It will help him with his base, since he can say "I wuz FRAMED by the ugly broad! Send me cash!" and they will.
If Biden is lucky it will increase Trump's chances of nomination, due to MAGA buying the notion of a witch hunt by the Democrat child-molesters in the Washington sewers, while simultaneously decreasing his appeal to floating voters, especially women. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am sure he can still run. I hope he appeals and next time he is found guilty of actual rape.Carol did claim she was raped and that she felt his member on her so perhaps he was only found innocent by one or two dissenting jurors on that count. It is tempting to hope that he is still the GOP pick but that is a risky hope even though I think Biden will defeat him. Is Desantis actually any better than Trump -or can we say that indeed there could hardly be a worse choice than Trump even if they opened up the prisons?
Couple of clarifications: - the jury was apparently unanimous, - this was a civil case, not a criminal one. To Brits it's odd to have a jury to decide the verdict in a civil case, but that's what they do in the US. As for De Sanity Clause, he's potentially worse than Trump in that he is less obviously mad, so he would be less erratic and might do more lasting damage. He might be able to beat Old Man Biden, whereas Trump most likely can't.
Trump's base lives in a universe of "alternative facts". For them, this is just more evidence of a political witch hunt to get the Greatest President who Ever Was. Trump owns the Republican Party. All publicity is good publicity for him. This sort of thing just keeps him in the minds of the voters, and draws attention away from potential challengers. It might very well improve his chances of nomination. I doubt that civil cases would have any effect on the right to stand as a candidate for office. Criminal convictions might make a difference, but I'm not aware of the specific laws regarding that in the US. If being convicted of a felony removes a citizen's right to vote, then to be consistent it should also remove the run for office, but I don't know whether US law is actually consistent in this sort of thing.
I would hope that when Trump is inevitably convicted of trying to tamper with votes in Georgia, and if he is charged with inciting the Jan 6 insurrection, that those things might have some impact on his ability to run for President.
And after that? Appoint a Trump crony to the position? Is this sort of thing acceptable to the people of Georgia?
They vote for it. Sometimes, James, I recall discussions we've had about supremacism, and it occurs to wonder if, much like others who pretended to advocate free speech, you really didn't see this sort of thing coming. It's a valid question, especially compared to simply presuming that the sort of things we're seeing in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and other conservative states is what you were after. I mean, really, are you actually surprised at what is happening? And if so, why? They've been telling us for years, generations, even, who they are and what they want, and you're the one who thinks it's paternalistic and condescending to call racism by its name. When you were standing up for the hurt feelings of racists, what did you expect? When you were standing up for the free speech of those who would end free speech, what did you think you were accomplishing? When you sought to quash speech in the name of free speech, did you think nobody would notice? Hey, remember that time you said↗ it strikes you as "a little bizarre" to "think that it is possible for a person to be a white supremacist without realising it"? Did you not stop to think about how that line would read when considered alongside your take on "cancel culture"↗ and the executive who apparently didn't know? James, what do you think you've been supporting, all these years, when making excuses for supremacism? Because, sure, go ahead and tell us it was about free speech, but that doesn't change the fact of what you were protecting. Is it acceptable to the people of Georgia? Well, yes, enough of them. They've had many opportunities to change course, and have chosen to continue as they are. What, did you think people were just fooling around and saying stupid things for chuckles? And when you were protecting racism at Sciforums, what did you think this "free speech" was doing? And, sure, we can go through the larger issue about supremacism, if you want, but in the moment, honestly, your question stands out: "Is this sort of thing acceptable to the people of Georgia?" Yes, James, they voted for it. They've been voting for it. It's not merely acceptable to them, but what they've been after for a long, long time. It's not exactly subtle, James. Well, unless you're you. Maybe. In order for those ideas to succeed, they need all sorts of support from people who pretend they're not part of it, to say things like you say. It's like comparing white nationalism to Black Lives Matter; maybe it is unsupported, and generally insupportable, but James is there to offer an easy platitude because somebody needs to. And toward that, sure, this would appear to be why basic standards of rational discourse are anathema at Sciforums. Supremacism is one form of crackpottery you've long been willing to make excuses for. And it's in the context of those excuses and their making that your question stands out so absurdly: Is this sort of thing acceptable to the people of Georgia? Yes, James, how did you miss it? Was it your own political sympathies? Think back: For over fifteen years you've stood up for white supremacism, and, sure, you can tell us it's some sort of accident, because life is a learning experience, and all, but what really would be helpful for other people is to have some idea what you thought you were doing that whole time. Think it through, James: Racism, misogyny, "cancel culture"; you keep planting flags in strange territory, on behalf of stuff you pretend to not support. Heroic notions of defending free speech are what they are, James, but at this point what would excuse all that is extraordinary naïveté. It's pretty much the same inquiry: What did you think they were talking about? What did you think they were doing? And this is the teachable lesson, James. This is the part where everyone out beyond the fourth wall has a chance to learn something about how these things go. I get that you're going to sputter and insist that you're not a supremacist and don't support supremacism, but that leaves us to wonder what you thought you were doing. And in that context, as you thought the supremacists were doing something that wasn't supremacism¹, there remains the question of what you thought the people bringing supremacist rhetoric were doing. Remember, at our level, provocation for a lark would have been inappropriate², so that's not what it was; moreover, the question of public policy for a lark presents its own problematic considerations, so it's not a useful justification for what is happening in states like Georgia. Is this sort of thing acceptable to the people of Georgia? Yes, James, they've been working toward it for a long, long time. Let's say, somewhere between thirty and a hundred sixty years. At least. How about seventy? Brown had its first run at the Supreme Court seventy years ago.³ So, sure, we can do the joke about how the South shall rise again, and all, but for many in the South, it's not a joke.⁴ So, what happened, did you get played? For years? Or, if perhaps you might wonder, why you, or why recall this part of your history here and now, it is because there is use in doing so: Is this sort of thing acceptable to the people of Georgia? Yes, James, enough of them to make this happen. These political outcomes aren't accidents. Do you understand what I mean by the suicide pact, James? Maybe you had some "free speech" reason for defending something, but compared to the point that you might in some moment be defending a justification for censorship, what did you actually think those advocates were doing? Like the whole "cancel culture" thing? Did it never occur to you how much of the complaint was, in its way, counterrevolutionary? Or how your take on paternalism and condescension legitimized the pretense that refusing privilege was the same as denying rights?⁵ And when passing over the need for justification of recycling racist tropes, what, other than the normalization and thus legitimization of racism and supremacism, did you think those people were after? My point is that you've been close to this, even if just in our Sciforums context, and in the context of our proximity to the issue, it really does occur to wonder what you thought those people were on about. Because it's part of the same answer: Is this sort of thing acceptable to the people of Georgia? Yes, James, so much so that we might wonder why you would expect otherwise. Just like we might ask if those people at Sciforums were really making racist arguments: Yes, James, and so blatantly that we might wonder what you thought they were doing. And it's one thing, James, if I think your take on free speech is a suicide pact, and, yes, it seems quite clear what arguments require the shelter of your strange harbor, but one thing that never has made any sense is what you actually think people are doing with this stuff. So, sure, we get it: You're not a supremacist and don't support or sympathize with those things, and you're just standing up for free speech, and all that. Still, though: When you defended their behavior, what did you think they were doing? Because, yeah, Georgia: Is this sort of thing acceptable to the people of Georgia? Yes, James. My side lost; this is what happens when my side loses. People don't do this by accident. So, yes, it's not just acceptable to the people of Georgia, it is what a majority of them want, and this has been going on so long there really isn't any question. Appoint a Trump crony? Why not? Florida just affirmed their anti-science, rightist, conspiracist surgeon general. Texans followed a criminal governor with the guy who picked a fight with a dildo and lost; these days he oversees pogroms against women, children, and migrants. How far will Georgia Republicans take it before a majority of voters disrupts them for a cycle? How far will they go before the underlying attitudes change? It's kind of like the question of another civil war↗, and how much the right wing has spent winding itself up for bloodshed. And, again, they've been telling us the whole time. And that's why I really do wonder: What did you think they were talking about? Did you really not know? ____________________ Notes: ¹ Since they don't actually support the supremacism they're supporting. ² If the people bringing supremacist provocation were just joking around or otherwise not sincerely advocating that supremacism, why was this form of provocation acceptable? It isn't, so that's not what they were doing. ³ The justices were so stubborn they had to hear the case again before deciding. It's also worth reminding the ironic point that in Plessy, which was overturned by Brown, the dissenting justice, the one who knew "separate but equal" would not work, was a former slave owner. ⁴ We can skip, for now, the side discussion about how any number of these people think they live in a different country, but to actually hold them accountable, as such, hurts their feelings. You know, paternalism and condescension that forces people to fault right, blame the penguin, vote for Trump, &c. ⁵ If it's all just an exercise in discourse, how many times to people need to go through it again? And why are those advocates so clueless? This is an example of what requires shelter in strange harbors.
The problem is more serious than that, IMO. The Constitution places great value on our right to vote. Yes, it can have little meaning since money seems to speak louder than the vote but if we value voting then it's counterproductive (authoritarian) to tell "us" who we can and can't vote for. That's why I say it's a more serious problem in that it's pretty serious when you potentially need a law to tell half of the population that they shouldn't vote for a guy like Trump. The real problem, it seems, is half the population. I think it's even bigger than that. I'm not so sure about the other half of the population either. If a party was moderate and willing to compromise, it should get a large majority of the vote every time but that's not the case. After 4 years of Trump and 3 years of Biden all "we" can do is put those two forward as candidates again? To be clear, I'm not saying Biden isn't "moderate" in general, he is just incompetent, IMO. I'd just like to see us ge to an election with people like (D) Gretchen Whitmer and (R) Chris Sununu.
Isn't "hateful little man" name calling and isn't that a violation of forum rules? Both of the dogs in your avatar are white, are you promoting something? Why do you love white dogs so much?
But, why is Trump allowed to run for POTUS when he lost this recent civil suit where he was accused of sexual assault? That’s still pretty “damning” if you ask me. Even if it’s not a criminal conviction, I’m surprised that anyone with an unsavory record like that, can run for POTUS. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I know, but he was found liable for the damages and there should be a standard for running for POTUS. If for example, he was found liable in a civil suit for his dog biting another person on his property, I’d think differently but this involved allegations of sexual assault, so it just seems odd that he’s permitted to run after the outcome of this case.
