Trump 2024 — The second term

[Ingomike]

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 do not know Eastman, I am not defending him.

I am making the point that conservatives have to come to terms with the fact that among other things, news and legal opinions will not come from the places we once thought were the go to places. Even top law schools, not to mention elite law schools have been made into indoctrination centers.

Things are changing but conservatives are mired in normalcy bias…

 

[jamil]

WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

I understand that gives you a hard. It needs litigated exactly what happened, who did it, and why. Does emergency authority asserted from the pandemic, allow them to change the rules? My gut says no, but my gut isn't a constitutionally authoritative in bringing about my way. Other people get a turn to present their side of it.

Why does that not bother you self proclaimed republicans?

I don't proclaim myself to be a Republican. I can't stand Republicans, because they don't really give a **** about the country. They give a **** about making viral videos of them "owning the libs" to have surrogates post on social media. They give a **** about keeping their cushy jobs, so they're quite content always losing to Dems on the issues.

But right now the GOP happens to be the only home for the few who actually wants to put America first. So they're a necessary evil. I want to see the GOP establishment chamber-o-commerce neocon grifters be completely crushed and expelled from the GOP. I'd like to see the GOP become truly America's party who puts Americans first.

 

[Ingomike]

It needs litigated exactly what happened, who did it, and why. Does emergency authority asserted from the pandemic, allow them to change the rules? My gut says no, but my gut isn't a constitutionally authoritative in bringing about my way. Other people get a turn to present their side of it.

Rephrased for a different issue. Speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

It needs litigated exactly what happened, who did it, and why. Does the second only apply to muskets, only apply to militia? My gut says no, but my gut isn't a constitutionally authoritative in bringing about my way. Other people get a turn to present their side of it.

It is plain language…

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You are entitled to your opinion but are making a mistake in judgement. I believe you said GWP used to do some good, a site which I look at a few time a week, why is it different now? They demonetized them and they had to go to a more tabloid style.

I have challenged @jamil to this before but he never steps up, go to GWP page now and tell me the lies/propaganda. The truth is they mostly publish what conservative leaders say that MSN will never put out and analysis of news and stories buried in other publications. They also give voices that cannot get out in our censorship era.

I look at GWP (and other conservative media maligned by many self proclaimed conservatives) like ham radio, it once was a hobby but the left takeover of media is like mainstream communications failing. It isn’t going to be like making a phone call but the communication still can happen.

They are using nostalgia and normalcy bias to sucker conservatives into bashing the conservative media, and those that still are looking for Walter Cronkite, he is dead and so is his era…

I've encountered multiple times that GwP articles have been posted here, that I've followed the post and READ the source material GwP based their "reporting" on... and it doesn't say or mean what GwP says it means. On occasion, the exact opposite. After several times of rinse-repeat, IMO, GwP is garbage... if GwP has a valid point, make it... if it's just a GwP link posted... I'll just call garbage as that's been my experience.

So, I went to GwP... a few observations... when I turn off my ad blocker, I see the same ads I see elsewhere, so i'm not grocking the "demonetization"? Google Ads maybe? I cut those at the source.

Their content is the same as many other sites...

I did check a recent fact check...

EXCLUSIVE: Two Videos Disproving Leftist Lies about Republicans on Election Night 2020 Being Excluded from TCF Center

As part of our reporting and fact-checking on lying leftists who claim that Republicans at the TCF Center in Detroit

tgpfactcheck.com

It regurgitates that GOP was excluded, while Dems were allowed in... it does not address that those being let in were NOT Dem party reps, but non-partisans who had not reached their quota limit... and that the issue was not "at capacity" but the court ordered number of observers. To me, prove that Dems, not non-partisans were being let in above and beyond the court-order number and that there were not the number of GOP observers allowed.

Throw in a bunch of strawman other stuff... but nothing on the core issue.

Also, this article would be informative if it was well-written... it's not... it's word salad:

Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Issues Narrow and Specific Ruling to Republicans on Legislative Maps for 2024 | The Gateway Pundit | by Guest Contributor

Guest post by Jefferson Davis in Wisconsin Madison– In what some are calling “catastrophic”, “nuclear” or “apocalyptic”, which at face-value and with the complicit media coverage it would seem to be, a closer look at the at the actual 235-page ruling of the liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court (4-3)...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Hard to have a discussion on a topic that we cannot agree on. Plenty of evidence, heck they even gloated about rigging the election in their left publications but you are a true denier, even worse a denier of the sources that get around the control of the elites.

I view denial of election being rigged similarly to the people in movies insisting on niceties to clear enemies and ignoring those that see what is actually happening…

Here's the catalog of cases Trump and affiliates filed relating to the 2020 Prez election. Please point me to even ONE count in ONE case that got it wrong? One state of the 6 that was "stolen" from Trump, that he won and it was "stolen" for Biden.

One.

Lost, Not Stolen

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

lostnotstolen.org

BTW, Ted Olsen is a signatory to this... an example of a pre-iminent Constitutional scholar and practitioner.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Didn’t read. Nice list of RINO’s though…

What did they miss?

 

[Ingomike]

So, I went to GwP... a few observations... when I turn off my ad blocker, I see the same ads I see elsewhere, so i'm not grocking the "demonetization"? Google Ads maybe? I cut those at the source.

Their content is the same as many other sites...

Are you denying that conservative content that goes against the narrative of the left is being demonetized?

 

[Ingomike]

Here's the catalog of cases Trump and affiliates filed relating to the 2020 Prez election. Please point me to even ONE count in ONE case that got it wrong? One state of the 6 that was "stolen" from Trump, that he won and it was "stolen" for Biden.

One.

Lost, Not Stolen

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

lostnotstolen.org

BTW, Ted Olsen is a signatory to this... an example of a pre-iminent Constitutional scholar and practitioner.

As I said, impressive list of RINO’s. Olsen is establishment, has been for years. He called for Trump to be impeached. That is what your reverence for the establishment get you…

 

[foszoe]

Remember the good old days when we thought there was two parties and people would vote for one of them???? Remember we thought they cared about us but they really only cared about their 401K and Raytheon stock profits???? .and then Trump came along and told us about it and and the powers to be wouldn't quit talking about Trump and how much they hated him????? I've got great news....it's happening again...

Nice....Is everyone behind him now???

No sir...There's an element that he broke....and they just complain about him daily online...it's quite funny really...

You mean like women on the View???

No...you're gonna crack up when I tell you who though....

Wait a minute...YOU watch the View???

No sir...but they do post on my favorite gun forum...

No.....

Yep....



View attachment 321268

Sorry, I just know too many people who have been married for 20+ years. They will tell me over and over how great their marriages have been, oh sure there were rocky times, but they wouldn't change anything.

These same people will also complain about the same spouse. Sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, can't say I have encountered many who NEVER had a bad thing to say about their spouse.

But say one bad thing about Trump....

Which one is more important?

 

[Ingomike]

What did they miss?

They did their job for the establishment, they will still get Christmas cards and invites to the best parties and maybe some time with whatever replaced the Epstein island and plane…

 

[jamil]

I do not know Eastman, I am not defending him.

I am making the point that conservatives have to come to terms with the fact that among other things, news and legal opinions will not come from the places we once thought were the go to places. Even top law schools, not to mention elite law schools have been made into indoctrination centers.

Things are changing but conservatives are mired in normalcy bias…

I would like to see you answer the questions. This doesn't address SD4L's question, and it doesn't address mine.

I understand the issues of establishment's institutional sources. That's not really a relevant part of the question though. I know that top law schools have turned into indoctrination factories. My son is considering a law degree. He wants to get into a top school because that's where the money is. He's planning to take LSAT later this year. But, his choice of schools weighs heavily on us. His plan is to get into the highest ranking school that will accept him, with the best financial package.

One of the schools he'll be targeting is Michigan. But they woke as ****. So I get it. Even the best scholars can be indoctrinated. But, that doesn't obviate the lack of any evidence that Eastman is any kind of top legal mind. That doesn't prove he's not an expert. It establishes a lack of evidence that he is. It also doesn't answer SD4L's question.

There's no evidence other than Rudy Giuliani's word, which is not worth much, that Eastman is any kind of constitutional/election scholar. So, with a lack of such credentials, why would Trump task Eastman? Is it because it's a hair-brain scheme, and Trump knew no one else would go along with it? Or is it that every other lawyer available to Trump were part of the grand conspiracy?

Like I said. A belief that Trump was in the right about this legal theory requires that Eastman really is an expert, and was correct about how that should play out with Pence. As I said before, if he's not an expert, then it looks like the logical conclusion is a dichotomy of either Trump is corrupt or delusional.

I've gone around with SD4L on that too. I don't accept Eastman as a top legal scholar on the constitution WRT US elections. But I don't see any evidence other than the circular reasoning of using the outcome as proof of the motivation, that Trump knew Biden won fair and square. That's just a belief, not a fact. Just like it's my belief that Trump did and still does belief he actually won. He's just delusional about it.

 

[KG1]

As I said, impressive list of RINO’s. Olsen is establishment, has been for years. He called for Trump to be impeached. That is what your reverence for the establishment get you…

Could be why Trump and Guiliani didn't call on Olsen to be their "preeminent constitutional scholar."

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I do not know Eastman, I am not defending him.

I am making the point that conservatives have to come to terms with the fact that among other things, news and legal opinions will not come from the places we once thought were the go to places. Even top law schools, not to mention elite law schools have been made into indoctrination centers.

Things are changing but conservatives are mired in normalcy bias…

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” - Nietzsche​

I reject indoctrination from both sides... even if coming from an orange man.

 

[Ingomike]

Sorry, I just know too many people who have been married for 20+ years. They will tell me over and over how great their marriages have been, oh sure there were rocky times, but they wouldn't change anything.

These same people will also complain about the same spouse. Sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, can't say I have encountered many who NEVER had a bad thing to say about their spouse.

But say one bad thing about Trump....

Which one is more important?

If one complains that much about their spouse they need to get away from that torment or, as is equally likely, quit tormenting their spouse.

I never say bad things about my spouse…

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I Just like it's my belief that Trump did and still does belief he actually won. He's just delusional about it.

I accept that as a possibility.

 

[KG1]

I would like to see you answer the questions. This doesn't address SD4L's question, and it doesn't address mine.

I understand the issues of establishment's institutional sources. That's not really a relevant part of the question though. I know that top law schools have turned into indoctrination factories. My son is considering a law degree. He wants to get into a top school because that's where the money is. He's planning to take LSAT later this year. But, his choice of schools weighs heavily on us. His plan is to get into the highest ranking school that will accept him, with the best financial package.

One of the schools he'll be targeting is Michigan. But they woke as ****. So I get it. Even the best scholars can be indoctrinated. But, that doesn't obviate the lack of any evidence that Eastman is any kind of top legal mind. That doesn't prove he's not an expert. It establishes a lack of evidence that he is. It also doesn't answer SD4L's question.

There's no evidence other than Rudy Giuliani's word, which is not worth much, that Eastman is any kind of constitutional/election scholar. So, with a lack of such credentials, why would Trump task Eastman? Is it because it's a hair-brain scheme, and Trump knew no one else would go along with it? Or is it that every other lawyer available to Trump were part of the grand conspiracy?

Like I said. A belief that Trump was in the right about this legal theory requires that Eastman really is an expert, and was correct about how that should play out with Pence. As I said before, if he's not an expert, then it looks like the logical conclusion is a dichotomy of either Trump is corrupt or delusional.

I've gone around with SD4L on that too. I don't accept Eastman as a top legal scholar on the constitution WRT US elections. But I don't see any evidence other than the circular reasoning of using the outcome as proof of the motivation, that Trump knew Biden won fair and square. That's just a belief, not a fact. Just like it's my belief that Trump did and still does belief he actually won. He's just delusional about it.

Whatever you do don't let your son choose Chapman.

 

[Ingomike]

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” - Nietzsche​

I reject indoctrination from both sides... even if coming from an orange man.

Who is performing this “orange man” indoctrination?

 

[indiucky]

Which one is more important?

After Barbara Walters left??? I'd say Whoopi probably......she seems to have filled that role....

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Are you denying that conservative content that goes against the narrative of the left is being demonetized?

Google Ads? Dunno... I've de-monetized them all at the source.

News/opinion sources I value enough... I pay for with a subscription.

One is National Review... I've subscribed for decades because they publish independent thinkers. Often, competing opinions. Some I agree with, some I disagree with... but either way, I CAN SAY EXACTLY WHY... without name-calling... and what principle I feel that are ignoring or devaluing too much wrt another principle... i.e. wrong trade-offs.

You know, actual DEBATE of ideas.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

After Barbara Walters left??? I'd say Whoopi probably......she seems to have filled that role....


View attachment 321282

I do belive it'll take three Salma's to eye-bleach "that".