Cable Forum - President Trump 2.0

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - President Trump 2.0 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33712850)

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36208861)

Of course not, but also not relevant here, he wasnt reaching into the car.

Right hand held onto the door, left hand then reached in.
Attachment 31603

Re: President Trump 2.0

Thats not the person who fired the shots.
Since the window is fully down, they couldnt be trapped by it anyway.

(and if they were, shooting the driver just made it worse, as the the car went down the street anyway, out of control, so would have dragged anyone "trapped").

I really dont understand why you're so desperate to make this shooting seem ok.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36208841)

When did the USA start using the UK highway code ?

Confess I was a bit confused by that one as well but thought it was just me! The US highway code seems a bit simpler - shoot first, ask questions afterwards. ;)

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36208875)

simpler - shoot first, ask questions afterwards. ;)

More like, shoot first, don't question me after

Re: President Trump 2.0

All this earnest discussion about the square root equivalence of the UK Highway Code to the position of the shooter's left testicle does not detract from the obvious fact that the lady did nothing to deserve her death.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36208872)

I know that's not the person, who fired the shots. THAT'S MY POINT. Technically that officer was ALSO potentially at risk, as demonstrated by the previous actual experience of the officer who fired.
How is possible to put your hand inside the vehicle, if the window was open?
If you look at the 2 still images on the BBC article, the 1st is with the window only starting to open and would be impossible to reach in and open the door. The 2nd where he is being dragged along, his arm is further down and trapped.

Quote:

Ross reached into Muñoz's vehicle with his right hand and attempted to unlock the driver's door. Muñoz drove up on the kerb and accelerated away. Ross's right arm was caught in the vehicle and he was dragged along with it.

As it is, the officer reaching in to open the door was pulled around by the car reversing. He still could've been injured in that situation. Completely undeniable.

And how could anybody have known which direction the vehicle was eventually going to go? The "drive, baby, drive" shout from the wife could be seen as telling the driver to drive away quickly. It's intention might've been a less aggressive "don't wait for me", rather than "run him over". Hindsight allows for consideration of different interpretations, a split-second reaction doesn't. In the real world and in real time, there's no "what ifs" or redos.
At the point in time, she was pointed straight ahead and changed from reverse to drive and was urged to "drive, baby, drive". If you look at that factual description of events in isolation, without regard to this actual incident, what would you say was possibly going to happen to somebody in front of the vehicle? Your conclusion would be that the person was at risk of being run over. It you were watching a film with that as a scene, your immediate thought would be "is he going to get knocked over?".
You have to look at the apparent situation at that precise moment in time, without having any idea of what any intentions were. Bear in mind, the women were intentionally being obnoxious and awkward and weren't calmly complying with instructions. Their actions and intentions were more on the aggressive side of things, rather than being compliant.

I can't see what isn't there. Eg the wheels WERE pointed straight ahead AND the car was moving forwards. I ask questions and try to find the answers, whatever those answers may be. I DON'T simply accept something, whichever side it comes from.

It is unbelievable, mind-boggling, and outright SINISTER, that so many people deny the reality of moving objects. Eg People deny that when reversing and turning, the viewpoint of the driver changes. IE something that was to the left or right of the driver can up end being in front, without that something having to move. Eg somehow the wheels can be pointed left and go to point right, without pointing straight ahead at some stage. People prefer physical IMPOSSIBILITIES to justify the views that they have blindly chosen. Right or wrong, correct or incorrect doesn't come into it.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36208875)

Confess I was a bit confused by that one as well but thought it was just me! The US highway code seems a bit simpler - shoot first, ask questions afterwards. ;)

Nonsense. That "swinging out" is unavoidable when reversing with a turn. That line from the UK highway code simply is a warning as to the REALITY of what happens to the front of car when it reverses with a turn. It's not a phenomenon restricted to the UK or to cars. It happens to people EACH AND EVERY DAY, in and out of cars. If you walk forwards and then turn, whatever was in front of you, is now to the side and then behind you. Those objects don't have to have moved. If you walk towards a simple straight wall, but then turn left or right, is the wall in right in front of you or to the side? It's no longer in right in front of you, but it hasn't moved.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36208891)

I know that's not the person, who fired the shots. THAT'S MY POINT.

The entire set of posts was about the shooter, who got injured a few months ago, then suddenly you randomly move onto another person. Ok... :dozey:

Quote:

I ask questions and try to find the answers, whatever those answers may be. I DON'T simply accept something, whichever side it comes from.

Right ... I'm sure you believe that. :angel:

I still think you are just trying desperately to justify the shooting.
I did notice you completely skipped that part of my previous post. :sleep:
In fact, that's almost "unbelievable, mind-boggling, and outright SINISTER". ;)

You should contact the FBI - they could clearly do with your expertise to clear the officer.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36208903)

The entire set of posts was about the shooter, who got injured a few months ago, then suddenly you randomly move onto another person. Ok... :dozey:

Right ... I'm sure you believe that. :angel:

I still think you are just trying desperately to justify the shooting.
I did notice you completely skipped that part of my previous post. :sleep:
In fact, that's almost "unbelievable, mind-boggling, and outright SINISTER". ;)

You should contact the FBI - they could clearly do with your expertise to clear the officer.

So have people accepted that when a car is reversing and turning, the front swings around? They constantly say it doesn't, and try to claim it only happens in the UK. Even if it was a 4 wheel steering vehicle, what was in front of any vehicle would still change without anything moving other than the vehicle. They also don't accept that in going from wheels pointing left to pointing right, that they at one stage have to be pointing straight forward. Then there are the claims of "he should've moved, while at the same time claiming he wasn't in front of the vehicle. They seem to think he was several yards away, when it was 1 or 2 yards, They think reactions and actions are instantaneous, with no such things as reaction times involved. People were claiming that she didn't know who she was dealing with and it was like an attempted carjacking.
Things may operate like they claim on another planet, but not in this one.
I have posted conclusive evidence that the vehicle was pointed at him and moving forwards.
Only later when finding about the way he was injured last year, and seeing the link between the 2 situations could I mention it. Still doesn't meant it's not true.
Is any of that not true? When people even refuse to see what happens to them when they move around each and every day, just to support a biased view, then that is beyond sinister.

Re: President Trump 2.0

Anyway, here’s another delusional posting on Social Media…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...4&d=1768335543

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36208913)

Anyway, here’s another delusional posting on Social Media…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...4&d=1768335543

Oh for crying out loud, just how much of a complete idiot can one human being be?

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by jem (Post 36208918)

Oh for crying out loud, just how much of a complete idiot can one human being be?

Read this topic, you might find a few contenders :angel:

Re: President Trump 2.0

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fiv...mp-2026-01-15/

This bodes well…

Quote:

The president expressed frustration that his Republican Party could lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate in this year’s midterm elections, citing historical trends that have seen the party in power lose seats in the second year of a presidency.

“It's some deep psychological thing, but when you win the presidency, you don't win the midterms,” Trump said. He boasted that he had accomplished so much that “when you think of it, we shouldn't even have an election.”

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36209031)

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fiv...mp-2026-01-15/

This bodes well…

Spoken like a real dictator. I am so awesome who needs elections:erm:

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36209033)

Spoken like a real dictator.

You didnt need the 'tator' bit ;)

Re: President Trump 2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36209033)

Spoken like a real dictator. I am so awesome who needs elections:erm:

Especially ones that it looks like my party will lose, biggly!