President Trump

THE CHRISTIAN RADICALS ARE COMING​

In the final moments of the last day, some 2,000 people were on their feet, arms raised and cheering under a big white tent in the grass outside a church in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. By then they’d been told that God had chosen them to save America from Kamala Harris and a demonic government trying to “silence the Church.” They’d been told they had “authority” to establish God’s Kingdom, and reminded of their reward in Heaven. Now they listened as an evangelist named Mario Murillo told them exactly what was expected of Christians like them.

“We are going to prepare for war,” he shouted, and a few minutes later: “I’m not on the Earth to be blessed; I’m on the Earth to be armed and dangerous.”

That is how four days under the tent would end—with words that could be taken as hyperbolic, or purely metaphorical. And on the first day, people were not necessarily prepared to accept them. But getting people ready was the whole point of what was happening in Eau Claire, an event cast as an old-fashioned tent revival, only not the kind involving Nilla wafers and repentance. This one targeted souls in swing states. It was an unapologetic exercise in religious radicalization happening in plain sight, just off a highway and down the street from a Panera. The point was to transform a like-minded crowd of Donald Trump–supporting believers into “God-appointed warriors” ready to do whatever the Almighty might require of them in November and beyond.

www.theatlantic.com

The Christian Radicals Are Coming

The movement that fueled January 6 is revving up again.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
BlueHammer85 said:
According to the odds though there is nothing to separate them.
Click to expand...
It's impossible to call. Trump's odds have been a bit short from day 1. Most evidence points yo a Harris win. But polls have been all over the shop the last few years. And Republicans still have time to meddle and ramp up interference.
 
Vic said:
So what next? The defence gets to argue that all those acts were official?
Click to expand...
Chutkan will hold a trial within a trial to decide whether the indictment is valid or whether the acts evidenced are covered by immunity. It is for the judge to decide whether to hear oral argument (probably yes) and on what points. I would expect a decision in favour of the prosecution. After that, I expect Trump to appeal, arguing that he has immunity. Anticipate it finishing in POTUS with looney tunes Maga judges. This will run and run. Trump may die before a trial begins. Two years of argument? What a system but @Dax777 tells us it is a minor issue.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
Chutkan will hold a trial within a trial to decide whether the indictment is valid or whether the acts evidenced are covered by immunity. It is for the judge to decide whether to hear oral argument (probably yes) and on what points. I would expect a decision in favour of the prosecution. After that, I expect Trump to appeal, arguing that he has immunity. Anticipate it finishing in POTUS with looney tunes Maga judges. This will run and run. Trump may die before a trial begins. Two years of argument? What a system but @Dax777 tells us it is a minor issue.
Click to expand...
But the defence will have to show that the things alleged are "official" acts as president.

So either they deny the evidence (he never said/did that) or will have to admit he asked people to commit electoral fraud but claim it was not a criminal act because he did it as president. Does a US president have immunity for an official act of electoral fraud? I'm not sure even his chosen supreme court judges would like to set that precedent.

The charm of this move is that we don't have to wait for a trial to see the evidence. It's all there now, before the election.
 
Vic said:
But the defence will have to show that the things alleged are "official" acts as president.

So either they deny the evidence (he never said/did that) or will have to admit he asked people to commit electoral fraud but claim it was not a criminal act because he did it as president. Does a US president have immunity for an official act of electoral fraud? I'm not sure even his chosen supreme court judges would like to set that precedent.

The charm of this move is that we don't have to wait for a trial to see the evidence. It's all there now, before the election.
Click to expand...
The defence that it was official acts is refuted by Smith saying Trump was acting, not as president but as an election candidate. Standing for re-election is not a core duty. Is it within the outer limits? If so, that is refutable by the private act argument. All through the indictment Smith talks about private acts and a private conspiracy. He will win that argument and the next appeal will try to knock that down. It is entirely possible that the mad Maga SCOTUS will rule that these criminal acts were within the official outer limits and therefore not indictable. Harris as president must act quickly to crush immunity thriough statute. Not sure whether it can cover events prior to the SCOTUS ruling.
There will eventually be a substantive trial but no sooner than 6 years after the events of Jan 6. Crazy, given we all saw them and heard Trump say “Fight like hell or you won’t have a country.”
Worth noting that a release of thousands of items of evidence in the appendix is due mid Ostober.
Smith has done a great job.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
It's impossible to call. Trump's odds have been a bit short from day 1. Most evidence points yo a Harris win. But polls have been all over the shop the last few years. And Republicans still have time to meddle and ramp up interference.
Click to expand...
Polls have consistently given the GoP around 2-4% more than they received in actual votes for the last six years.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Seems it. Then again, it could just be another Trump grift.
Click to expand...
She foreshadowed this in her autobiography, but a book is less impactful. An unequivocal statement as a broadcast is on another level. Delivered stridently too.

A view that is essentially is wholly at odds with Trump’s electoral base.

Has this ever happened before? Is there another example of the spouse of a someone running for national office speaking out like that? When the campaign is fast approaching its denouement?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
She foreshadowed this in her autobiography, but a book is less impactful. An unequivocal statement as a broadcast is on another level. Delivered stridently too.

A view that is essentially is wholly at odds with Trump’s electoral base.

Has this ever happened before? Is there another example of the spouse of a someone running for national office speaking out like that? When the campaign is fast approaching its denouement?
Click to expand...
As @The Future’s Blue! alluded to, it could be a bait and switch, given it is more vague than clear.

Even if it is, though, there is no “taking this out of context” when played in it’s entirety, as that is the context (nothing more is offered), so this is a godsend for anyone that wants to use it in pro-choice or anti-Trump adverts.

And anyone with a half a brain working with Melania (or Trump, for that matter), will know that.

Is this more a gambit that her words won’t turn off strident anti-women’s freedom voters but might bring a few independents worried about Trump and Vance’s actions and rhetoric about women and their rights (and the proposed destruction of them in Project 2025)?

Maybe.

But, if it is, I think it is a miscalculation (shock, horror, the Trump camp getting a strategy move wrong). I think this makes them look fractured and uncoordinated at best, and in outright conflict, in an unprecedented way (as you point out), at worst.

No matter what, many, many anti-Trump and pro-women groups are going to be using this nonstop until such time as she says anything to contradict it.

And probably still even after that.
 
SebastianBlue said:
As @The Future’s Blue! alluded to, it could be a bait and switch, given it is more vague than clear.

Even if it is, though, there is no “taking this out of context” when played in it’s entirety, as that is the context (nothing more is offered), so this is a godsend for anyone that wants to use it in pro-choice or anti-Trump adverts.

And anyone with a half a brain working with Melania (or Trump, for that matter), will know that.

Is this more a gambit that her words won’t turn off strident anti-women’s freedom voters but might bring a few independents worried about Trump and Vance’s actions and rhetoric about women and their rights (and the proposed destruction of them in Project 2025)?

Maybe.

But, if it is, I think it is a miscalculation (shock, horror, the Trump camp getting a strategy move wrong). I think this makes them look fractured and uncoordinated at best, and in outright conflict, in an unprecedented way (as you point out), at worst.

No matter what, many, many anti-Trump and pro-women groups are going to be using this nonstop until such time as she says anything to contradict it.

And probably still even after that.
Click to expand...
The potential gains for Trump are too marginal for it to be a bait and switch. Especially as the potential downside is unquestionably terminal.
 
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