Donald Trump in Hot Water

[whippoorwill]

I’m dreading this whole thing
Someone please step up that can lead a country!

[batmagadanleadoff]

And while this belongs in the politics thread, while President Biden is a pretty terrible candidate, is there any reason why he shouldn't win by the same (or greater) margin than he won by in 2020?

If the electorate was sane, Biden should win by a double landslide. Because the main goal should be to ensure that the GOP candidate loses, not that Biden should win. But some people are gonna vote third-party because they have childish and unrealistic expectations that the main party candidates need to be perfect to get their votes.

[Benjamin Grimm]

My fear is that a few thousand votes swinging the other way in states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin could give Trump the win.

[batmagadanleadoff]

My fear is that a few thousand votes swinging the other way in states like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin could give Trump the win.

Stupid Electoral College.

[Edgy MD]

And while this belongs in the politics thread, while President Biden is a pretty terrible candidate, is there any reason why he shouldn't win by the same (or greater) margin than he won by in 2020?

If the electorate was sane, Biden should win by a double landslide. Because the main goal should be to ensure that the GOP candidate loses, not that Biden should win. But some people are gonna vote third-party because they have childish and unrealistic expectations that the main party candidates need to be perfect to get their votes.

While that does pointlessly insult me, it doesn't answer my question.

[batmagadanleadoff]

And while this belongs in the politics thread, while President Biden is a pretty terrible candidate, is there any reason why he shouldn't win by the same (or greater) margin than he won by in 2020?

If the electorate was sane, Biden should win by a double landslide. Because the main goal should be to ensure that the GOP candidate loses, not that Biden should win. But some people are gonna vote third-party because they have childish and unrealistic expectations that the main party candidates need to be perfect to get their votes.

While that does pointlessly insult me, it doesn't answer my question.

If you feel insulted, it might be because my post resonates with you. Anyway, third-party votes might make the 2024 Presidential election closer than the previous election.

[Edgy MD]

Why would that be so?

None of the top 20 states for third-party voting in the past two presidential elections is broadly considered a swing state, and only three of the top 20 were states where the winning candidate’s margin in 2020 was within single digits.

Do you know a single voter who voted for Biden in 2020 that is really considering a Manchin/Huntsman ticket? Have you read about any? Any at all?

[batmagadanleadoff]

I didn't write that third-party votes will swing the 2024 election, even though they could. I simply guessed that they "might" narrow Biden's margin of victory. The 2024 potential third party candidates might have more appeal than third party candidates of the previous election. In 2016, third party votes outnumbered the margin of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and in Maine and came very close to the margin of victory in Virginia. Those are not red states. I don't need to personally know any of the voters that voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to know how many votes Johnson and Stein received.

[MFS62]

Rudy is saying he has "scientific evidence" of election fraud that he will use as evidence in his trial.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... kbar&ei=15

Maybe he got it from the pillow guy.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mike-lind ... antic-flop

Later

[Edgy MD]

If states aren't swung, then the margin of victory will not change.

I don't really think you believe that the Libertarian voters who did most of the swinging in those states you listed were siphoned from voters who otherwise would have voted for Secretary Clinton. But I think Wisconsin was within her reach if you threw her every last vote for Jill Stein. Maybe Pennsylvania too. But Ms. Stein siphoned Democratic- leaning support from the left, not from the right.

Historically, right up into modern history, third-party voters divide the right far more than the left of the electorate.

[batmagadanleadoff]

If states aren't swung, then the margin of victory will not change.

I don't really think you believe that the Libertarian voters who did most of the swinging in those states you listed were siphoned from voters who otherwise would have voted for Secretary Clinton. But I think Wisconsin was within her reach if you threw her every last vote for Jill Stein. Maybe Pennsylvania too. But Ms. Stein siphoned Democratic- leaning support from the left, not from the right.

Historically, right up into modern history, third-party voters divide the right far more than the left of the electorate.

Wisconsin had its own troublesome issues in 2016. Studies determined that the then new voter suppression laws instituted in Wisconsin, alone, were enough to swing the election from Clinton to Trump. But anyways, why take a chance? I don't know who the third-party candidates will be. But voting for the Democratic candidate will render the third party issue moot. I just don't see the point. They have zero chance of winning. Zero. Why play with fire? Let Biden have his landslide. Because a narrow Biden victory might embolden the courts and state legislatures to steal the election for Trump -- might embolden them to do things that they weren't willing to do in 2020. Margins of victory are important. The powers will respect a larger margin of victory than a smaller one ... will be less willing to challenge a larger margin of victory. Sometimes, I get the sense that it's not enough for Dems to simply win. Dems need to annihilate ... to crush ... to obliterate the opposition.

[Edgy MD]

I think two reasons to take a chance — a chance on tolerating third parties, if not choosing one yourself — is because more democracy is a good thing, and for your purposes, more Republican-side-of-the-spectrum votes get siphoned off by third parties than Democratic-side votes.

If you want to try to win votes for your candidate by telling others that they're childish, I don't think you'll find that to be productive. But if it's what you want to do, then it's what you want to do.

[batmagadanleadoff]

And what if there's a 3P candidate whose politics are more aligned with, say, Ralph Nader's? And why would you specifically vote for a 3PC who is likely to siphon off Trump votes? What kind of politics would that candidate have to have to pull that off? Makes no sense to me, especially when the 3PC is guaranteed to lose.

Besides, your 3P vote wouldn't siphon off a Trump vote unless you would otherwise vote for Trump, which I don't think you would.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Occam's Razor applied to the scumbag monster that tried to overthrow the US Government.

There's an Easy Solution to The Justice System's Donald Trump Problem

Toss him in a cell. And if his corporal's guard of a legal team wants to litigate these measures, let them have at it. If his mouthbreathing devotees want to make trouble, point them towards the people now doing time for what they did on January 6.

Excerpt:

... it seems to me that, at this point, the complications are fairly easily solved.

Slap him down. Hard.

As we have said before, there is no such constitutional office as "Former President*." He's just another citizen jamoke, like you and me and the guy who poured you your last pint on Saturday. If you, or I, or that barman were under indictment and behaved like The Defendant has behaved toward the criminal justice system, we'd have been hauled off to the sneezer days ago. To borrow a word that seems to be all the rage these days, it's time to "normalize" the relationship between The Defendant and the institutions of the criminal justice system.

He's already pole-vaulted over and beyond the cautions and restrictions placed on him by both Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington and Judge Scott McAfee in Atlanta, as the Post makes perfectly plain. He arguably has incited threats against judges, prosecutors, and jurors. And his only defense is pure, unadulterated cynicism.

[***]

Let's test that theory, shall we? Toss him in a cell. Slap a GPS tracker on one of his swollen ankles and confine him to his banana farm in Florida. Drop a multimegaton fine on him every time he goes batshit on social media. Freeze his assets. Treat him like a mob boss, a drug kingpin, or the leader of a terrorist cell because, in one way or another, he is all three of those things.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/p ... aw-judges/

[Edgy MD]

The New York Times is reporting that, as suspected, former-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has cut a deal.

Although the terms aren't clear, and it hasn't (at least so far) protected him from indictment in the Georgia case, the main claim the chief of staff seems to be undercutting is in the documents case, testifying that, no, President Trump hadn't declassified his trove of stuff he wasn't supposed to have.

None of that makes clear as to whether he's countered the president's testimony in the election interference and January 6 cases, but I don't have a subscription and I'm working from a summary.

There's a good chance that the former-president will burn the former-chief's ass on social media any minute now, which would, of course, endanger his freedom further.

[MFS62]

I love the Esquire article's idea of freezing his assets, in AND out. No more contributions allowed into his many coffers.(PACs and other)
It would hit him in the place he cares most about - his pocketbook, as well as his ego.


Later

[Lefty Specialist]

Much as I'd like to see him in the pokey, I don't think it'll happen before trial. All those involved with making that decision are probably more afraid of the chaos jailing him would cause than the incitement he would cause if allowed to get off scot-free.

He's already testing the waters. if no one stops him, he'll keep pushing the limits, claiming his free speech rights. The judge in DC has the right idea- every threat moves the trial date up a bit. That's what he's more afraid of than anything else.

[Edgy MD]

Maybe, but it only takes one judge to jail him.

All these indictments (and perhaps more to come) hap'd after all this foot-dragging waiting for somebody to be the first. Once the first happened and the earth didn't quake, the second, third, and fourth could happen as a matter of course.

And as the judges are making the terms of the defendants' freedom-pending-trial more and more specific, it puts them in the hot seat. If their explicit orders are explicitly ignored, they have to revoke bail or look like buffoons.

Meanstwhile, Special Counsel Smith has announced that Yuscil Taveras (Trump employee #4) has changed his testimony after switching from a lawyer provided by his boss to a public defender, and has now implicated Trump emplooyes #2 and #3 (Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira) as well as the former president himself.

[MFS62]

Rudy Giuliani's mug shot is available on-line should you muster the courage to see it.
As a public service, I will not post a link, but will advise you to cover the eyes of the children in the room.

Later

[kcmets]

I may download it later and photoshop some hair dye running down
his face. if someone wants to beat me to it, have at it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

There's been a lot of chatter of late about using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump from ever holding a US office again on grounds that Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion or had given aid or comfort to the enemies of the government. The clause is supposed to be automatic and self-executing and as straightforward as disqualifying a presidential candidate for being under 35 years of age or for having been born in a foreign country.

And I've always wondered that if the application of the 14th Amendment is valid, how does it "self-execute"? Who decides that Trump violated the amendment and is thus, disqualified from holding office? And how does the clause "self-execute"? Does someone just snap their fingers and pronounce Trump disqualifed and the matter is then settled? And if so, who gets to snap their fingers? Wouldn't there have to be an evidentiary hearing on the matter? And if so, wouldn't Trump have the right to defend himself in that hearing?

Well now I have some answers. According to Constitutional expert and scholar Lawrence Tribe, the secretaries of state for each state can simply decide for themselves that Trump violated the 14th amendment, and then issue a ruling preventing Trump from appearing on the state's ballot for 2024 Presidential election. That's all there is to it, according to Tribe.

So how does Trump defend himself against that? Trump would have the right to challenge that adverse ruling in court, where presumably, the matter will end up before SCOTUS, eventually.

So as I was listening to Tribe explain the application of the amendment, I was thinking to myself that the only states that would be likely to disqualify Trump would be blue states that Trump would be unlikely to win anyway. (Though it would be terrific and a huge blow to Trump if a Dem controlled swing state like Michigan, for example, barred Trump from the state ballot). Red states controlled by the GOP, like Texas and Florida, for example, would never disqualify Trump from their state ballots.

Tribe answered that one, too. Any 2024 state ballot that includes Trump can be challenged by any person who is eligible to vote in that particular state, on grounds that Trump is disqualified from holding US office and therefore, should not appear on the state's ballot. And then the courts will sort it all out. So there you have it, according to Tribe.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I hope that people are working on this approach. I'd be willing to challenge the ballot in Pennsylvania (which is, of course a key swing state) but I'm not in the mood for death threats.

[Lefty Specialist]

I'm of two minds here. I worry that another Republican might be better at beating Biden than Trump will be. Not deSantis, but some of the others could pull enough wool over people's eyes to sneak in. I put Christie, Haley, Scott and Hutchinson in this territory. They could run as moderates and all are decades younger than Biden.

Decapitating Trump would reshuffle the primary deck enormously. Candidates polling in the single digits now could emerge as contenders.

Trump's a known quantity. And I don't think there's anyone in America who voted for Biden in 2020 who'll say, "You know what, maybe Trump deserves another chance". Old white folks are falling off the voter rolls and young voters (who support Democrats by 20-30% margins) are moving in. Biden is 80, but Trump is 77 and has a worse diet. So short of a disaster (economic collapse, Pandemic 2.0, presidential health issue) Biden should be able to beat Trump again. It gets murkier with another Republican.

I'm not so sure Trump gets disqualified if this actually makes it all the way to the Supremes. There's a lot of gray area in the 14th amendment that a good lawyer (i.e, not Rudy) could conjure reasonable doubt with.

[Edgy MD]

I hope that people are working on this approach. I'd be willing to challenge the ballot in Pennsylvania (which is, of course a key swing state) but I'm not in the mood for death threats.

I got your back.

[Centerfield]

1135809 has the exact same cadence as Jenny’s phone number. If any song parody writers would be so inclined.