Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 18/03/25

TinyMuffin

very informative

https://youtu.be/gYwqpx6lp_s?si=XCqXACP4SFdTKEaU

everlast75

He didn't say that.

If he did, he didn't mean it.

If he did, it wasn't that bad.

If it was, Dems did worse.

His supporters probably will say the same for the above quote

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122336226#Comment_122336226

it’s why it doesn’t matter, even though it should.

Everyone already made up their minds about these 2 candidates literally years ago. All that matters is how many of them show up to vote in November.

Flaneur OBrien

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122336115#Comment_122336115

Shhhh

It's a conspiracy according to some here.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122336115#Comment_122336115

Apart from the fact that Rolling Stone Magazine is also running with the story and it looks like Roberts is inviting a response from the left not to go quietly into history, Is the positioning of the Stars and Stripes behind Roberts similar to the way it was flown outside the residence of a SCOTUS Judge?

political analyst

The myths about Project 2025 are addressed in the following article.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/27/top-5-things-the-left-gets-wrong-about-project-2025/

aidanodr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122336900#Comment_122336900

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Signal

"The Daily Signal is a conservative American political media news and commentary website founded in June 2014. The website focuses on politics, policy, and culture and offers political commentary from a conservative perspective.

The Daily Signal was a project of The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank from the time of its launch in 2014 until June 3, 2024, when it became an independent publication with its own board of directors and leadership"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

"Heritage leads Project 2025, an expansive plan to reshape the federal government and consolidate executive power should a Republican be elected president in 2024."

So of course the Daily Signal would publish an article sayoing Top 5 Things the Left Gets Wrong About Project 2025. Not exactly neutral in all of this?

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122336900#Comment_122336900

another link dump from the “analyst” an opinion piece from a garbage tier website

https://adfontesmedia.com/daily-signal-bias-and-reliability/

Literally run by the people who WROTE Project 2025, and want to put it into action. They are the wrong people to downplay their own manifesto.

I.R.Y.E.D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122336900#Comment_122336900

This is another swing and a miss in a long long list of them

everlast75

https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1808447071592100153

Happened here from 2015-2020 and is happening again.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330101#Comment_122330101

I am not convinced this is the case. I have made these two observations before, and nobody has as yet told me either of them are wrong.

1. Absolute immunity =/= total immunity. There are already exceptions in the absolute immunity doctrine for civil law to include willful breaking of the law. There is no reason to believe that similar exemptions should not apply here.
2. Immunity, if applicable despite the above, does not bootstrap actions to lawfulness. That the President cannot be charged or punished for an immune act does not mean that the act itself cannot be stopped by the courts or (let’s say for the coup or assasination hypothesis) by subordinates who themselves are aware of the law and not immune to the same effect, and this has basically been the situation since, what, the early 19th century?

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122337497#Comment_122337497

That seems like very shaky ground to be basing law and order on.

Surely one of the president's menz who the president has hand picked, will stop him. Especially when put under pressure by somebody who knows they can't get hurt by this. Or a court will stop it, if they find out about it and are not also judged by someone hand picked by the president.

I am not saying it is open season but it seems like exceptionally shaky ground to base the legal system for this on. It seems very much like gaps and loopholes will appear with this.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122336900#Comment_122336900

No thanks. If your argument isn't worth writing yourself, it's not worth reading this conspiracy site.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122337497#Comment_122337497

How does that not lead to another Saturday night massacre? With the lickspittles that Trump hires it would probably be a very quick massacre.

Patrick2010

Its bizarre how the likes of Trump and the GOP have made the term "the left" acceptable in describing Democrats like Joe Biden as communists and Marxists (and bizarrely sometimes fascists) .

From that daily signal article…

"Winding down and eventually abolishing the Department of Education would
ultimately be in the interest of Americans, increasing the quality of
education. Reforming the FBI would protect Americans from the
politically corrupt leadership that runs the agency today."

Imagine a country with no department of education.

"Project 2025 would rein in rogue and authoritarian elements within the
Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other parts
of the U.S. government."

Trump wants complete control of the justice department and would use this control to go after whoever he wants to.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122337497#Comment_122337497

Ref your Para 1: The problem lies with the fact that the courts generally act after the evil is done, and not before by a pre-emptive application being brought to court for it to issue a stop and desist order to the person who's attempting the evil deed. The fact is that SCOTUS has been deciding on the presidential actions of the 45th president in "after the fact" legal decisions appealed from the lower courts. The "official presidential acts are immune from prosecution and unofficial presidential acts are not" ruling in their own way clarify what has happened in respect to Trumps acts while he was president. He has already damaged the US through those acts. This time around, the evidence that Trump will act with malice aforethought exists. It's not hearsay, it's from his own mouth and from his own statements on his own media site.

Ref your Para 2: The only way for the "stop his actions" measures to be applied is through what I'll describe here for the purpose of debate as "constitutional patriotic actors" like the last Chief of the Joint Chiefs, and the Head of the FBI fired by Trump, taking the steps they could to bring a halt to the canter by Trump through the liberties of the US citizens across the board of all and none persuasions. How many like those two will be left sitting in federal employ If Trump is re-elected? With him as the 47th and with the ruling SCOTUS ruling in his pocket, the odds of some-one being put into Department head by him with an independent "disloyal" mind toward deciding for themselves what is right and proper is unlikely. We've already seen him basically neutering the GOP and installing his family in the RNC to ensure its loyalty. SCOTUS, well, what's left to be said about it?

As for people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on (let’s say for the coup or assassination hypothesis) I don't know of any Claus Von Stauffenbergs around….

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122337497#Comment_122337497

This is a fair point, only if for instance you have a moral Seal Team 6.

Project 2025 for example, seeks to begin a process toward a unitary executive government loaded with loyalists. And it's not like they're starting from scratch, a major portion of the courts you just mentioned in your response are already in capture, from lower courts like Aileen Cannon's, to the supreme court of John Roberts. The document says out loud some things that have already been in motion for a very, very long time - and have born fruit. There is no special guardrail to prevent this capture from happening in the military, either.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338829#Comment_122338829

Too soon to call it a coup d'état?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122336166#Comment_122336166

I wouldn't know.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122339126#Comment_122339126

Works for me. It's Last Week Tonight's report on Trump's Second Term.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122339160#Comment_122339160

I forgot to say that I'm in the UK. Would love some LWT right now.

It's been suggested that I get a VPN but… I'll go without for now.

TinyMuffin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122339175#Comment_122339175

then you’d have missed this.

https://youtu.be/tkAqwHiAR-g?si=M9K0kv2u3o1SfKQ9

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338829#Comment_122338829

The problem with this argument is that there was nothing stopping that sort of thing last month, last year, or even last century beyond the situation of refusals or post-facto legal actions. The same protections still exist. Whether or not there could theoretically be immunity after a coup, let's say, would be entirely academic after said coup, as the point of the coup is to be unlawfully in charge, they wouldn't care about what happens afterwards as they would control everything, courts be damned. To the extent that there are protections against unlawful acts, immunity or lack thereof isn't one of them. That purely relates to criminal charges after the fact. And, again, that's assuming that immunity exists for acts which are obviously unlawful, which I don't believe has been shown to be the case.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122339294#Comment_122339294

Yes. I found a 15-minute piece of it on X so I'll make do.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338991#Comment_122338991

You can't call it a coup d'état as its not from the specific region, in this case it's just Sparkling Insurrection

TinyMuffin

a coup yeeeehaaa

aloyisious

In so far as Trump seems to be of the mindset that "to the victor go the spoils" and that the rules which [in the way the modern US ran its affairs over the last few decades] are for him to decide, I agree with Manic Moran. That is the basis of Trump's "successes". He's no gentle-person willing to abide by the constitution. He is using it as a tool for his aims and, with the aid of lawyers, to swamp and subvert SCOTUS and the lower courts with paperwork. They are making it impossible to use the laws for the original honourable purpose they were crafted for.

The statement by the Democrat Representative in the House leading the prosecution case against Trump about the US being a nation of laws shows it's unfortunate weakness when it comes to a political creature like Trump who doesn't give a fig for the law. He's succeeded in turning the swamp in Washington into a morass and making an ass out of the law and SCOTUS into the bargain. It may take the suspension of the usual court system [a special criminal court set up for two or three years] to deal with and eradicate Trump-ism from the US body corporate, political and legal. Keep in mind that he has already tempered the justice system toward that end himself and it would only be right if he were hoist on a scaffold of his own making.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122339322#Comment_122339322

I feel the issue would be attempted coup. It also gives a stronger avenue to stop one in the process if the person can't just say everything I am doing is legal and you need to debate whether or not it is before stopping them. It also gives some cover for whistleblowers who might hope that power is taken away before they can be found for revenge instead of a well please don't do it again.

Also I would not be comfortable at leaving at I am unsure if trying to overthrow the rule of law is covered by immunity. That would be a negative on this ruling until I found out for definite it would not be covered. I feel the onus should be on someone defending the ruling to show what would be covered.

At the very best this ruling does nothing to help the US and worst leaves the US system open to get crippled which is not my kind of preferred trade off.

Maxface

Probably the best thing they could do would be to replace the VP with a strong candidate. Would temper a lot of the concerns.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122339391#Comment_122339391

A Coup Klux Klan revival...