• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Not arguing your man was an absolute novice but would a headshot not be the only way to guarantee success? Presume Trump is in some state of the art bullet proof gear.
No, a standard body armour would stop a knife or pistol but not a rifle. That doesn't rule out he might have been wearing something fancy but putting several rounds in the torso would have dropped him
 
I know bullets essentially stop within a few feet of entering water.... but anyone know how the fare when entering a big orange balloon filled with bullsh_t?
I'd assume it'd pop the balloon, unless the blubber layer would reseal like a self-sealing fuel tank - and would also assume bullsh_t is thicker than water.
Real possibility the bullets might not reach any internal organs?


[not serious incase someone actually thinks Im that daft!]
 
I know bullets essentially stop within a few feet of entering water.... but anyone know how the fare when entering a big orange balloon filled with bullsh_t?
I'd assume it'd pop the balloon, unless the blubber layer would reseal like a self-sealing fuel tank - and would also assume bullsh_t is thicker than water.
Real possibility the bullets might not reach any internal organs?


[not serious incase someone actually thinks Im that daft!]
You're assuming he has internal organs
 

It's horrible that on one side you have people who genuinely will use civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shields and on the other a side that seem quite content to drop bombs of civilians and just claim Hamas were using it for some military capacity.
 

It's horrible that on one side you have people who genuinely will use civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shields and on the other a side that seem quite content to drop bombs of civilians and just claim Hamas were using it for some military capacity.

Yeah this is a war between two bad guys with a load of innocents civilians stuck in the middle. I'm surprised political commentators haven't called out Netanyahu for stalling on the peace deal and deliberately dragging the war out so that he can influence the American election. A Trump win strengthens his position greatly and might be enough for him to cling on to power - something he clearly cares about more deeply than freeing the hostages. Trump has already started to criticise Harris just because she expressed concerns about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and so it's clear that the war will become one of the key battlegrounds in the election.
 


AI or not AI?

I'm leaning to not AI.

If not, Trump tells Christians to get out and vote because if he wins in 4 years they won't have to vote again as it'll be 'fixed'.

Project 2025 anyone?
 


AI or not AI?

I'm leaning to not AI.

If not, Trump tells Christians to get out and vote because if he wins in 4 years they won't have to vote again as it'll be 'fixed'.

Project 2025 anyone?

on one hand he could mean that he'll have fixed the country from the supposed mess that is in so that voting won't be necessary next time around. He also doesn't give a **** if people vote in four years cause he won't be on the ballot.

on the other hand: yeah, project 25
 
It's typical Trump to say something that will grab the headlines, which horrify most sane people. He'll either say nothing or just deny that he meant he would get rid of elections. It's all to make himself headline news again - he knows he can say anything with his base and get away with it.
 
Looks like the person who got kicked wasn't exactly innocent then but it certainly seems the one doing the kicking got red mist and cannot control himself in a very heated situation.
 
Whatever happened leading up to it is irrelevant really

Human Rights Act 1998 (force must always be proportionate, legal, officers are accountable and it must have been necessary)

He'd been tasered and was no longer a threat, kicking him in the face was completely unneccessary and, by the look of that video, more a reaction to being put on the floor himself rather than anything about his colleague having her nose broken.
 
Whatever happened leading up to it is irrelevant really

Human Rights Act 1998 (force must always be proportionate, legal, officers are accountable and it must have been necessary)

He'd been tasered and was no longer a threat, kicking him in the face was completely unneccessary and, by the look of that video, more a reaction to being put on the floor himself rather than anything about his colleague having her nose broken.
It's not irrelevant, but it's not an excuse. Some have tried to portray it as a completely innocent man randomly subject to police brutality. The reality is it was a violent man subject to police brutality. Doesn't exclude what the cop did and he should be prosecuted, but we also need to not pretend the victim was a blameless innocent simply minding his own business.
 
I'm not pretending he was.

As soon as he's no longer a threat, whatever he did before is no longer part of the decision making process for the police.
 
I'm not pretending he was.

As soon as he's no longer a threat, whatever he did before is no longer part of the decision making process for the police.
And I'm not saying it should either, what I'm getting it is how the situation is getting portrayed. The police brutality side has been fully portrayed and there isn't any discussion really to be had about that, he should be prosecuted for it. I just think people (not you, in general) should stop pretending the victim was just some innocent person doing no wrong. He was the lesser of 2 evils but he was still fully going in fully attempting to cause harm himself.
 
Top