Trump 2024?

[Carborendum]

I don't know if the political machine will allow this, but an interesting proposition was brought up over the past few days.

If Trump brings his case before the Supreme Court, he has a credible claim for accusing the judge, the DA (and all involved in the twisting of this trial) for "election interference."

They will all go to jail.  And a credible case could be made against Biden for his involvement.  The problem is that he is several steps removed from the actual proceedings.  So, he may get of scott free.

Depending on how far Trump wants to go with this, he could also accuse much of the media for pushing it as well.  Don't know if that will stick.

Edited June 3 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

They will all go to jail.

How?  SCOTUS judge cases, they don't open them...

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If Trump brings his case before the Supreme Court, he has a credible claim for accusing the judge, the DA (and all involved in the twisting of this trial) for "election interference."

The US Supreme Court will never review a state-level conviction based on state law. I mean, they could, technically, but I don't think the justices want to muck around in the state's enforcement of their own statutes. In the state of New York, the fix is in. Everyone knows it. Everyone sees it. The officials were literally elected based on their promise to convict Trump of a felony. The corruption is not hidden away.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

How?  SCOTUS judge cases, they don't open them...

I didn't say they would open the case.

While I'm sure real lawyers would have many different avenues, there are two ways that I can think of it eventually arriving there.

• Election interference is a federal crime.  And if there is sufficient evidence that there was election interference, then it can be taken through the federal system, upto the SCOTUS.
• If there was sufficient malicious prosecution, that is judicial malfeasance that can be judged by a higher court.

The facts are clear that no one else would be convicted of a crime based on what Trump did.  It was only brought up because he was Trump.

Equal protection under the law.  Constitutional rights.  SCOTUS.

Bush v. Gore was an extraordinary circumstance where SCOTUS stepped in specifically because an equal protection issue was coupled with a time sensitive situation involving a Presidential election.

Edited June 3 by Carborendum

[ZealoulyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

The US Supreme Court will never review a state-level conviction based on state law. I mean, they could, technically, but I don't think the justices want to muck around in the state's enforcement of their own statutes. In the state of New York, the fix is in. Everyone knows it. Everyone sees it. The officials were literally elected based on their promise to convict Trump of a felony. The corruption is not hidden away.

Bragg used Federal election law to create a felony out of a misdemeanor state law- something that has never been done before. It has to be reviewed.

[Phoenix_person]

14 hours ago, old said:

Considering that Biden has garnered 80%+ of the primary vote, I think your viewpoint is just a tad off; unless you want to claim that most people who are democrats are not leftist.

You're twisting what I said. I only mentioned leftists, not Democrats. Leftists are a minority in the Democratic Party, but a large enough group that ignoring them is unwise. Just ask Hillary.

2 hours ago, old said:

I mean you are playing both sides here.  Either a significant portion of the democrats are leftist (and if they don't pander to them they won't get elected) or they aren't and there is no need to pander.

"Significant" =/= "majority". Bernie got 45% of the primary vote in 2016 and 26% in 2020 (some leftists, like myself, voted for Liz Warren, who got 7.7%). If you take away 30% of the Democratic vote from the 2020 election, Trump wins. THAT'S why the leftist minority matters. And most leftists still only voted for Biden because his opponent was Trump.

2 hours ago, old said:

A significant portion of Republicans are MAGA-that's a fact; i.e. a significant percentage of the country are MAGA.

And the percentage of Republicans who are not MAGA (about 24%, based on this year's primary*) is more than enough to keep Trump out of office if they really want to. Just like Dems will never win another general election without the leftist vote, the GOP needs never-Trump Republicans to win elections. 

*In a previous draft of this post, I broke down the margin of victory for every incumbent president in my lifetime, which goes back to Reagan. I ended up losing that draft and I don't feel like re-doing the numbers because ultimately the exact numbers aren't important and they're easy to find. But it's worth noting that, with the exception of HW Bush (who went on to lose the general), every incumbent Republican president since Reagan has won over 90% of the primary vote. Of THOSE presidents, Trump in 2020 was the only one to slip under 95% (but not by much, to be fair). I also noticed that every incumbent Dem got around 90% of the primary vote in their reelection years. Biden wasn't even that much of an outlier this year at 87% compared to Clinton in '96 and Obama in '08. Trump's 76%, however, could be significant. Once again, Biden's opponent may be his ticket to victory.

2 hours ago, old said:

So either a signification portion of Democrats are leftist (and thus the need to pander) or they are not. If they are not; then the Democrats could easily tell them to shut-up and grab the portion of Republicans who are not MAGA to vote for them.

A significant portion of Democrat voters are leftists, yes. I'd say at least 30%. And yes, it makes more sense to reach out to them than to Republicans, though the latter is never off the table, (*stares in Hillary's direction*) especially in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

I did some phonebanking for Beto O'Rourke in 2018. His campaign really impressed me in that it was the first political campaign I'd seen where a candidate was able to win over both leftists AND some Republican centrists. He got 48% of the vote in his loss to Ted Cruz, which is significantly more than any Democratic Senate candidate has received in Texas since 1976, which was also the last time a Dem won a US Senate race in Texas. So, yes, bilateral outreach matters. Republicans seem to be forgetting that. As a former Marylander, I've been watching Larry Hogan's Senate race carefully. I think he could be another bridge between radicals on one side (MAGA) and centrists (Dems) on the other, though apparently the RNC is reluctant to give him their full support. Link

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

You're twisting what I said. I only mentioned leftists, not Democrats. Leftists are a minority in the Democratic Party, but a large enough group that ignoring them is unwise. Just ask Hillary.

"Significant" =/= "majority". Bernie got 45% of the primary vote in 2016 and 26% in 2020 (some leftists, like myself, voted for Liz Warren, who got 7.7%). If you take away 30% of the Democratic vote from the 2020 election, Trump wins. THAT'S why the leftist minority matters. And most leftists still only voted for Biden because his opponent was Trump.

And the percentage of Republicans who are not MAGA (about 24%, based on this year's primary*) is more than enough to keep Trump out of office if they really want to. Just like Dems will never win another general election without the leftist vote, the GOP needs never-Trump Republicans to win elections. 

*In a previous draft of this post, I broke down the margin of victory for every incumbent president in my lifetime, which goes back to Reagan. I ended up losing that draft and I don't feel like re-doing the numbers because ultimately the exact numbers aren't important and they're easy to find. But it's worth noting that, with the exception of HW Bush (who went on to lose the general), every incumbent Republican president since Reagan has won over 90% of the primary vote. Of THOSE presidents, Trump in 2020 was the only one to slip under 95% (but not by much, to be fair). I also noticed that every incumbent Dem got around 90% of the primary vote in their reelection years. Biden wasn't even that much of an outlier this year at 87% compared to Clinton in '96 and Obama in '08. Trump's 76%, however, could be significant. Once again, Biden's opponent may be his ticket to victory.

A significant portion of Democrat voters are leftists, yes. I'd say at least 30%. And yes, it makes more sense to reach out to them than to Republicans, though the latter is never off the table, (*stares in Hillary's direction*) especially in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

I did some phonebanking for Beto O'Rourke in 2018. His campaign really impressed me in that it was the first political campaign I'd seen where a candidate was able to win over both leftists AND some Republican centrists. He got 48% of the vote in his loss to Ted Cruz, which is significantly more than any Democratic Senate candidate has received in Texas since 1976, which was also the last time a Dem won a US Senate race in Texas. So, yes, bilateral outreach matters. Republicans seem to be forgetting that. As a former Marylander, I've been watching Larry Hogan's Senate race carefully. I think he could be another bridge between radicals on one side (MAGA) and centrists (Dems) on the other, though apparently the RNC is reluctant to give him their full support. Link

Republican centrists voted for Beto? 

[LDSGator]

13 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

bilateral outreach matters. Republicans seem to be forgetting that

Correct there. MAGA/old school republicans are fighting a civil war with no interest in making peace with each other, much less democrats.   

[Phoenix_person]

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Republican centrists voted for Beto? 

Some did. He flipped a handful of very red rural counties, but not enough to beat Ted (who isn't exactly winning any popularity contests among non-MAGA Texas Republicans).

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Phoenix_person said:

Some did. He flipped a handful of very red rural counties, but not enough to beat Ted (who isn't exactly winning any popularity contests among non-MAGA Texas Republicans).

Wow. Never would have thought that about him. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 6/3/2024 at 9:56 AM, Vort said:

The US Supreme Court will never review a state-level conviction based on state law. I mean, they could, technically, but I don't think the justices want to muck around in the state's enforcement of their own statutes. In the state of New York, the fix is in. Everyone knows it. Everyone sees it. The officials were literally elected based on their promise to convict Trump of a felony. The corruption is not hidden away.

They can if it invokes constitutional issues (double jeopardy, for example).  If the state court trial is not fundamentally fair or somehow falls foul of “due process” requirements, SCOTUS can absolutely review it.  That’s why the left is throwing such a hissy fit about Thomas’s and Alito’s supposed ethical violations right now—they want to prep the playing field before the case makes it there.

[Carborendum]

Due to this trial, I'm beginning to wonder about when otherwise evil traits can be considered good.

The stripling warriors were the most stalwart and humble souls.  Yet they "fought like dragons" against their enemies in war.

Since lawfare has been waged, I wonder how many people would be able to withstand the pressure of the entire justice system being turned against one man.  If we had someone of the caliber of George Washington, it may have been possible for a "good man" to withstand it and still be able to fight back.

Today, we don't have anyone like that.  Someone who is a saint, a statesman, and a warrior at the same time.  That is a symptom of the times we live in.  They don't exist.  Society has change the meaning of "Christ-like" to demand that a man be weak.  Society has changed the rules of statesmen to easily make them corrupt.  And warriors are almost always supposed to be contrasted with saint.

We live in a time when the opposition is willing to stoop so low as to twist laws in ways they have never been twisted before in order to justify a trial for a non-crime.  Then a judge issues jury instructions that basically forbid them from considering exculpatory evidence, testimony, conditions or even valid legal arguments, that must make us ask an important question.  Who (today) would not buckle under these circumstances?

Answer: only a narcisistic glory-seeking bully.  I certainly don't think Ron Paul would have been able to take it.  I doubt Ronald Reagan would have handled it.

I still haven't changed my mind about voting for Trump.  I don't think I will. But considering this, that door is now open.  I believe someone on this forum invoked the sentiment best: He may be a glory-seeking bully.  But he's OUR glory-seeking bully.

Or as the movie said: No, I can't stand the guy. I think he's an <expletive>.  But maybe an <expletive> is exactly what we need right now.

We don't win wars by sitting tight and just taking all the abuse hoping someone else will save us. 

Quote

No <exp> ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb <exp> die for his country.

[Manners Matter]

As far as voting for Trump - has anyone here asked yourselves *WHY* they're going after him so hard from any which way they can? To me, one reason is cuz the evildoers (and those who silently support it) know he can expose all their corruption and they obviously don't want that to happen. Another reason is because he'll put a stop to the gravy train that the attackers (and those who stay silent) are benefitting from. If you're fine with all this nonsense continuing and your interests taking a back seat to fattening the wallets of 'elected reps', then vote for the other guy (whichever party you find one in).

I, like others here, am not a fan of Trump's demeanor, language, etc which is one reason I didn't vote for him the first time but to me, putting country over party is an easy choice.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Manners Matter said:

like others here, am not a fan of Trump's demeanor, language,

You aren’t alone my friend. Aside from the really really hardcore MAGA types I have never heard someone say they approve of Trumps personal life. I can’t imagine anyone here saying they’d be cool with it either. 

[Traveler]

It is hard for me (extremely difficult) to vote for anyone in any party of this country. I am becoming less and less involved in politics because in order to get anything done one has to sigh up for either the republican or democrat party.  It is my belief that both parties are controlled by modern day gadianton robbers.  Utah has some good local politicians, but I do not trust any running for national office (with rare exception).  The following is a short list of platform items that I support.

1 Immediately dissolve all federal agencies that infringe on State rights as defined by the constitution.  For example, the federal education department – this includes any federal research grants to universities.  No one working in these federal programs is to be reassigned to any federal program.

2 Replace all social and welfare programs with a negative income tax.  Any additional needs are the responsibility of the states.

3 Anyone contacting or lobbying elected officials or unelected bureaucrats must be registered and all contacts, purpose and duration logged and open to the public.

4 No non-voting entities are allowed to contribute to any political campaign.  This includes party funds.  Political parties are not allowed to raise funds to be used outside of their organization – only their members are allowed to contribute.

5 Elected officials and bureaucrats are not allowed retirement benefits beyond Social Security and medical benefits are the same as for military and veterans.

6 The federal government is not allowed to tax any citizen.  The revenues needed to operate the federal government comes from assessing states based on the number of their electoral votes and approved by the Senate. Federal deficits are only allowed during a declared national crisis and must be cleared following the crises.  

Until a candidate support my concerns – I will not support them.  Realizing that no candidate nor party supports my political views – I reserve the right to vote privately (secret ballot) as I will.  I also reserve the right to not take part in any polling outside of my private vote.  I will speak as I will according to my right to free speech.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Cool list.  I'll propose two more, one serious:

7. Constitutional amendment for federal term limits.  Perhaps an individual cap on total years that can be spent as an elected official.  (This one has massive bipartisan support.  We could do it.)

8. They pick up the entire US government up out of Washington, and plop it down in some random place like Buttcrack county, Tennessee.   Let the beltway monolithic parasitical infrastructure fight a local small-town council over the dozen open office spaces.  The rest can all wither into dust or rot into the swamp.

 

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

It is hard for me (extremely difficult) to vote for anyone in any party of this country.

The last time I considered myself a 'proud republican' was September 10, 2001.  The year prior we had elected a bunch of people who ran on platforms of fiscal conservatism.  I was hopeful the talk on eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget was going to amount to something.   Then the planes hit the towers, and I never heard another word out of 'em about such things.  The next time it got brought up was 22 years later, when Gen Y and Z realized they'll never be able to afford a house, even on two incomes.

Edited June 5 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

Not sure I have ever considered myself a proud Republican. Possibly in my very early adult years, during Reagan's term, but even then I've never been much of a party identifier. For a few decades now, I have been a "proud Republican" only in the sense that I'm proud of not being a Democrat. I believe I last voted for a Democrat 35ish years ago when we were in grad school in Pennsylvania. As I recall, I lived to regret casting that vote, though the Republican candidate was hardly any better.

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have ever considered myself a proud Republican

I viewed myself as a proud republican for years until my party nominated Trump. That was my slap in the face moment.  

[LDSGator]

My dad is the classic now non existent New England moderate republican, and I grew up paying attention to politics. Way more so than the average child. I liked going agains the PC views in high school. I liked being known as the only non liberal who studied English in college. I drank the Kool Aid, that’s for sure. 

[zil2]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

8. They pick up the entire US government up out of Washington, and plop it down in some random place like Buttcrack county, Tennessee.   Let the beltway monolithic parasitical infrastructure fight a local small-town council over the dozen open office spaces.  The rest can all wither into dust or rot into the swamp.

I'm in favor of bulldozers the size of those used in the Bingham Canyon Mine lining up around the border of DC and bulldozing the whole place into the ocean.  Since mankind isn't going to do that, I comfort myself with the reassurance that God will do that, or the equivalent, one day.

[old]

On 6/3/2024 at 10:56 AM, Vort said:

The US Supreme Court will never review a state-level conviction based on state law. I mean, they could, technically, but I don't think the justices want to muck around in the state's enforcement of their own statutes. In the state of New York, the fix is in. Everyone knows it. Everyone sees it. The officials were literally elected based on their promise to convict Trump of a felony. The corruption is not hidden away.

Not true; The Supreme Court has routinely engaged in overturning laws that impinge on the 10 amendments. While the 10A originally only applied at the Federal level over time the Supreme Court has ruled that it also applies to State Laws.  Therefore, SC could rule on 1A issues (gag orders). 5A issues (why was it not tried at a Federal Level and the retro-active felony charges), 6A issues (denial of move of venue to neutral location) and 8A issues (trying as a felony something that has previously been tried as misdemeanor).

The SC does what you say it doesn't do all the time. We will see what happens.

[old]

On 6/3/2024 at 1:11 PM, LDSGator said:

Correct there. MAGA/old school republicans are fighting a civil war with no interest in making peace with each other, much less democrats.   

old school republicans would rather ally with D than the right; Congress right now is basically power-sharing between Rs and Ds, thanks to Mike Johnson. Literally he has given them control over Congress in exchange for him being Speaker.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, old said:

old school republicans would rather ally with D than the right;

Yes, because the hard right can’t stand the old school moderates and refuse to work with them. So, like all reasonable people, the old school GOP got the message and would rather work with someone else.

The hard right fails to comprehend basic politics. They want it their way all the time, which not reality. 

Edited June 5 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

MAGA Republicans in office are perpetually angry, abrasive, demanding, and refuse to listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with them. 

 

So..why do they get fussy and whiny when people refuse to work with them? Can’t have it both ways. 

[mirkwood]

5 hours ago, Manners Matter said:

 

I, like others here, am not a fan of Trump's demeanor, language, etc which is one reason I didn't vote for him the first time but to me, putting country over party is an easy choice.

 

THIS