TFG or That Florida Guy? Either way, can the GOP win in 2024?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Trump's eligibility case is up for SC review on February 8th.

He may have locked up the primary before then depending on how things go in the next 3-4 weeks in pre-Super Tuesday voting 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 1/5/2024 at 11:05 PM, iNow said:

He may have locked up the primary before then depending on how things go in the next 3-4 weeks in pre-Super Tuesday voting 

If there is any argument that condemns the current Republican Party more than this does it is certainly not obvious, at least to me.

[TheVat]

On 1/5/2024 at 8:05 PM, iNow said:

He may have locked up the primary before then depending on how things go in the next 3-4 weeks in pre-Super Tuesday voting 

Be interesting if TFG is disqualified after the primaries, eh?  Means the bound delegates (as the GOP calls them) would have to be freed, and then select whoever looks strongest against Biden in the general.  They can't redo primaries, so it would basically create ~2500 delegates that can't nominate on the basis of their states primary results and would then defer to, I guess, old-fashioned party machinery.  Back to the smoke-filled back room?  Or would Trump just pick his backup (assuming he would ever admit to being constitutionally disqualified by a court ruling) and the party would bow to that?  This could be the world's craziest goat rodeo.  (if it isn't already)

[iNow]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If there is any argument that condemns the current Republican Party more than this does it is certainly not obvious, at least to me.

Literally every single other competitor he has in the GOP primary right now EXCEPT ONE… let’s say Trump and Hailey are the ONLY two left for this thought experiment… And literally EVERY person previously supporting one of those other candidates who dropped out… all the DeSantis, Ramaswamy, Christie, Hutchison, etc. supporters could ALL then support Hailey… every single one of them… all go to Hailey, and she STILL wouldn’t overtake him. He’d STILL have more support than she does among GOP primary voters. 

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

if TFG is disqualified after the primaries

The streets will descend into chaos, turned into war zones. Biden will be blamed for both the unrest itself and also any response deployed to quell it. 

The MAG-Queda extremists won’t go home quietly nor suddenly redirect their support to Liz Cheney. 

[TheVat]

LOL for redirect their support to Liz Cheney .

Immunity hearing today had this disturbing exchange...

Trump lawyer John Sauer said Tuesday that a president who ordered the military to assassinate a political rival or sold pardons to criminals could only be criminally prosecuted if they are first impeached and convicted by Congress.

Appeals court Judge Florence Pan, a nominee of President Joe Biden, posed the hypothetical questions to flesh out the bounds of Sauer’s immunity argument.

Broadly, his argument relies on the theory that presidents are shielded from prosecution for official actions if there isn’t an impeachment conviction first.

“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six,”

Pan said “He would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer said.

“I asked you a yes or no question,” Pan said.

"If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied.

“So your answer is no,” Pan said.

Sauer responded, “My answer is qualified yes. There is a political process that would have to occur.”

Yikes.

[CharonY]

30 minutes ago, TheVat said:

LOL for redirect their support to Liz Cheney .

Immunity hearing today had this disturbing exchange...

Trump lawyer John Sauer said Tuesday that a president who ordered the military to assassinate a political rival or sold pardons to criminals could only be criminally prosecuted if they are first impeached and convicted by Congress.

Appeals court Judge Florence Pan, a nominee of President Joe Biden, posed the hypothetical questions to flesh out the bounds of Sauer’s immunity argument.

Broadly, his argument relies on the theory that presidents are shielded from prosecution for official actions if there isn’t an impeachment conviction first.

“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six,”

Pan said “He would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer said.

“I asked you a yes or no question,” Pan said.

"If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied.

“So your answer is no,” Pan said.

Sauer responded, “My answer is qualified yes. There is a political process that would have to occur.”

Yikes.

There is an even worse implication. If impeachment is a prerequisite, it means that the president could avoid all criminal liability by simply resigning (well or killing everyone who would vote for impeachment).

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Yikes.

Yikes is the fact that lawyers believe this is valid, and that voters (at least GOP primary voters) seem to agree.

[StringJunky]

Atop the SC building: 

I think the original framers meant everybody. Why have it chiselled on the highest court in the land otherwise?

That motto was meant to inspire confidence that everybody would be treated the same.  If the president is not explicitly excluded, one can reasonably conclude that 'everybody' meant every person in the land.

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Atop the SC building: 

I think the original framers meant everybody. Why have it chiselled on the highest court in the land otherwise?

That motto was meant to inspire confidence that everybody would be treated the same.  If the president is not explicitly excluded, one can reasonably conclude that 'everybody' meant every person in the land.

It was put up in 1912, but derives from an 1891 case:

"The words "equal justice under law" paraphrase an earlier expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court.[7][8] In the case of Caldwell v. Texas, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."[9] The last seven words are summarized by the inscription on the U.S. Supreme Court building.[7]" - wiki

Just in:

WASHINGTON (AP) — With Donald Trump listening intently in the courtroom, federal appeals court judges in Washington expressed deep skepticism Tuesday that the former president was immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by President Joe Biden, also questioned whether they had jurisdiction to consider the appeal at this point in the case, raising the prospect that Trump’s appeal could be dispensed with on more procedural grounds.

During lengthy arguments, the judges repeatedly pressed Trump’s lawyer to defend claims that Trump was shielded from criminal charges for acts that he says fell within his official duties as president. That argument was rejected last month by the lower-court judge overseeing the case against Trump, and the appeals judges suggested through their questions that they, too, were dubious that the Founding Fathers envisioned absolute immunity for presidents after they leave office.

“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” said Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-special-counsel-immunity-appeal-64eec975e6a602949eb4b90315239318

Edited January 9 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Being temporarily elected President of the US for a 4-year term is NOT equivalent to the divine right of kings who’s authority is said to be an unchallengeable gift from god. 

Yet… that’s precisely the argument moving through the US Justice system in context of Cheeto Mussolini seeking a 2nd term and evasion of 93 felony charges. 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Being temporarily elected President of the US for a 4-year term is NOT equivalent to the divine right of kings who’s authority is said to be an unchallengeable gift from god. 

Yet… that’s precisely the argument moving through the US Justice system in context of Cheeto Mussolini seeking a 2nd term and evasion of 93 felony charges. 

I condensed my thoughts as a series of questions I would like to ask the court:

Quote

When America was in its infancy, do we think the founders of the Constitition wished to preserve the divine rights of Kings in its leaders, when it was trying to a create a democratic Republic, and not a Monarchy that it was contemporaneously seeking to divest itself from? 

The divine right and immunity of a King appears to be no less than what Donald Trump is seeking. 

Is it fair on the ordinary folk of the United States of America for the  Supreme Court to furnish his wishes to be universally unassailable and inherently superior to his peers?

Let us not forget the inscription on the Supreme Court of the United States:

‘EQUAL UNDER  THE LAW’

What does ‘equal’ mean if it doesn’t include everybody in the land of the United States

Surely, this is the Originalist’s interpretation and Donald Trump’s culpability has already been thoroughly answered by Court precedent, based on cases starting in 1891 when the Court unanimously ratified that legal concept at least twice. 

Do we think some people were intended by the Constitution’s framers to be more equal than others? The meaning of ‘Equal’ is essentially unequivocal, concise and succinct, as it only need only be described in three words: the same as.

 

Edited January 10 by StringJunky

[AIkonoklazt]

Hey SC folks, if you still want to be in your seats for the long term then how about not ruling in favor of Trump, because once he tosses the Constitution he'd tell all of you in the judicial branch to take a hike too

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I condensed my thoughts as a series of questions I would like to ask the court:

 

Trump's thought process:

"Sure but...what does that have to do with me?"

[TheVat]

National Weather Service data shows there has never been a colder Iowa caucus night than what is forecast for Jan. 15. The previous coldest was in 2004, when the high temperature for the caucus was 16 degrees. (F.)

We may not warm above zero degrees (F) on Monday, said Des Moine meteorologist Chad Hahn. I would not be surprised if we dont get above minus 20 degrees for wind chills beginning on Sunday.
     -- from AP

Wondering what skewing effect, if any, this might have on the results.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Wondering what skewing effect, if any, this might have on the results.

Looks like it’s gonna be closer to minus 3F and minus 30F windchill that evening. It’s nasty out. 

Effect: Older voters far more likely to stay home. Representation for the 30-50 something crowd gains higher per vote power / weighting in the totals.  More extreme voters more likely to show up than uninspired or lukewarm ones. 

Life in Iowa as I type this:

 

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Looks like it’s gonna be closer to minus 3F and minus 30F windchill that evening. It’s nasty out. 

Effect: Older voters far more likely to stay home. Representation for the 30-50 something crowd gains higher per vote power / weighting in the totals.  More extreme voters more likely to show up than uninspired or lukewarm ones. 

Life in Iowa as I type this:

 

In the UK, I've only seen 0F twice that I'm aware of.

[iNow]

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

National Weather Service data shows there has never been a colder Iowa caucus night than what is forecast for Jan. 15. The previous coldest was in 2004, when the high temperature for the caucus was 16 degrees. (F.)

I like the way Axios summarized this same idea in table format:

 

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

Wondering what skewing effect, if any, this might have on the results.

In addition to my previous reply yesterday, I realized last night that weather like this will also selectively assist those candidates with the strongest ground game.

Specifically, those candidacies with lots and lots of volunteers, interns, college kids, etc. showing up to peoples front doors, picking them up in their cars / vans, and shuttling people to and from their caucus locations. 

Candidates lacking that level of city by city, county by county, town by town coordination and human centered operations will be weaker overall than those candidates who’ve spent the last several months building out that “infrastructure.”

And all because Mother Nature kissed us with her blizzard tongue this weekend. 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

In addition to my previous reply yesterday, I realized last night that weather like this will also selectively assist those candidates with the strongest ground game.

Specifically, those candidacies with lots and lots of volunteers, interns, college kids, etc. showing up to peoples front doors, picking them up in their cars / vans, and shuttling people to and from their caucus locations. 

Candidates lacking that level of city by city, county by county, town by town coordination and human centered operations will be weaker overall than those candidates who’ve spent the last several months building out that “infrastructure.”

And all because Mother Nature kissed us with her blizzard tongue this weekend. 

I laughed hard when Vivek compared himself, in his braving the roads to get to four events, to George Washington crossing the Delaware.  Then he had his aides move a meeting with farmers to Zoom.

Minus 18 here, at 10:30 AM, and was minus 24 last night.  Never been happier to have PEX lines.  Only a bit of one line froze, and thawed when I attached flexible furnace duct to a tee branch in the basement and snaked it into the crawl space under the kitchen (a newer wing of the house).  

Politico covered the diminishment of final days campaigning pretty well....

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/12/winter-weather-iowa-caucus-00135420

 

The political industrial complex that had come to the state to close out the caucus instead found themselves walloped by a foot of snow that had ground the campaign trail — and the highways — to a halt.

Days before the Iowa caucuses, the field was, quite literally, frozen. The weather prompted event cancellations for Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, the two contenders fighting for a second-place finish in Iowa. It was, in some ways, a fitting beginning to the end of a caucus campaign that, with Trump’s dominance, had never truly felt like one to begin with.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Then he had his aides move a meeting with farmers to Zoom.

Probably more bc the farmers were too smart to bother showing up. Good luck with the frozen lines and keeping them unfrozen. Never fun. 

I had to put a portable space heater in front of the thermostat to get it to turn on a furnace. It refused to engage without an actual temp reading (reading said “Lo” and needed to go above 33 to send the flame command to the heaters circuit board). Put a space heater toward the thermostat and voila! Furnace flame engaged! Then shutoff the space heater a short bit afterward. 

Edited January 13 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

A lot of motivation for both Haley and Desantis camps to come second, I would expect. No idea with regard to the Tump followers...I can't really understand them at this point as the cheap and easy backlash rhetoric against the extreme left rhetoric that tends to go unchallenged by the more moderate left seems well represented by Desantis.

Maybe Desantis just doesn't seem dictator enough for them?

Edited January 14 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe Desantis just doesn't seem dictator enough for them?

When the name brand Oreos are the same price as the storebrand knockoff “cream filled cookies,” you get the real thing.

The cult has selected their messiah and DeSantis will always be second fiddle to their preferred godhead.

His shtick has been to “out Trump Trump,” and voters seem to prefer the original. His poor management of his campaign and his annoying way of speaking and bot-like lack of normal human behaviors has only magnified that problem. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

When the name brand Oreos are the same price as the storebrand knockoff “cream filled cookies,” you get the real thing.

 

Gotta get that sugar fix...even though you know it's bad for you both short and long term?

Though I would say the price of the Oreos seems potentially much greater.

[CharonY]

Just a little something from Canada, when asked who they would vote for, if it was between Trump and Biden.

It is still 33%, who would vote for Biden, with an even split among conservative voters (and close for younger men).

[iNow]

I’m unsurprised by Alberta since that’s oil country, but I’d love a more granular age breakdown that showed 18-24 separate from 25-44. 

[CharonY]

I have seen another poll which was phrased differently, but ultimately I believe highest support was age dependent, with highest support among younger, then dipping, peaking around 40s, then declining.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Just a little something from Canada, when asked who they would vote for, if it was between Trump and Biden.

It is still 33%, who would vote for Biden, with an even split among conservative voters (and close for younger men).

Is it not 33 for Trump and 67 for Biden?