What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Larch]

Trump defends hosting Saudi-backed golf tournament by falsely claiming 'nobody's gotten to the bottom of 9/11'

Trump was answering a question about protests by families of 9/11 victims against the tournament's being held at one of his golf courses in New Jersey.

[crazy canuck]

To be fair, the question is not so much what is wrong with AR but rather what is wrong with our liberal democratic systems of government.  His response would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago.  But back then I think the general public had a much stronger grasp of the basic principles which underpin liberal democracy.  We see that fraying (oh hell who am I kidding - disintegrating) before our very eyes.

How much is this an in liberal democracies other than America? I don't think it's an issue (yet) in Canada (though we often follow about 10 years after the US), and it's not an issue in Denmark I don't think. I don't have enough insight about politics elsewhere to know where it applies.

It is here,  have you listened to PP lately?

[Admiral Yi]

Trump defends hosting Saudi-backed golf tournament by falsely claiming 'nobody's gotten to the bottom of 9/11'

Trump was answering a question about protests by families of 9/11 victims against the tournament's being held at one of his golf courses in New Jersey.

A dumbass response to a silly protest about a silly golf tour.

[Jacob]

It is here,  have you listened to PP lately?

No arguments about PP or his supporters. The question to me is how our system will influence the trajectory of right populism - and the general public's grasp of how our democracy works - in Canada.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not a Trump defender but part of the issue with prosecuting it isn't unambiguous what exactly he did or didn't do, and whether it will actually rise to the level of criminal offense. Several smart law talker types (your law professor pundit class), seem to have substantive disagreements as to whether his currently known actions actually crossed the line or not.

I think the real issue for someone like AG Garland is he's in a position where he would potentially be prosecuting a former President for actions which may not clearly be criminal. That opens up a Pandora's box in a sense, if there isn't clear and convincing evidence that his behavior was criminal then the trial will be seen as essentially a political witch hunt. Ho ho you say--the right will say it is a political witch hunt no matter what. That's true, but only to a degree. Polling coming out of the January 6th Committee's actions is showing that even among Republicans, clear signs of bad behavior by Trump are having an impact on his standing. It won't affect his true diehards, but it does matter if these charges are strong or not. I think there is a lot of questions about the wisdom of going forward with charges if the evidence isn't very strong.

That actually isn't atypical, by the way, in the U.S. system trials are not usually seen as a way to get "to the bottom of things." Prosecutors tend to choose to conduct a trial when they have overwhelming confidence, based on collected evidence and testimony, that they will secure a conviction. Conducting a trial in hopes of "finding out what happened" would be atypical and is a huge risk for the prosecution.

[Grey Fox]

Trump defends hosting Saudi-backed golf tournament by falsely claiming 'nobody's gotten to the bottom of 9/11'

Trump was answering a question about protests by families of 9/11 victims against the tournament's being held at one of his golf courses in New Jersey.

A dumbass response to a silly protest about a silly golf tour.

It's not that silly considering how openly  good guy washing it is.

[Admiral Yi]

It's not that silly considering how openly  good guy washing it is.

There are a billion things to criticize the country for, but funding 9/11 was not state policy and they've been very diligent based on what I've read about deprogrammiing their own jihadists.

[DGuller]

It's not that silly considering how openly  good guy washing it is.

There are a billion things to criticize the country for, but funding 9/11 was not state policy and they've been very diligent based on what I've read about deprogrammiing their own jihadists.

While being busy programming other people's jihadists...

[crazy canuck]

It is here,  have you listened to PP lately?

No arguments about PP or his supporters. The question to me is how our system will influence the trajectory of right populism - and the general public's grasp of how our democracy works - in Canada.

I think you already have your answer with the right wing protestors saying that their First Amendment Rights are being violated.

[Sheilbh]

Happens all the time here. I think my favourite was someone saying we have separation of church and state which...

It is mad the impact of American constitutional norms in how people talk/assume/think things work - separation of the branches and checks and balances are other ones that don't really make sense in the British system unless you've watched far too much West Wing.

I imagine it's even more extreme in Canada given proximity

[Syt]

 

[Sheilbh]

I love that they're both claiming it

[crazy canuck]

Happens all the time here. I think my favourite was someone saying we have separation of church and state which...

It is mad the impact of American constitutional norms in how people talk/assume/think things work - separation of the branches and checks and balances are other ones that don't really make sense in the British system unless you've watched far too much West Wing.

I imagine it's even more extreme in Canada given proximity

I think it has gotten worse and I think the main driver of that is people don't get their news anymore from real news outlets.  Plus the influence of Fox News on the right, including the Canadian right.

[alfred russel]

There was a gambling site that offered a wager on who Trump would endorse in the race. Eric Schmidt and Eric Greitens were two of the options.

The wagers terms said that if the endorsement was ambiguous it would not be considered an endorsement, and if he endorsed two or more candidates the wager would resolve in favor of the candidate that was first alphabetically by last name. The site resolved that he endorsed two candidates and as Eric Grietens is first, people betting on him won. But there are lots of sad people arguing that endorsing "eric" was ambiguous and there should have both resolved as "no".

[Eddie Teach]

Eric Trump: "Aww, thanks Dad! I'll make you proud. Where's Missouri again?"