Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

3 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Man who claims he's been libelled persistently repeats in public that the BBC is corrupt and fake news.

I do hope he sues them, his case will be a car crash that'll cost him millions. 🍿

Its optics. 

How many frivolous lawsuits have they said they'd do but don't. 

His followers will believe it regardless.

I'm still waiting on Melania's lawsuit against Hunter Biden to start in court....

[CB Fry]

Nice to see the GB News free-speech warriors crawling and fawning at the feet of the President.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Man who claims he's been libelled persistently repeats in public that the BBC is corrupt and fake news.

I do hope he sues them, his case will be a car crash that'll cost him millions. 🍿

I would be a hoot to see him awarded $1.00 damages with no costs. Given that he defames himself on a daily basis it’s hard to see how he can make a case though. Perhaps those people in America who don’t wear red caps should sue him every time he tells them lies?

[Willo of Whiteley]

The fact that this thread is called “the Donald Trump Appreciation Thread” has turned pretty sick.

Who out there is still a supporter of his?

[egg]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I would be a hoot to see him awarded $1.00 damages with no costs. Given that he defames himself on a daily basis it’s hard to see how he can make a case though. Perhaps those people in America who don’t wear red caps should sue him every time he tells them lies?

Litigation in a Red state is likely to favour the Republican boss man I'd imagine. 

To be fair to Trump, and as ridiculous as his financial expectations are, that was a disgraceful piece of editing, and the explanation given by the BBC is disingenuous. They need to settle. 

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

Litigation in a Red state is likely to favour the Republican boss man I'd imagine. 

To be fair to Trump, and as ridiculous as his financial expectations are, that was a disgraceful piece of editing, and the explanation given by the BBC is disingenuous. They need to settle. 

Would you be happy for your licence fee to be paid to Trump ? After all, it is us who will end up paying any compensation.

Edited 8 hours ago by badgerx16

[egg]

48 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Would you be happy for your licence fee to be paid to Trump ? After all, it is us who will end up paying any compensation.

I don't want anything to go to the idiot, but, the BBC got that very wrong. They'd inevitably lose any litigation in a red state imo, so settlement is the least worst option. 

[spyinthesky]

Trump and his businesses were involved in around around 4,000 legal cases in the USA before becoming President and since then has been involved in more high profile cases against media outlets.

All this comes from Trump's association with a lawyer and mentor who taught Trump to use the legal system aggressively by attacking, changing the subject and making accusations.

This scattergun policy is not too successful as apparently Trump loses around 90% of the cases he is involved in although like a committed gambler he only promotes the big cases he manages to win.

I wonder what would have happened if Barack (Hussein) Obama had asked for an apology plus millions of $$$ compo for reputational damage as a consequence of Trump's accusation that Obama was not born in the USA.

[egg]

20 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

Trump and his businesses were involved in around around 4,000 legal cases in the USA before becoming President and since then has been involved in more high profile cases against media outlets.

All this comes from Trump's association with a lawyer and mentor who taught Trump to use the legal system aggressively by attacking, changing the subject and making accusations.

This scattergun policy is not too successful as apparently Trump loses around 90% of the cases he is involved in although like a committed gambler he only promotes the big cases he manages to win.

I wonder what would have happened if Barack (Hussein) Obama had asked for an apology plus millions of $$$ compo for reputational damage as a consequence of Trump's accusation that Obama was not born in the USA.

That only serves it highlight the stupidity of splicing different sections of his words together to create a different impression. 

I despise Trump, but, the BBC got this very wrong. 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I don't want anything to go to the idiot, but, the BBC got that very wrong. They'd inevitably lose any litigation in a red state imo, so settlement is the least worst option. 

The legal experts they have wheeled out so far say that he is unlikely to win the case, so why settle?

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

The legal experts they have wheeled out so far say that he is unlikely to win the case, so why settle?

Because it will remain incredibly embarrassing if drawn out for the self-proclaimed world's most trusted news outlet.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

The fact that this thread is called “the Donald Trump Appreciation Thread” has turned pretty sick.

Who out there is still a supporter of his?

Strangely, there are still some left here.

[egg]

33 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The legal experts they have wheeled out so far say that he is unlikely to win the case, so why settle?

I think you're looking for what you want to see.

They can roll the dice and fight if they want, that's their call but they have a duty to the license payer and will need to do a proper risk analysis. 

[sadoldgit]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

I think you're looking for what you want to see.

They can roll the dice and fight if they want, that's their call but they have a duty to the license payer and will need to do a proper risk analysis. 

Not really, I am only repeating what I have read and what I have heard.

This was the first article talking about the issues Trump would have to overcome to win. Given that he won the election, he will have a problem in proving that a programme that want broadcast in the USA damaged his reputation. A reputation that is already severely tarnished by the way.

He is doing what he always does. The same old bullying tactics of throwing huge numbers at people to force them to settle. The New York Times are standing up to him, so should the BBC. It is not as if he didn’t say those words and he has to prove that the programme acted with malice. They could argue that they had just reduced his very long speech to the salient points and no malice was intended. The fact that he was actually indicted for insurrection will also play against him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c709y1yx1r0o.amp

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/11/12/would-trumps-1bn-lawsuit-against-the-bbc-hold-up-in-court

Edited 5 hours ago by sadoldgit
Added text

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Because it will remain incredibly embarrassing if drawn out for the self-proclaimed world's most trusted news outlet.

No point settling already. Where will the case happen? Would you expect a US law to have jurisdiction over a UK entity?

Plus I think if a case is brought forward here, Trump will need to show he's suffered considerably...

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Because it will remain incredibly embarrassing if drawn out for the self-proclaimed world's most trusted news outlet.

The worry for the BBC is if this is common practice. Someplace, somewhere somebody is meticulously checking through the speeches of all high profile politicians and how they were portrayed on Newsnight or Panorama.... 

[egg]

10 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

No point settling already. Where will the case happen? Would you expect a US law to have jurisdiction over a UK entity?

Plus I think if a case is brought forward here, Trump will need to show he's suffered considerably...

It'll be Florida, a red state. 

The BBC must consider the nuisance value. Christ not what to US lawyers for an unknown outcome. If they lose, it's the embarrassment, plus the damages, plus his legal fees. There's also the minor issue of our state broadcaster going toe to toe with the US president. 

Personally, I think a court in a red state will look at that and see malice. Let's face it, on any assessment, they didn't edit it like they did with good intentions, and they knew full well that they massively changed the context of hks words. 

It'll settle. 

[badgerx16]

The Great Orange Man Baby is now targetting Marjorie Taylor-Greene, saying she has gone 'far left' and calling her "wacky" because she says he is not focussing enough on domestic policies, and she is calling for the full release of the Epstein files.

Edited 3 hours ago by badgerx16

[egg]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Not really, I am only repeating what I have read and what I have heard.

This was the first article talking about the issues Trump would have to overcome to win. Given that he won the election, he will have a problem in proving that a programme that want broadcast in the USA damaged his reputation. A reputation that is already severely tarnished by the way.

He is doing what he always does. The same old bullying tactics of throwing huge numbers at people to force them to settle. The New York Times are standing up to him, so should the BBC. It is not as if he didn’t say those words and he has to prove that the programme acted with malice. They could argue that they had just reduced his very long speech to the salient points and no malice was intended. The fact that he was actually indicted for insurrection will also play against him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c709y1yx1r0o.amp

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/11/12/would-trumps-1bn-lawsuit-against-the-bbc-hold-up-in-court

The short response is that I think malice is arguable. If not malicious, what was the intention of that piece of editing? 

Edited 3 hours ago by egg

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

Nuisance value? Who is gonna care. BBC should grow a pair and say do it. Come to the UK and see what happens.

I dont give a shit what a Florida law court is going to say.

It all happened in the UK, so not sure why you're getting fixated. Considering it wasn't broadcast in the US. Only available to geolocation wise in the UK and it didn't impact on Trump gaining presidency. 

The guy throws out a lawsuit every other week. He'll move unless the BBC bends over.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Nuisance value? Who is gonna care. BBC should grow a pair and say do it. Come to the UK and see what happens.

I dont give a shit what a Florida law court is going to say.

It all happened in the UK, so not sure why you're getting fixated. Considering it wasn't broadcast in the US. Only available to geolocation wise in the UK and it didn't impact on Trump gaining presidency. 

The guy throws out a lawsuit every other week. He'll move unless the BBC bends over.

Of only it was that simple, otherwise the PM would not be getting involved.

this is the stage broadcaster, not GB News are the Guardian.

Trump is clearly wanting to teach the Been a lesson, and given recent history, about time someone did

[egg]

Just now, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Nuisance value? Who is gonna care. BBC should grow a pair and say do it. Come to the UK and see what happens.

I dont give a shit what a Florida law court is going to say.

It all happened in the UK, so not sure why you're getting fixated. Considering it wasn't broadcast in the US. Only available to geolocation wise in the UK and it didn't impact on Trump gaining presidency. 

The guy throws out a lawsuit every other week. He'll move unless the BBC bends over.

Nuisance value is a term used in litigation to refer to the legal costs, time and aggravation of fighting a case. In addition to that, there's the litigation risk, ie the risk of losing, and what that looks like. 

If the BBC are looking at £10m in legal fees to defend a potential loser, that's part of the nuisance value. 

I'm with you completely on the spread of the article, and any reputational loss. 

Personally I think it'll settle, unless Starmer can have some sway.

Let's see what happens - we can all speculate differently. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Nuisance value is a term used in litigation to refer to the legal costs, time and aggravation of fighting a case. In addition to that, there's the litigation risk, ie the risk of losing, and what that looks like. 

If the BBC are looking at £10m in legal fees to defend a potential loser, that's part of the nuisance value. 

I'm with you completely on the spread of the article, and any reputational loss. 

Personally I think it'll settle, unless Starmer can have some sway.

Let's see what happens - we can all speculate differently. 

Ah, didn't know about the nuisance value term used in that context.

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Of only it was that simple, otherwise the PM would not be getting involved.

this is the stage broadcaster, not GB News are the Guardian.

Trump is clearly wanting to teach the Been a lesson, and given recent history, about time someone did

Teach them a lesson, disagree. They've already apologised and reached out to Trump.

People have resigned even though shows are all commissioned. Could have they checked the footage more closely maybe so. Maybe it will ensure that they raise their standards. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Teach them a lesson, disagree. They've already apologised and reached out to Trump.

People have resigned even though shows are all commissioned. Could have they checked the footage more closely maybe so. Maybe it will ensure that they raise their standards. 

Apologised? Those at the top knew since Jan but said nothing. 

There have been too much wrong at the BBC, which would have finished other broadcasters.

Raising of standards should never be an ask, want or need, for an organisation like that.

[whelk]

Who needs experts when you have Saintsweb. And pussies saying settle - lol

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-to-push-ahead-with-bbc-lawsuit-three-experts-on-why-he-might-struggle-to-win-13470828

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Apologised? Those at the top knew since Jan but said nothing. 

There have been too much wrong at the BBC, which would have finished other broadcasters.

Raising of standards should never be an ask, want or need, for an organisation like that.

The BBC should operate to a very high standard and when things go wrong its right that people expect transparency and accountability. But expecting perfection from any large organisation sets a bar that no broadcaster, public or private could ever meet. 

The BBC has its faults but it also operates under intense scrutiny and tends to face consequences and reforms in a way many other broadcasters dont.

Its fair to demand high standards- just not realistic to assume there never will be mistakes. What counts is how they deal with them.

Anyway those who dont pay a tv licence, what do they have to moan about?

[Willo of Whiteley]

I find it so fucked up that there are Americans out there that still support/back Donald Trump.

Likewise I find it mental that there are supporters of Nigel Farage, who in turn is a supporter of Donald Trump that still back him.

It’s such a messed up world.

What kind of humans are these people?

[egg]

23 minutes ago, whelk said:

Who needs experts when you have Saintsweb. And pussies saying settle - lol

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-to-push-ahead-with-bbc-lawsuit-three-experts-on-why-he-might-struggle-to-win-13470828

None of that considers the legal fees. The BBC are looking at $10m + to defend a claim. Lose, they pay his fees, and any damages. They won't want the risk, and my guess is they'll look to settle at a level below their likely legal fees.  Let's see if the BBC are "pussies". 

 

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The Great Orange Man Baby is now targetting Marjorie Taylor-Greene, saying she has gone 'far left' and calling her "wacky" because she says he is not focussing enough on domestic policies, and she is calling for the full release of the Epstein files.

It shows the toxicity of the man and his lickspittles.  MTG is a monumentally terrible hag, but up to now has been one of man baby’s chief cheerleaders. 

Trump reminds me of one or two morons on here, the likes of who consistently throw out terms like “nazi, socialist, far right” yet clearly don’t have a clue what the term actually means.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by The Kraken