[Politics] Donald Trump, US President Elect 2025

[chickens]

The only hope for American democracy, lock up the opposition…

The fact that so many of these cases are going to trial suggests that there is at least some evidence of potential wrongdoing. Though I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and reserve judgment until each case concludes.

However, Trump’s involvement in inciting the Capitol riots is plain and established as a matter of record. Similarly his phone call demanding that somebody find him “x more votes” - how does anyone who believes in American democracy of either party rationalise those actions, setting apart any irregularities in his business affairs?

 

[Zeberdi]

Trump is a constitutionalist, the GOP and MAGA are constitutionalists. The constitution limits presidents to 2 elected terms. Most Dictators have been in their 30s or 40s not knocking on 80.

Perhaps you have forgotten that several months before the 2020 election Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost to Biden? - He lay down the groundwork for that challenge with months of conspiracy theories about election fraud leading up to the election - delegitimising the election as fake before it had even taken place and delegitimising any centre/right wing MSM and social media as fake. The ‘witch-hunt’ conspiracy theories he is using to challenge the judiciary in response to his alleged criminal activity is part of that same delegitimising of the constitutional pillars of the state. His pledges of ’draining the swamp’ have proven to be no more than a smokescreen to replace the crocodiles of Washington with those of his own. Your comments on this thread with regard to postal voting is espousing the same conspiracies.

US election: Trump won't commit to peaceful transfer of power

The president also predicted the US election result would be determined before the Supreme Court.

www.bbc.co.uk

How much will it take to remove Trump from the White House after his next term if he won again, military force? Even if Trump loses this election, if MAGA fans think Trump will concede to Biden without inciting insurrection again, they are naive or at worst, will be knowingly complicit in destroying one of the cornerstones of democracy; the peaceful transfer of power through free elections.

2020 set a very dangerous precedent.

 

[Rookie]

The only hope for American democracy, lock up the opposition…

If (notice the ‘if’, this means that I have not commented on whether Mr Trump is or isn’t) the opposition is a criminal then yes

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Perhaps you have forgotten that several months before the 2020 election Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost to Biden? - He lay down the groundwork for that challenge with months of conspiracy theories about election fraud leading up to the election - delegitimising the election as fake before it had even taken place and delegitimising any centre/right wing MSM and social media as fake. The ‘witch-hunt’ conspiracy theories he is using to challenge the judiciary in response to his alleged criminal activity is part of that same delegitimising of the constitutional pillars of the state. His pledges of ’draining the swamp’ have proven to be no more than a smokescreen to replace the crocodiles of Washington with those of his own. Your comments on this thread with regard to postal voting is espousing the same conspiracies.

US election: Trump won't commit to peaceful transfer of power

The president also predicted the US election result would be determined before the Supreme Court.

www.bbc.co.uk

How much will it take to remove Trump from the White House after his next term if he won again, military force? Even if Trump loses this election, if MAGA fans think Trump will concede to Biden without inciting insurrection again, they are naive or at worst, will be knowingly complicit in destroying one of the cornerstones of democracy; the peaceful transfer of power through free elections.

2020 set a very dangerous precedent.

Somehow I don't imagine the person to whom you have replied is interested in so-called facts.

 

[Zeberdi]

Somehow I don't imagine the person to whom you have replied is interested in so-called facts.

I was responding to him quoting my earlier post accusing me of something or other otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered No, people who are stuck in one worldview rarely are interested in the facts - he’s not the only one reading my posts (or generally reading this thread) though so my reply isn’t really for his benefit it is for those that might otherwise be taken in by his conspiracy theories and other nonsense.

 

[A1X]

The only hope for American democracy, lock up the opposition…

So you have a problem with opposition politicians being locked up? Have you not been listening to what Trump’s been saying?

 

[BadFish]

The fact that so many of these cases are going to trial suggests that there is at least some evidence of potential wrongdoing. Though I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and reserve judgment until each case concludes.

However, Trump’s involvement in inciting the Capitol riots is plain and established as a matter of record. Similarly his phone call demanding that somebody find him “x more votes” - how does anyone who believes in American democracy of either party rationalise those actions, setting apart any irregularities in his business affairs?

I am fascinated to hear our trump supporter's response to this.

Clearly, 'yeah but Joe Biden' is not going to cut it.

But there must be plenty of people in the USA that have squared all this away with themselves enough to back him.

 

[chickens]

I am fascinated to hear our trump supporter's response to this.

Clearly, 'yeah but Joe Biden' is not going to cut it.

But there must be plenty of people in the USA that have squared all this away with themselves enough to back him.

I’m genuinely interested too, hence asking. What I fear getting back is a response full of “Crooked Hilary”, “Hunter Biden’s laptop” and other whataboutery.

I’m not interested in perceived wrongdoing of others, if there’s been criminal wrongdoing by others then it’s a matter for the courts. If the authorities have looked at it and said “no case to answer” then I’m disregarding it. If they’re investigating then let the investigation take place and those charges be judged on their merit.

Trump has loaded the top judiciary with his buddies, so he has sympathetic ears to hear his complaints. I want to know how anyone can claim to believe in their country’s democracy, stare at the cold hard facts regarding Trump’s actions, and then still truthfully believe that this is an individual who should hold the office of President.

To me, it feels like the logical gymnastics required would tie me in a knot it would require surgery to undo.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

The only hope for American democracy, lock up the opposition…

Well in a democracy, if you are proven to have committed a sexual assault then yes you should get locked up. He has been proven on the sexual assault, the fact that he hasn’t been locked up is now down to statute of limitations.

The fact that you would support a sexual predator speaks volumes. Where is your self respect.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Looks like the turnout in Iowa was quite low at just under 15% of registered Republicans. I wonder how the other 85% will vote in the Presidential election if Trump secures the nomination?

Apparently they called the result early, which meant loads didn't vote

No idea how that affected the turn out, but I imagine it caused a dent in the number of voters

 

[pb21]

I want to know how anyone can claim to believe in their country’s democracy, stare at the cold hard facts regarding Trump’s actions, and then still truthfully believe that this is an individual who should hold the office of President.

I think, to a large extent, its because people like you (and me) don't like him, its a very contrarian 'belief'.

 

[beorhthelm]

Apparently they called the result early, which meant loads didn't vote

No idea how that affected the turn out, but I imagine it caused a dent in the number of voters

cant see it would make much difference, if you want to support another candidate you need to go vote for them. staying in means you're happy to go with the decision of others in the party.

 

[nicko31]

The fact that so many of these cases are going to trial suggests that there is at least some evidence of potential wrongdoing. Though I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and reserve judgment until each case concludes.

However, Trump’s involvement in inciting the Capitol riots is plain and established as a matter of record. Similarly his phone call demanding that somebody find him “x more votes” - how does anyone who believes in American democracy of either party rationalise those actions, setting apart any irregularities in his business affairs?

If anyone needs to understand how the Americans brains get fried just tune into channel 287 on Freeview (Newsmax) for a hour. Fox News is too moderate.

Who needs the truth when a parallel universe to presented to you

 

[chickens]

I think, to a large extent, its because people like you (and me) don't like him, its a very contrarian 'belief'.

I would be incredibly disappointed if that were the case. I like to think there must be more to it than a tantrum.

Surely?

 

[pb21]

I would be incredibly disappointed if that were the case. I like to think there must be more to it than a tantrum.

Surely?

Yes, but I think that its a significant factor. I wouldn't characterise it as a tantrum exactly, but there is an element of anger there I think.

I think a lot of people are very unhappy with modern society is supposed to be and see Trump as the opposite of that, which is fully reasonable. So they are naturally inclined to support him. That support is amplified though by the fact that so many people, who are more at ease with modern society and going along with ideas of wokeness, ESG, D&I etc., REALLY don't like him. He is very divisive, which is a good thing to many of those who naturally side with him.

There is both a natural inclination to vote for him but also to vote against how modern society is supposed to be.

That's possibly all bollox though!

 

[chickens]

Yes, but I think that its a significant factor. I wouldn't characterise it as a tantrum exactly, but there is an element of anger there I think.

I think a lot of people are very unhappy with modern society is supposed to be and see Trump as the opposite of that, which is fully reasonable. So they are naturally inclined to support him. That support is amplified though by the fact that so many people, who are more at ease with modern society and going along with ideas of wokeness, ESG, D&I etc., REALLY don't like him. He is very divisive, which is a good thing to many of those who naturally side with him.

There is both a natural inclination to vote for him but also to vote against how modern society is supposed to be.

That's possibly all bollox though!

I honestly don’t think it is. I fear that it could be horribly accurate.

But to turn to individuals like Trump, who is an establishment figure, and who will only work to enrich himself, is (I would think) an utterly empty gesture.

I think we can all feel sometimes that the world appears to be deliberately designed to be hostile to us, and that government/authority (that often has noble goals) is poorly implemented and punishes the people it is supposed to serve. However, I’m really not sure the answer to this is to vote in a grifter who wants to bring back the golden days of oil. There’s no going back on this climate stuff, it’s real and it’s already killing people.

 

[US Seagull]

Apparently they called the result early, which meant loads didn't vote

No idea how that affected the turn out, but I imagine it caused a dent in the number of voters

A caucus is very different from a regular primary election, so "calling it early" would have no effect. A caucus is like a big meeting rather than an election, which means you have to be there when it starts, not whenever you can fit it in.

As I understand it (never having participated as Ohio has primaries), a bunch of party members gather in a location (say, a church basement). They might separate into groups of supporters for each candidates with undecideds just kinda milling around. People representing each candidate will likely say a few words in the hopes of shifting some people to their side. They'll be a vote. Usually there are several rounds of votes with candidates getting little support dropping out and their supporters either joining a different candidate or going home.

Some first hand account I read yesterday (although for the 2020 Democratic caucus, which isn't quite the same): https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Maps/Jan16.html#item-3

The caucus was a little different than expected. When you go down the stairs, you enter a carnival-like atmosphere, beginning with a representative from each campaign tackling you as you enter.

The space I was in was a bar in the basement of an organization (I don't remember which). To add to the rowdy atmosphere, everyone was given a coupon for a free beer. It was one large space, in which groups of chairs were placed throughout. This being Iowa City, they knew well in advance that the two largest groups would be supporters of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). There were no meetings to choose a spokesman. Whoever had been the precinct captain for the candidate's campaign was the leader. There were no speeches made on behalf of the candidates. People who knew who their choice was got their beer and went straight to their group. Others milled around, speaking to different candidate groups' leaders or supporters (and there was an area for undecideds if there were those who wanted to remain so).

Then came the vote. This was done simply by counting raised hands.

After the vote, those whose candidates didn't make it had to decide what to do next. Really and truly, I have rarely seen a group of people as depressed as that of the Biden contingent (he came in a very distant fifth). After they sat around, all mopey, almost all of them just left without choosing another candidate. One of the most upbeat, enthusiastic groups was the Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) group. When they didn't make the threshold., they remained upbeat and almost all of them stayed and found another candidate. Actually, a majority of them immediately went over to join Pete Buttigieg. The most aggressive group was the Yang Gang. They made forceful effort to try to get people to join them. After the second round, everyone was viable. This was followed by some sort of meeting, but almost everyone went home. The only candidate who seemed to be marginalized from the start was Tulsi Gabbard, as her supporter(s) weren't given chairs.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

idle talk, or are you on Betfair taking everyone's money?

A rumour from some big cheese at JP Morgan.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

The bit I highlighted.

See my last post.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Is this the same Trump who stated he wanted to ignore the constitution after losing the last election, or have you located a different Trump in your dreams?
"Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," Trump wrote in a post on the social network Truth Social and accused "Big Tech" of working closely with Democrats. "Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

I would require a direct link to that I dont trust the MSM as ive seen how they twist words. Still its a constitutional republic not a constitutional democracy. I'll wait.