What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

aidanodr

Mike Sington - Senior Executive at NBCUniversal

Trump AI

https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1764626792281968913

RobbingBandit

Long live the KING!!!

aidanodr

the CEO/Owner of the GOP has spoken

https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1764674205079965893

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849535#Comment_121849535

Bullet proof? The guy who lost the last election? The guy who owes $500m for legal cases he lost? The guy who has gone bankruptcy numerous times?

I agree that he certainly gives the air of someone Bullet proof but in reality he is quite a magnet for bullets

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849467#Comment_121849467

The tragedy is that people will fall for this...

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849808#Comment_121849808

Trump himself has probably fallen for it.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849690#Comment_121849690

I suppose the point of bullets is to wound. He may attract many bullets, but no single one is having much of a detrimental effect. Certainly not to the extent you'd expect they have, anyway. That isn't really because Trump is so strong as it is that he has successfully created a total cult of personality with followers who are seemingly ready to follow him to the ends of the earth. Lawsuits, criminal cases and general exposés only make them double down even further.

LambshankRedemption

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849535#Comment_121849535

The problem with Teflon is it has a very thin skin.

Trump speaking now telling Biden to close the borders. Ignoring that Bidens Bill is being blocked by Congress.

Donald: "You dont need congress, you have total control"

Also not understanding the current situation.

LastFridayNight

So basically the only other case likely to go to trial anytime before the election is the nothing-burger Stormy Daniels one. The Georgia election interfering case might go to trial before the election, but it also might not. The existing rulings including the NY corporate fraud one are mostly irrelevant- since he is appealing and they won't be concluded till after the election. So for the most part, the US has shot its load on the legal side to stopping Trump in 2024 and now all that's left to stop the US going into full autocratic dictator meltdown is the election itself. God help us, because the voting public in the US quite possibly won't.

Glencarraig

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849690#Comment_121849690

Hopefully one of them ends up buried in his skull.

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849467#Comment_121849467

Imagine needing AI to have a photo with black people.

bUt hE's nOt a rAcIsT!

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849869#Comment_121849869

Yeah it does somewhat only serve to reinforce the fact Trump's team knows he has zero appeal with black voters and Trump can't/won't even contrive a simple photoshoot with some ... I dunno, outreach centre in Chicago.

And given only recently Trump farted on about how black people should like him cos he's a felon, just like them!, this seems like a double header of cringe.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849426#Comment_121849426

If there was ever a more glaring example of why Barrett should have never come close to the SCOTUS, this is it. What a dreadful bit of writing and what a shameless hack. Unqualified in every way. Burn in Hell, Mitch McConnell

So glad I live in Ireland.

ronjo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849492#Comment_121849492

I think you are on the wrong thread.

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849175#Comment_121849175

Funny you have an issue with this courts decision but no problems with any of the state judges or DA's hounding Trump who were appointed by the Democrats.

The Supreme court, the highest court in the US is biased, but lower level courts are not it seems.

Yeah right.

combat14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849850#Comment_121849850

and the good news for democracy is - that's the perogative of the US voters who they vote for

trump 2016

biden 2020

2024 we shall see who the college electors decide

pleasant Co.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121850723#Comment_121850723

Which state judges have been hounding trump?

everlast75

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1764606248891170940?s=20

Jfc Axios - do your job!!

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849931#Comment_121849931

What’s wrong with it?

The way this thread is going proves precisely her point. There are no discussions the last page or two on the legal analysis, just complaints about how the court was pro-trump or whatever (apparently disregarding the opinions of Roberts, Kagan or Sotomayor who predate Trump). Barrett and Sotomayor were on a panel two weeks ago, well worth the watch. Available on CSPAN’s channel, was at the Governor’s Conference. Both of them lamented that fact that the media and voters don’t seem to give a damn about the law and only seem to care about whether the court’s opinion is to the benefit or detriment of their preferred policies. Roberts had made a similar observation last year.

Her bottom line is correct. All nine judges agreed, and realistically, there was no other possible outcome. Honestly, anyone who expected a single judge to come out with “a state can unilaterally disqualify a national-level candidate” was deluding themselves. That the concurring three who wrote separately would have come to the same conclusion by narrower reasoning is not something for, to use her word, “stridency”

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849039#Comment_121849039

It goes back to the nature of the Federal District as not being one of the United States (pretty much by definition). Back in The Day, citizens who lived in DC did not have any representation at any level, to include local government which was run by appointees by the Federal Government, That didn’t sit well with the residents on the SouthWest side of the Potomac in particular, who felt their needs were not being addressed. Thus the retrocession of part of DC to Virginia in 1847, which also sets the precedent for how folks on the NorthEast side of the the river can gain congressional representation if they really want it. Of interest, however, the citizens on that side of the water decided against retrocession when the Virginian side voted in favor.

Interestingly, there is much less opposition from Republicans on the idea of Puerto Rico becoming a state as it’s an entirely different situation. The issue there is simply that Puerto Rico hasn’t asked to become one. It’s difficult to say where Puerto Rico would fall in Congress as their political parties mainly divide on the matter of independence, statehood, or status quo. The current Congressional representative caucuses with the Republicans. The previous went Democrat. The one before that, Republican. All three represent the same party, the New Progresive Party (the pro-statehood party). The one before those three caucused Democrat, but was a member of the “status quo” party, Popular Democratic.

ronjo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121851356#Comment_121851356

Are you saying Republicans would oppose one and not the other because they think they can win it?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121851306#Comment_121851306

Well, in terms of legal arguments, suggesting an act of Congress is necessary when the Constitution explicitly states 2/3rds of Congress may overturn the disability makes zero legal sense to me.

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121851306#Comment_121851306

Can you blame people? SCOTUS have serious credibility issues when Thomas is hearing cases surrounding an insurrection in which his wife was neck deep in!

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121851306#Comment_121851306

All nine Judges agreed that a State level court could not make the decision in isolation which would have overruled the Colorado judgement, however it was a 5-4 decision to say that an act of congress was required to invoke the provision - That came exclusively from the Conservative Judges on the court.

They kicked to touch and removed the Judiciary from the process entirely , making it a toxic partisan political process rather than a legal one , which is an awful cowardly option.

Had they instead ruled that it requires a Federal Court decision to invoke the 14th Amendment that would have put them back in the firing line in a few month time as a Federal court somewhere would have ruled against Trump leading to the substantive matter question of "Did he engage in Insurrection?" coming before the Supreme court directly and forced them to make a real ruling.

Bottom line , they chickened out and made it political and toxic instead of making it about the actual law.

Stanley 1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121849812#Comment_121849812

The only person who has truly, sincerely fallen for Trump is himself.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121851599#Comment_121851599

Yes and no. If DC were overwhelmingly Republican, I have no doubt that in practice it would today be more Republicans talking about finding a way to turn most of DC into a State and Democrats arguing against. In this case, as a matter of principle, precedent is very definitely on the side of the Republicans: An active decision was made at the time the District was created that the people who lived there would in effect be kicked out of the States and thus lose their Congressional representation, with the "fix" being retrocession, as implemented for Alexandria County. The current arguments for "turn DC into a State" have really been vocally proposed only in recent years, after the 1980s.

PR is an entirely different principle and the positions of both parties have generally been the same over the decades: That if the PRians ask, they'll be admitted, this has been a constant position, which is presumably why the NPP has been willing to caucus both with Republicans and Democrats. The fact that the prospective state seems unlikely to tilt overwhelmingly one way or the other is probably why neither party has changed its historical position for pragmatic (i.e senate weight) reasons, but even if they wanted to, I'm not sure there are any arguments against.

Field east

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121850723#Comment_121850723

I assume , therefor, that when there is a vacancy in any of the courts -, be it circuit , surpreme or whatever - that it is filled by the president’s choice at the time. I have absence that the President position has been held more by the republican more than the. Democratic side

so, if the above is the case then your typical court would be slightly leaning towards the ‘republican point of view’

AlmightyCushion

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121852667#Comment_121852667

" that it is filled by the president’s choice at the time"

Except from that time when Obama was trying to appoint one and the Republicans blocked it because it was the last year of his term.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121851306#Comment_121851306

BS. It isn’t Unilateral. California can’t decide to kick Trump off South Carolinas ballot.

political analyst

If Biden had used his executive authority to increase border security and had then been ruled against by the Supreme Court, would that judgement have swayed pro-Trump voters? Surely, Trump's supporters don't want the US government to disregard the US Constitution, do they?