Why do any Trump supporters think Trump can win in 2024? He's only won a single election, and that was in 2016. And in that election he won on a technicality since he got the majority of electoral votes but lost the popular vote. So, he "squeaked through." Donald J. Trump was a "squeaker" president. Since then, he's lost another presidential election, and as the de facto leader of the Republican party has overseen losses in other elections as well. His endorsements are losing endorsements. His strategy of saying "it's rigged" was rejected in 2020 and again in 2022 with Kari Lake who adopted his playbook. America doesn't like sore losers.

So Trumps civil fraud trial concluded today. Assuming he’s on the hook for over $300 million— what happens then? He appeals…but he appeals in NY, right? It isn’t going to federal courts. — Mikie

Trump is beyond furious at this case. In Trump's thinking, he IS the law, and if he fudged his figures and lied about the values of his properties, they're not lies, but simply clever business practises. If, as expected, Justice Engeron essentially cancels the Trump's right to conduct business in New York, he's basically going to cancel the whole Trump organisation. Obviously Trump will appeal straight away, and I guess that the cancellations and fines will be suspended pending that appeal. But in business terms, this really is a knife to the throat of the Trump Organisation. As far as Trump is concerned, it's a political conspiracy contrived by a political DA and enacted by an irritating minor court functionary, with no basis in what he considers fact. Beyond furious.

Iowa Caucuses will be the first indication, results should be clear mid next week.

Why do any Trump supporters think Trump can win in 2024? — GRWelsh

"In order to succeed, always project an image of success."

That doesn't really answer my question. His track record for winning elections is not good. He's running against an incumbent, which is traditionally difficult. The economy is doing better than was predicted, which makes it even more difficult to beat an incumbent. Biden has already defeated Trump once. The weaknesses they have -- old age and rambling and sometimes incoherent speeches -- are shared by both, so that's a wash. Trump probably had independents and moderates who voted for him in 2016 but not 2020 and who are even less likely to support him after the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Even if you don't define it as an insurrection, it was clearly reckless on Trump's part. Trump's support among his base seems to be as strong as ever, but what he really needs to win a general election is the support of moderates and independents. Why believe that Trump can win them over after the events of January 6th and all of his legal troubles? I actually saw an interview with Trump a few days ago with him saying he hopes the economy crashes within the next 12 months...

It's not about YOU, the ordinary American and what will be good for you and your family, it's all about HIM and what he thinks can get him back the White House. Pathetic.

Trump hates America. Trump loves Trump, and that's it.

Trump hates America — GRWelsh

The only two world leaders that Trump routinely expresses admiration for a Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, quite obviously because they exercise the kind of power that he lusts for.

Obviously Trump will appeal straight away — Wayfarer

Right— so where does that go? The NY Supreme Court, ultimately? (Or the equivalent— I think NY has a different setup.)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/nathan-wade-fani-willis-da-georgia-election-subversion-case/index.html

"The allegations, if true, may not derail the prosecution, but multiple lawyers tell CNN that the appearance of a conflict of interest could hurt Willis’ chances of securing a conviction before a jury.

The judge overseeing the case said on Friday that he planned to hold a hearing on the allegations in early February."

Holding aside the fact that the motion manages to ramble on for 39 pages without offering any proof of a relationship between the two prosecutors, the motion’s legal theory is defective because at most the allegations amount to an HR personnel issue, not a prosecutorial misconduct—one much less a supposed federal crime.

Here’s why romance between prosecutors is irrelevant to a criminal prosecution.

First, contrary to the Trump lawyer’s argument, there is no “conflict of interest” presented by two prosecutors having a romantic relationship. That’s because they are on the same side of the case. If a prosecutor and a defense attorney were a romantic item, then the defendant might argue that their defense counsel was conflicted because the relationship might cause the defense attorney to fail to zealously represent the client by going easy on their friends-with-benefits opponent.

To get around this problem, defendant Roman argues that the conflict arises from the allegation that the special prosecutor—Nathan Wade—spends money on vacations with Willis, and that Willis therefore improperly “profits” from the prosecution. The problem with this argument is the fact that Willis is already paid to prosecute the case, so there is no “profit” in any prosecution for her.

Any theory that Wade spent money on Willis derived entirely from his salary as a special prosecutor would require proof that—but for his special prosecutor salary—Wade could not afford to spend any money on his supposed dates with Willis. That’s hardly a convincing proposition on its face, and one that would be particularly to prove at any evidentiary hearing.

But as The New York Times reported, one law and ethics professor—Clark D. Cunningham of Georgia State University—opined that Roman’s motion should have included “sworn affidavits by witnesses with personal knowledge or authenticated documents,” so the lack of any such proof makes it appear likely that any hearing would produce nada.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution—which first reported the story—quotes a professor emeritus ethics professor, Stephen Gillers, as saying if the allegations are true then “Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of the case” for lack of required “independent professional judgment.” But the professor goes on to clarify “that does not mean that her decisions were in fact improperly motivated,” but that the relationship could cause the public and state to lack confidence in her independent judgment.” Public confidence, however, is not a piece of evidence in criminal trials—because we don’t conduct prosecutions based on public opinion polling. — Shan Wu, The Daily Beast

Furthermore, even if the case were to be taken out of Willis' hands, it could be re-assigned to another Prosecutor, as there seems to be abundant evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Remember the famous 'I just need to find 11 thousand odd votes' in the defendant's own voice?

They did get him for what he did do that was illegal. They are also going to get him for what he did not do; keep his oath of office. He could not do both.

I'm very frustrated. Going after an ex-president means there shouldn't be even a hint of impropriety. Hopefully, there's no there there.

Here’s a better quote because we don’t want to accidentally spread a little misinformation.

So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

And of course, as is evidenced by the transcript, he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on. That’s entirely within his purview because he is expected to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. So I don’t know why his opponents took that silly line for their propaganda.

It would have been a better angle to go after him for what he did do wrong, which was to offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to absolve anyone of criminal guilt by saying it might have been all a mistake, and that he just wanted to find enough fraud in order to win. That could be construed as criminal.

And of course, as is evidenced by the transcript, he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on. That’s entirely within his purview because he is expected to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” — NOS4A2

Still embracing those fraud myths, I see.

No, it wan't in the President's official purview, because elections are managed at the State level. He had a personal interest, and would naturally be interested, but he had no legal role in the process of vote tabulation and certification at the State level. He had the right to litigate. He did, and he lost. Then he tried to illegally pressure Georgia officials, who had faithfully executed Georgia election law.

You and I discussed the call before, and you seemed to think the State had some obligation to prove to Trump that the vote was correct. They had no such obligation. When I pointed this out, you stopped responding. As usual.

You seem to think wrong. I was speaking about election crimes, not election management.

Election crimes become federal cases when:

• The ballot includes one or more federal candidates
• The crime involves an election official abusing his duties
• The crime pertains to fraudulent voter registration
• Voters are not U.S. citizens

Given that he was the victim of the biggest scam in American history, the Russia hoax, of course he had a personal interest in the following election, as did many of his constituents, millions and millions of them in fact. Might they try to steal it a second time? Either way, they got away with it, installed their puppet, a complete husk of a human being who in his half-century of living off the tax-payer’s dollar has never created a damn a thing in his life. At least with this election it’s all out there for anyone to see. The only fun part is to watch how hard you deny it and follow along.

he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on. That’s entirely within his purview because he is expected to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

I’d love to see you dispute that. But I know you’ve swallowed whole something else.

Fair point, there is potential for federal crimes, in addition to state crimes. However, DOJ investigated the allegations Trump made and informed him they found no crimes. Neither had state officials. Any beliefs Trump may have had were based on internet rumors. If Trump was going to play the role of investigator, as you imply, he needed to apply the same standards as police or FBI: predication was needed. Internet rumors do not suffice.

Your defense of Trump depends on assuming he's irrational and incompetent, neither of which get him off the hook for crimes, and both of which demonstate unfitness for office.

Given that he was the victim of the biggest scam in American history, the Russia hoax, — NOS4A2

As you know, the only hoax was the one perpetrated by Trump. It is appropriate to investigate crimes, and crimes were committed, including crimes by Trump during the investigation. Barr blocked charging Trump with those crimes, but they were well documented by Mueller.

I don’t dispute satire.

That doesn't really answer my question. — GRWelsh

Hardly anything is more American than never to admit defeat, to remain confident and hold one's head high, no matter what is going on.

It's not about YOU, the ordinary American and what will be good for you and your family,

How many Americans actually believe that political elections are about what is good for the people?
It seems to me that people, Americans and others, generally view any level of government officials, including the president of a country, as simply yet another job, something one does for one's own sake. The rest is just rhetoric; it's about proving that one can talk the talk. It never was about walking it.

Trump hates America. Trump loves Trump, and that's it.

Such an American sentiment. It's why so many Americans love him.

Hardly anything is more American than never to admit defeat, to remain confident and hold one's head high, no matter what is going on. — baker

You're confusing two very different things. No one is disputing that it is an admirable quality to refuse to give up or remain steadfast in the face of adversity, even when you are losing. But that's different than refusing to admit that you lost, which is not an admirable quality.

How many Americans actually believe that political elections are about what is good for the people?
It seems to me that people, Americans and others, generally view any level of government officials, including the president of a country, as simply yet another job, something one does for one's own sake. The rest is just rhetoric; it's about proving that one can talk the talk. It never was about walking it. — baker

Sure, most politicians are doing what they do out of self-interest to some extent, but their job is to do what is good for the American people. Trump is just flat out saying that he wishes ill on the American people in order to have a good outcome for himself. There isn't any way to twist that around to be defensible, just by virtue of being cynical. "Oh, we love him because he hates us and is honest about it!" Yeah, right...

Here’s a better quote because we don’t want to accidentally spread a little misinformation.

So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

And of course, as is evidenced by the transcript, he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on. — NOS4A2

I don't see how you can conclude from this statement that he's looking for fraudulent ballots. If he were truly looking for fraudulent ballots then he could have said something like this:

"My information says that there was significant fraud in the election. AlI want is to verify that the election was legitimate and any fraudulent ballots tossed. I believe I won, but if all fraudulent ballots are thrown out and I still lost, then at least I will know I lost legitimately and not through fraud."

The fact that he says (erroneously) that he won and he does not need all supposedly fraudulent ballots thrown out, just enough to give him a victory? That's the give away.

- - - - - - -
As a humorous aside, Trump's statement is incoherent. "One more than we have"? Huh? That would literally mean he wanted Raffensberger to find 1 additional vote. What he meant to say was "that would be one more vote than Biden."

As a humorous aside, Trump's statement is incoherent. — EricH

It's a lesson learned from advertisers, that incoherent statements cannot be shown to be false. or inciting, or threatening, or irresponsible - because they say nothing. It happens a lot, and it's deliberate, learned and practiced, and every time you hear it from a politician, you can be sure they are a crook, because no serious politician is inarticulate or linguistically incompetent.

People don't like the ugly reality of our own nature being revealed to them, we like well manicured lawns, white picket fences, adorable canines, matching iPhone covers, and our freshly made deli sandwiches cut in delectable slices with a fancy cocktail sword skewering each. So much so those who actually wish to change the status quo, at least be a barrier and source of proliferation toward neutralization of the social ills that plague, not us but someone else (therefore not an immediate concern), are often ignored as if their message of awareness was as good as the degeneracy itself. We would rather shoot the messenger, before we would accept a message directed at oneself we find too intimately revealing or personal for one's concocted sense of morals and standards, guidelines that deep down we know we would break at the first hint of losing said vanities and "givens" we have enjoyed since time immemorial, provided it is reasonably likely we would still gain the upper hand and come out on top.

This is neither a critique or praise of Trump nor one of his supporters, critics, or those in between. Simply a reminder that this is the world we live in, and ignoring the grim if not revolting realities that come with existence, only benefits those who wish to proliferate and propagate them further.

Do you not agree? — Outlander

Exactly. And Trump has found an effective way to talk about these things and to take advantage of the politically correct culture that is so prevalent in the US.

politically correct culture that is so prevalent in the US — baker

I still have a problem with people trying to say not being an insensitive douche is some sort of political culture. It's simply not being an insensitive childish douche. There's no politics involved in the quality of human character. You can go overboard, sure. But the question remains the same, do we want to be governed by hotheaded, crass, uncaring children or measured, polite intellectuals? Which do you think would really be most on the average "lesser" persons side?

What annoys me is annoying dickheads who justify their needless existence and burden on others by saying "oh you just need thicker thin, there's something wrong you". No, there is not. You are simply an annoying dickhead and burden to enlightened, civil society the world would be much better off without. End of discussion.

(Not toward you or Trump just my general sentiments on the back and forth/two sides or in my view "abuse" of the term "political correctness")

At the end of the day, people are dense. "Cheap taste and short memories", a favorite quote of mine. They feel if someone is either yelling or being rude, imprecise, and insensitive they must be telling the truth or somehow of a more trustworthy character. Definitely over someone of the opposite demeanor or tone of language. Psychological projection perhaps. People eat it up. Every time. Way of the world. The mans no dummy that's for sure. Now at what cost? Only time will tell.

I don’t see how you can conclude from my quote that I was speaking about that particular statement alone. Clearly I wrote, and thankfully you quoted—something of a rarity around here—“of course, as is evidenced by the transcript, he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on.” Not as evidenced by the statement, but by the transcript.

Trump's grievances (regarding 2020 election results) have been heard and found to be unwarranted, groundless, and unjustifiable as a result of having inadequate - ahem no - evidence to support them. He knew that during the call. The results had already been counted and recounted. Trump refused to accept the official election results. The phone call itself is evidence of election interference.

You're confusing two very different things. No one is disputing that it is an admirable quality to refuse to give up or remain steadfast in the face of adversity, even when you are losing. But that's different than refusing to admit that you lost, which is not an admirable quality. — GRWelsh

Admitting that you've lost is unamerican.

How many Americans actually believe that political elections are about what is good for the people?
It seems to me that people, Americans and others, generally view any level of government officials, including the president of a country, as simply yet another job, something one does for one's own sake. The rest is just rhetoric; it's about proving that one can talk the talk. It never was about walking it.
— baker

Sure, most politicians are doing what they do out of self-interest to some extent, but their job is to do what is good for the American people. Trump is just flat out saying that he wishes ill on the American people in order to have a good outcome for himself. There isn't any way to twist that around to be defensible, just by virtue of being cynical. "Oh, we love him because he hates us and is honest about it!" Yeah, right...

Read again. Indubitably, many people like Trump because he is what they want to be.

politically correct culture that is so prevalent in the US
— baker
I still have a problem with people trying to say not being an insensitive douche is some sort of political culture. It's simply not being an insensitive childish douche. There's no politics involved in the quality of human character. — Outlander

I'm talking about political correctness, the American parody of common decency.

You can go overboard, sure. But the question remains the same, do we want to be governed by hotheaded, crass, uncaring children or measured, polite intellectuals?

The question is, rather, Do we want to be governed at all?

Which do you think would really be most on the average "lesser" persons side?

Neither.
And, better the devil you know. I think that in the eyes of most lesser persons, "the measured, polite intellectuals" are more suspicious and less trustworthy than crass populists.

What annoys me is annoying dickheads who justify their needless existence and burden on others by saying "oh you just need thicker thin, there's something wrong you". No, there is not. You are simply an annoying dickhead and burden to enlightened, civil society the world would be much better off without. End of discussion.

One has to wonder, though, why such dickheads not only survive, but thrive, and in considerable numbers. There, clearly, must be some evolutionary advantage to being that way, or else this trait would not have developed and persisted.

At the end of the day, people are dense. "Cheap taste and short memories", a favorite quote of mine. They feel if someone is either yelling or being rude, imprecise, and insensitive they must be telling the truth or somehow of a more trustworthy character. Definitely over someone of the opposite demeanor or tone of language. Psychological projection perhaps. People eat it up. Every time. Way of the world.

It's still not clear that they "eat it up". More likely, they simply are that way themselves. But also, there is more detail to this. They don't automatically believe someone just because that person is yelling etc. It also needs to be a particular person, saying particular things. I know this all too well from personal experience. It seems it has more to do with taking sides: people generally accept any kind of behavior from someone on whose side they are, and they are hypercritical of those they are against.

The mans no dummy that's for sure.

Absolutely, what I've been saying all along. So many of his critics underestimate him (and those like him), which could have disastrous consequences.

The problem is that you (plural) don't know whom you're up against and you don't even care to find out what it would take to win against them.
— baker

What would it take to win against them? — Fooloso4

I'm not sure, but playing the good boy/good girl and expecting them to play good boys/good girls certainly isn't working. They just laugh it off.

If his actions "undermined confidence in the system" then there wasn't any worthwhile confidence in the system before to begin with.
— baker
Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen? — Relativist

No.

This is what a moral panic reads like. Observe the conspiracy theories, fortune-telling, and fear mongering, derived as they were from the reporting of a press trapped in the exact same hysteria. Here we have a consortium of unelected lawyers and activists ready to subvert the will of the people should it not go their way.

Fears grow that Trump will use the military in ‘dictatorial ways’ if he returns to the White House

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-military-fears-rcna129159

“We are preparing for litigation and preparing to use every tool in the toolbox that our democracy provides to provide the American people an ability to fight back,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward. “We believe this is an existential moment for American democracy and it’s incumbent on everybody to do their part.”

“There are an array of horrors that could result from Donald Trump’s unrestricted use of the Insurrection Act,” Blumenthal said in an interview. “A malignantly motivated president could use it in a vast variety of dictatorial ways unless at some point the military itself resisted what they deemed to be an unlawful order. But that places a very heavy burden on the military.”

“He’s a clear and present danger to our democracy,” said William Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration who is not involved in the loose-knit network. “His support is solid. And I don’t think people understand what living in a dictatorship would mean.”

In an interview, Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said of Trump: “He’s going to be one creative motherf----- when it comes to trying to figure out how to abuse it [power]. Whatever your guess is, open up your imagination a little more.”

“The military is hundreds of thousands of people strong, and ultimately Trump will find people to follow his legal orders no matter what,” said a former senior official who served in the Trump administration, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk freely.

“The Insurrection Act is a legal order, and if he orders it there will be military officers, especially younger men and women, who will follow that legal order,” the former official added.

“A second Trump term would be day after day of constitutional crisis — the Justice Department one day, the Pentagon the next and Homeland Security the next,” Bolton said in an interview. “It would be unremitting.”

“Like any good dictator, he’s going to try to use the military to basically perform his will,” said Leon Panetta, former defense secretary and CIA director in the Obama administration.

“We’re about 30 seconds away from the Armageddon clock when it comes to democracy,” said Cohen, the former Republican senator and defense secretary. “I think that’s how close we’re coming to it when you have a presidential candidate who can be indicted on 91 counts, who can be [found liable for] sexual aggression, who we have seen lies pathologically, who has flouted every rule in the book.”

Shadowy cabals of special interest groups are already forming. The rhetoric and activity is all grooming for election interference, cheating, a coup, or worse. They’ll destroy “our democracy” in order to save it.