The Official Former President Trump thread

[TxRover]

3 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Thanks. Could any other states bring in similar laws?

The same thing has failed in several states, however…

3 hours ago, bigmarv said:

Means heehaw, even if upheld. he was never winning CO anyway. 
 

just something for him and the cult to get outraged about. 

Actually, this one could get very interesting.

1) The Supreme Court will literally have to accept this case, as it constitutes a split in decisions between State Supreme Courts, something the Supreme Court has the final word on, and it is responsible for ensuring consistency in this matter.

2) The lower Colorado Court made a finding of fact that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. It then ruled the President is not an Officer under the 14th Amendment.

3) The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the finding of fact, but overturned the ruling on the President not being an Officer.

4) The Supreme Court now faces a daunting choice. It can a) agree with the lower Court, and effectively remove all restraints on a President b) disagree with the finding of fact (a huge step, as extreme deference is given to findings of fact because the ruling judge is the only one that has heard all the evidence and not a summary) and clear Trump to be put on the ballot c) uphold the ruling, and every other State will have to remove Trump from the ballot.

The Supreme Court will have real difficultly reversing the finding of fact, and even the Conservatives on the Court will recognize the damages of an unchained President removed from judicial restraint. This is gonna be a really interesting case study at some point, and we may see extremely unusual bedfellow no matter how this pans out. To be honest, the Republican Party would not want a ruling favoring Trump, as it would immediately unleash Biden to do damn near anything he wants until the election. The most likely result is nearly 50/50 between upholding the Colorado Supreme Court ruling (ending Donald’s campaign) and overturning the finding of fact on some technicality…with a very slight lean toward upholding.

Because this directly impacts the election, the Supreme Court will have to have their skates on for this, and the decision to hear Fischer vs United States will make this tricky too.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

5 hours ago, TxRover said:

The same thing has failed in several states, however…

Actually, this one could get very interesting.

1) The Supreme Court will literally have to accept this case, as it constitutes a split in decisions between State Supreme Courts, something the Supreme Court has the final word on, and it is responsible for ensuring consistency in this matter.

2) The lower Colorado Court made a finding of fact that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. It then ruled the President is not an Officer under the 14th Amendment.

3) The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the finding of fact, but overturned the ruling on the President not being an Officer.

4) The Supreme Court now faces a daunting choice. It can a) agree with the lower Court, and effectively remove all restraints on a President b) disagree with the finding of fact (a huge step, as extreme deference is given to findings of fact because the ruling judge is the only one that has heard all the evidence and not a summary) and clear Trump to be put on the ballot c) uphold the ruling, and every other State will have to remove Trump from the ballot.

The Supreme Court will have real difficultly reversing the finding of fact, and even the Conservatives on the Court will recognize the damages of an unchained President removed from judicial restraint. This is gonna be a really interesting case study at some point, and we may see extremely unusual bedfellow no matter how this pans out. To be honest, the Republican Party would not want a ruling favoring Trump, as it would immediately unleash Biden to do damn near anything he wants until the election. The most likely result is nearly 50/50 between upholding the Colorado Supreme Court ruling (ending Donald’s campaign) and overturning the finding of fact on some technicality…with a very slight lean toward upholding.

Because this directly impacts the election, the Supreme Court will have to have their skates on for this, and the decision to hear Fischer vs United States will make this tricky too.

Fascinating and frightening in equal measure.

[Fullerene]

I remember when Reagan got elected as some old guy aged 69.  Despite that he was up against the Soviet Union choosing leaders considerably older.

Nowadays it is Putin (71) against similar.

Who'd have thunk it.

[bigmarv]

11 hours ago, TxRover said:

The same thing has failed in several states, however…

Actually, this one could get very interesting.

1) The Supreme Court will literally have to accept this case, as it constitutes a split in decisions between State Supreme Courts, something the Supreme Court has the final word on, and it is responsible for ensuring consistency in this matter.

2) The lower Colorado Court made a finding of fact that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. It then ruled the President is not an Officer under the 14th Amendment.

3) The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the finding of fact, but overturned the ruling on the President not being an Officer.

4) The Supreme Court now faces a daunting choice. It can a) agree with the lower Court, and effectively remove all restraints on a President b) disagree with the finding of fact (a huge step, as extreme deference is given to findings of fact because the ruling judge is the only one that has heard all the evidence and not a summary) and clear Trump to be put on the ballot c) uphold the ruling, and every other State will have to remove Trump from the ballot.

The Supreme Court will have real difficultly reversing the finding of fact, and even the Conservatives on the Court will recognize the damages of an unchained President removed from judicial restraint. This is gonna be a really interesting case study at some point, and we may see extremely unusual bedfellow no matter how this pans out. To be honest, the Republican Party would not want a ruling favoring Trump, as it would immediately unleash Biden to do damn near anything he wants until the election. The most likely result is nearly 50/50 between upholding the Colorado Supreme Court ruling (ending Donald’s campaign) and overturning the finding of fact on some technicality…with a very slight lean toward upholding.

Because this directly impacts the election, the Supreme Court will have to have their skates on for this, and the decision to hear Fischer vs United States will make this tricky too. 
 

 

yep, what’s the win for Trump here? Sitting POTUS is above the law (or this part of the constitution) 

Jack Smith is essentially asking the same question from his case too. 

Over to SCOTUS I guess. Can Biden (if he loses) partake in an Insurrection in Jan 2025 without consequence? . 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

It's funny seeing Trump supporters now declare that the constitution is archaic and outdated. Something for them to ponder the next time they are buying a few thousand rounds of assault rifle ammo down at Walmart 

[TxRover]

47 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

It's funny seeing Trump supporters now declare that the constitution is archaic and outdated. Something for them to ponder the next time they are buying a few thousand rounds of assault rifle ammo down at Walmart 

Remember “You can’t charge a sitting President” in 2016-2019.same people are now “Charge Biden”.

1 hour ago, bigmarv said:

yep, what’s the win for Trump here? Sitting POTUS is above the law (or this part of the constitution) 

Jack Smith is essentially asking the same question from his case too. 

Over to SCOTUS I guess. Can Biden (if he loses) partake in an Insurrection in Jan 2025 without consequence? . 

The win for Trump is anything that keeps him out of jail, period. Donald doesn’t care if he’s President again, he’s running to try to squash the charges. In the end, it’s all about “Me, me, me”, in the same way he ran the Presidency. The more I read on the Colorado Supreme Court decision, the tighter the box that the SCOTUS is in.

Genuine possibility: SCOTUS upholds the Colorado ban, resulting in all the other States doing the same. Donald pushes a write in campaign, despite warnings that all those votes will be discarded. Scattered violence from Trump supporters across the U.S. on Election Day. Trump write-in campaign hands Biden a 538-0 win in the Electoral College. Rioting breaks out at this announcement and Donald fails to try to quell it, instead sits on his phone texting people. Charges filed accusing Trump of attempting another insurrection, and the phone records show he did, however, Donald’s current cognitive decline accelerates so rapidly they never get to trial before he dies. Meanwhile, Biden likely replaced by his Vice President within two years.

Stay tuned, it could be a bumpy ride.

[carpetmonster]

Merry Christmas from Trumpy

[Soapy FFC]

2 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

Merry Christmas from Trumpy

To a skim reader, the use of capitals make it look like he's saying the USA should rot in Hell

[carpetmonster]

5 minutes ago, Soapy FFC said:

To a skim reader, the use of capitals make it look like he's saying the USA should rot in Hell

He’s the world’s only example of where a Grammarly plug-in not only uninstalled itself, but then shot itself afterwards. 

[TxRover]

17 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

He’s the world’s only example of where a Grammarly plug-in not only uninstalled itself, but then shot itself afterwards. 

Switched over to using “Gammonly”?

[bigmarv]

22 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

Merry Christmas from Trumpy

He’s the drunk twat at the end of the bar on a Friday night. Waffling pish on whatever is trending on social media as the latest irritations of the “back in my day / the world’s gone mad” mob. 
 

Didn’t he have four years to sort all this “lunacy” out? I guess tax cuts for campaign donors (and perpetuating the Republican trickle down myth) was more important. 

[TxRover]

Looking at his Truth Social avatar…

-Flag is correctly displayed vertically with the union to the observers left. Except that means it’s draped over Trump, how appropriate.

-Flag has 4 white and 3 red stripes, versus the correct 6 white and 7 red. That’s more white than reality, kinda like the Republican Party.

-Flag union only spans 2 of the 7 stripes, versus the correct 7 of the 13.

-Flag union is displaying only 9 stars, versus the correct 50.

In summary, much like the man, that avatar is in a twisted alternate reality.

Edited December 28, 2023 by TxRover

[Trogdor]

1 hour ago, bigmarv said:

He’s the drunk twat at the end of the bar on a Friday night. Waffling pish on whatever is trending on social media as the latest irritations of the “back in my day / the world’s gone mad” mob. 
 

Didn’t he have four years to sort all this “lunacy” out? I guess tax cuts for campaign donors (and perpetuating the Republican trickle down myth) was more important. 

Apparently he is teetotal as well. He's just an angry old man longing for the good old days as he sees it.

[TxRover]

51 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Apparently he is teetotal as well. He's just an angry old man longing for the good old days as he sees it.

A smelly old man. Adam Kinzinger mentioned this, and by way of rebuttal the trump team attacked him without addressing the base issue...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-odor-adam-kinzinger-b2468213.html

[HTG]

On 26/12/2023 at 16:09, carpetmonster said:

Merry Christmas from Trumpy

 

[bigmarv]

1 hour ago, Trogdor said:

Apparently he is teetotal as well. He's just an angry old man longing for the good old days as he sees it.

 

I have still yet to be told when this period of American greatness was that they all want to get back to. 

The slogan would certainly indicate that he/they don’t believe America to be great now. Something they would go to town on had someone on the Democratic Party side come up with it. 

[BillyAnchor]

5 hours ago, bigmarv said:

 

I have still yet to be told when this period of American greatness was that they all want to get back to. 

 

Ironically it was back when the rich paid a more fair share of taxes.

[Freedom Farter]

40 minutes ago, BillyAnchor said:

Ironically it was back when the rich paid a more fair share of taxes.

Aye, I always assume they mean the New Deal Era. 

[Wee-Bey]

Well below par posting from Donny there. He's all over the shop.

[carpetmonster]

6 hours ago, bigmarv said:

 

I have still yet to be told when this period of American greatness was that they all want to get back to. 

The slogan would certainly indicate that he/they don’t believe America to be great now. Something they would go to town on had someone on the Democratic Party side come up with it. 

The mid 1980s when Diff’rent Strokes taught us that as long as whites have the money and power and minorities are small, cute and amusing then it’ll all be fine.