Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[wildcat09 29,348]

37 minutes ago, Js1 said:

SCOTUS has only been on Trump's side when it advances their agenda, not to help Trump specifically.  Roberts doesn't particularly like Trump and Kavanaugh pretty much votes how Roberts tells him to vote.  I don't think the conservative majority has some secret "the president is immune from anything he did in office and after office" agenda.  They did nothing to help him in 2020 to keep him in office. Not a damn thing. 

This isn't quite right. They spent the entire year leading up to the election making a series of rulings in voting and election cases to help him win. They just refused to come to his rescue when he failed to take advantage of the help they'd given him.  And while I agree with you're take that they have their own agenda and aren't particularly invested in his personal agenda, I think you're discounting their fear of him and his supporters if they cross him and he wins anyway. I would bet right now that they think he'll win next November, and that will absolutely be impacting how they decide this case.

[jimmyjazz 45,896]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

And while I agree with you're take that they have their own agenda and aren't particularly invested in his personal agenda, I think you're discounting their fear of him and his supporters if they cross him and he wins anyway.

What fear are you referring to?  Fear of actual physical harm?  (Not that I'd put it past some of Trump's whacko supporters.)

[Rimbo 25,916]

3 hours ago, Mo Horn said:

 

 

 

Y'all have more faith in SCOTUS than I do, obviously. I hope I'm wrong.

Faith got nothing to do with it.

SCOTUS and other federal courts have repeatedly proven that they're not beholden to Trump, even if he nominated them. Which makes sense because, if you weren't sleeping in grade school Social Studies, you'd remember that this is by design: Lifetime appointments for federal judges so they can make decisions without quid pro quo. There's disadvantages to this and occasionally exceptions... exceptions which prove the rule.

And that has nothing to do with state courts, where in Georgia and New York did starters, Trump is fucked every which way, and can't even pardon himself out of their rulings.

[Rimbo 25,916]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

their fear of him

to do what, exactly?

Lifetime appointments, bitch. Trump can't do shit about it.

[wildcat09 29,348]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What fear are you referring to?  Fear of actual physical harm?  (Not that I'd put it past some of Trump's whacko supporters.)

Yes. Some of you really need to get past the "it can't happen here" roadblock you've still got in your heads.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

15 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

SCOTUS and other federal courts have repeatedly proven that they're not beholden to Trump, even if he nominated them.

[Gatorubet 30,191]

12 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

to do what, exactly?

Lifetime appointments, bitch. Trump can't do shit about it.

I think you’re underestimating the degree to which maggots will attack the families of judges.  The concern for the personal safety of judges and their families are a thing I would not ignore as a possible motivation for a trump favoring decision.   

That likely applies far more to district court judges than it does to Scotus - but all you have to do is turn on the TV and watch what happened to the poll workers in Georgia once Rudy told the maggots the women helped steal the election from Trump.

[Gatorubet 30,191]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

That picture does not negate the truth of the statement you replied to, because the statement you replied to did not say “every single judge.”

Plus, it is hard to tell where her partisanship starts, and her generally recognized incompetence and inexperience ends. 

[jimmyjazz 45,896]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes. Some of you really need to get past the "it can't happen here" roadblock you've still got in your heads.

Some of you need to stop fucking lecturing everybody else.

[TwiceHorn 31,444]

Something that possibly bodes ill for the good guys is that the Supreme Court has granted cert to decide the scope of the obstruction of an official proceeding statute.  https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/court-to-weigh-in-on-scope-of-law-used-in-jan-6-prosecutions/

The issue concerns this language:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

One judge in the 1/6 cases believed the statute was confined to records, documents, other objects and related physical items.  The other judges and DC Circuit decided that "otherwise" meant any conceivable way, unrelated to physical objects.

The Supreme Court has a recent history of narrowly construing criminal statutes, which, broadly speaking, is for the good.  Maybe not so much in this case.

If they do it here, it will knock out one charge against Trump and quite a few convictions of 1/6 defendants.

[Rimbo 25,916]

28 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Like I said: Exception which proves the rule.

And "has a crush on" ain't the same as "beholden to."

Improve your reading comprehension, dipstick.

[Rimbo 25,916]

27 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I think you’re underestimating the degree to which maggots will attack the families of judges.  The concern for the personal safety of judges and their families are a thing I would not ignore as a possible motivation for a trump favoring decision.   

That likely applies far more to district court judges than it does to Scotus - but all you have to do is turn on the TV and watch what happened to the poll workers in Georgia once Rudy told the maggots the women helped steal the election from Trump.

And if said maggots do fuck around, they'll find out. The outcome of January 6th has already vastly reduced the number of idiots willing to commit violence on Trump's behalf. You are greatly overestimating the degree to which people's talk will be backed up by deeds.

And also underestimating the degree to which the feds are keeping tabs on these guys.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Like I said: Exception which proves the rule.

And "has a crush on" ain't the same as "beholden to."

Improve your reading comprehension, dipstick.

Every ruling going in favor of dotard is the epitome of "beholden to".

Wake up, fucknut.

[jimmyjazz 45,896]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Something that possibly bodes ill for the good guys is that the Supreme Court has granted cert to decide the scope of the obstruction of an official proceeding statute.  https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/court-to-weigh-in-on-scope-of-law-used-in-jan-6-prosecutions/

The issue concerns this language:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

One judge in the 1/6 cases believed the statute was confined to records, documents, other objects and related physical items.  The other judges and DC Circuit decided that "otherwise" meant any conceivable way, unrelated to physical objects.

It's astonishing, almost as if that one judge can't speak fucking English.

I mean, the language could not be more clear, at least to this layman.  I'm sure there's a lawyer-ly explanation that starts with "well,".

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

30 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

That picture does not negate the truth of the statement you replied to, because the statement you replied to did not say “every single judge.”

Plus, it is hard to tell where her partisanship starts, and her generally recognized incompetence and inexperience ends. 

I also didn't say "every single judge", but to believe there isn't some rank bullshit going on in her court is pure naivete.  But leave it to the legal crew of surly to defend the system despite an obvious glaring bad apple.  It's the system we have, there's nothing we can do about it, yadda, yadda, fucking yadda.

Spare us the god damn excuses.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's astonishing, almost as if that one judge can't speak fucking English.

I mean, the language could not be more clear, at least to this layman.  I'm sure there's a lawyer-ly explanation that starts with "well,".

"Well actually..." to be more precise.

[YGIFS 19,449]

Well, as a student of the constitution.  Said everyone I know at the holidays while I’m trying not reach for the bar. 
 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,444]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's astonishing, almost as if that one judge can't speak fucking English.

I mean, the language could not be more clear, at least to this layman.  I'm sure there's a lawyer-ly explanation that starts with "well,".

The argument boils down to the broad construction, which the DC Circuit called "the most natural," is unconstitutionally vague.

[Gatorubet 30,191]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

And also underestimating the degree to which the feds are keeping tabs on these guys.

Now, imagine Trump wins, and he calls the dogs off.

[Gatorubet 30,191]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I also didn't say "every single judge", but to believe there isn't some rank bullshit going on in her court is pure naivete.  But leave it to the legal crew of surly to defend the system despite an obvious glaring bad apple.  It's the system we have, there's nothing we can do about it, yadda, yadda, fucking yadda.

Spare us the god damn excuses.

Does your head hurt when it thinks these things?  ‘Cause it seems like it should hurt. 

[scottsins 1,966]

Honestly it would be great if there was a viral movement for more people to do this... trumpy turds all over the country with one picture after another ending up rolling through FB, Instagram, Xitter, Threads, etc.  Wouldn't it be glorious if Trump's mystique was brought down by trumpy turds?

If I wasn’t almost 50 years old, I would say that maybe this could be some sort of NFT thing?

[chainsaw 9,861]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

This isn't quite right. They spent the entire year leading up to the election making a series of rulings in voting and election cases to help him win. They just refused to come to his rescue when he failed to take advantage of the help they'd given him.  And while I agree with you're take that they have their own agenda and aren't particularly invested in his personal agenda, I think you're discounting their fear of him and his supporters if they cross him and he wins anyway. I would bet right now that they think he'll win next November, and that will absolutely be impacting how they decide this case.

Paxton's 2020 lawsuit against Pennsylvania has been described as a 4th and 50 situation, with the team failing to snap the ball before the game clock hit 0, Louisville QB under center, nobody open, getting sacked in his own endzone. There was no bailing that out no matter how much the refs were paid off.

Immunity feels more like a 3rd and short situation.

Edited December 13, 2023 by chainsaw

[Captainant 27,644]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The argument boils down to the broad construction, which the DC Circuit called "the most natural," is unconstitutionally vague.

Something tells me that SCOTUS wouldn't entertain this argument for anyone but trump. It's incredible how far they're happy to torture verbiage and logic just to give trumpco the air of credibility. This is the same tactic of bringing a bunch of specious cases that are treated seriously that fuels more uncritical and specious cases - just like how we saw with the attempt to subvert the election. 

The court's failure to promptly and LOUDLY rule against trump and to happily legitimize the fascistsoc bullshit is a lasting indictment against our legal and justice system 

[Rimbo 25,916]

36 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Now, imagine Trump wins, and he calls the dogs off.

Won't save him in NY or Georgia.

[Gatorubet 30,191]

3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Won't save him in NY or Georgia.

I was referencing why folks might worry about their personal safety. You said the feds were keeping a watch on the bad guys.  My comment was supposed to indicate that those same people who were worried may have reason to think that Trump might win - and that those federal protections you refer to would vanish. 

My typical clear as mud writing. 

[Rimbo 25,916]

7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I was referencing why folks might worry about their personal safety. You said the feds were keeping a watch on the bad guys.  My comment was supposed to indicate that those same people who were worried may have reason to think that Trump might win - and that those federal protections you refer to would vanish. 

My typical clear as mud writing. 

The road to Trump winning in 2024 is... very, very twisty. There are states he might not even be on the ballot, even if he does win the nomination. And women have made it clear, as an electorate, to punish the Republican dog for finally catching the Roe v Wade car.

[atomheartbevo 89,640]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Yes. Some of you really need to get past the "it can't happen here" roadblock you've still got in your heads.

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I think you’re underestimating the degree to which maggots will attack the families of judges.  The concern for the personal safety of judges and their families are a thing I would not ignore as a possible motivation for a trump favoring decision.   

They didn't try to help him stay in office in 2020/2021 though, even though the threat from MAGA was probably far higher to them than them trying to help him remain eligible for office in 2024 after he got his ass beat in 2020.

And MAGA haven't been showing up in large numbers at any of his much-publicized ongoing trials.

And most of the people who would truly try some shit were probably in the J6 crowd (or watching them) fucking around, and hundreds of the J6 crowd have been finding out ever since, complete with felony records, jail time, etc. That's put a damper on the actions of a lot of folks, I'm sure.  

Plenty of MAGA may talk a lot of shit about backing Trump, but when push comes to shove, they don't want to give up their real estate licenses, or get felony records, or lose their homes/businesses, or spend time in prison (where they might encounter non-MAGA types).

 

[Gatorubet 30,191]

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They didn't try to help him stay in office in 2020/2021 though, even though the threat from MAGA was probably far higher to them than them trying to help him remain eligible for office in 2024 after he got his ass beat in 2020.

And MAGA haven't been showing up in large numbers at any of his much-publicized ongoing trials.

And most of the people who would truly try some shit were probably in the J6 crowd (or watching them) fucking around, and hundreds of the J6 crowd have been finding out ever since, complete with felony records, jail time, etc. That's put a damper on the actions of a lot of folks, I'm sure.  

Plenty of MAGA may talk a lot of shit about backing Trump, but when push comes to shove, they don't want to give up their real estate licenses, or get felony records, or lose their homes/businesses, or spend time in prison (where they might encounter non-MAGA types).

 

I do not disagree.  And yet, Mitt talked about discussions during the impeachment hearings where fellow Republicans decided not to vote for impeachment because of fear of what Trump supporters would do to them and their families.   

Look, I’m not saying it is a given, I am merely saying it cannot be entirely discounted. 

[TwiceHorn 31,444]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Something tells me that SCOTUS wouldn't entertain this argument for anyone but trump. It's incredible how far they're happy to torture verbiage and logic just to give trumpco the air of credibility. This is the same tactic of bringing a bunch of specious cases that are treated seriously that fuels more uncritical and specious cases - just like how we saw with the attempt to subvert the election. 

The court's failure to promptly and LOUDLY rule against trump and to happily legitimize the fascistsoc bullshit is a lasting indictment against our legal and justice system 

It's impossible to know, but as mentioned, the Supreme Court, both before and after Trumpmaggedon, has been of a mind to narrowly construe criminal statutes.  See, e.g. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) ("Reading the statute to proscribe a wider range of offensive conduct, we acknowledge, would raise the due process concerns underlying the vagueness doctrine.[Footnote 43] To preserve the statute without transgressing constitutional limitations, we now hold that §1346 criminalizes only the bribe-and-kickback core of the pre-McNally case law.") (Ginsburg, J.)

Jack Smith's prior losses have mostly been attributable to this type of thing.

Also, it should be pointed out that this appeal is not filed by any Trump or GQP-aligned entity.  It is being prosecuted by the Federal Public Defender on behalf of an indigent 1/6 defendant.

Edited December 13, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,444]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Something tells me that SCOTUS wouldn't entertain this argument for anyone but trump. It's incredible how far they're happy to torture verbiage and logic just to give trumpco the air of credibility. This is the same tactic of bringing a bunch of specious cases that are treated seriously that fuels more uncritical and specious cases - just like how we saw with the attempt to subvert the election. 

The court's failure to promptly and LOUDLY rule against trump and to happily legitimize the fascistsoc bullshit is a lasting indictment against our legal and justice system 

Which "court's"?  The ones that dismissed all the specious cases? The ones that sanctioned his lawyers, when moved to do so? The Supreme Court that has denied every cert petiton from Trump after he left office and rejected his original jurisdiction case?

Edited December 13, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,444]

Speaking of which, the Bar's appeal of Powell's summary judgment is set for oral argument February 7.

Neither party requested oral argument, which seems curious on the part of the Bar.  Nevertheless, the court has ordered it.

[Gatorubet 30,191]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Speaking of which, the Bar's appeal of Powell's summary judgment is set for oral argument February 7.

Neither party requested oral argument, which seems curious on the part of the Bar.  Nevertheless, the court has ordered it.

I would think, generally, if you’re really going to fuck somebody on purpose in a case that procedurally is clear as mud, you’re not gonna give them oral argument to make a better case for the record. 

 

[wildcat09 29,348]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

I do not disagree.  And yet, Mitt talked about discussions during the impeachment hearings where fellow Republicans decided not to vote for impeachment because of fear of what Trump supporters would do to them and their families.   

Look, I’m not saying it is a given, I am merely saying it cannot be entirely discounted. 

Plus, in a world in which Trump does win re-election in 2024, he will be completely unrestrained and his fans will be frenzied. The worry isn't today. The worry is what if it seriously looks to a Fox News audience (which includes the Republican justices) like he will win. 

[atomheartbevo 89,640]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

I do not disagree.  And yet, Mitt talked about discussions during the impeachment hearings where fellow Republicans decided not to vote for impeachment because of fear of what Trump supporters would do to them and their families.   

Look, I’m not saying it is a given, I am merely saying it cannot be entirely discounted. 

I don't disagree that there are some violent nuts, but most of them either ended up in DC on January 6th and are in the finding out phase, or they decided they liked their current lives and didn't want to lose jobs or businesses or real estate licenses or spend time in jail or whatever.

Somehow he's just not stirring up MAGA anymore.  Since January 6th, his endorsements have not been enough to get MAGA out to vote, his rallies are smaller and attendance is way down (maybe they don't want to pay his legal bills), and no matter how much he pleads to the media or on truth.social, nobody is showing up at his trials (or if they do, they are heavily outnumbered by the media).  Speaking of truth.social, MAGA doesn't care enough about him to even bother with his own social media platform.

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

and his fans will be frenzied. The worry isn't today. 

The man is facing four different trials and they ain't doing shit when his back is against the wall, no matter how much he's deliberately name-dropping the AGs, clerks, judges, prosecutors, etc.  MAGA still isn't doing shit to any of them, even though we all know he's name-dropping to try and get MAGA stirred up to threaten the people he's name-dropping.

[Captainant 27,644]

22 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The man is facing four different trials and they ain't doing shit when his back is against the wall, no matter how much he's deliberately name-dropping the AGs, clerks, judges, prosecutors, etc.  MAGA still isn't doing shit to any of them, even though we all know he's name-dropping to try and get MAGA stirred up to threaten the people he's name-dropping.

You gotta stop repeating that "MAGA ain't doing shit". Trump's judges are getting credible death threats.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/judge-engoron-staff-death-threats-antisemitic-attacks-1234894395/

 

Unless your standard is: "it's only bad if there's blood spilled", MAGA is certainly doing shit. You try threatening a judge and let me know how seriously they take it.

[jimmyjazz 45,896]

Don't accept the fucking appointment if you're not willing to piss people off.  End of discussion.

[achooloco 1,067]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One judge in the 1/6 cases believed the statute was confined to records, documents, other objects and related physical items.  The other judges and DC Circuit decided that "otherwise" meant any conceivable way, unrelated to physical objects.

Isn't it more accurate to say one judge believed it was confined, but EVERY SINGLE OTHER judge in all other J6 cases agreed that "otherwise" meant any conceivable way, unrelated to physical objects? 

[atomheartbevo 89,640]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

You gotta stop repeating that "MAGA ain't doing shit". Trump's judges are getting credible death threats.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/judge-engoron-staff-death-threats-antisemitic-attacks-1234894395/

Unless your standard is: "it's only bad if there's blood spilled", MAGA is certainly doing shit. You try threatening a judge and let me know how seriously they take it.

Some fucking incel in his mom's basement halfway across the country using Google Voice or social media burner accounts to make threats is a far different thing than say a few hundred MAGA Gravy SEALs showing up at a courthouse looking to start shit.

[safe sex 11,706]

Wtf? It only takes one person to kill another one.

[atomheartbevo 89,640]

2 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Wtf? It only takes one person to kill another one.

Yes, it does, but you can't base everything on one nut potentially doing something - MAGA as a whole ain't showing up to defend him from those librool evil judges and DAs and AGs. They just aren't.  And Trump has tried to stir them up with all of the name-dropping, but it's not stopped any of the indictments/trials.

The one time that MAGA showed up en masse to start shit and get violet back on January 6, 2021, we ended up seeing over 1,200 of being charged (so far), so it's kind of taken the wind out of a lot of sails.

Hell, they are barely showing up at his rallies.

[safe sex 11,706]

And those remaining grow more and more radicalized with every rally. While I agree that you can't let the fear of one person doing something extreme keep things from progressing, I also doubt that it's only one person sending threats.

Modern conservatives are moral cowards, and they will let fear dictate their actions.

Imagine being afraid of empathy!

[TwiceHorn 31,444]

2 hours ago, achooloco said:

Isn't it more accurate to say one judge believed it was confined, but EVERY SINGLE OTHER judge in all other J6 cases agreed that "otherwise" meant any conceivable way, unrelated to physical objects? 

I mean, that's pretty much what I said.  Not all 1/6 cases charged this offense, and I'm not sure all of the defendants raised this challenge.

[atomheartbevo 89,640]

2 hours ago, safe sex said:

And those remaining grow more and more radicalized with every rally.

It's been almost 3 years since January 6th, and yet they are quieter than ever, no matter how much he screams in all-caps on truth.social.  He is constantly pushing these people, yet they just won't show up for him, even at his rallies, and they haven't been showing up at the ballot box - his record isn't as bad as Elise Stefanik's, but it's not too far off.  

Is there a chance some incel will do something?  Sure, if his mom gives him bus money, and he gets the nerve up to risk being around minorities/women, but the masses aren't showing up for Trump at his trials/indictments/rallies like they would have in 2020.

2 hours ago, safe sex said:

While I agree that you can't let the fear of one person doing something extreme keep things from progressing, I also doubt that it's only one person sending threats.

Thankfully the judges/DAs/AGs/prosecutors don't let fear stop them, otherwise they'd retire from their current jobs and move to a small town somewhere and setup a practice dealing with family estates/trusts/wills/etc.

2 hours ago, safe sex said:

Modern conservatives are moral cowards, and they will let fear dictate their actions.

Imagine being afraid of empathy!

They have nothing left to run on.  That's why this would-be impeachment is happening, and many of them are not even self-aware enough to realize that A) it'll be defeated in the Senate, and B) this is a really bad look for them heading into the election year.  It's a very weak move, and I hate the term, but "beta" applies fully.

[safe sex 11,706]

I hope you're right. All I know is that various rights of mine have been continually eroded and lost pretty much for the entirety of my adult life at this point, and they don't really show signs of slowing down, so please have a little grace for those of us who don't have much reason to be hopeful.

[atomheartbevo 89,640]

4 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I hope you're right. All I know is that various rights of mine have been continually eroded and lost pretty much for the entirety of my adult life at this point, and they don't really show signs of slowing down, so please have a little grace for those of us who don't have much reason to be hopeful.

I have no hope for Texas in the short term. I want my daughter out of the state when she's in college or after she graduates.  Hell, we may move before then at the rate things are going.  We used to mock Oklahoma, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc., but Paxton, Patrick, and Abbott are hell-bent on making sure we rank below all of them on every metric they can.  They must really hate Texas.

With that said, at least Trump is not doing what he needs to do to flip the states that Biden flipped from him, and at least he's not generating the kinds of crowds that he did before, and his election endorsements aren't working out, and he's not able to draw people to his indictments/hearings like he did to the Capitol on J6.  I'd like to think the 1,200+ people who have now been charged are making the rest of MAGA think twice about what they are willing to risk for Trump.  

[BamaATL 16,593]

39 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I hope you're right. All I know is that various rights of mine have been continually eroded and lost pretty much for the entirety of my adult life at this point, and they don't really show signs of slowing down, so please have a little grace for those of us who don't have much reason to be hopeful.

The adage it's always darkest before the dawn I personally think applies.  We are in the midst of a shift in political power in this country and because we are living in these times it's difficult for us to look at in this way.  However, the results speak for themselves:

2016 - Trump wins, but loses the popular vote by 3 million

2018 - Dems win the house back

2020 - Dems win President, control of Senate, and the House, win Presidential election by 8 million votes

2022- Dems lose House, historical norm, however by the narrowest of measures, since then gerrymandered districts getting crushed in court (which gave Pubs the house via NY)

2024 - ?  I'm seeing a trend here.  

 

To me, I think historically speaking Trump will go down in history as the death knell of the modern conservative (or fascist) movement most of us have endured the last 40 or so years.  It was a last gasp, and in order for it to work, they had to get every kook and nutjob they could to vote for them; combined a historically bad Dem candidate.  Even with all this combined, Trump still lost the popular vote in a major way, and while the electoral vote is what counts, it's still very telling.  The percentage numbers for Republicans are getting worse every year, and their real base (not the aforementioned nutjobs) are dying en mass.  You don't have to really understand an actuary table to get this.  Each individual state will differ, but the general trend holds up.

In so far as women's rights, minority rights, LBGTQ rights are concerned, it's been a worrisome trend, to be sure, people are having their liberty threatened, which disgusts me, and in my opinion should disgust every other American.  All the more reason to encourage people to vote.   It's all about turnout.  It's going to take some time to reverse all the damage caused by the modern conservative movement in the court system, but the only way we can do that is by winning elections, and lots of them, not one singular election.  I've got good news, we've been doing that.  

In Texas, there is one easy election recruitment strategy, make sure every woman knows that Ted Cruz wants to tell them what they can and can't do with their body.  Tie this to his neck like a proverbial noose that it is politically.  

[wildcat09 29,348]

12 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yes, it does, but you can't base everything on one nut potentially doing something - MAGA as a whole ain't showing up to defend him from those librool evil judges and DAs and AGs. They just aren't.  And Trump has tried to stir them up with all of the name-dropping, but it's not stopped any of the indictments/trials.

The one time that MAGA showed up en masse to start shit and get violet back on January 6, 2021, we ended up seeing over 1,200 of being charged (so far), so it's kind of taken the wind out of a lot of sails.

Hell, they are barely showing up at his rallies.

Read this. Especially this part:

Quote

If Trump does win the election, he will immediately become the most powerful person ever to hold that office. Not only will he wield the awesome powers of the American executive — powers that, as conservatives used to complain, have grown over the decades — but he will do so with the fewest constraints of any president, fewer even than in his own first term.

What limits those powers? The most obvious answer is the institutions of justice — all of which Trump, by his very election, will have defied and revealed as impotent. A court system that could not control Trump as a private individual is not going to control him better when he is president of the United States and appointing his own attorney general and all the other top officials at the Justice Department. Think of the power of a man who gets himself elected president despite indictments, courtroom appearances and perhaps even conviction? Would he even obey a directive of the Supreme Court? Or would he instead ask how many armored divisions the chief justice has?

Will a future Congress stop him? Presidents can accomplish a lot these days without congressional approval, as even Barack Obama showed. The one check Congress has on a rogue president, namely, impeachment and conviction, has already proved all but impossible — even when Trump was out of office and wielded modest institutional power over his party.

Another traditional check on a president is the federal bureaucracy, that vast apparatus of career government officials who execute the laws and carry on the operations of government under every president. They are generally in the business of limiting any president’s options. As Harry S. Truman once put it, “Poor Ike. He’ll say ‘do this’ and ‘do that’ and nothing at all will happen.” That was a problem for Trump is his first term, partly because he had no government team of his own to fill the administration. This time, he will. Those who choose to serve in his second administration will not be taking office with the unstated intention of refusing to carry out his wishes. If the Heritage Foundation has its way, and there is no reason to believe it won’t, many of those career bureaucrats will be gone, replaced by people carefully “vetted” to ensure their loyalty to Trump.

What about the desire for reelection, a factor that constrains most presidents? Trump might not want or need a third term, but were he to decide he wanted one, as he has sometimes indicated, would the 22nd Amendment block him any more effectively from being president for life than the Supreme Court, if he refused to be blocked? Why should anyone think that amendment would be more sacrosanct than any other part of the Constitution for a man like Trump, or perhaps more importantly, for his devoted supporters?

A final constraint on presidents has been their own desire for a glittering legacy, with success traditionally measured in terms that roughly equate to the well-being of the country. But is that the way Trump thinks? Yes, Trump might seek a great legacy, but it is strictly his own glory that he craves. As with Napoleon, who spoke of the glory of France but whose narrow ambitions for himself and his family brought France to ruin, Trump’s ambitions, though he speaks of making America great again, clearly begin and end with himself. As for his followers, he doesn’t have to achieve anything to retain their support — his failure to build the wall in his first term in no way damaged his standing with millions of his loyalists. They have never asked anything of him other than that he triumph over the forces they hate in American society. And that, we can be sure, will be Trump’s primary mission as president.

And this part:

Quote

It is worth getting inside Trump’s head a bit and imagining his mood following an election victory. He will have spent the previous year, and more, fighting to stay out of jail, plagued by myriad persecutors and helpless to do what he likes to do best: exact revenge. Think of the fury that will have built up inside him, a fury that, from his point of view, he has worked hard to contain. As he once put it, “I think I’ve been toned down, if you want to know the truth. I could really tone it up.” Indeed he could — and will. We caught a glimpse of his deep thirst for vengeance in his Veterans Day promise to “root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream.” Note the equation of himself with “America and the American Dream.” It is he they are trying to destroy, he believes, and as president, he will return the favor.

What will that look like? Trump has already named some of those he intends to go after once he is elected: senior officials from his first term such as retired Gen. John F. Kelly, Gen. Mark A. Milley, former attorney general William P. Barr and others who spoke against him after the 2020 election; officials in the FBI and the CIA who investigated him in the Russia probe; Justice Department officials who refused his demands to overturn the 2020 election; members of the Jan. 6 committee; Democratic opponents including Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.); and Republicans who voted for or publicly supported his impeachment and conviction.

But that’s just the start. After all, Trump will not be the only person seeking revenge. His administration will be filled with people with enemies’ lists of their own, a determined cadre of “vetted” officials who will see it as their sole, presidentially authorized mission to “root out” those in the government who cannot be trusted. Many will simply be fired, but others will be subject to career-destroying investigations. The Trump administration will be filled with people who will not need explicit instruction from Trump, any more than Hitler’s local gauleiters needed instruction. In such circumstances, people “work toward the Führer,” which is to say, they anticipate his desires and seek favor through acts they think will make him happy, thereby enhancing their own influence and power in the process.

Nor will it be difficult to find things to charge opponents with. Our history is unfortunately filled with instances of unfairly targeted officials singled out for being on the wrong side of a particular issue at the wrong time — the State Department’s “China Hands” of the late 1940s, for instance, whose careers were destroyed because they happened to be in positions of influence when the Chinese Communist Revolution occurred. Today, there is the whiff of a new McCarthyism in the air. MAGA Republicans insist that Biden himself is a “communist,” that his election was a “communist takeover” and that his administration is a “communist regime.”

A second Trump presidency will be much worse than the first. He never expected to win the first time and hadn't assembled a cabinet or staff that would be loyal to him. He had to appoint career Republicans who'd been in Washington for decades to many posts. He won't do that again. He's not smart, but he's smart enough to have learned his lesson. He's assembling a cabinet and staff that will not care about Washington norms. They will gin up phony criminal investigations and prosecutions for anyone who doesn't do what they want, be they FBI officials or military generals.  They have a concrete plan to reshape federal law enforcement and the military in their image.  And they will absolutely encourage their supporters to escalate violence against us.  And some percentage of their supporters will do so, because it won't be private individual Donald Trump posting veiled incitement on a shitty social media app nobody uses, it will be the President of the United States of America calling on them to protect America from its domestic enemies, after he's overcome everything they could throw at him with all their fake prosecutions.  

I'm not as down on Biden's chances to win next year as that piece is, but it's 100% right on the danger Trump poses if he's reelected. Your obstinate insistence that his supporters won't do anything has already proven wrong once before (ignoring all of the fucking mass shootings his "lone wolf" supporters routinely carry out).  I'm sure just denying that you might possibly be in any danger is psychologically comforting, but it won't stop them from dragging you off to a death camp if he wins.

[Brisketexan 105,091]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not as down on Biden's chances to win next year as that piece is, but it's 100% right on the danger Trump poses if he's reelected. Your obstinate insistence that his supporters won't do anything has already proven wrong once before (ignoring all of the fucking mass shootings his "lone wolf" supporters routinely carry out).  I'm sure just denying that you might possibly be in any danger is psychologically comforting, but it won't stop them from dragging you off to a death camp if he wins.

If Trump wins in 24, there is a 100% chance that Americans - regular, ordinary Americans - are going to have to do shit to resist the Trump Stasi apparatus that will make your jaws drop.  The kind of shit we read about in books about life under the Nazis, the Stasi, the KGB....name the modern authoritarian regime.  

If Trump is elected, you'd be wise to take advantage of America's super-lax gun laws and arm the shit out of yourself.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Brisketexan

[atomheartbevo 89,640]

18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Your obstinate insistence that his supporters won't do anything has already proven wrong once before (ignoring all of the fucking mass shootings his "lone wolf" supporters routinely carry out).

I don't give a fuck about lone wolf supporters because there's always some head case lurking in the background who is upset that Jodie Foster is banging somebody.  There always has been, there always will be.

But if a hundreds of Meal Team Six members show up armed and angry at one of the courthouses that he currently has business at, or show up outside of the homes of the judges/DAs/AGs/prosecutors, then that means he's actually getting through to a lot of people who are buying what he's selling, people who are willing to risk whatever livelihoods they have, jail time, felony records, even their lives, in defense of him, Donald J. Trump.

But right now, given that he can't seem to generate interest among the diehard MAGA in showing up to support him during his trials, and that he can't even hold mass rallies like he used to, I'm beginning to wonder just how many MAGA actually give a shit about Donald J. Trump the person, and how many of them care more about how he made them feel or told them to hate, and will move on to somebody with less baggage (i.e. no indictments), who blames the same people they do for their woes and tells them what they want to hear.

[Gatorubet 30,191]

The fact that we are even discussing this means we all have legit PTS issues. 

Just think - we are having a rational conversation about whether the president will ignore all rulings of the Supreme Court, and refuse to step down after his second term.