2024 US Presidential Election

[SGR]

Trump guilty on all 34 counts in hush money trial, in historic first for a former U.S. president

This is going to be a very weird election cycle.

The guy currently leading in the presidential polls is officially a convicted felon.

Now, as a convicted felon, if Trump is re-elected, he'll be able to wield the nuclear arsenal, but not a firearm. He'll be able to sign bills into law, but not vote.

Did the pecker fit? I thought that if the pecker doesn't fit, you must acquit. Oh well, it must've fit.

[Lisnaholic]

Yes, I'm waiting to see how the Republicans are going to twist themselves into knots to justify supporting a guy who's been indicted twice, convicted of 34 felonies and been judged a rapist. I wonder if any senators will say, as good old Lindsay Graham once did, "Enough is enough!" (Of course those were the words in his mouth: his actions were to bend over and take more of the same.)

In theory, it'd be easy enough for Nikki Haley: she has all the moral conscience of a weathervane and could flip back to being an anti-Trumper again if she thinks it'll get her anywhere.

[Lexi Darling]

Yes, I'm waiting to see how the Republicans are going to twist themselves into knots to justify supporting a guy who's been indicted twice, convicted of 34 felonies and been judged a rapist. I wonder if any senators will say, as good old Lindsay Graham once did, "Enough is enough!" (Of course those were the words in his mouth: his actions were to bend over and take more of the same.)

In theory, it'd be easy enough for Nikki Haley: she has all the moral conscience of a weathervane and could flip back to being an anti-Trumper again if she thinks it'll get her anywhere.

Seems pretty likely to me that they'll do the same thing they did when he lost the 2020 election, they'll just say he's actually innocent and the trial was a sham by the secret deep state shadow government who wants to keep real upstanding American patriots down so the elites can infect our kids with woke.

[Mindy]

[Trollheart]

Just to reiterate, @SGR and @Lisnaholic - yes, I am the sad soul who reads all your discourse and is thoroughly entertained, not only by your insights but also by the mutual respect you have for each other, so please, keep it up. A generational gap bridged! Either of you ever think of going into politics?

I just wanted to, if I may, present a view from the other side, as it were. Here in Ireland (and in the UK, as Lisna surely knows but you may not) our news outlets, while obviously biased in one way or another, don't show it. Which is to say, the "reporting dry facts" you spoke of earlier is exactly what happens here every evening. As an example, our news bulletin will begin with headlines, such as "Bridge collapses in America, several dead. Major accident on M50 motorway as motorcyclist collides with truck. Government to push through tougher anti-immigrant laws. And in sport, Manchester City win the title." Then each story is dealt with, thusly.

The main story is told, with shots/video. After that, reporters will be brought in who are on the ground, or experts may be spoken to. In the case of Gaza, this may be someone aligned with either side, though usually it's more a case of "these poor victims" than any real political aspect. Our news does not comment: our people (anchors, if you will, but they're really just newsreaders) may say, to someone in an interview, "it is terrible all these deaths are occurring. What can be done?" but they will be very careful not to take a side if possible and not to make any political statements. We therefore get the news, if you will, raw and unbiased, with no attempt to have us lean either way (except by showing, say, footage of dead children and then Israeli guns etc). At the end of the bulletin, we'll be told the headlines again and then we're out with weather.

The important point is that at no stage are we asked to make a judgement, other than our own, or pushed in a particular direction. Our coverage, for example, of Trump's trial will relate the facts, and nobody onscreen will smile, be angry, make comments. It's a news story and it's their job to report the news, and that's what they do.

We here have two main channels (RTE and Virgin) and most Irish people get their news from the former. So we are not "fired up" by the anchors, or told how to feel or react, by even stories of immigrant-related violence, fires etc. They will be deplored, by the anchors, but no side will be taken, and even while deploring the point will be made that many people are angry etc, so we see both sides.

Our guys and girls don't make up our minds for us. We have no equivalent of Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. We get our news at 1pm, 6pm and 9pm. That's it. Few Irish people watch CNN to my knowledge, fewer Fox, except maybe during an election cycle. When we have politicians on the news, even our leader (Taoiseach) they get grilled like any other guest. There is no favouritism and there is no bias. Of course it's probably all stage-managed before broadcast, I know that, but what's presented to us is, or seems to us, fair and balanced. There's no right-wing or left-wing news channel; ours report the news, as it is, and we make up our own minds.

Finally, a great thing BBC have is called Question Time, when politicians and other public figures (company directors, bankers etc) gather to be literally questioned by a public audience, and I've seen them asked (and avoid) hard questions, but at least the questions are aired. Can't see that happening in the US now can you?

Just, as I say, a view from across the water, where news has not (yet) become entertainment. And, yes, as you say, most people find it boring, but that's how we get it and that's how we digest it. And that's how we likes it. Were it made into an art or entertainment format, I honestly don't think as many of us would watch it as do now. We Irish want the news, and unlike Robbie Williams, in terms of our news, we do not want to be entertained. Just the facts, please, and we'll make up our own minds.

[Mindy]

If Nikki Haley gets the republican nomination now?





even though her signing bombs in fucking wild, its not as bad as literally letting them bomb lol

[DJChameleon]

Yes, I'm waiting to see how the Republicans are going to twist themselves into knots to justify supporting a guy who's been indicted twice, convicted of 34 felonies and been judged a rapist. I wonder if any senators will say, as good old Lindsay Graham once did, "Enough is enough!" (Of course those were the words in his mouth: his actions were to bend over and take more of the same.)

In theory, it'd be easy enough for Nikki Haley: she has all the moral conscience of a weathervane and could flip back to being an anti-Trumper again if she thinks it'll get her anywhere.

It's like you don't realize how much of a cult Trump supporters are. They will go into deep denial and vote for him anyways.

[Psy-Fi]

Trump guilty on all 34 counts in hush money trial, in historic first for a former U.S. president

This is going to be a very weird election cycle.

The guy currently leading in the presidential polls is officially a convicted felon.

Now, as a convicted felon, if Trump is re-elected, he'll be able to wield the nuclear arsenal, but not a firearm. He'll be able to sign bills into law, but not vote.

Did the pecker fit? I thought that if the pecker doesn't fit, you must acquit. Oh well, it must've fit.

Imagine if Trump still manages to win re-election. And is sentenced to serve time in prison. I imagine the scene inside Trump's prison cell will look something like this...

Goodfellas - Dinner in Prison


With Donald Trump as "Paulie Walnuts."

[Lisnaholic]

Just to reiterate, @SGR and @Lisnaholic - yes, I am the sad soul who reads all your discourse and is thoroughly entertained, not only by your insights but also by the mutual respect you have for each other, so please, keep it up. A generational gap bridged! Either of you ever think of going into politics?

Thanks for those kind words, Trollheart: it's nice to think that someone else is actually looking through the apparently endless discussion that SGR and I are engaged in. I have discovered that SGR and I are more similar than I first imagined: we are both prepared to spend quite an amount of time and effort defending our different takes on American politics.

Thanks as well for your explanation about news coverage in the British Isles. It makes for a much healthier attitude to the news, I think.

It's like you don't realize how much of a cult Trump supporters are. They will go into deep denial and vote for him anyways.

Yeah, I'm afraid you're right. It's like they say, "Hope springs eternal in the human breast" and I keep hoping that Trump supporters, allies and enablers will one day realise that he is a false prophet who is leading them into positions they will one day regret, with all his criticisms of the election process and the judicial system (which, we may note, are motivated entirely by self-interest on Trump's part).

[DJChameleon]

Trump guilty on all 34 counts in hush money trial, in historic first for a former U.S. president

This is going to be a very weird election cycle.

The guy currently leading in the presidential polls is officially a convicted felon.

Now, as a convicted felon, if Trump is re-elected, he'll be able to wield the nuclear arsenal, but not a firearm. He'll be able to sign bills into law, but not vote.

Did the pecker fit? I thought that if the pecker doesn't fit, you must acquit. Oh well, it must've fit.

He's gonna be able to pardon himself so he won't technically be a felon anymore. Or win in the appeal process but the day of the election he won't be able to do the photo op first vote.

[Drjohnrock]

He's gonna be able to pardon himself so he won't technically be a felon anymore. Or win in the appeal process but the day of the election he won't be able to do the photo op first vote.

Presidents can only pardon for federal crimes, not state ones.  And the odds of New York state electing a Republican governor who would pardon Trump are slim to none. Those are also the odds of all of the convictions being reversed on appeal.

[Lisnaholic]

Regarding your limit-busting 20,000 character post, I read it all, but got a little lost with your kitchen sink and backed-up plumbing analogy, I'm afraid

A nationwide system applied to millions of voters - but elections are run on a state-by-state basis and tied together in a nationwide manner. I will agree that nothing has been deemed outcome determinative as you stated. I don't think Trump won the election in 2020. I also think that if he decides to keep bitching about it (recently, he seems to have cooled on that), that he will lose out on independent voters. Independent voters don't want to hear Trump's whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about 2020, they want to hear his vision for the future. This particular election, 2020, and all of the claims, substantiated or not, had me digging more deeply into the election, our system, how it works, etc. As we have also discussed before, claims of election vulnerability/cheating are nothing new - it's been going on for basically forever, accusations have been levied by both parties.

If highly secure infrastructure like an Iranian nuclear facility can be hacked and manipulated, I do not think it's beyond the realm of consideration that our election systems can as well - and that's not even considering vulnerabilities that don't require computer hacking. Until our election system is 100% auditable, end-to-end, we can either live with the assumption that 'we got the right outcome', or we can question it and push our representatives/leaders to improve our systems - even if only incrementally. I don't think the fact that there's been little to no calls for election/voting reform and increased security measures from either political aisle is some kind of mistake. When's the last time you heard Trump say that reforming the election/voting system is one of his top priorities? We've had decades and decades of this, with the same questions every single presidential election. At some point, I think many people will recognize that this 'design' is not a flaw, but a feature.
...

Jill Stein contested the results in 3 states 2016 for similar irregularities

(definitely read the Stein article)

I'll be honest with you, I don't expect you to read through all of these links (though you're welcome to if you want), I just wanted to attempt to demonstrate why someone might not have full faith in our election systems and their reliability/integrity (on the other hand, if you want more links, just let me know, I have many more to share). And again, I don't think it's a partisan issue - I fully expect that every single election, both parties cut corners where they can and hope they can get away with it. In essence, every four years, which party can 'cheat better'? The margin of victory for many presidential elections are razor thin, so even small amounts of voting chicanery can make the difference. If you are willing to simply accept these irregularities and indications of vulnerabilities and problems with elections as 'par for the course', and that despite them, we'll still always get the right answer, then that's where we will disagree.

I took your advice and read the Jill Stein article, from which I learned a lot about how votes are tabulated - and everything I learned was either shocking or worrying, so I now have much more sympathy with your call for improved security around vote counting. The whole process is more of a mess than I imagined.
On the other hand, I have some sympathy with the legal obstacles that are put in the way of vote recounts, because there is a degree to which re- inspections, unless they are scrupulously monitored, can make matters more muddy rather than less so. That was my take-away from that Ninja-Auditing that went on: so many unqualified people working through ballot boxes that the whole chain of custody of the ballots becomes increasingly uncertain.

I'm thinking now that the issue of election integrity is a can of worms that has no easy fix: I had imagined that the USA had better systems in place. What can they do? More uniform, nation-wide counting systems and better-quality ballot design might help; also checking what happens in the countries with higher democracy rankings, where doubts about counting and trust are much less prevalent.

Absolutely my friend. Never take our disagreements as any kind of ill will. I know, as I hope you do as well, that when we both tire or bore of this, we can happily engage in discussion on a thread about music. I completely enjoy chatting and debating with you on these subjects, as it challenges my perceptions and biases (which we all have) and offers me a different perspective. Sometimes, I don't understand, or I disagree, but I try to be as honest as I can about that. Part of me almost feels like, and don't take this the wrong way, but that the reason that you can so often engage me in these discussions and debates without snark, name-calling, sarcasm etc. is because you're a little bit older and wiser than the usual age demographic (i.e. my age, late 20s, early-to-mid 30s) that I might discuss these things with on other sites. And that's not a bad thing! In addition, I think our discussions might even be useful, interesting, or informative to whichever sad souls (I jest) who read through all of it (*cough* @Trollheart *cough*) - one thing is for sure, I'd never be able to have these kinds of, what I'd call productive, discussions with you on MB without the noise outweighing the signal, if you know what I mean.

Thanks again, SGR. I also enjoy our discussions here, and in the process have certainly learned a lot from you about the USA.  

...Though I will add, if you had to live with and interact with Americans every day, you might tip towards my side of the 'glass half empty' argument. 

Yes, you could easily be right! I should go on a fact-finding tour of some American cities one day.

Right - but let me ask, since I haven't often engaged you with questions. Do you think my perception of how much identity affects voting patterns/behavior is accurate? In other words, does it make sense to you that people would attach themselves, or find comfort in an identity, and based on that identity, lean a certain way in voting?

As far as I understand your question, I'd say "absolutely": it's only natural to align yourself with people who have broadly similar attitudes, and people's political position is part of how they see themselves/define themselves, isn't it? That's true in Britain too, I should think.

[SGR]

Regarding your limit-busting 20,000 character post, I read it all, but got a little lost with your kitchen sink and backed-up plumbing analogy, I'm afraid

Ah yeah, after I wrote it, I thought: "Well, this isn't exactly clear as to what I mean." Basically, I was trying to compare lies about a president as lies about a house you want to buy (i.e. elect or re-elect), and lies about someone like R. Freeman or Dominion more as lies about an 'appliance' of the house (i.e. serving important purposes, but influence overall on our collective lives is not as outsized). Essentially, all I meant was that I was looking at it through a slightly different frame than you were (lies about the rich vs. lies about the poor/defenseless).

I took your advice and read the Jill Stein article, from which I learned a lot about how votes are tabulated - and everything I learned was either shocking or worrying, so I now have much more sympathy with your call for improved security around vote counting. The whole process is more of a mess than I imagined.

Thanks for reading it and being open-minded Lisna! It's very easy for whichever party that wins to be dismissive of election/voting security and integrity concerns after they win using the system in question. And both sides have shown us this dismissive attitude at different times. But then that formerly winning party loses and voices similar concerns and complaints, only for it to fall on deaf ears, and they seem surprised. This mediocre 'election system' of ours has burned both parties. To this point from the Stein article, I thought this was poignant:

Without mechanisms to support election integrity, many things can undermine it — even something as basic as public perceptions. Candidates who ask for recounts often get labeled sore losers, and election integrity activists who seek investigations of irregularities are often mocked as conspiracy theorists. (Stein's critics accused her of pursuing her recount effort as a fundraising ploy, and Trump dismissed it as a "scam.") Meanwhile, the public and the news media tend to lose interest in elections once the horse race is done, especially if the victory margin is wide — even if that allows systemic problems to go unaddressed.

It's been largely Democrats in the past 3 years that have lauded the legitimacy of the last election's results and the integrity of the voting infrastructure that was used to get that result, but I think we could probably both agree that the roles will likely be reversed if Donald Trump 'wins' in 2024. We know this because the same Democrats, after 2016, were asking similar questions and raising similar concerns that Republicans were after 2020. At the very least, Democrats would likely have some serious questions, and more than likely, questions that deserve investigation and answers (and if recent history is a useful guide, they won't be answered in a satisfactory way). And the Republicans complaining about it now will demote the issue way down their list of priorities that should be addressed and plug their ears. And the cycle will continue.

On the other hand, I have some sympathy with the legal obstacles that are put in the way of vote recounts, because there is a degree to which re- inspections, unless they are scrupulously monitored, can make matters more muddy rather than less so. That was my take-away from that Ninja-Auditing that went on: so many unqualified people working through ballot boxes that the whole chain of custody of the ballots becomes increasingly uncertain.

To this point, from the Stein article, state-by-state election officials don't like investigations for the following reason:

Finley said election officials generally dislike investigations because they eat up time and resources when officials are trying to certify election results. But they also hate them for another reason:

"For elections officials ... the only thing that can come out of a thorough examination of what might have gone wrong in an election is that [it's going to show] there was a mistake or some kind of malfeasance and the result of the election was incorrect. So they have a very strong interest in not letting that happen," he said.

So another way to read this is that election officials know that a deep and thorough investigation into their state or county's election is bound to dredge up some kind of malfeasance or error (even if it ultimately didn't affect the eventual outcome, it will still lower voter trust). In a way, it's almost an admission on their part of their knowledge of how fickle and insecure many of these elections really are. And when these things are inevitably found, it doesn't only look bad on their county/state, but it looks bad on them personally (and could potentially lead to further investigations)! Which is why they have a 'very strong interest in not letting that happen'.

Also, a broader point - the reason the 'winning' government party is so dead-set on upholding and lauding the 'legitimacy of the result and the system' is that, if a majority of Americans were convinced, as I essentially am, that our election systems are fundamentally flawed and provide us with an inadequate amount of confidence in the results of said election, the incoming govermnent could be thought of by the majority of people as 'illegitimate'. Once we reach that point, what happens next? Well, people might view the policies or actions of said government as 'illegitimate'. And as we've seen throughout history, eventually, people will rebel and take action against an 'illegitimate' government, and (*gasp*) even stop paying their taxes! 

To recounts specifically, as the Stein article notes, this process is wholly removed from identifying actual systemic issues with the election - it's a focus purely on the results and not fundamental problems with the process:

When other integrity mechanisms aren't an option, recounts can at the very least help determine if the outcome was correct, but they tend to be politically charged and overly focused on results rather than uncovering systemic issues. And candidates and campaigns rarely pursue them unless they stand a chance of overturning the results.

I'm thinking now that the issue of election integrity is a can of worms that has no easy fix: I had imagined that the USA had better systems in place. What can they do? More uniform, nation-wide counting systems and better-quality ballot design might help; also checking what happens in the countries with higher democracy rankings, where doubts about counting and trust are much less prevalent.

I mostly agree with you. It doesn't have a clear and easy fix. Our election infrastructure, much like a large amount of our physical infrastucture is poor and needing serious repair and attention (and given how often I criticize Biden, I'll take this moment to thank and applaud him for passing the infrastructure bill. And while I'm giving Biden his due, I'm also very grateful that he's seriously bolstering and pursuing nuclear energy, which I believe to be the future, and I think our irrational fear of it (CHERNOBYL!! NUCLEAR FALLOUT!!) that the farther-left of our country (like Bernie/AOC) still seem to embrace is very misguided. So good on the Biden admin for having some common sense there).

I won't pretend like I know the exact steps and solutions that need to be taken, but just some ideas:

• Federally regulated and mandated election rules/laws that all states must follow
• Paper ballots only (no electronic voting), so that we have a physical record we can refer to (they can be counted electronically, but not entered electronically)
• Absolutely no network cards or wifi chips in electronic vote counting machines - if anyone attempts to plug a physical device (like a USB) into the machine, there must be some kind of lockdown where the machine can only be unarmed via a specific biometric scan that is automatically recorded
• Modern technological advances should be used to ensure openness rather than obscurity. Voters should have some way, with a digital private key perhaps, to check later that their vote was correctly recorded and correctly counted
• Furthermore, we have blockchain technologies now (e.g. used in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin) - these could be used/leveraged to provide an open and public ledger that documents all voting transactions, and could be interrogated for possible problems with our digital infrastructure
• Uniformity is key, and consistency must be maintained across states

Now, back to reality, I expect none of this to happen any time soon. In fact, I don't think it can happen while both parties are so divided. It would require a serious bipartisan effort to push massive changes like this through. My current view of our election system is that both parties view it as presenting them an opportunity to 'cheat' and get an upperhand. If one party can do it better than the other, it might be their key to winning elections, so neither party will want to take that option off the table. The only thing that can be done is to talk to each other and inform each other about our system as it stands, and hope that enough resentment and public pressure can be generated to force them to make improvements. This, after all, is the legitimacy and the integrity of our democratic process and our succeeding government that we're talking about. It deserves more respect than it's been given, and I also agree with you that we should look to, and learn from other countries that have better systems than we do to learn ways we can improve.

One more thing - look at all the things our government and government tech experts are capable of doing, when they're properly motivated, specifically in warfare, cyber or otherwise. I fully believe, and this is my optimistic addendum to all this, that our government is fully capable of providing us with elections that we can trust so fully, that any questions we have will surely be nothing but moot points. They just need to be pressured and incentivized to do so.

Thanks again, SGR. I also enjoy our discussions here, and in the process have certainly learned a lot from you about the USA.  

Thanks Lisna! I've learned a lot from you as well, and even if we continue to disagree, I hope we can both continue learning from each other's perspectives!

Yes, you could easily be right! I should go on a fact-finding tour of some American cities one day.

Sounds like a good idea! Don't neglect the more 'countryside' areas though. In many ways, America has very different cultures and lifestyles depending on the area. If you drive through beautiful and rural Vermont, you're sure to see a different (and perhaps an older, more heritage-rich) side of America than if you only visited NYC or Chicago! 

As far as I understand your question, I'd say "absolutely": it's only natural to align yourself with people who have broadly similar attitudes, and people's political position is part of how they see themselves/define themselves, isn't it? That's true in Britain too, I should think.

Yeah, I think it's a humanity-wide thing. Inevitably, political parties change over time in their priorities and messaging. We've seen it, for better or worse, in the "Trump" years. I think that, if you find yourself suddenly agreeing more with a party that opposes your current party of choice on issues that are important to you, you'll begin identifying yourself with that opposition party. After doing so, and I have nothing at the moment besides speculation to back this up, I'd imagine that your current party identification can gain your sympathy on other issues you might not have a strong opinion on, or might not have deep knowledge on (e.g. "Free trade" Republicans beginning to support and laud Trump's tariff wars on China).

[SGR]

Presidents can only pardon for federal crimes, not state ones.  And the odds of New York state electing a Republican governor who would pardon Trump are slim to none. Those are also the odds of all of the convictions being reversed on appeal.

Aren't there certain circumstances, where if certain errors were made in the trial, the entire thing could be reversed on appeal, rather than only specific convictions being reversed on appeal? (e.g. if the judge himself made an error or mistake that influenced the jury en masse in a certain way?) I honestly don't know, a genuine question.

[Drjohnrock]

Poss

Aren't there certain circumstances, where if certain errors were made in the trial, the entire thing could be reversed on appeal, rather than only specific convictions being reversed on appeal? (e.g. if the judge himself made an error or mistake that influenced the jury en masse in a certain way?) I honestly don't know, a genuine question.

Very unlikely, if we're talking about strictly legal matters. The judge ruled for both sides on various issues during trial.  In fact, he bent over backwards for the defense by letting Trump repeatedly violate the gag order without jailing him, which would have happened with any other defendant who serially engaged in contempt of court.  But if this case ever got to the SCOTUS—which shouldn't even take the case IMO due to the lack of a significant constitutional question—then the bribe taking, ethically challenged majority might make up some nonsense to get Trump off the hook completely.  We'll see.