|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States24565 Posts
I think a lot of people who say they support a second Trump presidency but don't view him as the genius some of his MAGA supporters do simply see him as a useful idiot who can be guided by competent advisors to take various policy actions that conservatives like, such as appointing favorable SCOTUS judges, implementing fiscally conservative rules changes, and putting the breaks on perceived out-of-control socially liberal program expansions. To me it seems like a tunnel-vision approach, though.
|
his advisors were largely unqualified cronies and his even less qualified children. those who were qualified he loudly and proudly acted directly against their advice. otherwise that would generally be a very reasonable perspective for such a person to have.
|
On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here.
Yes, I remember when the Dems intentionally elevated Mastriano in the PA governor race. Specifically I believe they ran an ad equating Mastriano to Trump during the primary (presumably so Trump-loving Republicans would vote for him). I know that really upset you, I recognize the grievance in play.
What’s that got to do with this though? The DNC isn’t charging Trump with felonies to elevate him because the DNC isn’t a law enforcement agency. Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis and the DOJ aren’t charging Trump as part of some grand scheme to manipulate the Republican presidential primary, they’re doing it because it’s their job to decide what conduct in their jurisdiction rises to the level to merit criminal charges. In Bragg’s case I can see why you’d think he chose poorly, and I appreciate you throwing out a “but her emails” for old times’ sake, but foundationally, you either think Trump should be above the law or he shouldn’t be. If he shouldn’t be, he’s entitled to his day in court like anybody else but it’s transparently obvious some of his actions merit criminal charges.
+ Show Spoiler [aside] +I dug up the post I was thinking of. It was actually that they were too mean to Mike Flynn, so you didn’t “want to hear complaints about” Trump failing to peacefully transfer power. On November 26 2020 13:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 11:50 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 11:33 Introvert wrote:
Took a thread break, but just have to express my happiness that Flynn was pardoned. Besides Trump himself, he may have been the first and most wronged individual coming out of the Russian Collusion nonsense. At the very least that injustice will not be allowed to stand. He was literally an agent of a foreign government and advancing their interests over American interests as national security advisor? What reality are you from? He’s guilty of a capital offence. They should have hanged him. And even if that story is 100% accurate that has what to do with the farce of trying to first get him on the Logan Act (good idea, Joe Biden!). They were clearly out to get him from the very start. Another reason I don't want to hear complaints about "peaceful transitions of power." The last president hobbled the current one from before he was even sworn in. This is a good day.
The fact you would eagerly inflict another Trump term on the entire country as punishment against various media, politicians, and law enforcement agencies you have grievances against is illuminating though. Supporting Trump (especially in his “vermin” and “blood poisoning” phase) is less puzzling if you were already, independently, a believer in collective punishment.
|
On December 20 2023 18:25 King_Charles_III wrote:
US political debates these days are quite something. The two sides' echo chambers are so, so far apart in the facts they cover and the narratives that result. When you actually expose yourself to all of the raw facts, the echo-chamber narratives crumble very quickly. But don't tell that to the narrative adherents.
Then when you throw Donald Trump into that mix you get a true powder keg. It's actually a civil war risk and don't take it from me, take it from the FBI. I'm not kidding when I say, get yourself some prepper essentials.
The funny thing is, this comment is so vacuous and devoid of details, that both Kwark and Introvert could confidently look at it and say "absolutely, the other guy can't see beyond his echo chamber".
Only one of them would be right. I'm not telling who though 
|
On December 20 2023 16:14 KwarK wrote:
The NY case is already over. The judge already ruled on the fraud. He did it.
That is the nice thing of doing lots of criminal stuff all over the place.
People get them confused, and since there is always a trial going on, it feels as if the lawsuits never end and never go anywhere, because if they went somewhere, then they wouldn't still be ongoing.
So all these trials which never go anywhere must prove that it is all just political theater.
|
On December 20 2023 19:04 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. I'd like to understand the underlined part better. Could you elaborate on what the Dems failed to do that would - in their minds - prevent the deconstruction of democracy? What things would they do if they actually believed the threat was real? What are they (not) doing instead? I'm asking mainly for concrete examples of their failure to act.
They focus obsessively on every little thing and flood the zone with noise instead of making their strongest case in a calm and passionate manner. It's more rage than anything.
Second, they would moderate in an attempt to "save democracy." Instesd, their posture throughout the Trump years was "Trump is a fascist so you have to vote for us no matter what else we believe." Thst might be a Kwarkian attitude but it wouldn't be a very productive one.
Third, they would cease elevating Trump-adjacent pols in an effort to run against them. Clearly, at least to me, such maneuvers are cynical and undermine the urgent threat they profess Trump and his acolytes to be.
On December 20 2023 22:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. Yes, I remember when the Dems intentionally elevated Mastriano in the PA governor race. Specifically I believe they ran an ad equating Mastriano to Trump during the primary (presumably so Trump-loving Republicans would vote for him). I know that really upset you, I recognize the grievance in play. What’s that got to do with this though? The DNC isn’t charging Trump with felonies to elevate him because the DNC isn’t a law enforcement agency. Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis and the DOJ aren’t charging Trump as part of some grand scheme to manipulate the Republican presidential primary, they’re doing it because it’s their job to decide what conduct in their jurisdiction rises to the level to merit criminal charges. In Bragg’s case I can see why you’d think he chose poorly, and I appreciate you throwing out a “but her emails” for old times’ sake, but foundationally, you either think Trump should be above the law or he shouldn’t be. If he shouldn’t be, he’s entitled to his day in court like anybody else but it’s transparently obvious some of his actions merit criminal charges. + Show Spoiler [aside] +I dug up the post I was thinking of. It was actually that they were too mean to Mike Flynn, so you didn’t “want to hear complaints about” Trump failing to peacefully transfer power. On November 26 2020 13:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 11:50 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 11:33 Introvert wrote:
Took a thread break, but just have to express my happiness that Flynn was pardoned. Besides Trump himself, he may have been the first and most wronged individual coming out of the Russian Collusion nonsense. At the very least that injustice will not be allowed to stand. He was literally an agent of a foreign government and advancing their interests over American interests as national security advisor? What reality are you from? He’s guilty of a capital offence. They should have hanged him. And even if that story is 100% accurate that has what to do with the farce of trying to first get him on the Logan Act (good idea, Joe Biden!). They were clearly out to get him from the very start. Another reason I don't want to hear complaints about "peaceful transitions of power." The last president hobbled the current one from before he was even sworn in. This is a good day. The fact you would eagerly inflict another Trump term on the entire country as punishment against various media, politicians, and law enforcement agencies you have grievances against is illuminating though. Supporting Trump (especially in his “vermin” and “blood poisoning” phase) is less puzzling if you were already, independently, a believer in collective punishment.
Both Bragg and Willis are elected officers and are 100% acting out with political motivations. Sorry, I don't give them the ebenefit of the doubt, esp since I think Bragg campaigned on getting Trump. There is a reason his predecessor declined that case (and Bragg initially didn't want to bring it either once elected, but faced an internal staff revolt).
That quote of mine doesn't say what you think it says. Flynn was railroaded, even if he shouldn't have been nat sec advisor. The "resistance" inside the FBI and DOJ used their powers to go after him just for being Trump's guy. So yes, that's reason 254748 why I'm not interested in hearing about dictatorship and fascism from dems.
****
As a quick note wrt to Trumps's continued popularity. The issue is a lot of Republicans thought he was a good president and thought life was better under him, so they are going to pick him again. Some might be "own the libs" but for the normal voters it really is that simple. I wish it wasn't, but it is.
|
United States41942 Posts
We couldn’t buy toilet paper or go outside under Trump.
His slow and contrarian reactions to COVID literally caused tens of thousands of Americans to die.
He fucked the export farming industry on a whim based on a misunderstanding of what a balance of trade is. Congress had to bail them out at a cost of $37b. The advisor on this was some guy Jared found on Amazon by searching for keywords “China” and “Trade”.
He signed a peace deal with the Taliban that gave them permission to take over Afghanistan after trillions were spent taking it.
One day in 2018 he woke up and suddenly announced that the banks had enough liquid reserves to make it through the day. The markets promptly crashed because they assumed they were being assured because there was some reason to doubt the stability of the banking system. Nobody has ever worked out why he did that.
He propped the economy up by flooding it with cheap borrowing, despite the central bank repeatedly issuing warnings that interest rates had been too low for too long. His inability to understand that value and valuations are different things made him approach the problem with a “how make line go up” approach that devalued the dollar. Every time Powell tried to change course Trump threatened him on Twitter (and Powell to his shame gave in to that pressure) which directly led to the inflation and interest rates we see today. As always we see the Democrats taking one for the team and fixing Republican mistakes.
He unilaterally withdrew from the Iran deal without understanding that it was a multilateral deal and that the US did not have the power to end it alone. The result was that Iran had permission to cease compliance without facing the international coalition intended to police noncompliance. This did Iran a favour, separating their primary adversary from the rest of the coalition.
He increased the national debt by 39.2%. 7.8t/19.9t for anyone checking. This was after an election pledge to actually pay the whole thing off, possibly by selling Alaska. This contrasts with the four preceding Obama years and an increase of 19%.
His naked idiocy, incompetence, and narcissism led to a devastating loss in international prestige. We witnessed American allies openly laughing at him in the UN, the leaders of Scandinavia getting together to make meme photo shoots parodying him and the Saudi orb, NATO members offering to teach him maths in response to his accusations. He, and therefore the United States, was treated as a joke throughout his presidency because there was no other way to treat it. One morning he woke up and declared to the world that he and Kim Jong Un had been exchanging letters and that those letters had caused him to fall in love with the North Korean dictator. This wasn’t accompanied by any new policy shifts or alignments, he just really wanted to share the news.
He passed a tax bill in the name of simplifying taxes that pledged to make the 1040 one page. This was accomplished by adding new mandatory supporting schedules to contain all the stuff previously on page 2. The tax bill gave huge amounts of relief to the rich while offering short term reductions to working Americans. It was balanced by asserting that if it caused infinite growth then it would cause infinite revenues and therefore pay for itself. It did not, in fact, cause infinite growth.
These are the first few that spring to mind but the more I think the more of them there are. The country would be objectively better off had there been no president in the Trump years. Everything good would have happened anyway and most of the bad could have been avoided.
Remember when he walked onto Air Force One with toilet roll streaming from his shoe? When he walked on with an umbrella but couldn’t work out how to close it and so just tossed it into the wind for the Secret Service to chase? When he couldn’t make it to a D-Day anniversary memorial in France because of the rain? When he misspoke about where a hurricane would make landfall and then had the national weather service change their prediction to agree with him using a sharpie?
|
It’s funny, because you use “that’s reason 254748” as a rhetorical flourish to suggest how bountiful the reasons are, but the implication is that you’ve been carefully curating and cataloguing grievances so long that 254748 is the internal ID number you’ve assigned “prosecuting Mike Flynn” in your filing system. It’s meant to sound absurd and fanciful, but aside from actually assigning things ID numbers, that’s basically what’s happening!
You’re not actually addressing the underlying point, anyway. I know Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis are (local) elected officials. But you’re not just saying “I think they’re doing a bad job and should lose their jobs.” I might even agree with that! But no, you’ve got red string on a corkboard tying Alvin Bragg to “the Dems” generally, such that you can say “the Dems” are trying for this bullshit prosecution on the basis of some arcane jurisdictional and statute of limitations details. Then if the DOJ brings another indictment you don’t even need to consider the facts of that case because as far as you’re concerned, they’re also “the Dems,” and “the Dems” have already shown you their true colors.
The result is that Trump is promising to exterminate the vermin, and explicitly saying he’s going to have to be a dictator for a little while, and you have no problems because anybody Trump targets will already be “the Dems,” and in your mind “the Dems” have already been tried and found guilty. I’m over here just a guy trying to live his life who doesn’t love the idea of living through a reign of terror, but you’re “not interested in hearing about” it because merely by expressing that opinion I’m automatically tied in with red string. If I *do* suffer under a Trump reign of terror, it’ll be just desserts for my crimes against Mike Flynn (among at least 254747 other counts I’m already found guilty of).
|
On December 21 2023 00:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 19:04 Magic Powers wrote:On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. I'd like to understand the underlined part better. Could you elaborate on what the Dems failed to do that would - in their minds - prevent the deconstruction of democracy? What things would they do if they actually believed the threat was real? What are they (not) doing instead? I'm asking mainly for concrete examples of their failure to act. They focus obsessively on every little thing and flood the zone with noise instead of making their strongest case in a calm and passionate manner. It's more rage than anything. Second, they would moderate in an attempt to "save democracy." Instesd, their posture throughout the Trump years was "Trump is a fascist so you have to vote for us no matter what else we believe." Thst might be a Kwarkian attitude but it wouldn't be a very productive one. Third, they would cease elevating Trump-adjacent pols in an effort to run against them. Clearly, at least to me, such maneuvers are cynical and undermine the urgent threat they profess Trump and his acolytes to be. Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 22:44 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. Yes, I remember when the Dems intentionally elevated Mastriano in the PA governor race. Specifically I believe they ran an ad equating Mastriano to Trump during the primary (presumably so Trump-loving Republicans would vote for him). I know that really upset you, I recognize the grievance in play. What’s that got to do with this though? The DNC isn’t charging Trump with felonies to elevate him because the DNC isn’t a law enforcement agency. Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis and the DOJ aren’t charging Trump as part of some grand scheme to manipulate the Republican presidential primary, they’re doing it because it’s their job to decide what conduct in their jurisdiction rises to the level to merit criminal charges. In Bragg’s case I can see why you’d think he chose poorly, and I appreciate you throwing out a “but her emails” for old times’ sake, but foundationally, you either think Trump should be above the law or he shouldn’t be. If he shouldn’t be, he’s entitled to his day in court like anybody else but it’s transparently obvious some of his actions merit criminal charges. + Show Spoiler [aside] +I dug up the post I was thinking of. It was actually that they were too mean to Mike Flynn, so you didn’t “want to hear complaints about” Trump failing to peacefully transfer power. On November 26 2020 13:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 11:50 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 11:33 Introvert wrote:
Took a thread break, but just have to express my happiness that Flynn was pardoned. Besides Trump himself, he may have been the first and most wronged individual coming out of the Russian Collusion nonsense. At the very least that injustice will not be allowed to stand. He was literally an agent of a foreign government and advancing their interests over American interests as national security advisor? What reality are you from? He’s guilty of a capital offence. They should have hanged him. And even if that story is 100% accurate that has what to do with the farce of trying to first get him on the Logan Act (good idea, Joe Biden!). They were clearly out to get him from the very start. Another reason I don't want to hear complaints about "peaceful transitions of power." The last president hobbled the current one from before he was even sworn in. This is a good day. The fact you would eagerly inflict another Trump term on the entire country as punishment against various media, politicians, and law enforcement agencies you have grievances against is illuminating though. Supporting Trump (especially in his “vermin” and “blood poisoning” phase) is less puzzling if you were already, independently, a believer in collective punishment. Both Bragg and Willis are elected officers and are 100% acting out with political motivations. Sorry, I don't give them the ebenefit of the doubt, esp since I think Bragg campaigned on getting Trump. There is a reason his predecessor declined that case (and Bragg initially didn't want to bring it either once elected, but faced an internal staff revolt). That quote of mine doesn't say what you think it says. Flynn was railroaded, even if he shouldn't have been nat sec advisor. The "resistance" inside the FBI and DOJ used their powers to go after him just for being Trump's guy. So yes, that's reason 254748 why I'm not interested in hearing about dictatorship and fascism from dems. **** As a quick note wrt to Trumps's continued popularity. The issue is a lot of Republicans thought he was a good president and thought life was better under him, so they are going to pick him again. Some might be "own the libs" but for the normal voters it really is that simple. I wish it wasn't, but it is.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond, however I find the answer lacking. I was asking for concrete examples, meaning specific things that the Dems did or didn't do. Specific votes, specific policies, either of specific members of the DNC (and perhaps the RNC if necessary) or of the party at large. Recorded actions that can be traced back and understood in the context of history. I'm not asking for a summary of their actions, but for a select few examples that I can then look up and research to see what exactly went down, and how that relates to their express fear of the deconstruction of democracy in the US.
|
On December 21 2023 00:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 19:04 Magic Powers wrote:On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. I'd like to understand the underlined part better. Could you elaborate on what the Dems failed to do that would - in their minds - prevent the deconstruction of democracy? What things would they do if they actually believed the threat was real? What are they (not) doing instead? I'm asking mainly for concrete examples of their failure to act. They focus obsessively on every little thing and flood the zone with noise instead of making their strongest case in a calm and passionate manner. It's more rage than anything. Second, they would moderate in an attempt to "save democracy." Instesd, their posture throughout the Trump years was "Trump is a fascist so you have to vote for us no matter what else we believe." Thst might be a Kwarkian attitude but it wouldn't be a very productive one. Third, they would cease elevating Trump-adjacent pols in an effort to run against them. Clearly, at least to me, such maneuvers are cynical and undermine the urgent threat they profess Trump and his acolytes to be. Show nested quote +On December 20 2023 22:44 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. Yes, I remember when the Dems intentionally elevated Mastriano in the PA governor race. Specifically I believe they ran an ad equating Mastriano to Trump during the primary (presumably so Trump-loving Republicans would vote for him). I know that really upset you, I recognize the grievance in play. What’s that got to do with this though? The DNC isn’t charging Trump with felonies to elevate him because the DNC isn’t a law enforcement agency. Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis and the DOJ aren’t charging Trump as part of some grand scheme to manipulate the Republican presidential primary, they’re doing it because it’s their job to decide what conduct in their jurisdiction rises to the level to merit criminal charges. In Bragg’s case I can see why you’d think he chose poorly, and I appreciate you throwing out a “but her emails” for old times’ sake, but foundationally, you either think Trump should be above the law or he shouldn’t be. If he shouldn’t be, he’s entitled to his day in court like anybody else but it’s transparently obvious some of his actions merit criminal charges. + Show Spoiler [aside] +I dug up the post I was thinking of. It was actually that they were too mean to Mike Flynn, so you didn’t “want to hear complaints about” Trump failing to peacefully transfer power. On November 26 2020 13:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 11:50 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 11:33 Introvert wrote:
Took a thread break, but just have to express my happiness that Flynn was pardoned. Besides Trump himself, he may have been the first and most wronged individual coming out of the Russian Collusion nonsense. At the very least that injustice will not be allowed to stand. He was literally an agent of a foreign government and advancing their interests over American interests as national security advisor? What reality are you from? He’s guilty of a capital offence. They should have hanged him. And even if that story is 100% accurate that has what to do with the farce of trying to first get him on the Logan Act (good idea, Joe Biden!). They were clearly out to get him from the very start. Another reason I don't want to hear complaints about "peaceful transitions of power." The last president hobbled the current one from before he was even sworn in. This is a good day. The fact you would eagerly inflict another Trump term on the entire country as punishment against various media, politicians, and law enforcement agencies you have grievances against is illuminating though. Supporting Trump (especially in his “vermin” and “blood poisoning” phase) is less puzzling if you were already, independently, a believer in collective punishment. As a quick note wrt to Trumps's continued popularity. The issue is a lot of Republicans thought he was a good president and thought life was better under him, so they are going to pick him again. Some might be "own the libs" but for the normal voters it really is that simple. I wish it wasn't, but it is.
This is a perfect example of why its so endlessly fustrating to talk with trump supporters. Nothing Trump did was disqualifying to them nor was it anything wrong enough to them to not vote for him. You can't have empathy for people who are so moraly dead inside that they take everything trump did and go "yeah he was great".
Remember when he gassed protestors and a church just so he could take a photo in front of said church of him holding a bible upside down? People who call themselves Christians look at that and don't see a problem at all.
|
United States41942 Posts
One of the many things that annoys me is that they take a very long history of criminality where Trump got a free pass specifically because it was viewed as politically controversial to prosecute him and decide that the one time he didn’t was persecution.
Trump has objectively broken a great many laws. I don’t think there is much dispute over the facts there. He’s on record arguing with his lawyers for the destruction of evidence under a Federal subpoena. He’s on record lying in official documents. He’s on record stealing from charity foundations. He’s on record committing tax fraud. The list goes on.
Yet the DoJ refused to deal with it because he’s also a politician and they wanted to avoid the perception of political bias, despite the fact that making Trump above the law because he’s the Republican candidate is political bias.
So we get to the absurd point where Trump is trying to impress Kid Rock by showing him secret Iran invasion plans that he stole from the government and literally all the FBI does is ask Trump if he wouldn’t mind giving them back. And instead Trump engages in another criminal conspiracy to keep them. And so they show up and take them back, then say “we got all of them, right?” And Trump engages in yet another criminal conspiracy and instructs his lawyers to say “yes” while instructing others to conceal the documents. And so the FBI asks for the security footage. And then Trump instructs his IT team to delete the footage and jokes, on record, that it’s going to the same place as Hillary’s emails.
And on and on and on and it won’t ever stop and the conservative victim mentality won’t ever acknowledge this because conservatives, as a group, are fundamentally incapable of telling the difference between persecution and an end of legal privilege.
It’s the craziest fucking doublethink. Even Kid Rock was like “hey man, I don’t think I’m allowed to see these”. Trump is on tape in an interview telling a journalist that he’s not legally allowed to show her the documents he was actively showing her. But it’s also somehow a witch-hunt.
|
I also love the complaints about "weaponizing the DoJ" and Trumps prosecution complex when he literally got elected on promising to imprison his political opponent.
|
|
|
On December 21 2023 05:52 JimmiC wrote:
I've been thinking about the supreme courts up coming decision on Trump and I think strategically for the Republicans it makes sense for them to rule Trump out. This would allow them to claim that the Supreme court is not in their pocket. It would allow them to run less of a insane candidate and one that will further their parties goals while keeping basically all the Trump voters, since they didn't choose to not have him, the candidate promises can even promise to pardon Trump. This would fire up his base and the general Republicans because those who love Trump are really mad and those who are holding their nose up or not voting now can.
Basically it gives the Reps all the positives Trump gives them without all the baggage.
I don't think this would get to Trump voters.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23754 Posts
On December 21 2023 06:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 06:09 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 21 2023 05:52 JimmiC wrote:
I've been thinking about the supreme courts up coming decision on Trump and I think strategically for the Republicans it makes sense for them to rule Trump out. This would allow them to claim that the Supreme court is not in their pocket. It would allow them to run less of a insane candidate and one that will further their parties goals while keeping basically all the Trump voters, since they didn't choose to not have him, the candidate promises can even promise to pardon Trump. This would fire up his base and the general Republicans because those who love Trump are really mad and those who are holding their nose up or not voting now can.
Basically it gives the Reps all the positives Trump gives them without all the baggage. I don't think this would get to Trump voters. I don't understand what you mean. You think if Trump is held off the ballot they won't rally behind the guy blaming the Dems and promising a pardon and scorched earth?
Such a hypothetical person isn’t Trump though. Your plan makes logical sense to me trying to put myself in someone else’s shoes, and on paper to me, equally the appeal of the man has always been unfathomable to me anyway, so how such folks would actually react is liable to be a complete mystery to me too.
|
On December 21 2023 06:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 06:09 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 21 2023 05:52 JimmiC wrote:
I've been thinking about the supreme courts up coming decision on Trump and I think strategically for the Republicans it makes sense for them to rule Trump out. This would allow them to claim that the Supreme court is not in their pocket. It would allow them to run less of a insane candidate and one that will further their parties goals while keeping basically all the Trump voters, since they didn't choose to not have him, the candidate promises can even promise to pardon Trump. This would fire up his base and the general Republicans because those who love Trump are really mad and those who are holding their nose up or not voting now can.
Basically it gives the Reps all the positives Trump gives them without all the baggage. I don't think this would get to Trump voters. I don't understand what you mean. You think if Trump is held off the ballot they won't rally behind the guy blaming the Dems and promising a pardon and scorched earth?
I think the GOP voters would rally behind whoever the nom is but independent voters wouldn't vote for the guy whose running on pardoning a traitor to the country. If Trump is convicted in one of his criminal trials or if SCOTUS decides he can be left off ballots, the GOP loses 2024 full stop.
|
And there is the question of how much scorched earth does Trump engage in in that scenario.
Lets remember that the original ruling was that Trump was guilty of insurrection but that section 3 doesn't cover a former-President. And Trump appealed that despite technically winning because his ego can't accept that he is guilty of insurrection. If the SC were to rule that Trump is guilty then surely that is going to have massive repercussions for his other lawsuits around the election and particularly Jan 6th.
Sure the GOP could promise to pardon Trump but considering the charges over his head and that fact, well..., he is Trump. I don't see him going quietly into the night on a hope and a prayer that not only does the GOP actually win the 2024 election, that they also then proceed to keep him out of jail for the rest of his life. (plus he can't be federally pardoned for state crimes)
|
|
|
On December 21 2023 07:16 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 06:11 JimmiC wrote:On December 21 2023 06:09 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 21 2023 05:52 JimmiC wrote:
I've been thinking about the supreme courts up coming decision on Trump and I think strategically for the Republicans it makes sense for them to rule Trump out. This would allow them to claim that the Supreme court is not in their pocket. It would allow them to run less of a insane candidate and one that will further their parties goals while keeping basically all the Trump voters, since they didn't choose to not have him, the candidate promises can even promise to pardon Trump. This would fire up his base and the general Republicans because those who love Trump are really mad and those who are holding their nose up or not voting now can.
Basically it gives the Reps all the positives Trump gives them without all the baggage. I don't think this would get to Trump voters. I don't understand what you mean. You think if Trump is held off the ballot they won't rally behind the guy blaming the Dems and promising a pardon and scorched earth? I think the GOP voters would rally behind whoever the nom is but independent voters wouldn't vote for the guy whose running on pardoning a traitor to the country. If Trump is convicted in one of his criminal trials or if SCOTUS decides he can be left off ballots, the GOP loses 2024 full stop.
I think this is somewhat common misunderstanding. It is just overall impression I got from some random tweets (sorry I dont store them, so unable to provide links), but Trump voters arent Republican voters, they are Trump voters. From what I've seen it seems their issue is that many (if not all) in Republican party are RINO (similarly as BRINO in UK - dunno which came first) and they arent willing to do, or change anything, beside maybe writing strongly worded letter. This touches a bit on discussion I had with Kwark in EU thread and overall GH stance - people think system doesnt work (for them). Some withdraw like GH and some trying to make it work (or break, or express their dismay, or whatever else), for those that didnt withdraw, Trump is kinda like a rallying point - somewhat outsider in political system so they believe him when he promises to change things. It is worth noting that at the same time when Trump show up also Bernie had massive surge. This year Kennedy wasnt doing bad in polls, despite running against sitting president and against party wishes, more so I've seen many Trump voters (again random tweets so cant provide links) claiming that their dream team would be Trump + Kennedy as his running mate - does that seem like people who will vote republicans?
Dems do not help themselves having generally Kwark attitude (to be clear: Kwark is among the posters here, which I consider worth paying attention to) "we are better than they are, they are just pathetic idiots" - not exactly votes winning stance.
What I am trying to say (and also TLDR) - people go to Trump, because they feel like they have nowhere else to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
