International reaction to "the verdict"

Thinker101

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2017
24,743
14,977
1,415
Interesting that some will speak their mind, while others don't want to cause any waves.

HUNGARIAN PRIME MINISTER VIKTOR ORBAN:
"I’ve known President @realDonaldTrump to be a man of honour. As President, he always put America first, he commanded respect around the world and used this respect to build peace. Let the people make their verdict this November! Keep on fighting, Mr. President!"

BRITISH OPPOSITION LABOUR PARTY LEADER KEIR STARMER:
"First and foremost, we respect the court's decision in relation to the decision in the Trump case. There's sentencing still to go and possible appeal, but we respect the court process.

"...We have a special relationship with the U.S. that transcends whoever the president is, but it is an unprecedented situation, no doubt about that."

MATTEO SALVINI, ITALY'S DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND HEAD OF THE LEAGUE PARTY:
“Solidarity and full support for @realDonaldTrump, victim of judicial harassment and a process of political nature. In Italy, we are sadly familiar with the weaponisation of the justice system by the left, given that for years attempts have been made to eliminate political opponents through legal means. I hope Trump wins; it would be a guarantee of greater balance and hope for world peace.”

YORHIMASA HAYASHI, CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY, JAPAN:
"We would like to refrain from commenting on matters relating to judicial procedures in other countries.

"The Japanese government is not in a position to make comments with presumption about the impact on the (U.S.) presidential election. In any event, we are closely monitoring related developments and will continue to gather information."

MEL STRIDE, BRITAIN'S WORK AND PENSIONS SECRETARY:
"As a government cabinet minister, there is a long-held convention that we don't interfere in elections overseas, so I really can't comment on that particular question, in the same way we wouldn't expect American politicians to start throwing comments in about our general election.


MSN
 
Javier Milei, Argentina “I fucking warned you that you cannot give these Socialist fuckfaces an inch! Go get them in November. FJB”

Nayib Bukele, El Salvado “Just say the word and I’ll lock up all your Progressive Jihadists and Central Bankers here with MS-13”
 
1aa.jpg
 
Interesting that some will speak their mind, while others don't want to cause any waves.

HUNGARIAN PRIME MINISTER VIKTOR ORBAN:
"I’ve known President @realDonaldTrump to be a man of honour. As President, he always put America first, he commanded respect around the world and used this respect to build peace. Let the people make their verdict this November! Keep on fighting, Mr. President!"

BRITISH OPPOSITION LABOUR PARTY LEADER KEIR STARMER:
"First and foremost, we respect the court's decision in relation to the decision in the Trump case. There's sentencing still to go and possible appeal, but we respect the court process.

"...We have a special relationship with the U.S. that transcends whoever the president is, but it is an unprecedented situation, no doubt about that."

MATTEO SALVINI, ITALY'S DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND HEAD OF THE LEAGUE PARTY:
“Solidarity and full support for @realDonaldTrump, victim of judicial harassment and a process of political nature. In Italy, we are sadly familiar with the weaponisation of the justice system by the left, given that for years attempts have been made to eliminate political opponents through legal means. I hope Trump wins; it would be a guarantee of greater balance and hope for world peace.”

YORHIMASA HAYASHI, CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY, JAPAN:
"We would like to refrain from commenting on matters relating to judicial procedures in other countries.

"The Japanese government is not in a position to make comments with presumption about the impact on the (U.S.) presidential election. In any event, we are closely monitoring related developments and will continue to gather information."

MEL STRIDE, BRITAIN'S WORK AND PENSIONS SECRETARY:
"As a government cabinet minister, there is a long-held convention that we don't interfere in elections overseas, so I really can't comment on that particular question, in the same way we wouldn't expect American politicians to start throwing comments in about our general election.


MSN
The Japanese citizens will know it's bullshit. Tiawanese too.

Apparently South Americans know as well!
 
Interesting that some will speak their mind, while others don't want to cause any waves.

HUNGARIAN PRIME MINISTER VIKTOR ORBAN:
"I’ve known President @realDonaldTrump to be a man of honour. As President, he always put America first, he commanded respect around the world and used this respect to build peace. Let the people make their verdict this November! Keep on fighting, Mr. President!"

BRITISH OPPOSITION LABOUR PARTY LEADER KEIR STARMER:
"First and foremost, we respect the court's decision in relation to the decision in the Trump case. There's sentencing still to go and possible appeal, but we respect the court process.

"...We have a special relationship with the U.S. that transcends whoever the president is, but it is an unprecedented situation, no doubt about that."

MATTEO SALVINI, ITALY'S DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND HEAD OF THE LEAGUE PARTY:
“Solidarity and full support for @realDonaldTrump, victim of judicial harassment and a process of political nature. In Italy, we are sadly familiar with the weaponisation of the justice system by the left, given that for years attempts have been made to eliminate political opponents through legal means. I hope Trump wins; it would be a guarantee of greater balance and hope for world peace.”

YORHIMASA HAYASHI, CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY, JAPAN:
"We would like to refrain from commenting on matters relating to judicial procedures in other countries.

"The Japanese government is not in a position to make comments with presumption about the impact on the (U.S.) presidential election. In any event, we are closely monitoring related developments and will continue to gather information."

MEL STRIDE, BRITAIN'S WORK AND PENSIONS SECRETARY:
"As a government cabinet minister, there is a long-held convention that we don't interfere in elections overseas, so I really can't comment on that particular question, in the same way we wouldn't expect American politicians to start throwing comments in about our general election.


MSN

The funny thing is that Trump will have a lot of trouble visiting most of those nations now.

 
Dang, we'd be saving money from day one.

Please. This is Trump we are talking about. He would demand state visits to each nation just to prove he could go. We would spend enough to deploy a carrier group for a year flying him all over on that plane.
 
The TDS is an equal opportunity destroyer. It destroys the reason of many a stupid person, but also gets to the smarter ones like you.

I imagined a couple different responses were likely. The most likely I assumed that the Trump Fanboys would come up with was a rant about how the immigration policies of the whole world make way more sense than ours do. I figured the second most likely would be to point out that the President, when he travels, once Trump is elected, does so under Diplomatic Immunity and the receiving nation is honored to receive Trump under those circumstances. Trump being so loved by the world’s leaders, and the world, or something.

What I didn’t figure on, and I guess I should have, is accusing me of having TDS, again. I mean, it wasn’t something I wrote. It was a news article. It was an article linked to by Drudge, which means millions of people saw it last evening. It was a news article that, if it was wrong, would have been easily demonstrated. There is no way I wrote the news article. So accusing me of having TDS is just not logical, or rational is it?

I’m assuming that the accusation of TDS is a knee jerk response. Any time information comes out that is not welcome, the individual in question must have TDS. Even if the information is gospel truth, that doesn’t matter, what really matters is the person posting the information must have TDS.

I don’t know, perhaps one of your fellow Fanboys will be posting how the other nations have way more common sense immigration and visitation laws than we do.
 
I imagined a couple different responses were likely. The most likely I assumed that the Trump Fanboys would come up with was a rant about how the immigration policies of the whole world make way more sense than ours do. I figured the second most likely would be to point out that the President, when he travels, once Trump is elected, does so under Diplomatic Immunity and the receiving nation is honored to receive Trump under those circumstances. Trump being so loved by the world’s leaders, and the world, or something.

What I didn’t figure on, and I guess I should have, is accusing me of having TDS, again. I mean, it wasn’t something I wrote. It was a news article. It was an article linked to by Drudge, which means millions of people saw it last evening. It was a news article that, if it was wrong, would have been easily demonstrated. There is no way I wrote the news article. So accusing me of having TDS is just not logical, or rational is it?

I’m assuming that the accusation of TDS is a knee jerk response. Any time information comes out that is not welcome, the individual in question must have TDS. Even if the information is gospel truth, that doesn’t matter, what really matters is the person posting the information must have TDS.

I don’t know, perhaps one of your fellow Fanboys will be posting how the other nations have way more common sense immigration and visitation laws than we do.

Anyone who is gleeful that Trump is convicted just because they hate him so much set a torch to our justice system. You are talking about a person, which is what small minds do. Better minds talk about events. The best talk about ideas.
 
Anyone who is gleeful that Trump is convicted just because they hate him so much set a torch to our justice system. You are talking about a person, which is what small minds do. Better minds talk about events. The best talk about ideas.

Interesting. I never said I was gleeful. I said the trial appeared fair. I think it is interesting. I am curious as to what grounds Trump will claim when he appeals.

I think the defense was lacking. I think the best defenses start with a narrative and carry it through every witness. I say best because those are traditionally the most successful. The Trump narrative was how awful everyone was to testify and make these claims.

I support, and have said so on my occasions, the ideal that it is supposed to be hard to convict someone. I’ve said I absolutely support the idea of a vigorous defense in criminal trials. I’ve supported the ideal that it is better for a thousand guilty men to go free than one innocent man go to prison.

Those are not so much Ideals as Principles. Core beliefs if you will. And if you want to know why, I’ll say this. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. And those principles are enshrined in that document that I swore to defend. The principles and ideals contained within.

This is a little off topic. But it may show you how I think. Wednesday night, as the jury deliberated, by coincidence I watched a YouTube video with the wife. It was two youngsters reacting to the movie 12 Angry Men. I like this movie for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is I saw it in school. It was a sort of advanced Civics class. We watched the movie and discussed it.

I was taught and firmly believe that our system is best served by vigorously debating the issues. Truthfully. Honestly. And being willing to change your opinion when you see evidence you can’t explain.

One thing sticks out now, as it did Wednesday. A closing lesson from the Teacher. At the end of the movie you don’t know if the Defendant killed his Father. All you know is that a man was murdered. The prosecution had a case they didn’t question. And the Defense was awful not asking questions so obvious an architect could get the ball rolling by asking a couple.

I wish the Trump defense had been better. I wish they had a narrative like Sonny Seiler presented for Jim Williams in Savannah. A narrative explains the evidence with an alternate story. Without that narrative a defense is essentially just a child screaming no.

With the evidence I saw reported. The testimony. The documentation. The audio recordings. Finding Trump guilty is understandable. There were 22 witnesses who testified that Trump did what he was accused of doing. There were documentation including checks signed by Trump, emails, text messages, all of which showed Trump doing what he was accused of. There was audio recordings where Trump discussed in his own voice doing what he was accused of.

The claims of political partisan whatever don’t hold up. So far. But let’s say the Judge was half as determined as it is claimed to jail Trump. Why didn’t he toss Trump in jail for the Gag order violations? Why did he keep warning him time after time, finally after months of violations slapping a tiny fine on Trump?

If you can answer those questions I’m curious to see your reasons.
 
Interesting that some will speak their mind, while others don't want to cause any waves.

HUNGARIAN PRIME MINISTER VIKTOR ORBAN:
"I’ve known President @realDonaldTrump to be a man of honour. As President, he always put America first, he commanded respect around the world and used this respect to build peace. Let the people make their verdict this November! Keep on fighting, Mr. President!"

BRITISH OPPOSITION LABOUR PARTY LEADER KEIR STARMER:
"First and foremost, we respect the court's decision in relation to the decision in the Trump case. There's sentencing still to go and possible appeal, but we respect the court process.

"...We have a special relationship with the U.S. that transcends whoever the president is, but it is an unprecedented situation, no doubt about that."

MATTEO SALVINI, ITALY'S DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND HEAD OF THE LEAGUE PARTY:
“Solidarity and full support for @realDonaldTrump, victim of judicial harassment and a process of political nature. In Italy, we are sadly familiar with the weaponisation of the justice system by the left, given that for years attempts have been made to eliminate political opponents through legal means. I hope Trump wins; it would be a guarantee of greater balance and hope for world peace.”

YORHIMASA HAYASHI, CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY, JAPAN:
"We would like to refrain from commenting on matters relating to judicial procedures in other countries.

"The Japanese government is not in a position to make comments with presumption about the impact on the (U.S.) presidential election. In any event, we are closely monitoring related developments and will continue to gather information."

MEL STRIDE, BRITAIN'S WORK AND PENSIONS SECRETARY:
"As a government cabinet minister, there is a long-held convention that we don't interfere in elections overseas, so I really can't comment on that particular question, in the same way we wouldn't expect American politicians to start throwing comments in about our general election.


MSN
Orban? Yeah, that's someone I want in my corner?
 
Interesting. I never said I was gleeful. I said the trial appeared fair. I think it is interesting. I am curious as to what grounds Trump will claim when he appeals.

I think the defense was lacking. I think the best defenses start with a narrative and carry it through every witness. I say best because those are traditionally the most successful. The Trump narrative was how awful everyone was to testify and make these claims.

I support, and have said so on my occasions, the ideal that it is supposed to be hard to convict someone. I’ve said I absolutely support the idea of a vigorous defense in criminal trials. I’ve supported the ideal that it is better for a thousand guilty men to go free than one innocent man go to prison.

Those are not so much Ideals as Principles. Core beliefs if you will. And if you want to know why, I’ll say this. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. And those principles are enshrined in that document that I swore to defend. The principles and ideals contained within.

This is a little off topic. But it may show you how I think. Wednesday night, as the jury deliberated, by coincidence I watched a YouTube video with the wife. It was two youngsters reacting to the movie 12 Angry Men. I like this movie for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is I saw it in school. It was a sort of advanced Civics class. We watched the movie and discussed it.

I was taught and firmly believe that our system is best served by vigorously debating the issues. Truthfully. Honestly. And being willing to change your opinion when you see evidence you can’t explain.

One thing sticks out now, as it did Wednesday. A closing lesson from the Teacher. At the end of the movie you don’t know if the Defendant killed his Father. All you know is that a man was murdered. The prosecution had a case they didn’t question. And the Defense was awful not asking questions so obvious an architect could get the ball rolling by asking a couple.

I wish the Trump defense had been better. I wish they had a narrative like Sonny Seiler presented for Jim Williams in Savannah. A narrative explains the evidence with an alternate story. Without that narrative a defense is essentially just a child screaming no.

With the evidence I saw reported. The testimony. The documentation. The audio recordings. Finding Trump guilty is understandable. There were 22 witnesses who testified that Trump did what he was accused of doing. There were documentation including checks signed by Trump, emails, text messages, all of which showed Trump doing what he was accused of. There was audio recordings where Trump discussed in his own voice doing what he was accused of.

The claims of political partisan whatever don’t hold up. So far. But let’s say the Judge was half as determined as it is claimed to jail Trump. Why didn’t he toss Trump in jail for the Gag order violations? Why did he keep warning him time after time, finally after months of violations slapping a tiny fine on Trump?

If you can answer those questions I’m curious to see your reasons.

This failed from the jump because you compared what Trump did to a MURDER. That was the first failure.

Second, you seem not to understand that tyrants have used the courts and "justice system" as as means of getting their political opponents probably since Adam and Eve left the Garden.

To put a period on it: many, many, many MANY people go to prison for murder.

NO ONE has EVER been convicted for these crimes Bragg tried. IOW, he tried federal election fraud in a county court. You play a shell game just calling this a "crime". It's honestly like you all are so blinded by bias that you think the law is equally valid and deserves equal justice throughout. Like the grandma who jaywalked is as much NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW as the serial rapist/killer.

You feel like if you wander in the weeds you'll confuse people on minutia. But the main thing--to RATIONAL people--will always remain the main thing. No one was hurt by anything Trump did. No one.
 
This failed from the jump because you compared what Trump did to a MURDER. That was the first failure.

Second, you seem not to understand that tyrants have used the courts and "justice system" as as means of getting their political opponents probably since Adam and Eve left the Garden.

To put a period on it: many, many, many MANY people go to prison for murder.

NO ONE has EVER been convicted for these crimes Bragg tried. IOW, he tried federal election fraud in a county court. You play a shell game just calling this a "crime". It's honestly like you all are so blinded by bias that you think the law is equally valid and deserves equal justice throughout. Like the grandma who jaywalked is as much NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW as the serial rapist/killer.

You feel like if you wander in the weeds you'll confuse people on minutia. But the main thing--to RATIONAL people--will always remain the main thing. No one was hurt by anything Trump did. No one.
The American people were hurt.
 

Forum List

Back
Top