A Deeply Fractured US

[KevinB]

This article is recommended to those that take Trump literally.

A Short History on American Bragging

From the Mississippi Delta to Trump Tower, Richard Grant writes a history of American grandstanding, eloquence and excess

www.port-magazine.com

Trump's support largely comes from west of the Cumberland Gap. The Cumberland Gap is not named for the Duke of Cumberland but for the county in England from where many of the people collectively known as Scotch-Irish came. They, like the rest of their kin on both sides of the Scots-English border and in Northern Ireland, were much given to bragging and boasting as a sport. A sport that dates all the way back to the Saxon mead halls.

References - Albion's Seed - Four British Folkways in America "Borderlands"

And this bunch of Archaeologists and Historians on the site of a Saxon excavation.

So Narcissism is a cultural thing?

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh, And if you want to understand the rest of the US political scene Albion's Seed does a great job with the East Anglian Puritans of New England, the Virginian Cavaliers and the Pennsylvania Quakers, all of whom found the Incomers from the Borders to be radically uncivilized and sent them over the Cumberland Gap to get acquainted with the Indians.

 

[Kirkhill]

So Narcissism is a cultural thing?

Yep.

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem is when some folks who take him literally don’t realize that he’s bragging. And the grifters that take advantage of that ignorance.

I reckon that more often than not it is his opponents that take him literally, or at least let on that they understand him literally. Most of his supporters probably recognize bragging when they hear it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The problem is when some folks who take him literally don’t realize that he’s bragging. And the grifters that take advantage of that ignorance.

Everyone who overreacts to things he says - apparently forgetting about all the things he's said in the past that amounted to nothing - ought to read that first sentence over and over until the light goes on.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I reckon that more often than not it is his opponents that take him literally, or at least let on that they understand him literally. Most of his supporters probably recognize bragging when they hear it.

Everyone who overreacts to things he says - apparently forgetting about all the things he's said in the past that amounted to nothing - ought to read that first sentence over and over until the light goes on.

So, much like Biden is doing then.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wait, thats a thing ?

No more so than any other right/ left conspiracy thing where low brow idiots seize on anything possible to cast their opponents in a bad light. Ignore the white noise meant to distract you from what matters.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I’m going where your words and reasoning logically take me. But let’s take the guesswork out of it.

Four separate grand juries have returned felony indictments against Donald Trump. Do you or don’t you believe that the prosecution and court processes involving DonaldTrump as criminal defendant should currently be continuing on their own merits?

I'm sorry. These cases aren't as cut and dried as that. There is zero denying that much of this is politically driven. A huge discussion I neither have the time and inclination to delve into right now. Suffice to say 'you can indict a ham sandwich in New York.'

 

[brihard]

I'm sorry. These cases aren't as cut and dried as that. There is zero denying that much of this is politically driven. A huge discussion I neither have the time and inclination to delve into right now. Suffice to say 'you can indict a ham sandwich in New York.'

Should the prosecutions continue through the courts so that the evidence is tested and the charges decided upon, or no?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Should the prosecutions continue through the courts so that the evidence is tested and the charges decided upon, or no?

Sure, keep going through the motions, but that doesn't change the political nature of the prosecutions. In that they wanted convictions before the election, they failed. There is doubt any of them will be resolved before the election. Trump wins.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Should the prosecutions continue through the courts so that the evidence is tested and the charges decided upon, or no?

Having him under indictment before and during the election is the goal, getting a actual conviction would be icing on the cake. I am not a big Trump fan, but what I see is Lawfare. My guess is they want Trump to run, then disqualify him just before the election to cause disarray and division in the Republican party and make it difficult for a new Candidate to gather enough steam to challenge the Stumbler in Chief. The Dems don't care what harm they do, as long as they get elected.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Willis, Wade and James going to the WH and meeting with WH counsel, on more than one occasion. One wonders what that would be about?

Oh wait, that could be shenanigans on the left, so it doesn't count or warrant mention.

 

[brihard]

Having him under indictment before and during the election is the goal, getting an actual conviction would be icing on the cake. I am not a big Trump fan, but what I see is Lawfare. My guess is they want Trump to run, then disqualify him just before the election to cause disarray and division in the Republican party and make it difficult for a new Candidate to gather enough steam to challenge the Stumbler in Chief. The Dems don't care what harm they do, as long as they get elected.

None of the criminal charges would disqualify him.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Having him under indictment before and during the election is the goal, getting a actual conviction would be icing on the cake. I am not a big Trump fan, but what I see is Lawfare. My guess is they want Trump to run, then disqualify him just before the election to cause disarray and division in the Republican party and make it difficult for a new Candidate to gather enough steam to challenge the Stumbler in Chief. The Dems don't care what harm they do, as long as they get elected.

That is a real double edge sword. Doing that would just cement the thought in everyone's mind that the whole thing is election interference lawfare. Even more dems would vote for him in disgust of the illegality of their own party.

 

[quadrapiper]

None of the criminal charges would disqualify him.

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding things, he'd be a candidate for impeachment once sworn in, but (and I'm probably missing something) the filtering standard for POTUS is lower than for voting, as far as having a criminal record.

 

[brihard]

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding things, he'd be a candidate for impeachment once sworn in, but (and I'm probably missing something) the filtering standard for POTUS is lower than for voting, as far as having a criminal record.

Conceivably yes. He could be impeached by a majority vote of the house, but then would need to be convicted by 2/3 of the senate to be removed from office. I have zero belief that enough republicans would vote to turf him no matter what he’s hypothetically convicted of in criminal court.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Conceivably yes. He could be impeached by a majority vote of the house, but then would need to be convicted by 2/3 of the senate to be removed from office. I have zero belief that enough republicans would vote to turf him no matter what he’s hypothetically convicted of in criminal court.

Depends on who the vice president is.

 

[kkwd]

Supreme Court rules Trump can appear on Colorado ballot​

It was a 9 to 0 decision.
Axios Article

 

[Remius]

It was a 9 to 0 decision.
Axios Article

Not surprising. They pretty much telegraphed that by their line of questioning.

Whatever people think of Trump this was the right decision.

And I think gives the court a bit of a boost from a reputation point.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Not surprising. They pretty much telegraphed that by their line of questioning.

Whatever people think of Trump this was the right decision.

And I think gives the court a bit of a boost from a reputation point.

I didn't read the details yet, but if the states are the ones that have their weird standalone responsibilities for running elections, but don't have the power to disqualify someone for a federal ballot based on the Constitution, who actually does?