I don't think that's accurate, and it goes back to what I consistently have said about Trump - the reasons for his election go far further than racism. I don't think they're even primarily racism. Dismissing it as that misses the opportunity to meaningfully address the big picture. I've explained which I believe this many times on these forums, but perhaps a smarter and wiser man than me (Simon Sinek) can hold forth this time:

DONALD TRUMP IS A REFLECTION OF US - Simon Sinek on Trump - YouTube

What do you mean I don't think that's accurate? What other way is there to describe birtherism?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Birtherism appealed not just to racists but also to a lot of garden-variety conspiracy theorists not driven by racism. But more importantly, I don't think it's correct to say Trump's political career was built on birtherism either.

Birtherism was definitely a building block in Trump's political career. Not sure how you can think otherwise. It's not the only block, it may or may not be the largest block. But it is a block none-the-less.

Trump absolutely found his political niche with birtherism. It's what gave him the following to start his campaign. He used it as a way to show he would tell the truth when the squishes wouldn't.

Not everyone who voted...

But there's no doubt that the key group of Trump voters, non-college educated whites, were much more motivated by cultural and racial resentment than by economic anxiety.

So... Trump telling a Chinese-born reporter to go ask China about his failed coronavirus response has led to splitting hairs about whether Trump is kinda racist or really racist?

The man's an artist in a demented sort of way. I have to give him that.

SI

Or maybe that was some time ago and we now know better ? Or these are quite purposefully NOT named after a country or village (but river/region).

And in this instance "we" is essentially "some peope". (Yes, yes, we dumb sheep elsewhere kowtow to china or are too political correct ...). There has never been a consensus to name a new virus after the place of origin, either. And again, neither was this one actually named that.

It has been called (!) China/Wuhan to make a statement, not because that is what it by some iron clad rule should be its name. I mean, you can agree with that statement, but there's no need to pretend it is some sort of inevitability to call it that or that language is not shaped by or used with intent.

Good lord trump is tweeting any governor who has a high approval rating has him to thank because they couldn’t have done it without the help of the federal government. I can’t even fathom the alternate reality these people live in.

The racist baby-in-chief's latest tantrum

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/coro...lief-bill.html

Good lord, 3 trillion dollars. With that money they should just pay every adult two grand every month to the end of the year.

But nah, they'll squander it.

Well, here we go, CARES2 negotiations starting:

Coronavirus stimulus: Democrats’ $3 trillion opening bid for the next stimulus package, explained - Vox

Seems most of it is money for states/localities/tribes, another $1200 payment, extension of added unemployment benefits, a PPP with a lot of additional limits, more funding for testing and contact tracing, money for SNAP benefits, money for elections and vote by mail, more money for USPS, and paying for COBRA benefits.

Also, there are some provisions to help with rent/mortgage payments.

Of course Senate Republicans are calling it a lib wish list, while those on the left are saying it doesn't go far enough. So we'll see what happens. I'm sure the President wants some of this to happen enough (the payments for one so he can send a letter again) that there is going to be some pressure applied.

The Dems should put in there they want an autographed 8x10 of Trump included with every check. The GOP would go for it then because Donny will make them.

I have absolutely no doubts that idea would work.

There Is No Evidence That Voting By Mail Gives One Party An Advantage | FiveThirtyEight

It would be funny if Dems fight tooth and nail for VBM, and the GOP fights tooth and nail against it.

And then it all kind of turns out not to really matter in terms of giving one party an advantage.

It's sad that one party's best strategy is to suppress voters, rather than try to appeal to a majority of voters in an honest manner.

I read a quote from a GOP congressman during the shutdown last year complaining that the Dem platform is just stuff that's popular and Republicans are forced to be the adults in the room.

Yes, I know you can't just give the majority of the people everything they want but it says everything about the state of our politics when the ruling party admits their ideas aren't popular.

Based on the first day of testimony, Trump's claim that he's essentially a King for 4 year terms isn't going over well. It's looking like a 8-1 or 9-0 decision depending on how the wind blows for Thomas.

That's funny. I was just reading a Vox article that said the House lawyer sound unprepared and the Supreme Court is likely to give Trump wins across the board.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Based off the various articles I've read I don't gather Trump losing this decision.

Of course, by no means am I a lawyer or a constitutional expert.

GD: I believe you are speaking of this article?

Supreme Court: The House’s defense of its Trump investigation was a disaster - Vox

It does say the House lawyer was terrible and a majority of SCOTUS wants to give sitting Presidents some leeway but also points out that those justices also don't seem inclined to squash the investigations. So more mixed - special, but not total, immunity.

The house did a terrible job but Trump's team was proba ly even worse. They have no argument other than "he's the president".

Fwiw, Neal Katyal and George Conway both have this 7-2. Thomas should just wear a MAGA hat on the bench at this point while Gorsuch has always supported presidential power.

After Paula Jones and Whitewater it should be 9-0 against Trump but I assume even if they liked that decision against Clinton, they'll thread the needle like Bush v. Gore where it only applies to this one case(s)

Pete Williams on MSNBC says he believes they will kick it back to the lower court. Most likely, that will draw it out till next year.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Temporary Presidential Immunity.

I am reading the opposite.

The main talking points they are getting out on social media is: it’s too many words, too many paragraphs and it’s a bailout for...what for it...the evil, dreaded blue states.

It's like the Democrats are trying to push me to vote Libertarian this election.

They should just give every adult 2k/month until the end of the year and maybe let the states tax it.

COBRA payments are bullshit. Bailout for insurance companies. If people need coverage, put them in Medicare.

Was told how great private health insurance is and now the government needs to bail it out incessantly at the first sign of a health crisis. Well done dipshits.

If you are inclined to vote libertarian, then you should.

COBRA payments are steep since you are now covering the entire cost of the premium with no employer subsidy, but curious how you see this as more helpful to insurance companies than consumers? There is going to be hit regardless. So your are either paying it to an already stretched Medicare program with what is assuredly a multitude or regulations and qualifiers, or putting it on state Medicaid, which creates a greater funding burden.

With all of current Covid-19 related disbursement funds for providers that state programs provide for testing, practice relief, incentives and community based assistance programs administered through health care providers, Medicaid is already running at a financial redline.

There is no winner in where ever you choose to pump additional cash, but at least with the COBRA subsidies it is less taxing on the insureds, who can keep a familiar product without disruption to their healthcare needs.

I would, but then this pops up in my head



My parents always said The Simpsons would be a bad influence on me.

So let me get this straight. Both parties are spending monies to 'save' the capitalist economy yet one wants no oversight of the flow and wants monies to go to the wealthiest companies and one is trying to get money into the hands of people at the bottom and work your way up from there. Yet one of them is wrong to you and one of them is right or are they both bad for it? I would say they're similar now in this regard and it's just whether or not you want the very wealthiest to be able to 'steal' the money (my words) or do you want it to go to people at the bottom who don't 'want to work for it?'

One of them sounds consistent to the way things have gone for about 3 years which we see what that's gotten us and one is about trying to stop the graft and theft by the 1%.

Again its all just redistribution of wealth only one side has made that terms dog whistle. I believe its based upon which way the redistribution flows that determines whether or not you're a current fan of that flow.

I see it this way. If the Feds are throwing money around like a drunken sailor, no matter how I feel about that, I want my cut. I dont want the oil companies getting money or the banks. Give me $2k a month and let me decide what to do with it. I need that money more than some big corporation that profits are slightly lower than 3 months ago.

Is it redistribution? sure, but its my tax dollars. And I dont want my tax dollars going to big corporations.

I love this. Please do.

I need Trump in office another four years.

As a middle aged, semi wealthy white Christian straight dude, I'm not the target of his scorn, and I may get another tax cut out of it.

Of course, your libertarian ideals will be ignored too but hey, that vote matters to you, and that's what is important.

The way I am reading it is there is no way he was voting Trump and now the Democrats are losing his vote as well.

...but without a true multi party system (which I would love) built upon less money in politics including a reversal of 'Citizens United' a vote for anything but one of the parties (D or R) is a vote for the D or R who is less affected by the leading 3rd party candidate.

I get it that it feels better in the effort but the effect is the same.

Pretty much. I am a never-Republican voter who decides between Democrats and Libertarians pretty much depending on my mood and how much I trust the integrity of individual candidates.

As a libertarian voter then why are you assuming where my vote would go in a two party party system?

And the amount of times I have heard "I would love to vote third party but...". Vote third party. Most states are already decided right so your vote for a D or R also doesn't matter. I think Quiksand said this earlier in this thread in a nicer more succinct way. Telling me my vote in Missouri is life or death for the D/R paradigm could be traded off with a California or Wyoming voter whose vote means nothing. But they selfishly stick to their D/R vote so why am I so bad to stick to my L vote? If you really believed in a multi party system your vote is much better made to make one of the third party's achieve 5% then to a 65/30 landslide in a non battleground state.

I am a NO Trump, highly likely never Republican, mostly Libertarian/ but possible Democrat voter. I voted Claire McCaskill and actually like Biden as a candidate though the possibility of Amash had made me reconsider a little. My problem is my vote for Biden would be a vote for no Trump and a return to sanity but fear a Biden victory would lead the Democrats to believe my vote was a mandate on some of the crazier (EDIT: IMO) Sanders/AOC/Pelosi aspects of the Democratic Party.

Exactly. In addition to losing out on ER subsidies for health plans, they can charge a 2% admin fee - so now in order to keep their same health plan Participants would have to pay up to 102% of the premium costs. This can be substantial (note: I work in the government agency that enforces COBRA).

It is probably far more likely, without a COBRA bailout that Participants would just drop COBRA and go for a less comprehensive ACA Plan (they would be eligible to sign on under special enrollment because they've lost their job) which would likely cost less.

Not to mention that this is something that you probably CAN get Republican support on (not for the entirety of COBRA benefits, of course). Putting them on Medicare would be a complete non-starter (as the GOP would consider it an attempt to start a Medicare for All plan).

Our national poll is another that shows Biden's lead ticking down. https://t.co/t8rvffIviV

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) May 13, 2020

Good news for Trump. He seems to be slightly improving in polling.

Truth is, even if Biden wins, the Republicans/FoxNews cycle will decimate any sort of momentum the Democrats would have and in another four years, he'll be popped out for Trump Jr anyway.

If Trump is voted out (unlikely), the Repubs would make it their goal to make Biden a one term president too. They'll stall judges and everything, just to make this happen.

Then they'll state that Biden was inept and we need "leadership" (and tax cuts for the wealthy) back again...oh and the Bible too...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-2020/611500/

Well to be fair, Biden has already made it clear he is a one term President. so the real key here is flipping the Senate.

Why is it unlikely that Trump gets voted out?

It's chicken and egg. I would love to vote 3rd party but feel that we cannot until Citizen's United is repealed.

I'm not assuming where it'll go. What I said is wherever it does go will in essence be a vote for the party in that state that is most hurt by that.

It's fascinating to me that the majority see Trump as the favorite despite trailing Biden in the polls for well over a year now, Trump remaining underwater with his approval rating, and the generic congressional poll showing Dems with an 8 point lead.

I think 538's chat this morning covers most of the reasons.

If Trump Is Down In The Polls, Why Do So Many Americans Think He’ll Win? | FiveThirtyEight

I've always thought that if you're voting for a third party, that's fine. You should give your support to the party that most closely fits your desires. My problem is with the people that vote third party as a protest. If you're more closely aligned with one of the two major parties, voting for a third party really does make it more likely that the opposition party wins.

I think the risk of some of the more extreme democratic positions getting enacted under Biden is pretty small. The guy is a moderate.

I don't actually think Citizen's United matters that much here - pre CU you didn't have viable 3rd parties really - you had a rich guy who could spend his own money, but that exists today as well. The only way 3rd parties are going to matter is with Ranked Voting (which Maine now has for federal elections) or a Parliamentary system.

But even with ranked voting, it'll probably take a while for 3rd party representation in Congress.

There weren't even 60 Dems in the Senate for a public option.

Yeah, I can't see Senator Manchin voting for Medicare for All (though he has voted for protecting the ACA as is at least)

How can you get anywhere when GOP senators are willing to spout such bullshit?

How about John Cornyn saying this during a PBS interview yesterday?


Cornyn has voted 20 times to block, repeal, or defund the ACA.

Think of all the shit he's pulled and he's still polling the same.

The regions that support him haven't changed, or been affected to a state they'll go blue.

He's going to be re-elected and put another judge on SCOTUS. Plus have you seen the circuit judges they've been shunting in?

Then at the end of the 4 years, he'll have enough judges to stay as POTUS until his son is ready to take over.

Barr and company will do anything to prop him.

Putin didn't really have to do much to damage the US permanently. We're doing it quite well now on our own.

If insurance companies are losing customers, perhaps them and the doctors should lower their rates to make premiums more affordable? Like in a free market?

Y'all wanted private health insurance, deal with the consequences.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that the state's stay at home order is illegal.

Don't worry too much, every time the Democrats get that power that "crazier" wing and the "let's be pragmatic and not piss off Republican voters" wing devolve into infighting and let the Republican Party dig in and prevent any massive changes. (Fwiw I don't like her, but I also don't think Pelosi is super progressive or radical.)

lol at putting Pelosi in the same category as AOC and Sanders.

This is literally a plan to help people who have lost insurance by helping to pay for a program that these people are already eligible for, but sure, completely miss the point (esp since insurance companies aren't really fans of COBRA and would prefer these people have to buy individual policies outside of a group health plan).

It's not a program, it's just the cost for a private health insurance plan.

The point is, why not just put them on Medicare? A program that already exists. Put the money allocated toward that instead of handing it to a private health insurance company that now doesn't have to adjust their price to the market.

It's another privatize profits, socialize losses play. Sorry that the private health insurance defenders got exposed as frauds by this. Change how its done instead of prop up a failed idea.

Government health care is bad unless they add in a completely unnecessary middleman to collect billions in taxpayer money. Then it is good.

Please let us know when you make that magic wand that will convince even the conservative Dems in the Senate to put people on Medicare who've lost their jobs due to this pandemic (adding them onto a Medicaid expansion would be more likely politically, but still DOA). Paying for part of COBRA has, of course, been done before in a stimulus, and is far more likely to pass - but when have you ever cared about that?

I'm just tired of the morons who claim the ACA was just a giveaway to the insurance companies when for about a decade I've been enforcing the ACA against insurance companies who try to get around the mandates of the ACA (usually they try to play fast and loose with what is considered preventive care). No insurance company attorney I've interviewed actually likes the ACA (though they always say they want to follow it... though then they interpret it in strange ways). In addition, prior to the ACA, the federal government hardly went after the insurance companies, as that was considered a state issue. Not to mention the original law had Medicaid expansion required (struck down by the Supreme Court).

If you had to work with the morass of inane over regulation that is CMS, you wouldn't be so quick to trumpet that cause, I promise. I am for Universal Health care, but we are nowhere near ready for it here yet.

It is unfortunate that there weren't the votes for a public option. I also wonder if most people who trumpet M4A realize that most people on Medicare purchase private insurance to supplement the gaps (Medicare Advantage/Part C or Medigap). Not to mention that there is cost sharing applied in Medicare (deductible and copays, though they are pretty reasonable as far as I can tell).

Serious question but I am now starting to wonder if my grandkids will be reading in history books someday about how the US lost the Cold War with the old USSR/Russia thanks to them getting a Manchuria Candidate type elected with Trump in 2016/2020 and who knows if one his kids get elected after him.
Working in Cyber security I see quite a bit of the attack’s and threats they generate and send at us to just poison Americans and our systems of democracy and is pretty un-nerving. Do we do it them and other “enemies” of the US? Yes, it is just we are not as successful at it as they are are.

Trump/Barr's FBI just got a search warrant for Barr as part of the insider trading scandal.

At first, I thought it was strange that they were bothering to go after a Republican.

But then I learned that, apparently, the Senate Intelligence Committee (of which Barr is the chair) still has more of this Report to release.

I don't think that anyone in the United States noticed when this report came out. But it must have ruffled a few feathers in Moscow and the White House.

So how does this work now? Barr will step down as committee chair. McConnell will appoint a new committee chair, and the Report will now focus on Hunter Biden.

Oh, and after Barr steps down, the DOJ investigation into him will just sort of peter out . . .

Yep, she's the de facto head of the party is she not? If they decide to run with AOC and Sanders ideas guess who implements it?

Seriously? I've seen this a few times on here the last couple of days there really is some sort of fear of a monarchy with Don Jr. or Ivanka as the new dictator/king/queen? LOL, too much Game of Thrones watching I guess?

And you can't be serious on the United States unsuccessfully meddling in other countries affairs. That's the entire basis of the Cold War in South Korea, Japan, Western Europe, Central America, the Middle East...

You, among all of us, should know by now that the proper framing of any "think about this Administration and what they do" is to adopt the mindset that they are simply a fairly standard organized crime enterprise (albeit out of the usual milieu for same). The loyalty-above-all, turf-defending, deceit-as-default, ruthlessness... it all makes complete sense in that light.

My worry is that he will somehow win the election by rigging things in his favor.

Right now, I think the next several months are going to end up being key in the election. If we keep going down the road we are and things get worse, it is going to be really bad for his re-election chances.

Also, 3 million less people voted in 2016 than in 2012. If more people vote, then I don't think he'll win either.

I didn't think he was going to win in 2016 either, so what the hell do I know?

In recent polling Trump was trailing Biden among voters 65+ If that holds he won't win. He won that demographic by 7-8 points in 2016.

Cool, downplay it. That's why we have this Idiot in Chief now. He wants legacy ("the wall") and he plays up his genes and progeny. Feel free to be ignorant about it.


I think you are being too nationalistic about it. Putin only cares about Putin, he uses nationalism to control the masses, it's how he wields the influence. From what I gather, Putin and his loyalists are very wealthy and that is how they pushed on toppling influence.

It's not about USA vs Russia or China. It's about the rich controlling power. The very wealthy and the very wealthy combining their influence and using nationalism and culture to foment and control.

Trump only cares about Trump. He'll do anything to keep power. They'll do everything to keep power (more Trump circuit judges, control SCOTUS). Even if they lose the Senate, I'm pretty sure they'll take it to court and win because Trump wants loyalty over all else.

Every system built to prevent this has been stripped or compromised. Once he gets the election, he'll force for an extension of term limits because "he's better than any president" and his base will go to war for it. If he has the Senate and SCOTUS, it'll be a mere formality.

Then he'll sell his brand for Donald Jr (really it'll still be Kushner behind the scenes) and Donald (just like when Putin had Medvedev as his proxy). It'll be Donald. Will the courts stacked with loyalists, there will be no opposition. He'll simply crush them with Foxnews and prosecutions.

His followers will lap it up. The stupids will "own" America culturally, the Corporations will own America financially, and the rich will own America in reality.

Watch what happens in November and tell me I'm wrong. I'm not some conspiracy theorists, it is like watching a car crash happen in slow motion.

I think some news outlet polled that Trump is leading in all battleground states. They're the only ones that matter. He only needs a few of those and it Trump time all the time.

The "Idiot in Chief" (your words) who is an imbecile in every sense of the word (my words) is going to overthrow 200+ years of American government thus leading to a Trump ruling dynasty? Yeah you are right I am the one being ignorant that theory is not out there at all!

Okay, whatever you say man. Laugh about it. Trump is an idiot, but the powers that back him aren't.

If Trump wins in 2020, I don't know how anyone can dismiss Ivanka being a big contender in 2024.

The deductibles can be a killer for folks not making a lot of money. 1408.00 once per benefit period for an IP admit, then a coinsurance 352.00 for days 61-90 if it is long term.

In addition if a member is discharged and stays out of an inpatient setting for over 60 days a new benefit period starts meaning another 1408.00 deductible. So in theory a member could be admitted for short stays (2-4 days) in January, April, July and November and have to pay 5632.00 in deductible charges in addition to any part B cost share (198.00 yearly deductible then 20% coinsurance) so it can add up.

Something is odd about that poll, though. It has Biden up 6 nationally, but down 7 in those battleground states. I could maybe buy Biden being slightly behind, but a 13 point difference between national and battleground is just too much to take seriously, IMO.

Or Donald Jr. who has all of the arrogance/ignorance of his dad, but can actually string coherent, intelligent sentences together.

The polls seem a bit weird right now.

Like, if these Senate polls are to be believed, then the GOP is in for the bloodbath of our lifetimes:

What To Make Of Those New Senate Polls That Have Democrats Way Ahead | FiveThirtyEight

I mean, if that's the national mood, then states like Ohio and Iowa are back in play for the Democrats.

But these polls seem like crazy outliers and out of sync with the polls showing Trump cutting into Biden's lead, Trump's approval remaining steady, Trump keeping very high GOP support, etc.

On balance, there seems to be more good news than bad for the GOP, but there's some crazy shit out there right now.

LOL at you guys. Seriously I love the fact that this board doesn't get into "Bush did this!" well "Obama did this!" nonsense of most of the internet and the discourse is really civil and often productive. But Ivanka or Don Jr. in 2024? You guys are out of your minds obsessed with fear of Donald Trump!

I think we're reacting to the fact that his backers stick with him no matter what he does. Stuff that would be political death to others bounces off of him. I do think people are going a little far in extrapolating what might happen down the road with his offspring, in part because we got burned so badly when Trump won the presidency. At a time where a competent president would have been a really good thing to have, we got a conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in science.

If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2020

Be careful what you wish for, Donnie.

This isn't just pie-in-the-sky speculation.

From January:
Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump among top Republican picks for 2024 | US news | The Guardian


Note: This isn't a traditional Survey Monkey poll - there was a random selection by Axios and Survey Monkey. I don't think it's as good as some of the traditional polls, but it isn't self selected results either.

I'm sure those on the Titanic thought it was going to turn out alright too.


You can laugh all you want, Republicans have a base now that is fanatical in keeping control the way they want to the point of subverting all government controls.

That and the next GOP nominee will probably try to harness Trump's campaign style and ideas unless he gets beaten badly in November, which is unlikely when he continues to hold 40-45% overall and 85-90% of the Republican party. If it isn't a Don Jr, it'll be someone trying to copy Trump (DeSantis maybe?). It's not going to be a Paul Ryan or a Pence.

Right, if Trump wins or loses closely in November (and then Trump claims he was stabbed in the back by the media or something), 2024 is going to have a Trump like GOP candidate (if not Trump himself if he loses this year).

The only way to prevent that is for him to get thumped.

So if the GOP runs a Jewish woman won't that cut into the misogynism and Nazi sympathizer angle that every other GOP candidate is usually painted with?

Just don't see it happening but I guess I will back off you guys being nuts and just stick with people in general being nuts if >1% would support either as a candidate for President of the United States. Personally I have no fear of it happening as...

1) Trump isn't winning in 2020
2) If he did Mike Pence would run in 2024 as running either of the other two would be giving up the race.

I have my speculation that Ivanka is actually far more of a moderate (if not a conservative Democrat). That may hurt her against Don, Jr.

You know there is a primary right? Don Jr is apparently had chants of "46!" at Trump rallies and you KNOW that Trump is going to go for one of his own over Pence. That Trump endorsement is going to be massive.

Now, Pence may still win, but a Trump kid is going to be in the top 3 in 2024 if Trump wins in November.

I think Donald Trump is too but he sees the only way to stay in power is to play off this current persona. (He's on awful president by the way but I'm not sure he cares about most of the stuff he does, he just does it to stay in power)

Trump has always been a racist who wanted benefits for the wealthy though - for decades this is how he was seen in the NYC metro area. He may be more liberal when dealing with gay and lesbian people, but he's been as moderate as, say, Rudy Guiliani has been moderate.

Watching some of this hearing. Glad republicans still don't actually ask questions and only grandstand. Hudson from NC just thanked Trump for the great job he is doing considering he wasn't left with any plan from the previous administration. WTF. It is amazing how these elected representatives flat out lie.

Just noted Fox News isn't showing the hearing. Can't have their viewers get educated.

Burr steps down as chair.

With all due respect to Nate Silver and Co., any story about the 2020 election that is not about the United States Department of Justice encouraging and covering up foreign interference in the election on behalf of the GOP is not actually a story about the 2020 election.

dola: and for those wondering about how some of us are convinced that Trump will win in 2020, this is my answer at least.

In one week, the DOJ refused to prosecute someone who helped Russia interfere in our elections and took steps to prosecute a sitting Senator who was willing to confirm that Russia tried to interfere in our elections.

Add a 5-4 GOP SCOTUS to that mix, and you've got 4 more years.

I'm with panerd here. I think that courtesy extends to Donald Trump and only Donald Trump. His kids don't get nearly the same leeway or have the "mystique" around him that he does.

I fear there will be another demagogue that those same people latch onto but it's not going to be his kids.


Yeah, see - that's the bigger problem. No matter who wins in 2020, there's going to be someone who tries to channel Trump in 2024 for the GOP. I don't see how they avoid it. It's going to be some crazy white nationalist and protectionist who saw what Trump did as the way to win with an ever shrinking GOP base unless they get totally destroyed in this election. And I don't think that's happening - there are just too many wacky variables in play from non-traditional COVID voting patterns to ever more prevalent voter suppression to Trump's weird political teflon.

Hell, if Trump loses in 2020 and he's alive in 2024, why not Trump again? He'll have spent the last 4 years trying to slam Biden (or whoever) and stay in the spotlight.

SI

Hawley and Cotton will literally murder people to get their chance at POTUS. Both of them scare me more than Trump because they have a plan and aren't lazy. To some degree, we've been lucky that Trump isn't interested in anything other than ego gratification. We've seen a lot of weaknesses in the system exposed now, so the next would-be autocrat is going to be tremendously dangerous.