremely wealthy man and in general the law tends to ensure people with more money pay more in penalties. Obviously the big advantage they have over the common man is an ability to throw lawyers at things to stop it ever coming to court. Cannon is actually able to tip the scales significantly because of double jeopardy laws that mean if she plays her cards just right, she can completely scupper the criminal case in a way which leaves the DOJ with no recourse to appeal. The same principle applies over here. If a judge botches her legal directions to the jury and as a result someone is acquitted, the higher courts can (and often will) kick the legal debate around as much as they like but it only settles the question for the future. The defendant is off the hook. I'm 99% sure that's what'll happen here. I've not seen a single legal commentator who backs up her general approach in this case. And she's already been slapped down by the appeals court twice in spectacular fashion. Sadly though they have no oversight of her day to day pre-trial management, so she's free to make bizarre decisions all she wants. And she has been.
As I say. You cope with it how you see best. 0.5 billion does seem a bit High? Yeah. And literally, it's justified because he is Trump, and has a lot of money. Right. What was the crime again? Take yourself seriously.
Hey! Court agrees it was absurd setting such a high bond just to allow an appeal. Trump was effectively being punished for disagreeing with some of the judge’s potential biases, as is guaranteed to him by the constitution. That bond was intended to punish Trump regardless of whether his appeal was successful. But you are right, if Engoron is wrong, then Trump should win his appeal; only now Trump prosecution porn has suffered the equivalent of pixelation of the rude bits. The consternation of the Trump pervs is palpable. Like going to watch a Stormy Daniels show and finding out she’s doing her (family friendly!) one woman rendition of Hamlet. AOC, and others, were already accusing Trump of crimes if he raised the original bond, because it was impossible to raise it legally. BEFORE HE EVEN PAID IT. If anyone needed to understand the very unfortunate nature of the establishment hags in their desperation about possibly losing power, that one spells it out very clearly.
And you should take yourself less seriously. It must be really tiring to be this angry and/or triggered all the time? Wow. 'Absurd' is amazing language from an appellate court. Sounds like they really came down hard on Ergoron by saying Trump was being punished for disagreeing with him. Do you have a copy of the order? I'd love to see it. Sadly though, that's just your personal spin on a very boring and quite terse court order and it never happened. And I'm genuinely not sure whether you realise everything that's happened post-trial is just a pure application of New York law? As I understand it state law (not Ergoron, not the AG, not the DOJ, not Joe Biden, not the boogieman under the bed) says a loser can appeal but they can only prevent enforcement of the judgment if they post a bond for the full amount of any fine. Hence Trump had to show the courts he couldn't get a bond that high before they agreed to allow him to post a partial one. Unless you think the whole civil legal system in New York was specially constructed to trap Trump then I think you're just falling for his perma-bluster.
Indeed. And I said the same in a post earlier in this thread shortly after the judgement. But Trump and his supporters need to keep the "establishment persecution" narrative going even when the legal process was always there and applies to everyone, even Trump. To be balanced, I also thought the fine might be seen as excessive but, once the judgement was made, the bond/payment was always a requirement BEFORE an appeal, whatever Trump and his supporters like to believe. If anything, Trump has been given preferential treatment by being allowed to post a considerably lower bond in order to appeal the original judgement (possibly reflecting the likelihood that an appeal might reduce the fine).
While not selling Bibles he's intimidating the judge in his "hush money" trial, as well as the judges daughter. How can anyone think that this man is fit to be President of the United States?
If it hadn't been absurd, it wouldn't have been reduced by nearly 300 million. Watch AOC and pals accuse him of criminality even before he paid a penny. Watch James' orgasm face as she eyes up Trump tower. They are the lunatics in charge of the assylum. And people are cheering them on. If they want things to get better, I am not certain that creating merry hell, with the legal precident to perpetuate it, is the best way forward. Do not tell me you are a serious person on tjis subject.
And I am not angry, though I do get a little triggered about how easily people resort to undesirable political methods in order to prevent someone being voted in that they disagree with. And how people you would hope to be reasonable will cheer that on or explain why it is perfectly all right. It used to be unacceptable. But just look where we are sleep walking now... If you guys are confidant that is not you, fair enough and good luck to you. But I fancy that not everyone will see it that way. I don't care if Trump goes down, but I do care that what is going on right now is seriously anti democratic, and way way worse than twenty guys with sticks at the Capitol, who no one believes had any intention of hanging decenting lawmakers and over throwing the US government. Time to wake up I think. If they can.
I won't reply if you don't. Promise. Now you know how to stop me replying to you. HenryHooter, Dec 3, 2019Report Reply So you lied. I will continue to not reply to you as I have for 4+ years since your "promise". But I was just curious on this occasion to read your reply to my post (which was not a reply to you). I have said on this forum, on several occasions that Biden is no longer fit to serve as Potus. I can say with equal certainty that Trump is also unfit for office too. However, that is as much because of his actions as to his senility, which is becoming more and more apparent. Can you say the same? You are blinded by your political bias. You are also block by me because of it and your inability to keep your promises. Be better.
His DOJ has repeatedly indicted Trump and arrested and prosecuted hundreds of individuals for trespass, labelling, but not charging them, as domestic terrorists. He has demonised half of the country and allowed us to come closer to nuclear war than for many decades. On top of that, he has demonstrated levels of senility, in his brief, often scripted, appearances, way beyond Trump’s mistakes during hour plus unscripted speeches and emotional responses to what has been thrown at him. So yes, I can say it is more because of Biden’s behaviour, and that is before we even bring up his behaviour as an influence peddling politician, with a family who have made millions trading on the fact that they share his last name, and with whom he has been shown to be working. It is fair to speculate that those millions have received something in response. I would say that Biden has been far more damaging to America and the world than Trump was. So yes, I would rather see Trump in charge than Biden. As for your peculiar ‘report reply’, I have no idea what that specific comment is related to. How it is supposed to prevent me from commenting on your posts, I do not know. You make them on a public forum. The whole idea is that people share ideas. If you don’t like what people have to say, put them on ignore. I am sure I am affected by my political biases. Just like you. Only I would say you are many times worse for it, and that you are less tolerant than I am. Just my opinion. I just disagree with people, and explain why. Like people do on a forum. I don’t get upset and try to stop people from posting because I don’t like what they say, as has been the case with people responding to me.
For all of those who want to bleat about Trump being persecuted, how do they think any judge, anywhere in the World, would react to being abused or having their family abused by anyone before them in their court?
Yes, wake up Hooter. Trump's standing for election almost solely because he thinks it'll keep him out of legal trouble. He's abusing the democratic system by using it his shield and plenty of people who've worked with and around him are on record saying he's been open to them about that motivation. There's a reason vast, vast majority of politicians/candidates step aside from the electoral process (if not stand down from office completely) in the face of serious criminal charges. But not Trump. Even if you believe, as you say you do, that investigating and prosecuting him is an 'undesirable political method', his actions are at the very least equally damaging to democracy. But if you choose to be blind to that and blame only the other side that's your choice, but in my opinion it's a lame and nakedly partisan choice.
