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

astrofool

briany wrote: »

Eh, he has most of the party behind him. He was the star speaker at that conference. How does this add up to Trump being done?

Everybody slides into obscurity on a long enough time scale, so how long would it take Trump? 2 years? 20? 200? 2000?

Negative 5 months for trump it seems.

If he was running, he would have announced just as he did in 2017 when president, all he's doing now is stringing some fools along with him. His numbers are well down since the election and will only get worse as the years go on.

Leroy42

astrofool wrote: »

Negative 5 months for trump it seems.

If he was running, he would have announced just as he did in 2017 when president, all he's doing now is stringing some fools along with him. His numbers are well down since the election and will only get worse as the years go on.

Yeah, not formally coming out to say he was running in 2024 is quite a tell. Trump doesn't do subtle. He would like nothing more than have launched his campaign as soon as possible. Given that he said he would have big things to say soon as he slunk away from the WH, and yet had nothing is pretty telling.

We can all agree that Trump loves nothing more, and has been incredibly good at, leading the media headlines. He tends to take over the narrative.

And he feeds off that. And yet here was a great opportunity to take the story away from Biden, from the Covid success etc and get it firmly back on him. That Trump was formally starting his re-eleciton campaign.

He didn't do that. And one can only assume because he knows, at this point in time at least, he has no chance.

hotmail.com

BettyS wrote: »

I have a question, which genuinely worries me. On the Daily Mail, pre-election, the top comments were fairly scathing re: Trump. Now, the top comments are adoring him and bemoaning the democrats. This worries me, as I wonder has the average vote forgiven him and now want him back? What is the reality on the ground?

Do American voters comment on the Daily Mail?

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah, not formally coming out to say he was running in 2024 is quite a tell. Trump doesn't do subtle. He would like nothing more than have launched his campaign as soon as possible. Given that he said he would have big things to say soon as he slunk away from the WH, and yet had nothing is pretty telling.

We can all agree that Trump loves nothing more, and has been incredibly good at, leading the media headlines. He tends to take over the narrative.

And he feeds off that. And yet here was a great opportunity to take the story away from Biden, from the Covid success etc and get it firmly back on him. That Trump was formally starting his re-eleciton campaign.

He didn't do that. And one can only assume because he knows, at this point in time at least, he has no chance.

I'm not sure that declaring/not declaring is the real measure for him

Something that might be worth checking - How long can he keep the various PAC's going without declaring that he's running?

It's all about the money , if he has to declare to allow him to keep raking in the donations he'll do that , not because he definitely will , but because he wants/needs the money.

BettyS

hotmail.com wrote: »

Do American voters comment on the Daily Mail?

The associated addresses are US. But who knows if they are genuine comments or comments conjured up by Murdoch himself

briany

astrofool wrote: »

Negative 5 months for trump it seems.

If he was running, he would have announced just as he did in 2017 when president, all he's doing now is stringing some fools along with him. His numbers are well down since the election and will only get worse as the years go on.

Trump may need some time to recombobulate before announcing another run at the presidency, but even taking another presidential bid out of the equation, his shadow looms large over the Republican party. He got the most votes of any Republican presidential candidate in history. Does that say nothing of his popularity? The only question is if he runs himself or if he decides on a surrogate.

astrofool

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'm not sure that declaring/not declaring is the real measure for him

Something that might be worth checking - How long can he keep the various PAC's going without declaring that he's running?

It's all about the money , if he has to declare to allow him to keep raking in the donations he'll do that , not because he definitely will , but because he wants/needs the money.

I think the PAC's are a red herring at this stage, he'll grift people in other ways, if it was about the PAC's post election would have gone a lot differently.

astrofool

briany wrote: »

He got the most votes of any Republican presidential candidate in history. Does that say nothing of his popularity?

This means nothing really, it fails to take into account population growth and a very high turn out in the states, he lost the votes by about 10%, that is a huge margin to overcome, even with the EC to protect you.

BettyS

briany wrote: »

Trump may need some time to recombobulate before announcing another run at the presidency, but even taking another presidential bid out of the equation, his shadow looms large over the Republican party. He got the most votes of any Republican presidential candidate in history. Does that say nothing of his popularity? The only question is if he runs himself or if he decides on a surrogate.

I was listening to an Irish Trump supporter. He was adamantly stating that there is not one single decent democrat that he can think of and that the party is “pure evil”. If that radical, binary thinking is coming from an educated Irish person, then how bad must it be in the US? It is dangerous when a society is so fundamentally divided.

The thing that worried me most is that I couldn’t use any reasoned arguments or examples to counter his arguments, because he had read the “truth” from other sources. So we may be talking about the same news story, but the reporting is so fundamentally divergent, there is no common ground to reconcile

Leroy42

briany wrote: »

Trump may need some time to recombobulate before announcing another run at the presidency, but even taking another presidential bid out of the equation, his shadow looms large over the Republican party. He got the most votes of any Republican presidential candidate in history. Does that say nothing of his popularity? The only question is if he runs himself or if he decides on a surrogate.

Another way to look at it is that he is the GOP candidate that led to the Democrats getting the largest vote in US history for POTUS.

Quin_Dub

astrofool wrote: »

This means nothing really, it fails to take into account population growth and a very high turn out in the states, he lost the votes by about 10%, that is a huge margin to overcome, even with the EC to protect you.

And everything that has been said and done since the Election indicates that there is no recognition of that fact.

There will be no effort to expand the voter base , no effort to be more inclusive.

The GOP's only chance is mass vote suppression - And to be fair they have gotten off to a fast start on that front with over 250 "Vote Integrity" bills already at various stages in Statehouses across the country with many more to come no doubt.

The single most important piece of legislation that the current Congress must pass is the voting rights proposals - The "For the people" act.

If things stay as they are , the GOP controlled State-houses will continue down the scorched earth approach they have begun on access to voting.

Debub

briany wrote: »

Trump may need some time to recombobulate before announcing another run at the presidency, but even taking another presidential bid out of the equation, his shadow looms large over the Republican party. He got the most votes of any Republican presidential candidate in history. Does that say nothing of his popularity? The only question is if he runs himself or if he decides on a surrogate.

Trump doesn't seem like a person who would do surrogates - seems too self centric, but I could be wrong

everlast75

Trump was the key note speaker, generally considered a position reserved for the fore runner for the upcoming nomination.

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1366399721917538311?s=20

If he cannot enthral a bible-bashing group of anti-scientist, cooperate racists, then it doesn't look that good for him

briany

astrofool wrote: »

This means nothing really, it fails to take into account population growth and a very high turn out in the states, he lost the votes by about 10%, that is a huge margin to overcome, even with the EC to protect you.

It does mean something. It means that Trump is very popular with the Republican base. Trump increased his vote number by 10 million over his 2016 performance. Yes, it is true that he also made the other guy the most popular presidential candidate in history, but when it comes to clinching the Republican nomination, what the other side thinks of you is immaterial. Or at least it is in the current US political climate, where reason has gone out the window.

everlast75

This is interesting

https://twitter.com/ElizLanders/status/1366124833264787462?s=20

DeSantis is top. He is a carbon copy of Trump, so it would appear people "like" Trump's way of politics, but don't necessarily think he is the guy to bring it home.

Tell me how

everlast75 wrote: »

This is interesting

DeSantis is top. He is a carbon copy of Trump, so it would appear people "like" Trump's way of politics, but don't necessarily think he is the guy to bring it home.

Don't think DeSantis will be anywhere near it in 2024 but he is young and will be around for a while yet so a run in future is likely.

Don Jr 3rd in line just says it all really.

Quin_Dub

Trump called in to Fox News after his CPAC speech..



Sounds like it was just as you might have expected it to be.

Asked if he regretted anything about how he handled the riots, Trump blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for poor security and then boasted about the size of the crowd that was in D.C. to support him. “The press doesn’t like to talk about it, but the real number was much, much bigger... It was tremendous numbers of people, not the Capitol, I’m talking about the rally itself, and it was a lovefest, it was a beautiful thing.”

His ability to "Look at an utterly appalling thing and find a single crumb that he thinks makes him look good and then to make a huge deal of that crumb whilst ignoring the utterly awful thing" is truly unsurpassed.

everlast75

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I dismissed it because it's not a real thing. Even suggesting that its plausible seems like an opinion of fantasy.

https://twitter.com/TheRealHoarse/status/1366430400344686597?s=19

This just in - a Hotel Group suffers hallucinations of a nazi sign...

dublin49

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Trump called in to Fox News after his CPAC speech..



Sounds like it was just as you might have expected it to be.



His ability to "Look at an utterly appalling thing and find a single crumb that he thinks makes him look good and then to make a huge deal of that crumb whilst ignoring the utterly awful thing" is truly unsurpassed.

He is mind blowing,talk about throwing the rule book away,He is undoubtably the most unique political character that have ever lived.If he was portrayed as he is in a work of fiction the readers would complain about how unrealistic a character he is.I practically never agree with anything he says views and yet have to acknowledge his unstinting confidence in his own providence and his ability to turn each and every fxxk up into a win for him .I sat in horrific awe last night at his performance,even his most trenchant critic must concede he is some performer .

TomTomTim

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TheRealHoarse/status/1366430400344686597?s=19

This just in - a Hotel Group suffers hallucinations of a nazi sign...

Remember all those YT videos that used to do the rounds about Illuminati symbolism and what not? The very types of videos that would be mocked unmercifully by people like you, and most people in this thread. What does it feel like to have devolved into a paranoid conspiracy theorist, who see Nazis everywhere?

ohnonotgmail

TomTomTim wrote: »

Remember all those YT videos that used to do the rounds about Illuminati symbolism and what not? The very types of videos that would be mocked unmercifully by people like you, and most people in this thread. What does it feel like to have devolved into a paranoid conspiracy theorist, who see Nazis everywhere?

no paranoia required. it is right there in the picture.

everlast75

dublin49 wrote: »

He is mind blowing,talk about throwing the rule book away,He is undoubtably the most unique political character that have ever lived.If he was portrayed as he is in a work of fiction the readers would complain about how unrealistic a character he is.I practically never agree with anything he says views and yet have to acknowledge his unstinting confidence in his own providence and his ability to turn each and every fxxk up into a win for him .I sat in horrific awe last night at his performance,even his most trenchant critic must concede he is some performer .

Em - how about no?

His schtik has gotten old and quickly too. Even Fox and Friends are bored with him.

TomTomTim wrote: »

Remember all those YT videos that used to do the rounds about Illuminati symbolism and what not? The very types of videos that would be mocked unmercifully by people like you, and most people in this thread. What does it feel like to have devolved into a paranoid conspiracy theorist, who see Nazis everywhere?

I haven't, so I wouldn't know.

TomTomTim

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no paranoia required. it is right there in the picture.

It's very interesting that they've used a supposed Nazi symbol that most people don't even recognize. It's certainly my first time to see it, and I'm far more right wing than most people on this site.

ohnonotgmail

TomTomTim wrote: »

It's very interesting that they've used a supposed Nazi symbol that most people don't even recognize. It's certainly my first time to see it, and I'm far more right wing than most people on this site.

it isn't aimed at you then. It is aimed at the white supremacists who would recognise it. It is a dog whistle.

duploelabs

TomTomTim wrote: »

It's very interesting that they've used a supposed Nazi symbol that most people don't even recognize. It's certainly my first time to see it, and I'm far more right wing than most people on this site.

Just because you don't recognise what it is, it's actively courting those who know exactly what it is

Tchaikovsky

TomTomTim wrote: »

It's very interesting that they've used a supposed Nazi symbol that most people don't even recognize. It's certainly my first time to see it, and I'm far more right wing than most people on this site.

Stephen Miller and his ilk would certainly be familiar with it and only delighted to see it.

Reminded me of this sly act in Croatia: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/33120517

briany

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it isn't aimed at you then. It is aimed at the white supremacists who would recognise it. It is a dog whistle.

Building your stage in the same shape as a symbol used by Nazis isn't what I'd call a dog whistle. I thought dog whistles were supposed to be subtle and have a decent degree of deniability.

How big a cohort of voters is it in the states who would A) recognise the symbol and be pleased by it? I'm not doubting there are a lot of racists in the Republican base, but I would have thought the majority are of the 'Mexicans go home' type, as opposed to the ones studied in Nazi iconography.

Quin_Dub

briany wrote: »

Building your stage in the same shape as a symbol used by Nazis isn't what I'd call a dog whistle. I thought dog whistles were supposed to be subtle and have a decent degree of deniability.

How big a cohort of voters is it in the states who would A) recognise the symbol and be pleased by it? I'm not doubting there are a lot of racists in the Republican base, but I would have thought the majority are of the 'Mexicans go home' type, as opposed to the ones studied in Nazi iconography.

It's the perfect thing though.. Their supporters will fall into three categories

Group 1 - Those that recognise it for what it was - "Gotcha Chief , Message received , wink wink "

Group 2 - Those that dont' recognise it , but now read the news and dismiss it as "Liberal Snowflakes gone mad" - Feeds the "them and us" persecution complex they are so fond of.

Group 3 - Those that miss it entirely and don't even see the media - No change


From a GOP perspective they lose nothing and possible gain a bit more support/loyalty from groups 1 and 2.

ohnonotgmail

briany wrote: »

Building your stage in the same shape as a symbol used by Nazis isn't what I'd call a dog whistle. I thought dog whistles were supposed to be subtle and have a decent degree of deniability.

How big a cohort of voters is it in the states who would A) recognise the symbol and be pleased by it? I'm not doubting there are a lot of racists in the Republican base, but I would have thought the majority are of the 'Mexicans go home' type, as opposed to the ones studied in Nazi iconography.

if that is what you believe then you need to educate yourself.

ExMachina1000

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's the perfect thing though.. Their supporters will fall into three categories

Group 1 - Those that recognise it for what it was - "Gotcha Chief , Message received , wink wink "

Group 2 - Those that dont' recognise it , but now read the news and dismiss it as "Liberal Snowflakes gone mad" - Feeds the "them and us" persecution complex they are so fond of.

Group 3 - Those that miss it entirely and don't even see the media - No change


From a GOP perspective they lose nothing and possible gain a bit more support/loyalty from groups 1 and 2.

I'd say that is a conspiracy theory