Perpetual Convicted Felon Donald Trump Scandal (Major and Minor) Thread
- Thread starter thekaj
- Start date
He would whine regardless. He WILL whine regardless. They let people interrupt? He’ll whine if Biden cuts him off (and ignore the far greater times he did so). He’ll whine if he can’t cut off Biden (and ignore that Biden couldn’t do it either, and that he agreed to the rules).
The point isn’t what actually happens in the debate. The point is to be aggrieved. To be both bullied (thry treated me worse than anyone!) and bully (they’re crooked! Fake news!). The only thing to do is not to take the bait on the bullying part. Because you can’t do anything to placate them except tip the scales massively in their favor.
They don’t care what you do, or say, of want, or believe. You are against them, so EVERYTHING is fair game as long as it works. You don’t have to follow that in every respect, but you do have to stop being scared of it. He’s going to whine it was unfair. The only thing you should be doing is preparing for him to whine. Make it a point to tell people what he’ll do regardless. Try to box HIM in such that he looks childish and stupid by doing what he does…or by making him feel like he shouldn’t do some things.
I'm thinking this belongs in the election thread rather than the scandal thread...
H.W. in particular when Gore tried the "stalking" bit.
Dismissed it. No hostility. Just dismissive. The consensus was that Bush won that interaction.
Clinton tried to ignore Trump. That's a losing tactic, imo. (There was also misogyny at play in that instance.) Plenty of folks at the time wondered why she didn't acknowledge the brutish behavior in some manner.
I hope Biden is smart enough to learn from recent history.
H.W. in particular when Gore tried the "stalking" bit.
Dismissed it. No hostility. Just dismissive. The consensus was that Bush won that interaction.
Clinton tried to ignore Trump. That's a losing tactic, imo. (There was also misogyny at play in that instance.) Plenty of folks at the time wondered why she didn't acknowledge the brutish behavior in some manner.
To be honest, I think that hurt her way less than the extremely cringey and awkwardly inauthentic "Trumped-up trickle down" comment. I still wince thinking about that. One could argue that misogyny would also mean if she did acknowledge it, she would be seen as "whiny". Next to fucking Donald Trump
Last edited:
I really wish she had just turned around and said 'will you stop stalking me you fucking creeper'. Would have been bleeped, would have been frowned upon by the clutch the pearls conservatives but those are not the voters you were trying to get.To be honest, I think that hurt her way less than the extremely cringey and awkwardly inauthentic "Trumped-up trickle down" comment. I still wince thinking about that. One could argue that misogyny would also mean if she did acknowledge it, she would be seen as "whiny". Next to fucking Donald Trump
The prosecution (along with Ken Starr) was hungry for a conviction. What they did was later judged to be a perjury trap much in the vein of "Have youo stopped beating your wife." Lyon's book "The Hunting of the President" has more on the type of question they were queuing up during the Paula Jones trial.
And before anyone tries to bring up sexual assaults alleged to President Clinton, let me bring up that Ken Starr tried twice to get charges like this against Pres. Clinton. In both cases, he even went as far as sending women to jail for not supporting his case but the women still refused to lie for Starr to proceed.
:Sigh I'll let this drop from here on out, but ...
There was no prosecution involved. It was a deposition for a civil case brought by Jones. Starr had nothing to do with it.
Get any association with Starr out of your mind wrt Clinton's perjury. It isn't accurate.
Did you misspeak? There was no trial. Clinton settled.
I have a hard time seeing this turn into anything that sticks to Trump. It just devolves into Trump making up some bigger number of women that came up to him with tears in their eyes explaining how Biden sexually assaulted them, and how they really wished it'd been Trump who did it instead.
The whole thing will just turn into a weird tit for tit allegation fracas back & forth.
Anyway, back to Trump's criminality... his gag order has been modified, basically opening the door for him to send his most dangerous followers to threaten and terrorize the jurors and witnesses in his hush money case.
Humans being what they are, many of these ongoing Trump issues would actually be easier to address and put a stop to if there was a more direct shocking result.
For example, the MAGA insurrection would likely have been handled much more seriously and swiftly by the incoming Biden Administration & DoJ if the insurrectionists had managed to take some legislators hostage or hung the Vice President.
Some unfortunate set of witnesses and/or jurors would likely have to be martyred for the justice system to deal with Trump's flavor of stochastic terrorism in a constructive and effective manner.
Those gag orders really piss him right off and I imagine Merchan allowing it to continue is really gonna piss him off.
He's too cowardly to physically attack Biden, or probably even directly verbally confront him in an open debate setting, but I wouldn't be shocked if at some point between now and the election, ensconced in the embrace of right wing media or an (I feel dirty saying the word) "influencer," he calls for his supporters to commit violence against Joe, Jill, Hunter, or some other member of the Biden family. Possibly even accompanied with offering money or a pardon if elected.
How the Secret Service would handle that is the more likely question to get an answer to.
How the Secret Service would handle that is the more likely question to get an answer to.
No. Trump has never been that direct. He acts like a Hollywood gangster (because that's the lifestyle he fantasizes about) and makes vague comments, much akin to Henry II lamenting "that turbulent priest." He doesn't talk about "kill that guy," he talks about it as indirectly - but in incendiary phrasing - as possible. And more than half of the time, he doesn't even do it himself.
The comment that "Trump" made:
... was announced by Steven Cheung, Trump's mouthpiece. That resulted in a notable uptick in people talking about assassinating the judge, his daughter, and other people in his orbit.
Trump is never going to come out and say, "A million dollars for the man who brings me Biden's head." Not even through several layers of deniability.
I can think of a multitude of ways he could say things to get a desired result but am not even going to write them out.
A page and a half about Trump, who needs his hand held to get to the podium, physically attacking Biden. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Nah.
Yeah, this.
Odds on Trump finding a reason to no show the debate? I'd put it at 30-40% from what I've read. Given his base will buy anything he says, it's nearly a free pass to get out with a claim like "Biden's on performance enhancing drugs" or "CNN was in the bag for Biden" or "the gag order won't let me debate".
Oh wow, I really hope Biden baits him into violating the gag order during the debate. That would be beautiful.
Having dealt with a narcissist in my life, what sends them off the most is when you give them a compliment that they don't realize is an insult until a bit later.
Defaming Caroll again would probably sting more (assuming another defamation suit verdict). Getting him to show no sign of guilt or remorse over the most recent jury verdict before sentencing would also probably sting more than another contempt fine.
Last edited:
My experience has been that you find the pressure point of that particular narcissist. A narcissist super proud of their vocabulary? Keep referencing times they used a word wrong. For Trump, I would press on the elections. Both having lost 2020 and how even when he won the EC in 2016, he lost the popular vote. The latter has clearly has always bothered him, since even when wining the election he had to claim the popular vote loss was due to fraud. (Why anyone would commit broad election fraud and not actually use it to win the EC, is beyond me.)
I would find every opportunity to point out those losses, a well as the extra jab of implying what a baby he’s been about it. I guarantee he would lose it and say something absolutely Hitlerian.
This is all fun but the debate is an opportunity for Biden to spend most of his time talking about what he'd like to accomplish in a second term that's good for Americans and why Donald Trump isn't going to bring any of that because he's going to focus on staying out of prison and getting revenge on everybody he thinks wronged him, which is everybody that doesn't want to bow down to a tyrant.
I honestly hope he does something like "You don't have to take my word for it, America. Go look up Project 2025 and see for yourself what Donald Trump plans to do to this great democracy of ours." As we've seen even in this thread, most people, when they're lead to understand that is a real, legit thing, are pretty alarmed by it.
...Hence why the President of the United States saying it matters a lot.
I'm not so sure.
I don't think a lot of people are going to get very exercised over a restructuring of the civil service, even if it is "fire everybody and replace them with loyalists and ideologues". Worst case they assume this is how it all works anyway.
Ultimately Democrat and Republican voters are animated by different things. Republicans care a lot more about coopting the organs of state to ensure their platform is followed even if they don't have power (see: control of the Supreme Court) and are animated to vote by appeals to doing that in a way that Democrat voters are not.
I don't think a lot of people are going to get very exercised over a restructuring of the civil service, even if it is "fire everybody and replace them with loyalists and ideologues". Worst case they assume this is how it all works anyway.
Ultimately Democrat and Republican voters are animated by different things. Republicans care a lot more about coopting the organs of state to ensure their platform is followed even if they don't have power (see: control of the Supreme Court) and are animated to vote by appeals to doing that in a way that Democrat voters are not.
One thing to keep in mind is that there is a tipping point. For example, the ACA was a popular bugaboo—since it was rebranded as "Obamacare." Once citizens of red states were reaping the benefits, they were loath to lose them, even if they were against "Obamacare."
It's one thing if people view government as a sport, and they can boost for their side. But once the decisions start affecting them negatively, all bets are off. Cut women's reproductive rights—that's getting noticed. There's been talk of privatizing Social Security for years—if that came to fruition, many would be in bad straits. It's no longer supporting your team when your essential services are being cut by grifting ideologues.
Edited for controversial term—didn't mean to have any negative connotations here.
Last edited:
Indeed.
In fact the most effective attack on Project 2025 would probably follow on from its most likely actual outcome, which is that it will paralyse all service delivery due to trying to run a civil service with an entire gaggle of people who don't think there should even be a government and so will make a huge mess of everything.
"He wants to fire and rehire every federal employee in the mother of all shutdowns"
In fact the most effective attack on Project 2025 would probably follow on from its most likely actual outcome, which is that it will paralyse all service delivery due to trying to run a civil service with an entire gaggle of people who don't think there should even be a government and so will make a huge mess of everything.
"He wants to fire and rehire every federal employee in the mother of all shutdowns"
@karolus I don't disagree with your overall message but I would urge you to use a different euphemism that is less racially charged, and edit your post. It may have had other meanings in the past, but at this point, it's basically foremost a slur that should be avoided entirely.
That said, I do think many on the right, particularly the ones who have gone full MAGA have shown that they are more than willing to cut off their nose to spite the libs. I don't have much faith anymore that doing things like getting rid of the ADA and gutting social security will get them to change their minds. When they reap what they've sown, they'll just find another way to blame the left. It WILL, however, further motivate those in the center and on the left who have been less willing to engage.
That said, I do think many on the right, particularly the ones who have gone full MAGA have shown that they are more than willing to cut off their nose to spite the libs. I don't have much faith anymore that doing things like getting rid of the ADA and gutting social security will get them to change their minds. When they reap what they've sown, they'll just find another way to blame the left. It WILL, however, further motivate those in the center and on the left who have been less willing to engage.
Thanks—wasn't meaning to post a slur, and have edited. My apologies.
For others who like me didn't think of Tar baby as a racial slur, here's a couple of articles I followed from wikipedia.
web.archive.org
McWhorter: ‘Tar Baby’ Isn’t Actually a Racist Slur
It was five years ago now that Mitt Romney and the late White House spokesman Tony Snow both spent
Politicians should stop using the phrase ‘tar baby.’ Like, now.
Haley Barbour is the latest. This happens a lot.
web.archive.org
TIL. Never thought of it that way before, certainly going to have to remember not to use it now.
Language evolves and if a term can be used negatively, it will. So, as being the most corrected man in two languages, I'm filing this away as a caution not to be used. I'm sure my language master will agree, I'll ask her.
edit: she agrees - nope!
edit: she agrees - nope!
Last edited:
I have no idea what a “tar baby” is, but it does sound a bit… super-racist. But then, so does “niggardly” if you don’t know it’s an actual word with no relation to the n-word, so… shrug.
Tar baby, at least prior to this morning, has always been a thing or a situation that you can't disentangle yourself from and just keeps getting worse and worse in my vocabulary.
My first knowledge of "tar baby" was from the folk tale (Black/African-originated) of "Br'er Rabbit" (Brother Rabbit). It's a trickster vs. trickster parable and Brother Rabbit ends up punching the baby made out of tar and getting angrier and angrier until he's hopelessly stuck.
I understand that it's morphed into a racist thing, and won't use it. I'm guessing because the "sucker" in the story is often depicted as a stereotype of a rural southern black, it was easy for the racists to use that stereotype in a racist way.
It's a shame, because it's a good parable and was a good shorthand for pointing out that people are just getting into more trouble by reacting belligerently.
I understand that it's morphed into a racist thing, and won't use it. I'm guessing because the "sucker" in the story is often depicted as a stereotype of a rural southern black, it was easy for the racists to use that stereotype in a racist way.
It's a shame, because it's a good parable and was a good shorthand for pointing out that people are just getting into more trouble by reacting belligerently.
