At Waco Rally, Trump Vows Political Vengeance

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
"'2024 is the final battle"

So, yeah, he's raising the temperature and stirring the pot, trying to get another boil over like the one he caused on Jan 6, 2021. Not going to repeat what he said. He lies. Don't listen to liars. We don't have a thread on the rally he held. Hopefully, nobody will care enough to post about it and the thread will die soon.


I just wanted to share comparisons of the size of this event compared to others. Trump loves to talk about crowd size. No need to go into why he feels the need to talk about how big his things are. We all know what "compensating" means. ;-)

A broad picture of the crowd in Waco:

1679850379821.png

First impression: Lawn chairs? really? This thing looks like it was cobbled together with stuff left behind after the last rodeo. People jammed together like livestock.

Second: Everybody is packed together to make the close-in images give the impression of a large crowd. But in the broader picture, how many red jelly beans do you think there are?

Third: Crowd size seems small. Maybe a thousand? Maybe two thousand?

Compare that to this from 2019:

1679851179691.png

Seems that the Donald is having trouble keeping his crowd size up.
 
garybo

garybo

Well-Known Member
Personally I thought the crowd was large considering it was held on an airport runway, not quite a stadium for sure. It was said these folks had been there for several hours waited for him show.

From what I take of the speech, which I only saw the first 30 minutes or so of, before switching to a ballgame, Trump did what he is very fluent at, and that is trash talk the people that do not support him on the GOP side of the isle and on the side of the other side of the isle he maligned Biden and his government appointees on the way they control the country's economy and security.

It was interesting though that two high powered Texans were not even there; Greg Abbott or Ted Cruz , who I think is talking about running for POTUS.

Personally I think Trump is “washed up” and is losing the followers he had over the years, especially here in the south to Ron DeSantis.

Anyway, this political feud going on with the GOP should be interesting and whoever they pick to run against Biden has to be an improvement.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
garybo said:
Personally I thought the crowd was large considering it was held on an airport runway, not quite a stadium for sure. It was said these folks had been there for several hours waited for him show.

From what I take of the speech, which I only saw the first 30 minutes or so of, before switching to a ballgame, Trump did what he is very fluent at, and that is trash talk the people that do not support him on the GOP side of the isle and on the side of the other side of the isle he maligned Biden and his government appointees on the way they control the country's economy and security.

It was interesting though that two high powered Texans were not even there; Greg Abbott or Ted Cruz , who I think is talking about running for POTUS.

Personally I think Trump is “washed up” and is losing the followers he had over the years, especially here in the south to Ron DeSantis.

Anyway, this political feud going on with the GOP should be interesting and whoever they pick to run against Biden has to be an improvement.
Click to expand...
Wait, let me check your crowd-o-meter:

Was the crowd at Trump's inauguration bigger than the crowd that attended Obama's?
 
xtsho

xtsho

Well-Known Member
You don't have to agree with them and I certainly don't but it was a peaceful gathering and their right to gather as stated in the First amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you don't like it then don't go or watch it. Don't let it occupy your mind.

Crowd size really doesn't matter in the early stages of a Presidential race. The exception being Obama who was an unknown drawing tens of thousands of people to his rallies. Oh to go back in time...
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
xtsho said:
You don't have to agree with them and I certainly don't but it was a peaceful gathering and their right to gather as stated in the First amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you don't like it then don't go or watch it. Don't let it occupy your mind.

Crowd size really doesn't matter in the early stages of a Presidential race. The exception being Obama who was an unknown drawing tens of thousands of people to his rallies. Oh to go back in time...
Click to expand...
this has nothing to do with whether or not we like it...it's about trumps failing popularity, and with it his waning influence with the republican party.
I'd have expected an ancient, massive intellect like yours to have grasped that without having to have it pointed out...
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
It's just Donald squirming and squealing, it means nothing to the prosecutors except more evidence to present in court at his bail hearing. Once indicted, and he will be by somebody fairly soon it appears, Donald will moderate his speech and behavior, or the judge will lock up him in a real jail. After a plea at arraignment the judge owns Donald's ass, and he is in the custody of the court and the judge is kinda responsible for him. As for house arrest, what happens if Donald acts out in court, or tells the judge to fuck off, or just tries to leave? Think he will do his contempt of court time in Mar A Largo playing golf? If he keeps this shit up he could very well end up in Rikers pending trial and might not make bail. He must have been told because he removed post of the pic of him with Bragg and the bat, but it is public now anyway.
 
jimihendrix1

jimihendrix1

Well-Known Member
garybo said:
View attachment 5275665
Click to expand...

Fake News. Do your research better.


Our rating: False
Multiple legal experts said Clinton’s $850,000 payment to Jones as part of a settlement agreement is not considered "hush money" since the facts of the case were already publicly known.


Clinton's $850,000 payment was not 'hush money,' legal experts say
The post attempts to equate Clinton's actions with those of former President Donald Trump, who is facing potential indictment connected to $130,000 paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election



But experts say the circumstances behind the Clinton and Trump payments are substantially different.

"Clinton paying money to settle a publicly filed lawsuit and Trump paying money to keep Daniels quiet are two very different things," said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

Hush money is a term used to describe a payment made in order to keep someone from publicly revealing details about something, according to David Weinstein, a former assistant U.S. attorney.

While it is true that Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a lawsuit brought against him in 1994, the civil case in question was already filed, and the facts were public knowledge before the $850,000 payment was made, according to Weinstein.
“Hush money is to keep someone quiet, thus the name,” said Jerry Goldfeder, an election and campaign finance law and public integrity investigations expert. “Paying someone to settle a lawsuit in public is not.”

The civil lawsuit Jones filed against Clinton accused him of sexually harassing and assaulting her while he served as Arkansas’ governor, according to the Washington Post.

Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with her in 1998 while he was serving as president and agreed to pay her $850,000 to drop the case.

Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, noted the timing relative to an election was also a key difference between the two. The Trump payment was made shortly before the 2016 election Trump ultimately won, while Clinton's payment was made in 1998, "deep into Clinton’s second term in office and irrespective of the 2000 campaign – in which Clinton was not a candidate.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
jimihendrix1 said:
Fake News. Do your research better.


Our rating: False
Multiple legal experts said Clinton’s $850,000 payment to Jones as part of a settlement agreement is not considered "hush money" since the facts of the case were already publicly known.


Clinton's $850,000 payment was not 'hush money,' legal experts say
The post attempts to equate Clinton's actions with those of former President Donald Trump, who is facing potential indictment connected to $130,000 paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election



But experts say the circumstances behind the Clinton and Trump payments are substantially different.

"Clinton paying money to settle a publicly filed lawsuit and Trump paying money to keep Daniels quiet are two very different things," said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

Hush money is a term used to describe a payment made in order to keep someone from publicly revealing details about something, according to David Weinstein, a former assistant U.S. attorney.

While it is true that Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a lawsuit brought against him in 1994, the civil case in question was already filed, and the facts were public knowledge before the $850,000 payment was made, according to Weinstein.
“Hush money is to keep someone quiet, thus the name,” said Jerry Goldfeder, an election and campaign finance law and public integrity investigations expert. “Paying someone to settle a lawsuit in public is not.”

The civil lawsuit Jones filed against Clinton accused him of sexually harassing and assaulting her while he served as Arkansas’ governor, according to the Washington Post.

Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with her in 1998 while he was serving as president and agreed to pay her $850,000 to drop the case.

Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, noted the timing relative to an election was also a key difference between the two. The Trump payment was made shortly before the 2016 election Trump ultimately won, while Clinton's payment was made in 1998, "deep into Clinton’s second term in office and irrespective of the 2000 campaign – in which Clinton was not a candidate.
Click to expand...
To MAGA, tact checks are insults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top