Categories
Trump goes on the offensive threatening Haley’s donors – politicalbetting.com
Trump goes on the offensive threatening Haley’s donors – politicalbetting.com
0
This discussion has been closed.
Trump goes on the offensive threatening Haley’s donors – politicalbetting.com
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68091389
Surely he needs to win over Haley's supporters and donors, especially once she is out of the race. Not alienate them.
It makes little sense from the Trumpdozer.
"I'm a paedophile"?
"I worship the Devil"?
"I like pineapple on pizza"?
Anything?
Maybe it’s the same story behind all the sexual assaults?
Toxic Dream.
The first picture of the stricken Slim spacecraft shows it rotated 90 degrees from how it should have come to rest.
(Or was the lander meant to land on its side?)
They seem to veer from occasional spurts of courage straight back to knowing their place is licking Trump's boots. Mike Pence another good example of this.
The donors, anyway. Polling suggests a fair percentage of her vote is likely to be more resistant.
Many corporate leaders are misguided in playing down the risks of a second term for the Republican former president
https://www.ft.com/content/8fbf3a47-f622-46cc-ac06-17732cecc313
..The 1930s ought to have buried the idea that business is a bulwark against autocracy. Today’s America offers a reminder. After Donald Trump’s attempted putsch on January 6 2021, US business leaders lined up to condemn the storming of Capitol Hill. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan, issued a statement calling for a peaceful transition of power. “This is not who we are as a people or a country,” he said. In Davos last week, Dimon had changed his tune. Trump did many good things when he was in office, Dimon said. Business was ready for either Joe Biden or Trump: “My company will survive and thrive in both.”
The US Chamber of Commerce has undergone a similar evolution. “There are some members who, by their actions, will have forfeited the support of the US Chamber of Commerce. Period. Full stop,” said its vice-president, Neil Bradley, in January 2021. The chamber’s ban on giving money to lawmakers who had voted against certifying Biden’s election win was quietly dropped a couple of months later.
In her state of American business speech one year ago, Suzanne Clark, the chamber’s chief executive, did not mention US democracy. Battling “unprecedented regulatory over-reach” by the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies would be the chamber’s top priority. ..
Humble apologies to the most excellent BBC Science correspondent Jonathan Amos.
"Kneel before Zod" or "force your enemy to acknowledge they were wrong to oppose you" (Superman/Gul Dukat) but even that is too strange to think.
The most likely result, if he wins - especially if that win is via less votes than Biden - is to plunge the United States into civil war as he seeks to take revenge on all who ever opposed him (and that list is vast).
ETA: And still, it's more like 80 degrees (or maybe 100 - hard to tell which is side supposed to be up) so your point stands
In answer to your question, any MAGA candidate that is prepared to a) accept election outcomes, and b) not threaten to lock up his/her opponents would be vastly less of a threat to western democracy.
Anyone who cannot see the threat Trump poses is frankly as bad as the 1930s Hitler apologists.
It's not conventional right wingery, because that's de Santis, and we know how well that lasted against The Donald.
One of the best political ads ever, btw.
Whether she'll eventually capitulate, like everyone since Ted Cruz and Little Marco, is open to question. But this does sound just a bit like someone deciding fnck it, let's go all in.
It will certainly get under his skin.
@NikkiHaley on Trump: He “threw a temper tantrum,” “pitched a fit.” He’s “insecure” and feels “threatened.” “And he should feel threatened.” She calls him “confused” and questions his “mental competency”; He’s running “revenge” and not relevant issues.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1750329672087249127
Trump has released a video on dismantling the deep state:
https://x.com/leadingreport/status/1750332674701463838
Trump’s plan to dismantle the ‘Deep State':
1. Immediately reissue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats and wield that power “very aggressively."
2. Clean out all the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.
3. Totally reform FISA courts.
4. Establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to declassify and publish all documents on the deep state’s spying, censorship, and corruption.
5. Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with “fake news to deliberately weave false narratives and subvert our government and democracy.”
6. Make every inspector general’s office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee.
7. Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies.
8. Continue the effort launched by the Trump administration to move parts of the federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the “Washington Swamp.”
9. Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and regulate.
10. Push a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.
Outside of the fact that this is being proposed by Trump and therefore, of course, will mostly be used to deal with his petty grievances rather than increase scrutiny on the executive branch or Congress - these aren't all bad policies even as written. Like 1 and 5 are very questionable, and the invective about "fake news" and "Washington Swamp" are bad - but the overall idea if done in a sincere way would be a boon. A shame it will be imposed by a fascist to make the executive branch more fashy.
It's not a healthy thing for a politician to do, is it?
I don't think there is anything that would shift the base - short of literal revelation from the literal resurrected Jesus Christ; and even then I would put odds on them just recrucifying him than turning on Trump.
Voters need to be won over. Activists sometimes need to berated.
Morgan McSweeney told the NEC that Rishi Sunak could be forced to “pre-empt” a leadership challenge.
By George Eaton"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2024/01/why-labour-is-still-preparing-for-a-may-general-election
You could make a case for 6,8 and 9 - and possibly 3 (though how ?), but the rest would require accepting the paranoid premise.
I would agree that it is very hard to see Thomas and Alito finding against him though.
I find it very plausible that the majority will reject the idea that the President isn’t an “officer.” The big lynchpin here is whether they agree his conduct constitutes insurrection. The rest is largely procedural (ie the distinction between serving and electing etc).
Haley has to make a choice about her political future. I don't think there's one for her in Trumpworld; there is perhaps a significant one post Trump, if he loses in November.
There's also the small matter of choosing to do the right thing.
I feel people think about fascists and go "that's a uniform and symbol and people marching in lock step" and that was, indeed, fascism of the 20s through to the 50s - but as society has got more individualistic the aesthetics of fascism has changed from a literal uniform to a pseudo uniform (the MAGA hat, the same fascination with shared symbols and signs) that isn't everyone wearing the same outfit but having the same "vibe" with their outfit.
2 - I think there are likely "corrupt actors in... national security and intelligence" - I just probably have a different definition of corrupt than you or Trump.
3 - FISA courts are bad, and the fact that they also target people who do need targeting occasionally is not enough to justify their existence
4 - I think a public airing of what the intelligence agencies of the US do would be good, although the focus on Trump is indeed a general acceptance of the paranoid premise Trump holds
7 - Independent scrutiny of the intelligence apparatus, if actually independent, is good.
10 - A term limit for members of Congress makes sense and would allow for new blood to flow through both parties a lot quicker
I agree that because Trump is suggesting these things they would, in practice, be bad. Because this is a pretence for a reform of the executive branch to allow Trump to be the dictator he wants. But, if these were sincere policy proposals for executive branch reform from a liberal think tank (for example) I'd think they'd be pretty fair. This is clearly a trap to get Democrats to campaign against these things (and therefore defend the security state apparatus as it currently exists) which is not something many typical Democrats agree with.
And a lot of these right wing judges are quite keen on the idea of going with the plain ordinary literal text rather than reading things into it. Of course it will be interesting to see how much that matters to them in this particular case, when it’s not about restricting rights for minorities and women….
Or maybe they are just grifters like Kennedy?
As it happens. I think they will use the lack of conviction as the deciding factor (probably correctly).
"I'm a paedophile"?
"I worship the Devil"?
"I like pineapple on pizza"?
Anything?
Walking on to the sound of Radiohead at rallies?
And the lower courts said he had engaged in insurrection.
I don’t think that’s insurmountable and they can overrule if they think that is egregiously wrong, but I don’t profess to be an expert.
Putin must be lapping this stuff up.
SCOTUS ruling sometime in February, I believe?
If he dropped out and said vote for Biden I think he'd lose support.
NIKKI BIRDBRAIN!
DODGY DONALD!
Oral arguments are scheduled for 8 February. A lot can generally, I believe, be gleaned from that session because a judge’s line of questioning can belie what their gut view/feeling is.
They've always hated and ignored the literal text of the 9th Amendment, for example, which is essentially "yo, if we didn't specifically name a right doesn't mean you don't have it" and the right wing argue the literal opposite all the time. Bork literally said interpreting the text, which is pretty clear, would be like trying to interpret what was written underneath "an inkblot".
*On the Magic Grandpa left as well.
Despicable, dopey, dangerous, disastrous, delinquent, or my preferred: deranged... None of them quite do it on their own. All of the above would see to apply.
How do all those MAGA types square that one?
Overturning the democratic system is not ok.
And can you really look me in the eye after the fake electors, and tell me he's not a threat to the democratic system?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/22/trumps-proposed-10percent-tariff-plan-would-shake-up-every-asset-class-strategist.html