I-5 wrote:A few of you predicted Trump would fade away or go quiet (I can’t remember the exact phrases so don’t come after my choice of words) after Biden was inaugurated, but as we can Trump and Trumpism did not go away as others here said, myself included.
Likewise, when Trump dies (which he should be dead from such an unhealthy lifestyle of eating junk and no exercise), some people might think MAGA or Trumpers will fade. I don’t think that at all, because MAGA was always here, it just didn’t have a leader or a name. If and when Trump goes, it will morph into worshipping the next populist that knows how to pull the right strings. And they won’t need to be armed with the most money or intelligence, as long as they have the charm and a way to find a group to blame. MAGA is here to stay
I-5 wrote:Wasn’t it supposed to fade after the election? Considering he’s the frontrunner for the republican nominee in 2024…
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm going with the abortion issue allowing the Democrats to take the Senate and maintain the House causing Republican power brokers to see Trump as a non-viable candidate who will be impeached almost immediately if he runs and wins, thus choosing to back another candidate to take the presidency. Once the money is pulled from Trump's candidacy, he will fall.
So all the Democrats have to do to end Trump is ride the Roe vs. Wade decision to a Senate win this year and Trump becomes a dead candidate to Republican power brokers with cash as the investigations and acrimony he invites will lead to a Democratic Congress impeaching and removing Trump. I doubt Republican power brokers want to pay for that.
Even though anyone can run, it takes money and support that Trump will lose if he doesn't have at least part of Congress to protect him.
Thus his Supreme Court picks are ultimately going to bite him in the ass.
RiverDog wrote:Like I said in another thread, keep an eye on Biden's job approval numbers. A rising tide lifts all boats, and if the R v W decision is as impactful as you claim, it will help Biden's popularity as well as Dems in general. The advantage of using Biden's popularity as a gauge is that there are multiple organizations doing regular polling, it's nationwide giving them a larger universe from which to draw their sample, and there's a good historical on which to measure any increase/decrease.
So far, I haven't seen any significant change, maybe a little bump, but sometimes these things take a few weeks in order for the pollsters to go through their data collection cycle for the impact of a single event to have an effect on the party's fortunes.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't see Biden's popularity as mattering. Abortion is a women's issue. They will rally around that issue in local elections. The main concern is winning the Senate while holding onto the House. If you do that, then the presidency is irrelevant. You can block everything he wants to do and punish the president severely.
RiverDog wrote:I disagree. There's a direct correlation between an incumbent POTUS's popularity and his party's performance in the midterms:
The president's party almost always suffers a net loss of U.S. House seats in midterm elections. However, losses tend to be much steeper when the president is unpopular. In Gallup's polling history (which dates back to 1945), presidents with job approval ratings below 50% have seen their party lose 37 House seats, on average, in midterm elections. That compares with an average loss of 14 seats when presidents had approval ratings above 50%.
Only two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, saw their party gain seats in a midterm election. Both Clinton (66%) and Bush (63%) had high approval ratings just before those elections.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/242093/mid ... dents.aspx
That doesn't mean the same will hold true in this coming election, but what it does say is that if Biden's popularity remains in the toilet, the Dems would have to buck a 75+ year historical trend that goes all the way back to Harry Truman if they are to perform as well as you are claiming they will.
RiverDog wrote:I disagree. There's a direct correlation between an incumbent POTUS's popularity and his party's performance in the midterms:
The president's party almost always suffers a net loss of U.S. House seats in midterm elections. However, losses tend to be much steeper when the president is unpopular. In Gallup's polling history (which dates back to 1945), presidents with job approval ratings below 50% have seen their party lose 37 House seats, on average, in midterm elections. That compares with an average loss of 14 seats when presidents had approval ratings above 50%.
Only two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, saw their party gain seats in a midterm election. Both Clinton (66%) and Bush (63%) had high approval ratings just before those elections.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/242093/mid ... dents.aspx
That doesn't mean the same will hold true in this coming election, but what it does say is that if Biden's popularity remains in the toilet, the Dems would have to buck a 75+ year historical trend that goes all the way back to Harry Truman if they are to perform as well as you are claiming they will.
Aseahawkfan wrote:If this were a regular issue, I would agree with you. But this isn't a regular issue. This is a political event we haven't seen in 50 years. Abortion is a right held extremely dear to liberal female voters that they fight extremely hard to gain. It's going to have a major effect on the elections. I will be extremely, extremely surprised if it does not. I have not met a liberal woman or Democrat that didn't consider abortion a super important issue that was one of the few issues that would be above the economy for them.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/06/wide-partisan-gaps-in-abortion-attitudes-but-opinions-in-both-parties-are-complicated/
It's gonna be the biggest issue to Democratic females I have ever seen in my life. I expect a huge turnout by them.
Stream Hawk wrote:That is not bragging rights. Most Talking Heads have been saying Democrats are in trouble this November. It’s also not worth gloating about what could be a very horrible predicament that our country would face if the GQP takes over.
NorthHawk wrote:I think Trump will always have influence in the Republican party. It will even last after he does die and maybe be magnified for a time.
Those that follow his lead like Desantis are (IMO) far more dangerous as they are smart and calculating unlike Trump who is far too emotional and caught up in his own narcissism.
There is a faction within that party that likes what Putin has done in Russia - some even to the point of agreeing with him about Ukraine, and there has been a stream of R's that
have gone to Hungary to talk with Viktor Orban, the PM of Hungary who has limited the press and opposition by various means and runs what some have called an illiberal democracy.
This doesn't bode well if they get back into power considering the SCOTUS appears to be largely in lockstep with them.
NorthHawk wrote:I think Trump will always have influence in the Republican party. It will even last after he does die and maybe be magnified for a time.
Those that follow his lead like Desantis are (IMO) far more dangerous as they are smart and calculating unlike Trump who is far too emotional and caught up in his own narcissism.
There is a faction within that party that likes what Putin has done in Russia - some even to the point of agreeing with him about Ukraine, and there has been a stream of R's that
have gone to Hungary to talk with Viktor Orban, the PM of Hungary who has limited the press and opposition by various means and runs what some have called an illiberal democracy.
This doesn't bode well if they get back into power considering the SCOTUS appears to be largely in lockstep with them.
NorthHawk wrote:I think Trump will always have influence in the Republican party. It will even last after he does die and maybe be magnified for a time.
Those that follow his lead like Desantis are (IMO) far more dangerous as they are smart and calculating unlike Trump who is far too emotional and caught up in his own narcissism.
There is a faction within that party that likes what Putin has done in Russia - some even to the point of agreeing with him about Ukraine, and there has been a stream of R's that
have gone to Hungary to talk with Viktor Orban, the PM of Hungary who has limited the press and opposition by various means and runs what some have called an illiberal democracy.
This doesn't bode well if they get back into power considering the SCOTUS appears to be largely in lockstep with them.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Your exaggerations are unbelievable. The SCOTUS voted against Trump's election claims and sided against him. Returning Roe vs. Wade to the states is not some sign they plan to go with Trump on everything, which they have already clearly shown they would not. You wonder why you can't take Democrats any more seriously than you can Republicans. You both exaggerate and conveniently forget when something doesn't fit your narrative like the SCOTUS not entertaining Trump's election claims at all.
Stop making it seem like Clarence Thomas has great power. He does not. Is not the Chief Justice. Aligning on one issue to send the abortion issue back to the states is not without a sound legal precedent.
NorthHawk wrote:All that's needed is a majority of hacks for left or right.
Today it's a court run by the extremists like Thomas along with Kavanaugh and Barrett. Roberts is pretty much irrelevant.
In a broader sense we've seen this play before in other countries with much younger democracies like Turkey and Hungary.
They started by rigging elections, demonizing groups, and installing their own judges at the lower courts. They then started to whittle away at their constitutions and institutions.
So now we see largely 1 party rule with state controlled media and high court judges giving them a pass.
It can happen in America, too. Democracy and freedom is far more fragile than most people think. If this isn't nipped in the bud the next 2 years you are going to look back and
wonder where it all went wrong.
NorthHawk wrote:All that's needed is a majority of hacks for left or right.
Today it's a court run by the extremists like Thomas along with Kavanaugh and Barrett. Roberts is pretty much irrelevant.
In a broader sense we've seen this play before in other countries with much younger democracies like Turkey and Hungary.
They started by rigging elections, demonizing groups, and installing their own judges at the lower courts. They then started to whittle away at their constitutions and institutions.
So now we see largely 1 party rule with state controlled media and high court judges giving them a pass.
It can happen in America, too. Democracy and freedom is far more fragile than most people think. If this isn't nipped in the bud the next 2 years you are going to look back and
wonder where it all went wrong.
NorthHawk wrote:All that's needed is a majority of hacks for left or right.
Today it's a court run by the extremists like Thomas along with Kavanaugh and Barrett. Roberts is pretty much irrelevant.
In a broader sense we've seen this play before in other countries with much younger democracies like Turkey and Hungary.
They started by rigging elections, demonizing groups, and installing their own judges at the lower courts. They then started to whittle away at their constitutions and institutions.
So now we see largely 1 party rule with state controlled media and high court judges giving them a pass.
It can happen in America, too. Democracy and freedom is far more fragile than most people think. If this isn't nipped in the bud the next 2 years you are going to look back and
wonder where it all went wrong.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Thomas will be gone soon.
I-5 wrote:If the dems get the chance, they should expand the number of seats in the SCOTUS. And we can blame McConnell if they do, because had he allowed the nomination of Garland to proceed to a vote and he got, we would have a more balance 5-4 court. In essence, he committed hus form a court packing. Even though the number of justices has been 9 since the mid 19th century, there is no provision in the Constitution that mandates the number. Thanks to the hasty abortion ruling, the dems might have a chance to do so.
As far as the SCOTUS ruling being ‘no bug deal, it’s just giving rights to the state’ argument; why not give the rights to each county, or better yet, each city? Heck while we’re at it, just give it to each individual?
RiverDog wrote:Clarence Thomas just turned 74 years old, is in good health, and has shown no indications of retiring. He could easily be on the court at least another 10 years. RBG was 87 when she passed away.
I-5 wrote:If the dems get the chance, they should expand the number of seats in the SCOTUS. And we can blame McConnell if they do, because had he allowed the nomination of Garland to proceed to a vote and he got, we would have a more balance 5-4 court. In essence, he committed hus form a court packing. Even though the number of justices has been 9 since the mid 19th century, there is no provision in the Constitution that mandates the number. Thanks to the hasty abortion ruling, the dems might have a chance to do so.
As far as the SCOTUS ruling being ‘no bug deal, it’s just giving rights to the state’ argument; why not give the rights to each county, or better yet, each city? Heck while we’re at it, just give it to each individual?
Aseahawkfan wrote:We all know McConnell would just smile and wait to expand the court with conservative justices. Democrats know it too. You do something, we do something. That's how it works.
And it's funny Democrats don't even realize they are the reason Republicans were able to force through their candidates. Which is just another example of tit for tat politics.
It's why I say I've never seen the Republican not pay back the Democrats and vice versa. I truly believe Trump's Russian Collusion situation was payback by the Clintons for Republicans investigating Clinton so relentlessly. They couldn't go after Bush Jr. because he was protected from up on high by his father and men like Dick Cheney. But Trump has few political connections and was an easy, stupid target for the Clintons. They made his life a living hell to pay back the Republicans.
Clintons are probably the most powerful Democrats of the last 30 years.
RiverDog wrote:My advice to Dems regarding SCOTUS: Quit crying about it and rather than wringing your hands and cursing McConnell, dedicate your efforts to winning elections and you'll acquire the power to make your own damn appointments. Trump would have never been POTUS had the Dems nominated someone better than that wretch Hillary Clinton, who next to Trump, had the highest negative rating BY FAR than any major party POTUS nominee since Truman.
I-5 wrote:Back to the original post, what it will take to take Trump down is members of his own party growing a spine. It's astonishing how many of them are willing to go along with Trump's coup. The main agent though will be if the DOJ thinks it has strong enough evidence to prosecute.
The Democrats spend more time investigating Trump than they do governing.
I-5 wrote:Name the republicans who have a spine that can stand up to The Narcissist. Names.
The Democrats spend more time investigating Trump than they do governing.
I-5 wrote:This is pure hyperbole and quite meaningless. Are you saying Biden isn’t trying to push his legislative agenda? On the contrary, I think its quite ambitious, though of course he’s encountering obstacles from the opposing party. As for going after Trump, convince me the republicans wouldn’t do the same and more if a democrat tried to mount a coup by leading an insurrection on the Capitol that kills multiple people. Look how many times they went after Hillary and how many hours she spent under oath…
I-5 wrote:The main agent though (in taking Trump down) will be if the DOJ thinks it has strong enough evidence to prosecute.
I-5 wrote:You're right, Riv. I think 7-11 might have tougher employment requirements than running for the Oval Office.
The only reason there isn't a rule about felons not being able to run for office is because the Founders never imagined the citizens of our country would be stupid enough to vote a criminal in. But they were clearly wrong. Just shows how they couldn't plan for EVERYTHING. That's why we have amendments.
I-5 wrote:You're right, Riv. I think 7-11 might have tougher employment requirements than running for the Oval Office.
The only reason there isn't a rule about felons not being able to run for office is because the Founders never imagined the citizens of our country would be stupid enough to vote a criminal in. But they were clearly wrong. Just shows how they couldn't plan for EVERYTHING. That's why we have amendments.
I-5 wrote:You're right, Riv. I think 7-11 might have tougher employment requirements than running for the Oval Office.
The only reason there isn't a rule about felons not being able to run for office is because the Founders never imagined the citizens of our country would be stupid enough to vote a criminal in. But they were clearly wrong. Just shows how they couldn't plan for EVERYTHING. That's why we have amendments.
c_hawkbob wrote:Exactly. Good luck with that though ...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 147 guests