I think it was better that Trump got cheated in 2020 because he will return in 2024 to become President again

tyrant

Member
Most of us know that Trump was the true winner of the 2020 election and that if it wasn't for legislatures unconstitutionally changing laws and because of cheating Trump lost.

However, I think in the long run it could perhaps be better. Trump will ride back with all of his 70 million+ voters including their kids who can now vote. Biden will have had 4 years to mess up the US (all he has to do is open the country from COVID restrictions and the US economy would explode) but won't have gotten much done with such as small majority in the House and Senate. Also, unless Bryer steps down Biden will not get a new SCOTUS pick. It also seems as if the US Supreme court packing push has died.

So, Trump comes back in 2024 and wins, he has a huge majority in the House and Senate, a mandate, and Justice Bryer and Thomas are most likely going to step down from SCOTUS. That would give Trump 2 new SCOTUS picks that Biden did not get. One of them being a liberal. Trump can also set new election integrity laws hopefully.


Thoughts?
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
I'm going to stick my neck out and make my predictions:

1) Trump will not run again in 2024, but won't announce that until after the 2022 mid-terms.
2) A populist conservative of the MAGA wing will get nominated and go on to win the 2024 election with Trump's support and endorsement.

Who will that nominee be? I don't know and don't have enough of a clue to make a prediction. I think De Santos, Cruz, Graham and McCarthy probably have high hopes to be the one, but I don't think it will be any of them.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Trump lost pretty solidly as an incumbent, which is rare, and shows a significant weakness in his support.

He will stick around as a MAGA gadfly/kingmaker. Whether any other candidate can tap into that particular group is yet to be seen. His personal vanity might well prevent him from getting sufficiently out of the way of other candidates. Republicans are very afraid that he will act as a spoiler.

Of course, the Democrats are well aware of this, and will position themselves to siphon off the middle.

We shall see. Predictions are, of course, largely useless at this point. Especially about the future.
 

tyrant

Member
Trump lost pretty solidly as an incumbent, which is rare, and shows a significant weakness in his support.

He will stick around as a MAGA gadfly/kingmaker. Whether any other candidate can tap into that particular group is yet to be seen. His personal vanity might well prevent him from getting sufficiently out of the way of other candidates. Republicans are very afraid that he will act as a spoiler.

Of course, the Democrats are well aware of this, and will position themselves to siphon off the middle.

We shall see. Predictions are, of course, largely useless at this point. Especially about the future.


Trump did not lose fairly, there was election fraud and rules were changed unconstitutionally, if SCOTUS had taken up their cases they would have ruled what the governors and attorney generals did usurped the power of the legislatures.


I think Trump will run in 2024 but will also not announce until after 2022.


Also, if Trump announced now it would give the Democrats 4 years to attack him, now they will only have 2 and the midterm elections will be over and Republicans will have hopefully gained seats.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Trump did not lose fairly, there was election fraud and rules were changed unconstitutionally, if SCOTUS had taken up their cases they would have ruled what the governors and attorney generals did usurped the power of the legislatures.


I think Trump will run in 2024 but will also not announce until after 2022.


Also, if Trump announced now it would give the Democrats 4 years to attack him, now they will only have 2 and the midterm elections will be over and Republicans will have hopefully gained seats.

It was a clean loss. SCOTUS is 6-3 conservative, with 3 justices appointed by Trump, and they tossed every single challenges as meritless junk. Done deal. Plus, Trump lost in the popular vote by 7+ million.

You think Democrats aren't already gearing up to get at Trump? You must not read the newspapers.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
...if SCOTUS had taken up their cases they would have ruled what the governors and attorney generals did usurped the power of the legislatures....

...they tossed every single challenges as meritless junk....

Actually, both you guys are wide of the mark. On opposite ends. Courts dismissed the cases for reasons having nothing to do with plaintiff's evidence, therefore no conclusion as to ruling or merit can be deduced.

You must not read the newspapers

Ah .... ha, ha, ha, ha!!! Newspapers?!?! You don't really believe what they print?!?! To quote roscoe's hero: "C'mon, man!!" They are a major part of the problem. What they print is not likely to be from a disinterested point of view.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Actually, both you guys are wide of the mark. On opposite ends. Courts dismissed the cases for reasons having nothing to do with plaintiff's evidence, therefore no conclusion as to ruling or merit can be deduced.

From the Wisconsin Voters Alliance et al. v. Pence et al. decision: Plaintiffs "have established no likelihood of success on the merits".
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Exactly.....how can they make this statement without seeing any of the evidence.

You need to learn how the legal system works. You don't get to argue in front of actual judges if the suit doesn't meet minimum standards. There is a thing called a brief that is submitted that outlines the evidence and the arguments. If you want so read something entertaining, you might read some of the briefs - they are all public record. The arguments are kind of all over the place - they tried everything to stop the votes from being counted and certified, so there is no coherent theme to them.

A typical decision might be seen in Stoddard v. City Election Comm'n of the City of Detroit, in which the judgement against the plaintiffs noted: plaintiffs did "not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions ... Plaintiffs' allegation is mere speculation. Plaintiffs' pleadings do not set forth a cause of action." "Sinister, fraudulent motives" were alleged, but the "plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible"

These cases were so meritless that most couldn't even pass the low bar of being argued. I mean think of it - some 60+ cases that ALL failed, across ALL jurisdictions in which they were submitted. Republican-appointed judges, Democrat-appointed judges, and in the SCOTUS, where the conservative majority is 6-3: every single one was turned away or decided against plaintiffs. (It only take 4 SCOTUS justices to accept a case for argument, BTW.)

That should tell you something.

One final note: Trump was the first one to allege voter fraud. Doesn't it strike you as strange that allegations of voter fraud didn't come from the various state officials, since they are the ones there, on the ground, watching the election? Do you really think he somehow had a different pipeline of information that (contrary to Constitutional authority) provides him with privileged details of each election? And that there was a concerted Democratic conspiracy across multiple states, several run with Republican secretaries of state? And that NO details of the organization of this conspiracy across the US have emerged?

Or that Trump, with a wounded ego from the loss, had to find some justification for his loss?

Which, in the cold light of day, is the more plausible scenario? I can tell you that, as a scientist, we look for the most parsimonious hypothesis (the simplest one with the fewest ad-hoc assumptions). It isn't the conspiracy, I assure you.
 
Last edited:

Magnum

Well-known member
Of course, the Democrats are well aware of this, and will position themselves to siphon off the middle.
The middle? Ha! There is no middle anymore. Either you're a communist shit bag or you're a Republican .
They aren't even trying to appease the middle.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
The middle? Ha! There is no middle anymore. Either you're a communist shit bag or you're a Republican .
They aren't even trying to appease the middle.
Well, that has become the Republican position recently. Not a good trajectory for the party. The math does not bode well
 

Magnum

Well-known member
Left is eating itself . they can't maintain all their hypocrisy. While they shout down anything they disagree with as racist their leadership attack conservatives black folks with racial slurs. Look at the mess they made for themselves with Caitlyn Jenner , can't criticize or it'll be hate speech but he's a conservative (sort of) and if the left doesn't vote for Jenner it's prejudice - can't live by their own standards.

But yes , unequivocally the Democrat party is communist . simple, most of them support socialism which is an intermediate step to communism - just ask Marx. Why do you think California is losing population? Can't blame the Pac Northwest on conservatives , can't blame Detroit , Baltimore , new York city, chicago, or any other morally and financially bankrupt shithole here on conservatives . commie policy is coming home to roost on the left and people are fleeing in droves. Where they going? To places that have been cared for by people with functional brains, Texas , Florida ect.
The people in those states won't tolerate their home being invaded by left voting Turds fleeing horrible conditions that they themselves created.

Liberalism is 100% a mental condition. There is a cure though, it's called common sense. Maybe some of these folks can manage to get some. I doubt it though
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
... There is a cure though, it's called common sense. ...
Except that has been coopted and redefined by the left to be "commonsense". I try to avoid using terms redefined by the left to fit their narrative. Do you have any good ideas for another term to identify what used to be meant by "common sense"?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Left is eating itself . they can't maintain all their hypocrisy. While they shout down anything they disagree with as racist their leadership attack conservatives black folks with racial slurs. Look at the mess they made for themselves with Caitlyn Jenner , can't criticize or it'll be hate speech but he's a conservative (sort of) and if the left doesn't vote for Jenner it's prejudice - can't live by their own standards.

But yes , unequivocally the Democrat party is communist . simple, most of them support socialism which is an intermediate step to communism - just ask Marx. Why do you think California is losing population? Can't blame the Pac Northwest on conservatives , can't blame Detroit , Baltimore , new York city, chicago, or any other morally and financially bankrupt shithole here on conservatives . commie policy is coming home to roost on the left and people are fleeing in droves. Where they going? To places that have been cared for by people with functional brains, Texas , Florida ect.
The people in those states won't tolerate their home being invaded by left voting Turds fleeing horrible conditions that they themselves created.

Liberalism is 100% a mental condition. There is a cure though, it's called common sense. Maybe some of these folks can manage to get some. I doubt it though

It is funny how little actual information is present in this kind of post. Just an emotional rant.

I recommend you take a look at the states with the highest incomes, the most economic productivity, best health-care, best education systems, the longest lives, and the least federal aid. When you do a little research, why don't you come back and tell us whether those states are red or blue?
 
Top