Trump 2024 ???

[Ingomike]

Mike, I think you need to go back through the election thread and look where some of you were even advocating for switching electors. And now all of a sudden you guys forget that this actually was attempted. SD4L provided the documentation for it.

People try to remind you of reality and you act like not ignoring it means they want the coming Marxist utopia. C'mon man. It's like the goal changed. Trump wanted to stay in power because he thought he was cheated. His lawyers came up with some legal theories where he could possibly do that. I'm not going so far as to claim that Trump committed fraud by trying to push through an alternate slate of electors. But it wasn't legitimate either. There's no way the nation would accept Trump as the rightful president after that.

This post has no relativity to my post you quoted. Not sure where this came from.

How does this rebutt the fact that the power in DC, at least, believed pence could have tried to reject the electors and throw the situation into constitutional crisis to be resolved by the co-equal powers?

Oh yes, regurgitate leftist talking points for them. In round numbers, Trump appointed 12% of the federal judges, (BTW, a great number but not a controlling one) I am certain they all took a Trump loyalty oath after they were sworn in that they would be his ruling army in the courts…

 

[J Galt]

 

[jamil]

The "cure" is to nominate Republicans who can win AND will put America First.

Trump is not that cure.

Short of any other cure, he might be the best hope if there were no others. Ananke help us if we're down to that though. But some people devoted to a certain man have to have that man be the cure or no one.

 

[Ziggidy]

We all know what they want us to know about the past. It's our choice to accept, deny, add to or take away what is given to us. Whatever you decide, it has not worked towards making the future better; unless you support current administration.

Regardless of past, what do we do about the future? As of this time, we have one candidate who will be running against the current socialist group.

We have less that 2 years, what do we do? Continue to bicker between us about the bad orange man or look at results, look at potential and look at what will happen if we fail.

At risk is the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment , our borders, our international safety, our economy and more...most important is our children and grandchildren. This is not a crap shoot where we can get up and walk away. This is real dangerous.

There is just too much at stake to be discrediting Trump's ability while he was president.

 

[Ingomike]

The "cure" is to nominate Republicans who can win AND will put America First.

Trump is not that cure.

Well if you cannot support the guy that started the current AF how can we get anyone else elected on that platform?

 

[jamil]

This post has no relativity to my post you quoted. Not sure where this came from.

Simple.

How does this rebutt the fact that the power in DC, at least, believed pence could have tried to reject the electors and throw the situation into constitutional crisis to be resolved by the co-equal powers?

You keep saying this was about throwing this situation into a constitutional crisis. Go back and read what you guys were saying back then? Trump's fake electors were as good a solution to keeping Trump in power as any, right?

Oh yes, regurgitate leftist talking points for them. In round numbers, Trump appointed 12% of the federal judges, (BTW, a great number but not a controlling one) I am certain they all took a Trump loyalty oath after they were sworn in that they would be his ruling army in the courts…

This nonsense about regurgitating leftist talking points is basically you refusing to accept reality, and then blaming the the messengers for that reality. I don't think there was any grand Trump plan at the time, other than finding any legal stone that could reveal under it a loophole to stay in office. It's the usual Trump MO. Use any legal theory to get what he wants and hope he wins in court. This grand idea of Trump forcing some kind of constitutional crisis is cover for Trump being the person you're afraid he is.

Oh, but I'm sure that you think this must mean I'm in with the commies.

 

[jamil]

Well if you cannot support the guy that started the current AF how can we get anyone else elected on that platform?

Trump had some great accomplishments, and the major one that lingers is a renewed focus on leaders putting Americans first. Being that guy doesn't make him automatically the only choice. That you think he does makes me think it's more about the guy to you than the platform.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 244418

Humor is always welcome. The best time to roast a person is at his funeral.

 

[jamil]

We all know what they want us to know about the past. It's our choice to accept, deny, add to or take away what is given to us. Whatever you decide, it has not worked towards making the future better; unless you support current administration.

Regardless of past, what do we do about the future? As of this time, we have one candidate who will be running against the current socialist group.

We have less that 2 years, what do we do? Continue to bicker between us about the bad orange man or look at results, look at potential and look at what will happen if we fail.

At risk is the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment , our borders, our international safety, our economy and more...most important is our children and grandchildren. This is not a crap shoot where we can get up and walk away. This is real dangerous.

There is just too much at stake to be discrediting Trump's ability while he was president.

The results argument isn't enough. Many of you guys wrap a lot of issues with Trump into the ever dismissive "bad orange man". Is there really only one person who can save us? You really think that? If it's down to one man, especially that man, we're all ****ed.

Trump did accomplish a lot of good during his term. it's all wiped away now. What legislation did he get accomplished? He had to do everything with a pen and a phone. And then 0Biden wiped it all out with a few strokes of his. That's one area Trump has not proven himself. Getting lasting change. The scotus nominees helped in a lot of areas, but aren't all that helpful in others. Passed legislation would have been a much better, much more long term accomplishment. And I know he had everyone, including many in his own party fighting against him. And that just speaks against his inability to get it done in a second term.

 

[Twangbanger]

How does this rebutt the fact that the power in DC, at least, believed pence could have tried to reject the electors and throw the situation into constitutional crisis to be resolved by the co-equal powers?

Oh yes, regurgitate leftist talking points for them. In round numbers, Trump appointed 12% of the federal judges, (BTW, a great number but not a controlling one) I am certain they all took a Trump loyalty oath after they were sworn in that they would be his ruling army in the courts…

Again, you're throwing up straw-men and generally acting like incapable of having a good-faith intellectual conversation.

1) Just because TPTB legislated against something, doesn't mean it was legal to begin with. To use an exaggerated example to make the point, if we pass a law making it illegal for the Executive Branch to cut illegals loose after 20 days in the pen, it doesn't necessarily mean it was legal to begin with. That may or may not have been settled specifically by the courts. What it would do is make a specific component of the overall open-borders strategy unable to be legally implemented.

2) Which "leftist talking point" did I regurgitate? Anyone who disagrees with you is regurgitating a leftist talking point? You seem incapable of maintaining a mature conversation. You are taking valid arguments, and re-labeling them as "leftist talking points." You are not fooling anybody with this childish display.

3) Whether Trump's judge appointees took a loyalty oath or not, there is a point I'm trying to make, which you fail to acknowledge. And that is: if the Federal Courts won't take up "Stop the Steal" after Trump had 4 years in office filling empty judge spots, with Coco Chow's husband dutifully carrying water for him in the Senate and bringing those confirmations to the floor, it's hard to imagine a time when the system would ever be more likely to give Trump a sympathetic hearing.

It's a lost cause. Sometimes, there just really is no recourse, and it sucks. The appeals are exhausted, they hook up the needles, and you lose. What that unfortunately means, is you need to make it "not so close" next time.

Trump cannot, currently, win an election to save his life.

Pointing that out burns some people down into hissy-fits.

 

[Ingomike]

Short of any other cure, he might be the best hope if there were no others. Ananke help us if we're down to that though. But some people devoted to a certain man have to have that man be the cure or no one.

Why must the positions folks take be misstated? Some people believe that a certain man is the best hope to deliver that cure and no that one that has been put forth seems better prepared to perform the cure. Why must you change confidence that a QB can deliver the win into some kind of hero worship?

 

[Ingomike]

You keep saying this was about throwing this situation into a constitutional crisis. Go back and read what you guys were saying back then? Trump's fake electors were as good a solution to keeping Trump in power as any, right?

Got any links? What relevance do posts back then have with the current conversation?

The swamp believed pence could do it, evidenced by their trying to close the door on it happening in the future. I do not believe at this point that if he had Trump would have been magically named President, but that it would have sparked constitutional crisis to be solved by the co-equal branches of government…

 

[KG1]

We all know what they want us to know about the past. It's our choice to accept, deny, add to or take away what is given to us. Whatever you decide, it has not worked towards making the future better; unless you support current administration.

Regardless of past, what do we do about the future? As of this time, we have one candidate who will be running against the current socialist group.

We have less that 2 years, what do we do? Continue to bicker between us about the bad orange man or look at results, look at potential and look at what will happen if we fail.

At risk is the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment , our borders, our international safety, our economy and more...most important is our children and grandchildren. This is not a crap shoot where we can get up and walk away. This is real dangerous.

There is just too much at stake to be discrediting Trump's ability while he was president.

I agree that's why I don't think it's productive to rehash what has happened in the past. It won't change the facts, or the outcome of what Pence did or did not do or if he had the authority to do anything different. It's time to concentrate on the future.

 

[jamil]

Why must the positions folks take be misstated? Some people believe that a certain man is the best hope to deliver that cure and no that one that has been put forth seems better prepared to perform the cure. Why must you change confidence that a QB can deliver the win into some kind of hero worship?

Years ago my son was a huge Jay Cutler fan. He believed, delusionally, that Jay Cutler was the only guy that could deliver wins for the Bears, and no other quarterback can. I kept telling him that Cutler was talented, but just didn't have "it". It was almost if it's sacrilege to suggest that he's not the guy.

Yeah. That was hero worship straight up. Feels like the same thing going on here. Except my son was 12 then.

 

[jamil]

Got any links? What relevance do posts back then have with the current conversation?

The swamp believed pence could do it, evidenced by their trying to close the door on it happening in the future. I do not believe at this point that if he had Trump would have been magically named President, but that it would have sparked constitutional crisis to be solved by the co-equal branches of government…

The change in what's being argued. Dropping the whole thing about Trump's slate of electors. Not that you specifically were involved in those conversations post 2020 election. They were had by the prominent Trumpers. I'm just reminding you guys about it. You're welcome to take a blast from the past if you want.

 

[Ingomike]

This nonsense about regurgitating leftist talking points is basically you refusing to accept reality, and then blaming the the messengers for that reality. I don't think there was any grand Trump plan at the time, other than finding any legal stone that could reveal under it a loophole to stay in office. It's the usual Trump MO. Use any legal theory to get what he wants and hope he wins in court. This grand idea of Trump forcing some kind of constitutional crisis is cover for Trump being the person you're afraid he is.

Oh, but I'm sure that you think this must mean I'm in with the commies.

So are you saying you believe that dem appointees always rule for the left and republican appointees always rule for conservatives?

It is a leftist talking point that cases dismissed by Trump appointees are somehow ruling for truth because Trump appointed them.

We clearly see who some people really are in these posts and it is a joke to think any of them will stand up for what is right. Something about Queenberry Rules against an enemy that does not abide rules.

 

[foszoe]

The results argument isn't enough.

If the results argument is enough, then there should be no call for term limits.

 

[jamil]

I agree that's why I don't think it's productive to rehash what has happened in the past. It won't change the facts, or the outcome of what Pence did or did not do or if he had the authority to do anything different. It's time to concentrate on the future.

People are using the past as a reason to go about affecting the future their way though. So I think it is relevant in service of that. What did Trump accomplish? Some good stuff. How long did it last? Not very. How likely is Trump to bring about long lasting change? Not very. And as I've said all along, I'm pretty black-pilled on the whole thing right now. I'm not confident any AF candidate can win, and I'm less confident Trump can. And if he did, I'm less confident that he can get any legislation through that make some of these changes perminent-ish.

 

[KG1]

Years ago my son was a huge Jay Cutler fan. He believed, delusionally, that Jay Cutler was the only guy that could deliver wins for the Bears, and no other quarterback can. I kept telling him that Cutler was talented, but just didn't have "it". It was almost if it's sacrilege to suggest that he's not the guy.

Yeah. That was hero worship straight up. Feels like the same thing going on here. Except my son was 12 then.

 

[KG1]

People are using the past as a reason to go about affecting the future their way though. So I think it is relevant in service of that. What did Trump accomplish? Some good stuff. How long did it last? Not very. How likely is Trump to bring about long lasting change? Not very. And as I've said all along, I'm pretty black-pilled on the whole thing right now. I'm not confident any AF candidate can win, and I'm less confident Trump can. And if he did, I'm less confident that he can get any legislation through that make some of these changes perminent-ish.

I was in particularly referring to the discussion of what Pence did or did not do. How is that relevant to affecting the future? That's what I don't find to be a productive discussion.