US Politics: Lock Him Up!

[denstorebog]

9 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

No, but I'd post those photos all over social media. Pedophilia might not be a disqualification...but incest might be. 

That shit could backfire in a heartbeat. I haven't seen the photos, so I assume they're pretty circumstantial and up to interpretation? If so, I don't think you can construct a long-lasting narrative around it. You'd be asking Democrats to not vote for her because she's a victim, which is pretty counter-intuitive to their politics. And it's not even clear what she's a victim of, or if anything happened. Meanwhile, Republicans would have a field day acting outraged over an allegation like that and making the accusers seem obsessed with pedophelia and out of line.

[OldGimletEye]

The Republican Party: Making America Uninsured Again!

[OldGimletEye]

Good job Republican Party! Good one!

[butterbumps!]

30 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

That makes no sense. Kushner is as much a Trump as Ivanka. If the Trump brand is as damaged as you say, pushing Donald Trump's son-in-law (complete with the rest of the family for every photo op and campaign event) won't fly.

I don't know what kind of political platform Ivanka would run on. It could be tailor-made to whatever is needed at the time. But I don't think it's out of the question that she could represent "more Trump" for a hypothetical 40% of Americans who want that, and "young, succesful woman who provided a voice/face of reason during the Dark Days" for everyone else. Again, I'm not saying that image isn't a sham; it most certainly is. But it might be sellable if the circumstances are right.

I guess it depends on how sure you are that Trump's presidency will be commonly remembered as a disaster. Drudge, Breitbart and Fox will do their damndest to serve another narrative for millions and millions of Americans, and so far it's working.

Sorry I should have elaborated what I meant.   I meant that Kushner is the one who's power hungry and with an ax to grind.   He's also the one with an actual position in the administration (Ivanka doesn't.   She's trotted out when they need a token, or to soften some gaffe).   

I don't know that Kushner would run for anything in his own right, or that if he did, it would be a success.    But I think he's the one with the ambition to stay in politics or otherwise grab power in some capacity.   and if any Trump is getting "groomed" I think it's him, by virtue of the 20,000 roles he's allegedly in charge of.  

Im also a little wary of assuming Repub would automatically flock to a Trump based on the current favorability ratings and how he did against Clinton.    Outside of the rabid Trumpkin pop, I would imagine that most right-leaning voters would prefer a more established republican with real experience and without such a direct connection to the trump poison, wouldn't they?  A Nikki Haley maybe?

[Ice Queen]

Just now, denstorebog said:

That shit could backfire in a heartbeat. I don't think you can construct a long-lasting narrative around it. You'd be asking Democrats to not vote for her because she's a victim, which is pretty counter-intuitive to their politics. And it's not even clear what she's a victim of, or if anything happened. Meanwhile, Republicans would have a field day acting outraged over an allegation like that and making the accusers seem obsessed with pedophelia and out of line.

Democrats wouldn't vote for her anyway. It's the redneck Midwestern Christians you have to offend to the point where she becomes someone they'd never vote for. 

[denstorebog]

9 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Im also a little wary of assuming Repub would automatically flock to a Trump based on the current favorability ratings and how he did against Clinton. Outside of the rabid Trumpkin pop, I would imagine that most right-leaning voters would prefer a more established republican with real experience and without such a direct connection to the trump poison, wouldn't they?  A Nikki Haley maybe?

Right now Trump absolutely owns the GOP, according to polls. If there *is* a rabid Trump fringe that's separate from the party, it's because the doubters don't have the courage or motivation to identify themselves as doubters at the moment. If you look at how Republican voters as a whole are responding to Trump, his job performance, his Congress speech, his CPAC performance, etc., it's overwhelmingly positive. We're still in the phase where GOP voters of all colors are warming to the idea of a Trump presidency and are flocking around him in his feud against the evil libruls.

This may be followed by a phase later on where some of the supporters turn out to be only temporary converts looking for a reason to start disliking him again. That depends on stuff like whether he gets the wall built, and how much people care about his campaign promises in a couple of years, plus whether he is able to keep animosity towards Democrats alive throughout his presidency.

Democrats wouldn't vote for her anyway.

Which Democrats? Because right now, the Democratic party has a branding problem when it comes to young voters. If you keep pitting 60+ year-old candidates, especially white-haired men, against someone like Ivanka, you'll start losing voters that you'd normally take for granted. Actual policy only matters so much; style will carry you a long way.

[LongRider]

27 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

That shit could backfire in a heartbeat. I haven't seen the photos, so I assume they're pretty circumstantial and up to interpretation? If so, I don't think you can construct a long-lasting narrative around it. You'd be asking Democrats to not vote for her because she's a victim, which is pretty counter-intuitive to their politics. And it's not even clear what she's a victim of, or if anything happened. Meanwhile, Republicans would have a field day acting outraged over an allegation like that and making the accusers seem obsessed with pedophelia and out of line.

Really, trying to construct a case with photos of this type is like the photos and film clips 'prove' Melania is an abused wife.  Trump is a rude mysgoinstic asshole true, but these photos just aren't enough on their own to prove anything.

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Democrats wouldn't vote for her anyway. It's the redneck Midwestern Christians you have to offend to the point where she becomes someone they'd never vote for. 

She did convert to Judaism, which might be enough for them.

[OldGimletEye]

My view is:

Ivanka Trump has no future in the Democratic Party, unless she were to give a sharp rebuke of her father's policies.

So her only future is in the Republican Party.

She is not going to draw Democratic leaning women to vote for her. Those women are too smart for that. And they ultimately do care about issues and substance, more than anything else. Does anyone remember Linda McMahon losing to Chris Murphy by about 15 percentage points among women? Ivanka will only get women voters that were inclined to vote Republican anyway.

[denstorebog]

5 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Really, trying to construct a case with photos of this type is like the that the photos and film clips 'prove' Melania is an abused wife.  Trump is a rude mysgoinstic asshole true, but these photos just aren't enough on their own to prove anything.

Yeah, exactly. It's quite eye-opening to go to right-leaning sites and realize that Repub voters actually consider Melania a classy, intelligent First Lady, and that they have no clue that something is wrong with the whole Trump marriage / domicile arrangement.

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Yeah, exactly. It's quite eye-opening to go to right-leaning sites and realize that Repub voters actually consider Melania a classy, intelligent First Lady, and that they have no clue that something is wrong with the whole Trump marriage / domicile arrangement.

I didn't know that but that makes sense, plus, her living arrangement can be fobbed off as 'Doing it for the best for her son,' which may have some truth to it, but it doesn't seem to be the whole story.

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

As bad as that is, did you read the comments? There are people (read: men) actually defending this. 

The Facebook group put out a statement yesterday defending it. It's as bad as you'd think it is. If I find it again, I'll post it.

[DunderMifflin]

23 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Yeah, exactly. It's quite eye-opening to go to right-leaning sites and realize that Repub voters actually consider Melania a classy, intelligent First Lady, and that they have no clue that something is wrong with the whole Trump marriage / domicile arrangement.

What's wrong with it?

[denstorebog]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

What's wrong with it?

Thanks, I was just looking for an exhibit A.

[DunderMifflin]

9 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Thanks, I was just looking for an exhibit A.

I'm not a Repub voter though so my question is inadmissable to your claim.

[Maithanet]

11 hours ago, Ormond said:

First, it amazes me that the discussion about turning swing states into allocating electoral votes by congressional district has talked about this as if Trump himself would be behind it. Trump's narcissism ensures that he will believe he'll win re-election no matter how electoral votes are allocated. Didn't he actually say it would be a good idea to do away with the electoral college in a meeting with senators AFTER the November election until McConnell told him this was a bad idea? If this electoral vote thing happens in Wisconsin or Florida, it will be because Republicans in general like the idea as a way to help any Republican candidate, not because Trump himself will be pushing it.

I'm well aware that such reallocation would be spearheaded by Republicans at the state level, rather than Trump in particular.  However, if this or something similar comes to pass, I am sure that Trump will be providing political support for it with constant references to voter fraud.  Imaginary voter fraud is one of his favorite topics. 

[Isalie]

I don't really know what's suggested about the Trump Melania relationship, but how does it matter if they hate each other and stay together for appearances sake? Even if Trump was a saint in every other way, I fail to see how this matters.

[denstorebog]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I'm not a Repub voter though so my question is inadmissable to your claim.

Doesn't really matter. We could discuss back and forth what the numerous stories, photos and clips of Trump disregarding Melania in public, of Melania doing her damndest to appear happy and failing, of Melania's non-existence in Trump's administration, really mean. And whether her unconventional living arrangement has anything to do with anything. Or we could skip that part and just draw our own conclusions.

Quote

I don't really know what's suggested about the Trump Melania relationship, but how does it matter if they hate each other and stay together for appearances sake? Even if Trump was a saint in every other way, I fail to see how this matters.

See the discussion on the previous page about whether circumstancial photo evidence of something odd going on in a relationship between two people would have any influence on elections. My point is that it doesn't, as evidenced by the First Lady.

[LongRider]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm well aware that such reallocation would be spearheaded by Republicans at the state level, rather than Trump in particular.  However, if this or something similar comes to pass, I am sure that Trump will be providing political support for it with constant references to voter fraud.  Imaginary voter fraud is one of his favorite topics. 

And one believed by his supporters:

Quote

A Des Moines woman has been charged with Election Misconduct, a Class D felony, after allegedly voting twice for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Terri Rote says she was afraid her first ballot for Trump would be changed to a vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

"I wasn't planning on doing it twice, it was a spur of the moment," says Rote.* "The polls are rigged."

http://iowapublicradio.org/post/des-moines-woman-says-she-voted-twice-trump-because-polls-are-rigged

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Yeah.  And I suspect the percentage of that 25-33% who are absolutely Trump or bust is even smaller.

I have no doubt that if the republicans in congress, who have no love for Trump, will turn on him in a second as soon as those numbers start to slide, and they think it's politically feasible.  And I think THAT scenario is way more likely than a lot of you guys seem to.

 

 

Yep, I agree, and I made a similar argument last Friday. The problem is, it will take a lot longer than 19 weeks. 

15 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

yes, typo.  and i don't think it's as easy as you think it is.

I never meant to imply that it would be easy. Quite the opposite in fact, and it could only happen if the nuclear option was implemented. My point was that it was legally feasible and could withstand a Constitutional challenge, should the right lawyer make the right case.