Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

I just don't see any harm in treating Trump like he's a credible threat... why take the chance?

I'm fully supportive with this.

[Paranoid Android]

I don't think Trump can match the success he had in 2016. Lots of fence-sitters likely said "he can't be that bad, also fuck Hillary".

Significantly less fence-sitters today, I would guess.

Not how our elections work. We have the Electoral College.

Swing state voters will have more say over the 2024 election than the 80% of Americans in other states.

Does that sound like democracy to you?

Here's how we get rid of the Electoral College.

Hate to break it to people but Trump voters or potential Trump voters are larger in swing states.

Do you know who is the largest group of people who don't vote by the numbers? White people. White people by percentage is there with other groups around the 30% mark, of course by the numbers of being 60% of population are the largest number.

Again, not factually true...he had more people vote for him in 2020 than he did in 2016.

2016: 62 million votes.
2020: 74 milliion votes.

People need to stop thinking "Trump can't win"...that's exactly how he won in 2016.

To riff off your quote, More white people showed up to vote who never voted or rarely voted. Sure Trump bumped small, minute numbers in Black and Hispanic vote but not enough to swing the states I believe.

That number is always amazing considering COVID really, but hey this is America. While the votes or percentage in 2016 was less than Romney and another, forgot who, a 12 million jump is frickin huge.

[Benggaul]

The Democrats winning the presidency doesn't really do that much.

Disagree. Veto power in the event of a GOP House and Senate is enormous.

[Huehuecoyotl]

He didn't just get more votes for his second term... he broke a record for most votes ever. Yes, Biden did even better... but if you look at those 74 million votes for Trump and say "Nah, there's nothing to worry about"... you're being dangerously naive.

And I wouldn't count on Biden getting the same bump in 2024 either. He's not nearly as popular today as he was in 2020. Overall, I expect voter engagement to be lower in 2024 than in 2020. And Democrats do much better with higher engagement.

Let me leave you with a final thought

If I'm wrong... the worst thing that happens is Biden wins harder than he needed to
But If I'm right... enjoy 4 more years of Trump.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong... but, as I keep saying, no one thought Trump could win in 2016 either.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be complacent about Trump. That wasn't the point I was making. I'm just saying that Trump getting a bump in his numbers as the incumbent is expected. Everyone gets that. In and of itself, that isn't a reason to be concerned that Trump could win in 2024.

I'd still expect him to get less than that for 2024, if he does run. Hell, I'd expect him to get less than he got in 2016, to be honest. But the reason he got so soundly beaten in 2020 was because it looks like a LOT of people that don't always vote in Presidential elections got pushed into voting against Trump, effectively. Complacency would eat into those numbers, and could make the race a lot tighter. Nobody wants that.

So I agree with your belief that nobody should be assuming that Trump can't win. I'd just disagree with what you were stating as the primary reason for doing so.

[Benggaul]

The desperate search for views/clicks continues.

Maybe, but as I said before I don't know why people aren't expecting this velvet-glove treatment considering they were bought by the right wing last year. They are now, essentially, a right-wing news outlet. They might appear to be better than FOX News but give it a bit more time and they'll probably be indistinguishable.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So I agree with your belief that nobody should be assuming that Trump can't win. I'd just disagree with what you were stating as the primary reason for doing so.

I never said it was the "primary reason". I was just responding to this comment:

I don't think Trump can match the success he had in 2016. Lots of fence-sitters likely said "he can't be that bad, also fuck Hillary".

Significantly less fence-sitters today, I would guess.

He did more than match 2016 in 2020. Even with the disastrous final year of his presidency... 74 million people still thought he was the better choice. It still wasn't enough because voter turnout was so high...and high turnout elections tend to be more favourable to Democrats. But, other than Biden, he received more votes than any other presidential candidate in American History. So, when you say something like "that's a reason he can't win in 2024"...it makes me think you're being naive.

2016 was a low turnout election...because democrats all believed that Hillary was a lock.

If you look at the bottom line of the reply you originally quoted...you'll see what my "primary reason" is

People need to stop thinking "Trump can't win"...that's exactly how he won in 2016.

Complacency. That's what i've been talking about from the start.

You say you don't think anyone should be complacent...but you also say that you don't think he can even get to his 2016 numbers. That reeks of complacency to me. Any Candidate with an "R" next to their name can get Trump's 2016 numbers.

[Breccia]

So, I think Trump's about to get the one thing nobody's ever given him before: a win in court.

So first, quoting the whole thing. It's neither bigly nor yuge.

DOJ seeks to stop Trump deposition in Strzok, Page lawsuit

The Department of Justice (DOJ) said on Thursday it will ask a federal appeals court to block Trump’s deposition in a lawsuit brought by two former FBI employees who claim they were unfairly targeted for their work investigating the former president’s ties to Russia.

The government said it plans to seek a rare writ of mandamus from the appeals court, unless U.S. District Judge Amy Berman reconsiders its request that FBI Director Christopher Wray sit for his deposition first, according to a new court filing.

Jackson ordered Trump and Wray to sit for depositions in the case in February. However, the Justice Department argued Wray should be deposed first, in case his deposition removes the need to question Trump under oath.

“As the Court itself acknowledged, Director Wray’s testimony could obviate the need for any deposition of Trump,” the filing said.

If Berman declines to reconsider the ruling, the DOJ said it will ask the appeals court to block Trump’s deposition and requested the judge stay his deposition in the meantime.

The DOJ’s latest filing comes in the case brought by former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. Strzok was fired and Page resigned from the bureau in 2018, after text messages emerged that showed the two making critical comments about Trump.

Now I get why such a motion can exist. Yes, it's possible Wray could clear things up. That's not the problem.

My questions are why and how.

Here are two hypotheticals:

A) Wray says "Trump 100% fired them for looking into his Russian contacts. Here is the letter he handed me, with his fingerprints and giant Sharpie signature, directing me to fire them because they were going to find his Russian contacts. This is a video of him handing me the letter, witnessed by the Pope, Danny Trejo, and all the surviving Beatles."

B) Wray says "No, they weren't fired for finding Trump's Russian contacts. They lined up several corgies and used them as target practice in the 5th floor of the FBI office. Used their service weapons and everything. One of them got a 50-cal from the armory. Everyone was horrified. I fired them immediately. I'm surprised it wasn't leaked."

Unless it's a case that extreme, I don't see Wray removing the need for Trump's deposition. If Trump says he didn't but Wray can prove he did, Trump's deposition is perjury. If Trump says he did in his deposition, Wray might want to block that out of principle, but I don't see the court allowing that. I mean, if Trump says "I ordered them fired for looking into my known, obvious Russian contacts" to the point of saying it in a deposition, he probably said it in public enough that Strzok and Page can/should argue that the letters on their termination papers isn't as important as Trump's orders to their boss.

So both depositions are necessary. Unless they agree.

Which, in turn, means there are two options.

A) Trump ordered them fired, Wray admits that, and Trump said so in his deposition.
B) Trump did not order them fired, Wray explains the real issue, and Trump of course said he didn't in his deposition.

And, while we all know Trump is stupid, fat, impulsive, fat, vengeful, fat, and obese, I'm just going to say it now: if he admitted to firing those two for political reasons under oath, we'd have heard about it by now.

So I think that Wray is going to confirm what Trump said, I think he's going to say Strzok and Page were fired for something else, and I think the lawsuit will fail.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...tnes-rcna84120

Donald Trump was ordered Thursday to appear by video at a May 23 hearing in his Manhattan criminal case after a judge this week set rules barring him from using evidence in the case to attack witnesses.

Judge Juan Manuel Merchan scheduled the hybrid hearing — the former president on a TV screen, his lawyers and prosecutors in court — to go over the restrictions with Trump and to make clear that he risks being held in contempt if he violates them.

The case is continuing in state court even as Trump’s lawyers seek to have it moved to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is considering the transfer request, issued an order this week setting paperwork deadlines and a hearing for late June.

Merchan, still in charge while that drama plays out, agreed to instruct Trump on the rules by video, rather than in person, after a prosecutor reminded him last week that bringing Trump to court would present mammoth security and logistical challenges.

Trump continues to get more benefit of the doubt and leeway than anyone in front of courts ever, with the judge overseeing the NY criminal case holding a hearing where he'll walk Trump through the rules about now using evidence to attack witnesses by holding his hand and speaking slowly.

I think we can all agree that it will not be very effective.

[Spectral]

The Democrats winning the presidency doesn't really do that much.

I can sort of understand how people held this view pre-2016, but I can't fathom continuing to believe this after seeing SCOTUS flip. Even setting aside the broader power of the executive branch, just having control over SCOTUS appointments have far-reaching impact.

[Edge-]

I can sort of understand how people held this view pre-2016, but I can't fathom continuing to believe this after seeing SCOTUS flip. Even setting aside the broader power of the executive branch, just having control over SCOTUS appointments have far-reaching impact.

The Senate is more important when it comes to SCOTUS nominations, as Mitch McConnell highlighted superbly.

POTUS can nominate whoever they want. Senate Majority Leader can simply say, "That's nice. We don't care." and leave the nominee hanging in the wind and the seat empty for as long as they choose.

[Spectral]

The Senate is more important when it comes to SCOTUS nominations, as Mitch McConnell highlighted superbly.

POTUS can nominate whoever they want. Senate Majority Leader can simply say, "That's nice. We don't care." and leave the nominee hanging in the wind and the seat empty for as long as they choose.

The worst outcome possible if you have either the Senate or the Presidency is a stalemate. Neither is more important than the other for nominations.

[Edge-]

The worst outcome possible if you have either the Senate or the Presidency is a stalemate. Neither is more important than the other for nominations.

Yes, the ultimate authority rests with the Senate. The power of the president is just in nominating someone, the Senate takes the action that confirms or denies them. Sure a POTUS could just...not nominate anyone, but no POTUS is going to do that since if the Senate is held by the other party the worst they can do is treat the nominee like Merick Garland and ignore their existence.

Though the more modern, "We refuse to even talk to your nominee" shit is driven by Republicans who have spent decades turning the judiciary into a political battleground whose frontlines are made up of trained and groomed activist judges.

[Breccia]

"a prosecutor reminded him last week that bringing Trump to court would present mammoth security and logistical challenges."

Well, yes, I guess that's true.

Incidentally, while Trump might hold his tongue and not violate those rules, I agree it doesn't seem likely.

He just appealed the Carroll case, the one he just made worse by, yep, going on live TV and calling her a liar.

"On what grounds is he appealing?"

On the grounds of "I don't want to face consequences for all that stuff I did."

"No, on what legal grounds."

I just told you.

"That's not a legal reason."

I don't think he has a legal reason. He presented no evidence, no testimony (well, not intentionally) willingly attacked the judge and victim in public and his own lawyer was the one who screwed up.

Trump is getting every possible benefit even when he's proven he hasn't earned any doubt, but he shouldn't be. Hopefully the brief is just thrown out of appeals court on the grounds of "this is garbage".

Look, I'm no expert, but at this point following so many high-profile court cases, I at least have a 101-level understanding of the more common terms. An appeal is not a do-over. It is "a mistake was made in the first case, and I am asking a higher-ranking judge to fix that mistake". Trump, for example, will not be allowed to give new testimony or suddenly remember an alibi.

So, he's going to have to claim the judge made a mistake. That a witness shouldn't have been allowed, an instruction shouldn't have been given, something like that. And again, with Team Trump offering literally nothing but "nuh-uh" in Trump's defense, I don't see any of that being granted.

"If Trump can't give new evidence, why would the CNN thing come up?"

Because the judges probably saw it. And when Trump says things like "I did not defame her" they can say "we know for a fact you did, fatass." Trump's out-of-court statements are being taken into consideration, see what Edge- literally just posted that I'm replying to.

"Could he claim Tapioca was inadequate counsel?"

No.

First, Tapioca would never say that.

Second, that's a mistrial, not appeal.

Third, Trump would need to demonstrate that Trump gave instructions Tapioca didn't follow. "Make this go away" and it doesn't go away, is not inadequate counsel. "Put me on the stand" and he refuses...would make him an amazing lawyer, bad example. But no, that's not the issue here.

And fourth, filing an appeal on the grounds the mistake was yours is likely to be met with ridicule.

"Hey ref, I know the receiver I threw to dropped the ball, but he should have caught it and scored a touchdown."
"Good enough for me. Give the Super Bowl victory to the other team!"

I suppose at some point we'll see the filing, but while I admit I'm barely a novice, I can't think of a single thing in the trial that, based purely on Team Trump putting up no defense of any kind, could be a mistake by the judge big enough to overturn the ruling.

There's more I want to post -- the Senate GOP and even the Freedom Cock-Us are split over Trump's demands that the GOP destroy their own country. Simply put, the people elected into positions of power within the government aren't thrilled with the idea of ending the government and therefore their power, by their own actions, while Trump sits at home eating Cheetos. They might also be looking at 2024 then their signatures will be on the "Destroy America" contract and thinking "Trump will claim this is Biden's fault, but I don't know if I can convince my own voters the same".

But it's also Friday, 70, and my favorite dockside bar is open. So it's citations for another time.

[postman1782]

Good. They don't deserve to be rewarded for that whole farce.

Especially when they followed it up with this...


The desperate search for views/clicks continues.

When Biden did his town hall earlier this year, he had 3.7 million viewers. Still more than Trump.

[Kaleredar]

When Biden did his town hall earlier this year, he had 3.7 million viewers. Still more than Trump.

Remember the difference, though.

Biden is the president. Trump is some random guy who is now liable as a sex offender. What he thinks should be worth exactly Jack and diddly.

[Breccia]

So, the NYTimes and a few others no doubt did manage to dig through the CNN junikyard and actually find something of value.

“I took the documents; I’m allowed to,” he told Ms. Collins at one point, asserting that he had “the absolute right” to do so under the Presidential Records Act. The law, enacted in 1978 after the Watergate scandal, gave control of presidential records to the government itself — not to individual presidents.

At another point, Mr. Trump described for Ms. Collins how he had apparently taken materials from the White House not only on purpose, but in plain view of the public.

“When we left Washington, we had the boxes lined up on the sidewalk outside for everybody,” he said. “People are taking pictures of them. Everybody knew we were taking those boxes.”

That's not what his lawyers have been saying.

In the letter — which requested that the documents investigation be removed from the hands of prosecutors and placed in those of the intelligence community — the lawyers said that during Mr. Trump’s chaotic departure from the White House, “staffers and General Service Administration employees quickly packed everything into boxes and shipped them to Florida.”

The lawyers argued that “White House institutional processes,” not “intentional decisions by President Trump,” were responsible for sensitive material being hauled away.

Trump also, again, claimed he declasified the materials he now admits he took with telepathy. Which we know is false. If there's a law that says you can't take classified material -- the law he's likely being charged with -- but you can just undo the law without telling anyone or filing any paperwork, then...why have the law?

Statute 43.1
1) You are not allowed to pour gasoline all over a church and set it on fire, with or without people inside.
1a) Unless you think about it first.
1b) Then you're good.

Trump did hit the brakes before going off the cliff entirely.

When Ms. Collins asked Mr. Trump if he had ever shown classified documents to anyone after leaving the White House, he said, “Not really.”

When she pressed him on what he meant, Mr. Trump gave an equivocating answer: “Not — not that I can think of.”

First of all, "I don't remember" is a solid defense. Unless you claim to have the best memory ever. Then, "I forgot I stole classified intel and showed people at random" suddenly shows up during debates. Or, court hearings.

Second of all, "not really" is not the firm denial you'd expect from a law-abiding citizen. Here, I'll demonstrate. Hey @Endus have you ever burned down a church?

See, he's going to just flat-out say "No". And he's Hellboy.

So, while the CNN town hall was still a bad idea, Trump being Trump is also a bad idea. He just keeps admitting all the crimes he did.

[gondrin]

The Senate is more important when it comes to SCOTUS nominations, as Mitch McConnell highlighted superbly.

POTUS can nominate whoever they want. Senate Majority Leader can simply say, "That's nice. We don't care." and leave the nominee hanging in the wind and the seat empty for as long as they choose.

Honestly, this is where the law should be all nominees, upcoming bills and the like have to be voted on within 6 months of submitting. Neither leader of either chamber can stall it from bringing it forward for a vote. It would resolve a lot of the gridlock as 1 person should never have that much power to dictate who or what is brought forth for a vote.

[postman1782]

Remember the difference, though.

Biden is the president. Trump is some random guy who is now liable as a sex offender. What he thinks should be worth exactly Jack and diddly.

And Jack was watching, especially when he said he could show the illegal documents to people. He admitted to espionage.

[Endus]

Second of all, "not really" is not the firm denial you'd expect from a law-abiding citizen. Here, I'll demonstrate. Hey @Endus have you ever burned down a church?

See, he's going to just flat-out say "No". And he's Hellboy.

I'm guessing that smoking my deacon on Bible knowledge in Sunday school so badly at age 10 that the church asked me not to come back doesn't count?

If not, then the answer's "Fuck no!"

[Breccia]

I'm guessing that smoking my deacon on Bible knowledge in Sunday school so badly at age 10 that the church asked me not to come back doesn't count?

I probably should have been more specific. Pretend I used the word "intentionally".

- - - Updated - - -

(posts literally anything)

Your opinion on Trump being found liable for sexual assault is now demanded.