US Politics

So Trump’s lawyers have taken his instructions and are suing the BBC for $5 billion!

It’s obviously ridiculous in every way possible and just yet another diversionary tactic to try to change the focus away from his own behaviour.

Behaviour that seemingly knows no bounds. What will be interesting is if anyone here attempts to defend him or justify it. It’s not impossible. There have been some very stupid defences of him before here.
Please list the ridiculous reasons.
 
So Trump’s lawyers have taken his instructions and are suing the BBC for $5 billion!

It’s obviously ridiculous in every way possible and just yet another diversionary tactic to try to change the focus away from his own behaviour.

Behaviour that seemingly knows no bounds. What will be interesting is if anyone here attempts to defend him or justify it. It’s not impossible. There have been some very stupid defences of him before here.

Fantastic news 👏
 
I cannot find this on GBNews, there’s a surprise, so in case you have missed it Jack Smith, the Special Counsel who brought the charges against Trump, only to see them withdrawn when he became President has been giving testimony to Congress today in a closed door session. What he had to say has though been reported. His opening remarks are both interesting and damning for Trump, He told Congress his team "developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump "engaged in a criminal scheme" to overturn the 2020 election results.


What trick will Trump pull this time to try to divert attention? He ordered the filing of the case against the BBC to divert scrutiny of his outrageous remarks about Rob Reiner. Will he now declare war on Venezuela?
 
Please list the ridiculous reasons.
There was no harm done to him, other than to his gigantic ego. He wasn’t politically harmed. He won the election. He wasn’t libelled. He said those things and the broadcast wasn’t shown in the USA. He hasn’t suffered financially.

If I was running the BBC I would counter sue for a malicious prosecution intended to cause harm. He must be sueing as an individual so wait until he is no longer POTUS and sue him. Mind you there will be a long queue of people wanting to sue him then, so don’t rule out a blanket self pardon before he leaves.
 
There was no harm done to him, other than to his gigantic ego. He wasn’t politically harmed. He won the election. He wasn’t libelled. He said those things and the broadcast wasn’t shown in the USA. He hasn’t suffered financially.

If I was running the BBC I would counter sue for a malicious prosecution intended to cause harm. He must be sueing as an individual so wait until he is no longer POTUS and sue him. Mind you there will be a long queue of people wanting to sue him then, so don’t rule out a blanket self pardon before he leaves.
There was no harm done to him, other than to his gigantic ego...
Interesting, this could kick out a lot of ‘hurty words’ cases if the defence could state that only the claimant’s ego was harmed.
 
Tucker Carlson is saying he has been told by some congressmen that Trump is going to announce that he is going to begin military strikes against Venezuela.

I think Tucker Carlson has gone a bit too out there lately. Even for me 🤣.
Doubt I will still be awake to tune in but I'll catch the highlights in the morning.

 
There was no harm done to him, other than to his gigantic ego...
Interesting, this could kick out a lot of ‘hurty words’ cases if the defence could state that only the claimant’s ego was harmed.
Only today the heads of the Met and the Greater Manchester Police have said they will be taking a harder line over those calling for “Intifada”. Which some are upset about as it impinges their freedom of speech. So where does the right sit on this? Do they support the police in dealing with these particular “hurty words”, or not, thus risking an accusation of hypocrisy.

It surely depends on intent. If the intention is to provoke a response in others that could result in actual harm it ought not be allowed. If it is merely an opinion, that isn’t slanderous or libellous, then it ought to be ok. So Trump’s words at the Capitol could potentially have been interpreted as illegal if said here. What the BBC produced not, because it did not incite anyone. It was part of a report on something else and Trump is being mega hypocritical.
 
Only today the heads of the Met and the Greater Manchester Police have said they will be taking a harder line over those calling for “Intifada”. Which some are upset about as it impinges their freedom of speech. So where does the right sit on this? Do they support the police in dealing with these particular “hurty words”, or not, thus risking an accusation of hypocrisy.

It surely depends on intent. If the intention is to provoke a response in others that could result in actual harm it ought not be allowed. If it is merely an opinion, that isn’t slanderous or libellous, then it ought to be ok. So Trump’s words at the Capitol could potentially have been interpreted as illegal if said here. What the BBC produced not, because it did not incite anyone. It was part of a report on something else and Trump is being mega hypocritical.
What exactly are you asking ?
Muslims stating they want to kill us to be ok because trump asked for a peaceful protest !
Go back to planet zog and retire !
 
I think Tucker Carlson has gone a bit too out there lately. Even for me 🤣.
Doubt I will still be awake to tune in but I'll catch the highlights in the morning.


Depends upon what aspects of Carlson you're talking about.

There's a funded hate campaign against him and Candace Owens because he isn't slavishly pro Israeli.

What I don't like is all this universalism talk he's emphasizing.
 
What exactly are you asking ?
Muslims stating they want to kill us to be ok because trump asked for a peaceful protest !
Go back to planet zog and retire !
Anyone stating they want to kill someone ought to be arrested.

Anyone assuming that someone calling for resistance automatically means they want to kill people ought to have their heads examined. Intifada apparently simply means to rise up and protest. It doesn’t necessarily mean by using violence.

Did Trump call for a peaceful protest or is that just the spin he and his supporters are trying to put on it now, after the violence was on full display on TV? It wasn’t just “that” speech he made that needs to be considered. He said a lot before, and nothing during, the violence. I recall a great deal of demands for action to overturn an election and no demands on his supporters that they show restraint and just peacefully protest.

If we are ever going to bridge these gaps we must ensure we are even handed. Be ruthless with those who see violence as a means to achieve their objectives, whether they are called Mohamed, Donald, Vladimir or Benjamin. Allow others to peacefully protest without preconceptions.
 
Depends upon what aspects of Carlson you're talking about.

There's a funded hate campaign against him and Candace Owens because he isn't slavishly pro Israeli.

What I don't like is all this universalism talk he's emphasizing.

A few people are the theorizing that trump leaked fake news war with Venezuela to carlson so that all the major news channels would show his press conference on prime time. And then he proceeded to showcase all his accomplishments 😃

We shall see anyway 😅
 
A few people are the theorizing that trump leaked fake news war with Venezuela to carlson so that all the major news channels would show his press conference on prime time. And then he proceeded to showcase all his accomplishments 😃

We shall see anyway 😅

It does look like he was undermined deliberately.

Look likes Trump has gone with the Mark Levin types......donors instead of his base.

A new war is opposed more than 2 to 1 with his base.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top