Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Manic Moran

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think they definitely have a shot in the house - The Senate map isn't doing them any favours again and if Biden et al push through DC Statehood it makes that even harder.

I'm not so convinced that they will.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/09/09/dc-statehood-gets-increasing-support-from-democrats/

Despite DC’s very public attempts to revisit statehood, it has not received much support outside of the region. “Americans have consistently opposed D.C. statehood in polling over the past three decades,” wrote Gallup senior editor Jeffrey Jones last year. In his research published in July 2019, Jones found that 64 percent of Americans rejected DC statehood. Reasoning might not solely have to do with bipartisanship, either: Jones has also suggested that antipathy toward the federal government might affect how Americans view statehood as well.

It's to be noted that this seems to be also as much a matter of principle. Americans overall are in favour of Statehood for Puerto Rico, should they apply. DC was created specifically not to be a State, it's questioned as to just how legal statehood would be (and the effect of the remaining Federal rump component), and there is no historical precedent for it.

Has anyone looked at polling as to how Senators might approach such a vote?

Overheal

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The FEC filing is gas:

https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00767095/1489852

Looks like the custodian of the filing is landscape gardener:

https://nextdoor.com/pages/mike-gaul-grovetown-ga/

:D:D

phone numbers don't match. I love a good joke but may want to check on that.

BonnieSituation

Overheal wrote: »

phone numbers don't match. I love a good joke but may want to check on that.

He could have more than one ph number?

Either way, funny coincidence.

And we need funny after the Buccs won last night.

StringerBell

prawnsambo wrote: »

Maybe this will liven things up for you. Be careful what you wish for and all that.

No hope, not one snowballs chance in hell of a trump party doing a thing in politics.

A party has to prioritize more than one member. I hope this goes through, I have no faith in him to follow through beyond registering and raising money off it but I'd love to see it come to fruition.

The GOP well and truly getting what the deserve, after the initial fanfare there would be democrat control for the next decade in both houses imo.

prawnsambo

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not so convinced that they will.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/09/09/dc-statehood-gets-increasing-support-from-democrats/

Despite DC’s very public attempts to revisit statehood, it has not received much support outside of the region. “Americans have consistently opposed D.C. statehood in polling over the past three decades,” wrote Gallup senior editor Jeffrey Jones last year. In his research published in July 2019, Jones found that 64 percent of Americans rejected DC statehood. Reasoning might not solely have to do with bipartisanship, either: Jones has also suggested that antipathy toward the federal government might affect how Americans view statehood as well.

It's to be noted that this seems to be also as much a matter of principle. Americans overall are in favour of Statehood for Puerto Rico, should they apply. DC was created specifically not to be a State, it's questioned as to just how legal statehood would be (and the effect of the remaining Federal rump component), and there is no historical precedent for it.

Has anyone looked at polling as to how Senators might approach such a vote?

I haven't looked into it, but saw a comment from a legal twitterer last night that said that there was no chance of 60 senators voting for it. I assume 60 is the magic number. The only arguments for DC statehood (apart from Democrats wanting more senators ) is for representation (weak enough when you look at population) and the situation that developed on January 6th, where the DC National Guard couldn't be called out as they were under the direct control of the president. And he wasn't doing it.

Puerto Rico has a much stronger case. It's a separate territory in its own right and has little say in government. If it was a state, it would rank around 30th of US states in terms of population - Larger than Arkansas, Maine, Nevada and both Dakotas (separately and together). DC ranks around 49th.

dogbert27

StringerBell wrote: »

No hope, not one snowballs chance in hell of a trump party doing a thing in politics.

A party has to prioritize more than one member. I hope this goes through, I have no faith in him to follow through beyond registering and raising money off it but I'd love to see it come to fruition.

The GOP well and truly getting what the deserve, after the initial fanfare there would be democrat control for the next decade in both houses imo.

I wonder what the Patriot Party manifesto would look like:

1. Revenge
2. ????
3. ????

Field east

Brian? wrote: »

I’ve bad news on that. The GOP are likely to retake the house and Senate in 2022. I’d place a decent wager on it in fact.

In all of the comments on the whole election issue and the aftermath, I wonder if the following points have been somewhat missed. Eg.
(1) re that list of reasons as to why voters went for Trump - another one is because he has an anti abortion stance - albeit maybe a populist stance. That reason alone was good enough for people to vote for him. I wonder if there are a number of other one issue reasons as to why people voted for him?

(2) a big play is being made of the 70 odd million votes he got. I doubt if he would have got 70 million votes if the Dems put up a candidate who was younger, a better speaker, had more spark, etc. Biden had nothing going for himself really except that he was the Demo candidate. He really presented an open door to Trump.

(3) I wonder if the election was held again -keeping in mind the storming of the Capitol- awould the outcome be the same. There was a survey done after that activity and circa 50% of the republican respondents were against the storming of the Capitol. I cannot say how ‘objective’ the survey was? I would be of the opinion that Trumps behavior after the election would have lost him some votes- I doubt that he would have gained any votes

Brian?

Headshot wrote: »

What's your reasoning?

The party who holds the Whitehouse usually loses seats at the mid terms. The Dems majority in the House is so small it can easily go.

Brian?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think they definitely have a shot in the house - The Senate map isn't doing them any favours again and if Biden et al push through DC Statehood it makes that even harder.

Trump has no real plan to run as an Independent , he knows he can't win outside a GOP/DEM ticket so not a chance he runs like that.

This "Patriot Party" schtick has two purposes , both fairly short term.

First it allows him to keep fundraising through PACs to grift cash off his supporters and second it's a way to pressure Senators into not Impeaching him - Vote against me and I'll run a candidate against you.

He's hoping that's enough to knock a few fence sitters back his direction - Sadly it probably is.

I agree with all of this. Except the map favouring the Dems. 1xGA and 1xAz Senate Seat the Dems took this time is back up in 2022, because they were special elections to finish out terms. Most of the remaining GOP seats are in deep red states.

Essentially it’s going to be very tight again.

Not sure if this has been posted yet. Fauci really seemed to make a point of staying in an effort to be a voice of reason. Meanwhile getting death threats on a constant basis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/health/fauci-trump-covid.html#click=https://t.co/sYnZosyWRu

banie01

The GOP are likely far more worried about about a "Patriot Party" Super PAC and activist movement alá the tea party.
Than they are about Trump hiving off his base into a 3rd party, and if they aren't?
One really needs to wonder what their strategists are smoking.

The logical "best" outcome for the GOP from a credibility standpoint, is the impeachment of Trump and at the very least a refutation of Cruz, Hawley and the effort to undermine the democratic process by a large portion of the elected caucus.

Unfortunately logic and rationality has very little place in US politics.
What will more than likely happen is that Trump escapes conviction by a whisker and his appeal to the lowest common denominator forces the GOP to continue as a debased, racist and populist "small government" platform for demagogues.

The GOP need to stake out a position, by not impeaching.
They explicitly make clear support for overthrow of the constitution and that might makes right.
If they are the party of the constitution?
They need to actively support that, they need to engage and ensure that the constitution as flawed as it is, has primacy in their approach to politics.

Water John

Watched the BBC2 docu on Trump's downfall last night. When it's all condensed into a one hour programme, you go WTF? The guy is guilty of high treason.

robinph

Water John wrote: »

Watched the BBC2 docu on Trump's downfall last night. When it's all condensed into a one hour programme, you go WTF? The guy is guilty of high treason.

Could have done with a bit less Farage in it though. Didn't need to see him gloating about hanging around with the president and zero self awareness of having been on the wrong side of history.

duploelabs

banie01 wrote: »

The GOP are likely far more worried about about a "Patriot Party" Super PAC and activist movement alá the tea party.
Than they are about Trump hiving off his base into a 3rd party, and if they aren't?
One really needs to wonder what their strategists are smoking.

The logical "best" outcome for the GOP from a credibility standpoint, is the impeachment of Trump and at the very least a refutation of Cruz, Hawley and the effort to undermine the democratic process by a large portion of the elected caucus.

Unfortunately logic and rationality has very little place in US politics.
What will more than likely happen is that Trump escapes conviction by a whisker and his appeal to the lowest common denominator forces the GOP to continue as a debased, racist and populist "small government" platform for demagogues.

The GOP need to stake out a position, by not impeaching.
They explicitly make clear support for overthrow of the constitution and that might makes right.
If they are the party of the constitution?
They need to actively support that, they need to engage and ensure that the constitution as flawed as it is, has primacy in their approach to politics.

If the patriot party was former today, which senators and reps would cross over based on ideology ?

Nody

duploelabs wrote: »

If the patriot party was former today, which senators and reps would cross over based on ideology ?

None; chance for power however...

aloyisious

Field east wrote: »

In all of the comments on the whole election issue and the aftermath, I wonder if the following points have been somewhat missed. Eg.
(1) re that list of reasons as to why voters went for Trump - another one is because he has an anti abortion stance - albeit maybe a populist stance. That reason alone was good enough for people to vote for him. I wonder if there are a number of other one issue reasons as to why people voted for him?

(2) a big play is being made of the 70 odd million votes he got. I doubt if he would have got 70 million votes if the Dems put up a candidate who was younger, a better speaker, had more spark, etc. Biden had nothing going for himself really except that he was the Demo candidate. He really presented an open door to Trump.

(3) I wonder if the election was held again -keeping in mind the storming of the Capitol- awould the outcome be the same. There was a survey done after that activity and circa 50% of the republican respondents were against the storming of the Capitol. I cannot say how ‘objective’ the survey was? I would be of the opinion that Trumps behavior after the election would have lost him some votes- I doubt that he would have gained any votes

Re your question in para 1: what would the vote number have been if the GOP had fielded a different player, like was the number 70 million because it was Trump and not one of the other earlier GOP runners? Did the choice of nominee result in an increased GOP vote turnout [Romney got 60 Million popular votes in the 2012 election]?

Your 2nd question: Don't know if a different runner would have turned GOP voters away from their own party's nominee, as the Dems chosen alternative to Biden was tagged as a "Socialist".

3rd Question: Yes, I reckon that Trump would have been a bigger loser if the election was re-run in the aftermath of the attack on the Capitol, especially as many of the stormers spoke about the fate waiting for GOP senators if they got their hands on them. The "plausible deniability" defences still being offered on behalf of Trump would not have been entertained, even amongst those who were clear Trump and GOP supporters up to that day.

A view of what might happen in 2022 and 2024 may be forseeable if both parties and Biden get a good or amicable armistice up and running by this summer. De-Trumpism would probably have to be the official policy of the GOP to stop voters walking away from it on a "this is not the GOP I joined" basis.

EltonJohn69

Water John wrote: »

Watched the BBC2 docu on Trump's downfall last night. When it's all condensed into a one hour programme, you go WTF? The guy is guilty of high treason.

Is it worth a watch ? Anything new ? I have watched many Trump docs at this point.

aloyisious

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, one of Trump's many truth-speakers, is going to run for Governor of Arkansas office in 2022. Plenty of time for fund-raising and seeing how the wind blows between now and them. She wants an end to violent protest and will defend against the socialist government.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-sanders-run-for-arkansas-governor/

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, one of Trump's many truth-speakers, is going to run for Governor of Arkansas office in 2022. Plenty of time for fund-raising and seeing how the wind blows between now and them. She wants an end to violent protest and will defend against the socialist government.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-sanders-run-for-arkansas-governor/

2022 ? So she’s against the carry on at the capitol then and she’s not a fan of socialist governments around the world. Presumably she won’t object to getting more money from the federal government then the state puts in then ?

Tchaikovsky

Someone should really ask these people what they mean when they say 'socialist' and why it's so evil.

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

The GOP are likely far more worried about about a "Patriot Party" Super PAC and activist movement alá the tea party.
Than they are about Trump hiving off his base into a 3rd party, and if they aren't?
One really needs to wonder what their strategists are smoking.

The logical "best" outcome for the GOP from a credibility standpoint, is the impeachment of Trump and at the very least a refutation of Cruz, Hawley and the effort to undermine the democratic process by a large portion of the elected caucus.

Unfortunately logic and rationality has very little place in US politics.
What will more than likely happen is that Trump escapes conviction by a whisker and his appeal to the lowest common denominator forces the GOP to continue as a debased, racist and populist "small government" platform for demagogues.

The GOP need to stake out a position, by not impeaching.
They explicitly make clear support for overthrow of the constitution and that might makes right.
If they are the party of the constitution?
They need to actively support that, they need to engage and ensure that the constitution as flawed as it is, has primacy in their approach to politics.

They'll side with Trump, he had/has 90% Republican voter support.

Overheal

prawnsambo wrote: »

I haven't looked into it, but saw a comment from a legal twitterer last night that said that there was no chance of 60 senators voting for it. I assume 60 is the magic number. The only arguments for DC statehood (apart from Democrats wanting more senators ) is for representation (weak enough when you look at population) and the situation that developed on January 6th, where the DC National Guard couldn't be called out as they were under the direct control of the president. And he wasn't doing it.

Puerto Rico has a much stronger case. It's a separate territory in its own right and has little say in government. If it was a state, it would rank around 30th of US states in terms of population - Larger than Arkansas, Maine, Nevada and both Dakotas (separately and together). DC ranks around 49th.

60 would be the filibuster rule. Dems may end up mixing the rule which has been around since jim crow.

Quin_Dub

duploelabs wrote: »

If the patriot party was former today, which senators and reps would cross over based on ideology ?

Absolutely none of them.

3rd Party candidates haven't a hope in the US system.

The Patriot party is a vehicle for Trump to achieve a personal goal.

That short term goal is to frighten enough Senators about standing a candidate against them in 2022 that they refuse to impeach him.

Not that the candidate would have a snowballs chance , but they'd syphon off enough votes to lose a GOP Senator a seat in a competitive race.

It's also a threat to the GOP around fund-raising , Trump and team have built a fairly impressive dataset of GOP inclined voters.

Trump no doubt will claim that that list is his and not the GOPs and will threaten to take that list with him and deny them access to huge volumes of small dollar donors.

This is not about Political ideology or anything so mundane - This as always, is all about Donald Trump.

Leverage Senators in the Impeachment vote and continue to fund-raise to line his pockets.

Manic Moran

prawnsambo wrote: »

I haven't looked into it, but saw a comment from a legal twitterer last night that said that there was no chance of 60 senators voting for it. I assume 60 is the magic number. The only arguments for DC statehood (apart from Democrats wanting more senators ) is for representation (weak enough when you look at population) and the situation that developed on January 6th, where the DC National Guard couldn't be called out as they were under the direct control of the president. And he wasn't doing it.

It's only about senators. There is precedent for obtaining representation, the current almost 400,000 residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who live in Alexandria city and Arlington County have representation in the Senate as a result of the land on which they live being retroceded from D.C. back to Virginia in the 19th Century.

There is another minor Constitutional matter even once one gets beyond the question of whether turning DC into a State is possible: The Constitution explicitly states that DC gets to appoint three Electoral College electors. That would not change even if 90% of DC were to become the State of Columbia (or whatever they plan on calling it). There are apparently only a couple score people who live on the land which would remain part of the Federal area which would be left behind, and by the Constitution, they would get three EC votes.
I can't see that sitting well with many people. It would have to be changed for some folks to go with it, and the only reason to change it would be to allow DC to be a State. No way enough States will go with that.

None of these are issues with Puerto Rico.

The argument about the rare issue of the military not being able to be easily called to D.C. probably can be remedied by a less drastic method.

robinph

So the USSC has thrown out the case regarding Trump receiving illegal payments from foreign governments because Trump is no longer president:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

Surely that can easily be thrown straight back at them. Trump no longer being subject to that law/ constitution doesn't change the facts around if he was breaking them at the time?

It's more like they are trying to pardon him for an historical crime that isn't a crime anymore, and that is surely down to the current president if a pardon can be granted or not. The USSC should only be deciding on if he broke the rules as they existed at the time when Trump was president and was breaking them.

Water John

If they want to keep some form of super majority then 55% would be enough. When Trump controlled all three parts he got SFA done with it. Remain to be convinced it should exist at all. Anyone know of such an idea, besides d'Hont, in any other democratic parliament?
You would have super majorities in business for amalgamation etc but not general business.

check_six

robinph wrote: »

So the USSC has thrown out the case regarding Trump receiving illegal payments from foreign governments because Trump is no longer president:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

Surely that can easily be thrown straight back at them. Trump no longer being subject to that law/ constitution doesn't change the facts around if he was breaking them at the time?

It's more like they are trying to pardon him for an historical crime that isn't a crime anymore, and that is surely down to the current president if a pardon can be granted or not. The USSC should only be deciding on if he broke the rules as they existed at the time when Trump was president and was breaking them.

Waitaminute! They couldn't prosecute him when he broke the law because he was president, and now they can't prosecute him because he is no longer president and you can only break that law if you are president?

My head is spinning here. Can anyone explain what is going on here?

Quin_Dub

check_six wrote: »

Waitaminute! They couldn't prosecute him when he broke the law because he was president, and now they can't prosecute him because he is no longer president and you can only break that law if you are president?

My head is spinning here. Can anyone explain what is going on here?

My thoughts exactly..

What's the penalty for breaking the Emoluments clause though?

If the penalty is only "Removal from Office" or something , then perhaps the case is now moot , but if potentially there could be a custodial sentence or even personal fines I don't see why the case shouldn't move forward

Brussels Sprout

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is another minor Constitutional matter even once one gets beyond the question of whether turning DC into a State is possible: The Constitution explicitly states that DC gets to appoint three Electoral College electors. That would not change even if 90% of DC were to become the State of Columbia (or whatever they plan on calling it). There are apparently only a couple score people who live on the land which would remain part of the Federal area which would be left behind, and by the Constitution, they would get three EC votes.

I must say that I was surprised when I learned that the plan was to carve off the piece of D.C. where the people live and make that a state but leave behind a small piece that remain an independent federal entity. Is there a constitutional reason why they wouldn't have that as part of the new state as well?

I mean if they are leaving behind a federal rump couldn't they just consolidate the rest of it into Virginia or Maryland? That would likely satisfy the residents as they could get representation while leaving the number of states at 50 which would likely make it easier to get bilateral support for the measure.

josip

Dominion are suing Rudi for $1.3bn.
I could say that I get no pleasure in reading such a headline, but it would be a blatant mistruth.
How long would this type of case usually take? 6 months?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/25/dominion-rudy-giuliani-lawsuit-election