"Fact" Check covers for Biden

[Mik]

You do have to consider that everyone said in 2015 that Trump had no chance of winning the nomination. In 2016 he couldn't win.

I would prefer different candidates too. But I would not be surprised if it is a rerun of either 2016 or 2020.

[taiwan_girl]

@Mik said in "Fact" Check covers for Biden:

You do have to consider that everyone said in 2015 that Trump had no chance of winning the nomination. In 2016 he couldn't win.

I mentioned this in another thread. It must have been a stolen election in 2016. That is the only way to explain it. 5555 (Just joking. I dont think there was fraud in 2016 and also not in 2020)

[Jolly]

@Mik said in "Fact" Check covers for Biden:

You do have to consider that everyone said in 2015 that Trump had no chance of winning the nomination. In 2016 he couldn't win.

I would prefer different candidates too. But I would not be surprised if it is a rerun of either 2016 or 2020.

I think you're going to see Trump. His polling numbers among Republicans leads the pack by a significant margin. And I think his ego demands that he run. Whether he could win or not, depends upon whether he can shut up and what the economy is doing at the time.

Biden? T-O-A-S-T.

[kluurs]

Should he choose to run, Trump will have the advantage of a following that would overwhelm a divided field of wanna be candidates. From his past history, I don't think he's the kind of person who wants to leave the playing field regardless of who might suggest his time is up. As for Biden, announcing that he is thinking of leaving the game would immediately reduce his influence. If others should run against him, it weakens his position. Both parties would appear to be stuck with their team leaders. Time for a third party with a candidate under 80?

[Catseye3]

@Mik said in "Fact" Check covers for Biden:

I would prefer different candidates too. But I would not be surprised if it is a rerun of either 2016 or 2020.

I wish it were possible to know the true state. There are many who don't want Trump; there are apparently (?) many who do want Trump. How many are there of one versus the other? How can there be a repeat of 2016 when a significant factor in Trump's victory was Hillary? How much of a deciding factor will his performance the first time around be in how people vote in 2024?

It's hard to see the lay of the land.

[George K]

@Catseye3 said in "Fact" Check covers for Biden:

There are many who don't want Trump; there are apparently (?) many who do want Trump.

I'll never forget (former) AG Bill Barr's thoughts on this subject. He obviously feels that Trump is an unhinged person, probably not deserving of the office. But, he said "I'd crawl over glass to vote for Trump" rather than any Democrat because "He aligns with my philosophies."

It'll be more than a bit interesting to watch the Trump/DiSantis contest shake out.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in "Fact" Check covers for Biden:

@Catseye3 said in "Fact" Check covers for Biden:

There are many who don't want Trump; there are apparently (?) many who do want Trump.

I'll never forget (former) AG Bill Barr's thoughts on this subject. He obviously feels that Trump is an unhinged person, probably not deserving of the office. But, he said "I'd crawl over glass to vote for Trump" rather than any Democrat because "He aligns with my philosophies."

It'll be more than a bit interesting to watch the Trump/DiSantis contest shake out.

There are a lot of Bill Barr's out there.

[George K]

“Of central importance to me was Trump’s stated intention to appoint constitutionalist judges to the federal judiciary. When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of the election year, I thought it likely, given the ages of the remaining justices, that the next President would end up appointing three new justices, thus potentially setting the Supreme Court’s course for decades to come. In the following weeks, Trump would say he meant to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia, always enunciating the great man’s name with emphasis: “Sca-lee-ah.” Still, Trump was not one to discuss judicial philosophy with any precision, and I wondered if he knew why Sca-lee-ah was so important to conservatives. But in May 2016 he released a list of eleven potential Supreme Court picks, and in September he added ten more names. Those lists presented an impressive array of committed constitutionalists. Who did I want determining the direction of the Supreme Court for years to come: Trump or Hillary Clinton? The question was not close. On this basis alone, I would crawl over broken glass to the polls to vote for Trump.”

[Jolly]

@George-K said in "Fact" Check covers for Biden:

“Of central importance to me was Trump’s stated intention to appoint constitutionalist judges to the federal judiciary. When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of the election year, I thought it likely, given the ages of the remaining justices, that the next President would end up appointing three new justices, thus potentially setting the Supreme Court’s course for decades to come. In the following weeks, Trump would say he meant to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia, always enunciating the great man’s name with emphasis: “Sca-lee-ah.” Still, Trump was not one to discuss judicial philosophy with any precision, and I wondered if he knew why Sca-lee-ah was so important to conservatives. But in May 2016 he released a list of eleven potential Supreme Court picks, and in September he added ten more names. Those lists presented an impressive array of committed constitutionalists. Who did I want determining the direction of the Supreme Court for years to come: Trump or Hillary Clinton? The question was not close. On this basis alone, I would crawl over broken glass to the polls to vote for Trump.”

Amen.

[Mik]

The court is Trump’s real legacy.