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 discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Options
1…7879818384…162

Comments

  • Options
    #2402
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,139 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119377986#Comment_119377986

    Problem is, these arguments are being hidden with the faux reasonability of "oh, let the states decide". Cruz never wanted same-sex marriage anyway but there are those who hide under the cloak of that persistent belief these things be leaved to the States.



  • Options
    #2403
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,548 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Wan't the civil war about what should be left to the states and what should be federal?

    [Namely, slavery!]



  • Options
    #2404
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379511#Comment_119379511

    The kicker is that some of the states are now enacting new laws to specifically interrupt what the laws in other states have made available legal medically for female persons on the basis that the USSC decision to overturn Rowe V Wade has caused that to be ok now. What's the odds of the USSC having a hindsight look at the side effects of it's decision and issuing a second ruling that one or more states cannot make laws that are specifically designed to disrupt and interfere with the lawful provisions another state allows in it's territory? I couldn't see Trump, or the USSC, standing by DeSantis if he brought in a law whereby divorced persons would not be allowed in state as divorce offends against God's word on marriage.



  • Options
    #2405
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,293 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119381760#Comment_119381760

    Wouldn't that work that states that wish to not permit abortion would be unable to legislate because other states do, and vice versa? Stand off, no-one can make laws about abortion one way or the other.



  • Options
    #2406
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119379749#Comment_119379749

    Absolutely not. That’s a lie that’s been repeated so many times people believe it. The leaders of the confederacy themselves clearly stated they seceded from the union in order to preserve the right to own slaves. The right to slave ownership was written into the constitution of the confederacy.


    Don’t be taken in by the lies.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2407
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,279 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody



    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119381948#Comment_119381948

    It would end up with you can legalise about abortion in state, but not ban a person to travel to another state to have an abortion (which is what many states are now doing). As it then would become an multi state issue it would be up to the SC to clarify the ruling basically. However; taking into account the SC is bending over backwards to get it's rulings (contradicting it's own claims on what to use in constitution and historical relevance etc. depending on how they 5 wish to rule, see gun rules for NY and the R v W) chances are they would simply chicken out and not clarify it at all.



  • Options
    #2408
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119381948#Comment_119381948

    No. If one state wished to enact anti-abortion laws banning abortions inside it's state boundaries, that is allowed for now and is in practice now. It's when that state [or it's state AG] tries to make its anti-abortion law applicable OUTSIDE its borders and WITHIN the borders of another state which DOES allow for the provision of abortion services within it's state laws and borders that problems arise. That might force the return of the abortion issue to the USSC, should an offended-against state choose to state a case before the USSC that another state was directly infringing on it's RIGHT to ENACT state laws applicable within its borders alone. That right is what the USSC decision [as I understand it] to overturn the previous ruling on Roe V Wade seems to have been about: individual states rights to have the freedom to have laws in operation WITHIN its own borders and WITHIN the wording of the US constitution. .

    Post edited by aloyisious on


  • Options
    #2409
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,548 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382025#Comment_119382025

    Following the USA Civil War, slavery was abolished and former slaves were granted civil rights.

    The Confederacy lost the war, so their attitude towards slaves, and slave ownership became moot.



  • Options
    #2410
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Back to Trump and his allies. Having seen earlier reports on F/B pages quoting Liz Cheney as saying a subpoena could be on the way to Mrs Thomas to appear before the committee, I checked to see if this was likely and the Daily Mail has it that the committee is to discuss whether or not to issue one to Mrs Thomas. No decision has been made about it yet. It seems the matter of charges [of dereliction of duty] being laid against former president Trump are to be discussed as well.



  • Options
    #2411
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382622#Comment_119382622

    Not exactly true. There are plenty of people today who lionise the confederate leaders as heroes who fought for state rights. Their attitude towards slavery is critical in how we analyse the civil war.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2412
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119383317#Comment_119383317

    Indeed , lots of apologists try to make the claim that the primary reasons for the Civil war was "States Rights" and not Slavery, ignoring that the only "State Right" at issue was in fact Slavery.

    It's the same shield that the homophobes and religious zealots will try to hide behind now - "Oh I just believe in small Government and that all this stuff should be decided at State level".

    Nope - You're just a Homophobe, a Misogynist and a Religious zealot.



  • Options
    #2413
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Am I getting ahead of myself in thinking that there may be a small newborn posse within the GOP who want to post Trump out of town, light appearing at the end of the tunnel due to his reported claim that he might stand as a candidate in the next Presidential election, or is it all smoke and mirrors to act as a stalking horse for the governor from Florida?

    Is it ok to think DeSantis is a sure thing for the GOP next time around or will he want to put distance between himself and Trump to ensure his name is on the GOP ticket? He may be lucky not to have be a GOP Capitol Hill politician on the 6 Jan, an untainted Governor with state electoral numbers the GOP wants when it comes to the electoral college, trailing after California and Texas.

    I'm seeing the committee hearings now essential as a trial before public opinion [which could change said opinion] if the right person steps up to blow away the MAGA image of Trump being essential to the GOP for taking the White House, as Trump stands accused of besmirching the title of President while party leader.

    Given how Trump wanted Clinton locked up while they were both candidates, that precedent might make it easier for the AG to make moves against Trump while Trump is gaslighting the odds of standing in the next election.



  • Options
    #2414
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Trump will do what he thinks is best for him , he has absolutely zero concern about what might be best for the GOP or anyone else.

    If Trump does run in 2024, DeSantis might be best placed to sit this round out.

    He's very young in Political terms - he's only 43 so time is absolutely on his side.

    Anyone running against Trump in a GOP primary for 2024 will be up against it as at Primary level he absolutely still has an iron grip there.

    The GOP are not going to abandon Trump until his base does and so far they seem immune to the torrent of information proving what an utter POS he is.

    The ideal scenario for the GOP is that the DOJ or NY AG does the job for them and prosecute him.

    That way they keep their hands clean and can claim righteous anger about it to keep his best onside..



  • Options
    #2415
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119403350#Comment_119403350

    From what I've seen on TV news etc, the average older GOP voter seems to think Trump is magnificent. Then again, there might be a bit of selective editing/cropping of footage before the polished item is put on screen. They seem to think that what they are admiring is telling the unvarnished truth, even down to his personal shading. As some-one else opined, the TV show The Apprentice has a lot to answer for.

    Garland might as well accept that if Trump gets back in, he's toast and has nothing left to lose by making Trump the ultimate loser. He probably wont get knifed in the back by the GOP, more like applauded from the back stage. Ditto for the NY AG, seeing as Trump scuttled out of that town when the heat was on.



  • Options
    #2416
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Some news outlets [national-public and private] are reporting that FoxNews has dumped Trump. This is following on from the New York Post and WSJ running stories about Trump which indicated he may not be hero of the month at those outlets, all of whom are owned by Rupert Murdoch.

    Does this indicate a parting of the ways with Newscorp resulting in a loss of publicity outlets on which Trump can push his views and ideas of how important he is for the US or is it Silly Season reporting?



  • Options
    #2417
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,279 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119411217#Comment_119411217

    He will simply do the same as he did with twitter, find a very much smaller pond where he can swim around and pretend he's a big important fish to avoid bruising his Jupiter sized ego of the world revolving around him after all. Are there not two more Right of Fox TV channels he can go to instead?



  • Options
    #2418
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,353 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119411322#Comment_119411322

    Well there is always OAN News but it seems they are in financial trouble as the cable networks have started to drop the channel.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/business/oan-troubles.amp.html




  • Options
    #2419
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119411500#Comment_119411500

    This channel should retreat to an outpost on YouTube so.



  • Options
    #2420
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,791 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382622#Comment_119382622
    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119382025#Comment_119382025

    There is a great series on YouTube also reactions to it called Checkmate Lincolnites in relation to this and others in relation to civil war. Sorry mods for going off topic



  • Options
    #2421
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119411322#Comment_119411322

    I don't know if there are other platforms who will be prepared to take over from FoxNews as his anchor [if it has taken a decision to distance itself from Trump] and are willing to be taken over by him as exampled in the way he took over the GOP. I'll believe Murdoch has decided to dump Trump when an opinion-piece with his name in a major NewsCorp publication says he holds Trump liable for instigation of the Capitol insurrection bid.

    If Murdoch ever says he sees the events outside and inside the Capitol building on the 06 Jan as insurrection against the US, that should be enough for other platforms considering acting as stooges for Trump to sit up and heed the implicit legal message contained therein that Trump is a risk not worth playing with.

    There was no riot on the 06th Jan at the Capitol. Riots are major street disturbances. Calling what happened at the Capitol a riot is a lie. It was insurrection playing for keeps in storming the centre of government with intent to block the legitimate governance of a country.

    I'd like to think that those FoxNews channel people who spout Trump's fake news sat up and took note of AG Garland's statement that he will go where-ever the [evidence] trail leads him [even if it's to Trump himself] that if Trump was not out of bounds, they certainly would not be in promoting his aims, however distant they might think they are from him with their opinion-pieces.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2422
    beggars_bush
    Registered Users Posts: 4,439 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    Did Trump actually bury his former wife Ivana on one of his golf courses, to get multiple tax exemptions?



  • Options
    #2423
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,548 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119414249#Comment_119414249

    If he did, he will know at least where one of the bodies is buried.



  • Options
    #2424
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,279 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119414249#Comment_119414249

    Yes, yes he did...

    From the article:

    Twitter news feed by personal finance speaker Lynnette KhalfaniCox, who said: "Why did Donald Trump bury Ivana at his NJ golf course?

    "Tax breaks, money & petty revenge.

    "As a 'cemetery' Bedminster pays no taxes and can’t be seized in a judgment.

    "Trump also charged Ivana’s estate burial, maintenance & 'membership' fees.



  • Options
    #2425
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119414249#Comment_119414249

    I doubted if even he would go that far but.... Ivana was buried there in a private 10 grave plot at the Trump National Golf Club Cemetery [to use its official title] at his Bedminster, NY, golf club. The club was used as the venue for the Saudi-backed Liv golf event a few days ago after Ivana's funeral with [reportedly] the US Presidential seal on display-use there.



  • Options
    #2426
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,092 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Surely the exception for the "cemetery" to not be able to be seized only covers that small parcel of land? Unless the cemetery has one grave at each golf green then the rest of the site would still be at risk.



  • Options
    #2427
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,229 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119415109#Comment_119415109

    And I wouldn't thought you'd have had to get special planning permission to be able to bury someone on a random piece of land



  • Options
    #2428
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,471 ✭✭✭amandstu


    O please ,lord let the last president be buried on top of a sink hole with alligators with nose pegs swimming underneath.



  • Options
    #2429
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,139 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119414768#Comment_119414768

    Every time you think you have the measure of just how much of a scumbag this guy was and is - you read stuff like this. Invective might be against the charter but I genuinely believe Trump is the lowest of the low.

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119415140#Comment_119415140

    I would guess, aside from the emotional aspects of respecting the dead, bodies decompose and burying someone in the wrong place, too close to the water table or whatnot, could have direct health consequences for the local population. Letting people bury bodies wherever they choose without the authorities knowing would open those doors.

    Post edited by pixelburp on


  • Options
    #2430
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,170 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I genuinely didn't think there was anything he could do to make me think less of him but here we are. He's taken the body of his former wife and used it like a trinket to avoid paying tax. It's something you'd expect from a cold, unfeeling psychopath. In other words, Donald Trump in a nutshell.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2431
    beggars_bush
    Registered Users Posts: 4,439 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    More to the point...

    He wouldn't be part of her estate, so her children must have agreed to this. So they are complicit in this



Advertisement