Republicans Saying Trump Likely to Be Reinstated by Year's End Jumps to 28 Percent

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  201 comments

Republicans Saying Trump Likely to Be Reinstated by Year's End Jumps to 28 Percent
A new poll found that more Republicans now think that Donald Trump will likely be reinstated as president before the end of 2021.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





Republicans Saying Trump Likely to Be Reinstated by Year's End Jumps to 28 Percent






original

A new poll found that more   Republicans   now think that   Donald Trump   will likely be reinstated as president before the end of 2021.

AAQFhXp.img?h=519&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=474&y=181 © 

The survey by the   Economis t/YouGov was conducted between November 6 and 9 and surveyed 1,500 Americans. One of the questions that respondents answered was: "How likely or unlikely do you think it is that Donald Trump will be reinstated as President before the end of 2021?"

Thirteen percent of Republicans surveyed in November said that it is "very likely" that the former president would be reinstated, compared to only 11 percent of Republicans who said so in an October poll.



Republicans who said that Trump will "somewhat likely" be reinstated before 2021 ends increased from 11 percent in October to 15 percent in November.

Additionally, the number of Trump voters who said that the former president will "very likely" be back to the White House increased by 1 percent in November compared to last month, according to the YouGov poll.

Meanwhile, the number of   Democrats   who agreed with that notion decreased from 7 percent to 4 percent in November.

In September, Trump hinted   that he could be reinstated   as president if it was a possibility due to what he claimed as "tremendous voter fraud."

At a rally in Perry, Georgia, Gina Loudon, a host for the conservative media network Real America's Voice, asked Trump when would America "get President Trump back?"

"Well we're going to see," Trump responded. "There's been tremendous voter fraud. And it's being revealed on a daily basis and we'll see what happens."

Although the November YouGov poll showed that more Republican voters believed more in the former president, it revealed growing disapproval of other GOP members.

The polls showed that the number of Republicans who disapproved of GOP House Minority Leader   Kevin McCarthy 's job increased by 1 percent from the prior month.

McCarthy has been   scrutinized by fellow Republicans   for failing to stop the passage of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill on November 5. Critics in the GOP questioned McCarthy's ability to lead the party's interests in the future.

On November 6, the   National Review   wrote that it's "not too soon to be asking whether Representative Kevin McCarthy should be ousted from leadership for his inability to keep his caucus together on such a crucial vote."

The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed after a final vote of 228-206 with the help of 13 Republicans who voted in favor of it. In August, the bill passed in the   Senate   with the votes of 19 Republicans.

The legislation aims to improve the country's infrastructure including bridges, rail, and roads over the course of five years.

McCarthy in October said that if the bill came to the floor, he would "expect few, if any, to vote for it." He was also asked in an interview with FOX News whether he thinks the infrastructure bill would pass, to which he responded: "It will fail."

Newsweek   contacted Trump's office for comments.

Related Articles





Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

hqdefault.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

How in the hell would that play out - him being reinstated as 'president' by the end of the year?

jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
1.2  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

Hey John, how about the number of republicans that say either not very likely or not likely at all that Trump will be reinstated. That is about 70 percent.

What is even more disingenuous of you is not stating that 4 percent of Democrats believe Trump will reinstated.

Are they as much of idiots of the republicans?

Yes....and maybe even more so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2  sandy-2021492    3 weeks ago

Those same Republicans seem to be addicted to making fools of themselves.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    3 weeks ago

so basically, 1 in 4 GOPers are fucking morons...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  devangelical @2.1    3 weeks ago

something like that

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  devangelical @2.1    3 weeks ago
so basically, 1 in 4 GOPers are fucking morons...

I think that is a fairly low estimate...

" 53% of Republicans believe Trump, their party's nominee, is the “true president” now"

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

Yeah...according to my math that's more than 1 in 2 goopers

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    3 weeks ago

It would be for the better and good of the country if it could happen. Let’s go Brandon!  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    3 weeks ago
Sandy @2 ☞ Those same Republicans seem to be addicted to making fools of themselves.
XX @ 2.2. ☞ It would be for the better and good of the country if it could happen. Let’s go Brandon!  

And there you have it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    3 weeks ago

So, you're anti-democracy and anti-Constitution, eh?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    3 weeks ago
Let’s go Brandon!

You can dispense with the tired euphemism, just say what you mean instead of trying to be so cute, it's getting fucking old already.

Fuck Donald Trump. Fuck him right in his fat fucking face.

See? Was that too hard? Conservatives seeming unbridled lust for anything 'Brandon' is just getting so old. I'm sure it would keep a brain damaged child entertained for a week or two but now its just getting so fucking boring.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    3 weeks ago

It's so immature and lame that you keep repeating that nonsense.  It should become a COC violation.  Like TDS.  It's beyond tiresome and immature and lame.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.3    3 weeks ago
'Let’s go Brandon!'
"You can dispense with the tired euphemism, just say what you mean instead of trying to be so cute, it's getting fucking old already.

Fuck Donald Trump. Fuck him right in his fat fucking face.

See? Was that too hard? Conservatives seeming unbridled lust for anything 'Brandon' is just getting so old. I'm sure it would keep a brain damaged child entertained for a week or two but now its just getting so fucking boring."

It's beyond lame and immature and should become a violation here on NT along with TDS.  It's beyond tiresome.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
2.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    3 weeks ago

Sorry but there's just no constitutional path that I know of for him to be re-instated.  If somehow (and I seriously doubt that could happen as I believe it would require Congress to declare it so) the office were declared open due to voter fraud, wouldn't it go to the VP first, then if the VP is also declared not in office due to the same voter fraud (again please remember that all the court cases opened by President Trump were lost) then the presidency would by constitution go to the Speaker of the House.  

While I have some problems with how the election was run, the 2016 election is closed and it's just wrong to try to change the outcome. It's over, and IMO the longer that Trump continues to try to "fix" the past the harder it will be for him to move forward with plans for 24.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.3    3 weeks ago
See? Was that too hard? Conservatives seeming unbridled lust for anything 'Brandon' is just getting so old. I'm sure it would keep a brain damaged child entertained for a week or two but now its just getting so fucking boring.

Yesterday there was video of an evangelical megachurch in Texas where the congregation in the pews was chanting "Let's Go Brandon" and laughing as if they had just invented comedy. 

Back in the day people tried to conceal the fact that they were easily amused dimwits. Now it appears "Christian" leaders such as John Hagee egg on and cheer such dumbassery. 

We are living in a degraded nation people. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.2.8  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.7    3 weeks ago
We are living in a degraded nation people. 

I agree, i thought the same thing daily watching the riff-raft in this nation riot, loot and destroy others personal property the last year or two and then i watched as most on the left ignored or excused that behavior as acceptable..

Yeah, degraded as hell ...... no doubt about it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.6    3 weeks ago
It's over, and IMO the longer that Trump continues to try to "fix" the past the harder it will be for him to move forward with plans for 24.  

Why would anyone in their right mind want Donald Trump to "move forward with plans for 24" ?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
2.2.10  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.9    3 weeks ago
Why would anyone in their right mind want Donald Trump to "move forward with plans for 24" ?

Don't know, don't care.  I don't try to make up other people's minds for them. All I was implying that Trump himself will have a harder time moving forward with his plans for '24 if he continues to refight 16.  It's over and done with and there is no constitutional process to re-instate him in the Oval Office this year. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.7    3 weeks ago

You have to be a real idiot to find 'Let's go Brandon (fuck you President Biden) to be funny.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

sounds like it

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
2.2.13  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.11    3 weeks ago

But yet you probably felt this was funny....and had no problem with it...

times-change-so-fast.jpg

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
2.2.14  SteevieGee  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    3 weeks ago
It would be for the better and good of the country if it could happen. Let’s go Brandon!

The Constitution, yes that same Constitution that guarantees you the freedom to blindly follow your evil religion that you constantly complain is being trampled on, provides NO path where this could possibly happen.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
2.2.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

He totally is both with a side of kool aid intoxication.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
3  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

The Economist continues its left leaning tendencies ...... yawn.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @3    3 weeks ago

"Come along now MAGA, we have a nice rubber room ready for you"

800

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
3.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

Yawn ...... 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
3.2  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @3    3 weeks ago

Left leaning tendencies are basically the same as right leaning tendencies, both basically straddle the fence and shift the weight from one leg to the other depending upon the issue at hand. Demeaning either places one in the extreme camp.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @3.2    3 weeks ago

Nonsense. 

Right legs and left legs dont have ideological and policy positions, so right legs and left legs are essentially interchangeable. In politics, the left wants government engagement in the social and economic structure , and the right wants lassiez faire.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Ender  replied to  Hallux @3.2    3 weeks ago

So if someone says something against another party it automatically puts them in an extreme category?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
3.2.3  Hallux  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

If only life were so simple ...

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
3.2.4  Hallux  replied to  Ender @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

I was talking about news organizations and how they are perceived. Your extrapolation is a squirrel.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Ender  replied to  Hallux @3.2.4    3 weeks ago

I did not get that from the comment. No squirrel at all, just seeing what one was actually saying and you clarified...

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
3.2.6  Hallux  replied to  Ender @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

It was a response to Sparty who clearly was.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Ender  replied to  Hallux @3.2.6    3 weeks ago

Understood. Next time I will just butt out...Haha

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
3.2.8  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @3.2.6    3 weeks ago

Bullshit ..... “left leaning tendencies” could only mean “extreme” to a real extremist.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @3.2    3 weeks ago

It's his typical 'hive' 'drone' bullshit nonsense.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4  Kavika     3 weeks ago

And Michael Flynn leads the way...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
Thirteen percent of Republicans surveyed in November said that it is "very likely" that the former president would be reinstated

In. Sane.

These people are insane. It’s not “very likely.” It’s not even possible . The real life chance that Trump will be “reinstated” as president is 0Fucking%. ZEE-ROW. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

Meanwhile, the number of Democrats who agreed with that notion decreased from 7 percent to 4 percent in November.

And this is even MORE insane. This number should be 0. How is it that a single Democrat exists who could think a thing like this is remotely possible?

I live in a country with millions of people who are mad. It blows my mind.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @5    3 weeks ago

Don't take this the wrong way, but...

You're just now figuring that out?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1    3 weeks ago
You're just now figuring that out?

What do you mean by “just now?” Was there a time when I EVER said that Trump would be reinstated? I don’t think so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
5.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

No, about the millions of people being mad.

It's a truth I accepted some time ago.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
5.1.3  zuksam  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

I really don't believe there are that many insane people. I'd say we need to take the answers people give to polls with a grain of salt. I haven't been polled but if I were asked a stupid question I'd likely give them a stupid answer just for the hell of it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @5    3 weeks ago

You are so right.  The inmates have taken over the nut ward.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
5.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2    3 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6  Ender    3 weeks ago

And then they turn around and try to say donald is irrelevant...

Yeah right. They jump whenever he tells them to.

Then also get pissed when gop reps do not vote lockstep with what they want.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @6    3 weeks ago
"And then they turn around and try to say donald is irrelevant...

Yeah right. They jump whenever he tells them to.

Then also get pissed when gop reps do not vote lockstep with what they want."

And they say we're the ones that keep this steaming pile of shit front and center.  No, it's them and the steaming pile of shit who do this.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
7  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

To the morons who believe this, it just does not work that way.  Maybe they should have not slept through their civics classes.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Of all the polls to seed, I’m amazed you didn’t pick the abc poll showing the republicans with their largest lead on the congressional generic ballot in generations. 

the fact that voters  prefer Republicans to  Democrats by 23 points in contested districts is surely newsworthy, no?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago

Shhhhh. 

Let them ignore polls that actually matter.

The midterms will be a Democratic disaster.

Especially if the President can't get his signature legislation passed without it being watered down to irrelevancy.

The infighting in the Democratic Party is fascinating to watch. Which faction will win out?

The progressives or moderates?

Personally, I hope it is the progressives. Much easier to make them look like the fools they are.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    3 weeks ago

I think chronic TDS has permanently damaged a lot of brains but in reality a lot of them were probably already wacked.

Meanwhile Biden is shitting all over them right now and they’re eating it with a spoon.

Pretty crazy stuff as well .....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.1    3 weeks ago

Looks like Democrats need Trump to run against because they can't really run on their own accomplishments.

And the dumbasses haven't figured out that independents don't give a shit about some poll.

Obviously they learned zilch from the elections earlier this month.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.2    3 weeks ago

Works for me ....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.3    3 weeks ago

I believe a few of them will be shocked at how ugly the midterms will be for Democrats.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.4    3 weeks ago
I believe a few of them will be shocked at how ugly the midterms will be for Democrats.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.5    3 weeks ago

Here's the poll, for those who can tolerate news that doesn't fit their echo chamber.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.1    3 weeks ago

The projection deflection and denial is strong among the hive minded drones in the gqp and their supporters/enablers.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9  Kavika     3 weeks ago

28% of republicans are delusional...LOL

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @9    3 weeks ago
28% of republicans are delusional...LOL

And 77% of left wingers believe that crap!

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
9.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    3 weeks ago

Ignorance abounds in those circles .....

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10  bugsy    3 weeks ago

Hey John, how about posting the methodology for this poll. I would be interested in seeing it.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
10.1  zuksam  replied to  bugsy @10    3 weeks ago

The biggest problem with polls is you can only poll people who are willing to waste their time answering your questions so that excludes about 98% of the people. The second biggest problem is out of the 2% who will take the poll 1/3 are just screwing around out of boredom and the crazier you questions are the crazier their answers will be.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
10.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  zuksam @10.1    3 weeks ago

I participated in a telephone poll years ago for someone running for an office.  The pollster ask if I would pull the level for the guy running.  I told them only if it released cyanide pellets into a bucket of acid.  They hung up on me.  Imagine that. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
10.2  epistte  replied to  bugsy @10    3 weeks ago

Ask and you shall receive,

The GOP has now become the party of willfully stupid and delusional,   

The survey by the Economis t/YouGov was conducted between November 6 and 9 and surveyed 1,500 Americans. One of the questions that respondents answered was: "How likely or unlikely do you think it is that Donald Trump will be reinstated as President before the end of 2021?"

Thirteen percent of Republicans surveyed in November said that it is "very likely" that the former president would be reinstated, compared to only 11 percent of Republicans who said so in an October poll .

Republicans who said that Trump will "somewhat likely" be reinstated before 2021 ends increased from 11 percent in October to 15 percent in November.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10.2.1  bugsy  replied to  epistte @10.2    3 weeks ago

Not what I asked for. You just cut and pasted what John originally posted.

Maybe you can look up what methodology of a poll means and try again.

Thanks.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.2.2  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @10.2.1    3 weeks ago
Maybe you can look up what methodology of a poll means and try again.

Why? The link provided gives the demographics of those surveyed and the sampling and weighing methodology. 

You got what you asked for bugsy. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  epistte @10.2    3 weeks ago

Some folks have no use for facts Epistte.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
10.2.4  epistte  replied to  bugsy @10.2.1    3 weeks ago

Open the first link from cdn.yougov.  It has the polling statistics.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10.2.5  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @10.2.2    3 weeks ago
You got what you asked for bugsy. 

Well, here is another one that does not know what methodology in a survey means.

Let me educate you.

Yes, there are 1500 participants, but what is NOT given is the number of Republicans, number of Democrats, number of Independents, male, female, by race, etc.

For instance, out of the 1500 AMERICANS  surveyed, what if only 100 were Republicans, and of that 100, 11 of them believed Trump will be reinstated. The rest did not. There is the 11 percent the poll shows. Of the remaining 1400, they were Democrats or Independents. What number of them believe the same?

Of course, the publication that put out this poll is far left wing...

Nobody is surprised at the results they produce.

You are welcome for the education.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10.2.6  bugsy  replied to  epistte @10.2.4    3 weeks ago

OK thanks. I did and it males sense.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.2.7  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @10.2.5    3 weeks ago
Well, here is another one that does not know what methodology in a survey means.

Let me educate you.

Yes, there are 1500 participants, but what is NOT given is the number of Republicans, number of Democrats, number of Independents, male, female, by race, etc.

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

I invite 'our readers' to go to the link to the poll, here it is again:

econTabReport.pdf (yougov.com)

Then scroll down to page 318-319. 

Here is how they broke down the votes:

Gender, No Degree White men, College Grad. White men, No Degree White Women, College Grad. White women, Hispanic, Black, Age, Income, Religion, Voters, 2020 vote for Biden or Trump, Party ID [Dem, Rep, Ind], Ideology, Urban/Rural. 

WFT more do you want bugsy, shoe size? 

So AGAIN bugsy, you were given what you asked for yet it's pretty fucking obvious that you didn't bother to actually review the information. That's seems to be a RW MO of late. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.2.8  Dulay  replied to  epistte @10.2.4    3 weeks ago

He's not interested in debating the topic in good faith epistte. He can't be bothered with facts. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10.2.9  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @10.2.8    3 weeks ago
He can't be bothered with facts.

67342357.jpg

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10.2.10  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @10.2.7    3 weeks ago
I invite 'our readers' to go to the link to the poll, here it is again:

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.2.11  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @10.2.9    3 weeks ago

You are the ONLY one in this thread who hasn't cited any facts bugsy. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
11  bbl-1    3 weeks ago

What is ( the Trump attraction? )  Why are some so willing and eager to say or do anything to worship and protect this man?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1  TᵢG  replied to  bbl-1 @11    3 weeks ago

Exactly.   It boggles the mind.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
11.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    3 weeks ago

Something is going on.  Something strange.  He is being protected.  Why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.1    3 weeks ago

I think the core of the phenomena are the individuals who like his promises.   These are the folks who believe in a strongly enforced legal immigration, taking care of national concerns first (versus international), having the USA stop paying more than our 'fair share' in international agreements, lower taxes, less government, draining the swamp to reduce the corruption in government, accountability for government spending, staying out of international conflicts (war), reducing from the role of international police, more personal liberty, smaller government, etc.

Trump promised that which is pretty core to the R party.   And since he was not a politician when he first ran, he came across as fresh.   In addition, people admire a fighter.   Trump came (and comes) across as a scrapper who will not back down ... who will not play political games, etc.   And, finally, Trump boldly declared his success (severely inflated) and got people to see him as successful and (thus) competent and invulnerable to being coerced by the promise of money (because, as he claims, he already has plenty of money).

So all of that is what helped him get the nomination.   Hillary's abysmal likeability enabled Trump to win the presidency and there you go.

Now, once in office, he (like Bill Clinton) was the fortunate recipient of a growing economy and, of course, he (as PotUS) gets credit for same.   So all those who voted for Trump see their confidence validated.   And, normally, in conditions like this, the USA would find itself with a great PotUS ... one whose popularity can bring the nation more together.

Trump's abysmal character, however, ate away at the political capital of his situation.   So instead of becoming a very popular PotUS, he remained merely as a viable candidate for reelection.   I strongly suspect that many independents and sensible R's were not pleased with Trump, but there was a very strong base of Trump supporters who kept him propped up no matter what he did.   They basically ignored all the bad and stood by him like a cult leader.   And the most surprising (to me) behavior is their support for Trump when he (for the first time in our history) as a sitting PotUS attempted to actually steal a presidential election.    And his attempt to do so was over-the-top with countless lies sans supporting evidence, strong-arming officials, filing 61+ frivolous lawsuits and (most egregiously) using the influence of his office to work his supporters into a frenzy so that they actually believed the US election system was fraudulent and that their votes were disenfranchised.   And he took this all the way to the event on January 6th where he not only tried to get his VP to engage in an unethical and unconstitutional act of invalidating votes of several states he lost but also worked up his supporters so much that they attempted to stop the count certification of Biden as PotUS by force.

In short, this is a cult.   The followers of Trump are very much like the followers of an cult leader.   They gut sucked in and then are apparently so weak minded that they cannot realize that what they thought was true was very much not true.   With full confirmation bias, instead of seeing the light their belief in Trump just grows stronger.    It is irrational;  it is stupid;   but it is also an unfortunate aspect of human nature.

As for the R politicians, well they are simply following the perceived wishes of their base.   They are, of course, spineless and self-serving (as are most politicians nowadays).   It is the Trump supporters who are ruining the R party.

So that is my explanation, but I remain unable to explain how so many can be so fucking gullible.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
11.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.2    3 weeks ago

His promises?  You mean like that 'beautiful healthcare and infrastructure plan'?  

He did nothing.  Separated children from their parents, ran up the debt, called the COVID a hoax and made fun of people.

Something is going on.  This is abnormal.  The Daniels/McDougal scandal/affairs would have sank any politician, but not him.  Why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.3    3 weeks ago
He did nothing.

That is why I called them promises.

Separated children from their parents, ran up the debt, called the COVID a hoax and made fun of people.

Confirmation bias:   " La la la .... I only see good in Trump ... all the bad is just the fake news ... la la la . "

This is abnormal.

Agreed, this is a major league cult.   Never saw anything like this before.   The gullibility is awesome.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.2    3 weeks ago
"...In addition, people admire a fighter. "

Even with bone chips....

At least he was the only POTUS to keep his promises about moving the embassy to Jerusalem and he recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights (which Israel conquered in a defensive war against Syria's invasion, and is the only nation in the history of the world where the usual law of war has been denied to it), and the Abraham Accords were achieved during his tenure.  I don't think the Israeli's are that happy with Biden, although Jewish Americans generally vote liberal anyway. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.2    3 weeks ago
"Hillary's abysmal likeability enabled Trump to win the presidency and there you go."

It wasn't just that.  Comey played a big part with that e-mail bullshit just a couple of weeks before election?  AND SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE

But I agree with  most of what you're saying though

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
11.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.4    3 weeks ago
That is why I called them promises.

Promises are something you try to keep, you may not always be successful, but you must at least try.  Trump made absolutely no attempt to keep the vast majority of his "promises".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @11.1.7    3 weeks ago

Why do you think his supporters keep believing his ridiculous lies?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
11.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.8    3 weeks ago

Why do you think his supporters keep believing his ridiculous lies?

Same reason they continue to watch FoxNews.  They tell them what they want to hear, not being limited to facts or the truth.

Trump also gives them the excuse to blame someone else for their troubles. It is never their fault, any more than it is ever Trump's fault.  He gives them someone to blame, murdering raping Mexicans, democrats, BLM, the poor, and on and on and on.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.3    3 weeks ago

What I find the most ironic is that the most corrupt man in the history of mankind wanted to "drain the swamp". So what does he do? He sets up his daughter and SIL and his most "trusted" advisers and they are making money hand over fist. That doesn't sound like he drained the swamp. If anything, he found the most corrupt people he could find and appointed them to sensitive positions.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @11.1.9    3 weeks ago

 They tell them what they want to hear, not being limited to facts or the truth.

The irony...

.You have people on this site claiming a sexual  assault didn't occur in Loudon County, even though a kid was found guilty of it. 

It's hilarious to see how gaslit leftists are by their own media. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.11    3 weeks ago

I presume you do not buy Trump's Big Lie.   What makes you different from those who do?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.13  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.11    3 weeks ago
The incident played into the fears of some parents about the new transgender bathroom policy.

Conservative media outlets zeroed in on the transgender angle; Fox News aired 88 segments in just over three weeks, according to an   analysis   by Media Matters.

The events turned out to be different than originally cast.

At a juvenile court hearing, it was revealed that the two students had an ongoing sexual relationship and had arranged to meet in the bathroom. The crime, which took place before the transgender policy went into effect, was not a random assault.

But the narrative had been set.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.14  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.12    3 weeks ago

I am  not so sure they don't believe it...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @11.1.13    3 weeks ago

What does all that have to do with John's seed?

That question is not really meant for you. It's rhetorical

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.17  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.16    3 weeks ago

True it has nothing to do with it. Sorry John.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @11.1.14    3 weeks ago

I give Sean more credit than that.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @11.1.17    3 weeks ago

I thought you were quoting Sean

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @11.1.13    3 weeks ago

You know he was found guilty of assaulting the girl  (and is charged with assaulting another girl too) ? Or is the left's new line that you once you hook up with a girl, you have the right to do whatever you want to her for the rest of your life?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @11.1.14    3 weeks ago
m  not so sure they don't believe it...

Tell us again how Trump changed votes and stole states in 2016....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.22  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.20    3 weeks ago

Do you have a link for that?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.23  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.21    3 weeks ago

Why should I tell you something I have never said or thought.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.24  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.21    3 weeks ago

So Sean, I will ask you straight up. Do you think the election was stolen?

Yes or no...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.12    3 weeks ago
you do not buy Trump's Big Lie.   What makes you different from those who do?

I don't know why people believe what they do. Why do people on this site claim Trump stole the 2016 election? Why do 2/3 of Democrats believe Russia tampered with votes in 2016?  I could go on and on with some of the batshit crazy things left wingers on this site will believe no matter how compelling the evidence.  I was just brought to mind of the people here still claiming Michael Cohen set up a meeting with Russian agents in Prague even after Cohen (post flipping) and Mueller denied it occurred. 

Some people will believe things no matter the evidence. Anyone who thinks that is exclusive to right or left wingers is just as ignorant as people who believe the election was stolen from Trump. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @11.1.22    3 weeks ago

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @11.1.24    3 weeks ago
will ask you straight up. Do you think the election was stolen?

For the upteenth  time, no. 

I've never come close to claiming it was. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.28  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @11.1.24    3 weeks ago

You notice how just about everything Sean argues is based on what he says "the left" said or did ?

This is what the political right is about now, it is all 24/7 outrage at "wokeness" and "crt" and the "culture wars" .  

It has grown mind numbing but they are caught up in it. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.29  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.26    3 weeks ago

I see no where where it even mentions a boy wearing a skirt or transgenders in bathrooms.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.30  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.27    3 weeks ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.25    3 weeks ago
Some people will believe things no matter the evidence.

Of all beliefs you mentioned, the belief that Trump actually won in 2020 due to fraud has been repeatedly proven false and has never had any supporting evidence.   It is all based on Trump lying.   It is the most blatantly obvious false belief of those listed — by far.

I can understand people believing nuanced issues, but this is not nuanced.   Hard to imagine that anyone actually believes Trump's Big Lie but apparently countless millions do.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.32  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.27    3 weeks ago
For the upteenth  time, no. 

You know, i get accused of that regularly here as well and never once have i said it.   People just make asses out themselves for assuming wrongly.   Par for the course these days.  

If you don't follow the requisite "rabid" anti Trump narrative it's guilt by association.

Some peoples children i guess .....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.33  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.32    3 weeks ago
f you don't follow the requisite "rabid" anti Trump narrative it's guilt by association.

There is no such thing as "rabid anti-Trump narrative". 

He was a known liar, crook, bigot , moron and cheat on the day he took office in 2016, and for every second thereafter. There is all the reason in the world to attack him. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.31    3 weeks ago
lly won in 2020 due to fraud has been repeatedly proven false and has never had any supporting evidence.

I've never seen any evidence that Russia manipulated the vote totals in 2016. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.32    3 weeks ago

Here is how that happens.   If someone is seen to defend or support Trump then it is natural for people to assume that this person believes Trump's Big Lie.   The reason is simple.   What rational mind would defend / support Trump after watching his abysmal character in full worldwide display as he engaged in an historical attempt as a sitting PotUS to steal an election?   And worse, to engage in this practice for the last 2 months of his term and then continue until the present with his claim that the US electoral system was rigged against him.  

To see this narcissist lie to the world, work up his sycophants into a frenzy, instigate 61+ frivolous lawsuits, attempt to coerce officials to 'find votes', attempt to coerce his own VP to engage in an unethical and unconstitutional denial of certified votes from select states, etc. should convince any rational mind that Trump should never hold any public office (much less PotUS) and should be criticized, not defended.

To wit, it is natural for someone to assume that a Trump defender / supporter actually believes his Big Lie because otherwise they are knowingly defending someone of a proven abysmal character who clearly puts himself over the nation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.34    3 weeks ago

Does not matter.   Nothing compares to what Trump did per his Big Lie.   Especially when we consider qualifications for a PotUS.    What sort of irrational mind would support / defend an individual for PotUS who did what Trump did (and continues to do)?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.35    3 weeks ago
To wit, it is natural for someone to assume that a Trump defender / supporter actually believes his Big Lie because otherwise they are knowingly defending someone of a proven abysmal character who clearly puts himself over the nation.

Gee. I wonder what could be said about the character of a person who still supports the son of a bitch

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.36    3 weeks ago

   Nothing compares to what Trump did per his Big Li

There's no real difference between the lies. 2/3 of Democrats falsely believing  that Russia manipulated votes to steal an election is the same as some Republicans believing Trump's lie about a stolen election. The only difference is the pushback on the lie. The media has made it's mission to expose Trump's lie, while it made no such effort to disabuse Democrats of the lie about Russian election interference, possibly because it was instrumental in spreading the belief. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.39  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.38    3 weeks ago

No one in their right mind would make an equivalency of degree between what any Democrats said post election about 2016 and what the right has said post 2020 election. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.40  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.35    3 weeks ago

This is how that is so outrageous and polarizing.  

Show me a politician that meets all your needs and expectations and i'll show you a politician that doesn't exist.   There is no such thing and you know that.   So we are all relegated to the candidate that best fits each of our politics and positions.   For the last two elections the Democrat wasn't even close for me in that regard.   Trump was.   It's that simple.   If i had to "like" every politician that i voted for i would never vote again and it's just sophomoric to judge anyone to be of lower moral character simply because they have made such a choice.

Actually IMO, it shows a lack of character judging others moral fiber in such a manner with so little information about the person you are judging.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.41  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.33    3 weeks ago
There is no such thing as "rabid anti-Trump narrative". 

 gaslight much?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.42  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.39    3 weeks ago

would make an equivalency of degree between what any Democrats said post election about 2016

How did 2/3 of Democrats come to believe something with no basis in reality about 2016? Mass hallucination?   You had 2/3 of a party falsely believing a foreign power changed votes in an election. How can you not see that a massive problem? Talk about undermining confidence in elections.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.38    3 weeks ago
There's no real difference between the lies.

There is a monster difference.   With Trump we are talking about a sitting PotUS and are evaluating whether or not that person acted responsibly and whether he should be trusted to hold office or serve as a political leader.

What sort of mind would defend / support Trump as the leader of the GOP and as a candidate for PotUS??

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.40    3 weeks ago
Show me a politician that meets all your needs and expectations and i'll show you a politician that doesn't exist.

Strawman.   I have made no claims that a perfect politician exists.

I am talking about Trump and his suitability to operate as the leader of the GOP and potential presidential candidate.

Clearly you understand my point because you have stated that you do not support and do not defend Trump.   Although right now it seems you are attempting to defend Trump.

Actually IMO, it shows a lack of character judging others moral fiber in such a manner with so little information about the person you are judging.

Always have to make things personal?    We have plenty of information about Trump's character.   Do you not recognize the abysmal character of Trump?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.43    3 weeks ago
   With Trump we are talking about a sitting PotUS and are evaluating whether or not that person acted responsib

You are conflating the lie with the liar. There's no substantive difference between the liez, although there is a substantial difference in the amount of people who believe those lies. 

ort of mind would defend / support Trump as the leader of the GOP and as a candidate for PotUS??

Someone who doesn't believe the lie, or someone who thinks that Trump, liar that he is, is a better choice for the country than the alternative.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
11.1.46  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.39    3 weeks ago
No one in their right mind would make an equivalency of degree between what any Democrats said post election about 2016 and what the right has said post 2020 election.

You're right.  There is a difference from what the Democrats DID post 2016 election and what was said post 2020 election.  But if you want to remain in ignorance of how damaging what the Democrats did is all on you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.47  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.18    3 weeks ago

I don't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.33    3 weeks ago
There is no such thing as "rabid anti-Trump narrative". 

Do you expect that everyone here has just magically forgotten hundreds of articles and thousands upon thousands of comments proving that claim to be totally false and laughable?

LMAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.37    3 weeks ago
Gee. I wonder what could be said about the character of a person who still supports the son of a bitch

probably the same types of things that can be said for supporters of any political party or person.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.50  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.44    3 weeks ago
Strawman.

Nope, a very solid point to reason.

Always have to make things personal?  

Lol .... so that was personal and this

What rational mind would defend / support Trump

was not?

I find your accusations to regularly be incredibly personal and hypocritical.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.45    3 weeks ago
You are conflating the lie with the liar.

I am using the lying campaign to illustrate the abysmal character of Trump and the irrationality of supporting / defending him.

Someone who doesn't believe the lie, or someone who thinks that Trump, liar that he is, is a better choice for the country than the alternative.  

Is Trump the only person who could serve as leader of the GOP and potential candidate??   Why support Trump instead of an individual who is at least a decent human being?

Ditch Trump, pick someone else.   He is not the only choice. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.50    3 weeks ago
was not?

No, it was not.   You have stated that you do not believe Trump's Big Lie.   Thus I gave you the benefit of the doubt of not defending / supporting him as leader of the GOP and presidential candidate.

Do you want Trump as leader of the GOP and presidential candidate rather than another R who is at least a somewhat decent human being?

If so,  I would find that to be irrational.   If not, then you basically agree with my point.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
11.1.53  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1.11    3 weeks ago
You have people on this site claiming a sexual  assault didn't occur in Loudon County

I have no idea WTF your are trying to deflect to.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.49    3 weeks ago

How can you equate the character of Trump given his unprecedented attempt to steal an election (and as sitting PotUS no less) with your average slimy politician?   How can you possibly overlook Trump's worldwide illustration of just how far he will go —to what degree he will lie— to pursue his narcissistic desires?

One cannot equate Trump with the average US politician without being blind to the obvious.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.55  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.54    3 weeks ago

That was his attempt to troll me. He has no answer to your question, but he will continue to troll you possibly me

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.56  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.55    3 weeks ago

People who attempt to "reason" with him are completely wasting their time. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.54    3 weeks ago
How can you equate the character of Trump given his unprecedented attempt to steal an election (and as sitting PotUS no less) with your average slimy politician?  

I did no such thing. How could you possibly misconstrue my post in such a way?

How can you possibly overlook Trump's worldwide illustration of just how far he will go —to what degree he will lie— to pursue his narcissistic desires?

I did no such thing. Please stop making such wild assumptions, and just read exactly what I posted.

Do you actually have any comments as to what I really posted?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.58  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.56    3 weeks ago

snicker

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.59  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.55    3 weeks ago
That was his attempt to troll me. He has no answer to your question, but he will continue to troll you possibly me

No need to flatter yourself. There was a COMMENT on what YOU posted. Deal with it instead of name-calling.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.56    3 weeks ago
People who attempt to "reason" with him are completely wasting their time. 

Let me know the day you are willing to begin.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.61  Trout Giggles  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.58    3 weeks ago

there he goes again jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.62  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.61    3 weeks ago

He can't help it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.57    3 weeks ago
I did no such thing. How could you possibly misconstrue my post in such a way?

Yeah you are correct;   your words did not limit the equating to politicians.   You actually spoke of "supporters of any political party or person".   So not only do you equate Trump with politicians but you include their supporters as well.

So I will rephrase:

How can you equate the character of Trump given his unprecedented attempt to steal an election (and as sitting PotUS no less) with your average slimy politician and supporters?   How can you possibly overlook Trump's worldwide illustration of just how far he will go —to what degree he will lie— to pursue his narcissistic desires?

One cannot equate Trump with the average US politician and supporters without being blind to the obvious.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.64  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.62    3 weeks ago

he always has to have the last word [Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.65  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.63    3 weeks ago

Rephrase the nonsense however you wish. Means nothing to me anyway. You'll manage to spin any reply to what you wanted or "thought" I stated--even though my clear words are plainly in your face.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.64    3 weeks ago

For once, I wish everyone had the guts to address me directly instead of attempting to do it very poorly through third parties.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.65    3 weeks ago
Rephrase the nonsense however you wish. Means nothing to me anyway. You'll manage to spin any reply to what you wanted or "thought" I stated--even though my clear words are plainly in your face.

Okay, Texan, let's see if you will make a clear stand (or run away).

Do you recognize that Trump, by his actions as candidate and as PotUS and especially by his unprecedented attempt to steal a US election by indicting the entire election system of the USA with no evidence that even comes close to his lies, by attempting to coerce officials to change votes, by inciting his supporters into a frenzy with lies about their votes being disenfranchised, by triggering 61+ frivolous lawsuits and continuing this lie to to the present, by trying to coerce his VP to unconstitutionally and unethically table certified votes of select states so that he would 'win' cannot be equated to your average politician or political supporter?

Same question even applies when we try to equate Trump to the slimiest of politicians.   Nobody in our history has attempted to undermine a presidential election as relentlessly and dishonestly (and unconstitutionally) as Trump.   He has no equal.

Do you disagree?   If so, name his equal.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.68  Trout Giggles  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.64    3 weeks ago

gee whillikers

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.69  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.67    3 weeks ago

I'll take "run away" for $200, Alex

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.70  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.69    3 weeks ago

And NOT "Gutless wonder communicating through 3rd Parties?"

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.71  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.67    3 weeks ago
Okay, Texan, let's see if you will make a clear stand (or run away).

WHAT in the FUCK have I been unclear about?

What part don't you understand that I wrote?
Perhaps try reading my words instead of misinterpreting them, it would help you understand.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.72  Trout Giggles  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.69    3 weeks ago

trolling trolling trolling

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.73  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.70    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.71    3 weeks ago
WHAT in the FUCK have I been unclear about?

see @11.1.67 ... nice and clear.

And here you go running from the question.   What a surprise.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.75  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.74    3 weeks ago
see @11.1.67 ... nice and clear.

I already read the tripe, it didn't change any since I first read it.

Besides, that isn't what I asked. But you continue to imagine I wrote whatever it is you always assume I wrote--even though my words are plain enough and available for all to see.

Not running--declining to engage in your little game.

BTW--referring anyone to YOUR post does NOTHING to explain what it is you think I have been unclear about.

SMMFH

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.1.76  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.74    3 weeks ago
  What a surprise.

Actually, none whatsoever.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
11.1.77  JaneDoe  replied to  Ender @11.1.29    3 weeks ago

This past Monday, a teen girl walked into Courtroom 1A of the Loudoun County courthouse and testified, clearly and boldly, that a boy had violently sodomized her in the stall of a girl’s bathroom at Stone Bridge High School late last May

In Loudoun County, the first victim in the case didn’t have a tidy narrative—and yet, to her family’s and her credit—she persisted and prevailed. The girl told the judge that said she had previously had consensual sex with her assailant in the girls’ bathroom, but she had insisted in conversations on the social media platform Discord that she didn’t agree to anal sex, confirmed by copies of the Discord conversation entered into court documents. 

The girl testified then – with clarity – about the fact that on May 28 she met the boy in the girls’ restroom, where he anally raped her. In the courtroom, the defense attorney, William “Ben” Mann, then tried to shame the girl by asking her: if she had already had sex with the boy, wouldn’t she think that she’d be expected to have sex again? The girl looked straight at the attorney and confidently said, “That’s ridiculous.” She testified clearly that he had no right to her body even if they had had consensual sex before.

In court, the boy acknowledged he wore a skirt. It came up because he tried to claim that he hadn’t forced the girl to do a “second sex act,” which was fellatio, but rather, in a nonsensical claim, said his skirt had gotten caught in his watch, according to people in the courtroom. At the end of the day, the detail of the skirt is not important to the facts of the case. The boy was a sexual predator.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.78  devangelical  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.77    3 weeks ago
The boy was a sexual predator.

gee, all he needs to do now is become a better liar and learn how to steal. then he's a shoe in to get the R nomination to any elected office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @11.1.78    3 weeks ago
gee, all he needs to do now is become a better liar and learn how to steal. then he's a shoe in to get the R nomination to any elected office.

And take an elected position from a Democrat?

LMAO!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
11.1.80  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.33    3 weeks ago
There is no such thing as "rabid anti-Trump narrative". 

Are you fucking kidding?????

Do you even read the posts you put on here????

They are the definition of "rabid anti-Trump narrative".

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.81  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.79    3 weeks ago

of course, it's a goober dipshit state, just like texas...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.82  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @11.1.81    3 weeks ago
of course, it's a goober dipshit state, just like texas...

And amazingly, Democrats go all out to turn the state.  If you all feel that way, why not be honest at LEAST with the voters you are trying to get to vote your way?

Oh, that's right, I forgot, Democrats are dumb enough to believe that calling voters stupid is a great campaign strategy.

Good luck, it looks like that brilliant little piece of strategy worked out so damn good for Democrats in the past elections.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
11.1.83  JaneDoe  replied to  devangelical @11.1.78    3 weeks ago

Hmmm,  he raped a girl while wearing a skirt in the girls bathroom so now he is a future republican. SMH
That should make all the commentators on the other article calling her a liar feel better.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1.84  Texan1211  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.83    3 weeks ago

Gee, remember when Democrats told us all to believe the victims, no matter what?

Or when they said stuff like this would never happen because of transgender policies?

Of course, the same clowns also tell us illegal aliens wouldn't commit crimes here because of the risk of deportation!

LMAO!

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
11.1.85  JaneDoe  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.84    3 weeks ago

If it wasn’t for double standards some would have no standards at all.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.86  Ender  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.83    3 weeks ago

So he is not transgender, had an ongoing relationship with him and met him in the bathroom.

I am not defending him yet the narrative that the right put out was a lie.

Hell they didn't even have the policy in affect when it happened.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
11.1.87  JaneDoe  replied to  Ender @11.1.86    3 weeks ago

First of all, I never said he was transgender. I even posted on this site that it didn’t matter to me one way or another if he was. I did however state that it was a boy wearing a skirt which seems to be true.

I have no control over the narrative others put out there. It was the rape that bothered me from the get go. I have never argued one way or the other about the policy the school has, or will have? 

As a woman I don’t care that they had an ongoing relationship or that they had consensual sex prior. I care that she said no this time and he chose to ignore that and anally rape her. He has been charged, they don’t do that for shits and giggles. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.1.88  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @11.1.86    3 weeks ago
m not defending him yet the narrative that the right put out was a lie

What in the world are you talking about? He wore a skirt into a bathroom, assaulted a girl and was found guilty of it. The  school board lied about it and covered it up  and then  he attacked a girl at another school.

The  left on  NT never fails to disappoint..  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
11.1.89  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.77    3 weeks ago

So this case has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of transgender use of bathrooms. This was about initially consensual sex between teens that then went further than the girl wanted it to. Yes, that kid is a sexual predator and he should have stopped when the girl objected, but why smear actual transgender children with this kind of crime? Especially since, as the article pointed out, "The crime, which took place before the transgender policy went into effect". So why are religious conservatives raising their pitchforks and tiki torches over this? Oh, and it's not like laws allowing transgender Americans to use the bathrooms of their choice suddenly makes sexual assault legal, it doesn't matter whether its "a boy in a skirt" or another girl who's always been allowed in the restroom, sexual assault is still illegal.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
11.1.90  JaneDoe  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.89    3 weeks ago
why smear actual transgender children with this kind of crime? Especially since, as the article pointed out, "The crime, which took place before the transgender policy went into effect".

Maybe go ask someone who smeared transgender children. Again, I have never mentioned the school’s transgender policy.

So why are religious conservatives raising their pitchforks and tiki torches over this?

You should ask them.

doesn't matter whether its "a boy in a skirt" or another girl who's always been allowed in the restroom, sexual assault is still illegal.

I’m totally aware of that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.91  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.89    3 weeks ago

Yet that 'article' was based on all those lies and they're still spreading those lies now.  The father at the meeting who acted out and caused a lot of shit over lies admitted he said that he overhead that the kid was bisexual, not transgender.  And the lies were off and running, debunked by me and others, and the lie still flourishes.  

It was a young republican rapist in training.  His hero must be Kyle Rittenhouse, their new killer hero.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.92  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.55    3 weeks ago

"That was his attempt to troll me. He has no answer to your question, but he will continue to troll you possibly me"

That's all some got!  Along with projection, deflection, and denial.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.93  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @11.1.78    3 weeks ago
"The boy was a sexual predator."
"gee, all he needs to do now is become a better liar and learn how to steal. then he's a shoe in to get the R nomination to any elected office." He's already turning out to be a fine young republican.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.94  Tessylo  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.77    3 weeks ago
"At the end of the day, the detail of the skirt is not important to the facts of the case."

Yet an entire 'article' here was based on a lie then?  That the little republican rapist in training was NOT A TRANSGENDER but using it as a dodge to slip into the girls' room to rape someone?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.95  Tessylo  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.85    3 weeks ago

So true of the alleged conservatives/republicans/gop/gqp dear.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.96  Trout Giggles  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.72    3 weeks ago

C'mon that was funny!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.97  Trout Giggles  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.83    3 weeks ago
he raped a girl while wearing a skirt in the girls bathroom so now he is a future republican.

Well, he's in good company. Matt Gaetz comes to mind

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.1.98  Trout Giggles  replied to  JaneDoe @11.1.87    3 weeks ago
I care that she said no this time and he chose to ignore that and anally rape her. He has been charged, they don’t do that for shits and giggles. 

The girl was right when she said he didn't have the right to have access to her body anytime he wanted it. I hope they throw the book at him

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.99  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.52    3 weeks ago

I've made my position crystal clear in this seed.    That you find it irrational is not my problem.

Your thoughts on that matter are nothing more than just another opinion.   An opinion that i disagree with completely and absolutely.

And decent human being?   Talk about subjective.   I find career politicians to be some of the worst human beings on the face of the earth.   Most never create or build anything.   They just cajole, manipulate and suck off the peoples titty to fatten their own wallets and the pockets of their family/friends.

Meanwhile all the top career Dems in power right now get a free pass, while their useful idiots look the other way for a promise of more power, money and fake morality. 

Truly disgusting, as those politicians bone their own worker drones once again with their false promises and platitudes.

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
11.1.100  JaneDoe  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.94    3 weeks ago
Yet an entire 'article' here was based on a lie then? 

What lie? That a girl was raped by a boy wearing a skirt.

That the little republican rapist in training

Wow, the rapist isn’t even old enough to register to vote but he’s a republican. Whatever makes you feel better. LMAO

was NOT A TRANSGENDER but using it as a dodge to slip into the girls' room to rape someone?

I never said the rapist was a transgender. Are you saying that a boy or man wearing a skirt would have an easier time slipping into a woman’s bathroom to commit a crime?

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
11.1.101  JaneDoe  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.1.98    3 weeks ago
The girl was right when she said he didn't have the right to have access to her body anytime he wanted it. I hope they throw the book at him

As do I. He was found guilty in this case and sentencing will follow his hearing for the second crime.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.102  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.99    3 weeks ago
And decent human being?   Talk about subjective.  I find career politicians to be some of the worst human beings on the face of the earth. 

I have suggested the GOP rally behind a different leader and seek a different candidate from Trump:

TiG @11.1.52 ☞ Do you want Trump as leader of the GOP and presidential candidate rather than another R who is at least a somewhat decent human being?  If so,  I would find that to be irrational.   If not, then you basically agree with my point.

In response you suggest that there are no somewhat decent human beings who could be the leader of the GOP and candidate for PotUS.   So that leaves Trump??

I've made my position crystal clear in this seed. 

Not going to read through this entire seed to compile your net position.   You refuse to answer a simple question and that suggests strongly that you do indeed want Trump as leader of the GOP and presidential candidate.    I can understand why you would dodge my questions given such an irrational position.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.103  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.102    3 weeks ago
I have suggested the GOP rally behind a different leader and seek a different candidate from Trump:

That could still happen or do you know something the rest of us don't?

In response you suggest that there are no somewhat decent human beings who could be the leader of the GOP and candidate for PotUS.

I suggested no such thing so stop trying to put words in my mouth.  

Not going to read through this entire seed to compile your net position.   You refuse to answer a simple question and that suggests strongly that you do indeed want Trump as leader of the GOP and presidential candidate.    I can understand why you would dodge my questions given such an irrational position.

There's no "dodging" going on on my part.    Not my problem if you want to be intellectually lazy and not read up the seed a little bit.   You responded to the post in question which concisely lays out my position on this matter.   Doubtful that you don't remember that.    As noted, my posit on this matter has been clear and concise from the start.   That you've chosen to ignore it, is not my issue.

That said, i don't "support" any candidate this early in an election.   Which is not really all that unusual actually for most people who aren't already debilitatingly biased.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.104  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.103    3 weeks ago
That could still happen or do you know something the rest of us don't?

No, Sparty, I suggested.   A suggestion is a recommendation, not a prophecy.

suggested no such thing and stop trying to put words in my mouth.  

This is why I did not bother trying to compile your position.  I figured your would play the cowardly game of denying any consequences of your words and here you illustrate it plain as day.   I suggested the GOP find a leader and candidate who is at least somewhat of a decent human being and you replied with:

And decent human being?   Talk about subjective.  I find career politicians to be some of the worst human beings on the face of the earth. 

So you go on your mini rant about career politicians (on which I generally agree) in rebuttal to my suggestion of picking someone other than Trump.   If you are not meaning to suggest there are no somewhat decent human beings thus we might as well stick with Trump then your words serve no purpose in this context.  

If you agree with me that the GOP should rally behind someone other than Trump as leader / candidate, all you need do is affirm disagreement.   If you instead go off on your little semi-meta rants, that suggests to most readers that you are trying to deflect from a very simple question.   At this point, you are behaving like someone who supports Trump as leader/candidate for the GOP.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.105  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.104    3 weeks ago
This is why I did not bother trying to compile your position.  I figured your would play the cowardly game of denying any consequences of your words and here you illustrate it plain as day.   I suggested the GOP find a leader and candidate who is at least somewhat of a decent human being and you replied with:

Lol ... this is why our conversations never go anywhere.   Ultimately it comes down to personal insults by you, after you accuse me of the same.   YOU inferring that i'm a coward is one of the biggest jokes i've heard in a long time.   Absolutely hilarious!

Your shtick is getting old Tig, very old but i'll say this one more time and be done with your nonsense.   My position has been crystal clear from the start as you try your best to bend and twist the conversation with your silly word games and denial.   Once again and finally, that you don't like my position is your problem not mine.  Your opinion on the matter is absolutely meaningless to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.106  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.105    3 weeks ago

And you yet again engage in a meta rant smoke screen rather than answer a simple question:

TiG @ 11.1.52 ☞ Do you want Trump as leader of the GOP and presidential candidate rather than another R who is at least a somewhat decent human being?

Since you play ' go fish ' games instead of just answering the question, the impression you leave is that you want Trump as the GOP leader/candidate.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.107  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.106    3 weeks ago

Lol .... my comments are meta and yours aren't.

Hilarious Tig ..... now get to reporting and make it all go away.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
11.1.108  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @11.1.9    3 weeks ago

Trump has also empowered them to release their racism, sexism, and violence by encouraging them.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
12  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

I just figured out why Trump has so many loyal American followers.  P. T. Barnum was WRONG.  There's one born every SECOND.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
13  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

Considering that he just violated the Logan Act by sending his fake envoy to Kosvlo (sp), he should be under arrest along with the guy stupid enough to do his bidding.  This is what I don't get.  He is guilty of so many things that has rock solid evidence, so why isn't he being prosecuted and jailed for those?  Then they can drag his fat ass into court as many times as needed once all the evidence is available to bust him on the bigger crimes and just add time to the time he should be serving now.  I am so tempted to call Merrick and flat ask him why the fuck is he not doing his damned job and if he can't, he should resign so that we can get someone who will do it.  My choice to replace him would be Glen Kirshner (sp).  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
13.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @13    3 weeks ago
Considering that he just violated the Logan Act by sending his fake envoy to Kosvlo (sp)

  Now you all are concerned about what is legal and what isn't?  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @13.1    3 weeks ago

Aren't you?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1.1    3 weeks ago

nah. he's already violated his oath to defend the constitution with his support of an insurrectionist president.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @13.1.2    3 weeks ago
insurrectionist president.

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
13.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @13.1.2    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1.1    3 weeks ago

Not when it involved the republicans/gop/gqp or alleged conservatives

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
14  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Count how many lies this elected Democratic Congresswoman managed to  fit into  a single 3 sentence tweet. 

When we marched in Ferguson, white supremacists would hide behind a hill near where Michael Brown Jr. was murdered and shoot at us.

They never faced consequences.

If Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted, it tells them that even 7 years later they still can get away with it.

— Cori Bush (@CoriBush)   November 15, 2021

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
14.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @14    3 weeks ago

How the fuck is your comment even remotely relevant to the topic of the seed Sean? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

No, Donald Trump Will Not Be Reinstated as President

No, Donald Trump Will Not Be Reinstated as President (msn.com)

original

Experts have once again stated that there is no legal or constitutional basis for   Donald Trump   to simply be "reinstated" as president after a recent survey suggests more than a quarter of   Republicans   believe it could happen this year.

AAQMb7J.img?h=533&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=511&y=279 © JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images   Donald Trump sits with his arms crossed during a roundtable discussion on the Safe Reopening of Americas Schools during the coronavirus pandemic, in the East Room of the White House on July 7, 2020, in Washington, DC

According to an   Economist /YouGov poll conducted between November 6 and 9, at least   28 percent of people who identify as Republican   believe that it is "somewhat likely" or "very likely" that Trump will be reinstated as president before the end of 2021.

Load Error

The percentage of Republicans who believe that the man who lost the 2020 election will soon return to the White House is also increasing, with a previous   Economist /YouGov survey in October revealing 22 percent of Republicans consider it "somewhat" or "very likely" to happen.

The poll results appear to be based on the belief of the so-called Big Lie—which has been pushed by Trump, his supporters,   and QAnon conspiracy theorists —that   Joe Biden   only won the last election because of widespread voter fraud and Trump will return to his rightful place in the White House when this is proven.

Speaking to   Newsweek , Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. attorney in Detroit, explained that even if there is proof of voter fraud, something which hasn't materialized more than one year since the 2020 election took place, there is "absolutely no mechanism" in the law   where Trump could become president.

"As former Attorney General   William Barr   noted, there was no widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. Even if some new revelation somehow proved that Trump had lost the 2020 election because of fraud, the result   would not be to reinstate Trump, " McQuade said.

"The only way President Joe Biden could be removed from office under that scenario would be impeachment and conviction. Even then, he would be succeeded by President   Kamala Harris . If somehow she were also impeached and convicted, then we would follow the normal line of succession, resulting in a President   Nancy Pelosi ."

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the   University of California , Los Angeles, added that the Constitution is "quite specific" about how someone can be removed from office and have someone else replace them.

The obvious way is a new election, with Trump eligible to   throw his hat in the ring again in 2024.   Another way is that the vice president can succeed if the current president is impeached, dies, or otherwise becomes unable to carry out his role.

"But that would mean Vice President Harris, not Trump, would become president," Volokh told   Newsweek.

"There's no constitutionally provided mechanism for any entity, whether the courts,   Congress , or anyone else simply reconsider the certified election results once a president is inaugurated."

Volokh did suggest one outlandish and highly improbable way in which Trump could return as president.

"In theory, one can imagine Vice President Harris being impeached or resigning, President Biden nominating Trump to replace her, Trump being confirmed by both Houses under section 2 of the 25th Amendment, and then President Biden resigning or being impeached and new Vice President Trump becoming president.

"But for obvious reasons, I doubt that President Biden will go along with that," Volokh said.

MyPillow CEO   Mike Lindell   is one of the main orchestrators of the false belief that Trump will be reinstated as president, setting out deadlines over the past year for it to happen—which have obviously failed to come to fruition.

Lindell previously   claimed Trump would return as president in August   because the   Supreme Court   would be so impressed with his apparent proof of voter fraud in states such as Arizona and Pennsylvania that they would vote 9-0 in favor of Trump being declared the true winner of the last election.

Lindell's prediction had no basis in constitutional law and his August deadline fell during a three-month recess for the Supreme Court.

On November 2, a large crowd of QAnon supporters—who not only believe Trump won the 2020 election but had been battling a cabal of satanic pedophiles during his time in the office—gathered in Dallas, Texas,   in the hope John F. Kennedy Jr. would return   from the dead and somehow announce Trump as the true president.

Related Articles

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Something like 160 million people voted for president last year. About 30% or so of those were Republicans. So there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 million voting Republicans in America. According to the seeded article, polling shows 28% of them believing it is "likely" that Trump will be reinstated as president soon. So we can say that somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 million adult Americans believe something will happen that literally cannot happen. 

That sounds fairly frightening to me. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
17  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

I get that the R's in the general population do not understand how elections work, but for the members on the hill not understanding is not acceptable.  How they ended up in power without understanding the constitution astounds me.  They think it is a version of oval office musical chairs and if Trump grabs the chair when the music stops, he gets a do over.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.1  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @17    3 weeks ago
I get that the R's in the general population do not understand how elections work

Perhaps you should take a poll in Virginia and see if Republicans understand exactly how elections work.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1    3 weeks ago

And even better, conduct a poll in Virginia and see if Democrats know how elections work.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



34 visitors