Trump 2024 ???

[Ingomike]

The vote fraud has to be proven first. Like, in a court of law. Not in your mind.

The real believers, the ones who actually got up off of their asses and went to DC on January 6, had their chance. But they took selfies instead of rifles. I think that in the end, they didn't even really fully believe their own BS. At least not enough to actually do something about it.

And neither do you.

What page is that on in the queenberry rule book?

 

[jamil]

Donald Trump's call to "terminate" Constitution sparks fury

"Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to the soul of our nation, and should be universally condemned," a White House spokesman said.

www.newsweek.com

View attachment 240504

This is why I don't think Trump is the right guy for the job at this point. It's not clear to me from this statement that Trump has any idea how this works legally or practically. It's not clear that Trump is the "rightful" winner. Even if fraud happened, what's his vote count? Which votes were fraudulent? Why does he believe he can just be declared president? By whom? By what mechanism?

He and his supporters have every right to be upset. America should be upset about what all happened in 2020. But America thinks Trump is a Nazi racist who hates black people and women. They believe the straw monster depicted by Democrats in media.

But, Trump's path to regaining the presidency isn't whining about what happened in 2020. There's no way a new election, a re-do, that would overturn the old election, can be a practical path forward. Trump's only path forward is to win the 2024 election and stop this nonsense about being reinstalled. There's no "declaring" him potus. Anyone who thinks Trump will be reinstated if only people would just believe the Kraken is delusional.

 

[jamil]

What page is that on in the queenberry rule book?

What dirty tricks are going to get Trump reinstalled?

 

[jamil]

The vote fraud has to be proven first. Like, in a court of law. Not in your mind.

The real believers, the ones who actually got up off of their asses and went to DC on January 6, had their chance. But they took selfies instead of rifles. I think that in the end, they didn't even really fully believe their own BS. At least not enough to actually do something about it.

And neither do you.

I think TPTB were hoping they would bring rifles.

 

[BugI02]

His very words say that the alleged massive fraud allows for terminating rules, regulations and articles, including ones found in the Constitution. How do you interpret that? It seems clear to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

So, would you interpret that as Trump is only talking about articles concerning elections or do you think he wants to throw out the whole constitution. I know which way I think you will go, but sometimes people surprise me

That said, I certainly don't favor changing or abrogating the constitution except by the approved methods. I also don't think he could do that even if he was still president so it is just talk. I would ask what people think SHOULD be the remedy for all the fraud we have seen. To the extent that Trump is focusing the discussion onto remedies for past and future problems I will allow it. It really is no different than Democrats calling for government control over speech or gun confiscation, which is also abrogation of parts of the constitution - they just don't get anywhere near the amount of pearl-clutching when they do so

I would say that with the Ye/Fuentes thing and now this, assuming Trump actually is doing so by intent, he is trying to reset the narrative even at his own expense (which is not out of character for him). It is always a risky strategy, Cotton, and we'll see if it works out for him

If you really must get upset about something, may I suggest you get upset at the 'Republican' Lt. Governor of Georgia having the gall to say Walker is the worst senate candidate ever - in a year when the Dems ran Fetterman! - and doing so before Election Day when voting is still ongoing. That will have far more effect on your daily life than anything Trump does in the next two years, but by all means do the left's work for them, that's what they want

 

[KG1]

So, would you interpret that as Trump is only talking about articles concerning elections or do you think he wants to throw out the whole constitution. I know which way I think you will go, but sometimes people surprise me

That said, I certainly don't favor changing or abrogating the constitution except by the approved methods. I also don't think he could do that even if he was still president so it is just talk. I would ask what people think SHOULD be the remedy for all the fraud we have seen. To the extent that Trump is focusing the discussion onto remedies for past and future problems I will allow it. It really is no different than Democrats calling for government control over speech or gun confiscation, which is also abrogation of parts of the constitution - they just don't get anywhere near the amount of pearl-clutching when they do so

I would say that with the Ye/Fuentes thing and now this, assuming Trump actually is doing so by intent, he is trying to reset the narrative even at his own expense (which is not out of character for him). It is always a risky strategy, Cotton, and we'll see if it works out for him

If you really must get upset about something, may I suggest you get upset at the 'Republican' Lt. Governor of Georgia having the gall to say Walker is the worst senate candidate ever - in a year when the Dems ran Fetterman! - and doing so before Election Day when voting is still ongoing. That will have far more effect on your daily life than anything Trump does in the next two years, but by all means do the left's work for them, that's what they want

Condensed version. "I will allow it"

 

[printcraft]

My interpretation was that he was saying the fraud itself allows for those things. As in the fraud actually did/caused those things, not that he was advocating those things.

This. ^

Yahoo news told r45 to feel that way so don’t be surprised.

 

[BugI02]

The vote fraud has to be proven first. Like, in a court of law. Not in your mind.

Opinion | A Double Standard on Legal Standing at the Supreme Court

In a major immigration case, Biden Justice tries to exploit the High Court’s inconsistency

www.wsj.com

 

[BugI02]

The vote fraud has to be proven first. Like, in a court of law. Not in your mind.

The real believers, the ones who actually got up off of their asses and went to DC on January 6, had their chance. But they took selfies instead of rifles. I think that in the end, they didn't even really fully believe their own BS. At least not enough to actually do something about it.

And neither do you.

It is the predilection for trying to get people to 'fedpost', as well as a perceived proclivity for challenging others to do what you manifestly will not, that makes me want to speculate about who your employer really is

 

[jamil]

Not when you read the whole post.

Throwing out election results or having a new election.

I think this is an example of people in the public spotlight who can’t communicate in unambiguous language. I interpret what Trump means more like DD did. That the rules are undone by voter fraud, rather than him advocating for doing away with the rules.

The parts about him either being declared the winner or getting a do-over I suspect is just due to his child-like understanding of the process. It looks to me like he thinks that’s the way it works. You get to declare fraud and then you are either awarded the first down, or you get to replay the down.

I can’t count the number of Trumpers I’ve heard say with comolete confidence that Trump will be “reinstated” as soon as this new bombshell information comes out. As if the next step after GWP publishes the Kraken is reinstating him.

That was never true. I think team Trump must fundraise off of that. I mean they all use the same language so it seems obvious they’re getting it from the same source.

 

[jamil]

Opinion | A Double Standard on Legal Standing at the Supreme Court

In a major immigration case, Biden Justice tries to exploit the High Court’s inconsistency

www.wsj.com

I think the courts believed that Trump was dangerous. No one wanted to listen to his side of it. But the wild ass claims of Kraken didn’t help. The attempts to swap electors didn’t help. The rhetoric against Pence didn’t help. Those were all facts in evidence against himself that he did. I don’t know if he was his own greatest enemy, but he ranks near the too. I guess because he doesn’t know any better. That’s the charitable explanation.

Some of the lawsuits that were brought looked to me like they would have standing. They should have been heard. But there’s a raving lunatic straw man partiality created by Trump himself that needs to be dealt with. It’s not the courts job to do that, but they did it.

If Trump wants to get back in the whitehouse he should focus on winning in 2024, and stop trying to re-litigate what he’s already lost.

 

[BugI02]

I think the courts believed that Trump was dangerous. No one wanted to listen to his side of it. But the wild ass claims of Kraken didn’t help. The attempts to swap electors didn’t help. The rhetoric against Pence didn’t help. Those were all facts in evidence against himself that he did. I don’t know if he was his own greatest enemy, but he ranks near the too. I guess because he doesn’t know any better. That’s the charitable explanation.

Some of the lawsuits that were brought looked to me like they would have standing. They should have been heard. But there’s a raving lunatic straw man partiality created by Trump himself that needs to be dealt with. It’s not the courts job to do that, but they did it.

If Trump wants to get back in the whitehouse he should focus on winning in 2024, and stop trying to re-litigate what he’s already lost.

Uhh ... instructive ... that you immediately think that is only about Trump. I was thinking more about the Texas AG + 19 other states suit that fraudulent elections disenfranchise their voters

 

[BugI02]

It’s not the courts job to do that,

You are correct about this part

but they did it.

But I suspect here you give way to personal prejudice. If it truly is not their job, they should not presume to involve themselves in it. If they didn't want to be involved personally they could have remanded to a lower court with instruction to hear the case on its merits

How they behaved I'm sure made Schumer more willing to push the envelope on pressuring the court

 

[Twangbanger]

If Trump hypothetically wanted to make people think he and Stacey Abrams have them a little Martha Stewart/Snoop Dog tang-thang goin' on...it's hard to think of a better way to do it.

It is a loser look.

 

[BugI02]

No, being willing to roll over and accept stolen elections is the 'loser look'

 

[jamil]

Uhh ... instructive ... that you immediately think that is only about Trump. I was thinking more about the Texas AG + 19 other states suit that fraudulent elections disenfranchise their voters

Good that you brought those up. Trump’s behavior didn’t help them out either. Nevertheless, I don’t know what the precedent is for one state having standing to sue another state’s election process. It felt to me like the fix was in, that TPTB were just not interested in discovering the truth, whatever it was. They seemed uninterested. But in terms of handling, I think Republicans in the state being sued should have brought suits.

 

[Twangbanger]

No, being willing to roll over and accept stolen elections is the 'loser look'

There's accepting, and there's moving on. Sometimes in life you have to take the "L" and move on. The inability to do that is unfortunately a character weakness, and can prevent someone from realizing future success. It's been a long time since Trump had a "win."

The Democrats got the pin. If Trump doesn't like that, he's got to work on not finding himself on his back. The referee isn't going to give him the close ones. He doesn't show the ability to adapt to a different fight.

(In before, "Oh yeah, oh yeah, you wanna know what a character weakness is, it's, it's...")

 

[jamil]

There’s a cost to never giving up. There’s a cost to moving on. What’s the cost/benefit look like? Anyone seriously think Trump will be reinstated? The drop it. You’re not gonna win that. The cost is too high not to have anything to show for it. Better to soend your resources on something you can win.

One other thing. There’s a cost to being a politician without communication skills. You make inarticulate statements and the next thing you know everyone is hair on fire to accuse you of wanting to throw out the constitution. Another unforced error.

 

[Ingomike]

I think Republicans in the state being sued should have brought suits.

They did and were told they did not have, ready for it? STANDING…

 

[BigRed]

Caught an interview today.

Does chuck todd decide on his own whether to spit or swallow, or does he defer to jeff shell or noah oppenheim?