might be a lot of counting ahead of us. — Hippyhead

I think there's going to be a lot of counting for Trump. He's going to end up having to get out there and personally recount every single vote cast in the good old U.S. of A, as well as those from abroad, because no one else seems to be willing to do it for him. While he's at it, he'd better check every signature too. Maybe that'll keep him out of trouble for a while.

I said nothing about Trump being admirable or desirable. — Hippyhead

You wrote:

Trump is a realist. That is his gift. He's dealing with the world the way it really is. Stupid. The evidence for this is that his strategies are working. — Hippyhead

This appears to mean that you believe taking advantage of ignorance for selfish gain is ‘realistic’ and expresses a ‘gift’.

You also say that he’s contemptible, however.

I think you’re simply not thinking clearly.

There's a deep and annoying temptation among those who fancy themselves not unintelligent to imagine that stupid people can't be successful - belied everywhere by evidence. It's classist first of all, but it's also self-serving bullshit designed to allow self-identificaion and aggrandisement: those successful people are like me (and I am not a moron!) so maybe I can be successful too! These people are of course the stupidest of all. The ranks of the successful are everywhere populated by drooling mongoloids, as the current president-eject so amply illustrates.

The ranks of the successful are everywhere populated by drooling mongoloids, as the current president-eject so amply illustrates. — StreetlightX

:up:

I think his "instinctive ability" is that he's a realist. He's not burdened with visions of how things should be and so can better see things as they really are. Here's an example to illustrate. — Hippyhead

The theory that he plays into the fears of the beleaguered white man who sees his power escaping as the nation's culture and ethnicity change, so he harkens back to a non-existent time when things were great and can be now be made great again sounds like a better explanation.

The media typically presents itself as a public service, and we typically buy this story. Trump sees through this self flattering story the media tells itself about itself, and understands that corporate media is just another profit seeking business. He "instinctively" gets that the media is not in the news business, they are in the ad selling business, and that their business model is powered by drama. So Trump hands over a non-stop stream of drama and is rewarded by the media with a non-stop spotlight on his every utterance. — Hippyhead

He's the President, so he's likely going to get press whether he carefully submits position papers or he tweets while taking a dump. He's also not selling any actual product, so it's not like he gets paid more the more people talk about him. He also doesn't increase his popularity with the interest he creates, which is apparent from the fact that he lost the last election (even though Newmax has failed to declare him the loser).

What we have is an egomaniac who doesn't care about the national ideals he praises, the religion he preaches, or the people he embraces. He's no different from the left leaning politician who panders to the suffering by saying what they want to hear and doing nothing but gaining whatever power the powerful need to stay powerful.

Trump is no more a genius than is the preacher who cries from the pulpit while he gathers the last dimes from the congregants. Believers aren't stupid, just vulnerable.

he managed to lose the election by a bigger margin than any incumbent in modern history. — Baden

The only incumbent to ever lose without a primary challenger, if memory serves me right, and what I was taught once was true.

The theory that he plays into the fears of the beleaguered white man who sees his power escaping as the nation's culture and ethnicity change, so he harkens back to a non-existent time when things were great and can be now be made great again sounds like a better explanation. — Hanover

Nevermind the tax rate of the wealthy in the good 'ole days...

Trump, and his, and all like him, will always be dangerous, causing harm, injury, damage even to a degree that cannot be repaid or corrected by any means. Justice is the tool for dealing with such. At the least justice ought to render the malefactor harmless - or ought to try. And justice recognizes proportion in its punishments. Which is to say that mercy and rehabilitation is good, but is sometimes not correct.

For Trump and his and all like him, that are forever dangerous, that which renders them forever harmless in fact is correct. If he and his and them are not subject to and subjected to justice, then we have given them carte blanche - an insidious form of rot within justice, never mind the dangers of the persons.

So Trump and his subject to investigation and as appropriate indictment, trial, and on conviction sentences that reflect what they've earned, and that leave no doubt whatsoever that their capacities for harm are interdicted. And the sooner the better.

Trump is no more a genius than is the preacher who cries from the pulpit while he gathers the last dimes from the congregants. Believers aren't stupid, just vulnerable.

Trump has had most of the corporate global media, Hollywood, the intelligence community, and Big Tech against him. The most lucrative, influential and comprehensive machinery of propaganda in human history delivered an undoubtedly anti-Trump message, fitting the propaganda model to a T. The canard of a Kremlin-linked president still rattles in the heads of true believers while they remain mostly ignorant that the Chinese politburo had already reached the highest echelons of the opposing party. There was the sensationalism around violence at Trump’s rallies while hardly a whisper about violence against his rally-goers. Information gatekeepers actively suppress Trump and his supporters and anything that might reflect poorly on his opponents.

I think Trump’s Twitter feed and the reach of the few commentators who support him are utterly mild in comparison. That’s why I would also think Trump’s opponents are far more vulnerable.

Trump has had most of the corporate global media, Hollywood, the intelligence community, and Big Tech against him. The most lucrative, influential and comprehensive machinery of propaganda in human history delivered an undoubtedly anti-Trump message, fitting the propaganda model to a T. — NOS4A2

And this is what fanatic Trump supporters cherish the most. Forget what he actually says, the main fact is that he has gotten these people angry.

The canard of a Kremlin-linked president still rattles in the heads of true believers while they remain mostly ignorant that the Chinese politburo had already reached the highest echelons of the opposing party. — NOS4A2

No. The simple reason is that I have to watch the whole press conference in Helsinki of the US president alongside the Russia president and NOT to refer to journalists (who indeed basically are biased against all Republican presidents), but use my OWN THINKING to see that it wasn't normal. Trump's behaviour isn't at all normal with Putin. No president of any country would take the view of a rival and be against his own team. Trump's behavior simply wasn't normal.

But you don't notice this. You think that you are just surrounded with zombies who don't think with their own heads. So there's this left-wing bias in mainstream media. So? You have a right-wing bias in Fox. Easy to notice what is propaganda and what isn't.

The supreme court just told Trump and his army of deluded morons to fuck off. 9-0.

So I guess this means Trump didn’t stack the Supreme Court so as to use it in his favour. You morons.

It was never Trump in particular stacking the Supreme Court, it was the GOP more generally, especially Mitch McConnell, who is far worse than Trump could ever be.

Oh give it up. Don’t hold your breath for the coup either. It’s over and you still can’t let it go.

I was never expecting an actual coup. I was expecting a sad Trump temper tantrum while cooler heads (even among the GOP, who never followed Trump but only let him be useful to them) would prevail.

Of course it's over. It's been over for a month now, and everyone but Trump and his most deluded followers have known it.

No, it doesn't mean that. The fact that you fail at something doesn't mean you didn't intend to do it. I'd call that a lesson in basic logic but that would almost be an insult to basic logic. I realize you're not the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, Brett, but at least plug yourself in.

Latest abject failure from the Trump delusionists. :party:

They made themselves angry. Before Trump came on the scene the gutter press could end a political campaign if the candidate happened to scream awkwardly. They had no power here, and overestimated their king-making status. They failed and lashed out because of it.

You don’t mention that Trump acted the same with pretty much every other leader he met—only Putin. The difference is, the Helsinki meeting, framed as it was in the midst of the Russia hoax, was sensationalized for appetites such as yours.

There was no red scare scare when leading Democrats were found to have CCP agents on their teams. Obama praised China in joint press conferences after this and other ugly incidents (the killing of CIA informants, hacking and theft of intellectual property). Merkel didn’t stoop to criticize Obama when Snowden revealed his NSA was spying on her. Is this the normal you’re speaking of?

No; what was not normal was drum of war banging in the background, especially as a McCarthyite red scare rippled through the DC establishment, disrupting the entire country with a dangerous, media-induced fantasy. That’s not normal, and as far as I can tell your own thinking has only served to defend those actions.

No, it doesn't mean that. The fact that you fail at something doesn't mean you didn't intend to do it. — Baden

See it’s still about Trump for you. It’s the fact that you had no faith in judges nominated by Trump because they were nominated by Trump that’s your problem. You decided they were too biased to do their job properly. Just like everything else you were wrong.

Merkel didn’t stoop to criticize Obama when Snowden revealed his NSA was spying on her. Is this the normal you’re speaking of? — NOS4A2

For as long as I've been alive, everyone's been spying on each other, they just kind of take it for granted that they're being spied on. "Lower the cone of silence Max" "Not the cone of silence chief."

What? Only delusional Trumptards thought the supreme court would give in to these ludicrous nutjob suits.

(To spell it out for you: The fact that I don't have faith in Trump's SC picks does not mean I think they are insane enough to overturn an election based on the crazy fantasies of foaming tin-foil hat morons like Giuliani and co. Stuff like Roe v Wade or gay marriage is another issue,)

Actually I think really you’re frustrated that you didn’t get what you want: Trump removed because he was a Putin puppet, a piss tape, a mental breakdown, death by COVID, war with North Korea, war with Iran, impeachment for a phone call, Jerusalem exploding, a blue wave, a coup.

Yes, I'm really frustrated at all the humiliation being heaped on the poor dumb bastard and his idiotic army of supporters. It's awful. Please make it stop.

You still don’t get it. It’s not about Trump. It’s the fact the the Constituition and the way things are worked out still functioned.

Do you have an argument to make against something I actually said, Brett? If so, quote me. I'm aware the constitution worked and I fully expected it to. Which is why I've spent the last few weeks laughing at those who thought Trump had a chance of overturning the result when it was obvious he had none.

E.g

"

Many of these judgements are worth reading. They emphasize how utterly pathetic these tinfoil hat challenges are.

"This petition falls far short of the kind of compelling evidence and legal support we would
undoubtedly need to countenance the court-ordered disenfranchisement of every Wisconsin voter.
The petition does not even justify the exercise of our original jurisdiction.

...
The petition’s legal support is no less wanting. For example, it does not explain why its challenge to various election processes comes after the election, and not before. Nor does it grapple with how voiding the presidential election results would impact every other race on the ballot, or consider the import of election statutes that may provide the “exclusive remedy.

These are just a few of the glaring flaws that render the petition woefully deficient. I therefore join the court’s order denying the original action. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to share a further observation. Something far more fundamental than the winner of Wisconsin’s electoral votes is implicated in this case. At stake, in some measure, is faith in our system of free and fair elections, a feature central to the enduring strength of our constitutional republic. It can be easy to blithely move on to the next case with a petition so obviously lacking, but this is sobering. The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen. Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.

I do not mean to suggest this court should look the other way no matter what. But if there
is a sufficient basis to invalidate an election, it must be established with evidence and arguments commensurate with the scale of the claims and the relief sought. These petitioners have come nowhere close. While the rough and tumble world of electoral politics may be the prism through which many view this litigation, it cannot be so for us. In these hallowed halls, the law must rule." — Baden

Do you have an argument to make against something I actually said, Brett? — Baden

Oh Baden, you take things so personally.

Lol.

We appear to agree the constitution worked, the judges did their jobs, and Trump failed to make any impact on the election results. I was wondering what the point of contention was. If there is none, great.