Will Trump Ride off into the sunset, or play the broken here

[gcode]

70 years ago antifa/blm trying to burn down a police station would have been met with a fury of cop lead.

with a whole lot of civilians helping out

[YoDoug]

Does that mean that you are not a Constitutional originalist?

That is a question that does not have a simple answer. I believe the bill of rights was pretty good and does not need to be changed or amended. It lays out in clear language that all deserve equal rights and that rights are bestowed from our creator, not government. It enumerates the rights very well. However, as well as the constitution is written I also agree that, while it is difficult, there should be a process to amend the constitution if necessary.

As far as my comment, I meant that most issues are too complex to say how current events would have played out in the past. Throughout America's history there has been widely varying perception of events and issues, both from the political class and the public. To say definitively that J6 would have ended with people lined up and shot as traitors is an opinion based on your perception of the events. Many conservative and legal scholars say many of the things the Clintons did would have been considered treasonous 100 years ago.

As far as J6, there has been case law that set precedence that you have to actually have plans to overthrow the gov and act upon it. While there was a lot of tough talk from J6 defendants, no evidence has been shown that they gathered with the intention of overthrowing the government. There was no organized plan, which is what the existing case law claims there needs to be.

[gcode]

with a whole lot of civilians helping out

LA Riots and Koreans on roofs.
"Loot my store, bitch!"

[CNCAppsJames]

J6? If this had happened 70 years ago those guys would have been lined up and shot as traitors.

70 years ago election integrity wasn't the concern it is today. 70 years ago 2% of the population weren't illegal aliens and even if they were, they SAF weren't voting. 70 years ago Congress would at least attempt to create a law that on the surface was at least constitutional now creating unconstitutional law is sport. I could go on ad infinitum.

[CNCAppsJames]

...

As far as J6, there has been case law that set precedence that you have to actually have plans to overthrow the gov and act upon it. While there was a lot of tough talk from J6 defendants, no evidence has been shown that they gathered with the intention of overthrowing the government. There was no organized plan, which is what the existing case law claims there needs to be.

Furthermore, NOT. ONE. SINGLE. CHARGE. of insurrection. Not one. Why? Because that's NOT what it was regardless of what the boob tube is telling the sheep, and that piece of garbage Garland running DOJ knew it which is why they weren't charged with it.

When we have the FBI ("informants") nearly leading the charge much or more than they did with Gretchen Whitmer's "kidnapping" plot ( https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant ), the whole issue with January 6th (other than the vandalism) is a sham. The ONLY reason people are taking the plea deals is because the FBI is threatening to hold people indefinitely. So much to the right of a speedy trial. When we have a roge congress, rogue government law enforcement agencies (heretofore known as alphabet soup) not actually acting in in the capacity of law enforcement but rather acting in a capacity for the purposes of entrapment, nothing they say or do can or should be considered good faith law enforcement. Because Congress has hyped this up to a fever pitch getting all the sheep's pampers in a bunch, no judge dare throw out these sham charges (other than conspiracy and vandalism),

Alphabet soup AND Capitol Police ( https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri ) knew the full details of what was going to transpire because they had at least 8 people infiltrating Proud Boys (https://tennesseestar.com/2022/11/16/fbi-had-up-to-eight-informants-in-proud-boys-on-january-6-court-docs-show/)  on January 6th and chose to incite it instead of stop it. Why you ask? Theatrics plain and simple. Alphabet soup's plan from the get go was to incite and to entrap. They could have easily hung "Conspiracy" charges on them for whatever they actually planned if it was in fact illegal (IOW anything more violent or destructive than a simple protest), but that's NOT how they work any more which should be cause for SERIOUS concern. Why? This incarnation of our nation's law enforcement agency I have no doubt they would allow something truly horrific to happen in order to maximize their political gain.

These rogue agencies are not run by and for people with concern for the Nation or it's Constitution, no, they are run by and for tyrants that wish to impose THEIR will on the people of this nation.

[YoDoug]

For all the people that say Trump can't win again. Note; doesn't matter because the Dems will mail-in-steal the 2024 election regardless of who the R's run.

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1594112444770979840

[neurosis]

or all the people that say Trump can't win again.

Who is "interactivepolls" and where do they take their polling? 

[YoDoug]

Who is "interactivepolls" and where do they take their polling? 

It's a Harvard/Harris poll. https://harvardharrispoll.com/

[MIL-TFP-41]

For all the people that say Trump can't win again. Note; doesn't matter because the Dems will mail-in-steal the 2024 election regardless of who the R's run.

Trump is 0-3 in the last 3 elections. Let the old guy rest. Get some young blood in there.
There is a minimum age for being president. I think there should be a maximum age for public office also. Even a generous max, like 70, would do a lot to cleaning out Washington. Last I checked there were 20+ senators over 70

[YoDoug]

Trump is 0-3 in the last 3 elections. Let the old guy rest. Get some young blood in there.
There is a minimum age for being president. I think there should be a maximum age for public office also. Even a generous max, like 70, would do a lot to cleaning out Washington. Last I checked there were 20+ senators over 70

Trump won in 2016 Trump got more votes in 2020 than any president before him in. The dems just mail-in-fraud stole the election in 6 states. They also did it in those same states in 2022. If you think a young, up and coming Republican will do any better you are fooling yourself. The Dems will continue to inject tens of thousands of illegitimate votes in PA, AZ, GA, MI, WI, etc. to win in 2024. Even worse, they are extending their ballot harvesting/voter fraud ops to more and more house districts. IMO, Unless something changes to stop unsecured mail in voting the Dems have 100% chance of winning executive branch and holding the senate in 2024. I would even give them a 95% chance of retaking the house.

How does that make Trump 0-3. It doesn't matter who the R candidate is, they will lose if the status quo stays the same.

That being said, I would prefer someone else as well, but that ain't gonna happen.

[BrianP.]

For all the people that say Trump can't win again. Note; doesn't matter because the Dems will mail-in-steal the 2024 election regardless of who the R's run.

https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1594112444770979840

The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency.

Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation Project data says Clinton has a 95 percent chance to win the Electoral College by a margin of 118 votes.

Polls. Meh.

[rdshear]

YoDoug, I fully agree with your evaluation of the situation.  It's sad times when you can't trust election data that once was so sacred.

[YoDoug]

Polls. Meh.

I don't always trust the polls. In the past I would look back at the pollsters record but that doesn't necessarily work in the past few years. With the current state of election integrity/security, I agree, the polls can be problematic. However, if you look at the polls in relation to states with high election integrity/security versus those with unsecure mail in voting, a trend in poll numbers can be easily seen. In states with high election integrity
 and secure voting, the pollsters that were more accurate over the last decade continued to be as reliable. on the other hand, the dem's dramatically out perform the polls in states with unsecure mail in voting.

[neurosis]

I was listening to Rand Paul talk about election integrity/security a week or so ago on Megyn Kelly's podcast. I was surprised that he actually had some points that I agreed with, none of which had anything to do with voter fraud. In fact, he said outright that they haven't seen any evidence of large scale voter fraud.

One of his opinions on the mail in voting, was that if you make it that easy to vote, people who don't really follow politics and/or aren't well informed on important topics/policy, and potentially get their opinion from social media memes etc, will vote anyway because it's so easy.

Also, that people who are willing to go through an arduous process to vote (in person voting only) are usually people who take the time to inform themselves on current events and government policy. *Those* are the people he would rather see voting.

Not going to agree or disagree with his opinion on that being a reason to make voting more difficult, but it did make sense.     

[YoDoug]

I was listening to Rand Paul talk about election integrity/security a week or so ago on Megyn Kelly's podcast. I was surprised that he actually had some points that I agreed with, none of which had anything to do with voter fraud. In fact, he said outright that they haven't seen any evidence of large scale voter fraud.

One of his opinions on the mail in voting, was that if you make it that easy to vote, people who don't really follow politics and/or aren't well informed on important topics/policy, and potentially get their opinion from social media memes etc, will vote anyway because it's so easy.

Also, that people who are willing to go through an arduous process to vote (in person voting only) are usually people to take the time to inform themselves on current events and government policy.

Not going to agree or disagree with his opinion on that being a reason to make voting more difficult, but it did make sense.     

Well then, I guess you are right. Dem voters are uniformed and ignorant.