But what if Trump Loses?

[Unionville]

Forgive if this is too off-off topic, but I truly am curious.  Not starting a fight.

People seem to talk a lot about Trump winning the election and walking away from all his legal woes and becoming a tyrant - but what they don't talk much about, which I find more interesting is: What happens when he loses?

Things probably for sure will happen: He will claim voter fraud and cheating. He will also be forced to go through all this court cases which could go on for years. He will probably have to spend his own money for legal fees (and not GOP money), and the GOP will probably want to drop him because he's toxic and causes them to lose elections. It's possible he might even actually go to jail for a bit.

So the more interesting question to me is: what do you think will happen after he loses?

I welcome your creative predictions.

[ixtap]

He is currently threatening a bloodbath and we know he has the followers willing to deliver. Hopefully they are as blatant as the first time, but taken much more seriously.

[sixwings]

He is currently threatening a bloodbath and we know he has the followers willing to deliver. Hopefully they are as blatant as the first time, but taken much more seriously.

I believe the quote is taken out of context, I think he was referring to a bloodbath in the auto industry. Which doesn't make any sense and is a stupid thing to say given the actual results under Biden for the auto industry, but hey that's Trump.

My take: Trump will do exactly what he did after 2020, spend the next 4 years losing lawsuits and whining about voter fraud. He'll declare he's running for president again as soon as the election is over so he can continue to grift the republican donor base while holding the party hostage and subject to his whims. With his companies dissolving and finally being addressed as fraud this is his only income stream. If he hasn't had a stroke and died by the 2028 primary he will either win the primary and get blown out by a younger dem candidate, or he will lose the primary and cry fraud about that splintering the republican party and ensuring dems win again in 2028 and that the republican party isn't competitive again in Presidential elections until 2032 against an incumbent, maybe even 2036.

Can Trump and election threads all get merged into one?

[partgypsy]

Even if Trump loses, he and the people who follow and believe in his tactics (winning comes before anything, even the well being of the country) there is a lot of damage that needs to be undone. Our democracy is in a fragile state. The amount of legislation to suppress voting, to have bipartisan processes for certifying the vote as well as for redistricting, and the amount of dark money going into elections, is frightening. Beating Trump, is just the beginning.

[By the River]

He is currently threatening a bloodbath and we know he has the followers willing to deliver. Hopefully they are as blatant as the first time, but taken much more seriously.

I believe the quote is taken out of context, I think he was referring to a bloodbath in the auto industry. Which doesn't make any sense and is a stupid thing to say given the actual results under Biden for the auto industry, but hey that's Trump.

The quote was definitely taken out of context.  but what are the actual results under Biden?  This was the first result under google  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ALTSALES/   Summary is 17.28 million annual vehicles sales from 2017-2020 and 14.28 million from 2021-2023.   (That does include covid related years but 2023 was less than any Trump years). 
Or it may be more related to the pushing/requiring EVs.

[bacchi]

It's too early to tell but...

The RNC may be a husk after he drains it of money and runs off the talent. As sixwings wrote, this will make the Republicans a non-factor for a few elections; the GOP could also splinter and a new, more sane, conservative party could emerge.

He still has hardcore followers who currently sit in a circle jerk and make each other foaming angry. If only a small part of them decide to be violent, we could see some state governments under attack when the electors are chosen. The feds won't be fooled twice unless there are traitors in the midst (and there probably are).

I do think he's on the path to dementia at this point, and his empire is crumbling. None of his sons or daughters have his gift for convincing people. He'll ultimately become a footnote in American history: "When America should've been paying more attention to global warming, they were instead worried about a populist leader who had convinced himself that he had never lost or could never lose."

[BlueHouse]

He is currently threatening a bloodbath and we know he has the followers willing to deliver. Hopefully they are as blatant as the first time, but taken much more seriously.

I believe the quote is taken out of context, I think he was referring to a bloodbath in the auto industry. Which doesn't make any sense and is a stupid thing to say given the actual results under Biden for the auto industry, but hey that's Trump.

The quote was definitely taken out of context.  BUT...Jen Psaki did a great number on putting it in ALL of its context.  Republicans want to put the statement into context of the one sentence or one paragraph, but she put it into context of the entire speech (in which he started out saluting the "hostages" and heroes of January 6).  She expanded that to all of his prior actions and comments when he was taken out of context, but then did exactly what he said. 

I'm having a hard time lately with the media, because there is enough terrible stuff about trump to never want him to breathe another breath, without media misrepresenting comments, which when fact-checked, makes it look like they're in the wrong. 

[ChpBstrd]

Why would the future look any different than the past?

Trump will use his deep pockets and army of lawyers to delay the judicial system for the rest of his life. This isn't astrology, it's simply an observation of what works for billionaires.

[ixtap]

He is currently threatening a bloodbath and we know he has the followers willing to deliver. Hopefully they are as blatant as the first time, but taken much more seriously.

I believe the quote is taken out of context, I think he was referring to a bloodbath in the auto industry. Which doesn't make any sense and is a stupid thing to say given the actual results under Biden for the auto industry, but hey that's Trump.

The quote was definitely taken out of context.  BUT...Jen Psaki did a great number on putting it in ALL of its context.  Republicans want to put the statement into context of the one sentence or one paragraph, but she put it into context of the entire speech (in which he started out saluting the "hostages" and heroes of January 6).  She expanded that to all of his prior actions and comments when he was taken out of context, but then did exactly what he said. 

I'm having a hard time lately with the media, because there is enough terrible stuff about trump to never want him to breathe another breath, without media misrepresenting comments, which when fact-checked, makes it look like they're in the wrong.

Even in a narrower context, he used the phrase in relationship to one industry, but he kept babbling and widened the context himself within seconds.

[Warlord1986]

If he loses, then I'm going to play Miley's 'Party in the USA' and go out with the girlies to celebrate.

I have zero belief that that man will ever spend a day in jail. My hope is he burns the GOP to the ground and what emerges is better, that he dies in poverty and there's nothing left for his heirs and followers.

[NorCal]

He is currently threatening a bloodbath and we know he has the followers willing to deliver. Hopefully they are as blatant as the first time, but taken much more seriously.

I believe the quote is taken out of context, I think he was referring to a bloodbath in the auto industry. Which doesn't make any sense and is a stupid thing to say given the actual results under Biden for the auto industry, but hey that's Trump.

The quote was definitely taken out of context.  but what are the actual results under Biden?  This was the first result under google  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ALTSALES/   Summary is 17.28 million annual vehicles sales from 2017-2020 and 14.28 million from 2021-2023.   (That does include covid related years but 2023 was less than any Trump years). 
Or it may be more related to the pushing/requiring EVs.

Trump is really good at using poor phrasing to give his words multiple meanings to different audiences.  He can generate outrage, prepare is supporters for violence, and then disclaim all meaning for the statements later. 

This is semi-analogous to when he told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by" and then pretending that political violence is mostly a problem coming from the left.  He knows exactly what he's doing, and we should stop pretending otherwise. 

[Just Joe]

If he loses, then I'm going to play Miley's 'Party in the USA' and go out with the girlies to celebrate.

I have zero belief that that man will ever spend a day in jail. My hope is he burns the GOP to the ground and what emerges is better, that he dies in poverty and there's nothing left for his heirs and followers.

Same! We'll celebrate quietly b/c I'm in a red state surrounded by Trump believers. ;) Will have to practice my sad face...

[Warlord1986]

If he loses, then I'm going to play Miley's 'Party in the USA' and go out with the girlies to celebrate.

I have zero belief that that man will ever spend a day in jail. My hope is he burns the GOP to the ground and what emerges is better, that he dies in poverty and there's nothing left for his heirs and followers.

Same! We'll celebrate quietly b/c I'm in a red state surrounded by Trump believers. ;) Will have to practice my sad face...

I'm in a red state too! I'm not going to pretend to be sad. I'll fight a Trumper. Y'all can pray I don't end up in jail or the hospital.

[reeshau]

Why would the future look any different than the past?

Trump will use his deep pockets and army of lawyers to delay the judicial system for the rest of his life. This isn't astrology, it's simply an observation of what works for billionaires.

This is where my bet would lie, too.  He's going to take the Ken Lay route out.

It is a little scary to think that there is no limit to the number of times you can run for president.  But then, DJT will be 81 himself next time around.  I do think the Republican party is headed for the scene of the crash.  Either traditionalists will somehow take back the party, or they will lose more and more, until the dems have a supermajority and don't need to listen to the extreme wings any more.  (meaning, right or left)

[bacchi]

The self congratulations is a little much in this article but the scenarios are thought provoking.

If Trump loses, and the Republicans keep the House, the House could refuse to certify and instead pick the winner by state. Blue states protest. Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, as Jeffrey Clark wanted to do in 2020. Riots lead to deaths and the alt-right takes advantage of the unrest and attacks the usual crowd -- blacks, hispanics, gays, jews.

Right-wing elements have long been itching to use violence to put “those people” in their place. But the missing ingredient for a civil war is people on the left concluding that the only possible way to preserve themselves is violence.

If Trump loses, and the House flips, the Red states protest. Christian Sharia laws are passed and those laws go too far for even the Supreme Court (except for Thomas and Alito). The milquetoast Court is ignored, the Red states do their thing, and the Democrats have to decide whether to force the issue or not. The alt-right is still pissed and violence occurs.


-----------
The first scenario seems somewhat unlikely. The GOP can barely keep it together right now with all the infighting. I'm sure they would try though.

The second scenario is a little grim and possibly over-the-top but I can see it happening. Biden would have to call in the National Guard to counter Governor Wallace several times in several states.

[sixwings]

The self congratulations is a little much in this article but the scenarios are thought provoking.

If Trump loses, and the Republicans keep the House, the House could refuse to certify and instead pick the winner by state. Blue states protest. Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, as Jeffrey Clark wanted to do in 2020. Riots lead to deaths and the alt-right takes advantage of the unrest and attacks the usual crowd -- blacks, hispanics, gays, jews.

Right-wing elements have long been itching to use violence to put “those people” in their place. But the missing ingredient for a civil war is people on the left concluding that the only possible way to preserve themselves is violence.

If Trump loses, and the House flips, the Red states protest. Christian Sharia laws are passed and those laws go too far for even the Supreme Court (except for Thomas and Alito). The milquetoast Court is ignored, the Red states do their thing, and the Democrats have to decide whether to force the issue or not. The alt-right is still pissed and violence occurs.


-----------
The first scenario seems somewhat unlikely. The GOP can barely keep it together right now with all the infighting. I'm sure they would try though.

The second scenario is a little grim and possibly over-the-top but I can see it happening. Biden would have to call in the National Guard to counter Governor Wallace several times in several states.

I strongly doubt the house would vote not to certify the results. I don't think there's that many extreme moron republican congresspeople. Probably like 150 republicans vote again not to certify and rest do. I think those kinds of scenarios are overblown and mostly just for clickbait and ragebait. The most likely is that Trump spends the next 4 years whining and spending the republican party money on useless lawsuits, defending his own lawsuits and hopefully has a heart attack and dies before 2028.

[theninthwall]

My hope is for a relatively peaceful transition to some kind of new Republican party that acknowledges they need to change their policies to attract more voters from the middle, instead of constantly drifting right. And further, a Republican party that acknowledges the need for actual policy and passing legislation that improves the country, not simply trying to reduce the role of government at every opportunity.
I'd love to see America release itself from the fantasy that everything is better without the government involved and acknowledge that some things are done better by government while others are done better by the private sector. But alas, I dream...

[jinga nation]

So the more interesting question to me is: what do you think will happen after he loses?

I welcome your creative predictions.

Election night. He's learned he's lost battleground states.
Blood pressure thru the roof, etc. He's going to croak before the final tallies come in.
Dead man doesn't have to pay his debts, that's what his family will claim.

[Chris Pascale]

So the more interesting question to me is: what do you think will happen after he loses?

I welcome your creative predictions.

Election night. He's learned he's lost battleground states.
Blood pressure thru the roof, etc. He's going to croak before the final tallies come in.
Dead man doesn't have to pay his debts, that's what his family will claim.

So, in the end, he really is a winner!

[Chris Pascale]

You guys are making me glad I don't watch the news or have normal social media.

[Michael in ABQ]

Whoever wins will be a lame duck and almost certainly face a divided Congress without a clear majority in both chambers.

4 more years will pass by with little significant change.


2028 will be the real sea change. At that point we'll finally have a new set of candidates (something everyone can be happy about). This decade is very reminiscent of the 1970s. High inflation, high interest rates, a former president facing legal troubles (Nixon), war in the middle east (1973 Arab-Israeli war), heightened societal tension between left and right (lots of riots), etc.

We're due for another significant change ala Ronald Reagan. Whatever your opinion of him, the country underwent big change in the 1980s. Inflation and interest rates came down, the tax code was significantly changed, the Cold War started to come to an end, etc.


I will note that jailing former presidents/presidential candidates is a very slippery slope. It seems to occur fairly often throughout the world but not so much in the first world (North America, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc.). If the stakes are raised to the point that losing an election means going to jail, there are a lot of potentially very bad repercussions, the least of which is even further distrust in the institutions of government.

[sixwings]

Whoever wins will be a lame duck and almost certainly face a divided Congress without a clear majority in both chambers.

4 more years will pass by with little significant change.


2028 will be the real sea change. At that point we'll finally have a new set of candidates (something everyone can be happy about). This decade is very reminiscent of the 1970s. High inflation, high interest rates, a former president facing legal troubles (Nixon), war in the middle east (1973 Arab-Israeli war), heightened societal tension between left and right (lots of riots), etc.

We're due for another significant change ala Ronald Reagan. Whatever your opinion of him, the country underwent big change in the 1980s. Inflation and interest rates came down, the tax code was significantly changed, the Cold War started to come to an end, etc.


I will note that jailing former presidents/presidential candidates is a very slippery slope. It seems to occur fairly often throughout the world but not so much in the first world (North America, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc.). If the stakes are raised to the point that losing an election means going to jail, there are a lot of potentially very bad repercussions, the least of which is even further distrust in the institutions of government.

You're right. politicians shouldnt go to jail if they lose an election, that's awful and not what is happening in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc. However if a presidential commits crimes where jail time is normally given, then they should be. The judicial process is pretty thorough and relatively good at removing political bias (compared through human history the US court system is pretty impartial). If a candidate is proven in a court to have committed campaign finance laws using donated money to cover up for his affair with a porn star when his wife was at home with their 9 month old baby, or the candidate conspired to commit fraud against US citizens, or violated state racketeering laws, or took classified documents, refused to give them back, misled investigators about them multiple times and hid them, or other serious transgressions they should be prosecuted just as anyone else would be. Those are all things that people go to jail for. Being a presidential candidate should not make anyone exempt from the following the laws. You either have laws in the country that everyone must follow, or you don't have a country. Something something law and order!
 

[GuitarStv]

Whoever wins will be a lame duck and almost certainly face a divided Congress without a clear majority in both chambers.

4 more years will pass by with little significant change.


2028 will be the real sea change. At that point we'll finally have a new set of candidates (something everyone can be happy about). This decade is very reminiscent of the 1970s. High inflation, high interest rates, a former president facing legal troubles (Nixon), war in the middle east (1973 Arab-Israeli war), heightened societal tension between left and right (lots of riots), etc.

We're due for another significant change ala Ronald Reagan. Whatever your opinion of him, the country underwent big change in the 1980s. Inflation and interest rates came down, the tax code was significantly changed, the Cold War started to come to an end, etc.


I will note that jailing former presidents/presidential candidates is a very slippery slope. It seems to occur fairly often throughout the world but not so much in the first world (North America, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc.). If the stakes are raised to the point that losing an election means going to jail, there are a lot of potentially very bad repercussions, the least of which is even further distrust in the institutions of government.

You're right. politicians shouldnt go to jail if they lose an election, that's awful and not what is happening in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc. However if a presidential commits crimes where jail time is normally given, then they should be. The judicial process is pretty thorough and relatively good at removing political bias (compared through human history the US court system is pretty impartial). If a candidate is proven in a court to have committed campaign finance laws using donated money to cover up for his affair with a porn star when his wife was at home with their 9 month old baby, or the candidate conspired to commit fraud against US citizens, or violated state racketeering laws, or took classified documents, refused to give them back, misled investigators about them multiple times and hid them, or other serious transgressions they should be prosecuted just as anyone else would be. Those are all things that people go to jail for. Being a presidential candidate should not make anyone exempt from the following the laws. You either have laws in the country that everyone must follow, or you don't have a country. Something something law and order! 

Yeah . . . jailing political opponents?  That's a shitty way to run stuff.  But jailing people who are convicted of breaking laws?  That's been a sensible idea ever since the Magna Carta said that kings weren't above the law.  I see potential bad repercussions for failing to do hold the rich, powerful, and politically connected accountable to law.  It should increase trust in the institutions of government when you prove that those who lead have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

[Michael in ABQ]

I will note that jailing former presidents/presidential candidates is a very slippery slope. It seems to occur fairly often throughout the world but not so much in the first world (North America, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc.). If the stakes are raised to the point that losing an election means going to jail, there are a lot of potentially very bad repercussions, the least of which is even further distrust in the institutions of government.

You're right. politicians shouldnt go to jail if they lose an election, that's awful and not what is happening in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc. However if a presidential commits crimes where jail time is normally given, then they should be. The judicial process is pretty thorough and relatively good at removing political bias (compared through human history the US court system is pretty impartial). If a candidate is proven in a court to have committed campaign finance laws using donated money to cover up for his affair with a porn star when his wife was at home with their 9 month old baby, or the candidate conspired to commit fraud against US citizens, or violated state racketeering laws, or took classified documents, refused to give them back, misled investigators about them multiple times and hid them, or other serious transgressions they should be prosecuted just as anyone else would be. Those are all things that people go to jail for. Being a presidential candidate should not make anyone exempt from the following the laws. You either have laws in the country that everyone must follow, or you don't have a country. Something something law and order!

And yet there are very clear cases where depending on which party is in power, certain individuals aren't prosecuted for similar alleged crimes or they receive disparate treatment. That is where the issue lies, and you can see it happening in other countries (Pakistan, Brazil, Malaysia, etc.). I'm sure a lot of those leaders and candidates in other countries that were prosecuted did commit crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_who_were_later_imprisoned

But when it becomes so obviously politicized it creates further divisions and distrust in the criminal justice system and government and societal institutions as a whole. There is a double standard, and everyone knows it.

[sixwings]

I will note that jailing former presidents/presidential candidates is a very slippery slope. It seems to occur fairly often throughout the world but not so much in the first world (North America, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc.). If the stakes are raised to the point that losing an election means going to jail, there are a lot of potentially very bad repercussions, the least of which is even further distrust in the institutions of government.

You're right. politicians shouldnt go to jail if they lose an election, that's awful and not what is happening in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc. However if a presidential commits crimes where jail time is normally given, then they should be. The judicial process is pretty thorough and relatively good at removing political bias (compared through human history the US court system is pretty impartial). If a candidate is proven in a court to have committed campaign finance laws using donated money to cover up for his affair with a porn star when his wife was at home with their 9 month old baby, or the candidate conspired to commit fraud against US citizens, or violated state racketeering laws, or took classified documents, refused to give them back, misled investigators about them multiple times and hid them, or other serious transgressions they should be prosecuted just as anyone else would be. Those are all things that people go to jail for. Being a presidential candidate should not make anyone exempt from the following the laws. You either have laws in the country that everyone must follow, or you don't have a country. Something something law and order!

And yet there are very clear cases where depending on which party is in power, certain individuals aren't prosecuted for similar alleged crimes or they receive disparate treatment. That is where the issue lies, and you can see it happening in other countries (Pakistan, Brazil, Malaysia, etc.). I'm sure a lot of those leaders and candidates in other countries that were prosecuted did commit crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_who_were_later_imprisoned

But when it becomes so obviously politicized it creates further divisions and distrust in the criminal justice system and government and societal institutions as a whole. There is a double standard, and everyone knows it.

I'm not sure what your logic here is? Because it happens in developing countries like Pakistan, Brazil and Malaysia it's also happening in the USA? It's pretty well known those judicial systems are very biased. One of the main reasons the USD is the global currency reserve is because the judicial system is the most fair and impartial judicial system in the world. However like all systems that rely on people and judges it can have it's issues, but that's what there's multiple levels of appeals to hold judges accountable. It's still the best, or at least one of the best, in the world.

Honestly I'm also not sure what your point is, yes there's a double standard and you want to stop that double standard by reinforcing the double standard by not wanting politicans that commit crimes to also get prosecuted for it because they ran for office? Prosecuting Trump, and other politicans that obviously break the law, like Menendez is good for reinforcing the law and removing double standards. I think most reasonable person would be down for prosecuting politicans that break laws, perform insider trading, take bribes, etc.

At the end of the day, Trump decided to make it a political issue by continuously talking about it, attacking the judges, their staff, their family, etc. It's almost exclusively lies, as usual. Biden isn't commenting on it, usually politicians say things like "I look forward to proving my innocence in the court of law", etc. The judicial system have been painstakingly transparent with his cases specifically to avoid accusations of politicization, any normal person would have been in prison a long time ago for just the stolen documents case, nevermind all his other stuff like threatening court staff, judges, their familt, etc. Yet Trump is still walking free. Any literate, curious person can go and read what the courts are considering, what the judges are considering, etc. Trump is not being prosecuted because he lost an election, he's being prosecuted because he's a scammer who prosecutors believe have broken the law, and the court system is sorting out whether he has or has not all while he's posting lies on social media and posting lies and threats about their family and staff. If you actually cared about the rule of law you should be pretty disgusted by what Trump is trying to do to the judicial system.

[Villanelle]

I'm glad I no longer live in close proximity to the White House and Capitol Building.  Whether he wins or loses, I'm fearful there will be an incident or incidents that make Jan 6 look like a mild tantrum in comparison. 

But I certainly know which outcome I'm hoping for and feel will be best for the USA and democracy, even if I'm not thrilled about either candidate. 

[Michael in ABQ]

I will note that jailing former presidents/presidential candidates is a very slippery slope. It seems to occur fairly often throughout the world but not so much in the first world (North America, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc.). If the stakes are raised to the point that losing an election means going to jail, there are a lot of potentially very bad repercussions, the least of which is even further distrust in the institutions of government.

You're right. politicians shouldnt go to jail if they lose an election, that's awful and not what is happening in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc. However if a presidential commits crimes where jail time is normally given, then they should be. The judicial process is pretty thorough and relatively good at removing political bias (compared through human history the US court system is pretty impartial). If a candidate is proven in a court to have committed campaign finance laws using donated money to cover up for his affair with a porn star when his wife was at home with their 9 month old baby, or the candidate conspired to commit fraud against US citizens, or violated state racketeering laws, or took classified documents, refused to give them back, misled investigators about them multiple times and hid them, or other serious transgressions they should be prosecuted just as anyone else would be. Those are all things that people go to jail for. Being a presidential candidate should not make anyone exempt from the following the laws. You either have laws in the country that everyone must follow, or you don't have a country. Something something law and order!

And yet there are very clear cases where depending on which party is in power, certain individuals aren't prosecuted for similar alleged crimes or they receive disparate treatment. That is where the issue lies, and you can see it happening in other countries (Pakistan, Brazil, Malaysia, etc.). I'm sure a lot of those leaders and candidates in other countries that were prosecuted did commit crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_who_were_later_imprisoned

But when it becomes so obviously politicized it creates further divisions and distrust in the criminal justice system and government and societal institutions as a whole. There is a double standard, and everyone knows it.

I'm not sure what your logic here is? Because it happens in developing countries like Pakistan, Brazil and Malaysia it's also happening in the USA? It's pretty well known those judicial systems are very biased. One of the main reasons the USD is the global currency reserve is because the judicial system is the most fair and impartial judicial system in the world. However like all systems that rely on people and judges it can have it's issues, but that's what there's multiple levels of appeals to hold judges accountable. It's still the best, or at least one of the best, in the world.

Honestly I'm also not sure what your point is, yes there's a double standard and you want to stop that double standard by reinforcing the double standard by not wanting politicans that commit crimes to also get prosecuted for it because they ran for office? Prosecuting Trump, and other politicans that obviously break the law, like Menendez is good for reinforcing the law and removing double standards. I think most reasonable person would be down for prosecuting politicans that break laws, perform insider trading, take bribes, etc.

At the end of the day, Trump decided to make it a political issue by continuously talking about it, attacking the judges, their staff, their family, etc. It's almost exclusively lies, as usual. Biden isn't commenting on it, usually politicians say things like "I look forward to proving my innocence in the court of law", etc. The judicial system have been painstakingly transparent with his cases specifically to avoid accusations of politicization, any normal person would have been in prison a long time ago for just the stolen documents case, nevermind all his other stuff like threatening court staff, judges, their familt, etc. Yet Trump is still walking free. Any literate, curious person can go and read what the courts are considering, what the judges are considering, etc. Trump is not being prosecuted because he lost an election, he's being prosecuted because he's a scammer who prosecutors believe have broken the law, and the court system is sorting out whether he has or has not all while he's posting lies on social media and posting lies and threats about their family and staff. If you actually cared about the rule of law you should be pretty disgusted by what Trump is trying to do to the judicial system.

I'm no fan of Trump, but it's clear the pendulum has swung far in the other direction. Getting fined hundreds of millions of dollars for fraud when there are no victims? I was a commercial real estate appraiser and had property owners tell me all the time what they thought their property were worth. I ignored them and looked at data and the market - just like every bank that ever-loaned Trump money did.

Hunter Biden was offered a sweetheart plea deal even though he admitted to being addicted to drugs and lying on the background check form to purchase a gun - a felony. The government has him dead to rights but was willing to let him off with a slap on the wrist. Same with his tax issues. It's finally working its way through the courts but this was clearly a double-standard because of who his dad is. By the same token Joe Biden kept classified documents in multiple locations from his time as VP and got off with no charges. Trump can argue that the president has ultimate authority to classify and declassify documents, but a vice president has no such authority. I know the circumstances around both cases differ - but you've got multiple cases of high-ranking Democrats mishandling classified documents/information and facing little or no repercussions (Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus, and now Joe Biden).

[bacchi]

By the same token Joe Biden kept classified documents in multiple locations from his time as VP and got off with no charges. Trump can argue that the president has ultimate authority to classify and declassify documents, but a vice president has no such authority. I know the circumstances around both cases differ

Exactly, the circumstances around these cases differ. One of these former executives lied about having documents, and actively hid them when the FBI showed up, and one of them didn't.


Edit:

Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite,

It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts

[Dancin'Dog]

Can't he just go ahead and have a damned heart-attack?!!

[sixwings]

By the same token Joe Biden kept classified documents in multiple locations from his time as VP and got off with no charges. Trump can argue that the president has ultimate authority to classify and declassify documents, but a vice president has no such authority. I know the circumstances around both cases differ

Exactly, the circumstances around these cases differ. One of these former executives lied about having documents, and actively hid them when the FBI showed up, and one of them didn't.


Edit:

Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite,

It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts

Exactly, people who think these kinds of things are similar are either lazy and aren't actually looking at the differences or are really far down the Trump propaganda bandwagon because it's VERY clear that the Biden and Trump classified document situations are not the same things. Biden found classified in his office, he disclosed it and returned them and cooperated with the investigators to ensure there weren't anything else left, does it suck that classified documents were in his home office? Yes but that's pretty common, happened with GW, Obama, Pence, etc. But with the amount of classified information they receive it happens, and the important part is that they then cooperate fully to return any classified documents. Trump actively did not do those things, if anyone else had done that they would be in jail already. Trump is receiving some pretty serious favorable treatment here.

NY has laws around what financial fraud is, the judge, who has decades of experience presiding over these kinds of cases, has determined that Trump committed fraud and broke the laws and as a result received ill-gotten gains. Doesn't matter if it's a "victimless crime", fraud is fraud. He either broke laws or he didn't and it seems like you're arguing that he knowingly broke the laws but because the banks made money it's fine. That is NOT fine and as Trump would say, you either have laws or you don't have a country.  Trump can appeal and go through the process with the appeals court if he feels that's not appropriate. That's how the court system works and it works pretty well. Trump is also a complete dipshit who posted lies and threats about the judges law clerk, which wouldn't have helped him with the judge either. He's probably getting off really light with only a 175M bond.

Is Hunter Biden an elected official? Does he have any role in the Biden administration? I can definitely tell you I'm not voting for Hunter Biden in November. I'm not sure what the hysteria with Hunter Biden is. I don't pay much attention to Hunter Biden because he's not a public official, however there is considerable evidence that he actually got a lot worse treatment than what normal individuals would face in the full context of how these charges get applied.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/22/hunter-biden-got-special-treatment-especially-harsh-00103184#:~:text=Law%20and%20Order-,Opinion%20%7C%20Hunter%20Biden%20Got%20Special%20Treatment%20%E2%80%94%20Especially%20Harsh,his%20last%20name%20were%20different.

Trump has demonstrated he might have broken multiple laws in multiple states and the courts are sorting it out. If he doesn't want to get charged with crimes, don't commit crimes. Romney didn't get charged with crimes, McCain didn't charged with crimes. It's really not hard for literate curious people to figure out. This whole thing about the entire legal system being against Trump is such obvious BS and it's especially insane that he's running on his law and order schtick while he undermines the rule of law everywhere he runs his scams.

[GuitarStv]

I'm no fan of Trump, but it's clear the pendulum has swung far in the other direction. Getting fined hundreds of millions of dollars for fraud when there are no victims? I was a commercial real estate appraiser and had property owners tell me all the time what they thought their property were worth. I ignored them and looked at data and the market - just like every bank that ever-loaned Trump money did.

The argument presented here is that some people break the law and don't get caught, so the law shouldn't apply to those who are nabbed?

Hundreds of people speed on the highway every day.  This is like saying I should be able to skip out on paying my speeding ticket if I get caught.  It would cause a total breakdown of the rule of law, so seems like a really bad approach to argue for.

[deborah]

One of the main reasons the USD is the global currency reserve is because the judicial system is the most fair and impartial judicial system in the world.

No.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global

[ATtiny85]

I'm glad I no longer live in close proximity to the White House and Capitol Building.  Whether he wins or loses, I'm fearful there will be an incident or incidents that make Jan 6 look like a mild tantrum in comparison. 

But I certainly know which outcome I'm hoping for and feel will be best for the USA and democracy, even if I'm not thrilled about either candidate.

I go back and forth on what outcome I would prefer. The wackos trying to act macho if Biden wins (I really hope the defense perimeter takes appropriate action and eliminates anyone who attempts to cause problems.) If Trump wins I expect it will be quite “interesting” to see the attempts of pure revenge moves.

In the end, 2028 will get here and it will bring an end to a mixed four years. We certainly can’t end up with worse choices then.

[Villanelle]

I'm glad I no longer live in close proximity to the White House and Capitol Building.  Whether he wins or loses, I'm fearful there will be an incident or incidents that make Jan 6 look like a mild tantrum in comparison. 

But I certainly know which outcome I'm hoping for and feel will be best for the USA and democracy, even if I'm not thrilled about either candidate.

I go back and forth on what outcome I would prefer. The wackos trying to act macho if Biden wins (I really hope the defense perimeter takes appropriate action and eliminates anyone who attempts to cause problems.) If Trump wins I expect it will be quite “interesting” to see the attempts of pure revenge moves.

In the end, 2028 will get here and it will bring an end to a mixed four years. We certainly can’t end up with worse choices then.

We can end up with enough disenfranchisement and stacked courts that things could stay pretty bad. 

[NorCal]

Whoever wins will be a lame duck and almost certainly face a divided Congress without a clear majority in both chambers.

4 more years will pass by with little significant change.


2028 will be the real sea change. At that point we'll finally have a new set of candidates (something everyone can be happy about). This decade is very reminiscent of the 1970s. High inflation, high interest rates, a former president facing legal troubles (Nixon), war in the middle east (1973 Arab-Israeli war), heightened societal tension between left and right (lots of riots), etc.

We're due for another significant change ala Ronald Reagan. Whatever your opinion of him, the country underwent big change in the 1980s. Inflation and interest rates came down, the tax code was significantly changed, the Cold War started to come to an end, etc.


I will note that jailing former presidents/presidential candidates is a very slippery slope. It seems to occur fairly often throughout the world but not so much in the first world (North America, Western Europe, AU/NZ, Japan, etc.). If the stakes are raised to the point that losing an election means going to jail, there are a lot of potentially very bad repercussions, the least of which is even further distrust in the institutions of government.

Jailing a former president is a bad precedent.  But there's an even worse precedent.  Letting serious crimes go unpunished because someone is a politician is an absolute horrible precedent to set. 

What is so infuriating is how avoidable every single one of these charges was.  I'll use the classified documents case as an example, but this pattern applies across all of Trump's civil and criminal cases.

For better or worse, our justice system creates a lot of incentives for civil cases to settle out of court and for criminal cases to result in a plea deal.  I don't know how many, but a significant portion of potential court cases never see the inside of a courtroom.  It's usually in everyone's best interest to make this happen.

So for example,
1. Trump could have chosen not to pack up classified documents and ship them to Florida
2. When the national archives came knocking, Trump could have returned the documents.  The whole issue would have gone away and no charges would have been filed.
3. Trump could have cooperated with the FBI when they searched Mar-a-Lago.  He would have maybe gotten some bad press, but the documents would have been returned and it's likely charges would have been avoided.
4. Trump could have not paid his employees to move the classified documents and hide them from the FBI.  Obstruction of justice is usually considered kind of a big deal.
5. Once charges were filed, Trump could have attempted to come up with a plea bargain so that everyone saved a little face and avoided courtroom drama.  Most prosecutors would love to have an easy plea win, and Trump probably could have negotiated a slap on the wrist with no chance of jail time. 

Trump has deliberately set him self up so that the legal system has to come after him.  Merrick Garland of all people spent his entire first year in office trying to not bring charges against Trump or his closest advisors.  Every single one of Trump's legal cases had offramps and the potential to make it go away.  Our country would be better off if he had taken them.  But instead Trump decided to deliberatly put himself in situations where the justice system had no choice but to come after him. 

As much as I despise political whataboutism, there is one relevant distinction between the Hunter Biden strawman and Trump's prosecution.  Hunter Biden took the time and effort to negotiate a plea deal.  Trump had every option to make that same choice and chose not to.  That's a pretty big difference. 

[Chris Pascale]

One of the main reasons the USD is the global currency reserve is because the judicial system is the most fair and impartial judicial system in the world.

No.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global

I'd have thought it's at least in part because we have weapons in every country, or pointed at every country.

[sixwings]

One of the main reasons the USD is the global currency reserve is because the judicial system is the most fair and impartial judicial system in the world.

No.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global

I'd have thought it's at least in part because we have weapons in every country, or pointed at every country.

There's lots of reasons, including the military power, an independent federal reserve, etc. But one of the main reasons, as I said, is that american judicial systems gives (mostly) fair and impartial avenues for resolution for people/businesses who feel wronged. The government can't just come and take a businesses stuff because they want to. It's an important factor in maintaining stability in a financial system. But that's not what this thread is about.

[RetiredAt63]

One of the main reasons the USD is the global currency reserve is because the judicial system is the most fair and impartial judicial system in the world.

No.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global

I'd have thought it's at least in part because we have weapons in every country, or pointed at every country.

There's lots of reasons, including the military power, an independent federal reserve, etc. But one of the main reasons, as I said, is that american judicial systems gives (mostly) fair and impartial avenues for resolution for people/businesses who feel wronged. The government can't just come and take a businesses stuff because they want to. It's an important factor in maintaining stability in a financial system. But that's not what this thread is about.

Go to the site that deborah posted and look at the individual categories.  The US isn't horrible but it isn't in the top either.

[reeshau]

There's lots of reasons, including the military power, an independent federal reserve, etc. But one of the main reasons, as I said, is that american judicial systems gives (mostly) fair and impartial avenues for resolution for people/businesses who feel wronged. The government can't just come and take a businesses stuff because they want to. It's an important factor in maintaining stability in a financial system. But that's not what this thread is about.

Yes--more specifically, property rights.  Whether through outright graft, confiscatory taxing, or wild inflation, the US has demonstrated through history to be the least-bad alternative.

[sixwings]

There's lots of reasons, including the military power, an independent federal reserve, etc. But one of the main reasons, as I said, is that american judicial systems gives (mostly) fair and impartial avenues for resolution for people/businesses who feel wronged. The government can't just come and take a businesses stuff because they want to. It's an important factor in maintaining stability in a financial system. But that's not what this thread is about.

Yes--more specifically, property rights.  Whether through outright graft, confiscatory taxing, or wild inflation, the US has demonstrated through history to be the least-bad alternative.

Exactly. To say that the USA judicial system is a political circus because Donald Trump is getting charged with a lot of crimes, back by a lot of evidence, is just a very wrong thing to say and the argument falls apart with just a little bit of critical thinking.

[Just Joe]

I'm glad I no longer live in close proximity to the White House and Capitol Building.  Whether he wins or loses, I'm fearful there will be an incident or incidents that make Jan 6 look like a mild tantrum in comparison. 

But I certainly know which outcome I'm hoping for and feel will be best for the USA and democracy, even if I'm not thrilled about either candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w
Movie trailer for a soon to premiere movie about a modern day American civil war.

I saw an interview on CBS with the stars and director who claim they are just showing how terrible this would be for our country.

I do fear that certain people will fetishize this war movie rather than ponder the very real consequences. You know, the type of folks who carry guns kind of wishing they'll have an opportunity to be a hero or something.

In the 1980s it was Red Dawn. A war movie with Russian bad guys who invaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZJMZapC8NQ

Then a remake where the bad guys were Chinese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGoe7BdGdlg

I guess now our neighbors and coworkers would be fair targets??? Imagine thinking that is okay...

[Psychstache]

I'm glad I no longer live in close proximity to the White House and Capitol Building.  Whether he wins or loses, I'm fearful there will be an incident or incidents that make Jan 6 look like a mild tantrum in comparison. 

But I certainly know which outcome I'm hoping for and feel will be best for the USA and democracy, even if I'm not thrilled about either candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w
Movie trailer for a soon to premiere movie about a modern day American civil war.

I saw an interview on CBS with the stars and director who claim they are just showing how terrible this would be for our country.

I do fear that certain people will fetishize this war movie rather than ponder the very real consequences. You know, the type of folks who carry guns kind of wishing they'll have an opportunity to be a hero or something.

In the 1980s it was Red Dawn. A war movie with Russian bad guys who invaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZJMZapC8NQ

Then a remake where the bad guys were Chinese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGoe7BdGdlg

I guess now our neighbors and coworkers would be fair targets??? Imagine thinking that is okay...

Yeah, this is exactly what will happen. Most people do not think deeply about a movies message.

Then again, as soon as they realize the movie has Texas and California teaming up, they will write it off as completely unrealistic.

[maizefolk]

Then a remake where the bad guys were Chinese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGoe7BdGdlg

North Koreans.

The movie was filmed with the invaders being Chinese but it was changed in post production (complete with new CGI flags and, maybe, dubbing of the foreign language bits) to avoid getting on the bad side of the Chinese government and movie going public, both of whom had an awfully big sway over which movies and movie studios were or weren't profitable at the time.

[sonofsven]

I'm glad I no longer live in close proximity to the White House and Capitol Building.  Whether he wins or loses, I'm fearful there will be an incident or incidents that make Jan 6 look like a mild tantrum in comparison. 

But I certainly know which outcome I'm hoping for and feel will be best for the USA and democracy, even if I'm not thrilled about either candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w
Movie trailer for a soon to premiere movie about a modern day American civil war.

I saw an interview on CBS with the stars and director who claim they are just showing how terrible this would be for our country.

I do fear that certain people will fetishize this war movie rather than ponder the very real consequences. You know, the type of folks who carry guns kind of wishing they'll have an opportunity to be a hero or something.

In the 1980s it was Red Dawn. A war movie with Russian bad guys who invaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZJMZapC8NQ

Then a remake where the bad guys were Chinese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGoe7BdGdlg

I guess now our neighbors and coworkers would be fair targets??? Imagine thinking that is okay...

Bushwick is from 2017, Civil War started by southern states targeting NYC.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-bushwick-and-politics-20170824-story.html

[BlueHouse]

I'm glad I no longer live in close proximity to the White House and Capitol Building.  Whether he wins or loses, I'm fearful there will be an incident or incidents that make Jan 6 look like a mild tantrum in comparison. 

I'm a 10 minute walk to the Capitol.  On Jan 4th and 5th, I wanted to video the license plates in a parking lot where I walk my dog and which was filled with pickups from WV and FL, with gun racks, flags, etc.  But I was honestly afraid --- and that was BEFORE any violence.  This time I'll be ready. 

[Just Joe]

Then a remake where the bad guys were Chinese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGoe7BdGdlg

North Koreans.

The movie was filmed with the invaders being Chinese but it was changed in post production (complete with new CGI flags and, maybe, dubbing of the foreign language bits) to avoid getting on the bad side of the Chinese government and movie going public, both of whom had an awfully big sway over which movies and movie studios were or weren't profitable at the time.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Just Joe]

I'm glad I no longer live in close proximity to the White House and Capitol Building.  Whether he wins or loses, I'm fearful there will be an incident or incidents that make Jan 6 look like a mild tantrum in comparison. 

But I certainly know which outcome I'm hoping for and feel will be best for the USA and democracy, even if I'm not thrilled about either candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDyQxtg0V2w
Movie trailer for a soon to premiere movie about a modern day American civil war.

I saw an interview on CBS with the stars and director who claim they are just showing how terrible this would be for our country.

I do fear that certain people will fetishize this war movie rather than ponder the very real consequences. You know, the type of folks who carry guns kind of wishing they'll have an opportunity to be a hero or something.

In the 1980s it was Red Dawn. A war movie with Russian bad guys who invaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZJMZapC8NQ

Then a remake where the bad guys were Chinese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGoe7BdGdlg

I guess now our neighbors and coworkers would be fair targets??? Imagine thinking that is okay...

Bushwick is from 2017, Civil War started by southern states targeting NYC.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-bushwick-and-politics-20170824-story.html

I forgot about that one. Saw it (streamed it). 

[NorCal]

Then a remake where the bad guys were Chinese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGoe7BdGdlg

North Koreans.

The movie was filmed with the invaders being Chinese but it was changed in post production (complete with new CGI flags and, maybe, dubbing of the foreign language bits) to avoid getting on the bad side of the Chinese government and movie going public, both of whom had an awfully big sway over which movies and movie studios were or weren't profitable at the time.

Thanks for the clarification.

The remake was quite bad. I strongly recommend not watching it.

The original is good in a classic nostalgia type way.

[Just Joe]

Yeah, the remake was bad. The original came out when I was in my mid-teens so friends and I watched and rewatched it. Was an interesting "what if?" in a time when we all worried a little about the Russians.

The war in Ukraine has been interesting. So different from Hollywood daydreams.

[Chris Pascale]

With regard to the original Q: It will be fine. Insurgents like last time have to go up against the Secret Service, Marine Corps, Air Force, etc. They don't have jets, and if they did, they don't have as many. Their computers are less powerful, and even if they have 1 that's supreme, there are those who benefit off the current system enough to come together to stop that device.

Regarding Jan. 6, I'm still impressed that those defending the capitol didn't just kill everyone. You're getting hit with weapons and they're promising to bring death to the destruction, but those on defense didn't put 2 in the chest and 1 in the head of everyone bringing a legitimate fight. Even those massive pieces of shit who dragged the police officer down the steps and began beating him with the flag while people cheered, 'kill him with his own gun.' Honestly, how did that hero not just get a weapon (any weapon) and reply with vengeance to all who made the request? In part, it had to have been that every step he hit was a stone-punch to the brain and he could not function. But the other part is that he has the kind of discipline required to be on that side of the firing line.

Regarding a repeat: It could happen, but with many disadvantages:
 - The 2021 group ID'd their lack of patriotism (directly, or by association) when they hung another country's flag (the Confederate States of America) in the Senate. No different than if they hung that of Mexico, Russia, or Pluto
 - They will lack much of their sincere front line leadership, because they are imprisoned, bankrupted, or both. And so anyone paying behind the scenes will need mercenaries. On that, there are enough patriots who are soldiers of fortune to upend the operation; not to mention that merc'd-out units have traditionally not succeeded

If Trump wins, the truth is just like last time - there's enough tools in place for him to do some of what he was elected for and enough tools to stop him from doing everything he wants. He's just a man - a flesh bag full of blood and bone, losing a bit more vibrancy with each day.