• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Gather App
At a Dubai Conference, Trump's Conflicts Take Center Stage


From a Kennedy Center makeover to crypto sweepstakes: How Trump is rewiring Washington access


www.bbc.co.uk

White House, Qatar discuss transfer of luxury jet for Air Force One

Qatar said a deal for "temporary use" of the plane was under negotiation, amid media reports of a gift.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

nypost.com

Trump set to receive $400 million ‘flying palace’ from Qatar to use as Air Force One: report

President Trump is reportedly set to receive a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar’s royal family shortly before his second term concludes amid frustrations with delays that have b…
nypost.com nypost.com

No sign of any corruption then
 
Last edited:
www.bbc.co.uk

Britain's shrinking military: Is Labour's plan enough to fix it?

Troop numbers are down, morale is weak and some equipment is in a poor state - will the government's Strategic Defence Review be enough to turn that around?
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Absolutely not surprised by this. The habit of governments to hollow out it's defence capabilities knowing it can hide behind America have left us very very vulnerable and as for deploying 20k troops to Ukraine for a peace keeping mission? Yeah ok then
 
McTallshort said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Britain's shrinking military: Is Labour's plan enough to fix it?

Troop numbers are down, morale is weak and some equipment is in a poor state - will the government's Strategic Defence Review be enough to turn that around?
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Absolutely not surprised by this. The habit of governments to hollow out it's defence capabilities knowing it can hide behind America have left us very very vulnerable and as for deploying 20k troops to Ukraine for a peace keeping mission? Yeah ok then
Click to expand...
This is something I have completely changed my opinion on over the last few years.

I'm a ******* hawk now. Love the military industrial complex. lol.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
And in all of that you still didn't find a single point to refute and did nothing more than look at the ***les.

Until you can actually refute to content, don't dismiss it.

And yes, he's an actual practicing lawyer with the channel being the side project. Just like democracy docket or Glenn kirshner, these are people who actually practiced law, they are not been shapiros or Mr beast.

So one again you can't actually refute the content, you can only attack the source because you've decided you don't like the style and can't be bothered to hear the actual argument. This from someone who keeps whining about the lack of nuance yet your own nuance extends no further than looking at video ***les and 1 minute of footage. You realise the meat of the content isn't in the first minute right?

Unless you're prepared to put any effort in to refute the arguments, your opinions can be easily ignored.

Oh and that I'm quitting video? Yeah wanna know what date that was released? April 1st. Congratulations, you got played.

Legal eagle wasn't set up as an anti trump channel and I was following it before it engaged in any sort of political videos. Do you know what changed that? The frequent, rampant criminality of both Trump administrations. But again, why have a nuanced view when you can just dismiss the content because you personally don't like the style?
Click to expand...
Mate, it's more of the same trash as the last 50 videos he's made, trash Trump get rich lol.

There are plenty of Lawyers on youtube stealing a living, you'll have to forgive me for not watching every second of stupidity posted, and refuting the 879 points made in 20 mins, the same way I won't watch Ben Shapiro videos to know I'm notninterested in his content.

If a content creator makes 99% anti Trump content, then they really have one of 2 motives, cream off the anti Trump views and make moneeeeeey or they're obsessed with his downfall, either way they lose my interest.

And byw, the fast talking stat and quote bombardment is designed specifically not to be challenged, that's the point, it's to outrage you, and be too much work to debunk one preposterous claim every 6 seconds after the next. The worst crime of hat video was that it was boring, I know every political thought, and every opinion of Trump's actions of the presenter within the first few seconds...
 
dirty harry said:
Mate, it's more of the same trash as the last 50 videos he's made, trash Trump get rich lol.

There are plenty of Lawyers on youtube stealing a living, you'll have to forgive me for not watching every second of stupidity posted, and refuting the 879 points made in 20 mins, the same way I won't watch Ben Shapiro videos to know I'm notninterested in his content.

If a content creator makes 99% anti Trump content, then they really have one of 2 motives, cream off the anti Trump views and make moneeeeeey or they're obsessed with his downfall, either way they lose my interest.

And byw, the fast talking stat and quote bombardment is designed specifically not to be challenged, that's the point, it's to outrage you, and be too much work to debunk one preposterous claim every 6 seconds after the next. The worst crime of hat video was that it was boring, I know every political thought, and every opinion of Trump's actions of the presenter within the first few seconds...
Click to expand...
So again you can't deal with any of the actual content and can't be bothered. I've already pointed out the difference between Legal Eagle, Democracy Docket and the like and Ben Shapiro. The former are practicing lawyers who are literally practicing what they preach in terms of the law. That is their job and the Youtube channel is the side thing. ben Shapiro DOESN'T practice what he preaches, his online persona IS how he makes his existence.

I already pointed out Legal Eagle was not set up as an anti-Trump channel, it used to about analysing legal arguments in movies and stuff and was a perfectly successful channel doing so, something you ignored.

If you're not interested, that is a you problem. It doesn't invalidate the content and I again find it funny that someone who claims to love nuance is so lazy when it comes to tackling information from anything where you decide you don't like the style. If there is no substance to it, then why are 100's of law firms, including Legal Eagle's fighting the federal government right now in the legal system over this? When have the likes of Ben Shapiro done anything to act on their claims? They don't. You have actual practicing lawyers who are literally in courts right now fighting the Trump administration and make videos explaining why and you refuse to look at it because you don't like the style then lazily lump them in with full time internet personalities. But yeah "nuance".

Let's take a hypothetical, if Trump is a rampant lawbreaker, what would content objectively analysing him look like?

Marc Elias makes similar comments on Youtube and he was the one who faced down Trump's election lawsuits in 2020, winning all but one of the cases (which was then overturned in his favour). I guess in your mind though he's simply an anti-Trumper because he had to fight against Trump's frivolous lawsuits right?
 
Last edited:
Ragey Erasmus said:
So again you can't deal with any of the actual content and can't be bothered. I've already pointed out the difference between Legal Eagle, Democracy Docket and the like and Ben Shapiro. The former are practicing lawyers who are literally practicing what they preach in terms of the law. That is their job and the Youtube channel is the side thing. ben Shapiro DOESN'T practice what he preaches, his online persona IS how he makes his existence.

I already pointed out Legal Eagle was not set up as an anti-Trump channel, it used to about analysing legal arguments in movies and stuff and was a perfectly successful channel doing so, something you ignored.

If you're not interested, that is a you problem. It doesn't invalidate the content and I again find it funny that someone who claims to love nuance is so lazy when it comes to tackling information from anything where you decide you don't like the style. If there is no substance to it, then why are 100's of law firms, including Legal Eagle's fighting the federal government right now in the legal system over this? When have the likes of Ben Shapiro done anything to act on their claims? They don't. You have actual practicing lawyers who are literally in courts right now fighting the Trump administration and make videos explaining why and you refuse to look at it because you don't like the style then lazily lump them in with full time internet personalities. But yeah "nuance".

Let's take a hypothetical, if Trump is a rampant lawbreaker, what would content objectively analysing him look like?

Marc Elias makes similar comments on Youtube and he was the one who faced down Trump's election lawsuits in 2020, winning all but one of the cases (which was then overturned in his favour). I guess in your mind though he's simply an anti-Trumper because he had to fight against Trump's frivolous lawsuits right?
Click to expand...
With the greatest of respect, you can keep regurgitating the same line about content, but if the content was better I would have lasted more than 1.45, it just isn't credible in my view, it was an algorithmic manipulative explosion of mistruths in under 2 minutes, and I've sealed it away in the same category as Ben Shapiro, Mr Beast and Jake Paul. Good luck to them, I hope they farm views well and get rich off it, but it's not something I'd waste my time with.
 


Did we all see this coming? Is this a reaction to Reform cleaning up? Are these empty words to placate?

Or is Starmer addressing a real problem?

Interesting to read the comment section, berating him for only talking about legal migration, lots of pro migration sentiment in the comments, but a lot of anti illegal migration comments..
 
'illegal' migration only counts for about 4% of migrants and, as he responded to one of the journos there, there is a separate white paper which will deal with the "smash the gangs" shtick
 

Similar threads

Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
JohnKA
ARK - The State
Replies
1
Views
3K
JohnKA
JohnKA
RoosTah
Is South African Rugby afraid of Rugby League?
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
11K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
TRF Mr Fish
All Black Watch - Week 2
Replies
10
Views
2K
TRF Mr Fish
TRF Mr Fish

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top