Skip Navigation

Donald Trump campaign stung by direct evidence revealed in court

www.newsweek.com Donald Trump campaign stung by direct evidence revealed in court

A witness said members of Donald Trump's campaign team led an effort to install fake electors in Michigan.

Donald Trump campaign stung by direct evidence revealed in court
129

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
129 comments
  • You seem very fixated on Biden. You seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that Trump will win and there will never be a Democrat in office again because he will win. I guarantee you that SCOTUS is not assuming he will win and they are not assuming Biden will be the last Democrat ever in office or that a Democrat would never do things Republicans really didn't want to happen even though the Democrat had the legal right. Because those are not safe assumptions.

    • Huh? Where did I suggest it was a foregone conclusion?

      I think you're naive if you think the Democrats would ever do anything meaningful in that situation. If that were the case, something would have been done years ago. They will not do such obviously unethical things (even if the potential outcome is good). That's not how they have ever operated.

      Also, what would they even do?

      • Where did I suggest it was a foregone conclusion?

        Where you made this all about Biden as if there would never be another Democrat in the presidency again.

        I think you’re naive if you think the Democrats would ever do anything meaningful in that situation.

        Unlike you, I do not believe I can predict the future with that confidence. And I don't think SCOTUS believes they can either.

        • Take it down a notch, dude, you're coming in real hot and it's not clear to me why.

          I never claimed I could predict the future. You really like putting words in my mouth.

          • This is what you said:

            I think you’re naive if you think the Democrats would ever do anything meaningful in that situation.

            That is literally a prediction of the future. I did not put any words in your mouth.

            As far as "coming in real hot," you are welcome to interpret what I say to you that way, but you would be incorrect.

            • What would Democrats do? You think they'll actually reform the Supreme Court? LOL. Even if they tried, it would never happen, and especially not before the election.

              I'm genuinely curious what you think the Democrats would do to "take advantage" of the hypothetical SCOTUS decision on Trump? What are conservative justices worried Democrats might do?

              • Again, I do not claim to be able to predict the future. And neither do SCOTUS. Which is the point.

                • The implication here is that nobody ever makes plans because "they can't predict the future." That's silly.

                  • No, the implication here is that they might not rule in favor of Trump because they know the future is uncertain and doing that would be risky. I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear. If you can claim that they will definitely rule in favor of Trump then you will have certainly demonstrated your belief in your powers of prognostication.

                    • You know what was also risky?

                      Ruling against Roe. Ruling that a company can refuse service to a theoretical gay customer because they're gay. Ruling that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Ruling against Biden's student loan forgiveness.

                      I would also say things like blatantly flaunting your billionaire handlers is pretty risky as well, and literally nothing came of that.

                      This isn't exactly a risk-adverse SCOTUS.

You've viewed 129 comments.