The ones who turned up will be the extreme MAGA crowd, or vehemently opposed to him..So Donald Trump, who is basically running as an incumbent, got the votes of 51% of 108,000 people who voted in the Iowa Caucus, which is just 14.4% of the state’s 752,000 registered Republicans, and this is supposedly why he'll easily win the general election?
"We've never been a racist country."Kiwias wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:13 am Hayley just doesn't know when to stop.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234947726/
True, she knows her primary audience, and not to piss off the MAGA faction.
Wouldn't their "work" in the South China Sea be a bit of a gimmie? They're literally creating land and then claiming it and thr waters around it.Calculon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 12:51 pmWhat example should she have used instead of the Hong Kong one?Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:17 amWell now I know something was at one point possibly mooted but never came to pass that makes her madness reasonable.Calculon wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:01 am
And oddly enough China did initially propose exchanging sovereignty over HK for continued
British administration. Exactly like how they did with
Macau and Portugal . So the idea was not that far fetched and the reason why the British initially pushed the idea despite the PRC subsequenly changing their minds (and threatening the Brits).
There is some claim that Britain could have continued rule, but (a) China disputes many of the older treaties asserting they were established in wholly unfair manner, and (b) the area we could perhaps in theory have retained is a tiny part without the new territories, it's not worth it in itself, and it wouldn't have been practicable anyway. One might try to gloss over just how much China would have objected, but it's hard enough keeping hold of some marbles these days, HK would have proved a whole different level of challenge.
Haley is a moron, she picked an example knowing feck all about it, and there are plenty of easy examples she could have picked to cite Chinese expansionist outlook she overlooked in order to pick one which makes no sense. One might as well say if you keep jumping a little bit higher eventually you'll touch the moon, well maybe not quite that, but what she said in that line remains gibberish
There was a programme on last night which showed that we possibly underestimate how unpopular Biden is at the moment.TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 5:36 pmThe ones who turned up will be the extreme MAGA crowd, or vehemently opposed to him..So Donald Trump, who is basically running as an incumbent, got the votes of 51% of 108,000 people who voted in the Iowa Caucus, which is just 14.4% of the state’s 752,000 registered Republicans, and this is supposedly why he'll easily win the general election?
The rest are quiet and I suspect their vote won't be going his way..
Israel, but mainly the economy.Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:15 am Unpopular with the right because Democrat and I assume unpopular with the left because Israel.
This is where I don't understand Americans. Their economy is in decent shape by most measures compared to the rest of the developed world.Slick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:18 amIsrael, but mainly the economy.Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:15 am Unpopular with the right because Democrat and I assume unpopular with the left because Israel.
There were some mad Arab Americans who said they won't vote for him over Israel and have switched their vote to Trump.... It's difficult to imagine a worse person for their cause, but I guess it's America.
Most Americans don't analyse the economy, they just listen to Senators/News outlets saying that "Biden is destroying the economy" and believe it.Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:10 pmThis is where I don't understand Americans. Their economy is in decent shape by most measures compared to the rest of the developed world.Slick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:18 amIsrael, but mainly the economy.Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:15 am Unpopular with the right because Democrat and I assume unpopular with the left because Israel.
There were some mad Arab Americans who said they won't vote for him over Israel and have switched their vote to Trump.... It's difficult to imagine a worse person for their cause, but I guess it's America.
The presenter was trying to get this across but the people they spoke with were saying it just doesn't feel like it and everything is getting more expensive. Fair enough really, it's how it feels here as wellBiffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:10 pmThis is where I don't understand Americans. Their economy is in decent shape by most measures compared to the rest of the developed world.Slick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:18 amIsrael, but mainly the economy.Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:15 am Unpopular with the right because Democrat and I assume unpopular with the left because Israel.
There were some mad Arab Americans who said they won't vote for him over Israel and have switched their vote to Trump.... It's difficult to imagine a worse person for their cause, but I guess it's America.
VERY testy exchange between Habba and Judge Kaplan after Habba again asked for adjournment so Trump can attend funeral.
Kaplan: "The application is denied. I will hear no further argument on it."
Habba attempted to speak.
Kaplan: "None. Do you understand that word?
Sit down."
Habba: "I don't like to be spoken to that way, your honor." She continued to ask for an adjournment, at which point Kaplan cut her off again:
"It’s denied. Sit down."
After an objection by Habba, Kaplan admonishes her. "First of all, when you speak in this courtroom, you'll stand up."
After Habba says she intends to question Carroll about a topic previously deemed off-limits, Judge Kaplan scolds her again:
"The last I heard, Ms. Habba, I do not need announcements from counsel about what they intend to do."
Habba stared to speak.
Judge Kaplan: “Sit down.”
With the jury out of the room, Carroll's lawyer Shawn Crowley is complaining that Trump is muttering loud enough that the plaintiff's table can hear him. Crowley says Trump is saying Carroll's testimony is false and suggesting she has "suddenly gotten her memory back."
Before jury re-enters, Judge Kaplan says: "I’m just going to ask that Mr. Trump take special care to keep his voice down when he’s conferring with counsel so that the jury does not overhear it."
Kaplan threatened to kick Trump out of court after Carroll counsel complained again about Trump's commentary. Kaplan: "Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited." He continued: "Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial"
After Trump threw his hands up in the air and said, "I would love it," Judge Kaplan continued: "I know you would," Kaplan said. "I know you would. You just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently."
I think you overestimate his mental state !Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:38 am And I don't believe for a moment Trump wants to testify.
The judge said he can testify Monday if he wants to. Trump wants to wait until Thursday to attend the funeral of Melanie's mother and then say the judge by not allowing a delay has denied him a chance to testify.fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:30 pmI think you overestimate his mental state !Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:38 am And I don't believe for a moment Trump wants to testify.
If he had the self-awaredness, & disipline to know what a fucking terrible idea it is, he wouldn't have continued to repeat the libel after he'd lost the first case, & it'd cost him $5M; there's also the back & forth between the original Judge & Tacopina, where Tacopina tells the Judge his client is considering testifying, & even the Judge questions the wisdom, & Tacopina says something along the lines of, "well you know my client ?".
In the end the Judge gave them some time to either commit to the testimony, or not, & he didn't.
There's also the rapists comments between the two cases, where he blames the loss of the first one on one lawyer talking him out of testifying, when if he had, he'd totally have won the case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_th ... prov=sfla1Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:29 pmMost Americans don't analyse the economy, they just listen to Senators/News outlets saying that "Biden is destroying the economy" and believe it.
Ahh, I missed that bitRhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:37 pmThe judge said he can testify Monday if he wants to. Trump wants to wait until Thursday to attend the funeral of Melanie's mother and then say the judge by not allowing a delay has denied him a chance to testify.fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:30 pmI think you overestimate his mental state !Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:38 am And I don't believe for a moment Trump wants to testify.
If he had the self-awaredness, & disipline to know what a fucking terrible idea it is, he wouldn't have continued to repeat the libel after he'd lost the first case, & it'd cost him $5M; there's also the back & forth between the original Judge & Tacopina, where Tacopina tells the Judge his client is considering testifying, & even the Judge questions the wisdom, & Tacopina says something along the lines of, "well you know my client ?".
In the end the Judge gave them some time to either commit to the testimony, or not, & he didn't.
There's also the rapists comments between the two cases, where he blames the loss of the first one on one lawyer talking him out of testifying, when if he had, he'd totally have won the case
I think Trump is thick as mince, but even then he has the capacity to realise testifying under oath is a god awful idea for him.
Well let's wait till NH has it's caucus Tuesday; we'll have some idea then how many of Meatballs supporters were "Never Trumpers", & how many were just looking for a younger MAGA candidate.
I think those 91 prosecutions are precisely why he will be re-elected. So much free advertising - and then there is the sympathy vote as so many voters see these cases as political.fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 10:06 pmWell let's wait till NH has it's caucus Tuesday; we'll have some idea then how many of Meatballs supporters were "Never Trumpers", & how many were just looking for a younger MAGA candidate.
It was always going to take something extraordinary for the loser traitor to not get the nomination; but luckily there are at least 91 extraordinary things going on at the moment, & there's also the 14th Amendment discussion to play out.
There are a significant percentage of even MAGA nutters who concede that a guilty verdict in any one of the criminal trials would stop them voting for him; & that, or an adverse SCOTUS decision would leave the GOP scrambling to either run a candidate who will not only lose (again), but also destroy the chances on the down-ballot votes, & might lose the GOP more than just the Presidency !!!
Now even in the event of 91x convictions, I don't think the loser would withdraw, so they might face going into the Convention trying to get an electable alternative candidate against the one chosen by their caucuses, & I've know idea how that would even work.
Yep, sadly I reckon that's bang on. Very worried for the future of American democracy at this point...
I understand the concern, but I don't think that's how it will work.Enzedder wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 6:47 amI think those 91 prosecutions are precisely why he will be re-elected. So much free advertising - and then there is the sympathy vote as so many voters see these cases as political.fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 10:06 pmWell let's wait till NH has it's caucus Tuesday; we'll have some idea then how many of Meatballs supporters were "Never Trumpers", & how many were just looking for a younger MAGA candidate.
It was always going to take something extraordinary for the loser traitor to not get the nomination; but luckily there are at least 91 extraordinary things going on at the moment, & there's also the 14th Amendment discussion to play out.
There are a significant percentage of even MAGA nutters who concede that a guilty verdict in any one of the criminal trials would stop them voting for him; & that, or an adverse SCOTUS decision would leave the GOP scrambling to either run a candidate who will not only lose (again), but also destroy the chances on the down-ballot votes, & might lose the GOP more than just the Presidency !!!
Now even in the event of 91x convictions, I don't think the loser would withdraw, so they might face going into the Convention trying to get an electable alternative candidate against the one chosen by their caucuses, & I've know idea how that would even work.
