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

I could have sworn McConnell had flipped on the insurrection several times at this stage.

It’s the one bloody thing he’s been fairly consistent on. His speech on the senate floor after the objection to Arizona was fairly direct and called what the others in his party were up to out.

Maybe not new, but the timing directly after Pence, is notable.

Apart from that speech he has been relatively quiet about it, not saying much one way or another.

Until now. So why? Why say anything and why now? He isn't doing it for the love of democracy or whether its right or not. His track record would suggest he is more focused on what is most advantageous to his agenda that actual rules.

So why come down so hard against Trump, when all indicators are that such a move is a losing strategy?

Careful.

While they may give the impression that they are stepping back from the QANON/white-hood red hat brigade they are still pursuing an agenda of trying to rig the next elections with their voting restriction acts. They still actually did censure Cheney et al. They still believe that people storming Capitol building was "Legitimate Discourse". They still vilify anyone who even hints at the idea that trump is not the very model of everything the GOP stands for.

Trump and his ideals are the gold standard of the GOP party. This is POLICY! EVERYTHING he stands for is GOP policy. This has not changed.

His legacy?

Not to us. God no.

I meant the people who revelled in his ruthless advancement of the GOP agenda.

even if trump does hold some sway with GOP voters in 2026 (and I find that unlikely) it will have little or no effect on McConnell's re-election chances.

I'm afraid you are thinking too much in the vein of Trump on this one. It has nothing to do with McConnells reelection chances. He, if he decides to run, is a 100% shoe in. That is not what he is doing. This isn't some play based on his own reelection. Not only is he pretty much guaranteed, but its 4 years away so not even on the outside of an agenda.

So, he has nothing to lose but what is he trying to gain? For the easiest option is to say nothing. Something that most of them have been doing for months. This is a noticeable, and targeted, statement for McConnell.

Sorry, I meant that indicators that are presented to us, such as Trump satisfaction rating and followers, would assume that such a statement would be a losing strategy. And that is certainly how the GOP have acted over the last year.

So what has changed? Either McConnell has been overcome with a sense of duty and to hell with the negative consequences, or - and this is by far the most likely - something has actually changed. Be that polling numbers, funding returns showing Trump is not generating the expected cash, pushback from Corporate donors, pushback from international partners etc etc.

I certainly don't believe McConnell simply said what he was thinking at the time without any clear objective, particularly given Pence and others statements recently.

If there is a smoking gun, I'm perplexed as to what it could be at this stage.

Because even if they had photo of him proudly holding a signed copy of "My Plan to take over America as President for Life, no matter how many of my idiot supporters are hurt or killed in the process. By Donald J. Trump"...I still think he'd hold onto enough of the people who delight at how sh*t of a human being he is.

It would have to be some very spectacular smoking gun I feel.

A federal criminal prosecution would suffice

Agreed. I'm trying to think. It would have to be something that would lose even his white-hood/Red-Hat brigade. Something that would lose him the GOP vote. But as far as I know, he's white, male and straight.....

And if that is not the definition of a terrorist, then what is? On that political jokes thread, one of his klan posted something about how Biden is losing his mind because he called these people terrorists.... Except... y'know, by Oxford English Dictionary, they were. BY DEFINITION:

terrorist

/ˈtɛrərɪst/

noun

1. a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

adjective

1. unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Were there law enforcement in the building they attacked? Yes

Were there politicians in the building they attacked? Yes

Were there civilians in the building they attacked? Yes

I know, I know. I am preaching to the choir. His klan have long since stopped posting here because they have no valid arguments. But it IS worth noting that the GOP now officially endorse a terrorist, a quantifiable enemy of the state, as their presidential candidate.. That sentence alone is damning. But they will continue to endorse a terrorist and embrace his klan if it means they win.

Perhaps this is the reason why Pence and McConnell have broken ranks, pure conjecture of course

Jesus fúcking Christ...