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
  • 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.

              • So you're saying there is only one possible way they will rule? Again, I don't claim to predict the future.

                • I'm not predicting the future, Jesus Christ dude where have I ever claimed to know what they're going to do?? Right now, it could go either way. But you seem to have no interest in even entertaining the thought that they might rule in favor of Trump, and you're literally saying that there is no value in speculating. Fuck that.

                  The ultimate conclusion of your thought process here is that it's never any use in speculating and making plans based on that speculation, unless you know for sure what the outcome is going to be. Do you not see how absurd that is? Of course I don't know what they are going to do, but I can speculate based on past/recent behaviors. I can even attach estimated probabilities to those outcomes (how accurate they may be is a different discussion).

                  This whole, "we don't know for sure how they will rule, so until then we will do nothing and will make plans for neither outcome," shit is silly. Nobody thinks like that in real life. Not successful politicians at least.

                  This is what politics is. People try to predict what the other side may or may not do given the current circumstances and then make plans (and backup plans, and backups of backup plans, etc.) to react once those decisions are made.

                  • I'm pretty sure this all started because I speculated.

                    Also, you seem to be the one "coming in real hot" right now based on that first paragraph.

                    Also:

                    This whole, “we don’t know for sure how they will rule, so until then we will do nothing and will make plans for neither outcome,” shit is silly.

                    I never said anything about doing nothing, so I agree. That is silly. I'm just not sure why you're telling me it's silly.

                    • OK, bud.

                      Anyway, there is a very real chance that they will rule in favor of Trump and it is important to plan for that possibility. I think the recent behavior of this specific court has shown time and time again that they simply Do. Not. Care.

                      I'm not sure why you even took issue with what I was saying in the first place other than to just pick a fight. I never claimed to know the future, that entire thing was just a strawman. Starting to wonder if any of this is good faith.

                      • I’m not sure why you even took issue with what I was saying in the first place other than to just pick a fight.

                        I'm afraid you have the order of things wrong. This started when you took issue with what I had said. I was not talking to you when you initially replied to me.

                        So if anything, this is a question you should be asking yourself.

You've viewed 129 comments.