Trump 2024 — The second term

[Route 45]

It seems that somebody’s poll is always rising for Trump, no matter what.

 

[jamil]

He keeps rising in the polls?

well, yeah. Check out the RCP average. Trump hasn't broken beyond margin of error, but that average is polling voters nation wide. The real story is in the swing states. Trump has been rising in the polls in switch states steadily over the past several weeks. He's now in double digits in most swing states. And well beyond margin of error. Too early for Mike to do victory laps though. Many months left in which shenanigans can turn things. Plus never underestimate the ability for Republicans to **** things up.

Now. Is that increase popularity in swing states because Trump is whining about the past? Does it mean that all those people who have contributed to Trump's success in the polls are now ardent Trumpers? No. It probably has a lot more to do with the general mood that we're going in the wrong direction.

Would he do better in the polls, and perhaps make more loyal voters of the swing voters that are tired of Democrat policies, if he stopped whining and started talking about what's wrong with Democrats and how he's going to fix things? I think the whining about 2020 gives ardent Trumpers erections. Prolly doesn't do much for swing voters.

 

[Tombs]

The reality is that Trump did send that crap on Christmas Eve. The reality is that the message is again about him being a victim and poor ole Trump on Christmas. It's a losing message. This is why you're accused of being in a cult. You always see him as the shining light and have yet to say anything you won't defend about him.

So you're not allowed to talk about being politically persecuted to the extent that you're being removed from ballots?

I've already said if he picked Haley for VP I would not vote for him. He can absolutely lose my vote by doing something that stupid.

But him saying things you don't like doesn't change what his policy is or how life would be better under him. You strike me as the type that couldn't care less what the policies are or what the individual does, only what is said off a teleprompter in the most polished and palatable possible way.

 

[jamil]

So you're not allowed to talk about being politically persecuted to the extent that you're being removed from ballots?

I've already said if he picked Haley for VP I would not vote for him. He can absolutely lose my vote by doing something that stupid.

But him saying things you don't like doesn't change what his policy is or how life would be better under him.

Well, talk about it fine. Harp about it probably isn't winning points among swing voters, which Trump needs. You guys would be fine if you could clone me enough to win, but you'd have to do it after Trump won the nomination. I don't really give a **** about chaos or indictments or whatever. It's all about voting not ClownWorld™.

 

[Ingomike]

The real story is in the swing states. Trump has been rising in the polls in switch states steadily over the past several weeks. He's now in double digits in most swing states. And well beyond margin of error. Too early for Mike to do victory laps though.

Victory laps? What kind of drugs do you take to come up with this crap? You guys are TDS’ing that Trump needs to change his tactics when you admit what he is doing is working.

“Because when what you are doing is very successful (keeps rising in the polls), one would always stop doing that and institute a different plan…”

Victory laps my a**…

 

[jamil]

Victory laps? What kind of drugs do you take to come up with this crap? You guys are TDS’ing that Trump needs to change his tactics when you admit what he is doing is working.

“Because when what you are doing is very successful (keeps rising in the polls), one would always stop doing that and institute a different plan…”

Victory laps my a**…

Oh, c'mon. I'm just

Calm down.

And I most certainly did not say what he's doing is working. What Joe Biden is doing is working to Trump's favor, more than Trump pissing and moaning about his 2020 loss. That game is over. He lost. Not exactly fair and square. He'll need to do a lot better this time.

If the economy were humming, Trump would not be where he is in the polls. Swing and apathetic voters are fickle. A lot of them are hurting because of the economy. Let's see what happens if stagflation ends. Will Trump be at the same place in the polls? Doubt it. Not that I'm predicting it an end to Bidenflation. I don't think Democrats can bring themselves to change policies to fix the economy, even to win an election.

 

[KG1]

So you're not allowed to talk about being politically persecuted to the extent that you're being removed from ballots?

I've already said if he picked Haley for VP I would not vote for him. He can absolutely lose my vote by doing something that stupid.

But him saying things you don't like doesn't change what his policy is or how life would be better under him. You strike me as the type that couldn't care less what the policies are or what the individual does, only what is said off a teleprompter in the most polished and palatable possible way.

I think his point was that it's bad form and selfish of Trump to rant about his political persecution on Christmas eve instead of talking about baby Jesus in the manger.

 

[jamil]

Post #1120 linked this, which I missed.

https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1738241285193142545?s=20

Just wanted to pose the question, why didn't Trump mention that a plurality of voters in the poll, where the 20% number came from, were Republican voters.

 

[KG1]

I would like to hear Trump transition from "I got ****ed" to "here's what I want to accomplish." Go back to MAGA.

Lindsey Graham agrees.

MSN

www.msn.com

"Trump's chances in the upcoming 2024 election hinge on his ability to present a forward-looking vision focusing on American security and prosperity."

"If he dwells on the past, he is setting himself up for failure," Graham stated.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I am replying to this point.


Was this not intended to diminish his qualifications because he is not with an elite institution?

The point is refuting Eastman presented as "one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States".

Bull****!

Not an elite Ivy League (which is not a perquisite), nor a premiere non-Ivy law school, not even a "top tier" law school. Given Chapman's LSAT admission scores and exit salaries, I'm reserved on if it's even a mid-tier or average run-of-the-mill law school.

How about "a law professor at a small, obscure, not particularly distinguished law school, who's never had a single amicus cert success before the SCOTUS, let alone presented a case or brief" says something completely unheard of and unorthodox about the consititution.

And, here's yet another way of evaluating top law school for scholarly output... citations by others in their scholarship... Chapman ain't it...

https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2021/08/top-50-law-faculties-in-scholarly-impact-2021.html

Conservatives need to come to grips with the fact that our news, legal opinions, and other political support will not come from from the sources we grew up with. They are all leftist and cannot be trusted at all.

We now are stuck with GWP, substack, Townhall, etc. Those sites are not monetized by the web gatekeepers so those that like the measured tones and no “bombshell” headlines need to recognize those days are over…

My position has always been that if an opinion purveyor must flat out lie and make up **** to persuade people to their argument, then their position is likely false. IMO, the Gateway Pundit is in the same league as The Huffington Post... either lies, or propoganda, or both is a good starting assumption.

 

[KG1]

The point is refuting Eastman presented as "one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States".

How about "a law professor at a small, obscure, not particularly distinguished law school, who's never had a single amicus cert success before the SCOTUS, let alone presented a case or brief"

This introduction doesn't sound as good if you're trying to sell.

 

[foszoe]

Lindsey Graham agrees.

MSN

www.msn.com

"Trump's chances in the upcoming 2024 election hinge on his ability to present a forward-looking vision focusing on American security and prosperity."

"If he dwells on the past, he is setting himself up for failure," Graham stated.

The cardinal rule for The Trumpeters....

Lindsey Graham %correctness is directly proportional to %agreement with Trumpe

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Post #1120 linked this, which I missed.

https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1738241285193142545?s=20

Just wanted to pose the question, why didn't Trump mention that a plurality of voters in the poll, where the 20% number came from, were Republican voters.

So Trump lies about the election being rigged and stolen... and some percentage of people believe him... so now it's true?

ROFLMAO

I recently found this compendium... catalogues the results of every count of every case filed by Trump or on his behalf in all six swing states. 64 cases containing 187 counts of which Trump won exactly one... concernign 270 votes in PA.

Lost, Not Stolen

The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election

lostnotstolen.org

 

[KG1]

I'm no big Rona McDaniel fan by any means but apparently some conservatives and Trumpers cast aside her Christmas message and called for her resignation instead.

Perhaps they would've preferred that she ranted about Trump's persecution on Christmas eve. Here is her offensive Christmas message that sparked calls for her resignation.

Ronna McDaniel hit with wave of resignation calls under Christmas post

The Republican National Committee chairwoman's "Merry Christmas" message on social media sparked a furious backlash.

www.newsweek.com

"Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones!" McDaniel wrote. "Let us rejoice and give thanks for the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ, whose birth gives us joy, hope, and new life."

"We pray for all those spending Christmas away from their loved ones, especially our troops overseas and first responders who are spending this season protecting our freedoms and families," she added. "God bless you all."

 

[jamil]

Let's recap.

There was some back and fort about Trump hiring incompetent lawyers.

KG1 stated (#1083) "Eastman was once thought of as a constitutional scholar. Trump trusted his counsel."

So I guess we could blame KG1 for all this. Seriously I'm not going to say KG1 is making a firm assertion here. Just saying that people thought of him as a constitutional scholar, and Trump trusted him.

SD4L (#1183) challenged Eastman's credentials as being unimpressive, citing the mediocre school he was teaching at. But, the main point of that post was in the second paragraph. Why did Trump seek out a nobody professor teaching at a nobody law school to evaluate this legal theory, when he could just take it to any legal council available to him as POTUS?

That was really the point of impugning Eastman's credentials, so he could ask the question, why Eastman and not someone better? And it was fair point that you should have addressed.

Instead, you dodged the question by implying SD4L is an elitist for using credentials to impugn Eastman's expertise. You said:

(#1187)

---

I would have NEVER thought of you as an elitist. As politicized as the Ivy League has become this is a silly thing for a conservative to say. Probably most of the best conservative lawyers will come from places the elites rate way below their indoctrination centers…

---

There aren't any actual facts expressed in that post, especially that answers why Trump is relying on a nobody. SD4L cited some facts about Eastman's credentials that tend to disintegrate Eastman's "election" scholarship. You devolved the discussion into essentially, "you should act like me" lecturing about elitism! That's a total dodge of SD4L's question.

My part of it was to challenge the logic that impugning Eastman's credentials as an "expert" is elitism. And maybe you don't like me summarizing SD4L's way to dismantle Eastman's "expertise" as "credentials". But that's what it is.

So. In post 1210, I said "Seems to me if he’s a preeminent constitutional scholar, they’re appealing to authority. Which Mike insists is elitist." You claimed in #1213 that I was changing the meaning of your posts. I think you didn't understand the point you replied to. When I said "preeminent" being an appeal to authority, I did not say you said that. I said it was an appeal to authority. And I was not claiming you said the words "appeal to authority". But the whole "elitist" thing is your sort of rebuttal SD4L. Both asserting expertise and attacking the credentials of the supposed "expert" are parts of the same fallacy. Neither guarantees that the conclusion follows the premise. When SD4L attacks Eastman's job, that's a form of the fallacy. But you called that elitist. I'm saying two things with the one statement.

In post 1212 I got to what I think is really behind the whole "elite" dodge in the first place. It's really the gist of the whole discussion on your part, which is that you need Eastman to be an actual expert. If he's not real expert, this makes Trump look pretty ****ing bad to consult a nobody. It makes it look like he couldn't get a real expert to agree with him so he sought out a nobody who would go along with it, and claim he's a scholar. This is why I asked:

"Is your belief in the validity of the legal theory that they tried to get Pence to go along with, influenced by the credibility of Eastman as a legal scholar? "

You didn't answer that, because you have see that if Eastman isn't an expert, then Trump falls into the typical political trap where where the politician must either admit to being corrupt or incompetent, where the best play is to admit to incompetence.

So. That's where we are. Those are my thoughts. Maybe I'm right, or maybe I'm wrong, but I did not claim you said something you didn't say.

On SD4L's pertinent question, can you salvage a win on Eastman as an expert? Or is the best explanation for Trump's actions that he's either corrupt or incompetent? I am confident you won't dodge this now, but will address the real question.

 

[jamil]

So Trump lies about the election being rigged and stolen... and some percentage of people believe him... so now it's true?

ROFLMAO

I recently found this compendium... catalogues the results of every count of every case filed by Trump or on his behalf in all six swing states. 64 cases containing 187 counts of which Trump won exactly one... concernign 270 votes in PA.

Lost, Not Stolen

The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election

lostnotstolen.org

Lost, probably unfairly because in key states election laws were overlooked regarding mail-in ballots for the purpose of favoring Biden. I say "probably" because we can't know who would have won if this had been a nominal election. That's the most I'll claim about "stolen" given the facts. Most I can say is "unfairly".

 

[KG1]

Let's recap.

There was some back and fort about Trump hiring incompetent lawyers.

KG1 stated (#1083) "Eastman was once thought of as a constitutional scholar. Trump trusted his counsel."

So I guess we could blame KG1 for all this. Seriously I'm not going to say KG1 is making a firm assertion here. Just saying that people thought of him as a constitutional scholar, and Trump trusted him.

Let me take the stand in my defense prosecutor jamil.

I never said that "I" thought of Eastman as a constitutional scholar. Apparently, Trump and Guliani did and they presented him as one.

 

[indiucky]

This is my favorite thread....I thought the magic of 2016 was gone forever...a moment in time never to be repeated...but I come here and it's happening again with the same cast repeating the same lines from season 1....

The only thing missing is Kut and Russia....Any of the TDS crowd remember Russian collusion???? Russian wee wee tapes??? No????

Just the election and....wait for it....January 6th (gasp!!!!!) Here's a pic from January 6th...no wait...I am sorry...that's a pic of the white house from June of 2020....mea culpa....

 

[KLB]

Let's recap.

There was some back and fort about Trump hiring incompetent lawyers.

KG1 stated (#1083) "Eastman was once thought of as a constitutional scholar. Trump trusted his counsel."

So I guess we could blame KG1 for all this. Seriously I'm not going to say KG1 is making a firm assertion here. Just saying that people thought of him as a constitutional scholar, and Trump trusted him.

SD4L (#1183) challenged Eastman's credentials as being unimpressive, citing the mediocre school he was teaching at. But, the main point of that post was in the second paragraph. Why did Trump seek out a nobody professor teaching at a nobody law school to evaluate this legal theory, when he could just take it to any legal council available to him as POTUS?

That was really the point of impugning Eastman's credentials, so he could ask the question, why Eastman and not someone better? And it was fair point that you should have addressed.

Instead, you dodged the question by implying SD4L is an elitist for using credentials to impugn Eastman's expertise. You said:

(#1187)

---

I would have NEVER thought of you as an elitist. As politicized as the Ivy League has become this is a silly thing for a conservative to say. Probably most of the best conservative lawyers will come from places the elites rate way below their indoctrination centers…

---

There aren't any actual facts expressed in that post, especially that answers why Trump is relying on a nobody. SD4L cited some facts about Eastman's credentials that tend to disintegrate Eastman's "election" scholarship. You devolved the discussion into essentially, "you should act like me" lecturing about elitism! That's a total dodge of SD4L's question.

My part of it was to challenge the logic that impugning Eastman's credentials as an "expert" is elitism. And maybe you don't like me summarizing SD4L's way to dismantle Eastman's "expertise" as "credentials". But that's what it is.

So. In post 1210, I said "Seems to me if he’s a preeminent constitutional scholar, they’re appealing to authority. Which Mike insists is elitist." You claimed in #1213 that I was changing the meaning of your posts. I think you didn't understand the point you replied to. When I said "preeminent" being an appeal to authority, I did not say you said that. I said it was an appeal to authority. And I was not claiming you said the words "appeal to authority". But the whole "elitist" thing is your sort of rebuttal SD4L. Both asserting expertise and attacking the credentials of the supposed "expert" are parts of the same fallacy. Neither guarantees that the conclusion follows the premise. When SD4L attacks Eastman's job, that's a form of the fallacy. But you called that elitist. I'm saying two things with the one statement.

In post 1212 I got to what I think is really behind the whole "elite" dodge in the first place. It's really the gist of the whole discussion on your part, which is that you need Eastman to be an actual expert. If he's not real expert, this makes Trump look pretty ****ing bad to consult a nobody. It makes it look like he couldn't get a real expert to agree with him so he sought out a nobody who would go along with it, and claim he's a scholar. This is why I asked:

"Is your belief in the validity of the legal theory that they tried to get Pence to go along with, influenced by the credibility of Eastman as a legal scholar? "

You didn't answer that, because you have see that if Eastman isn't an expert, then Trump falls into the typical political trap where where the politician must either admit to being corrupt or incompetent, where the best play is to admit to incompetence.

So. That's where we are. Those are my thoughts. Maybe I'm right, or maybe I'm wrong, but I did not claim you said something you didn't say.

On SD4L's pertinent question, can you salvage a win on Eastman as an expert? Or is the best explanation for Trump's actions that he's either corrupt or incompetent? I am confident you won't dodge this now, but will address the real question.

Is that a record for you? It's a really long post.

 

[KG1]

Let's recap.

There was some back and fort about Trump hiring incompetent lawyers.

KG1 stated (#1083) "Eastman was once thought of as a constitutional scholar. Trump trusted his counsel."

So I guess we could blame KG1 for all this. Seriously I'm not going to say KG1 is making a firm assertion here. Just saying that people thought of him as a constitutional scholar, and Trump trusted him.

SD4L (#1183) challenged Eastman's credentials as being unimpressive, citing the mediocre school he was teaching at. But, the main point of that post was in the second paragraph. Why did Trump seek out a nobody professor teaching at a nobody law school to evaluate this legal theory, when he could just take it to any legal council available to him as POTUS?

That was really the point of impugning Eastman's credentials, so he could ask the question, why Eastman and not someone better? And it was fair point that you should have addressed.

Instead, you dodged the question by implying SD4L is an elitist for using credentials to impugn Eastman's expertise. You said:

(#1187)

---

I would have NEVER thought of you as an elitist. As politicized as the Ivy League has become this is a silly thing for a conservative to say. Probably most of the best conservative lawyers will come from places the elites rate way below their indoctrination centers…

---

There aren't any actual facts expressed in that post, especially that answers why Trump is relying on a nobody. SD4L cited some facts about Eastman's credentials that tend to disintegrate Eastman's "election" scholarship. You devolved the discussion into essentially, "you should act like me" lecturing about elitism! That's a total dodge of SD4L's question.

My part of it was to challenge the logic that impugning Eastman's credentials as an "expert" is elitism. And maybe you don't like me summarizing SD4L's way to dismantle Eastman's "expertise" as "credentials". But that's what it is.

So. In post 1210, I said "Seems to me if he’s a preeminent constitutional scholar, they’re appealing to authority. Which Mike insists is elitist." You claimed in #1213 that I was changing the meaning of your posts. I think you didn't understand the point you replied to. When I said "preeminent" being an appeal to authority, I did not say you said that. I said it was an appeal to authority. And I was not claiming you said the words "appeal to authority". But the whole "elitist" thing is your sort of rebuttal SD4L. Both asserting expertise and attacking the credentials of the supposed "expert" are parts of the same fallacy. Neither guarantees that the conclusion follows the premise. When SD4L attacks Eastman's job, that's a form of the fallacy. But you called that elitist. I'm saying two things with the one statement.

In post 1212 I got to what I think is really behind the whole "elite" dodge in the first place. It's really the gist of the whole discussion on your part, which is that you need Eastman to be an actual expert. If he's not real expert, this makes Trump look pretty ****ing bad to consult a nobody. It makes it look like he couldn't get a real expert to agree with him so he sought out a nobody who would go along with it, and claim he's a scholar. This is why I asked:

"Is your belief in the validity of the legal theory that they tried to get Pence to go along with, influenced by the credibility of Eastman as a legal scholar? "

You didn't answer that, because you have see that if Eastman isn't an expert, then Trump falls into the typical political trap where where the politician must either admit to being corrupt or incompetent, where the best play is to admit to incompetence.

So. That's where we are. Those are my thoughts. Maybe I'm right, or maybe I'm wrong, but I did not claim you said something you didn't say.

On SD4L's pertinent question, can you salvage a win on Eastman as an expert? Or is the best explanation for Trump's actions that he's either corrupt or incompetent? I am confident you won't dodge this now, but will address the real question.

I think maybe you forgot to quote a post to provide the context of the person's post you are replying to. Pretty sure it's IM.