President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Jeff Lebowski]

That may be, but they only make up about 1/4 of the US.

"only"? That might be all he needs to get him the nomination.

Then biden slips on a banana peel and Trump is running against Kamala. Yikes.

[Bo Diddley]

"only"? That might be all he needs to get him the nomination.

Then biden slips on a banana peel and Trump is running against Kamala. Yikes.

Ha! I considered editing it after I hit send, but there you go.

[old_gregg]

Totally agree here. But I really don't think Trump is electable. I'm also really hoping no one who would undermine the rule of law is elected.

he wasn't electable in 2016

[Non Sequitur]

That may be, but they only make up about 1/4 of the US.

1/4 is a lot. If I found out that 1/4 of my neighbors were zombies, I'd be terrified.

[Bo Diddley]

he wasn't electable in 2016

He ran against Hillary! But go back to the primaries, and point taken.

Edit: Still, 2020 showed he's not electable, even against the other old(er) guy.

[Bo Diddley]

1/4 is a lot. If I found out that 1/4 of my neighbors were zombies, I'd be terrified.

My point was about what the average citizen will understand. With 1/4 it doesn't matter, because they're in the cult. Probably another 1/4 on the left end of the spectrum also don't matter. So who is the average citizen? Probably the other 1/2 somewhere in between.

[Non Sequitur]

My point was about what the average citizen will understand. With 1/4 it doesn't matter, because they're in the cult. Probably another 1/4 on the left end of the spectrum also don't matter. So who is the average citizen? Probably the other 1/2 somewhere in between.

That sounds about right. Most are somewhere in the middle, and most of those are defined by just a couple of issues. That's why I think the overturning of Roe v. Wade will ultimately hurt the GOP. No one is talking about abortion any more. That ceasing to be a rallying cry for the GOP is a problem.

[old_gregg]

He ran against Hillary! But go back to the primaries, and point taken.

Edit: Still, 2020 showed he's not electable, even against the other old(er) guy.

support galvanized among his crazies, biden fatigue, remaining theme of cowardice in the gop, nobody that will put up a real primary fight, etc. trump 2024!

[BlueK]

This is a pretty good summary of the most frequently made arguments from Republicans about Trump's indictment and why the reasoning doesn't make sense. I think Josh Hawley's and Jim Jordan's are the most nonsensical, but given that they know they're speaking to an echo chamber of supporters who will make no effort to listen to any views outside of it, they don't care to be correct because it's really just all about raising money from these people.


Indicting Trump jeopardizes the rule of law. This argument, which Sen. Josh Hawley pushed on Fox News late last week, is especially odd. To hear the Missouri Republican tell it, the way to preserve the rule of law is to have prosecutors look the other way in response to evidence of a private citizen’s multiple felonies. Not to put too fine a point on this, but that’s bonkers.


Trump declassified the classified documents. It was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan peddling this line on CNN yesterday, which was weird because the indictment itself features a direct quote in which Trump himself debunked the claim.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...blem-rcna88836

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is a pretty good summary of the most frequently made arguments from Republicans about Trump's indictment and why the reasoning doesn't make sense. I think Josh Hawley's and Jim Jordan's are the most nonsensical, but given that they know they're speaking to an echo chamber of supporters who will make no effort to listen to any views outside of it, they don't care to be correct because it's really just all about raising money from these people.


Indicting Trump jeopardizes the rule of law. This argument, which Sen. Josh Hawley pushed on Fox News late last week, is especially odd. To hear the Missouri Republican tell it, the way to preserve the rule of law is to have prosecutors look the other way in response to evidence of a private citizen’s multiple felonies. Not to put too fine a point on this, but that’s bonkers.


Trump declassified the classified documents. It was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan peddling this line on CNN yesterday, which was weird because the indictment itself features a direct quote in which Trump himself debunked the claim.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...blem-rcna88836

I wish I could find the link, but I read an NYT article this morning reviewing each of the strategies that trump has either used or may use. Bottom line is each of these arguments will be very difficult to make given the evidence. However, more are more people saying that the case will likely be delayed until after the election. Boo.

[beefytee]

NPR had an interesting discussion that seemed to offer some defense for Trump. Their argument was that these laws like the Espionage Act never had Presidents in mind when they were written and never could have foreseen this with what is in the law, so it could be argued that they shouldn't apply to them. Obviously a long shot, but it may be his best chance to get out of this.

[Commando]

NPR had an interesting discussion that seemed to offer some defense for Trump. Their argument was that these laws like the Espionage Act never had Presidents in mind when they were written and never could have foreseen this with what is in the law, so it could be argued that they shouldn't apply to them. Obviously a long shot, but it may be his best chance to get out of this.

After a Supreme Court interpretation of the statute, or...?

[Bo Diddley]

NPR had an interesting discussion that seemed to offer some defense for Trump. Their argument was that these laws like the Espionage Act never had Presidents in mind when they were written and never could have foreseen this with what is in the law, so it could be argued that they shouldn't apply to them. Obviously a long shot, but it may be his best chance to get out of this.

I think a very strong argument can be made for a sittng president, but not once he's passed the baton to the next president.

[beefytee]

After a Supreme Court interpretation of the statute, or...?

I'm sure that is where it would end up.

[Commando]

I think a very strong argument can be made for a sittng president, but not once he's passed the baton to the next president.

Right. That's the kicker-- he clearly did NOT have a right to any of those extremely sensitive documents and took affirmative steps to hide them from the government in violation of a subpoena. If he had the right to them as he now claims, you would think that's how he ought to have answered the subpoena, no?

And this silliness about he had the power to declassify them on January 20th just before he lost the mantle of president? Nobody is buying that, especially given how sensitive we've come to discover those documents actually are. Yeah he declassified nuclear codes and allied military positions unilaterally in his head. We're not 8 years old, Donald.