OV9

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 2:34 pm**

Sundayjumper wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 1:34 pm
V8Granite wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:43 pm
Sundayjumper wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:34 pm JFC Dave!, you're not seriously both siding Russia's invasion are you ? You need to get out of whatever echo chamber you're getting that from.
At what point, in anything I’ve ever written on the subject have I been pro invasion ?
I didn't say you're pro invasion. You're both siding when it's very obvious whose fault this is, and who can make it stop.

V8Granite wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:43 pm ...both sides have people there who have no reason to be there.
Arguably true in a literal context-free way but it's a completely false equivalence.

* Every single Russian soldier, or Russia supporter in Ukraine has no reason to be there.
* Every single Ukrainian in Ukraine has every possible reason, and legal right, to be there.

vs.

* The number of non-Ukrainian Ukraine supporters that have no reason to be there - that you're suggesting is just as bad as around a million* Russian soldiers invading their neighbour - is tiny. Microscopic.

Do you think that that Russia should unconditionally withdraw from Ukraine ? If you can't bring yourself to agree, you are in fact pro-invasion.

And seriously - I'm curious where you're getting these talking points from.

* not entirely sure of that number but they're widely reported to have ~500k dead or seriously injured so far, so I'm going with that plus another 500k still active.

Of course I want Russia to withdraw, I just want people to understand that thousands of people do not want to be fighting Ukrainians and are not evil. It’s the people telling them to go that are.

I’m seeing both sides due to a friend doing CP work for some people from the U.K. he is essentially a well trained bodyguard and sees a lot and hates what is being portrayed. I’m not saying any more on that as it’s his world not mine. The Russians simply shouldn’t be there but it doesn’t give carte Blanche to do what you want with them.

So as my final word on the matter.

Russians should never have invaded and should leave.
Not all Russians are evil.
Not all Ukrainians are good.
War is a mess and the media pick a narrative.
Everyone loses because a dictator has a hardon for war.

I brought the stuff over as innocent people were being terribly hurt and small things can help. My empathy doesn’t stop when someone is forced to wear a uniform and get indoctrinated though.

Dave!

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 2:57 pm**

V8Granite wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 2:34 pm ...I just want people to understand that thousands of people do not want to be fighting Ukrainians and are not evil. It’s the people telling them to go that are.

Nice idea, and I'm sure it's true in some cases, but Putin & his mates sitting in a bunker in Moscow aren't the ones committing the individual war crimes on the ground. The evil is normalised all the way through the system.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:04 pm**

V8Granite wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:43 pm FFS this is Pistonheads mk2.

Dave!

I blame Zed.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:24 pm**

Rich B wrote: Fri May 31, 2024 3:10 pm Quite amusing really in a political world full of Nadhim zahawi's £3m tax evading and Michelle Mones £200m dodgy PPE contracts, that the worst they can find is a £3.5k tax mistake 10 years ago...

I know the guy that exposed all three and feel that he was trying to show that he was not just anti-tories, but at the moment that’s all he has found try and provide balance!

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:24 pm**

I agree with Duncs..

This isn’t going to determine who is President for the next few years, but maybe Biden’s solution to the Israel/Hamas war will..

War is incredibly emotive but if all your friends are killed in front of you, I imagine wanting to hurt/kill the enemy would very much be front of my mind.. and that probably applies to both sides. Doesn’t mean we don’t all know who the aggressor is here.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:55 pm**

Let’s see how it goes. The cease fire will work for a few years maybe, till it all kicks off again. There’s no solution there.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 4:03 pm**

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 4:17 pm**

nuttinnew wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:04 pm
V8Granite wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:43 pm FFS this is Pistonheads mk2.

Dave!

I blame Zed.

I’ve barely said anything disgustingly white supremacist yet

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 4:22 pm**

Must try harder.. think that was on my school report too Zed!

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 7:23 pm**

ZedLeg wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 4:17 pm
nuttinnew wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:04 pm
V8Granite wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:43 pm FFS this is Pistonheads mk2.

Dave!

I blame Zed.
I’ve barely said anything disgustingly white supremacist yet

It doesn't matter, you've come back here after getting banned over there and brought your PH ways with you.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 8:34 pm**

Jimexpl wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:24 pm
Rich B wrote: Fri May 31, 2024 3:10 pm Quite amusing really in a political world full of Nadhim zahawi's £3m tax evading and Michelle Mones £200m dodgy PPE contracts, that the worst they can find is a £3.5k tax mistake 10 years ago...
I know the guy that exposed all three and feel that he was trying to show that he was not just anti-tories, but at the moment that’s all he has found try and provide balance!

Dan Neidle? Do you know him socially? I’ve had a few chats with him professionally. A good guy.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:03 pm**

Jobbo wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 8:34 pm
Jimexpl wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:24 pm
Rich B wrote: Fri May 31, 2024 3:10 pm Quite amusing really in a political world full of Nadhim zahawi's £3m tax evading and Michelle Mones £200m dodgy PPE contracts, that the worst they can find is a £3.5k tax mistake 10 years ago...
I know the guy that exposed all three and feel that he was trying to show that he was not just anti-tories, but at the moment that’s all he has found try and provide balance!
Dan Neidle? Do you know him socially? I’ve had a few chats with him professionally. A good guy.

I read a good analysis of it by him - a well written piece.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:31 pm**

Rich B wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:03 pm
Jobbo wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 8:34 pm
Jimexpl wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:24 pm

I know the guy that exposed all three and feel that he was trying to show that he was not just anti-tories, but at the moment that’s all he has found try and provide balance!
Dan Neidle? Do you know him socially? I’ve had a few chats with him professionally. A good guy.
I read a good analysis of it by him - a well written piece.

Analytically he’s good but still has a clear left wing bias.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:58 pm**

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:59 pm**

Jobbo wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 8:34 pm
Jimexpl wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:24 pm
Rich B wrote: Fri May 31, 2024 3:10 pm Quite amusing really in a political world full of Nadhim zahawi's £3m tax evading and Michelle Mones £200m dodgy PPE contracts, that the worst they can find is a £3.5k tax mistake 10 years ago...
I know the guy that exposed all three and feel that he was trying to show that he was not just anti-tories, but at the moment that’s all he has found try and provide balance!
Dan Neidle? Do you know him socially? I’ve had a few chats with him professionally. A good guy.

Yes, our kids were in the same school until this year. He’s pretty much retired these days and certainly enjoys spending the extra time uncovering stories like these!

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 11:24 pm**

GG. wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:31 pm
Rich B wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:03 pm
Jobbo wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 8:34 pm
Dan Neidle? Do you know him socially? I’ve had a few chats with him professionally. A good guy.
I read a good analysis of it by him - a well written piece.
Analytically he’s good but still has a clear left wing bias.

and you have a clear right wing bias. he does state his background in his analysis.

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2024 12:37 am**

Oh yes - I don’t deny that. I’m right of centre.

The danger with people like Dan is that he can be thought of as an impartial tax law expert but in reality there is still a political slant.

All the ‘I was employed by a magic circle firm but was grossly overpaid’ skit (https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dan-neidle - in the grauniad no less) may just be embarrassment that he likely made millions as a partner at a top flight firm but taken at face value it is also an admission he liked it as a technical exercise but thinks big pay as part of a capitalist system is immoral. That’s a pretty material worldview when you’re analysing tax!

As the article mentions he is a paid up member of the labour party and serves on its national committee so view everything through that lens please!

As above I’m right of centre but still not politically devout enough to be a member of any political party. The first thing you would do if you were truly impartial or trying to give the impression of being so is give up any party affiliation.

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2024 4:46 am**

Do you disagree with anything in his analysis gg?

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2024 6:31 am**

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2 ... at-i-found#

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2024 7:22 am**

Sundayjumper wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:32 pm
GG. wrote: Sat Jun 01, 2024 11:41 am How does a jury system work where you have a high profile policitican being tried in a state where most of the populace vote for the other side? Would you be happy being tried by a 'jury of your peers' in that instance? I wouldn't.
The crimes were done in NY, the trial gets held in NY. Simple as that. It works the same way here doesn't it ?

And anyway, how are you going to pull together a 'jury of your peers' in this specific case ? There aren't 18 criminally indicted ex-presidents available right now

Trump & his legal team were involved in selecting the jury as per standard procedure. Despite all the nonsense he comes out with claiming otherwise.

Ditto testifying. He declined to testify in his own trial, then claimed the judge wouldn't let him testify.

Ditto advice of counsel defence. He declined to take that route - which could have worked - almost certainly because it means waiving attorney-client privilege and that would be a HUGE can of worms for him if opened. He then claimed the judge wouldn't let him use that defence.

He's a pathological liar. Yet his supporters believe every word of it and keep sending him money to pay his self-inflicted legal bills.

The risk that the majority of the jury were not Trump supporters was also mitigated by requiring a unanimous verdict. Which was achieved in a relatively short timescale - especially for 34 charges.

As for unprecedented - so is a president engaging in electoral malpractice like this. Constitutionally I don’t think the offences being felonies is wrong.

What’s particularly stupid is that Trump would almost certainly still have been elected if he hadn’t paid Stormy anything. So maybe he’s not such a good politician because he engaged in election fraud rather than what he’s supposedly good at.

OV9

Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty

Re: Trump guilty