Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Karreck]

the fuckin cope from these fuckin losers who just get so big mad that they're not as popular as they think they should be.

Well, the Trump family did start pushing the whole "But we had bigger rallies than Biden did!" as an example of how the election was "stolen".

[Edge-]

Well, the Trump family did start pushing the whole "But we had bigger rallies than Biden did!" as an example of how the election was "stolen".

"I never see anyone with Biden hats or flags or shirts, he can't be very popular!"

[Breccia]

Presented without further comment: Trump's Lifetime of Lies.

[Darththeo]

"I never see anyone with Biden hats or flags or shirts, he can't be very popular!"

I tried to explain to Trump supporters that yes I voted for Biden ... no I don't like Biden.

They had a hard time understanding why I would vote for Biden and not support Biden.

The idea that someone can dislike Trump more than they dislike Biden is a foreign concept to a lot of them.

[masterhorus8]

I tried to explain to Trump supporters that yes I voted for Biden ... no I don't like Biden.

They had a hard time understanding why I would vote for Biden and not support Biden.

The idea that someone can dislike Trump more than they dislike Biden is a foreign concept to a lot of them.

And a foreign concept to Bernie supporters.

[The Stormbringer]

And a foreign concept to Bernie supporters.

Not all Bernie supporters. I was a Bernie supporter, all the way up until he said, "I give up, give your votes to Hilary instead."

And so, as much as I disliked it, I held my nose and voted for Hilary instead, because the guy I wanted in that position said it was the best option available.

And then I was a Bernie supporter again in the next election, all the way up until he said, "I give up, give your votes to Biden instead."

And so, once again, even though I disliked it, I held my nose and voted for Biden instead, yadda yadda.

Because why the fuck would I get mad at him for accepting the reality that he couldn't win and was stepping aside? I'm not mad at him, I'm mad at everyone else that made it happen, but at the same time I'm not so mad as to ignore everything he stood for by voting for Trump, or a third party, or not voting at all. That's just fucking stupid.

[Poopymonster]

I tried to explain to Trump supporters that yes I voted for Biden ... no I don't like Biden.

They had a hard time understanding why I would vote for Biden and not support Biden.

The idea that someone can dislike Trump more than they dislike Biden is a foreign concept to a lot of them.

I had to explain to a coworker once that politics isn't a car, it's a public bus. It won't take you directly to your door. You have to choose which one gets you closest to where you want to go.
Single issue voters are "I'll ride a Dogfart Bangbus no matter where it drops me off or what happens to my pooper because I like X about them!"

[Flarelaine]

"I never see anyone with Biden hats or flags or shirts, he can't be very popular!"

Some of us are capable of remembering who we vote for without having to check it in the mirror.

[Darththeo]

Not all Bernie supporters. I was a Bernie supporter, all the way up until he said, "I give up, give your votes to Hilary instead."

And so, as much as I disliked it, I held my nose and voted for Hilary instead, because the guy I wanted in that position said it was the best option available.

And then I was a Bernie supporter again in the next election, all the way up until he said, "I give up, give your votes to Biden instead."

And so, once again, even though I disliked it, I held my nose and voted for Biden instead, yadda yadda.

Because why the fuck would I get mad at him for accepting the reality that he couldn't win and was stepping aside? I'm not mad at him, I'm mad at everyone else that made it happen, but at the same time I'm not so mad as to ignore everything he stood for by voting for Trump, or a third party, or not voting at all. That's just fucking stupid.

The I want Bernie or Burn the Country down voters were very annoying. Like you want Bernie, why would you vote for a man who is the complete polar opposite? I don't blame them for the lost in 2016. Trump was winning that due to his cult of personality.

Trump managed to convince people that he could solve the problems with the US and the world. The lies he says and his fans believe is literally insane to me that anyone says that with a straight face.

[Gorsameth]

The I want Bernie or Burn the Country down voters were very annoying. Like you want Bernie, why would you vote for a man who is the complete polar opposite? I don't blame them for the lost in 2016. Trump was winning that due to his cult of personality.

Trump managed to convince people that he could solve the problems with the US and the world. The lies he says and his fans believe is literally insane to me that anyone says that with a straight face.

I've had varies conversations with a "Bernie or Bust" supporter.
It goes something like this.

America needs big sweeping changes, a real revolution, but the average American doesn't want big sweeping changes because they are fine with benefiting from the corrupt/racist/whatever system while the poor get trampled on.
Therefor its ok to support someone like Trump because that will accelerate the collapse of America and force to average American to support the glorious Socialist revolution by making the status-quo untenable.

How the glorious socialist revolution will work or how you can have any indication that it will improve things rather then dramatically make everything worse for everyone is something they tend to not be able to answer.

[Endus]

How the glorious socialist revolution will work or how you can have any indication that it will improve things rather then dramatically make everything worse for everyone is something they tend to not be able to answer.

Plenty of us real socialists have pretty detailed explanations of all that which'd answer any questions you might have on the topic. It's a pretty broad topic and it's kind of off-topic, though.

Bernie's not a fuckin' socialist.

[Edge-]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023...-a-lago-to-be-

So apparently Trump just isn't that into Kari Lake despite her best efforts to make herself his go-to pick for VP by moving into his club.

Why?

Because she's as big, if not a bigger, attention whore as he is and he really doesn't like people trying to take the spotlight off of him.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...rment-00105220

Also Rudy is probably gonna get disbarred.

[Kathandira]

I've had varies conversations with a "Bernie or Bust" supporter.
It goes something like this.

America needs big sweeping changes, a real revolution, but the average American doesn't want big sweeping changes because they are fine with benefiting from the corrupt/racist/whatever system while the poor get trampled on.
Therefor its ok to support someone like Trump because that will accelerate the collapse of America and force to average American to support the glorious Socialist revolution by making the status-quo untenable.

How the glorious socialist revolution will work or how you can have any indication that it will improve things rather then dramatically make everything worse for everyone is something they tend to not be able to answer.

I sometimes think this way as well. Go ahead and vote in Trump. Vote for someone even worse afterward. Scorch the earth.

But then I stop being a sadistic P.O.S. and snap back to reality lol.

[Breccia]

Because she's as big, if not a bigger, attention whore as he is and he really doesn't like people trying to take the spotlight off of him.

An interesting take, but not shared by all. You know who disagrees? Vegas.

The odds of Kari Lake being picked as Donald Trump's 2024 vice-presidential running mate have increased dramatically over the past four months, according to a leading bookmaker.

Betfair, a U.K.-based bookmaker, told Newsweek that it is offering odds of 7/2 on Lake being Trump's "vice-presidential nominee in 2024." This means you stand to win $7 if Lake is Trump's vice-presidential pick, based on a $2 stake.

The bookmaker is offering identical odds on Lake "being the Republican Party's vice-presidential nominee in 2024." It suggests that Betfair now thinks the chances of Lake being the running mate of a GOP presidential candidate other than Trump are negligible.

No surprises there.

Both these figures have changes significantly since March 2023, when Betfair offered reduced odds of 7/1 on Lake being Trump's running mate, but a significantly higher 7/5 on her being the overall GOP vice-presidential candidate.

Speaking to Newsweek at the time, Sam Rosbottom, a Betfair spokesman, said: "Kari Lake is 7/1 to be Donald Trump's running mate in the 2024 presidential election amid reports the former president is considering the defeated Arizona governor candidate for the position. Meanwhile, Kari is 7/5 to be the Republican vice-president nominee for the 2024 election."

[Huehuecoyotl]

@Breccia. Your last post confused me. You quoted:

The bookmaker is offering identical odds on Lake "being the Republican Party's vice-presidential nominee in 2024." It suggests that Betfair now thinks the chances of Lake being the running mate of a GOP presidential candidate other than Trump are negligible.

But surely the maths of that don't make sense? If Trump is pretty much an even chance of being nominated in the betting as it stands, and Lake is 7/2 to be his VP pick, then that means they are 7/2 for fifty percent of the outcomes. If their chance of being VP for anyone else was "negligible", I'd expect their odds to be VP for anyone to be 14/2. Because it's only half the chance.

It's late and I'm tired, so I'm not certain that's correct. But what I am sure about is that being 7/2 for the VP for anyone does NOT correlate to a negligible chance of being VP for a non Trump nominee. It suggests that there is exactly the same chance of being VP, regardless of who gets the nomination. So the article you quoted don't understand odds.

[Breccia]

I've read the entire 38-page "verdict" on Giuliani.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...t-giuliani.pdf

Holy shit, it's fucking scathing.

There isn't a ton in there we didn't already know. Rather than point out every single item I either didn't know, or forgot, I'll quote what I thought was the most telling:

But even though Respondent could properly seek to invalidate votes that were cured, his request for relief was frivolous because even if all “notice and cure” ballots were assumed to be Biden votes, and all were disqualified, President Biden would have won Pennsylvania by 70,000 votes instead of 80,000 votes.

In other words, Giulani either intentionally filed a suit he knew would have no effect in any way, even if he had evidence for his claims, or he filed a suit with no idea what he was doing. In a court of law, the second option might actually be worse. I'll let @cubby decide, I have to imagine the news of Giuliani's figurative drawing and quartering is something he'll view positively in this fast-moving thread.

"Guys, we need to kick Moodknight out of the raid. We are failing the boss because Moodknight didn't enchant his weapon."
"Dude, we wiped seven times in a row at the 60% transition because everyone was standing in the fire and nobody was killing the adds."
"Yes, but Moodknight doing 500 more DPS means we would have won."
"...no."

That's what Giuliani did, and what he was called out for. Amongst many other things. The "ruling" is 38 pages and, other than the introduction and conclusion, doesn't seem to repeat all that much. And lawyers cite their sources even more than I do, damn.

For added fun, here's about half of the conclusion. Half because a lot of the rest are legal citations that mean nothing, except for the context of course.

Mr. Giuliani’s effort to undermine the integrity of the 2020 presidential election has helped destabilize our democracy. His malicious and meritless claims have done lasting damage and are antagonistic to the oath to “support the Constitution of the United States of America” that he swore when he was admitted to the Bar. This is not a partisan political view; prominent conservatives who spent “most of [their] adult lives working to support the Constitution and the conservative principles upon which it is based” have concluded that “[r]epetition of these false charges causes real harm to the basic foundations of the country, with 30 percent of the population lacking faith in the results of our elections” and “is not sustainable in a democracy.”

We appreciate too that our sanction recommendation is constrained by the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct. Yet even though the respondents in Pearson, Yelverton, and Spikes were found to have violated the same rules as Respondent, the misconduct underlying his violations is immensely more acute. His frivolous claims impacted not only the court and parties involved but threatened irreparable harm to the entire nation.

We have considered in mitigation Mr. Giuliani’s conduct following the September 11 attacks as well as his prior service in the Justice Department and a Mayor of New York City. But all of that happened long ago. The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments. It was unparalleled in its destructive
purpose and effect. He sought to disrupt a presidential election and persists in his refusal to acknowledge the wrong he has done. For these reasons, we unanimously recommend that Mr. Giuliani be disbarred.

Emphasis mine, but I suspect only because the panel isn't allowed to boldface and emphasizes in other ways, such as the word "unanimously" which I pictured being shouted while pounding the table. Read that last part again. "Yes, he's the mayor during 9/11 and we're still recommending this, what he did was just that bad."

How Giuliani has fallen. How deplorably low. This will be his legacy, and he chose it for himself on purpose.

- - - Updated - - -

But surely the maths of that don't make sense?

It kind of does. Look at it another way: name one other person running for Vice President.

[Goat7]

When Trump goes to make his one phone call from jail to his lawyer and the cell phone, in the jail cell next to his jail cell rings.


buhahahahahaha

[Benggaul]

An interesting take, but not shared by all. You know who disagrees? Vegas.

Okay, but Vegas bookies also said Hillary would win in 2016...

[Breccia]

in yet another book written by yet another "only sane person in the WH" -- yes, as everyone predicted -- Trump may have shown classified info directly to reporters.

"Did he declassify them with telepathy first?"

This might be less about whether or not the act was illegal, and more about being a stupid fucking move.

A forthcoming book by an ex-Trump administration aide describes an episode in which officials worried that then-President Donald Trump was cavalier in his handling of classified information while talking to reporters, according to a copy obtained by NBC News.

Miles Taylor, who was a top aide to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, writes about the 2018 episode in a book set to be published this month. As a sitting president at the time, Trump had broad powers to declassify information. Yet the incident Taylor describes suggests that his aides still believed he needed to show more care toward state secrets — an issue that landed him in legal peril after he left office and took sensitive records with him.

Trump was still president when the episode Taylor described unfolded Oct. 18, 2018. Taylor writes that he was in a private meeting in the West Wing with John Bolton, who was then Trump’s national security adviser.

Then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders came into Bolton’s office and described an interview that Trump had given in the Oval Office, according to Taylor’s book, “Blowback.” (It’s common for White House press aides to sit in when the president gives interviews.)

Trump had been talking to the reporters about Jamal Khashoggi, the dissident and journalist who was killed that month by Saudi assassins in Turkey.

Sanders told Bolton that the president had picked up classified documents relating to intelligence on Khashoggi’s death and displayed them, Taylor writes, but that the reporters were unlikely to have been able to read the text.

Bolton gasped at first, but “breathed a sigh of relief” when Sanders told him there had been no cameras in the room, according to the book.

"If I don't see it, it's not illegal!"
-- Homer Simpson

Coincidentally, the NBC News article happens to have a Bolton quote I hadn't seen/don't remember:

He’s the president of the United States. Are you supposed to say, ‘Mr. President, let’s be clear. We don’t trust you. Give us the document back.’

And of course, a quote from me.

Yes. And when he didn't, you were supposed to quit in protest and immediately tell everyone why. What you don't do, is see Trump act like an ignorant child and wait until the election is years past before saying anything, you cowardly fuck.

Seriously, Bolton is flat-out admitting he worked for a known security risk. Bolotn's resignation letter is right here and is two fucking sentences. Neither of them are "Trump is a security risk".

I am glad Bolton's saying anything at all, but like many others, including this Taylor person, they waited until the damage had been done, Trump lost the election fairly and legally, then said something. It's better than never saying anything, in the same way blocking a goal to lose 5-0 is better than letting it through to lose 6-0. You're still a miserable keeper, and your team offered no defense.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, but Vegas bookies also said Hillary would win in 2016...

Yes, and one assumes they've learned from their mistakes.

Failing that, Lake would be a great choice for Trump to help Biden win in 2024. Say what you want about Pence.

(long pause follows)

Yep, sounds about right. But at least he brought in classic conservatives and a state. Lake lost AZ multiple times in the same election, and is (as posted earlier) even more Trump than Trump, in some ways at least, I don't think she cheated on her husband. She brings nothing to the ticket.

"What about the fact that she's a woman?"

You'll understand if I express skepticism that Republicans will turn out in droves to support a woman.

[Edge-]

Apparently Trump said something to the effect of not knowing what a Blizzard was while at a Dairy Queen on the campaign trail. This is worth of national press coverage on NBC news and I'm not linking to it because this is some dumb TMZ shit.

Though hey, I'll dunk on Trump for being an out of touch elite who knows McDonald's better than anyone.