Traitor Watch - The 45 & 47 Thread

wonko the sane?

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
He couldn't win before: there's no path to the white house for the republicans in general right now, and trump in specific. jive like this just helps not only paint a worse picture of trump but of his cult as well.

Unless everyone else gets so apathetic and complacent and doesn't turn up to vote. So get out there, get registered, and get your ass in line.
 
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
FB friend:
Donald Trump saying "no violence" is like beer company ads saying "please drink responsibly". We all know it's a lie. We all know that the beer companies' whole business model is based on you NOT drinking responsibly, and we all know that Trump's whole political strategy is based on his followers NOT obeying the law.
Click to expand...

Most of the clergy in Germany allied themselves with the Nazis in the 1930s, and then after the war, they all said "Never again".

Fast-forward to the present day, and another fascist has come along, and much of the clergy has allied themselves with him. Again.
Click to expand...

Out of all the pictures arising from the fetid swamp that is the Trump era, I think this one photograph of Christian evangelical leaders worshipping their Orange Messiah best encapsulates what's wrong with American politics today.

4NLrTUS.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis should capitalize on that.

"Do you want a candidate who would start with a -10 handicap in the electoral college?"
 
CoffeeHorse

CoffeeHorse

Exhausted, but still standing.
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
They sorta kicked him off the ballot. However:

Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

If he appeals by January 4, he's still on the ballot. He's probably going to do that.
 
wonko the sane?

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
Trump doesn't even read the stuff that's written for him to spew on the population. I genuinely wonder how he even got "poisoning the blood of the nation" in the first place.
 
G.B.Blackrock

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
G.B.Blackrock

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
Spin-Out said:
i dunno. the supreme court's had a "**** you, i got mine" tendency with trump
Click to expand...
I will certainly concede that they've gone against him a couple of times, but hardly enough for me to agree with this.

That said, agreement with Trump isn't the issue here. They're all-but certain to take up the case, one way or the other, because it's simply too big for them not to. They may well rule against him (although I'm not taking bets on that), but either way, they'll take up the case.
 
wonko the sane?

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
Realistically, there's three outcomes. They take it and rule against trump, they take it and rule for trump, or they deny it and it gets picked up a lower appeals court.

But given the statements already made by lower courts: if they take it up at all (as opposed to just issuing a summary ruling or denying it.) they functionally have to find against trump because finding FOR trump 1.) is a supreme court ruling in favour of authoritarianism, and 2.) a statement that these judges in particular don't feel a need to remain employed, and let's let the fascist create a government which renders them obsolete.

Tyrants don't USE courts, and no one directly votes against their own paycheques.
 
Ironbite4

Ironbite4

Well-known member
Citizen
G.B.Blackrock said:
I will certainly concede that they've gone against him a couple of times, but hardly enough for me to agree with this.

That said, agreement with Trump isn't the issue here. They're all-but certain to take up the case, one way or the other, because it's simply too big for them not to. They may well rule against him (although I'm not taking bets on that), but either way, they'll take up the case.
Click to expand...
Guess you, and most of America, has forgotten that SCOTUS already did answer this question. And it was an astonishing "Yeah we don't interfere with States issues".

Ironbite-which is why he tried the coup in 2020.
 
The Mighty Mollusk

The Mighty Mollusk

Scream all you like, 'cause we're all mad here
Citizen
If it gets handed to a lower court, and they find against him, Trump's lawyers will just appeal it back up to SCOTUS anyway. Just taking it up now would save time in the long run. But running out the clock and going for office is Trump's whole plan anyway, so.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Top Bottom