Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

The East Palestine in Ohio.

Ah. A pile of toxic slime that leeched into the very bedrock, and Trump is upset he wasn't invited. Gotcha.

[Captain N]

On the subject of Ohio I can tell you that as much as I'd love to pin this on Trump it's not all on his shoulders. Once the railroads started going with Precision Scheduled Railroading and making trains 2-3 miles long and ordering crews to "highball" their trains despite FRA defects by threatening their jobs -- it's a damn miracle that we haven't seen more catastrophes like this.

[masterhorus8]

On the subject of Ohio I can tell you that as much as I'd love to pin this on Trump it's not all on his shoulders. Once the railroads started going with Precision Scheduled Railroading and making trains 2-3 miles long and ordering crews to "highball" their trains despite FRA defects by threatening their jobs -- it's a damn miracle that we haven't seen more catastrophes like this.

Like the one near Detroit that happened today?

[Orange Joe]

Like the one near Detroit that happened today?

https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-w...272504491.html

This happens a lot more than you think. Less then it used to.

[masterhorus8]

https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-w...272504491.html

This happens a lot more than you think. Less then it used to.

Ahh, so it's the good ol' focus on the topic for a week or month before forgetting about it again...

[Cthulhu 2020]

So now that it's been revealed that even Fox News stars expressed extreme doubt about election fraud, when's the indictments going to drop?

[Orange Joe]

Ahh, so it's the good ol' focus on the topic for a week or month before forgetting about it again...

Reason the one in Ohio is getting as much attention is because of the toxic chemicals which it should be. Otherwise there are 1000's of derailments a year, we generally only hear about ones where loss of life or things like this happen. which is why it seems rare to us.

[Twdft]

As wonderful as it all is for us, as it validates what we've known all along, I'm skeptical literally any of this information will filter down to their audience.

Fox will not tell them about it so there's about a chance of zero. Someone posted a video about it last page, the people that need to see it will turn it off immediately since it's by NPR.

[Breccia]

So now that it's been revealed that even Fox News stars expressed extreme doubt about election fraud, when's the indictments going to drop?

It is not a crime to lie to the American people.

But it could still be defamation. And there's an entire thread about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesse Benton, former Rand Paul aide pardoned by Trump for paying an Iowa Senator candidate to switch his endorsement in 2012, is back in trouble again. This time he "conspired to illegally funnel thousands of dollars of foreign money from Russian foreign nationals" in the 2016 campaign. Which he got paid a cool hundred grand for.

UPDATE: Convicted, given 18 months in prison for helping Russia aid the Trump campaign.

To be fair, this guy was given $100,000 by Russia and kept $75,000 as a processing fee.

Benton, 45, was convicted in November of conspiring to solicit and cause an illegal campaign contribution by a foreign national, effecting a conduit contribution, and causing false records to be filed with the Federal Election Commission, per the DOJ.

So as we've seen, not even a pardon is going to be enough sometimes, because Team Trump commits so many crimes that the ones Trump pardoned them for, like the fat orange landmass of corruption he is, were only the tip of the iceberg.

Trump's pardon may or may not have been raised in the trial, but if it was, it didn't work.

So if anyone out there is still holding to the myth that Russia wasn't involved with helping Trump in the election, there's proof that narrative is false. At best, they can pretend Trump personally didn't do anything about it, despite Trump asking them for help on live TV and of course the Trump Tower meeting.

I'm going to assume the DOJ also took the money Benton kept for himself.

- - - Updated - - -

Well. It has not been a good few days for Donald Trump.

In addition to what we've already seen/posted:

1) The Carroll lawsuit--

"We know about that."

Yes, but, I don't think we've heard that the famous "grab 'em by the pussy" tape is being fought over. Specifically, Carroll's lawyers say it goes to establish a pattern of behavior, while Trump is claiming it's irrelevant and prejudicial. Which is what I would call evidence against me, if I was guilty. "Your Honor, that evidence is prejudicial because it showed I did all that bad stuff."

I don't know that Trump can block this. For one, he gave a deposition in which he discussed it. Specifically, when Carroll's lawyer asked him if he said that and it was accurate, Trump tried to hide behind "historically, that's been true with stars" and has been for "the last million years". That's not technically perjury, just fucking stupid. For two, the tape and its contents are public knowledge, and so is Trump's admission that's what he said, in that "apology" which I will now quote from:

Bill Clinton has--

Yeah, you forgot he pivoted like it was commonplace behavior, which again, isn't going to help his case. Oh, and for three, it's pretty clear Team Trump is running out of legal minds capable of lighting a candle. Look, I keep saying "I am not a lawyer, I am not an expert" so understand when I say with no humor and no exaggeration that I'm starting to suspect I could win this case, based solely on Trump's absymal track record.

2) This quote:

I will never call Ron DeSanctimonious ‘Meatball’ Ron, as the Fake News is insisting I will. Even though FoxNews [sic] killing lightweight Paul Ryan is revered by him, Low Energy Jeb Bush is his hero and always at his side, his beaches and State were closed for long periods of time, his testing, testing, testing for the China Virus didn’t work out too well, and his loyalty skills are really weak, it would be totally inappropriate to use the word ‘meatball’ as a moniker for Ron!

Trump is referring to this NYTimes article that I did actually read and dismissed as irrelevant, of not worth posting anonymously on a forum with, what, a few hundred posters a day? Trump uses a nickname for a politcal opponent? Oh no! Anyway...

Trump disagreed. And you know what that means: the NYTimes article is true. So therefore, I will quote it for you.

Since November, despite the criticism he faced at the time, Mr. Trump has periodically hit out at his potential rival, albeit to a relatively small audience. He posted his most recent innuendo about the governor on Truth Social, where he has just under five million followers. And he has insulted Mr. DeSantis in casual conversations, describing him as “Meatball Ron,” an apparent dig at his appearance, or “Shutdown Ron,” a reference to restrictions the governor put in place at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic.

Mr. Trump’s team has been amassing data about Mr. DeSantis’s actions in response to the pandemic, in part to try to depict him as a phony.

So far, Mr. DeSantis has countered Mr. Trump’s attacks with occasional needling aimed at the former president’s anxiety about being labeled a loser. While Republicans have suffered through three disappointing election cycles with Mr. Trump as the face of the party, Mr. DeSantis won re-election resoundingly in November.

“Go check out the scoreboard from last Tuesday night,” Mr. DeSantis told reporters days after the midterm elections, when he was asked about Mr. Trump’s criticism.

As a reminder, and to tie this into part 1 above, I'll remind you that Trump, in 2016, said one of his political opponents was a woman too ugly to be elected. It is the reason why I will continue to mock the fat orange fuck for his appearance, because he asked for it. The NYTimes article fits 100% with Trump's proven, public behavior. There is no reasonable line of thinking that would say Trump is telling the truth and the NYTimes is lying.

Oh, and Trump "tweeted" that at 1AM. Some things never change. Like that Trump is a fat orange failure.

3) Trump ally Newsmax has worn out its welcome. As I cited earlier, DirecTV dropped them because they were asking for tens of millions of dollars, while still playing ads and being free on YouTube. DirecTV said "no, that's a stupid business decision" and Newsmax took offense to that.

What I didn't mention, because I didn't see it, is that DirecTV replaced Newsmax with TheFirst, a conservative news network. Meaning, that any claims of "censorship" were objectively false.

You might notice that was a WSJ article I just cited from Jan 26th. The WSJ OP ED section more recently had more to say on the subject.

We take no side in this business dispute, and it’s bewildering why many Republicans are getting involved. Forty-two House Republicans last month wrote a letter to DirecTV executives and its joint owners, AT&T and TPG, threatening to investigate the TV provider for colluding with the government to suppress conservative voices.

Sens. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee and Tom Cotton piled on this month with a letter suggesting DirecTV may have dropped Newsmax because of “pressure from administration officials or Democrats in Congress” and “may be the latest example of big business suppressing politically disfavored speech at the behest of liberal Democrats.”

Their evidence? A letter from Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney to AT&T CEO John Stankey last February calling for the company to combat misinformation spread by conservative news networks. A letter from two Democratic Congress Members, which was also sent to other TV providers, doesn’t add up to a vast leftwing conspiracy. The Fox News channel, where these pages have a news program, is also a Democratic target.

DirecTV notes that it helped launch Newsmax in 2014 and recently launched the new conservative channel called “The First,” which will increase diversity and competition among conservative voices. Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy doesn’t want that. Instead, he is trying to bring political and government pressure to bear on DirecTV to force the satellite operator to carry the channel on Newsmax’s terms.

At this point, most of you know where this is going. FOX News' recent forced admission that they were spreading misinformation. In other words, the Republican Party is now citing evidence against their own best interest. The letter bolded above was factually correct.

As of four days ago, the lawsuit by Dominion and the one by Smartmatic against Newsmax still stand.

4) And the final bit of bad news, SCOTUS is now hearing a court case to reverse the election and reinstate Trump in the WH--

"Yeah! MAGA!"

You've read this post, and the others I've sent, and this is your take? Have you learned nothing?

"I'm a Trump supporter. It'd be out of character if I learned something or understood context. You're lucky I can even spell."

Hmm.

Supreme Court Reconsiders Case to Reinstate Trump is a factually correct headline, but then you read the story, and wonder if Newsweek is going after TheOnion for "most dryly sarcastic publication that people misintepret".

The Brunson v. Adams lawsuit claims that lawmakers violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate a foreign intervention in the 2020 presidential race which allegedly rigged the election against Trump.

The case is based on the claim that the defendants—who include Congress members, Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence—voted to certify the 2020 presidential election after receiving a valid request from 154 members of Congress to investigate unfounded claims of electoral fraud in six states.

The Supreme Court declined to consider the lawsuit on January 9, but the plaintiff, Raland Brunson, filed an appeal on January 23. Now, the court has to reconsider whether or not to hear the case, according to an update on the SCOTUS' website that read that the lawsuit was "distributed for conference" on Friday.

Oh, and about spelling? Brunson wrote "A petition for reconsideration. Hang in their everyone" during the filing. On Facebook.

"Ah, this sounds like great news! Surely SCOTUS will reconsider and just declare Trump the winner!"

Um...maybe you should read more about it.

Brunson's lawsuit claims that election fraud made his vote for Trump in 2020 invalid when he cast his ballot in Utah. He raised the case in lower courts which dismissed it for the lack of jurisdiction.

The suit named all 387 members of Congress who voted to certify Biden's electoral votes and called for them all to be removed from their roles—along with Biden and Harris—and be prohibited from ever running for office again.

"That's...a bit more than I was expecting."

Well, for one, Trump supporters are insane, so expecting anything was a mistake. For two, that demand alone could easily be why his cases have been thrown out before. And for three, he wasn't done asking for stuff.

Brunson also asked for over $2 billion tax-free in damages

"For himself?"

It looks that way, yes. Also I still wasn't done.

In the appeal filed on January 23, Brunson argued that the court should grant a rehearing because the case "represents a very powerful domestic covert operation that is so benign that it cannot been seen on how it has breached our national security, and how it is affecting the national security of both Canada and Mexico, and how it has circulated fears that we might soon see the destruction of property along with a large volume of bloodshed in our own streets."

"So it was a conspiracy?"

He says so, yes.

"...he doesn't have any evidence, does he?"

No.

So, Santos can keep his job despite lying about everything in his life, because even a conviction can't throw him out. But this guy is suing to have everyone thrown out who passed a vote saying "there is no evidence of fraud" when there was no evidence of fraud.

"...why are you posting this clearly crazy person's lawsuit?"

Because it's all Trump has left. Remember, no evidence of fraud, barring some Republicans who illegally voted for Trump, was found. The case has no standing. Imagine the results if it still somehow worked. What would stop, oh I don't know, me from suing next year to remove everyone else for not investigating a crime which never happened and there was no evidence? And also, to eject everyone from office?

To cite former WH legal advisor Jenna Ellis, the--

"Who did she work for?"

Trump.

"Fuck."

This is the right call and predicted. The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of how a member does his or her job. This is a nonjusticiable issue.

Imagine if a future Dem sought removal of members for “failing to investigate” Trump. This would open the door to further weaponizing.

The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional power to adjudicate or arbitrate every dispute, only what is legally categorized as a 'justiciable' issue. Justiciablity concerns the limits on the judicial branch to exercise its authority over a matter. In this instance, the court system does not have the power or authority to determine whether a member of Congress is sufficiently exercising legislative oversight. Similarly, for example, the judiciary doesn't have the power or authority to determine whether a president is exercising sufficient executive authority.

There is no constitutional requirement as a matter of law that members of Congress must conduct certain investigations or oversight. This is a matter of policy and discretionary. Whether the Congress 'should' investigate a matter or 'failed' to is a political question, not an appropriate one for the judiciary.

I understand that many Americans are frustrated with Congress for its lack of oversight and investigation into the 2020 presidential election; however, the proper remedy is not for the judiciary to determine to expel members based on political policy determinations, and the obvious reason is that any person could then ask the judiciary to expel a member for 'failing' to conduct investigations on any other political issues, which would only further weaponize and politicize the court system—exactly what the political question doctrine is designed to avoid. The remedy is for the People to vote out members whose legislative actions they disagree with (thereby 'expelling' them) at the ballot box.

-- after the Jan 9th SCOTUS block

Just so we're clear: Ellis left the Republican Party when they called her out for Trump's 2020 election lawsuits. And even this is too much for her.

Congratulations, Trump supporters. Even other Trump supporters think you're insane.

[Breccia]

Ann Coulter calls Trump "profoundly stupid".

"Wasn't she one of his top cheerleaders?"

Yes. Was. Past tense. Coulter is using Trump's own "what have you done for me lately?" playbook and further demonstrates how his hold on the party is weakening.

Coulter made an appearance on the podcast Timcast IRL where she spoke about the former president.

"The one thing I didn't know when I wrote In Trump We Trust is how profoundly stupid he is. I made very clear in the book the only thing he could do; we will forgive him for anything, and I defended him the day after the Access Hollywood pussy grabbing tape came out," she said. "...I was pedal-to-the-metal defending him. I said we'll forgive him for anything unless you betray us on immigration. Guess what? He did."

Coulter concluded that Americans were correct in voting for Trump in 2016 "no matter how much of a despicable, moronic, grifting human being he was."

"He promised us a wall and that's why people voted for him," she added.

Coulter does not speak for all of the base -- how could she, she says she left it -- but successful as she is, I don't think she missed how stupid and narcisistic Trump was in 2016. Unless by "stupid" she means "did not do what I told him to do", it had been clear to everyone that Trump was intentionally ill-informed, had a long history of failures, lied all the time about everything, and of course claimed to know more about everything than everyone while proving he did not. I think she knew, and sided with him anyhow.

But the fact she's looking for an excuse is the key issue here. I think she vocalizes what a chunk of the GOP is thinking, namely, "I backed Trump on purpose, but now I don't want to be lumped in with the rest of his failures now that he's not getting results and may be going to jail". Call her a political whore all you want, which is probably "a lot", but she's never been shy about expressing a controversial opinion.

The rabid fanbase isn't going anywhere and the moderates/neverTrumpers have been consistent. It's the middle ground, the people who call themselves Republicans but sided with Trump despite knowing how unqualitifed, incompetent, dishonest, criminal, criminally stupid and outright loathesoem he was....but wanted Trump's voters and judges, who are now looking for a way to escape the ditch they dug for themselves and jumped in.

Expect these "I didn't know how XXX Trump was when I pledged my undying support for him" stories to continue. Expect me to not believe a one.

- - - Updated - - -

It remains hilarious that Trump is coming in third in a two-man race.

In the effort to boost his standing, Trump took a swing at DeSantis for being endorsed by Soros.

"When did Soros endorse DeSantis?"

That's the thing: he didn't.

Soros mentioned DeSantis while giving a speech on Thursday at the international Munich Security Conference, saying, “My hope for 2024 is that Trump and Governor DeSantis of Florida will slug it out for the Republican nomination. Trump has turned into a pitiful figure, continuing mourning his loss in 2020. Big Republican donors are abandoning him in droves.”

Soros went on to call the governor “shrewd, ruthless, and ambitious” and said he is “likely to be the Republican candidate.” “This could induce Trump, whose narcissism has turned into a disease, to run as a third-party candidate,” Soros added. “That would lead to a Democratic landslide and force the Republican Party to reform itself.”

Soros did not endorse DeSantis. I'm not even sure he complimented DeSantis. Trump simply saw someone say Trump was bad, made the leap in logic therefore that they must have endorsed DeSantis, because he's literally insane, his ego is that thick.

I know "Trump lied" is hardly new, but there are still people here who support that fat fucking liar and I will remain vigiliant in showing them how Trump lies all the time about everything. The fact that this is evidence of a mental defect isn't helping the cult's cause, either.

Just to show how far it's gone, Kari Lake -- yes, we're still talking about her despite her being no part of anything, but bear with me -- also Tweeted that Soros endorsed DeSantis, and Twitter fucking fact checked her. That's a fact check, by Musk, of Trump, by proxy. That's how much of an insane lie this was, that Trump told, on purpose.

[Orange Joe]

Soros did not endorse DeSantis. I'm not even sure he complimented DeSantis. Trump simply saw someone say Trump was bad, made the leap in logic therefore that they must have endorsed DeSantis, because he's literally insane, his ego is that thick.

I know "Trump lied" is hardly new, but there are still people here who support that fat fucking liar and I will remain vigiliant in showing them how Trump lies all the time about everything. The fact that this is evidence of a mental defect isn't helping the cult's cause, either.

Just to show how far it's gone, Kari Lake -- yes, we're still talking about her despite her being no part of anything, but bear with me -- also Tweeted that Soros endorsed DeSantis, and Twitter fucking fact checked her. That's a fact check, by Musk, of Trump, by proxy. That's how much of an insane lie this was, that Trump told, on purpose.

Am I missing it or? I don't see any fact checking by twitter?

[Breccia]

Am I missing it or? I don't see any fact checking by twitter?

"Readers added context they thought people might want to know" counts. Especially when the context is "Trump lied".

[Orange Joe]

"Readers added context they thought people might want to know" counts. Especially when the context is "Trump lied".

Not there for me?

[Breccia]

Not there for me?

I guess not, no.

But the Washington Examiner was cited so you know it's that bad.

[Captain N]

I see right wing commentators decided to focus more on their anti-Semitic dog whistling than anything else in that picture.

[Breccia]

It’s hard to bluff when everyone knows you don’t have the cards.

That's a bit from this OP ED which compares Trump to an inexperienced gambler -- called a "maniac" and I'm sure that's just a coincidence -- who plays every hand the same way, raising heavily whether they have a good hand or not, using their chip count to frighten off opponents. Sounds like using your money to bully, doesn't it? Fits like a tiny glove?

As a mathematician, of course the author's parallel to the world of gambling caught my attention. Glad it did, because I think it's really well-written. It starts like this:

Trump held a strong hand in 2016. He had the deepest experience in the cut-and-thrust of national media. He seized on a couple of issues that electrified voters. Faced with a tenuous, inexperienced field, Trump swept them aside. Maniacs do great at soft tables.

Trump’s problem heading into 2024 is that he holds a much weaker hand — and everyone has seen his play.

The author then goes into how Trump is in bad shape, and getting worse. Oh, and they show his polling numbers are in bad shape, and getting worse, too. We've seen all that, but it's a well-done summing up.

Then, he predicts the future.

In 2016, Trump made up for the loss of the “Never-Trump” Republicans with working class voters (and there were not that many Never-Trumper Republicans to begin with). As it stands now, the polls are mixed with Trump and Biden both having leads in the national polls. But Trump clearly has a ceiling. He has never polled above 50 percent in a major ballot test. The best estimate is that Trump cannot break above 48 percent.

Unfortunately, the advantage-Trump polls do not provide detailed crosstabs to tease out the differences between them and the advantage-Biden polls. But the YouGov polling shows Trump with weakening favorables from Republicans at just 74 percent favorable and 21 percent unfavorable — very high for a recent President. Trump would need at least 85 percent of the GOP vote to win in 2024 and would still need to win independents handily.

If Trump permanently alienates enough Republicans, he cannot beat Biden. Forget about a third-party run. No third-party candidate has topped 25 percent of the vote since 1912 — or received any electoral votes since 1968. Trump would surely throw the election to the Democrats.

We've talked about Trump running third-party before -- especially in 2016, but more recently as well. To continue the metaphor, Trump played so long everyone knows his tells, and he's already down a mortgage payment.

Then the author makes an interesting prediction, and the biggest reason I'm quoting him.

And Trump has more to lose by losing than any contender. If Trump loses, the Democrats are certain to go after him on all legal fronts. To date, the Biden Justice Department and other prosecutors have been cautious and calculating, fearful of creating a backlash that would help Trump. Even worse would be losing at trial. However, a Trump defeated in 2024 would have no real political future. There is no chance a two-time loser could mount a new presidential campaign at age 82.

Prosecutors in a post-2024 world with Trump not a threat would no longer have to worry about appearances or losing on some of their charges. They wouldn’t have to make sure all charges are substantial. If Trump so much as tore a tag off a mattress, they could press charges.

The very real danger Trump is putting himself in may not matter to him — he may not be able to even perceive the risk. But at some point, it has to sink in.

For Republican Party elected officials and leaders, it’s time to stop being the nits at the poker table. Trump no longer holds the cards. His bluffing days should be over.

It remains to be seen if GOP leaders can figure that out.

A prediction that Garland (and others?) will wait until after 2024 is new, but the description carries weight. Not as much weight as Trump's fat ass, but it makes sense. For the record, I hope it's wrong -- because I would like to see law enforcement handled in a fair manner, and I would like to believe running for office doesn't offer immunity. But if nothing else, the idea of Trump being even more old, even more sick, and even more low energy than he's proving to be now, wouldn't just make him a criminal facing law enforcement, it would make him the slowest gazelle in the Serengeti.

[Captain N]

Hey, congrats, guys!

Now let's see how many of the tail end of the Human Centipedes actually start repeating that.

[Breccia]

Hey, congrats, guys!

Did he say how? Surely he named a piece of legislation or Executive Order that turned us into a supersocialist nation.

(watches video)

Is...is Trump sick? This does not look or sound like a man who is okay. I want to make fun of his attacks on the "globists" but that might be in poor taste if he's dying.

Also, listen to that lack of crowd and that echo. Is the room empty?

(watches a few others in reverse time order)

No, there's people in there. But Trump can't hold a coherent thought and started slurring worse and worse as the...I don't want to say "speech" so "talking into the camera"...went on. Trump had a captive audience of paying customers and couldn't even keep them interested, or himself standing, for...an hour? Half hour? Less?

[Belize]

Hey, congrats, guys!

Why am I paying so much for shitty American healthcare then?

Worst communist country ever.

[Edge-]

Hey, congrats, guys!

What the fuck? Nobody told me?

How could House Republicans allow this to happen?