Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)

[Thad]

Teri Kanefield has a blog post about Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Spirit of Liberty and why the ballot access issue isn't clear-cut. She says that "even if he can't hold office that doesn't mean he can't be on the ballot" isn't actually the frivolous argument it seems, and what sets it apart from every other case that's tried to make that argument is that the 14A provides a mechanism for an ineligible candidate to have their eligibility restored.

I still think the likeliest result is that SCOTUS says "come back with a conviction for insurrection," though I understand Kanefield's observation that we really shouldn't put ballot eligibility in the hands of a jury.

[Mongrel]

Welp, DA Willis in GA has fucked up extremely large.

These allegations look like they have merit to them. Willis' picked the special prosecutor in spite of his having no relevant experience - if the sealed divorce records get unsealed and show they fucked, then it's ALL getting fucked. Trump's lawyer on this also apparently has a history of using this exact tactic (find embarrassing dirt on the opposition to get the case tossed).

Popehat is a shithead I won't give views to, but he's not wrong here:

It’s not an exaggeration. If the allegations are true, this will derail the Georgia case (practically if not legally), very substantially boost Trump, and undermine the credibility of other Trump cases by association. Disastrous.

I gotta say I'm impressed that Trump still has a non-zero number of competent lawyers.

To take a broader view though, I don't think the law brings Trump down at this point anyway. At least no one case and possibly no two cases - Not with this SCOTUS. I think he's going to be on the ballot come November and people already needed to not be counting on a legal Hail Mary to protect the electorate from itself.

[Crick]

Ah. Well, etc, etc

[Thad]

Popehat is a shithead I won't give views to

Why, what did he do this time?

To take a broader view though, I don't think the law brings Trump down at this point anyway. At least no one case and possibly no two cases - Not with this SCOTUS. I think he's going to be on the ballot come November and people already needed to not be counting on a legal Hail Mary to protect the electorate from itself.

I mean, yeah. I think anybody who legitimately believes he's not going to be on the ballot is an unserious person.

That doesn't mean the prosecutions aren't important.

If Willis blew this then that's infuriating, but doesn't really impact the multiple federal indictments. Which, yes, are a separate issue from whether or not he gets elected, but are still important.

As for how it affects public opinion going into the election, fuck, I don't know. It blows my mind that Trump's still as popular as he is. What even moves the needle anymore?

It's also entirely possible this is bullshit -- they haven't offered any concrete evidence as yet, so this could be a smear like the "Schumer's girlfriend" nonsense they keep hammering in the New York case -- but that may not matter either, if this is a move to control the narrative rather than to win in court.

[Mongrel]

It's also entirely possible this is bullshit -- they haven't offered any concrete evidence as yet, so this could be a smear like the "Schumer's girlfriend" nonsense they keep hammering in the New York case -- but that may not matter either, if this is a move to control the narrative rather than to win in court.

Yeah, like, the chain of events here is Trump lawyer likes to backdoor opponents > gets info from DA's divorce proceedings > divorce proceedings got sealed > lawyer claims there's impropriety.

So I feel like this story's going to get a lot weirder if she's not fucking the underqualified special appointee.

As for Popehat, he hasn't done anything new lately. Unless you mean in general? He's just become one of the Terminally Online. Like there's more to it than just that, but that's the essential summary.

It blows my mind that Trump's still as popular as he is. What even moves the needle anymore?

I fully believe that he could shoot a man in the middle Time Square*. Oh he'd get arrested for murder (for now), but his core supporters would still fall in line.

The important question is just how many of those diehards are there; if the only thing keeping the US from electing a straight-up fascist president is legal wrangling to keep him off the ballot in the first place, we've already lost. Nor should anyone be under the illusion that the GOP is anything but fully fully fascist now. The speaker and nearly any rep of any rank in the party are vocally for Trump; this isn't 40% or 60% - this is all of them. Neocons are just a quaint memory.

[KingRoyal]

do you think these allegations will get more coverage than a Trump supporter swatting Jack Smith? hard to say, but history has shown that the NYT will give exponentially more coverage to things some random left wing college student posts on Twitter than the guy who was arrested with a van full of munitions near Obama's house after Trump posted his address online

[Crick]

The important question is just how many of those diehards are there; if the only thing keeping the US from electing a straight-up fascist president is legal wrangling to keep him off the ballot in the first place, we've already lost.

As a person in a place infested with those diehards, it seems like this:

There aren't a lot, maybe a quarter of the population AT MOST (though, I don't believe it). A lot of people don't seem to care or read too much, they get a lot of information second hand. SOME people (people I may or may not be related to) are straight up fascists. I've seen this mostly happen through YouTube. They're Terminally Online, but on the right.

The problem is that the system isn't set up to accurately represent these people. I'm sure we all know this whole screed.

I don't think it matters how many diehards there are, it matters how many of those people who don't care really get told a weird fact or don't vote or choose one candidate because it'd be funny. They just simply don't know what fascism *is*.

All that being said, I think there's a lot more on the other side. Even in rural, red spaces their policies and candidates are failing. I think Trump loses if he runs. Could be wrong. Just seems that way.

[Grath]

I gotta say I'm impressed that Trump still has a non-zero number of competent lawyers.

"The motion, filed on behalf of defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, seeks to have the charges against Roman dismissed and for Willis, Wade and the entire DA’s office to be disqualified from further prosecution of the case."

[Thad]

He's just become one of the Terminally Online.

[Thad]

do you think these allegations will get more coverage than a Trump supporter swatting Jack Smith?

Chutkan too.

hard to say, but history has shown that the NYT will give exponentially more coverage to things some random left wing college student posts on Twitter than the guy who was arrested with a van full of munitions near Obama's house after Trump posted his address online

At least for the moment, the NYT is the top result when I search for chutkan swatted (and the headline also references Smith).

I'm still not going to link them, because fuck the NYT.

As a person in a place infested with those diehards, it seems like this:

There aren't a lot, maybe a quarter of the population AT MOST (though, I don't believe it). A lot of people don't seem to care or read too much, they get a lot of information second hand. SOME people (people I may or may not be related to) are straight up fascists. I've seen this mostly happen through YouTube. They're Terminally Online, but on the right.

The problem is that the system isn't set up to accurately represent these people. I'm sure we all know this whole screed.

I don't think it matters how many diehards there are, it matters how many of those people who don't care really get told a weird fact or don't vote or choose one candidate because it'd be funny. They just simply don't know what fascism *is*.

I think there's some truth to that. I think a good big bunch of the people telling pollsters they'll vote for Trump, right now, ten months before the election, just aren't paying attention, or think this "I'll only be a dictator on day one" talk is just talk, have bought the normalization of January 6 and forgotten how fucking serious it was, etc.

But I also think that particular type of low-information swing voter gets way too much attention in our elections, when really what they come down to is turnout. The diehards are the people who show up and vote, and it's worth remembering that Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016.

All that being said, I think there's a lot more on the other side. Even in rural, red spaces their policies and candidates are failing. I think Trump loses if he runs. Could be wrong. Just seems that way.

The actual elections up to this point have been strongly in Democrats' favor, and that remains the most concrete indicator of how things will go in November. Reproductive rights, in particular, have dominated the conversation and Republicans are getting clobbered so hard on them that they're trying to change the subject to immigration.

On the one hand, they're really good at that, and the credulous news media is really good at helping them. On the other, I don't think there's really any way to make forced-birth horror stories go away; they're not going to stop happening.

I still think the Democrats have a pretty clear advantage going into the election. But it's deeply troubling just how fucking much Trump's, and his party's, outrageous behavior is being normalized.

I think Biden probably wins in November. But it's worrying that I even have to qualify it with a probably. It's worrying that there's any question. I don't know what the final numbers are going to look like but I can predict with some confidence that it's going to be way closer than it should.

[KingRoyal]

Aside from the obvious problems of asking voters who they'll vote for in a goddamn year, the media itself is very much invested in a Trump/Biden horse race. Covering Trump and following these dumb controversies has been especially lucrative for them in the past 8 years, and when you mix that with some of the editors and publishers support his policies, they have a huge incentive to keep normalizing Trump

[Thad]

That and this is just how they operate and has been for decades. This mistaken notion that "objectivity" means viewing everything through a bipartisan lens where both sides are equally-valid opinions.

[Mongrel]

He's just become one of the Terminally Online.

Hey now, I may post too much for your tastes, but I'm pretty sure that even if I were fabulously wealthy, a renowned lawyer, or university prof with seemingly unbreakable tenure, I wouldn't be on here blabbering about white replacement theory, "anarcho-capitalism", or how boner pill weasels made me demand the RETVRN of wives being held as chattels.

Or (as is the hot thing right now) getting caught up in weird arguments over "plagiarism" which are actually just being racist, and somehow going from that to telling everyone that Oh Yeah? Well Brad Pitt Fucked My Wife So There.

THAT kind of Terminally Online. GOP staffer Terminally Online. I haven't earned capitalization!

*snip*

I think Biden probably wins in November. But it's worrying that I even have to qualify it with a probably. It's worrying that there's any question. I don't know what the final numbers are going to look like but I can predict with some confidence that it's going to be way closer than it should.

What's most worrying is how much Dem victories are driven by abortion being a class A felony across the midwest. That could and should drive dem votes at federal and state level but what happens after enough of that gets overturned? Which, granted, might still take a few years given Republican intransigence, dirty tricks, and state-level strength, even if that last one is taking a big hit.

[Thad]

Hey now, I may post too much for your tastes, but I'm pretty sure that even if I were fabulously wealthy, a renowned lawyer, or university prof with seemingly unbreakable tenure, I wouldn't be on here blabbering about white replacement theory, "anarcho-capitalism", or how boner pill weasels made me demand the RETVRN of wives being held as chattels.

Or (as is the hot thing right now) getting caught up in weird arguments over "plagiarism" which are actually just being racist, and somehow going from that to telling everyone that Oh Yeah? Well Brad Pitt Fucked My Wife So There.

THAT kind of Terminally Online. GOP staffer Terminally Online. I haven't earned capitalization!

Okay, but, like, you're referencing a bunch of shit that's happening on Twitter or Bluesky or some goddamn thing like a normal person is supposed to know what the fuck you're talking about, while getting defensive about how terminally online you aren't.

[Crick]

What's most worrying is how much Dem victories are driven by abortion being a class A felony across the midwest. That could and should drive dem votes at federal and state level but what happens after enough of that gets overturned? Which, granted, might still take a few years given Republican intransigence, dirty tricks, and state-level strength, even if that last one is taking a big hit.

So, to use this as an example.

Since I was a teen my dad, who either voted Republican or not at all, LAUGHED at the idea that they'd ever do anything to abortion. He told me it was political suicide, that they have to say that to placate "the crazies". And then when they very obviously did what they were promising to do--radio silence. Nothing. He may be against it in words, but will still vote for them. He is, however, closer to one of these die hards than not.

But it's that inability to see beyond what's in front of them. Here, so many, I guess, "normal" people (as in not nuts or hyper religious) live comfortably in warped, conservative environments. These are women who are married to or dating men who are mega republican, or kids from republican families who never went to college who never cared or had need to learn about anything outside of talking points. It's only when their IMMEDIATE rights are inconvenienced that they do anything.

I think it's a part of a larger problem that's a whole other rant-- about the break down of government services in rural areas, the effect of educational changes, etc

[Mongrel]

Hey now, I may post too much for your tastes, but I'm pretty sure that even if I were fabulously wealthy, a renowned lawyer, or university prof with seemingly unbreakable tenure, I wouldn't be on here blabbering about white replacement theory, "anarcho-capitalism", or how boner pill weasels made me demand the RETVRN of wives being held as chattels.

Or (as is the hot thing right now) getting caught up in weird arguments over "plagiarism" which are actually just being racist, and somehow going from that to telling everyone that Oh Yeah? Well Brad Pitt Fucked My Wife So There.

THAT kind of Terminally Online. GOP staffer Terminally Online. I haven't earned capitalization!

Okay, but, like, you're referencing a bunch of shit that's happening on Twitter or Bluesky or some goddamn thing like a normal person is supposed to know what the fuck you're talking about, while getting defensive about how terminally online you aren't.

That was kind of intentionally implied with that though, like, hey Thad, you don't get involved in that and I don't get involved in that crazy shit even if I do know about it. I don't think I need to convince you I'm not a chud unless something has gone very seriously wrong well beyond my posting so many cat or dog gifs to the Brontoforums that the number next to my name gets to some arbitrary value of 'too high'.

Also the first one is Muskie, so, I think you do know who I'm talking about in some cases even if you'd rather not - in fact we ALL know way more about Muskie than I think any of us want to, to take one of the most prominent examples, and this started with you asking about goddamned Popehat. Conventional media has been full of quotes from Twitter or Facebook or what-have-you for years now, so it's not like the worst stuff stays on there anyway. It's just that's too late as often as not.

And that matters! Regardless of whether we'd rather not know, it is materially relevant to our fundamental rights and freedoms that knowing that people like that have political and social influence. I mean, just a few posts up we're literally discussing the consequences to us of people who DON'T know better and who DO follow the nazis and chuds and crackpots. We do need to know what the crackpots and nazis are telling people, and we can do that without subscribing to any of it so long as we don't gaze too deep into the abyss.

Shit, look at Jan 6th! The chuds were posting for days about how they were going to go and do exactly what they did and not people enough paid attention or took that as a serious enough threat to prevent it. How much more serious does it have to get to establish that vigilance is something as many of us who feel capable have to take part in? I woudn't ask you to do it, but don't hold it against me if I do and then occasionally allude to it like a guy talking about some shit he saw on the street.

[Mongrel]

To post again(!), more succinctly: Yes, I absolutely am going to be defensive and annoyed if you double-down on trying to equate my Brontopostcount with posting like I'm Elon fuckin' Musk.

I tried to have a bit of a joke with you about it, but you seemingly just have to have that gotcha on old hypocrite Mongrel.

[KingRoyal]

[nosimpleway]

[KingRoyal]

Is it just me or does that argument not protect Trump? He was impeached but he was never convicted