Trump: "You Think About THIS The Next Time You Shoot Your Mouth Off In Some Bar."

[TrollBuster9090]

This is basically what Trump's doing. He lost the bet, and is currently throwing s#!t in every possible direction to salvage some small part of his pathological ego. He's looking for his little green olive, so he can say "you think about THIS next time you shoot your mouth off in some bar, Joe Biden..."

I just watched Fux Noise (I know...I know), and when Karl "Turdblossom" Rove calls Trump's partial recount in Wisconsin "a fishing expedition," IT'S A DAMNED FISHING EXPEDITION.

Come on, Media. Let's be honest about what everybody already knows. All of these fake legal challenges are only being carried out to molly coddle Trump's FEEWINGS, and give him time to put on his big boy pants, and come to the realization that he LOST. He couldn't concede the day after the election, and probably never will. But he's going through that in STAGES. It's going to go like this:

First week: "I didn't lose the election. I WON THE ELECTION!"

Second week: "I didn't lose the election. The Democrats STOLE IT!"

Third week: "I didn't lose the election. The electoral process is systematically RIGGED against Republicans and must be reformed. But Republicans will reform the system to make it FAIR, and then I'll run again in 2024 and PROVE IT!"

At which point, the Republican establishment will say "YEAH! THAT'S it! THAT'S the TICKET! We'll reform the system, and get you back in 2024!" *WHEW!*

But in the meantime, while you're protecting Trump's ego, you're also tearing the country apart, and weakening it. Thanks a lot.

Let's be honest about what this PARTIAL recount in Wisconsin is meant to accomplish. They're willing to spend $3 million to give Trump's ego time to heal, by finding some irregularities in TWO, primarily Democratic counties. If you look in ANY counties, you'll find irregularities. But, by looking at ONLY Democratic counties, you can continue to say "Democrats" are corrupt.

Why would the GOP go along with wasting $3 million? They justify it by (secretly) knowing that these two counties are not only primarily Democratic, but also primarily African American, and also primarily pro-union. So, by forcing a recount in those two counties, you can continue to blow the dog whistle against not only Democrats, but African Americans, and unions.

The GOP is ALWAYS up for spending money if it means they get to blow that old dog whistle.

So, here we go...keep looking for that stupid GREEN OLIVE!

[Laelth]

1. The intentionally "partial" recount in WI is reason for concern.

Florida law in 2000 gave Gore the option to select which counties he wanted recounted. The SCOTUS struck down the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling (allowing the properly-requested recounts to proceed) on 14th Amendment equal protection grounds—if you’re going to recount, you have to recount the whole state in order to satisfy equal protection. I worry that this two-county recount will run afoul of the 14th Amendment and get this case before the SCOTUS.

I make no prediction about what the SCOTUS might do with it, and WI doesn’t (alone) have enough electoral votes to change the outcome of the recent election, but selective county recounts have been deemed unconstitutional once, and that’s reason for concern, despite the fact that the SCOTUS declared that Bush v. Gore had no precedential standing.

-Laelth

[TrollBuster9090]

2. You could be right about it being a 'back door' to the Supreme Court.

In which case, it would've been Trump Administration people who recommended this course of action. (And I'm trying to think who, in that collection of jackoffs and TEEVEE yackers, would have the brains to think of it. Maybe Barr?)

But I can't imagine it's a course of action the GOP establishment would go for. Mainly because, if it goes to the SCOTUS, they'll either have to side with Trump, or against him. If they side against him, it'll blow up the myth they've been peddling to the GOP base. The myth that they've been voting these crooks into office decade after decade so that they could stack the SCOTUS with hacks that will support THEIR agenda...and then, the first time they get a chance, they vote AGAINST their guy.

On the other hand, if the SCOTUS sided with Trump, they'd blow up their credibility forever. It would essentially be en engraved invitation to the Democrats to reform and restructure the court. Which would be a good thing, of course.

[BobTheSubgenius]

4. SCOTUS of 2000 may have declared that their finding was not precedential,

but that doesn't preclude SCOTUS 2020 from at least giving them guidance, if not precedent.

[LakeVermilion]

3. The first question a candidate should answer:

"Am I willing to accept defeat?"

No asked Trump, so he skated through the campaign not having to be responsible.

In my opinion, no one should be putting themselves forward as candidates without acknowledging that they can accept defeat.

Guys like Trump, and I guess his supporters, are just kids and shouldn't be able to sit at the adult table.