If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dan Crenshaw gets upset at a 10 year old girl at an event and gets heckled by the crowd. “Don’t question my faith.”

This was a very Trumpy crowd, not a group of college Dems.

It's only about 90 seconds but it's quite the clip. I wish the video was little better than a sideways phone recording as I just can't make out facial expressions.

1) A fifth grader reads him a quote of his and asks him for clarification about a podcast quote. It was a tough quote of his but a softball, open-ended question.

2) The easy off ramp is to give it more context and/or say he misspoke. The whole "put a period after Jesus" thing was going down the right track. He could try to say something about how podcast have limited time and some editing constraints, wish I had more time to elaborate on there like I do here and spin his yarn with a sympathetic audience, etc.

3) Instead, he gets pissy with a 10yo. Like straight up attacks the girl. "Don't question my faith" gets uttered at least 3 times.

4) She reminds him those are his exact words. It softens him a little and it seems like he finally is getting on the right track as he does some of what I mentioned in #2.

5) Then she presses him again, something about how he says one thing on a podcast and another here. At this point, it enters my mind that she could be a bit of a political plant. I mean, I'm like "who would put their kid up to that sort of thing". And I don't mean put her up to it against her will - like most kids are similar to their parents at that age - so it's probably something she believes, as well. But I mean, who says "I'm going to wind up my kid with this OAN talking point and go to a Crenshaw rally just to have my kid try to play gotcha with someone from Congress and we'll cell phone tape it to feed the outrage machine". It's still unlikely to be that, but now it's on the table as being possible.

6) Of course, dumbass, doubles down and falls back into the hole he was just trying to climb out of, accusing her of "twisting it (his words)". After the crowd turned on you once already for going after her, I'd be treading very lightly. At most, you could probably get away with talking down to her in an unspoken "it's complex and you don't understand because you're just a little girl" sort of way that I suspect resonates with most of his audience. But, nope, he just grabs his shovel and digs deeper. Dig up, stupid.

7) That's when he loses the crowd for good and they start chanting Let's Go Brandon. I mean, I guess it's nice that they've found a new way to swear without swearing but it sounds stupid, considering they're not yelling it at, you know, Joe Biden. But what do I know.

SI

[RainMaker]

He is really dumb and he's talking to a really dumb audience.

[Lathum]

I like about 30 seconds in when someone just randomly yells "moron!"

[Lathum]

dola- it really is something to watch the right eat each other.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- it really is something to watch the right eat each other.

They aren't really eating each other. He'll backtrack and lick their boots while touting whatever fascist drivel they demand of him.

[Ksyrup]

The Venn diagram of Alabama people on Twitter telling Saban to stick to sports/stay out of politics and the people who voted for/supported Tommy Tuberville must be a circle.

[GrantDawg]

I must not pay attention, because I am shocked about Saban. I guess he is a good friend of Senator Coal?
Also, is there anyone more of a performance artist than Dan Crenshaw? It is interesting he would slam someone for being literally what he is.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Yes but he has standards, you see.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Also, is there anyone more of a performance artist than Dan Crenshaw? It is interesting he would slam someone for being literally what he is.

This guy?

[BYU 14]

I have no words for that

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This guy?

That was exactly what I was thinking of. He is a clown insulting other clowns.

[albionmoonlight]

I had this in the COVID thread responding to Trump being peeved at DeSantis, but it really belongs here:

If I had to predict right now in January 2022, I would predict that Trump seeks and obtains the GOP nomination in 2024 and remains the head of the party.

But if Trump does go down, I expect it will be of the "slowly at first; then all at once" variety.

If the MAGA base has other viable alternatives (DeSantis, Hawley, etc.); and if some of those contenders are willing/able to attack him from the right; and if McConnell/McCarthy decide that he is now more trouble than he is worth; and if the bi-partisan Congressional Committee examining the terrorist attack of 1/6 finds some anti-Trump information that actually manages to shock us; and if some of the various criminal/civil investigations into him and his businesses and his family start to heat up; and if one of the folks who knows where the bodies are buried decides to flip on him; and if the Supreme Court decides he isn't worth protecting anymore, then I expect that a lot of that will all kind of snowball together and feed on itself.

There's a lot of "and if" in that statement, which is why I think he survives. But I can also see why he might be a little nervous right now. The fact that DeSantis is doing anything other than praising him shows a bit of vulnerability that he has not had since 2016.

[JPhillips]

Write an essay justifying genocide.

my friend's kid's school in Georgia sent homework with this question pic.twitter.com/pSFhJ0Ucvz

— Jennifer C. Martin (@notreallyjcm) January 20, 2022

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I had this in the COVID thread responding to Trump being peeved at DeSantis, but it really belongs here:

If I had to predict right now in January 2022, I would predict that Trump seeks and obtains the GOP nomination in 2024 and remains the head of the party.

But if Trump does go down, I expect it will be of the "slowly at first; then all at once" variety.

If the MAGA base has other viable alternatives (DeSantis, Hawley, etc.); and if some of those contenders are willing/able to attack him from the right; and if McConnell/McCarthy decide that he is now more trouble than he is worth; and if the bi-partisan Congressional Committee examining the terrorist attack of 1/6 finds some anti-Trump information that actually manages to shock us; and if some of the various criminal/civil investigations into him and his businesses and his family start to heat up; and if one of the folks who knows where the bodies are buried decides to flip on him; and if the Supreme Court decides he isn't worth protecting anymore, then I expect that a lot of that will all kind of snowball together and feed on itself.

There's a lot of "and if" in that statement, which is why I think he survives. But I can also see why he might be a little nervous right now. The fact that DeSantis is doing anything other than praising him shows a bit of vulnerability that he has not had since 2016.

McConnell has supposedly started backing DeSantis as the lesser of two evils. DeSantis was on a close friend of McConnell's radio show and took a subtle shot at Trump by questioning the lockdowns from the very start of the pandemic.

If that's the case it will be interesting. Trump is Trump, but McConnell is someone I don't think Trump wants deliberately working against him.

[Lathum]

DeSantis wants to be president and the fact he is seemingly willing to take Trump on for the 2024 nomination instead of toeing the line and running in 2028, possibly as the incumbent VP, says a lot. He either thinks he can beat Trump for the nomination, or he thinks Trump loses again in 2024 and he doesn't want to be seen as backing the loser.

[Ksyrup]

I just think they see Trump's position weakening and are also concerned for the party and themselves in a worst-case scenario. If you've got someone the Trumpers like without Trump's baggage, why stick with Trump?

There's the unknown of the timing of any possible indictments on multiple fronts which could derail his campaign (egg on the face of the GOP for nominating a possible felon), there's his supporters booing him about being vaccinated (suggesting they are beginning to turn on him - the "cause" is now bigger than Trump), there's his inability to move on from the 2020 election, etc. And then there's the unknown of what kind of full-fledged, four-year "revenge administration" he would run to take down McConnell and others who haven't always kissed his ass or pushed back on him (which, of course, he never forgets).

[Thomkal]

I can see the campaign slogans now. Instead of lock her up, it will vote for me, so the lefties can't lock me up. I really hope he's under inditement for one or more of his crimes way before then though. If the Georgia tape recordings (just find me 11,000+ votes) make it to court, it will be interesting to see if the mood on him shifts a little.

[RainMaker]

He is not getting indicted and it's just grandstanding from some DA's who want media attention.

Trump would also clobber DeSantis in a primary. DeSantis has been in one tough race his entire life and it was against Andrew Gillum, a pretty shitty candidate. He's banking on Trump not running in 2024 and lining himself up as the candidate who offers Trump policies without the baggage.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He is not getting indicted and it's just grandstanding from some DA's who want media attention.

Trump would also clobber DeSantis in a primary. DeSantis has been in one tough race his entire life and it was against Andrew Gillum, a pretty shitty candidate. He's banking on Trump not running in 2024 and lining himself up as the candidate who offers Trump policies without the baggage.

Everybody make sure you repost this when/if Trump gets indicted please

[sterlingice]

Not holding my breath here. I mean, at some point, the powers that be might let him get indicted. However, I he's managed to avoid it so far so this feels a lot more like one of those "don't bet against the team on a winning streak" things

SI

[RainMaker]

The NY AG made a stink about information that was reported years ago and the guy is on tape committing crimes in Georgia. If they haven't indicted him yet, they never will.

But it does get their name in the news and some re-tweets which is the goal.

[stevew]

firmly in the no chance of indictment camp.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The NY AG made a stink about information that was reported years ago and the guy is on tape committing crimes in Georgia. If they haven't indicted him yet, they never will.

In your opinion, what is the reasoning for not indicting him?

[Ksyrup]

Speaking of DeSantis, his new "snowflake" law is a gem.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

In your opinion, what is the reasoning for not indicting him?

He is a rich, powerful, politically connected person and this country does not indict those types.

Plus the justice system in this country is designed to make it incredibly hard to convict rich, powerful people of crimes. It is designed to protect them and their interests at all costs.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He is a rich, powerful, politically connected person and this country does not indict those types.

Plus the justice system in this country is designed to make it incredibly hard to convict rich, powerful people of crimes. It is designed to protect them and their interests at all costs.

Ask Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort and everyone else Trump pardoned if they agree with you?

[Brian Swartz]

I just don't buy that, not to that degree. We have plenty of examples of members of Congress, even chairmen of important committees, who have been indicted. Mayors, executives, etc. Unquestionably the rich and powerful have it much better when it comes to the law but there are many counter-examples. If Trump isn't indicted, there's more to it than that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Ask Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort and everyone else Trump pardoned if they agree with you?

What was that last part of the sentence?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I just don't buy that, not to that degree. We have plenty of examples of members of Congress, even chairmen of important committees, who have been indicted. Mayors, executives, etc. Unquestionably the rich and powerful have it much better when it comes to the law but there are many counter-examples. If Trump isn't indicted, there's more to it than that.

No, we don't really have that many. Especially considering how much more potential legal issues politicians face compared to the rest of us.

We know that most members of Congress openly participate in insider trading. We know they accept bribes. We know they commit campaign finance violations.

The Manafort example earlier is actually a great one. It shows that with just a modicum of investigating people like this, they'll unearth crime after crime. The fact that someone could reach that level of government while committing so many blatant crimes shows the complete lack of scrutiny people like that face.

[RainMaker]

To sum up our legal system. If you work at Walmart and steal $500 from the register, the police will come and you'll be arrested. If Walmart shorts your paycheck $500, the cops will tell you that's a civil matter and there is nothing they can do.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Manafort example earlier is actually a great one. It shows that with just a modicum of investigating people like this, they'll unearth crime after crime. The fact that someone could reach that level of government while committing so many blatant crimes shows the complete lack of scrutiny people like that face.

Huh? What do you mean by 'that level of government'? Manafort was not a Cabinet Secretary approved by the Senate. He was not an elected government official. He was a campaign advisor and lobbyist, then chaired Trump's campaign ... but a candidate can name Mickey Mouse or Harvey the Rabbit as their campaign chairperson if they feel like it.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We know that most members of Congress openly participate in insider trading. We know they accept bribes. We know they commit campaign finance violations.

I don't think we know this, actually. And there's a lot of questionable calls involved here as well. Any position a member of Congress takes could be accused to being the result of a bribe, since there will always be contributors who want a certain position. But that doesn't mean that every position a Congressperson takes is bought and paid for. Is it 'corruption/bribery' to do what your voters or some segment of them wants?

Some members of Congress definitely do what you describe. But as usual, I think you're painting with way too broad a brush here.

[Flasch186]

The report that fraudulent elector documents were sent to congress is treason in my opinion. I think the line has officially been crossed versus being conjecture and speculation about how far they went.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Huh? What do you mean by 'that level of government'? Manafort was not a Cabinet Secretary approved by the Senate. He was not an elected government official. He was a campaign advisor and lobbyist, then chaired Trump's campaign ... but a candidate can name Mickey Mouse or Harvey the Rabbit as their campaign chairperson if they feel like it.

Manafort ran the President's campaign for a while and was an adviser to him and 3 other Presidents. Spent time as a deputy director for the RNC too. He was a powerful lobbyist with access to just about every politician in the country.

Not everyone with political power in this country has to be elected. But if you have a couple past Presidents on speeddial, you probably have a bit more power than the average citizen.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think we know this, actually. And there's a lot of questionable calls involved here as well. Any position a member of Congress takes could be accused to being the result of a bribe, since there will always be contributors who want a certain position. But that doesn't mean that every position a Congressperson takes is bought and paid for. Is it 'corruption/bribery' to do what your voters or some segment of them wants?

Some members of Congress definitely do what you describe. But as usual, I think you're painting with way too broad a brush here.

This is my point though. We know crimes are being committed. We know that companies aren't donating millions to candidates out of the kindness of their heart. But the laws are just vague enough to give plausible deniability and that enforcement is near zero. And even those who do get busted, get soft sentences or just flat out pardoned. It's a wonderful benefit for wealthy and politically connected people.

We have evidence of Congress repeatedly breaking the law but the penalty is less than what they spend on dry cleaning each week. And we know statistically that they are committing insider trading violations regularly with no penalties.

Crimes are treated differently for different classes. Trump certainly committed financial crimes, but the laws are vague enough to give plausible deniability and are just never really enforced. This is a country that allows $8 billion a year in theft without any criminal charges. Now compare that to the resources we put into weed and shoplifting.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What was that last part of the sentence?

Yes yes another rich white powerful man let them get out. My point was the legal system did work to the point where rich powerful white men were convicted and sent to jail, What happened after was totally expected given who were are dealing with here. If they ever go back to jail, pretty certain Biden won't be pardoning them or any Trumps in jail at the end of his term.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The report that fraudulent elector documents were sent to congress is treason in my opinion. I think the line has officially been crossed versus being conjecture and speculation about how far they went.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep having video or them signing forged documents pretty much locks that in. However there is a question of how many of the states Secretary of States will pursue charges-Michigan has I know, Nevada tweeted about it, maybe Arizona too

[Ksyrup]

I saw Michigan's AG raising jurisdictional issues related to the elector documents. Not sure exactly what she meant, but she said it was complicated. But then she said they might still pursue charges.

[RainMaker]

Pretty insane article about a war crime committed by the United States. Very close to killing tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/u...-isis-dam.html

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The report that fraudulent elector documents were sent to congress is treason in my opinion. I think the line has officially been crossed versus being conjecture and speculation about how far they went.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So my understanding of this shit show is that Christina Bob from OAN and Rudy were the ringleaders. They had to create the 2nd set of electors so they could sell the idea to Pence that there were multiple electors from each state so he should kick the election back to the states (for a house vote) in order to give Trump the Presidency.

The idea that anyone can just try to send "certified" electors to try to overturn an election without punishment is insane.

[albionmoonlight]

The small handful of people slated to be GOP electors in those states who decided not to sign have got to be feeling really really relieved right now.

[RainMaker]

The 1876 election is a pretty interesting parallel to what we saw. It's not taught much in schools and I'm guessing will be part of the forbidden curriculum moving forward. But an example that this country isn't really all that into democracy.

[RainMaker]

Also a pretty stunning document. Still amazed at how lightly people treated this.

Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines - POLITICO

[albionmoonlight]

I agree that going from "we all need more time to examine fraud allegations" to signing a fraudulent document that purports to be a slate of electors is a HUGE escalation.

They were not just worried about election integrity. They were trying to overthrow the duly elected government and install an illegitimate government using fraudulent documentation.

I'm sure that you can define "treason" in a way that does not cover that behavior, but it would be a pretty silly definition.

All that said, I doubt we end up executing everyone who signed the fraudulent certificates. As the Union's gracious treatment of the Confederacy shows, we talk a big game about treason, but we actually treat traitors pretty lightly.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also a pretty stunning document. Still amazed at how lightly people treated this.

Read the never-issued Trump order that would have seized voting machines - POLITICO

Good thing we have Joe Biden's job performance to complain about now huh?


That speech was clearly not written by him because they almost sounded like things a normal president would say when conceding.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Good thing we have Joe Biden's job performance to complain about now huh?

It's his DoJ doing absolutely jack shit about all this.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He was a powerful lobbyist with access to just about every politician in the country.

Not everyone with political power in this country has to be elected. But if you have a couple past Presidents on speeddial, you probably have a bit more power than the average citizen.

There's no question he had more power than the average citizen, but that's not the point. You were using Manafort as a stand-in/example for the government as a whole, were you not? Please explain if that's not what you were saying.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We know crimes are being committed. We know that companies aren't donating millions to candidates out of the kindness of their heart. But the laws are just vague enough to give plausible deniability and that enforcement is near zero. And even those who do get busted, get soft sentences or just flat out pardoned. It's a wonderful benefit for wealthy and politically connected people.

Should it be illegal to do anything that someone who contributes to your campaign wants? It has nothing do with whether companies donate 'out of the kindness of their hearts'. Presumably that isn't the case for the common citizen either. If a corporation donates ten million, or a million people each donate ten, they are both expecting something in exchange for their money. It also isn't necessarily the case that a politician changes their mind because that happened. The opposite is also possible and clearly often occurs; the donation comes to those who support what a donor wants, so they give the money to facilitate the politician being able to be elected/enact whatever policy is in view.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We have evidence of Congress repeatedly breaking the law but the penalty is less than what they spend on dry cleaning each week. And we know statistically that they are committing insider trading violations regularly with no penalties.

This is where it really goes off the rails IMO. As said I agree that you have a good point when you say the legal system isn't the same for the poor and powerless as it is for the rich and powerful. I agree with the goal of spending less money on shoplifting, more on employer wage theft, etc. But your links here do not support your stated position. They in fact refute it. For example the second one explicitly states that most members of Congress (430 out of 535, or over 80%) did not do a single stock trade. Obviously none of them are guilty of insider trading, yet you state that 'We know that most members of Congress openly participate in insider trading'

No, we know the opposite. You have to trade to openly participate in insider trading, meaning that *at most* 1 in 5 Congresspeople are culpable, and surely not every member who trades is guilty of that either. That doesn't mean there isn't too much corruption and people who get away with it; there is. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't strengthen penalties like those in the Stock Act - we should, but it's not an enforcement failure when the penalty is that small, it's a policy failure. Insider trading is a major focus point of the SEC and overall the agency obtains billions in judgements annually. If you want to increase their budget so they can do more of it I'm all for it, but everything I see says it's headed in the right direction. The level of 'rich people can do whatever they want' you describe simply doesn't match objective reality.

[Atocep]

How do people take this shit seriously?

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

[NobodyHere]

I can hardly tell the difference myself.

[PilotMan]

Is that the rights version of satire?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

How do people take this shit seriously?

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

Sadly this is who a large part of the country gets their "news" from. He is a god damn hero to them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There's no question he had more power than the average citizen, but that's not the point. You were using Manafort as a stand-in/example for the government as a whole, were you not? Please explain if that's not what you were saying.

Should it be illegal to do anything that someone who contributes to your campaign wants? It has nothing do with whether companies donate 'out of the kindness of their hearts'. Presumably that isn't the case for the common citizen either. If a corporation donates ten million, or a million people each donate ten, they are both expecting something in exchange for their money. It also isn't necessarily the case that a politician changes their mind because that happened. The opposite is also possible and clearly often occurs; the donation comes to those who support what a donor wants, so they give the money to facilitate the politician being able to be elected/enact whatever policy is in view.

This is where it really goes off the rails IMO. As said I agree that you have a good point when you say the legal system isn't the same for the poor and powerless as it is for the rich and powerful. I agree with the goal of spending less money on shoplifting, more on employer wage theft, etc. But your links here do not support your stated position. They in fact refute it. For example the second one explicitly states that most members of Congress (430 out of 535, or over 80%) did not do a single stock trade. Obviously none of them are guilty of insider trading, yet you state that 'We know that most members of Congress openly participate in insider trading'

No, we know the opposite. You have to trade to openly participate in insider trading, meaning that *at most* 1 in 5 Congresspeople are culpable, and surely not every member who trades is guilty of that either. That doesn't mean there isn't too much corruption and people who get away with it; there is. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't strengthen penalties like those in the Stock Act - we should, but it's not an enforcement failure when the penalty is that small, it's a policy failure. Insider trading is a major focus point of the SEC and overall the agency obtains billions in judgements annually. If you want to increase their budget so they can do more of it I'm all for it, but everything I see says it's headed in the right direction. The level of 'rich people can do whatever they want' you describe simply doesn't match objective reality.

Not sure what you're asking about Manafort. Simply saying that if you or I committed millions in bank fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering, we'd be rotting in prison until we die. I would add that investigation into him was unprecedented and if he had avoided Trump, he would have been allowed to commit crimes for as long as he wanted to.

On bribes....errr.. donations, we know what they are made for. We can trace donations back to unpopular legislative decisions they go with. You're right that it's hard to prove, but that's sort of the point. Laws are vague enough if you are in the upper class where you can do something we all know is illegal, but it's done with a wink and a nod.

And not sure what you're arguing on the insider trading. We know they're doing it. There is ample proof of it. Why has no one been arrested?