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?
So what exactly did Trump do wrong?
He wrote down on a piece of paper what he thought his property in Florida was worth, as hundreds of thousands do every day. The bank got paid back on the loan as agreed and many industry professionals agreed with Trumps assessment regarding the value of Mara Lago. This is not a free country if this can be done to a political opponent so I highly recommend you should take that test if you really think this
The judgement Land o Lakes is talking about is about 2 defamation lawsuits that Trump lost.
I can't believe politics has devolved into which geriatric senile fool is worse, but here we are.
Just looking at Trump getting a $5 million judgement against him and then months later getting an $83.3 million judgement against him for the same offense against the same person is all one needs to know that he doesn't have the temperament for the highest office in the land.
Are you sure about this? afaik the 83m extra came for ulterior subsequent defamatory statements by Trump, he defamed her again after he lost the first verdict
Oh look, washoe's back to hand wave away Trump's sexual assault again, what a surprise!
"Many people view her as uncredible" - how Trumpian of you.
I just wanted to ask if Luciom is believing jean carroll.
who is selling a book about trump at the same time she is suing ffs. lol 😀
that is civil court and means nothing.
trump is suing her now for defamation.
so we have word against word nothing else.
and many people view her as uncredible.
so again, they got nothing.
I haven't seen any reports that Trump is suiting Carroll for defamation. But if he is, would you like to wager on the outcome?
I haven't seen any reports that Trump is suiting Carroll for defamation. But if he is, would you like to wager on the outcome?
he tried but it was dismissed (not sure if he can try again or if he did)
he tried but it was dismissed (not sure if he can try again or if he did)
Anyone can file a complaint, but if he lost on the merits, he probably would get sanctioned if he tried again. So washoe, wtf are you talking about?
This is a very leftwing source (the guardian, basically a communist newspaper) , headline literally is "head of NATO rebukes Trump by claiming they do exactly what he wants them to do"
Incredible
This is a very leftwing source (the guardian, basically a communist newspaper) , headline literally is "head of NATO rebukes Trump by claiming they do exactly what he wants them to do"
Incredible
So we have 11 does it list the 7 that will join this eleven . Does it mention countries like Canada are planning on cutting a billion $
So we have 11 does it list the 7 that will join this eleven . Does it mention countries like Canada are planning on cutting a billion $
Full article here, afaik it doesn't mention which countries will be complaint with the 2% threshold (maybe stoltenberg did, but the article doesn't)
Full article here, afaik it doesn't mention which countries will be complaint with the 2% threshold (maybe stoltenberg did, but the article doesn't)
Why do you always need to be asked for links? Makes you seem less credible.
This is a very leftwing source (the guardian, basically a communist newspaper) , headline literally is "head of NATO rebukes Trump by claiming they do exactly what he wants them to do"
Incredible
If I were to ask for Luciom to be banned and say he's an awful person if he doesn't start calling anything moderately left wing communist would it be reasonable for someone to rebuke me for doing that, even though I'm asking for you to do something you're already doing?
The whole narrative that the increased defense spending by European nations is due to Trump (at least his latest comments/threats) and not due to Russia's posturing and then literal invasion of a nearby country and ally is ridiculous. Even if it wasn't ridiculous it would still be absolutely right for people to rebuke Trump for attempting "diplomacy" by threatening USA's allies.
The irony of the situation is remarkable. Trump is pushing europe to be more self-reliant by getting them to finally realise they cannot trust the usa because they might elect people like trump.
I disagree with you on this onme Willd. Europe is definitely waking up to not being able to depend on the USA. Sure they are also very worried about putin.
Yeah that's a fair point. I guess I should have been more specific that it's ridiculous to think it's somehow effective diplomacy on his part rather than making Europe nervous that the US might be a very unreliable ally (although I'd still argue Russia invading is a bigger part of it than this worry).
Edit: I think we did a bit of cross editing in our posts there and ended up in basically the same place.
If I were to ask for Luciom to be banned and say he's an awful person if he doesn't start calling anything moderately left wing communist would it be reasonable for someone to rebuke me for doing that, even though I'm asking for you to do something you're already doing?
The whole narrative that the increased defense spending by European nations is due to Trump (at least his latest comments/threats) and not due to Russia's posturing and then
I think you are allowed to call me an awful person if you disagree with me calling the guardian communist (extremely, wildly radical left if you prefer).
But when they publish this, which is very close to the worst possible thing you can publish ever (this is a lot worse than asking for the genocide of any specific ethnicity, like infinitely worse than that already unacceptable position), i suggest you rethink your opinion on that medium
The irony of the situation is remarkable. Trump is pushing europe to be more self-reliant by getting them to finally realise they cannot trust the usa because they might elect people like trump.
I disagree with you on this onme Willd. Europe is definitely waking up to not being able to depend on the USA. Sure they are also very worried about putin.
It's not ironic. We need to be able to defend ourselves, then we can still be allied with the USA to pursue common goals.
But the idea that we need daddy USA to help us when a neighbor gets problematic is insulting and we should have listened to the french more, they always said that
It's not ironic. We need to be able to defend ourselves, then we can still be allied with the USA to pursue common goals.
But the idea that we need daddy USA to help us when a neighbor gets problematic is insulting and we should have listened to the french more, they always said that
We all remember when the Germans laughed at him when he said they would regret relying on Russia for all their natural gas
That's obviously a pretty out there piece but it's so far from anything actually policy related that it's not even really on the political left/right spectrum - hell extinction of humanity is about as far from the supposed foundations of communism as it's possible to be. It's also an opinion piece (technically it's not in the opinion section but "Experience" is really just a second section for opinion pieces) anyway and all papers publish things wildly to either side of their main editorial stance in these sections so it's a poor example to use as an argument for the stance of the paper as a whole. Also, for the record, advocating for voluntary extinction of the entire human race is an infinitely less disagreeable position than advocating for genocide of a specific ethnicity. Chillrob has had some interesting things to say on that topic (I believe his position is very close to what is espoused in that article).
The Guardian is certainly quite left leaning as far as major news publications go but its editorial stance is still a fair way to the right of where the labour party was under Corbyn, which was still some way to the right of traditional socialism (Corbyn was himself a democratic socialist but the party's position as a whole while he was leader was not socialist by any sensible definition of socialism).
This is all aside from the fact that you apparently missed my point anyway. That being that even if you're asking for something that is already happening it's still entirely reasonable for people to rebuke you for it if you do it in a way that is condescending/insulting/threatening. The increase in spending was committed long before Trump's latest comments and rebuking him for those comments while pointing out that it was already happening is an entirely reasonable thing to do.
It's not ironic. We need to be able to defend ourselves, then we can still be allied with the USA to pursue common goals.
But the idea that we need daddy USA to help us when a neighbor gets problematic is insulting and we should have listened to the french more, they always said that
The irony is people claiming that the increased spending is a result of smart diplomacy from Trump, when the reality is that its the spectre of the USA (re)electing someone as incredibly incompetent/unpredictable as Trump that is actually a major driving force for the action. It's pretty much the exact definition of irony.
(Whether or not it's ultimately a good/sensible thing for Europe to be doing is irrelevant to the inherent irony of people using it as evidence of Trump being an effective diplomat)
I think you are allowed to call me an awful person if you disagree with me calling the guardian communist (extremely, wildly radical left if you prefer).
But when they publish this, which is very close to the worst possible thing you can publish ever (this is a lot worse than asking for the genocide of any specific ethnicity, like infinitely worse than that already unacceptable position), i suggest you rethink your opinion on that medium
This is very close to the worldview of our very own chillrob.
If anyone really needs to test two individuals to see which one has a better cognitive ability over the other because they're not able to tell just by watching both of them for 10 minutes, maybe they're the ones who should get the test.
I've seen them both make the same kinds of mistakes about the same number of times. It's pretty clear you aren't an unbiased observer, although maybe I'm not either. It is pretty tough to be unbiased about two people who have been in the public eye for so long.
I think you are allowed to call me an awful person if you disagree with me calling the guardian communist (extremely, wildly radical left if you prefer).
But when they publish this, which is very close to the worst possible thing you can publish ever (this is a lot worse than asking for the genocide of any specific ethnicity, like infinitely worse than that already unacceptable position), i suggest you rethink your opinion on that medium
Yea for the guardian!
Sensible people can understand the difference between [murder, war and genocide] and [voluntary lack of reproduction].
Do you really think it is worse to nicely ask someone not reproduce than to murder them and their children?
Of course, I'm pretty certain the Guardian doesn't actually support the position, they just did an interview with someone who does.
Do you always assume anyone who does an interview with someone necessarily agrees with everything that person has to say?
So what exactly did Trump do wrong?
He wrote down on a piece of paper what he thought his property in Florida was worth, as hundreds of thousands do every day. The bank got paid back on the loan as agreed and many industry professionals agreed with Trumps assessment regarding the value of Mara Lago. This is not a free country if this can be done to a political opponent so I highly recommend you should take that test if you really think this
Bro, you should probably take the test first yourself before telling others to do so.
I like how you nonchalantly imply that everyone overvalues their assets when taking a loan and undervalues them when reporting it to the taxman and that bank fraud is totally cool so long as the loans get paid back 🤣
Weren't you saying the feds were responsible for J6? Did you mean Trump's FBI? Oh wait... everyone in government belongs to Biden/Hillary/Obama.
How did Trump get a grand jury of his peers in FL to indict? They're in on it, too, eh?
Are you sure about this? afaik the 83m extra came for ulterior subsequent defamatory statements by Trump, he defamed her again after he lost the first verdict
Right. All he had to do is keep his mouth shut. The second suit didn't have to prove defamation but just decide on an amount that would be enough to keep his mouth shut. Seemed to work because he ragged on everyone from the judge, jury, city, etc., but he didn't say a word about E Jean 🤣
