He's probably complaining about the absolute bricks he's shitting since we can all remember stories of Dr Ronnie
Perpetual Convicted Felon Donald Trump Scandal (Major and Minor) Thread
- Thread starter thekaj
- Start date
I still think I’d love to see Joe Biden go for the throat.
“My opponent is a rapist and a convicted criminal, who takes credit for stripping women of their right to choose.”
Over and over again. Make it a roast. Make fun of him for the millions of dollars he owes to E. Jean Carroll. Make fun of him for sharpies. Have a prepared way to mock him for every single possible question. And relentlessly point out that he’s a rapist who helped prevent women who were raped from being able to choose whether they give birth to their rapists’ baby. Ask him if he had to wear an ankle monitor. Tell him that gag orders really seem to help him, because the more he talks the less cogent and intelligent he seems. Wonder aloud whether he’s planning on falling asleep during the commercials.
Make him lose his mind, in other words. Make him a laughingstock.
“My opponent is a rapist and a convicted criminal, who takes credit for stripping women of their right to choose.”
Over and over again. Make it a roast. Make fun of him for the millions of dollars he owes to E. Jean Carroll. Make fun of him for sharpies. Have a prepared way to mock him for every single possible question. And relentlessly point out that he’s a rapist who helped prevent women who were raped from being able to choose whether they give birth to their rapists’ baby. Ask him if he had to wear an ankle monitor. Tell him that gag orders really seem to help him, because the more he talks the less cogent and intelligent he seems. Wonder aloud whether he’s planning on falling asleep during the commercials.
Make him lose his mind, in other words. Make him a laughingstock.
Last edited:
Except Joe Biden isn't one to mock people so that's just out of character and hollow.
He has repeatedly made fun of Trump at various events this year. Biden has a sly wit. This piece covers some of the material he’s already been working, but he’s been shitting on him for a while now. All he has to do is just lean into that.
Any of the “we go high”, “it’s out of character” or other tone-police type of self-censorship needs to go. He needs to attack not just because it’s in line with his character, not just because Trump has a lot to make fun of, but because it’ll distract and disrupt Trump. Call him a rapist 27 times and he’ll lose his shit. What’s Trump going to do? Lie?!? He’s going to say the same things regardless. I mean, it’s worth pointing out that it’s nice to hear criminals talk about being tough on crime. Or how consistent it is for Trump to believe he has the right to ignore when a woman says “no” regardless of whether it’s before or after impregnation .
Biden has the material, he has the comedic timing, he just needs to unleash it in person. Stare down Trump while laughing at him. The only thing he can do to respond is stuff he’s going to be doing anyway. Might as well dictate the terms of engagement.
Last edited:
Oh yah, put me on "Team Dark Brandon" for the debates. It's all show anyway, so the best thing Biden can do is make Trump look personally weak. Make Trump lose his temper, then push harder if he tries any of that bullshit looming stuff he did with Clinton. Biden doesn't need to get vulgar or anything, but he absolutely can be incisive without losing his "voice".
As Snarky mentioned, Biden definitely gets in witty jabs. He's not afraid. The ads he's running during the Copa matches are aggressive enough that I noticed them, and they end with "Joe Biden gets shit done", which made me smile the first time. "Shit" is bleeped out, but it says to me that he's willing to go there.
I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't want the "debate" to be a couple of old farts just playing the dozens at each other all night. That's immature teenage crap. On the flip side, I do want to see politicians calling out the criminal behavior - provided it's proven. The Republicans sink to any level to trash their opponents. The Clintons know all about that, from the Whitewater scandal (which never proved that either of them had actually done anything wrong), to the Lewinsky scandal, which, while improper, was a case of two consenting adults, and no actual laws were broken.
So, yeah... I want Democratic candidates to hit back with facts. When Gaetz's affairs with underage girls becomes more than just allegations (those charges are looming now), I want his opponents to bring it up. And I'm perfectly fine with Biden extolling Trump's many criminal scandals over the decades, not just the most recent ones.
And, for what it's worth, I really want to see evidence that links Trump and Giuliani to the Russian mafia during Giuliani's prosecutorial and mayoral terms... because I know the evidence is out there.
So, yeah... I want Democratic candidates to hit back with facts. When Gaetz's affairs with underage girls becomes more than just allegations (those charges are looming now), I want his opponents to bring it up. And I'm perfectly fine with Biden extolling Trump's many criminal scandals over the decades, not just the most recent ones.
And, for what it's worth, I really want to see evidence that links Trump and Giuliani to the Russian mafia during Giuliani's prosecutorial and mayoral terms... because I know the evidence is out there.
I think you a lot of you are confusing the place and time for comedy with how he approaches denigration of others in serious settings. He's an older politician that still wants to debate policies, and that's not a bad thing.
yeah there's a difference between that and the suggestion of
I'm not going to fault a snarky robot for encouraging snarky behavior... but it's not in Joe to be that over the top about it, he gets a jab in here and there and keeps it about policies and talking points, getting up there to be Roast Master Jeff Ross isn't in his DNA unless it's at something like the white house correspondent dinner.... which is basically just another type of roast.
yeah there's a difference between that and the suggestion of
I'm not going to fault a snarky robot for encouraging snarky behavior... but it's not in Joe to be that over the top about it, he gets a jab in here and there and keeps it about policies and talking points, getting up there to be Roast Master Jeff Ross isn't in his DNA unless it's at something like the white house correspondent dinner.... which is basically just another type of roast.
I rather liked "I hear you're free on Wednesdays"
And you have to admit, "Will you shut up, man" was pretty effective.
Indeed, as a strategist I heard mentioning, there isn't much value to him saying anything about 'convicted felon' or 'sexual assaulter' - that is well known by his base who don't care and his allies know it. But the voters that will decide this don't know that he has 26 other women who have claimed he assaulted them as well. So bring that up - take a page out of team republican; in this case its actually true and what is trump going to say about other than start blathering...which scores goals for the liberals.
Voters need to know he has been accused of sexual assault by MULITPLE women. Hammer home that he was proud of removing women's rights and sending it to the states....where the majority of people and states didn't want it sent. Don't rehash what is known, hammer him anew.
And if you happen to slip in a 'I would have waited on top of the boat which would have then electrocuted the shark as it sank'....well, fine by me.
Old news, and not on topic, but I feel this bit of misinformation should be countered.
Perjury is a crime.
The investigation was founded on actions that were not criminal - something that should be beyond the scope of the government, both large and small. He should not have been in a position to be questioned under the penalty of perjury in the first place.
Bill Clinton got what he deserved in the broad sense. In the specific sense, the testimony leading up to the Lewinsky perjury was indeed bad-faith and literally never found any wrongdoing in Whitewater, which was ostensibly what it really was about.
Clinton was within his rights to refuse to answer Lewinsky questions as part of that deposition, and frankly should have kept his mouth shut.
Clinton was within his rights to refuse to answer Lewinsky questions as part of that deposition, and frankly should have kept his mouth shut.
I will say the Clinton investigation is relevant as history to show just how different things are, and how materially different what's going on with Trump. But yes, it needs to be contextualized.
In context, I think it's fair to say that Clinton was probably a sex pest, and in Lewinsky he found a subordinate who was eager to follow his lead (although I've heard that it was Lewinsky that made the first move - but that's neither here nor there). The most important thing that came out of the Starr investigation may come up again soon - specifically, the Supreme Court ruling that the President is not immune from civil charges that are outside the bounds of the title of the Presidency.
Wikipedia said:
Paula Jones' lawsuit, and the decision by the Supreme Court, was not part of Starr's investigation. Conflating the two is not helpful, imo.
I think it's relevant, too, but with perhaps a different perspective than yours.
E. Jean Carroll - valid lawsuit against Trump? (fwiw, I would say Yes)
Paula Jones - valid lawsuit against Clinton? (fwiw, I would say Yes)
I don't see the two as fundamentally different. Plus ça change...
We should have an answer to criminal immunity (Trump v. US) by the end of the week, assuming SCOTUS doesn't have to add a few days to its regular term to get all of the opinions out. (Not impossible at this point - they still have something like 15 outstanding)
Gonna get sent back down for a rehearing - its the most effective way to basically delay/punt it even more until yer boy is in power later and THEN you can say sure, OUR guy has absolute immunity. After that, no need for elections again.
The fact that it wasn't taken up and sorted when Jack Smith fired it up to them in short order tells you all you need to know about a corrupt 5 or 6 on that kangaroo court.
Yeah, if "some" official actions "might" be given immunity, then it's sent back down to determine if the alleged actions fall under "immune actions."
However, in that case, aiui, Judge Chutkan could/would hold evidentiary hearings on the alleged actions before any trial. She might even be required to??
An evidentiary hearing in a criminal case is a formal court proceeding held to determine the admissibility of evidence or to address specific legal issues related to the case.
These hearing could last awhile, giving Smith an opportunity to publicly present all the evidence against the former president.
It wouldn't have the gravitas of a jury verdict, but at least it would all be on the record under oath.
However, in that case, aiui, Judge Chutkan could/would hold evidentiary hearings on the alleged actions before any trial. She might even be required to??
An evidentiary hearing in a criminal case is a formal court proceeding held to determine the admissibility of evidence or to address specific legal issues related to the case.
These hearing could last awhile, giving Smith an opportunity to publicly present all the evidence against the former president.
It wouldn't have the gravitas of a jury verdict, but at least it would all be on the record under oath.
Indeed, this is the only thing that can conceivably happen while it matters (aka before the election). It has been referred to by podcasters and the like that I listen to as a 'mini trial with no verdict'. So maaaaaaybe the evidence can be laid out so voters at least know about it but in reality, we kinda know the evidence - shit smeared on the walls of the Congress and boxes of stolen documents in a toilet. Yea, that is a guy you want to vote for right?
I think the judge would knock that out with reasonable speed, but I fully expect the outcome to get appealed all over again. Chutkan is not Cannon.
About that debate; what happens if Trump does lose it and tries to assault Biden? Does the Secret Service have a plan for that?
Sure, much of it from the Jan 6 committee.
But, aiui, Smith used subpoena power the committee didn't really have. I think there's probably more evidence of interactions between the former president and others that we haven't heard about, yet. Think Mark Meadows, other White House staffers, local state officials, et al.
Of course any decision will get appealed.
But, why would Chutkan move to get the hearings over with asap since she knows that, too?
Why not go through all the evidence, lay it all out, take the time to make a compelling case for the public to see.
Last edited:
I would imagine that it would be treated like anyone else attempting to rush the sitting president. Trump's SS detail may be more loyal to him than to Biden (I'm not fully sold on that) but I don't think Biden's are just going to sit around and watch Trump charge Biden without responding.
You probably want to fix your typo here on E. Jean Carroll's name.
Well he tried to kill him by not testing for covid pre his last debate with him when he most certainly knew he was symptomatic - something I would be bringing up if I were Biden when trump starts talking about drug tests and how he wouldn't get tested before a debate when he thinks that trump probably thought he was infected - that would definitely wind up the whaaambulance of trump and I really think you want to put trump on his heels at this thing to highlight his unfitness. Go a bit low, yup. I don't care, do you?
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
You need to stop. It is not your job to be armchair moderator. I have in the past said I don't mind if people give gentle nudges to get a thread back on topic, but you are taking it over the top and being weirdly hostile about it at the same time. Either report the thread, and I or @Horatio can take it from there, or else live with the fact that 500 hundred pages in, there's going to be some digression from time to time and it's not the end of the world if I don't see things for a few hours. Or be proactive and post on-topic content. Those are your choices.
We're clearly in fantasy land but I for one would get unending joy at seeing that level of FAFO. Just to watch "ol sleepy Joe" drop the "Teflon Don" with a single punch.
Can we stop fantasizing about Trump physically assaulting Biden?
He is at his core a coward. The whole point of all the machismo and bravado is to hide the crippling insecurities of the pathological narcissist that he is.
He is at his core a coward. The whole point of all the machismo and bravado is to hide the crippling insecurities of the pathological narcissist that he is.
I remember the debate with Clinton. He was menacing, physically intimidating. And American voters drank every bit of it.
And now the rules are stricter and his mic will get cut. I can't decide whether that will play to his favor, enabling him to whine about it happening to him.
Regarding Clinton: Those were different times and standards. How the same would play out today would be markedly different, even if the entire special counsel investigation was a fishing expedition.
Bringing it to the topic of the thread: Trump has a repeated pattern of flouting the law, and now has a very public record of a conviction in one of his cases, to boot. Biden has plenty of material from the public record to hammer him on in the debates. Trump mostly has innuendo and unsubstantiated claims with which to counter.
Bringing it to the topic of the thread: Trump has a repeated pattern of flouting the law, and now has a very public record of a conviction in one of his cases, to boot. Biden has plenty of material from the public record to hammer him on in the debates. Trump mostly has innuendo and unsubstantiated claims with which to counter.
TI's become a cult. I don't expect normalcy to rule anything he's involved in.
If it costs him a single voter? Yeah, it is. Decorum, stuffiness, and self-censorship about what is or isn’t accept is one of the many problems facing Democrats. How many times have you heard fretting or tut-tutting along the lines of “but if you do (X), they’ll do (Y).”? How many times has (Y) been something that they’ll be doing regardless? How will not doing (X) prevent them from holding (Y) over your head? Not in some fantasyland, sepia-toned version of history where opponents would respect each other and it was about more than shouting? Here, now, real world, with an eye only towards winning?
It's probably a wasted effort trying to convince his base that Trump is a bad choice. That messaging is better directed at the people in the middle.