HawkShack.com

https://www.hawkshack.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2381

I wanted to pull up one of these old threads just to show how long we've been waiting for Trump to fall. This guy has been the face of American politics for going on six years now. One of the most polarizing figures in recent American political history and possibly all of American history. He's been living rent free in American's minds for going on six years now. He's either the crazy uncle you love or the crazy uncle you hate at this point.

How do you think Trumpism will finally end?

Trump's not going to jail. He won't have to cut any deals with anyone. I doubt that they'll ever get him in a court room, let alone a jail cell, and even if they were able to bring him before a court, there's no way they are not going to be able to find a fair and impartial jury of 12 men/women that would convict him.

This chapter in history will start to come to a close once Trump dies. Most of his supporters are old, so the movement will literally eventually die out, or at least that's my hope. But it's going to be with us for a while.

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: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 doubt it. These things change all the time. When I was young, it was Reagan. His effect lasted a long time. Then it was Bill Clinton with the whole Kennedy sort of appeal. That faded. Now it is new liberalism with the whole transgender, environmental Armageddon movement. Trump's stink may last a while, but not sure how long or how it will end. That's why even when I look at the above list, I have no idea which one is most likely. Trump is a big wild card and this whole Trump political period has been strange to say the least with so many factors affecting it all. It will fade at some point, just as it rose up with the rise of The Tea Party movement.

Political fads change all the time. Fox News will find some new candidate to push. But the reality is the political media is stronger than the individuals. They really drive all of this glomming on to whatever movement is currently in style. Tucker and whoever comes after him will just morph into whatever they need to become to keep the ratings high and the money coming in.

Wasn’t it supposed to fade after the election? Considering he’s the frontrunner for the republican nominee in 2024…

I-5 wrote:Wasn’t it supposed to fade after the election? Considering he’s the frontrunner for the republican nominee in 2024…

It's been 6 years. That isn't very long in political time. So not sure what your time frame is. I think in years, so when something changes I expect it to last as long as the person is alive or at least politically active.

The Clinton's have held power with Democrats for thirty years now since Bill rose up to win the presidency. The Obamas will hold some power for a while, but Barack seems less interested in holding power after he left the presidency.

The Bush's held a lot of power until Bush Sr. died. He pulled a lot of strings in government for a long time.

Trump's tendrils aren't near as deep in D.C. politics as the Clintons or Bush's, so I expect his stink to fade a lot sooner once he is either done politically or he dies. I doubt he holds powers for decades like the Bush and Clinton's did. His children don't seem interested or capable in carrying on his legacy like George Jr did the Bush legacy or Hilary did the Clinton Legacy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just as if the Republicans win back Congress taking the House and Senate, you can lay money down right now that Joe Biden is going to get nothing done and be under investigation for everything the Republicans can investigate him for from Hunter Biden to everything else they can work in. Maybe McConnell will show mercy since they have been Senators together a long time, but I doubt it. I have never seen these parties not pay each other back myself and both are waiting to gain enough voting power for payback. Whoever is in the Executive is going to have to prepare for it going in and I don't think Trump wants any of that. Just like I think Biden will wither in office under Republican attack if the Democrats screw up this issue that has been handed to them.

Americans in general have a really weird of view of their country "following the law" because they listen to whatever politicians or news sources that confirm their biases, but it has been shown time and time again that powerful politicians do not follow commonly held moral views and are very grey and malleable in their moral reasoning. It all comes down to power. Even respect for elections is more of a respect for order than it is a sense of morality. Not many politicians invite the chaos of questioning elections because they know that leads down to the path to a war torn nation. Even with Trump crossing this line that many Republicans don't want crossed, they still seem willing to rally around him to hold executive power to carry out their agenda.

But without Congress, Trump's just a lot of hot air with fake hair whining in the White House waiting for his next impeachment trial. Why would Republican power brokers want to support that spending millions? I doubt they would.

The elections are in November. The ramp up pushing abortion rights is just getting started. I noticed the ads starting to appear and the grass roots vote canvassing will push even harder closer to election day so it is not a forgotten issue. That is my expectation.

If the Democrats screw this up, it's going to be laughable for them to expect anything to happen to Trump. If they lose the Senate alone, they are likely all done from going after Trump in any real fashion. If they lose the House and Senate, Biden will be the one under investigation. We'll see conservative news stations ramping up the pressure with new Committees formed of Republicans going after Biden. It's gonna lead to a real clown show in D.C.

That's why I'll sacrifice some short-term Democrat stink in D.C. so they have the power to land the killing blow on Trump, while at the same time launching their crazy agenda which will only piss Americans off more to push Republicans back into power within another few years because Democrats for some reason can't see how crazy and stupid the Democrat platform is.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not going to make any predictions. My points are:

If Biden's popularity doesn't improve, then it would require a result that would be unprecedented in modern political history for the Democrats to do well in the midterms.

The Roe v Wade decision is over. There is no Part 2. At some point, it will get pushed out of the news cycle and the reaction to it will subside. Will the issue have enough stink left in it to last another 4+ months?

There's other events besides Roe v. Wade that hasn't happened in decades. Inflation and interest rates are at 40 year highs. Gas prices are at all time highs. Is the anger over RvW enough to overcome the anger with the economy? We both know all about voter's tendency to vote their pocket books.

Most women vote Democratic, and most of those that are upset with the SCOTUS decision were going to vote Democratic anyway. The number of voters that will either change their vote from one party to another or turn out to vote when they otherwise wouldn't is very limited and may not be enough to overcome the effect of the economy and a very unpopular incumbent President.

We'll have to wait until November to see who's right, but I'll make a gentleman's bet with bragging rights at stake that the R's will win the day.

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.

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.

It would only be bragging rights between ASF and myself. It's my prediction, not to be confused with my hope.

As far as the current GOP goes, yes, I agree, I'd much rather that they remain the opposition party if they maintain the same pro Trump configuration that they continue to embrace. But I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social moderate, and I have very little confidence in the Democrats to get us out of this economic situation we find ourselves in today.

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.

I agree about Trump. I haven't examined DeSantis that closely to see how aligned he is with Trumpism. He's apparently backing away from Trump and not seeking his endorsement. I do know that like a lot of R's, DeSantis reacted to the pandemic horribly, enough so that I don't want him as my POTUS.

I don't understand how you're linking SCOTUS with the PM of Hungary. SCOTUS is more of a social/domestic institution. Very little of what they do affects foreign policy.

DeSantis is a political climber with his eyes on the White House. He will only align with Trump as long as it benefits him, then he will seek to usurp Trump and take control of the party. You only need to look at DeSantis's education background to see the contempt he likely has for Trump. But he's also in it for the White House and has done everything in his background to position to become the first American of Italian descent to take the presidency. Trump is a tool for DeSantis. DeSantis is far more intelligent and educated than Trump. DeSantis is also very good at reading the flow of politics.

It seems the Democrats are unlikely to kill Trumpism, so the best I can hope for at this point is another Republican taking the helm from him, one with a very different education and mindset than Trump. DeSantis has the best chance of doing this at the moment and thus I will support him if he can pull off the win in the primaries because Biden is a terrible president, a few steps up from Trump but so out of touch with reality that he won only because of how absolutely terrible Trump is.

I'm damn tired of old people running this nation. I love my father and mother. I loved my grandparents. But they shouldn't have been running a nation in their late 60s and 70s, yet here we are with Congress and the presidency controlled by people who should be retired and out of office. There should be an age cap on the presidency as well as the age minimum. I'm tired of being caught up in crazy old people fighting about issues from the 60s, 70s, and 80s like the world hasn't changed dramatically.

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.

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: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.

Not only did SCOTUS refuse to even hear Trump's election claims and did so without a single public dissenting justice, but they also voted 7-2 against him in his attempt to prevent the state of New York from accessing his tax records when Trump attempted to invoke executive privilege when he was POTUS, including both Kavanaugh and Gorsch, justices that Trump nominated and both of whom penned opinions agreeing with the majority.

SCOTUS is not a pack full of narrow-minded right-wing hacks looking to tear down every thread of American fabric and replace it with something crafted to conform to their own personal POV's as some would have us believe. They are very conservative, for sure, but they are also professional and highly trained judges that have worked their way through the federal circuit courts and have gone through previous confirmation hearings prior to being nominated to SCOTUS.

I'm not comfortable with some of Judge Thomas's recent statements, but he's one justice out of nine.

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.

I disagree completely with your characterizations of Kavanaugh and Barrett, particularly the former, as 'extremists.' Just last week, SCOTUS ruled that the Biden Administration could end Trump's signature "Remain in Mexico" policy that has tormented so many liberals. Kavanaugh and Roberts joined the 3 liberals. Just over a year ago, both Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the liberals and voted to dismiss challenges to ObamaCare and in the same week, voted to maintain a key piece of legislation championed by liberals that strengthened the Clean Water Act. And there's other examples, including those already given regarding Trump's election claims and his efforts to protect his tax records. It is simply not true that SCOTUS is "run by extremists".

There's no doubt that we're entering an era where we can expect more conservative decisions coming down from SCOTUS, which isn't all bad. But it's not like we have a bunch of conservative hacks running barefoot through the Constitution as you are suggesting.

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?

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.

Thomas will be gone soon.

Democracy is not fragile. You should read more history and spend less time on emotionally driven arguments that make no sense. We have suffered far worse in the past, far, far, far worse. And here you are claiming Democracy is fragile while you live in a nation that survived a Civil War, multiple World Wars, slavery, and the like. Somehow the Supreme Court and reality T.V. Star are going to do to us what a Civil War, a few World Wars, and the crazy 60s cultural revolution, and slavery couldn't do? I doubt it.

What you claim can happen in America has already happened and far worse than it is now. Yet the people who it affected fought back and won their freedom and took parts of their lives back and did so even now. There was a time when women couldn't even vote in this country, now they are a powerful voting bloc.

Trump is nothing but an annoying narcissistic scumbag. And if we can't survive him after all the other crap we've survived far worse than Trump, we deserve what we get.

My grandfathers in the middle of World War 2, no cell phones, stuck in Germany and on the Philippine Islands, shelling all around them, no cell phones, no easy way out, and having to survive while Germany is trying to take over Europe, Japan is looking to take over Asia, eating crap, and I'm supposed to freak out about Democracy because the Supreme Court overturned a 50 year law allowing women to destroy their unborn children? Suffice it to say I am unmoved by the Supreme Court decision which did nothing but give back to the States something they had before.

How about growing a pair a remembering when times were really bad and hard and this country was truly in danger of collapsing. Not a time when you can complain on a computer forum while ordering food for take using your phone and watch T.V. or play video games all day between work while planning a day trip to another state paid for by your employer to have an abortion.

Life my grandparents lived. That was hard. Life nowadays easy. Trump just a whiny b**** that will eventually be gone. I have no doubt abortion rights nationwide will be restored at some point so women not wanting those developing humans can get rid of them.

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.

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?

I see once again you haven't really read the Constitution.

First, rights were given to the States who each create a Constitution governing how politics work the State level. The reasons States were given rights is so they could operate as independent political entities as long as they were not creating laws against Federal rights. The idea being that groups of people within States would have their cultural ideas of how they wanted their State to be. It would be ensconced into law so that the Federal government would not try to force a State to comply with a Federal culture pushed by the Federal government on all States. States were always supposed to be independent entities in a Constitutional Republic controlled by the people within the State according their beliefs and norms.

Second, there are individual rights. Freedom of Speech is an individual right protected against removal by the government whether at the State or Federal level. A government of any kind cannot removed your First Amendment right in America unlike say Canada or New Zealand where a right can be removed by a simple majority vote. In America it takes a serious vote by a majority of Congress in both the House and Senate to remove your 1st Amendment Right. Same as it takes that type of vote to remove your 2nd Amendment right or any other Amendment including your right to a jury trial. This limits what State governments can do as well.

This is why people like Riverdog and myself would greatly prefer that voting should require some kind of knowledge test before you can vote, but our Constitution doesn't allow it because your right to vote is an individual right that the government cannot deny save under certain very specific circumstances. The State cannot deny it nor the Federal government.

It seems when the Supreme Court upholds these rights for Americans, people are fine. But when it takes a right that was never enumerated in the Constitution and returns it to the States per Constitutional Law, suddenly you're asking questions you should know? You should know what individual rights you have as a citizen and how State rights work within the confines of the United States and why.

If Democrats want an individual right of abortion, then they should create an Amendment in the Constitution for this individual right. The mechanism of government allows for this. You have an open discussion with America and you create an Amendment after that discussion if enough of America using their elected representatives vote to create a law ensconcing that right, same as they did for voting, freedom of speech, to outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude, and the rest of your individual rights.

At least try to understand your country at some point. It makes for better debate at least.

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.

He's a male, who usually die sooner. And ten years is soon to me. That's a couple of presidents and not even one generation of Americans.

I'm not much of an alarmist. A realist, yes, an alarmist no. I have zero fear of the current Supreme Court. I had zero fear of the Supreme Court when it had more liberal justices. This is all just overblown BS brought about by Trump and the type of obsession he seems to inspire in others where they try to paint him as either exceedingly great or exceedingly bad. He's just a man to me, a very annoying man who has some strange power to make people act like idiots. That is the part I'm most tired of is how Trump makes others act and feel more so than what the man himself does.

I could easily last with four years of Trump in office as I did absent a pandemic if the people around him didn't react to stupidly. Whether it is the Democrats painting him as the Devil and acting like he is going to end Democracy to his stupid followers showing up to riot on January 6th because the whining baby made some unsubstantiated claim of election fraud. I know it's a small percentage actually doing this as even most of the Trump people I know had no intention of going to D.C. on January 6th and were quite ready to move on from 2020 without issue. But he seems to inspire enough stupid reactions from people to make America a very annoying and chaotic place. Why so many people give Trump this power over them I do not know. But he has it. I have to acknowledge he has it. I hope he is gone soon if for no other reason that his power to make it all about him creates a situation of more extreme and stupid politics than I've ever seen and I'm tired of it.

I don't consider him a danger to overall America. He's just a polarizing, selfish figure.

The greater danger to overall America is beyond Trump and will continue after he is gone. The Democrats are as responsible a the Republicans for the current polarized state of American politics. I have no idea how long the Democrats think they can keep trying to shove down Republicans throats all these social issues they are pushing with transgender rights, rewriting American history, defunding the police and trying to force Americans as a whole to accept these changes before they just refuse to opt into the system which is why you're seeing increased homeschooling and a stronger desire to disconnect from American society because of the absolute rubbish ideas of society Democrats are pushing on Americans who don't want to participate. The Democrats won't even leave these folks alone with their home schooling and desire not to be part of mainstream America as they use lawyers to go after these people on a near constant basis to force them to buy what they're selling. Even corporations are choosing a side against these conservative folks who would if they had the choice not even work for them any longer, but they can't even avoid working for these corporations they've become so big.

That attitude is not going to change once Trump leaves office. I see it more and more amongst my conservative buddies: the desire to disconnection from the mainstream idea of America Democrats are selling as part of their platform. The 1619 Project rewriting American history. Howard Zinn's agenda driven history books lauded by the Democratic left. Title 9 being used to force schools to lettmen that transition to females to compete in female sports by Democrats. The Democrat interpretation of separation of Church and State being no Church, all State being able to force equivalent philosophies to religion on students in the education system such as Atheism or Paganism without limitation.

These people want to opt out and the Democrats with corporate support are creating a social matrix where the only escape is not participating and avoiding. These are the folks supporting Trump as an act of anger and rebellion against what they view as Democrats forcing a paradigm on America they do not agree with and do not want to be a part of. That isn't going to change when Trump is gone. They'll look for another leader to push back against what they view as tyrannical use of government and corporate power.

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?

If the Dems expand the court from 9 to 11, you can bet your bottom dollar that once the R's regain control, they'll expand it from 11 to 13. That's the problem with the court packing plan. But don't hold your breath. If the Dems can't get Manchin and Sinema to go along with much less controversial bills, do you honestly think that they'd be able to keep them on the reservation for something as Earth shaking as a court packing plan? Heck, even Biden was skeptical of it.

And as far as blaming McConnell for starting this food fight, do you know who it was that eliminated the rule that the confirmation of federal judges be subject to a filibuster, which is what the R's used to get their SCOTUS nominees Gorsch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett through with a simple majority vote rather than the filibuster-proof 60 votes? Democrat Harry Reid back in 2013.

Your last paragraph is nonsensical and unbecoming of you. The Constitution specifically calls out states, not counties, cities, or individuals. You must know that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Both these parties have gone so crazy, I don't know how Americans feel comfortable voting for much of what they support. It's like being trapped in a room with two crazies and having to try to navigate the two crazies as they yell crazy stuff at each other and act insane to the detriment of the trapped. It's damn sad.

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.

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.

They have a spine. What they lack like the Democrats is a sense of morality and a willingness to abdicate power for the betterment of the nation.

It's going to get real bad for Democrats and I think they know it if Congress is retaken by the Republicans because you'll see committee's formed to investigate Biden. If the Democrats can take the Senate, then maybe they can make something stick. So the coming elections will be real important.

I want to see how the Republicans view crazy now in the Republican primaries. So far Trump's held on to his frontrunner position for president, but he's sounding crazier and crazier in his yapping. I read a survey that people in both parties are getting tired of the current political leadership and want younger, new political leaders than this group of clowns we have right now. They're getting real, real tired of the Republican and Democrat infighting and the constant Trump obsessing with both parties. Real tired of it.

The Democrats spend more time investigating Trump than they do governing. The Republicans spend more time complaining about Democrats than they do governing. It's getting really, really tiresome. Government is not supposed to be in the news as much as they are. They're supposed to operate in a relatively quiet manner, not be constantly bloating this nation's legal system and creating a trash society that they are constantly tinkering with. Government is supposed to be quiet and only involve themselves when necessary. But you have a bunch of Big Government Democrats wanting to use the power of government to shove a bunch of crap down our throat using a gun barrel held by the police and various other government agencies or Big Government Republicans wanting to send us our "military" missions to defend our freedom when all they really want is to protect oil assets in the Middle East. How do we get rid of these people and get America back to being America? Not sure. We don't seem to have a leader who can do it and the American people are so uneducated and unaware of how America should run versus how they are run that it is unlikely to happen.

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.

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:Name the republicans who have a spine that can stand up to The Narcissist. Names.

My representative in Congress, Dan Newhouse, who voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6th riots. I'll be voting for his re-election this November.

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…

It seems like that's all of what Congress does when there's a split between the Executive and Legislative branches, and that's fine with me. I'd rather they debate themselves than screw things up even further by passing idiotic legislation. I'd rather they do nothing at all rather than lump us with something we'll have to live with for decades.

As far as Biden's problems go, he has as much of a problem keeping his own party on the reservation as he has with the opposition party. If he can't convince everyone in his own party of the righteousness of his proposals, how do you expect him to convince even one Republican?

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 don't care how much evidence the DOJ can produce, I'd bet my life savings against them or anyone else (state of New York, for example) from landing a punch on DJT. His lawyers will go into a four corner offense (a CBK term from the 70's) and run out the clock on any charges they might file. Even if they did manage to get him in a courtroom, there is no way that they will be able to select a fair and impartial jury that would convict him of a felony.

Besides, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents a convicted felon from running for President. Age, country of birth, and residency are the only requirements.

That was a big part of my original objection to the Jan. 6th investigation, an objection I've now withdrawn. They cannot justify the committee's activities by the prospect of holding Trump legally accountable for his actions/inactions nor prevent him from running for office again.

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.

Exactly. Good luck with that though ...

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.

It was a different day and age in the 16th century. There was a class system, and the ruling class simply did not commit crimes, at least not those that were prosecuted back then. The legal system wasn't anywhere near as robust. Some crimes, even murder, weren't considered a crime if it could be justified or considered fair, such as two men dueling with pistols or shooting a man you caught in bed with your wife.

On the other hand, we shouldn't need a long set of qualifications to be the POTUS. We voters should be smart enough not to vote for a convicted criminal. One thing that some of the Founding Fathers got right, which is as true today as it was back then, is that the common man is too stupid to be given the right to vote.

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 ...

Yep. The bar for amendments was set too high IMO. How in the hell are we ever going to get 2/3's of Congress AND 2/3's of the states to pass an amendment when we literally can't agree on the time of day.

What do you think will really take Trump down?

What, nobody said Alex Jones' emails and texts? Evidently they are the only texts that didn't get deleted that week ... thank god for incompetent lawyers sending 2 years of downloaded cell phone to the wrong side!