President Trump

TonyM said:
Sadly I suspect that you are correct. Rational, intelligent Americans for some bizarre reason can't see that Trump is far worse than however poor they believe Biden or the Dems to be. Add those people to the nutcase stupid Americans and it seems inevitable. Hopefully not though.
Click to expand...
It is SUPREMELY ironic that the Muslim community in the US have all but abandoned their support for Biden due to his failure to condemn Israel for their ongoing attacks in Gaza and failure to call for a ceasefire.

A recent poll showed Biden’s support among Arab Americans has plunged from a comfortable majority in 2020 to 17%. In the swing states, that alone is more than enough for Biden to lose the state.

And now they will vote for Trump, who is actually more right wing, more pro-Israel than Biden is. Utterly bizarre.

www.theguardian.com

Muslim leaders in swing states pledge to ‘abandon’ Biden over his refusal to call for ceasefire

Warnings that president stance on the war risks losing support of community in states critical to his chances for re-election
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Chippy_boy said:
It is SUPREMELY ironic that the Muslim community in the US have all but abandoned their support for Biden due to his failure to condemn Israel for their ongoing attacks in Gaza and failure to call for a ceasefire.

A recent poll showed Biden’s support among Arab Americans has plunged from a comfortable majority in 2020 to 17%. In the swing states, that alone is more than enough for Biden to lose the state.

And now they will vote for Trump, who is actually more right wing, more pro-Israel than Biden is. Utterly bizarre.

www.theguardian.com

Muslim leaders in swing states pledge to ‘abandon’ Biden over his refusal to call for ceasefire

Warnings that president stance on the war risks losing support of community in states critical to his chances for re-election
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I don't buy in to these generalisations. The idea that the Muslim vote is one big bloc that will vote 100% for Trump is BS.
 
TinFoilHat said:
He can only pardon himself in federal cases. Some of the court cases have been bought by the state.
Click to expand...
True, but state Governors can pardon state felony convictions.

New York state is a Democrat, Governor Kathy Hochul. Georgia is a Republican, Governor Brian Kemp. Kemp has vowed to support Trump if he wins the nomination. Don't put it past Kemp to pardon Trump if he's convicted.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I am not particularly well informed on the actual mechanics of US government but if the cretin was to order, for example, a pre-emptive strike nuclear strike on e.g. North Korea, are you saying that action could be blocked? As I understand it he would have completely legal and autonomous authority to order this. But as I say, I am not well informed so could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it could be "blocked" outright would depend entirely on circumstances and pretext; i.e, if North Korea were to inexplicably launch an attack on US soil. In such a scenario, the dynamic changes. But that isn't going to happen. As it is, he wouldn't be able to just open a briefcase and push a red button. This isn't the movies. It's not so much a chain of command but a web of command that he would have to placate in order to send the nukes. The prospect of Armageddon will always have dissenting voices.
 
Blue and true said:
It's worth remembering, amidst the hysteria and worry, that this buffoon was president before and was unable to get any of his hateful policies off the ground. The US is a democracy, fundamentally; any notion of the Tanned One imposing his fascist sensibilities will be met with firm resistance.
Click to expand...
To an extent, yet his influence on the Judiciary when in power has had a significant effect on shaping American society since he left office, and that shaping may not have run its course yet, irrespective of the result on November 5.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I am not particularly well informed on the actual mechanics of US government but if the cretin was to order, for example, a pre-emptive strike nuclear strike on e.g. North Korea, are you saying that action could be blocked? As I understand it he would have completely legal and autonomous authority to order this. But as I say, I am not well informed so could be wrong.
Click to expand...

My understanding (not an expert) is that, yes, theoretically he has unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons however he cannot coerce or compel anybody in his command to do something that is unlawful or illegal.

Most people agree that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is almost certain to be unlawful.

So does he have the authority? Yes. But he would need a really good argument to get senior military officials to obey an order like that.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
I don't buy in to these generalisations. The idea that the Muslim vote is one big bloc that will vote 100% for Trump is BS.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply that they would, and neither would they need to. If Biden had a big majority amongst Muslims in 2020 - and he did - and now he has the support of only circa 20% of them, then that spells big trouble.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Trump will be the next president. God help us all.

I cannot see the Supreme Court - especially given its Republican leaning - having the stones to uphold the rulings of Colorado and Maine, given the civil unrest that would surely ensure if they decide to bar him from standing. They will surely bottle it.

And it seems no matter what sins he is convicted of, MAGA are just brainwashed that it's all a stitch up. Half of them or more still think he won in 2020.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
Indeed. The Court has been amenable to Conservative thinking but less amenable when it comes to Trump the individual. Whether that pattern continues remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
That is the big question. You would think that there would be a limit to how far out of their way they will go to help him out. The presidential immunity question will give us a good idea. Any logical reading of it would conclude no one is above the law so a president does not have broad immunity. But if they decide the other way its get out of jail free for Trump on j6.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
That is the big question. You would think that there would be a limit to how far out of their way they will go to help him out. The presidential immunity question will give us a good idea. Any logical reading of it would conclude no one is above the law so a president does not have broad immunity. But if they decide the other way its get out of jail free for Trump on j6.
Click to expand...
I would give it ZERO chance the presidential immunity claim will stick. There's no way on earth they will uphold that. I doubt Trump or his lawyers even believe so either - they will just use it as another lie to say that the whole system is rigged against him, drumming up even more support from MAGA.

The more nuanced question is what they will do with 14th amendment section 3. Any objective reading of that makes it clear he's barred. The Supreme Court makes legal interpretations and rulings. It does not seek to review evidential conclusions made by more junior courts. And since the courts in Maine and Colorado have heard all the evidence and concluded in a proper court of law that Trump did engage in insurrection, then the SC should not revisit that conclusion. Then, the only question is one of law - should the very clear wording of A14.S3 which bars any prior officer who has engaged in insurrection, apply to a former president? It's impossible to credibly argue that it should not, so they are in a bit of a hole.

It should be a slam dunk that he is barred. But I suspect they will bottle it.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I would give it ZERO chance the presidential immunity claim will stick. There's no way on earth they will uphold that. I doubt Trump or his lawyers even believe so either - they will just use it as another lie to say that the whole system is rigged against him, drumming up even more support from MAGA.

The more nuanced question is what they will do with 14th amendment section 3. Any objective reading of that makes it clear he's barred. The Supreme Court makes legal interpretations and rulings. It does not seek to review evidential conclusions made by more junior courts. And since the courts in Maine and Colorado have heard all the evidence and concluded in a proper court of law that Trump did engage in insurrection, then the SC should not revisit that conclusion. Then, the only question is one of law - should the very clear wording of A14.S3 which bars any prior officer who has engaged in insurrection, apply to a former president? It's impossible to credibly argue that it should not, so they are in a bit of a hole.

It should be a slam dunk that he is barred. But I suspect they will bottle it.
Click to expand...
Of course they will bottle it, he put them there. This is the inherent flaw in their daft system which removes the seperation of powers
 
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
Of course they will bottle it, he put them there. This is the inherent flaw in their daft system which removes the seperation of powers
Click to expand...
You'd hope that anyone intelligent enough and senior enough to make it to Supreme Court judge, would be above any partisan nonsense, wouldn't you though? If not, we might as well just lob them all a bung.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You'd hope that anyone intelligent enough and senior enough to make it to Supreme Court judge, would be above any partisan nonsense, wouldn't you though? If not, we might as well just lob them all a bung.
Click to expand...
There were far more intelligent and superior judges that he could have chosen over that welly Kavanugh and the woman with the stary scary eyes
 
Chippy_boy said:
I would give it ZERO chance the presidential immunity claim will stick. There's no way on earth they will uphold that. I doubt Trump or his lawyers even believe so either - they will just use it as another lie to say that the whole system is rigged against him, drumming up even more support from MAGA.

The more nuanced question is what they will do with 14th amendment section 3. Any objective reading of that makes it clear he's barred. The Supreme Court makes legal interpretations and rulings. It does not seek to review evidential conclusions made by more junior courts. And since the courts in Maine and Colorado have heard all the evidence and concluded in a proper court of law that Trump did engage in insurrection, then the SC should not revisit that conclusion. Then, the only question is one of law - should the very clear wording of A14.S3 which bars any prior officer who has engaged in insurrection, apply to a former president? It's impossible to credibly argue that it should not, so they are in a bit of a hole.

It should be a slam dunk that he is barred. But I suspect they will bottle it.
Click to expand...

I agree that the SC will not argue the “facts of the case”, as in the decision of the lower courts that Trump incited an insurrection. They are not going to overule that finding. I also agree the “president is not an officer” argument is simply bad.

But as I’ve mentioned before, they do have another more legally ambiguous avenue which is to determine whether Trump has been subjected to sufficient due process. This is what the Dem judges in Col SC who voted against in the 4-3 decision argued. There is no predetermined standard of due process for 14.3 so you could argue that any judges decision in a court of law is sufficient (as in Trump’s case), but you could also argue that such a decision to enforce 14.3 must be subjected to a higher standard such as a jury trial, or meet some higher judicial threshold like criminal conviction before it can be enforced.

If they are going to try and save Trump I’m 99% certain this is the argument they’ll use.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I agree that the SC will not argue the “facts of the case”, as in the decision of the lower courts that Trump incited an insurrection. They are not going to overule that finding. I also agree the “president is not an officer” argument is simply bad.

But as I’ve mentioned before, they do have another more legally ambiguous avenue which is to determine whether Trump has been subjected to sufficient due process. This is what the Dem judges in Col SC who voted against in the 4-3 decision argued. There is no predetermined standard of due process for 14.3 so you could argue that any judges decision in a court of law is sufficient (as in Trump’s case), but you could also argue that such a decision to enforce 14.3 must be subjected to a higher standard such as a jury trial, or meet some higher judicial threshold like criminal conviction before it can be enforced.

If they are going to try and save Trump I’m 99% certain this is the argument they’ll use.
Click to expand...
Agree and why the 14.3 is possibly a long shot.... However there is the prospect that either Jan 6th case could then become sufficient due process. And he could become ineligible latter in the year.
 
Odds on favourite now with every bookie to become president. There's some really good money to make if you think he won't get the job.
 
The blue phantom said:
Odds on favourite now with every bookie to become president. There's some really good money to make if you think he won't get the job.
Click to expand...
What are the best odds if I want to bet against? Not sure I understand -- the NH polls predicted DOUBLE the margin for Trump then it actually ended up being (which is why he's so mad) and as others have pointed out, independents (who can vote in the GOP primary) went for the opposition (Haley) at unprecedented levels in NH. Trump MUST of needs get independents. I don't get it. I'm in.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
What are the best odds if I want to bet against? Not sure I understand -- the NH polls predicted DOUBLE the margin for Trump then it actually ended up being (which is why he's so mad) and as others have pointed out, independents (who can vote in the GOP primary) went for the opposition (Haley) at unprecedented levels in NH. Trump MUST of needs get independents. I don't get it. I'm in.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, bettors have been rather more accurate than pollsters when predicting election outcomes; and even if seeking solace in polls, there's none to be had.

I'm cautiously optimistic that bettors have this one wrong, and that a (hoped-for) Trump felony conviction coupled with (hoped-for) introduction of abortion rights measures into the 2024 ballots will tip the outcome in Biden's favor; optimistic but without great conviction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top