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

everlast75 · 20-12-2023 11:10am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517083#Comment_121517083

A quote from the ruling...

pixelburp · 20-12-2023 11:10am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517137#Comment_121517137

Wtf are they supposed to do? Let everything he does slide?

Yes. The want a dictator, king, emperor, boss, whatever and are too cowardly to just admit it.

briany · 20-12-2023 12:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517183#Comment_121517183

This concept of a 'boss' is being promoted by some of the intellectuals who make up what's been called the 'dark enlightenment' - Curtis Yarvin being the one I've seen. His position has been called neo-monarchism, although I don't know if that's a label he applies to himself. He does seem to bemoan the fall of European monarchs who held absolute power, though. He is very much in favour of concentrating executive power in the POTUS. He dances around the term 'dictator', preferring 'CEO' and 'accountable monarch'. That is a monarch who must be elected, which is pretty much an oxymoron.

https://youtu.be/pDTtxMItva0?si=5_hLAov64TZGOsg3

To me, it sounds like yet another way to slip a dictatorship into America, because what could possibly go wrong between a man who holds absolute power and the democratic mechanism to get rid of him?

But the reason I bring it all up is to illustrate how there is a sort of pipeline for ideas even on the alt-right. We've seen Yarvin's concept be taken by the Heritage Foundation and turned into Project 2025. It would not be at all surprising if some of the points find their way into Trump's speeches. Trump may be riffing a lot of the time, but you can tell there are certain things he makes a point of saying.

randd1 · 20-12-2023 12:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517414#Comment_121517414

Unherd ideas.

Surely a typo?

looksee · 20-12-2023 12:16pm

Probably not - ideas that are not of the herd, as in unusual or individual thoughts.

Tony EH · 20-12-2023 12:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121514239#Comment_121514239

but Rudi took down the Italian mob

Did he?

Or did he just take the credit for other people's work on the matter?

duploelabs · 20-12-2023 12:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517491#Comment_121517491

My point was that he should have rock solid evidence, even in a management role, to secure a conviction. Lawyer 101

Tony EH · 20-12-2023 12:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121516593#Comment_121516593

I'll never understand re-reg trolls.

duploelabs · 20-12-2023 12:45pm

Can't wait for the Republicans to argue for state rights, but then twist themselves in knots when arguing that trump should be able to appeal to the SC on the Colarado case

Tony EH · 20-12-2023 12:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517506#Comment_121517506

Sure he should, but he didn't. Just like MAGA loons didn't bring any real evidence for their "stolen election" claims in, what, 80+ court cases over the past few years.

All that's important to them is the lie. The lie has to be repeated. Actual evidence isn't even a secondary concern.

My point, however, is that Rudy Giuliani has always been very good at centring himself for promotion on the back of big ticket events. He was centre stage during efforts to clean up NYC, although there were many, many, people who did the work on that. He was centre stage in the aftermath of 9/11, although there were many, many, people involved in that too. This time, it looks like he's picked the wrong horse to grandstand with and the scales have fallen from a lot of people's eye with regards to Rudy Giuliani...and it's not before time either.

Look, I'm not having a go at you. I just get irked whenever I see Giuliani's past getting dragged out as some evidence of his former "greatness".

Quin_Dub · 20-12-2023 12:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517633#Comment_121517633

The gymnastics are already underway , see my post a bit earlier about Thom Tillis seeking to introduce legislation to make it illegal for States to decide on the applicability of the the 14th amendment in their State.

briany · 20-12-2023 12:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517633#Comment_121517633

States' rights for me, not for thee.

PropJoe10 · 20-12-2023 1:03pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517144#Comment_121517144

Totally agree. While it'd be great to see him barred on one level, it just enables his legion of idiots to say that the judiciary has overridden the will of the people, even if that's not true. Much better to get out there, and defeat him yet again at the ballot box. Sooner or later, these continuous defeats for Republicans will have to count for something.

pixelburp · 20-12-2023 1:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517414#Comment_121517414

Never heard of this Yarvin guy, but ye gods what a plonker. As per wikipedia, here's some word salad for ye all this lunchtime:

Yarvin argues for a "neo-cameralist" philosophy based on Frederick the Great of Prussia's cameralism.[30] In Yarvin's view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful and should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose "shareholders" (large owners) elect an executive with total power, but who must serve at their pleasure.[27] The executive, unencumbered by liberal-democratic procedures, could rule efficiently much like a CEO-monarch.[27] Yarvin admires Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping for his pragmatic and market-oriented authoritarianism, and the city-state of Singapore as an example of a successful authoritarian regime. He sees the US as soft on crime, dominated by economic and democratic delusions.[26]

I mean, he's not entirely wrong that Democratic Governments tend to show a strong problem with efficiency - but that has always been the trade-off for the not-for-profit emphasis on government services for the people. It's just a baked-in "flaw" with ensuring fair and equitable provision of services. His philosophy just reads like an entirely maniacal version of the "business leaders make good political leaders 'cos they make profit" fallacy - only as with all things American, mutated into something grotesque.

Tony EH · 20-12-2023 1:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517714#Comment_121517714

Mmmmm...I think the decision from Colorado is only going to embolden the idiot army even more as well. Trump's already capitalising on it and spouting off "They're coming for you" nonsense.

Tony EH · 20-12-2023 1:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517746#Comment_121517746

Libertarianism ++

erlichbachman · 20-12-2023 1:21pm

This ladies and gentlemen proofs out that Democracy is not sustainable long term when the party that is in power can prevent opposing candidates from participating.

A perfect example of why Meritocracy is the only sustainable political system.

Igotadose · 20-12-2023 1:24pm

So, let's say the SCOTUS amazingly finds for Colorado. It can happen, though I doubt it will.

Cue the cases in Florida, Texas, Alabama, etc. to ban Biden from the ballot because...uhh... make something up like the ongoing sham investigation by Congress. The current SCOTUS rules against people without actual crimes being committed, like the refusal to bake a gay themed wedding cake when there was never an order placed for the wedding cake.

And, of course, cue the cases in Michigan, Georgia, Ohio, Nevada and other swing states against both Trump and Biden.

Just a bad ruling imo and opening up oodles of publicity channels for TFG (and Biden as well, tbf.) And continues the wearing down of Americans interest in politics, which very much benefits TFG.

Also, the finding by Colorado that TFG caused an insurrection in DC, is legally interesting. Finding someone guilty for a crime committed in another state, well, not sure how that's supposed to withstand scrutiny, either. There is a case about it in DC already :)

everlast75 · 20-12-2023 1:24pm

yeah, so anyway....

Like I said folks, if someone petitions the court and asks them to interpret the law, what else are they supposed to do?

duploelabs · 20-12-2023 1:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517808#Comment_121517808

So someone who, in the eyes of the court, attempted an Insurrection to deny the people of their vote, should be allowed to attempt it again? Is that what you're saying?

Igotadose · 20-12-2023 1:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517824#Comment_121517824

Not grant certiorari. I think they will when the Colorado case comes before the court and gut the 14th amendment, what little there is to it anyway since it was a thing of its time. Basically, go full on hypocritical as this is an originalism issue and it'll be inconvenient to the SCOTUS if that's pointed out by the plaintiffs, but they'll find a way.

pixelburp · 20-12-2023 1:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517808#Comment_121517808

This presupposes the belief that the candidate in question isn't a Bad Actor and wannabe dictator by their own words. You can quibble insurrection if you wish, but subversion was the clear intent of Jan 6th onwards. And now, the courts are agreeing.

The only thing proved is that American Democracy needs reform, and the idea that there's even a debate a President can/should be immune to criminal prosecution, says it all.

MICKEYG · 20-12-2023 1:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517808#Comment_121517808

It is not the party in power, it is the courts.

Huge and significant difference.

briany · 20-12-2023 1:31pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517782#Comment_121517782

Yeah, but what can courts do? If we think through the implications of the law holding off on Trump for fear of reprisal for even a minute, we can see that they're fundamental and far-reaching and far worse than p*ssing off the MAGA base.

everlast75 · 20-12-2023 1:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517853#Comment_121517853

Were you baying for justice when Trump crammed in 3 SC judges?

erlichbachman · 20-12-2023 1:40pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517848#Comment_121517848

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517853#Comment_121517853

Lets put it into AOC terms, if I'm a bad actor and I get into power, can I appoint judges into positions whereby they can prevent a political opponent from running for election, even if that opponent has not been found guilty of a crime we can accuse them of?

briany · 20-12-2023 1:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121517905#Comment_121517905

We'll make this simple enough: Trump swore this oath,

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He broke this oath, when he gathered a huge throng of his supporters near the U.S. capitol and told them to march to building and 'encourage' those inside not to perform their constitutional duties. Trump did not uphold the oath he took and due to his instigation, he was party to the riot which took place a short time later. Insurrectionism (in the opinion of the Colorado SC), and insurrectionists are barred from holding office under a post-US-civil-war amendment.

Therefore, Trump is off the Colorado ballot for now.

The only defence against this is that Trump truly believed the election was stolen and was acting in good faith. OK. Well, if we take that line of thought, it stands to reason that someone could kill Nancy Pelosi on the basis that they truly thought she was a diabolical reptilian. OK, but that would be called insane or delusional. That's what acting rashly on convictions that have no basis is generally called, or used to be. Maybe Trump would do well being sequestered in a happy home for a time to keep him out of trouble...