Trump 65: Dividing His Time Between Court And The Golf Course

[fraurosena]

It's so, so bad...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Pretty sad

 

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Pretty sad

 

I rather think he was cranky because his diaper was full...

[Ozlsn]

On 3/2/2024 at 8:27 AM, GreyhoundFan said:

This is insane:

 

As long as they're boosting his ego he doesn't care who they are. His prejudices are overwhelmed by his need for ego boosting.

[GreyhoundFan]

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

ugh. that just sounds like he thinks he can go in and yell and scream at the SCOTUS to make it happen the way he does everything else.....and I used to think well that won't happen. but these days? this SCOTUS?

[fraurosena]

Polls. 

I wonder how Dementia Don is taking it...

[Xan]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I wonder how Dementia Don is taking it...

Basically -- sour grapes.  He didn't want to win DC anyway.  As a matter of fact, he says he didn't even try because it's a swamp with "no upside".  He won Missouri, Idaho, and Michigan and those were better anyway so... take that, Birdbrain!

Yeah.  He continues to just be a bratty kid who happens to also have dementia.

[GreyhoundFan]

Now do TFG…

[GreyhoundFan]

More grifting:

[GreyhoundFan]

Big surprise, SCOTUS sides with TFG. 

I am furious about this. 

[GreyhoundFan]

[CultureVulture]

It's almost like the SCOTUS is doing a standardized test in public school. 

Answer all the easy ones first, then either guess at the rest, or answer "C".  And their "C" equates to "It's cool to let trump do that". 

His trained pets are doing what he wants, that's obvious.  

[libgirl2]

40 minutes ago, CultureVulture said:

It's almost like the SCOTUS is doing a standardized test in public school. 

Answer all the easy ones first, then either guess at the rest, or answer "C".  And their "C" equates to "It's cool to let trump do that". 

His trained pets are doing what he wants, that's obvious.  

In all fairness, it looks like it was unanimous. 

[CultureVulture]

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

In all fairness, it looks like it was unanimous. 

This time, yes.  But I still think they have an imbalance of power that sways towards the orange idiot. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

They were always going to make that decision. Realistically you can't have each state doing their own thing or else the partisans would exclude the other side over any old thing just like they blocked supreme court justices and the stuff that happened in TN to democrats - I think last year?

[fraurosena]

17 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

In all fairness, it looks like it was unanimous. 

Yep, it was a unanimous. They based their decision on article 5 of the Amendement. To be fair, there is merit to the basis of their decision making if you look at the question from that perspective. On the other hand, that is quite a narrow view, and in my opinion (and take that for whatever it's worth) the question should have been answered from as broad a perspective as possible. I still don't exactly understand why the validity of a candidacy in case of sedition or insurrection needs to be determined by following Article 5, but this isn't the case for the other restrictions named in Article 3, and I'm not sure the Amendment itself adresses this issue implicitely or otherwise. Then again, I'm no expert, either in the American Constituton or any other law for that matter...

[noseybutt]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Yep, it was a unanimous. They based their decision on article 5 of the Amendement. To be fair, there is merit to the basis of their decision making if you look at the question from that perspective. On the other hand, that is quite a narrow view, and in my opinion (and take that for whatever it's worth) the question should have been answered from as broad a perspective as possible. I still don't exactly understand why the validity of a candidacy in case of sedition or insurrection needs to be determined by following Article 5, but this isn't the case for the other restrictions named in Article 3, and I'm not sure the Amendment itself adresses this issue implicitely or otherwise. Then again, I'm no expert, either in the American Constituton or any other law for that matter...

It’s a strange adding on to Article 3: that Congress must be the one to decide. 

[fraurosena]

31 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

It’s a strange adding on to Article 3: that Congress must be the one to decide. 

Plus, sometimes constitutions get it wrong and need to be amended. Such is the case here, I think.  Unforeseen things can and do happen-- like a political party accepting and even putting forward a known seditionist. Who in their right mind would have thought this would ever be a possibility? Yet here we are...

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Plus, sometimes constitutions get it wrong and need to be amended. Such is the case here, I think.  Unforeseen things can and do happen-- like a political party accepting and even putting forward a known seditionist. Who in their right mind would have thought this would ever be a possibility? Yet here we are...

Yeah, this is where Originalism seriously confuses me. If the original document was all that and a bag of chips, then there would be no need for amendments. Clearly the constitution needs to live and breathe.

[GreyhoundFan]

This made me laugh:

[GreyhoundFan]

[GreyhoundFan]

Oh, goody, he’ll be spewing his usual firehose of BS and lies. 

[Audrey2]

5 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh, goody, he’ll be spewing his usual firehose of BS and lies. 

This doesn't surprise me. He doesn't want to risk any of his MAGATs listening to President Biden and possibly starting to realize that the world is not the way Trump says. Much better for them to listen through his filter.

[apple1]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh, goody, he’ll be spewing his usual firehose of BS and lies. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/dr-john-gartner-the-world-is-watching-a-fundamental-breakdown-in-trump-s-ability-to-use-language/ar-BB1jtXna?ocid=socialshare&pc=HCTS&cvid=0cc512311b99434bbe94842880e33c82&ei=35

(I hope that link works). Dr. John Gartner: "The world is watching "a fundamental breakdown in Trump’s ability to use language."

Quote

It has become undeniably clear and obvious to any reasonable person that Donald Trump is experiencing increasing challenges with his speech, language, and memory during these last few weeks and months. Such a conclusion does not require a huge team of investigative journalists: a person only has to watch the corrupt ex-president’s speeches, interviews and other public behavior. For example, at a series of rallies and other events last weekend, Trump repeatedly confused one person with another. Like a broken computer in a science fiction movie, Trump appears to have moments where he cannot speak, appears lost in his thinking, and is more generally confused as he spouts nonsense words and non-sequiturs.

There is a lot more there, similar to the above clip. I am not sure how even the usual misrepresentation and outright lying would be able to cope with real-time commentary. I would think that his advisers would strongly discourage him from that type of activity. I cannot imagine that it won't be a real time exhibition of his mounting issues. I guess we will see.