The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well we'll wait and see about Arizona. Pundits seem to think it's a done deal; they don't seem to have considered it's only Election Day votes left to count.

Ohio called, but Texas and Florida not, which is very poor. Iowa should be called soon for Trump. Trump with healthy leads in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania...he needs 'em if Arizona's going blue.

Georgia seems to be faltering for Trump, but he's still ahead for now. North Carolina's probably in recount territory. unless Trump has more votes to secure it.

This mainstream media bias is quite something. Trump 49-48 ahead in Montana, 50% voted...oh yeah, that's too close to call. Trump 50-48 ahead in Virginia, 76% voted....oh yeah, we're calling that for Biden.

Duty281 wrote:Trump has been hurt by these midterms, while DeSantis' prospects have never looked better, however the average polling lead for Trump over DeSantis before these midterms was around 25-40%. Has Trump been harmed enough for that lead to have disappeared?

Think Trump going into primary mode before midterm voting even started is going to end up costing him. Looks a lot different when you're going after your enemies within the party when the people you were backing lose. DeSantis gets to stay out of it for now because of the hurricane too.

Should we maybe change this thread to “The Biden presidency” or even “US Politics”?

With the Democrats now confirmed to be holding The Senate (and the House still a close run thing , although presumably falling to their opponents , albeit narrowly) ; not to mention a lot of the "Trump Special" candidates doing poorly - it is getting harder for the Great Truth-twister to spin this as any sort of endorsement.

What am I saying ?! Of course he won't care : already saying that Nevada and Arizona have been "stolen"...

Seriously do suspect his chances of facing off with whoever the Dems put up in two years have taken a hit. And perhaps if he fears defeat he won't be interested in actually going through with another run? Could be a fair few Republicans might be thinking that might be best...

Donald Trump is the bogeyman - and people will vote and accept anything that is not associated with the bogeyman.  As Biden said these mid-terms was to save Democracy and to save Democracy you had to vote Democrat - and the majority agreed with him. Hence the Democrats hold the Senate and it is business as usual for Biden's governance for another two years.

alfie wrote:With the Democrats now confirmed to be holding The Senate (and the House still a close run thing , although presumably falling to their opponents , albeit narrowly) ; not to mention a lot of the "Trump Special" candidates doing poorly - it is getting harder for the Great Truth-twister to spin this as any sort of endorsement.

What am I saying ?! Of course he won't care : already saying that Nevada and Arizona have been "stolen"...

Seriously do suspect his chances of facing off with whoever the Dems put up in two years have taken a hit. And perhaps if he fears defeat he won't be interested in actually going through with another run? Could be a fair few Republicans might be thinking that might be best...

Yes, I agree Trump's chances have taken a big hit, and he's the biggest loser from these elections. The question being is how long-lasting this hit will be, with the primaries still over a year away (although I think the campaigning stuff starts in the middle of 2023).

The first poll about the Republican primaries since the midterms has shown DeSantis in the lead over Trump for the very first time - 42%-35%. Temporary bounce that Trump will recover from, or sign of things to come?

I wonder what would happen, also, if Trump lost in the primaries. Would he run as a third-party candidate, split the Republican vote and let the Democrats back in?

Trump officially announces his campaign.

Should be a laugh if nothing else.

Samo wrote:Trump officially announces his campaign.  

Should be a laugh if nothing else.

Would be more of a laugh if he wasn't likely to win at least the Republican Party nomination - he still has a level of 'brand recognition' that plays well with a sufficient part of the Republcan's current supporters that he's a strong contender in the Primaries.

I do wonder if the 'traditional' Republicans will rally round a single alternative candidate, probably someone a bit less radical than De Santis (look for him as a VP possibility, to attract the right, in the same way that McCain was paired with Palin in 2008) - someone who espouses low tax and low spend, small government policies (i.e., do the same as the Dems did in the last election cycle in focussing on the establishment candidate in Biden, both to keep Sanders off the ballot and to pull sufficient independents and fiscally conservative middle class Republicans away from Trump)

After most of his candidates lost in the mid-terms I think a lot of senior Republicans will take that into account. He's also going to have to explain what went wrong in the last year of his term, what the hell all that was about at the Capitol, and the fact he's got two major legal cases hanging over his head.

He's still wildly popular with voters (despite losing the popular vote twice) but I think cooler heads will prevail and the party will select someone less controversial.

For now Trump's the clear favourite to gain the nomination, but that changes if DeSantis enters the race. I can't currently see another Republican candidate that looks viable, but it could all alter.

Trump does still seem to be wildly popular with the grassroots Republican support, at least for now. I wouldn't be concerned about the popular vote so much, that's pretty much decided by California and New York, and the Republicans don't bother with those places, so it's difficult to envisage any Republican winning the popular vote in 2024.

Samo wrote:After most of his candidates lost in the mid-terms I think a lot of senior Republicans will take that into account.  He's also going to have to explain what went wrong in the last year of his term, what the hell all that was about at the Capitol, and the fact he's got two major legal cases hanging over his head.

He's still wildly popular with voters (despite losing the popular vote twice) but I think cooler heads will prevail and the party will select someone less controversial.

Actually quite a few more than that:
Violation of the Presidential Records Act. The addition to this is that if the contents of some of the Classified documents he illegally had in his possession became known to people without appropriate clearance, he could also be charged under the Espionage Act. This is probably the biggest legal challenge Trump personally faces at the moment, in that the case against him is pretty cut and dried - documents that should have been in the possession of The National Archive were being held at Trump property(s), and were not returned first under request then subpoena. Might not be the most serious charges he could face (other than the potential violations of the Espionage Act, which would be a BIG deal), but the easiest prosecution to make.

Illegal interference in the Georgia elections in 2020 - A special grand jury is looking into this, but my suspicion is that Trump will just about get away with this one on the question of whether anything he said was clearly illegal. Others acting on Trump's behalf may be in greater danger of being found guilty of illegal action

Possible charges following the January 6th Commission. Again, I think that Trump will escape prosecution, or at least a guilty verdict as there's just enough plausible deniability in what he said and did. Again, others in the Trump orbit may be in significantly more trouble.

NY probe into The Trump Organisation. A Civil rather than criminal case at this time regarding misleading property valuations. Trump (well, his company) will lose and be fined and he'll be barred from certain commercial activities in NY, but is unlikely to face criminal charges unless this also ties in with tax fraud (possible, but hard to prove).

There's another case involving the Trump Organisation's former CFO that relates to 'payments in kind' and similar means of illegally avoiding tax liability. Possible that Trump, as the boss of the company, will have some criminal liability, but I'm not convinced the case will be strong enough to find him guilty.

E Jean Carroll civil suit over an historic sexual assault allegations.

Pretty sure I've missed a few others. Also worth pointing out that while Trump has previously claimed that the DoJ can't arrest and charge him while he's running for President (noting that most lawyers disagree with this assertion - there may be some special protection for the President, although even this is far from universal, there seems to be no good reason it would extend to Presidential candidates), this does not protect him from any charges made at state level

Will be interesting to see whether the Republicans are prepared to accept him as their candidate again , given the events of the last couple of years...and what Trump would do if DeSantis or some other were preferred : would he run as a third party ? Would destroy their hopes of course by splitting the vote but he wouldn't care...

Saw an article - pretty plausible , I think - that Trump has about 30% of Republican voters basically welded on to him as The Messiah ; 10% so violently against they would vote Democrat or at least not vote sooner than back him ...and the other 60% currently unsure : would maybe vote for him if they had no better offer but are looking for someone more sensible and electable - if such appears.

The media absolutely love Donald Trump.  Ever since he declared his candidacy back in 2015 the British Media have been almost hysterical - reporting story after story about personality and how evil, racist, sexist, islamophobic, anti-Chinese, lunatic, dangerous he is.   Quite clearly the media lost a sense of impartiality and relevant reporting.   I read stories of University Lecturers in London breaking down in tears and cancelling classes when they heard he had actually won in 2016.  English professors then held discussion classes with their students on expressions of melancholy and hopelessness.   It was beyond ridiculous.   The only thing I learned was how poor journalism had become.  I am not looking forward to the next two years where most of American and World politics is going to be linked to Donald Trump in some way.

alfie wrote:Will be interesting to see whether the Republicans are prepared to accept him as their candidate again , given the events of the last couple of years...and what Trump would do if  DeSantis or some other were preferred : would he run as a third party ?  Would destroy their hopes of course by splitting the vote but he wouldn't care...

Saw an article - pretty plausible , I think - that Trump has about 30% of Republican voters basically welded on to him as The Messiah ; 10% so violently against they would vote Democrat or at least not vote sooner than back him ...and the other 60% currently unsure : would maybe vote for him if they had no better offer but are looking for someone more sensible and electable - if such appears.

Haven't seen any quantified breakdown like that, but certainly the categories are correct and my gut instinct (baed on what I've seen on other social media) is that the proportions are ballpark right. The problem is that losing the 10% of moderates to the Democrats + third party candidates (i.e. at most a 20% swing, probably more like 15%) is better electoral maths than losing the 30% true believers, and given how tight the US elections are in the last two cycles*, every little helps. Of course the 60% of Republicans who are unsure could be swayed by the VP nominee, at least with regards to evidence of whether Trump will try to me more moderate or just go full-on crazy - presently it sounds like he may be looking at the utterly batsh1t crazy Rep Marjorie Taylor-Greene as an option. WHether than's a serious suggestion or just him trolling I'm unsure, but it would be a gift to the Democrats if he chose her, as it would push some of the 'uncertains' away

* Ignoring the popular vote, but based on the state by state majorities that gave Trump and Biden their wins, Trump won by taking Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by a cumulative 77000 votes (if everyone who voted Green had voted for Clinton, the result would have reversed). Biden's win was even a little tighter, as flipping Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona (giving a tied Electoral College, and Trump likely taking the Presidency because of the rules operating in the event of a tie) required 43000

Yes, the last election was the second closest by % of votes cast in at least the last 100 years of US Presidential Elections.

Duty281 wrote:Yes, the last election was the second closest by % of votes cast in at least the last 100 years of US Presidential Elections.

I think it also worked out as the election where the electoral college most strongly skewed the results by comparison with the popular vote, which is something that has more commonly benefitted the Republicans over the last several elections (although this has varied through time).

Wile I think the EC system is flawed, I can understand for a federation like the USA that some form of State by State system probably has some justification, rather than going for a pure majority. It would probably be better if the rest of the states adopted something like the Maine and Nebraska approach of splitting their EC votes - State winner takes the 2 votes ascribed to the Senate seat, while the rest of the EC votes are proportioned in line with the vote split - would mean that Republican votes in California and Democrat votes in Montana could still have an influence, unlike the 'winner takes all' currently employed

dummy_half wrote:...

I think it also worked out as the election where the electoral college most strongly skewed the results by comparison with the popular vote, which is something that has more commonly benefitted the Republicans over the last several elections (although this has varied through time).
...

Just to follow up on this, in this election it looks like the skew is rather the other way, with the Republicans getting about 3% more of the popular vote share (exact number not yet available), but barely scraping a majority in the House of Representatives. SHows that it matters a lot WHERE you get the votes,not just how many - Increasing winning margins in 'safe' seats doesn't affect anything, whereas getting people out and voting for good candidates in competitive seats makes a lot more difference to the important results (that is, how many seats you win)

Duty281 wrote:Yes, the last election was the second closest by % of votes cast in at least the last 100 years of US Presidential Elections.

Probably find Bush v Gore is closest after Kennedy v Nixon which will probably always be the closest....

Closest contest ever would be Garfield v Hancock back in late 18 something.....President Rutherford Hayes fell foul of the GOP would be modernisers and got dropped from the ticket...He got replaced by James Garfield who had to stick an old corrupt stalwart in Chester Arthur on his ticket.....Made the Election a nail biter...Garfield won by less than 10k...Hancock did better than anticipated.

President Garfield got assassinated at Washington station 3 months later.....and Arthur disappointingly for many turned out to be angelic...His nickname is "Power uncorrupted"...

Hope you enjoyed the history lesson....My pleasure..

No election will ever be determined by fewer votes than Bush v Gore - it was so close we don't even know for certain the correct winner was declared*, as the margin in Florida was less than the precision of the counting methods, although the official results gave the state to W by 537 votes (0.009% margin). Add in the estimated 2500 - 3000 misplaced votes for Buchanan in Palm Beach (which as a County went to Gore by a 2:1 margin) and it's obvious that the history of the start of the 21st Century could easily have been very different.

Also, Gore only needed to win any one other state to have flipped the Electoral College.

*I've seen various claims either way, but as a full manual recount has never been undertaken, partly because not all ballots were preserved, there are always assumptions made that probably introduce greater uncertainty.

Trump keeping official documents in places he shouldn't hasn't stopped his GOP momentum much..

Trump 56
DeSantis 27
Pence 7

Problem is his overall rating is...

App 31
Disapp 67....Not anywhere near the WH ballpark.

Still with the last poll.....

Biden 43
Trump 42.....GOP winning the lower House and gridlocking....Plus Trump 7 ahead of Harris it is not a lost cause just yet..

Personally I see Trump's age costing him and warmonger Desantis winning Penn avenue over Biden.

Desantis is similar to Trump in not having much appeal to the independents (although probably doesn't motivate as many to actively vote against him), so in the GE would be relying on a heavy turn out from the right of the Republican party. The question is whether any candidate other than Trump has sufficient pull to keep the MAGA Republicans voting in large enough numbers.

Also, there's the question of what does Trump do if he loses the Republican Primary? Does he run Independent, or does he shout from the sidelines about how his loss was not legitimate? Either would have an effect to suppress the Republican vote. Maybe not by a huge amount in the second instance, but US Elections are decided by not many votes at the moment so it matters

I can't help but think that the best thing for the Republican Party would be for Trump to die or have a significant health scare that puts him out of the race. As a near 80 year old with a notoriously crappy diet and whose idea of exercise is to swing a golf club then climb back in a buggy, the odds on that are reasonable.

Biden doesn't exactly inspire mass confidence either. His turnout was a large part "he's not trump". Think DeSanctis would campaign pretty well against him

GSC wrote:Biden doesn't exactly inspire mass confidence either. His turnout was a large part "he's not trump". Think DeSanctis would campaign pretty well against him

Partly agree, but the mid-terms were fought with lots of headwinds for Biden (high inflation, high gas prices etc) and yet the Democrats actually managed to improve their position in the Senate and only lost the House by a handful of seats, so Biden obviously isn't a big negative on the campaign. By 2024, there's a likelihood that inflation will have largely played itself out of the system, while gas prices will be particularly influenced both by OPEC's decisions on production and the evolving situation in Ukraine. There's a fair chance the political environment will look better for the Democrats by then.

Obviously there are negatives regarding Biden as a candidate - he's just turned 80, and while his health is excellent for someone if his age, he is old. He also has never been the greatest public speaker, and that's certainly not improving now, so he's not hugely inspiring. There' also the question of whether he really wants to run again, and whether the Democratic Party machinery wants him to - a younger, more dynamic alternative could be the way forward. From what I've seen, Pete Buttigieg has the abilities to be a good President, but I doubt Middle America is ready for an openly gay man to be President, even one who was a Rhodes Scholar and distinguished military officer.

The biggest bonus for Biden at these mid-terms was the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade. That boosted the turnout of Democratic voters enormously and was a key driver, otherwise there wouldn't have been as much interest from the blue side.

Biden's turnout in 2020 was almost entirely down to 'he's not Trump'. It's one of the drawbacks of the American system and the stranglehold the Dem/Rep duo have on their politics - if an incumbent President is standing for a second term and a voter doesn't like that President, then their only meaningful option is to vote for the other party's nominee. You could have plucked an ordinary person off the street and they would have achieved the same as Biden (perhaps even done a little better than Biden who once told a worker 'you're full of s**t'; Biden's all class).

Even the midterms to me ended up being a rejection of both trumpism and a republican establishment that largely rolled out the red carpet for him. If DeSanctis can sell himself as a clean break I'm not sure Biden has much to fight with

New Hampshire the first big test.....

Trump 58....Desantis 17....

New Hampshire WH24...

Biden 42 Trump 38...
Biden 42 Desantis 37....

Biden at 41% positive app is the highest he has been in a while.....Some Job growth and a hold on inflation....

He is also 80 and not that cognitive....But he will run.

I think there is a greater chance of nuclear annihilation and the world not existing as we know it come election day (Nov 5 2024) than Donald Trump actually winning that election.

Trump being indicted, apparently multiple charges. Hard to tell whether this is a bad thing for him or good as it seems to be galvanising his support.

The circus continues...

Politically it could have gone either way. The Republicans could have deserted Trump and left him out in the cold. Instead they appear to have rallied behind him, and even DeSantis, his main Republican rival, has supported him.

So, politically, it's worked out well for now, and will likely boost Trump's chances of winning the Republican primary *if* he runs. Certainly it helps his narrative.

But if he ends up convicted, maybe he won't be able to run? Obviously any boost to support would be redundant in that case.

Yeah, yeah Doots. Forget all that serious stuff.

What we all want to see is him in a jump suit looking like a massive f*cking tangerine.

Even if he does end up convicted, we won't see him in orange (well, no more than usual), in handcuffs or even inside a jail cell.

He'll have some cushy 5* hotel, or he might flee abroad.

He'll have to get mugshots taken. It'll be fantastic.

All the noise we're hearing from Trump and his supporters is no different from what we saw from Johnson and his remaining fans re the privileges committee. They know they can't influence the proceedings, so they're left with trying to shape the narrative. It's annoying, and tedious, but it won't make a blind bit of difference to the outcome.

As for Trump's prospects, it's one thing to gain support among Republicans, quite another to gain support among independents. There's no route to the White House for him if he doesn't win back the latter.

mountain man wrote:Trump being indicted, apparently multiple charges. Hard to tell whether this is a bad thing for him or good as it seems to be galvanising his support.

The circus continues...

May well rally the wing nuts, but that not enough to win the White House IMO. Suspect moderate (are there any?) Republicans won't say so if asked, but come the election may well abstain/vote for the Democrat. Trump's that bad.

These charges are only the start too. Would imagine the Georgia shenanigans and the secret documents issue are a much bigger problem ultimately.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Yeah, yeah Doots. Forget all that serious stuff.

What we all want to see is him in a jump suit looking like a massive f*cking tangerine.

He doesn't need the jump suit for that ...

So Trump ill be in Court later today for formal charging
From what I understand of this case, it's all a bit self-inflicted for Trump - there's obviously no law against having an affair, and there isn't a law against him paying 'hush money' to Ms Daniels or the other adult star (name escapes me). The legal issues are whether he claimed the funds as being a legitimate business expense and so tax deductible (which obviously it isn't, so may be tax fraud), and/or whether the timing made it de facto a campaign finance violation, in being an undeclared use of funds to support his Presidential campaign in 2015.

My feeling is that while these charges are relatively unimportant in and of themselves, the significance is the precedent of charging the ex President - makes it much more likely that other indictments will be forthcoming for some or all of the attempted election manipulation in Georgia, the document possession and involvement in January 6th.

Regardless, it still amazes me how many avowed Christians support Trump as an example of morality despite his history of marital infidelity and financial dishonesty (he has a history of non-payment of contractors working for him, plus obviously pushes tax rules a VERY long way) .

Apparently they're not going to take a mugshot of him. I'd like to know on what grounds they've decided not to do it.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Apparently they're not going to take a mugshot of him. I'd like to know on what grounds they've decided not to do it.

Hasn't been a camera invented that can handle that level of contrast between a stark white background and fluorescent orange.

What I don't understand is if he is convicted of a felony offence he can still run for President. I thought being a convicted criminal would automatically exclude someone or it at least it definitely should.

mountain man wrote:What I don't understand is if he is convicted of a felony offence he can still run for President. I thought being a convicted criminal would automatically exclude someone or it at least it definitely should.

Oddly, there is no Federal law or statement in the Constitution that precludes a convicted felon from running for public office, unless they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US Government (these are post Civil War clauses, to prevent a former Confederate leader becoming President), provided they otherwise meet the requirements.
Individual States have differing laws regarding felons running for state offices, ranging from no restrictions to them needing a pardon, although it seems the most common is that you can only run after the end of your sentence. How that might apply to someone running for President has never been legally tested - could potentially have the situation where Trump could not be on the ballot in some states?

I was listening to Radio 4 in the car yesterday and they were interviewing a (British) documentary maker who'd been given lots of access to Trump and his inner circle around 2020. One of the comments he made was that Trump would do his own makeup, spending a couple of hours on it every day.

Yesterday will have really wounded Trump. As the Washington Post put it, he was the centre of attention, but not master of ceremonies. He's always been able to call the shots, but not yesterday. It probably explains how low-energy he was at Mar-a-Lago in the evening. For someone so vain, and so thin-skinned, to suffer the indignity of being fingerprinted and appearing in front of a judge, it'll have done a fair bit of damage to his ego.

dummy_half wrote:

mountain man wrote:What I don't understand is if he is convicted of a felony offence he can still run for President. I thought being a convicted criminal would automatically exclude someone or it at least it definitely should.

Oddly, there is no Federal law or statement in the Constitution that precludes a convicted felon from running for public office, unless they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the US Government (these are post Civil War clauses, to prevent a former Confederate leader becoming President), provided they otherwise meet the requirements.
Individual States have differing laws regarding felons running for state offices, ranging from no restrictions to them needing a pardon, although it seems the most common is that you can only run after the end of your sentence. How that might apply to someone running for President has never been legally tested - could potentially have the situation where Trump could not be on the ballot in some states?

I presume this relates to the assumption that, in the past, it would have been obvious to anyone w/ half a brain that someone in Trump's current position (should have been obvious the first time he stood as well) is demonstrably not fit to stand for any office, and therefore wouldn't. Doubly so if convicted. I guess that the assumption would also be that the House and Senate wouldn't be so childishly partisan and would have ensured someone of such obviously flawed (and criminal) character wouldn't make it onto any ballot. Therefore, they didn't feel the need for any such statute to make clear a convict couldn't stand. Sadly, they've lost the plot. You've even got pillocks such as Jim Jordan(?) talking about subpoenaing the NY DA, demanding he gives up evidence to GOP-led committees when this is an ongoing case and defunding the FBI etc.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Yesterday will have really wounded Trump. As the Washington Post put it, he was the centre of attention, but not master of ceremonies. He's always been able to call the shots, but not yesterday. It probably explains how low-energy he was at Mar-a-Lago in the evening. For someone so vain, and so thin-skinned, to suffer the indignity of being fingerprinted and appearing in front of a judge, it'll have done a fair bit of damage to his ego.

Good. Hopefully, the Jan 6th, Georgia and documents prosecutors will all pile on soon...

And he can do as much fundraising  / grifting as he wants, he can't buy his way out of any of it. It's great.

Trump can keep this case going past the next WH election.......No President will go to Jail anyway or the US looks like a laughing stock.

It's all pathetic and political the same as with the Corbyn antisemite garbage....Trump isn't a political insider like the corrupt Clintons.....Who used Foundation money to fund their Daughter's wedding and were close friends of Epstein...Billy boy was on how many flights ??

But the Clinton's are Democrats and New York is Democrat alley....

Stupid thing is Trump is very beatable and Biden should want to take him on.....After all DeSantis will play with his carcass in three debates when Biden spends five minutes trying to remember his own name..

Trump isn't taking this garbage too seriously nor should he..

Agree with most of that, Truss. If only public anger went towards the real criminals, rather than 'Orange Man Bad'.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:....the US looks like a laughing stock.

It has been for some time.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:....the US looks like a laughing stock.

It has been for some time.

Only really since Buck Privates though.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trump can keep this case going past the next WH election.......No President will go to Jail anyway or the US looks like a laughing stock.

It's all pathetic and political the same as with the Corbyn antisemite garbage....Trump isn't a political insider like the corrupt Clintons.....Who used Foundation money to fund their Daughter's wedding and were close friends of Epstein...Billy boy was on how many flights ??

That Trump once held office does not put him above the law. Either you go with the laws or you don't.

The current charges are on the more trivial end from what I understand, but there is a great deal more to come. For instance the issue with the top secret documents should be enough to finish him off, and then there are the tax evasion issues.

Corbyn. Best thing that ever happened to the Tories. He may or may not have been an antisemite, but he definitely had friends who were. It might have been the easiest and laziest thing to have been used to dethrone him, but there was always more. I don't have a view on his politics, I just know he was very limited and easily shown up. The media witch hunt thing blew up so badly because he couldn't engage unless the journalists he talked to were already fans, so it was always easier to take the 'martyr' route instead. Contrast with Starmer, who isn't a natural at talking to crowds (although he's getting better) but infinitely better at dealing with journalists and diffusing the media BS.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No President will go to Jail anyway or the US looks like a laughing stock.

Why would an ex-president going to jail make a country look like a laughing stock? Genuine question.

lostinwales wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trump can keep this case going past the next WH election.......No President will go to Jail anyway or the US looks like a laughing stock.

It's all pathetic and political the same as with the Corbyn antisemite garbage....Trump isn't a political insider like the corrupt Clintons.....Who used Foundation money to fund their Daughter's wedding and were close friends of Epstein...Billy boy was on how many flights ??

That Trump once held office does not put him above the law. Either you go with the laws or you don't.

The current charges are on the more trivial end from what I understand, but there is a great deal more to come. For instance the issue with the top secret documents should be enough to finish him off, and then there are the tax evasion issues.

Corbyn. Best thing that ever happened to the Tories. He may or may not have been an antisemite, but he definitely had friends who were. It might have been the easiest and laziest thing to have been used to dethrone him, but there was always more. I don't have a view on his politics, I just know he was very limited and easily shown up. The media witch hunt thing blew up so badly because he couldn't engage unless the journalists he talked to were already fans, so it was always easier to take the 'martyr' route instead. Contrast with Starmer, who isn't a natural at talking to crowds (although he's getting better) but infinitely better at dealing with journalists and diffusing the media BS.

Scattergun approach..........

The current Trump charges are misdemeanor offences that have been upgraded to felony so an ambitious attorney can try to get on in his Career....Silly billy stuff because even Liberal commentators expect Trump to win.....So if he does get charged with other stuff after, people will think its a witchhunt......so it is counterproductive...

As for top secret documents....Well breaking the law on those didn't do Hillary Clinton any harm did it ????.....

What friends did Corbyn have that were anti-semites please let us know.....Don't forget he was a Spy who sold secrets as well at one time....

They tried the IRA stuff with Corbyn and the Communist card in 2017 and he nearly won......So they chucked Anti semitism at him after (No AS before 2017 was there) like they tried to with Bernie Sanders....It's the last resort card.....Corbyn wasn't a good leader and I'd rather he hadn't been one as I tend to vote for the Centre to Centre-left....

But he was part of a witch hunt and there is no counter argument against that....Just like the Establishment is going after Trump.

I wouldn't vote for Trump...I'd vote Democrat....But a spade is a spade.