45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 8)
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Dont people need to apply for tickets for these events? Therefore I would suspect all these people have got a ticket, but that does not guarantee you can get in. Therefore people arrive early, queue and then the candidate then have great way to promote their popularity. Trump does have a lot of supporters, and alot are die hard fans so will easily fill most arena's. its always been the case, as a few times Trump has had empty seats at venues. Also he often bulls
ts and claims the venue has more people in it then its actually allowed, so you never know the real number. Carl_Manchester said:
If it’s a repeat of colorado springs the other night you probably won’t be getting in if you don’t already have a ticket.
approx. 20,000 people turned up and the venue only held around 5,000 seated. people were being arrested outside the venue for blocking traffic.
Trump continues to be a big crowd draw all over the country. It is a big ask to pack out the Vegas convention centre but Trump might just do that.
Which as asked previously - why doesn't he book bigger venues? Obviously there's the optics of a packed venue and another crowd outside and he did rant previously at photos showing empty spaces at previous large arenas. Do you think the small arena is a deliberate plan?approx. 20,000 people turned up and the venue only held around 5,000 seated. people were being arrested outside the venue for blocking traffic.
Trump continues to be a big crowd draw all over the country. It is a big ask to pack out the Vegas convention centre but Trump might just do that.
rscott said:
40 months might be excessive had he been convicted just of obstruction, but he wasn't. He was actually found guilty of 5 counts of making false statements to Congress, one of obstruction of Congress and one of witness tampering.
A former Republican politician in South Dakota got 10 years just for that offence. Jared Kushner's father has also been convicted of that (along with tax evasion and illegal campaign contributions) but only served 2 years as part of a plea deal.
Perhaps you misread my post. 7-9 years is rightly considered excessive for the circumstances per the “sentencing guidelines” I mentioned. 40 months was not excessive given the things you just reiterated. A former Republican politician in South Dakota got 10 years just for that offence. Jared Kushner's father has also been convicted of that (along with tax evasion and illegal campaign contributions) but only served 2 years as part of a plea deal.
Al Gorithum said:
From my previous post:
... but is that all is you have against the Gentleman (Obama)? You haven't found anything substantial like adultery, business failings, collusion with foreign enemies, obstruction of justice, collusion with fellons, quid pro quos, stealing from charities, being banned from operating charities, running a fake university, putting unqualified and un-vetted members of his family in positions of authority/national security, firing decent professional people, campaign finance violations, filling his pockets at the tax payers expense etc?
If I did it would have to be garnered from the media as all things on this thread are. The media did not scrutinize Obama as they do this President, that is a fact that if anyone were to deny, they are being fantastical. However, things such as Obama being caught on a hot mike telling the Russian President, “Tell Vladimir that once re-election is over I will be freer to act”. Those things are out there if one wants to go and search for them. I don’t. ... but is that all is you have against the Gentleman (Obama)? You haven't found anything substantial like adultery, business failings, collusion with foreign enemies, obstruction of justice, collusion with fellons, quid pro quos, stealing from charities, being banned from operating charities, running a fake university, putting unqualified and un-vetted members of his family in positions of authority/national security, firing decent professional people, campaign finance violations, filling his pockets at the tax payers expense etc?
Byker28i said:
Her sentencing was down the middle something she often does with other trials. The original prosecutors applied the sentencing guidelines when asking for stricter penalties based on Stones behaviour, threats and beligerant acts during the trial.
The judges comments made her position very clear and what she felt about Stone and the defence efforts to play down the charges.
"Of all the circumstances in this case, that may be the most pernicious. The truth still exists. The truth still matters. Roger Stone's insistence that it doesn't, his belligerence, his pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, to the very foundation of our democracy."
"And if it goes unpunished, it will not be a victory for one party or another. Everyone loses because everyone depends on the representatives they elect to make the right decisions on a myriad of issues -- many of which are politically charged but many of which aren't -- based on the facts.
"Everyone depends on our elected representatives to protect our elections from foreign interference based on the facts. No one knows where the threat is going to come from next time or whose side they're going to be on, and for that reason the dismay and disgust at the defendant's belligerence should transcend party.
The dismay and the disgust at the attempts by others to defend his actions as just business as usual in our polarized climate should transcend party. The dismay and the disgust with any attempts to interfere with the efforts of prosecutors and members of the judiciary to fulfill their duty should transcend party.
Sure, the defense is free to say: So what? Who cares? But, I'll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care."
Remember - she also said about Stone
"He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the President. He was prosecuted for covering up for the President."
Yet another trial of a team trump member that names trump in it...
Despite your lengthy soliloquy, the fact remains that the original recommendation was 7-9 years; Barr said that is excessive; the judge agreed; the sentence was set at 40 months with a fine. That was the point of this whole argument, the original sentence recommendation. The judges comments made her position very clear and what she felt about Stone and the defence efforts to play down the charges.
"Of all the circumstances in this case, that may be the most pernicious. The truth still exists. The truth still matters. Roger Stone's insistence that it doesn't, his belligerence, his pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, to the very foundation of our democracy."
"And if it goes unpunished, it will not be a victory for one party or another. Everyone loses because everyone depends on the representatives they elect to make the right decisions on a myriad of issues -- many of which are politically charged but many of which aren't -- based on the facts.
"Everyone depends on our elected representatives to protect our elections from foreign interference based on the facts. No one knows where the threat is going to come from next time or whose side they're going to be on, and for that reason the dismay and disgust at the defendant's belligerence should transcend party.
The dismay and the disgust at the attempts by others to defend his actions as just business as usual in our polarized climate should transcend party. The dismay and the disgust with any attempts to interfere with the efforts of prosecutors and members of the judiciary to fulfill their duty should transcend party.
Sure, the defense is free to say: So what? Who cares? But, I'll say this: Congress cared. The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia that prosecuted the case and is still prosecuting the case cared. The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared. The American people cared. And I care."
Remember - she also said about Stone
"He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the President. He was prosecuted for covering up for the President."
Yet another trial of a team trump member that names trump in it...
Edited by Byker28i on Friday 21st February 12:41
Jimbeaux said:
If I did it would have to be garnered from the media as all things on this thread are. The media did not scrutinize Obama as they do this President, that is a fact that if anyone were to deny, they are being fantastical. However, things such as Obama being caught on a hot mike telling the Russian President, “Tell Vladimir that once re-election is over I will be freer to act”. Those things are out there if one wants to go and search for them. I don’t.
OK thank you. So are you saying that the reason Obama wasn't caught doing anything like Trump has, it's because the media wasn't scrutinising him?Byker28i said:
Which as asked previously - why doesn't he book bigger venues? Obviously there's the optics of a packed venue and another crowd outside and he did rant previously at photos showing empty spaces at previous large arenas. Do you think the small arena is a deliberate plan?
Yes i think it is deliberate to book medium sized venues, I think his stream of consciousness speeches work better in medium sized venues and they are also easier to police inside. If Trump did the T-Mobile arena in Vegas, as far as i know that’s the biggest available on the strip, he could probably fill it as it’s 20,000 capacity, it would lose a bit of its family-event edge for those going.
Al Gorithum said:
OK thank you. So are you saying that the reason Obama wasn't caught doing anything like Trump has, it's because the media wasn't scrutinising him?
I say that is a part of the reason. You can flame away as others certainly will but I think we all know this to be true. Maybe not so many on this small-grouped thread; however, the wider Scope would find a substantial number agreeing with me. Carl_Manchester said:
Yes i think it is deliberate to book medium sized venues, I think his stream of consciousness speeches work better in medium sized venues and they are also easier to police inside.
If Trump did the T-Mobile arena in Vegas, as far as i know that’s the biggest available on the strip, he could probably fill it as it’s 20,000 capacity, it would lose a bit of its family-event edge for those going.
A better question might be to ask how many people have attended any of the Dems’ campaign rallies/stop overs. I believe Biden pulled in 68 the other day. If Trump did the T-Mobile arena in Vegas, as far as i know that’s the biggest available on the strip, he could probably fill it as it’s 20,000 capacity, it would lose a bit of its family-event edge for those going.
Jimbeaux said:
A better question might be to ask how many people have attended any of the Dems’ campaign rallies/stop overs. I believe Biden pulled in 68 the other day.
I don't get why trump is so obsessed over the 'numbers'.He lost the popular vote by over 3 million to quite possibly the worst presidential candidate in the last 100 years.
Jimbeaux said:
Al Gorithum said:
OK thank you. So are you saying that the reason Obama wasn't caught doing anything like Trump has, it's because the media wasn't scrutinising him?
I say that is a part of the reason. You can flame away as others certainly will but I think we all know this to be true. Maybe not so many on this small-grouped thread; however, the wider Scope would find a substantial number agreeing with me. Seventy said:
I don't get why trump is so obsessed over the 'numbers'.
He lost the popular vote by over 3 million to quite possibly the worst presidential candidate in the last 100 years.
Are you correlating how many filled seats are in an arena with nationwide votes and a 2016 candidate? Nice try at a long Segway. Lol. However, taking your bait, the electoral college ensures nationwide representation as opposed to New York City and Los Angeles deciding all elections. Now Clinton was “the worse candidate in the last 100 years”? Lol. Remember Dukakis, Kerry? To name a couple. Anyway, I believe another poster on here was concerning himself with arena numbers. He lost the popular vote by over 3 million to quite possibly the worst presidential candidate in the last 100 years.
Jimbeaux said:
Al Gorithum said:
OK thank you. So are you saying that the reason Obama wasn't caught doing anything like Trump has, it's because the media wasn't scrutinising him?
I say that is a part of the reason. You can flame away as others certainly will but I think we all know this to be true. Maybe not so many on this small-grouped thread; however, the wider Scope would find a substantial number agreeing with me. You know how trump can't keep his mouth shut, loves to boast about things he knows, that probably should be kept secret.
In his New Hampshire rally he said his supporters should go and spoilt the Dem primaries by voting for the weakest andidate.
Seems there's a GOP super Pac doing just that for him. The Senate Leadership Fund was behind mystery PAC in NC boosting little-known state senator Erica Smith in the Dem primary.
In his New Hampshire rally he said his supporters should go and spoilt the Dem primaries by voting for the weakest andidate.
Seems there's a GOP super Pac doing just that for him. The Senate Leadership Fund was behind mystery PAC in NC boosting little-known state senator Erica Smith in the Dem primary.
Jimbeaux said:
Al Gorithum said:
OK thank you. So are you saying that the reason Obama wasn't caught doing anything like Trump has, it's because the media wasn't scrutinising him?
I say that is a part of the reason. You can flame away as others certainly will but I think we all know this to be true. Maybe not so many on this small-grouped thread; however, the wider Scope would find a substantial number agreeing with me. It's not like Bill Clinton got an easy ride.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 21st February 13:43
Jimbeaux said:
I say that is a part of the reason. You can flame away as others certainly will but I think we all know this to be true. Maybe not so many on this small-grouped thread; however, the wider Scope would find a substantial number agreeing with me.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but you're right that there are many that do think this about Obama. The thing is though, there's not that much on him in terms of dirt. He may have enacted policies, laws and norms that ideologically differ from what a reasonable sized slice of the population want, but he has nowhere near the amount of dirt to stick to him that Trump does.As I've mentioned previously, Trump is a better choice of president for anyone pro-business and truth be told, in some senses liking Obama is probably counterintuitive for Brits seeing as his position was probably somewhat less pro-UK than Trump. That doesn't change the fact the Trump clearly has way, way, WAY more dirt on him in terms of corruption and a shady past.
Pro-Trump people I know STILL claim he was born in Kenya, is a Muslim and that Michelle Obama is a man, despite all of this being demonstrably nonsensical. They wouln't have to do that if there was actual Trump level stuff on him (porn star payoffs, evidence of shady borrowings, multiple bankruptcies, etc).
Sure, Obama may well not have taken the country in a direction that everyone liked, but to suggest he's got as much baggage as Trump simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Polls certainly suggest that this is the opinion of a fair marjority of the general population, too. It also leads to amusing compilations like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MWxq80oze0
Jimbeaux said:
If I did it would have to be garnered from the media as all things on this thread are. The media did not scrutinize Obama as they do this President, that is a fact that if anyone were to deny, they are being fantastical.
How do you quantify that? It sounds unlikely to me, but it may be the case that the media spent less time on Obama simply because Obama was worse for their ratings because there was fewer negative stories to run with? As the report you brought to us points out, the negative press around trump is 'hardly surprising' and the media have a bias towards negative stories as it generates income for them.
Given the weight you placed on that report, if you really believe that Obama did not get the same coverage as Trump you are also accepting it is because there were fewer negative stories to report. Which somewhat undermines your current position, or your previous one.
Byker28i said:
You know how trump can't keep his mouth shut, loves to boast about things he knows, that probably should be kept secret.
In his New Hampshire rally he said his supporters should go and spoilt the Dem primaries by voting for the weakest andidate.
Seems there's a GOP super Pac doing just that for him. The Senate Leadership Fund was behind mystery PAC in NC boosting little-known state senator Erica Smith in the Dem primary.
You speak on this as if it is a new tactic. Are you insinuating that this has not been done before, by both parties? Trump is just being open about it. Telling it like it is and saying what others are thinking appeals to many. That said, you are correct imo; he would be better off keeping his mouth shut. I wager the guy is a prick in person even more so. As stated though, that concerns many here less If he protects our national interests. Seeing that many of the major powers’ leaders are also sneaky pricks, we want ours to be equally equipped. In his New Hampshire rally he said his supporters should go and spoilt the Dem primaries by voting for the weakest andidate.
Seems there's a GOP super Pac doing just that for him. The Senate Leadership Fund was behind mystery PAC in NC boosting little-known state senator Erica Smith in the Dem primary.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 21st February 14:09
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff