ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
There are plenty of people who are intelligent poker minds who are ****ing idiots. I hardly give anyone the benefit of the doubt on intelligence because they know the optimal times to float and jam
Fwiw being goat in a game do
Not necessary translate in other fields .
Bobby Fisher might be the greatest example of that .
Especially on politics….
Savid Dlansky is probably one of the most revered poker minds there is (for some reason) and I question whether he has the basic intelligence required to wipe himself
If you count the weather channel and Howard Stern and Soft interviews. He has done 1/3 of the interviews Trump and Obama did
He isn't capable of doing an interview unless he knows the questions and even than its a struggle
The reason Biden doesn't do a lot of interviews is because he stutters. Many people on social media then take his stuttering as an old age incompetency thing.
Trump on the other hand seems to mostly do interviews with people on his side so that when he shows absolutely no ability to answer questions they fawn all over him anyway
The reason Biden doesn't do a lot of interviews is because he stutters. Many people on social media then take his stuttering as an old age incompetency thing.
Trump on the other hand seems to mostly do interviews with people on his side so that when he shows absolutely no ability to answer questions they fawn all over him anyway
Total BS he did the state of union just fine. It’s just a phoney excuse you make up . The reason he doesn’t do any tough intervene he can’t handle them and his handlers are scared of what he may say
intervene
The greatest threat to Trump’s legal defense is Trump himself
Trump believes that his lead lawyer is not being aggressive
enough with the witnesses, the judge and even the jury pool.
One prime example of Trump hurting his own defense is the fact that he will not let his attorneys
concede that he had relationships or encounters with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.
This pits Trump against those two women in the eyes of the jurors. By not allowing his attorneys to concede
that he may have had relationships with these women, Trump will force the jury to believe him or believe them.
That’s a problem for a defendant who made tens of thousands of false claims in just his four years as president.
There is no point in analyzing Trump's behavior as if he were a typical criminal defendant. Trump is making decisions based on what he believes is best for his presidential campaign. We can debate whether it is best for Trump's presidential campaign for him to pretend like he never had sex with Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal and to accept the incremental risk of a suboptimal defense strategy.
But that's what is going on. It's the same reason he is violating the gag orders.
There is no point in analyzing Trump's behavior as if he were a typical criminal defendant. Trump is making decisions based on what he believes is best for his presidential campaign. We can debate whether it is best for Trump's presidential campaign for him to pretend like he never had sex with Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal and to accept the incremental risk of a suboptimal defense strategy.
But that's what is going on. It's the same
Everyone leaning even vaguely right (that includes center-right people who dislike him) i spoke with believes trump will get a guilty verdict with 100% probability no matter what tbh
What are the arguments that the Trump team is making?
various reasons including it's obvious that technically he violated the law, that a jury selected in NYS can't be impartial and so on.
I mean what odds would you lay for Trump being found not guilty?
I'm not sure why you think it would be harder to empanel a jury in New York than it would be in Oklahoma, or Minnesota, or some other state.
This is the weakest of the criminal cases by a wide margin. The main witness for the prosecution is despicable and deeply unlikeable. The conduct in question isn't something that most people care about. For those reasons, I wouldn't be surprised by a hung jury in this case. I would be surprised by an acquittal, but not shocked. I would need to be in the courtroom to be any more precise than that.
If Trump were acquitted in the classified documents case, that would be an outrage. As best I can tell, he has no defense in that case that is even remotely credible.
I'm not sure why you think it would be harder to empanel a jury in New York than it would be in Oklahoma, or Minnesota, or some other state.
because you can strike out trump voters without running out of strikes unlike in other places.
Anyway i was referring what i am being told when i discuss about this, no1 believes it can remotely be a fair trial , but most agree it's almost certain some rule has been broken (like, they believe, everyone does all the time, but only Trump is tried for it, not unlike the other NYS trial Trump lost).
Anyway if that's what the trump campaign perceives as well, then it's reasonable that trump only uses this trial to campaign for the election as you mentioned.
because you can strike out trump voters without running out of strikes unlike in other places.
The lawyers were not allowed to ask jurors which political party they are registered with, who they voted for, or which political candidates they donated money to. They were allowed to prospective jurors whether they had attended pro- or anti-Trump rallies and some other similar questions.
I also am not sure why you think this process works in only one direction. If a prospective juror said that he had been involved in anti-Trump activism, that juror almost certainly would be struck for cause.
I am not aware of any limit on the number of jurors who can be struck for cause by the court. And every jurisdiction limits the number of peremptory strikes available to each side. Each side in this case had ten peremptory strikes.
Plus, we have been reliably informed by PlayBig that NYC is actually overwhelmingly pro-Trump, as evidenced by the loud cheers when he visited that construction site.
Total BS he did the state of union just fine. It’s just a phoney excuse you make up . The reason he doesn’t do any tough intervene he can’t handle them and his handlers are scared of what he may say
Biden can practice his speeches to mitigate his stuttering but there is no way he can prepare perfectly for an interview.
Having a conversation when you stutter is extremely difficult without it coming out at some point as a weird hesitation or ineptitude.
When Johnny Chan and Phil Helmuth were announcing a WSOP related event it came out that Johnny Chan had a stutter. At various points he had stopped in mid sentence and amazingly Phil Helmuth stepped in and would ask him questions that Chan could answer "Yes" or "No" to. And Chan was able to answer the questions with one word avoiding his stutter. There is no way news reporters would do that for Joe Biden except maybe at MSNBC. Which oddly would be a mirror image of how Trump does his interviews.
Biden can practice his speeches to mitigate his stuttering but there is no way he can prepare perfectly for an interview.
Having a conversation when you stutter is extremely difficult without it coming out at some point as a weird hesitation or ineptitude.
When Johnny Chan and Phil Helmuth were announcing a WSOP related event it came out that Johnny Chan had a stutter. At various points he had stopped in mid sentence and amazingly Phil Helmu
Biden's stuttering isn't so severe that he has to avoid interviews. He has done a million debates in the past without his stuttering being a problem.
Biden has avoided doing a lot of interviews, especially hostile interviews, because he isn't a moron. Democratic presidents -- especially old Democratic presidents who have never been particularly good at speaking extemporaneously -- have very little to gain from doing interviews on Fox. Republican presidents likewise have very little to gain from doing interviews on MSNBC.
Trump did many, many interviews with Bob Woodward. That turned out to be a terrible decision.
The lawyers were not allowed to ask jurors which political party they are registered with, who they voted for, or which political candidates they donated money to. They were allowed to prospective jurors whether they had attended pro- or anti-Trump rallies and some other similar questions.
I also am not sure why you think this process works in only one direction. If a prospective juror said that he had been involved in anti-Trump activis
do you think you could field an impartial jury for a trial against hillary clinton in rural alabama? i don't think you could.
Ofc the process is bi-directional but how are you going to find 12 people that don't hate trump which aren't excluded because they actually like him a lot lol, in urban NYS? maybe if you start with 3000 you might? it's already only a tiny slice of the population which hasn't strong opinions on him to begin with
