I read about that in The Guardian's International edition. As President (God forbid) would he really have the power to order the F.B.I to pursue personal vendettas?
(when I was reading the article I thought not, but given his behaviour I wasn't sure).
He probably doesn't officially, but he could probably put some pliant hacks in as FBI director and relevant posts in the Justice Department.
Yes. Riffing on @Nick Tamen above, there'd be a TON of pushback from congress(even if just from a Democratic minority), the courts, not to mention the FBI itself, if Trump started making appointments for the sole purpose of having his political enemies arrested. I'd see it more likely as ending in a constitutional crisis, rather than actual mass arrests.
Yes, The Person Who Shall Not Be Named, has said if elected president, he will send the FBI after his political opponents. He has already said he would see Gen. Milley be given a death sentence.
The list of things that Donald Trump has said he would do but then didn’t or couldn’t do is very, very long.
And the funny thing is, people often seem to worry more about the outrageous-but-unworkable things he threatens to do, rather than the slightly-less-outrageous-but-pretty-doable things that he actually ends up putting into practice.
Appointing judges to overturn Roe, for example. Going by recent ballot initiatives, that was a pretty unpopular policy, but in the build-up to the 2016 election, wasn't discussed with the same histrionics that were later used to speculate how he might use martial law to stay in office illegally.
Yes, The Person Who Shall Not Be Named, has said if elected president, he will send the FBI after his political opponents. He has already said he would see Gen. Milley be given a death sentence.
The list of things that Donald Trump has said he would do but then didn’t or couldn’t do is very, very long.
Yes, but the reason is rarely "because he just wouldn't do something that bad".
Sure. What matters is what’s in it for him at the moment to say what he says, whether he intends to follow through or not. The question is why anyone believes a word he says.
Yes, The Person Who Shall Not Be Named, has said if elected president, he will send the FBI after his political opponents. He has already said he would see Gen. Milley be given a death sentence.
The list of things that Donald Trump has said he would do but then didn’t or couldn’t do is very, very long.
And the funny thing is, people often seem to worry more about the outrageous-but-unworkable things he threatens to do, rather than the slightly-less-outrageous-but-pretty-doable things that he actually ends up putting into practice.
And the funny thing is, people often seem to worry more about the outrageous-but-unworkable things he threatens to do, rather than the slightly-less-outrageous-but-pretty-doable things that he actually ends up putting into practice.
Yep.
Right now, my bigger worry, rather than martial-law, is that if he's re-elected, he'll pardon all the 1/6ers, which will absolutely embolden all the other maga-ites who wanna try and pull the same shit.
That link is to a different thread. I was refering to your exchange with @Arethosemyfeet, which starts at the fourth post from the bottom on the previous page of THIS thread. There wasn't anything there about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act, just appointing compliant FBI personnel.
But, anyway, thanks for the heads-up on Trump and the Insurrection Act.
Mr. Trump seems to be suffering from a series of mental lapses recently,
At a rally in New Hampshire, he said the President of Hungry two weeks ago had called on President Obama to resign so Trump could take over.
During a speech in Sioux City, Iowa, he kept referring to the town as Sioux Falls, which is in South Dakota. In the same speech he went on a riff about how "us" and "U.S." are similar. He thought it was a great discovery.
He has also said Biden is leading America into World War II, all the while questioning Biden's cognitive decline.
He has also said it was Jeb Bush who sent American Troops into the Middle East.
Did you know, you now have to have ID to buy bread in the United States? Trump seems to think so.
Yes. Riffing on @Nick Tamen above, there'd be a TON of pushback from congress(even if just from a Democratic minority), the courts, not to mention the FBI itself, if Trump started making appointments for the sole purpose of having his political enemies arrested. I'd see it more likely as ending in a constitutional crisis, rather than actual mass arrests.
One of the things that held Trump back when he was in office was not knowing where the levers of power were located. He was still willing to fire FBI Director Comey in order to thwart an investigation into his behavior during the 2016 election. It wasn't until very nearly the end of his term* that he started having the ability to see where the fault lines were. Now imagine someone like Jeffrey Clark running the Department of Justice from the beginning of Trump's term instead of trying to be shoehorned in during the lame duck period. We know there are plans to replace a huge amount of the federal workforce, probably anyone not willing to toe the Trump line. So yes, I imagine there's a list of Trump loyalists to slot into important positions (no Federalist Society "squishes" allowed) and another list of enemies that they're going to go after once their loyalists are in place. The previous Trump term* was just a dress rehearsal for these people.
So what are we going to do about it? We can't just sit here and talk about Trump's fascist plans; we need to do what we can to prevent him from being in a position to implement them.
My partner wonders if we should go next door to Arizona and volunteer. I have a hard time thinking they want people from SoCal telling them how they should vote.
Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), currently polling between 1% and 4% support from likely Republican primary voters, has suspended/ended his 2024 presidential campaign. Now we can go back to not having to care if we confuse him with Senator Rick Scott (R-FL).
So what are we going to do about it? We can't just sit here and talk about Trump's fascist plans; we need to do what we can to prevent him from being in a position to implement them.
My partner wonders if we should go next door to Arizona and volunteer. I have a hard time thinking they want people from SoCal telling them how they should vote.
It's a bit beyond the ability of individual voters, but just getting the American political press to cover Trump honestly and without empty euphemisms ("controversial") would be a good start. A few outlets are starting to do this. For example, the Washington Post ran an article under the completely accurate headline "Trump calls political enemies 'vermin,' echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini" [ paywall ].
"The language is the language that dictators use to instill fear,” said Timothy Naftali, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. “When you dehumanize an opponent, you strip them of their constitutional rights to participate securely in a democracy because you’re saying they’re not human. That’s what dictators do.”
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at New York University, said in an email to The Washington Post that “calling people 'vermin’ was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence.”
<snip>
Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, told The Post “those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.”
"Don't call us 'fascists' or we'll grind you under our jackboots when we seize power" has to be one of the least self-aware things said by a Trump campaign spokesperson not named Trump.
Want to see what happens when DiSantas gets heckled. It ain't pretty.
Is there supposed to be something particularly egregious about the way he replied? Because all he really did was say in a flat monotone "No, no, excuse me, I'm doing my thing", and continue on with his speech.
If you had read the article, you would have seen he twisted much of his campaign points. The heckler should have been removed, though I agree with her points.
Because he seems absolutely unstoppable. Something wicked this way comes. The top three threads are all about him. Which seems a tad redundant. As nothing in any of them shows he can't win.
Because he seems absolutely unstoppable. Something wicked this way comes. The top three threads are all about him. Which seems a tad redundant. As nothing in any of them shows he can't win.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about how your wishcasting Trump's electoral unstoppability is reconciled with the fact that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election. If he's so unstoppable, how was he stopped? The typical answer is that he got a lot fewer votes that Joe Biden, though Trump supporters claim Trump actually won in 2020 and the election was stolen. Is that what you're getting at with your constant Trump election boosterism?
That there are three threads about Trump says more about shipmates than it does about Trump. And you, @Martin54, haven't provided any facts to support your apparent belief that Trump will win in 2024. How things seem to someone who will not even vote here is irrelevant.
That there are three threads about Trump says more about shipmates than it does about Trump. And you, @Martin54, haven't provided any facts to support your apparent belief that Trump will win in 2024. How things seem to someone who will not even vote here is irrelevant.
What difference does that make? This nightmare monster casts a shadow across the Atlantic and beyond.
The legal system of the constitutionally flawed American democracy cannot stop him. The man who launched a fascist coup 3 years ago.
Never mind that he can lose. He can win. That is unbelievable, unacceptable.
That there are three threads about Trump says more about shipmates than it does about Trump. And you, @Martin54, haven't provided any facts to support your apparent belief that Trump will win in 2024. How things seem to someone who will not even vote here is irrelevant.
What difference does that make? This nightmare monster casts a shadow across the Atlantic and beyond.
The legal system of the constitutionally flawed American democracy cannot stop him. The man who launched a fascist coup 3 years ago.
Never mind that he can lose. He can win. That is unbelievable, unacceptable.
Again, you seem to be trying to drag a micro issue("Can Trump win again?") into a macro discussion("What does a possible Trump victory tell us about the depraved state of humanity?"). I won't say much else about this, beyond that it is rather difficult to integrate your concerns(valid as they may be) into the already-established structure of the thread.
I think the discussion was about how DeSantis could not handle a heckler. There is a separate discussion about Trump's campaign chances and another discussion about his trials and tribulations.
I think the discussion was about how DeSantis could not handle a heckler. There is a separate discussion about Trump's campaign chances and another discussion about his trials and tribulations.
I think the discussion was about how DeSantis could not handle a heckler. There is a separate discussion about Trump's campaign chances and another discussion about his trials and tribulations.
Then discuss it. Trivial as it is,
As far as I can tell, it basically comes down to he mixed up a couple of words in the rest of his speech.
The writer tries to make it sound like this is an issue of double-standards, since Republicans argue that women shouldn't be allowed access to the nuclear codes because they think women are "too emotional". The quotation marks are in the original, though it's not clear who she's quoting. Presumably not Sarah Palin or Nikki Haley.
I think the discussion was about how DeSantis could not handle a heckler. There is a separate discussion about Trump's campaign chances and another discussion about his trials and tribulations.
Then discuss it. Trivial as it is,
As far as I can tell, it basically comes down to he mixed up a couple of words in the rest of his speech.
The writer tries to make it sound like this is an issue of double-standards, since Republicans argue that women shouldn't be allowed access to the nuclear codes because they think women are "too emotional". The quotation marks are in the original, though it's not clear who she's quoting. Presumably not Sarah Palin or Nikki Haley.
I assumed they’re scare quotes. But who knows? It’s a very poorly written article.
And i would appreciate it if you quit stirring up my very severe anxiety issues by asserting with no evidence on every inconceivable occasion that he’s going to win. That’s simply unkind.
I don't want you to feel that. So this needs to go to Epiphanies surely? Where I can't go.
One expects to be disagreed with here. But we cannot discuss your response above as it's that triggering for you. I'm sorry for that.
I don't want you to feel that. So this needs to go to Epiphanies surely? Where I can't go.
One expects to be disagreed with here. But we cannot discuss your response above as it's that triggering for you. I'm sorry for that.
[purely suggestion; not junior hosting]
Might you at least consider, before you pronounce on the certainty of Trump's election in a particular post, discussing some supporting evidence for your prediction? I can understand (though disagree) that you might look at polling, economic and social trends, the impact of court cases et al and conclude it will be hard to stop Trump. What is hard to endure is the constant fatalist drumbeat that his victory is somehow predestined or inevitable. Even if you think that the future is predetermined that doesn't mean you have correctly interpreted the "signs of the times", and a worthwhile discussion would involve you bringing in your reasons and evidence, then others can argue with you about them and draw their own conclusions. The Cassandra routine is inimical to meaningful discussion.
Well, maybe this will ease Lamb Chop's anxiety. The Daily News is reporting that Nikki Hayley is within 4 percentage points in the most recent New Hampshire primary poll. Unfortunately, I am not able to read the full article (paywall).
If this is true, that means she is close to the margin of error. It means she will be getting a second look from Republicans as the Don still flounders in the courts. She also has the support of some powerful Republican PACs such as the Koch foundation.
I am betting if Nikki can beat Don in the New Hampshire race, more primaries will go her way.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/new-hampshire/
Current polling from NH. I think it's fair to call the poll an outlier. I'm too lazy to run the numbers but the moe on that sort of sample size is likely to be ±5%, and it's important to remember that goes both ways. It could be close to a dead heat, but by comparison with other polling it's more likely the other way around, and Trump is still 10-15 points ahead. There are suggestions that Haley is starting to close the gap but I don't see much cause to expect Trump to lose.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/new-hampshire/
Current polling from NH. I think it's fair to call the poll an outlier. I'm too lazy to run the numbers but the moe on that sort of sample size is likely to be ±5%, and it's important to remember that goes both ways. It could be close to a dead heat, but by comparison with other polling it's more likely the other way around, and Trump is still 10-15 points ahead. There are suggestions that Haley is starting to close the gap but I don't see much cause to expect Trump to lose.
I don't want you to feel that. So this needs to go to Epiphanies surely? Where I can't go.
One expects to be disagreed with here. But we cannot discuss your response above as it's that triggering for you. I'm sorry for that.
[purely suggestion; not junior hosting]
Might you at least consider, before you pronounce on the certainty of Trump's election in a particular post, discussing some supporting evidence for your prediction? I can understand (though disagree) that you might look at polling, economic and social trends, the impact of court cases et al and conclude it will be hard to stop Trump. What is hard to endure is the constant fatalist drumbeat that his victory is somehow predestined or inevitable. Even if you think that the future is predetermined that doesn't mean you have correctly interpreted the "signs of the times", and a worthwhile discussion would involve you bringing in your reasons and evidence, then others can argue with you about them and draw their own conclusions. The Cassandra routine is inimical to meaningful discussion.
It's entirely dispositional. Nothing to do with evidence. Like much round here. Take your pick from here.
The first Atlantic article disagrees with me. Whilst citing 24 Atlantic articles that don't.
There is a claim by a Democrat about evidence four down.
To spare triggering @Lamb Chopped, I'll only comment on the bizarre 'What is Trump? Can he win?' thread. Or may be I should start a fourth Trump thread?
Well, maybe this will ease Lamb Chop's anxiety. The Daily News is reporting that Nikki Hayley is within 4 percentage points in the most recent New Hampshire primary poll. Unfortunately, I am not able to read the full article (paywall).
If this is true, that means she is close to the margin of error. It means she will be getting a second look from Republicans as the Don still flounders in the courts. She also has the support of some powerful Republican PACs such as the Koch foundation.
I am betting if Nikki can beat Don in the New Hampshire race, more primaries will go her way.
Haley's strategy seems to be to do well in New Hampshire to create momentum going into her home state of South Carolina, which is the next primary after New Hampshire. Unlike a lot of other states, the Republican primary in New Hampshire awards delegates proportionally (among candidates who win at least 10% of the total vote), so if Haley wins delegates in that state it's something to build a narrative on going into South Carolina.
Comments
Yes. Riffing on @Nick Tamen above, there'd be a TON of pushback from congress(even if just from a Democratic minority), the courts, not to mention the FBI itself, if Trump started making appointments for the sole purpose of having his political enemies arrested. I'd see it more likely as ending in a constitutional crisis, rather than actual mass arrests.
And the funny thing is, people often seem to worry more about the outrageous-but-unworkable things he threatens to do, rather than the slightly-less-outrageous-but-pretty-doable things that he actually ends up putting into practice.
Appointing judges to overturn Roe, for example. Going by recent ballot initiatives, that was a pretty unpopular policy, but in the build-up to the 2016 election, wasn't discussed with the same histrionics that were later used to speculate how he might use martial law to stay in office illegally.
Ah, okay, fair enough. But your original post just said "send in the FBI".
Yep.
Right now, my bigger worry, rather than martial-law, is that if he's re-elected, he'll pardon all the 1/6ers, which will absolutely embolden all the other maga-ites who wanna try and pull the same shit.
No, you are missing my points.
1) He has said he will send in the FBI to arrest his political opponents; and,
2) He has also said he will use the Insurrection act to put down any political protest against his administration.
These are two separate threats he has made,
But, in using the Insurrection Act, that may also entail using martial law and the FBI to enforce it.
I have previously listed these threats here along with my source.
That link is to a different thread. I was refering to your exchange with @Arethosemyfeet, which starts at the fourth post from the bottom on the previous page of THIS thread. There wasn't anything there about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act, just appointing compliant FBI personnel.
But, anyway, thanks for the heads-up on Trump and the Insurrection Act.
At a rally in New Hampshire, he said the President of Hungry two weeks ago had called on President Obama to resign so Trump could take over.
During a speech in Sioux City, Iowa, he kept referring to the town as Sioux Falls, which is in South Dakota. In the same speech he went on a riff about how "us" and "U.S." are similar. He thought it was a great discovery.
He has also said Biden is leading America into World War II, all the while questioning Biden's cognitive decline.
He has also said it was Jeb Bush who sent American Troops into the Middle East.
Did you know, you now have to have ID to buy bread in the United States? Trump seems to think so.
Source
He has never spoken a coherent sentence for a long time.
Do we really want him to lead the country again?
One of the things that held Trump back when he was in office was not knowing where the levers of power were located. He was still willing to fire FBI Director Comey in order to thwart an investigation into his behavior during the 2016 election. It wasn't until very nearly the end of his term* that he started having the ability to see where the fault lines were. Now imagine someone like Jeffrey Clark running the Department of Justice from the beginning of Trump's term instead of trying to be shoehorned in during the lame duck period. We know there are plans to replace a huge amount of the federal workforce, probably anyone not willing to toe the Trump line. So yes, I imagine there's a list of Trump loyalists to slot into important positions (no Federalist Society "squishes" allowed) and another list of enemies that they're going to go after once their loyalists are in place. The previous Trump term* was just a dress rehearsal for these people.
My partner wonders if we should go next door to Arizona and volunteer. I have a hard time thinking they want people from SoCal telling them how they should vote.
It's a bit beyond the ability of individual voters, but just getting the American political press to cover Trump honestly and without empty euphemisms ("controversial") would be a good start. A few outlets are starting to do this. For example, the Washington Post ran an article under the completely accurate headline "Trump calls political enemies 'vermin,' echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini" [ paywall ].
"Don't call us 'fascists' or we'll grind you under our jackboots when we seize power" has to be one of the least self-aware things said by a Trump campaign spokesperson not named Trump.
Is there supposed to be something particularly egregious about the way he replied? Because all he really did was say in a flat monotone "No, no, excuse me, I'm doing my thing", and continue on with his speech.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about how your wishcasting Trump's electoral unstoppability is reconciled with the fact that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election. If he's so unstoppable, how was he stopped? The typical answer is that he got a lot fewer votes that Joe Biden, though Trump supporters claim Trump actually won in 2020 and the election was stolen. Is that what you're getting at with your constant Trump election boosterism?
What difference does that make? This nightmare monster casts a shadow across the Atlantic and beyond.
The legal system of the constitutionally flawed American democracy cannot stop him. The man who launched a fascist coup 3 years ago.
Never mind that he can lose. He can win. That is unbelievable, unacceptable.
Again, you seem to be trying to drag a micro issue("Can Trump win again?") into a macro discussion("What does a possible Trump victory tell us about the depraved state of humanity?"). I won't say much else about this, beyond that it is rather difficult to integrate your concerns(valid as they may be) into the already-established structure of the thread.
Nice. I wish.
This.
This.
Precisely this.
Then discuss it. Trivial as it is,
As far as I can tell, it basically comes down to he mixed up a couple of words in the rest of his speech.
The writer tries to make it sound like this is an issue of double-standards, since Republicans argue that women shouldn't be allowed access to the nuclear codes because they think women are "too emotional". The quotation marks are in the original, though it's not clear who she's quoting. Presumably not Sarah Palin or Nikki Haley.
Yes, we all know he could win and that it would be bad if he did. It's not a debatable point.
It's bad that he could. Unbelievably, unacceptably bad.
One expects to be disagreed with here. But we cannot discuss your response above as it's that triggering for you. I'm sorry for that.
[purely suggestion; not junior hosting]
Might you at least consider, before you pronounce on the certainty of Trump's election in a particular post, discussing some supporting evidence for your prediction? I can understand (though disagree) that you might look at polling, economic and social trends, the impact of court cases et al and conclude it will be hard to stop Trump. What is hard to endure is the constant fatalist drumbeat that his victory is somehow predestined or inevitable. Even if you think that the future is predetermined that doesn't mean you have correctly interpreted the "signs of the times", and a worthwhile discussion would involve you bringing in your reasons and evidence, then others can argue with you about them and draw their own conclusions. The Cassandra routine is inimical to meaningful discussion.
I'll be yet more clear regarding my reaction:
Whether the 45 president of the U.S. will or won't win aside, that he has the opportunity to try is unbelievable, unacceptable.
It indicates a system that seems to have gone off the rails completely.
To be yet more clear, as a U.S. citizen by birth, this is my system.
If this is true, that means she is close to the margin of error. It means she will be getting a second look from Republicans as the Don still flounders in the courts. She also has the support of some powerful Republican PACs such as the Koch foundation.
I am betting if Nikki can beat Don in the New Hampshire race, more primaries will go her way.
In other words, Don is not a shoe in.
Current polling from NH. I think it's fair to call the poll an outlier. I'm too lazy to run the numbers but the moe on that sort of sample size is likely to be ±5%, and it's important to remember that goes both ways. It could be close to a dead heat, but by comparison with other polling it's more likely the other way around, and Trump is still 10-15 points ahead. There are suggestions that Haley is starting to close the gap but I don't see much cause to expect Trump to lose.
If the Senate had done its job when he was impeached, this would not be a question.
But the motto of Congress seems to be (with apologies to George Orwell): We're all corrupt, but some are more corrupt than others.
Exactly, Trump's numbers don't change.
It's entirely dispositional. Nothing to do with evidence. Like much round here. Take your pick from here.
To spare triggering @Lamb Chopped, I'll only comment on the bizarre 'What is Trump? Can he win?' thread. Or may be I should start a fourth Trump thread?
Haley's strategy seems to be to do well in New Hampshire to create momentum going into her home state of South Carolina, which is the next primary after New Hampshire. Unlike a lot of other states, the Republican primary in New Hampshire awards delegates proportionally (among candidates who win at least 10% of the total vote), so if Haley wins delegates in that state it's something to build a narrative on going into South Carolina.