Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Well worth the 2 minute view:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/08/van-jones-supreme-court-trump-ballot-nc-vpx.cnn

Speaking of the Supremes - did you notice that the court watchers on the right and left, who watched the oral argument yesterday, all think that Colorado is going to be slapped down hard for stripping Trump from the ballot for "insurrection."   Most seem to think it will be unanimous.   It sure seemed to me that Colorado grossly overstepped it's authority, as I argued here at the time.   

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-appears-unlikely-to-kick-trump-off-colorado-ballot/

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Title explains.

Dave

Hi Dave, I wanted the 49ers a little bit, but not a lot.   It certainly was an exciting ending!

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Exactly!  How anyone could think that this was a smart move by the GOP is beyond me.  Do they really think the voters aren't paying attention?

Unfortunately Brian, the voters may be paying attention, to the BS and idiocy on both sides.   Two interesting articles about the developing Fanni Willis debacle on Real Clear Politics.   The right slant view and the left slant view pretty much agree that there is a good chance Willis's office will be tossed from the prosecution because of Willis and her special prosecutor/lover's hijinks.   As the Georgia prosecution (or any of the others) blows up in the Democrat's faces, Trump's election becomes more and more likely. 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-south/the-tangled-fates-of-fani-willis-and-her-biggest-case

https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bostonherald.com%2F2024%2F02%2F14%2Fhowie-carr-fani-willis-drama-must-see-moment%2F

A Georgia face-plant is going to be especially dangerous since Biden refuses to step down after each embarrassment.  

On another matter, I for one do not think most persuadable voters understand why nice but forgetful old-man Joe Biden gets a pass on his classified document crimes, while Trump faces trial and incarceration.  Sure there are nuanced differences, but in the mind of anyone who would consider voting for Trump, the nuances are overwhelmed by the appearance of political prosecution going hand in glove with political favoritism.   

On another matter the Supreme Court's likely unanimous decision calling bull on the attempt to use the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado and other states is blowing up in the D's faces, as predicted. 

Nice job Ds.  Every day I become more convinced that Trump gets 4 more years.  Really nice job.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I agree with you that there is plenty of idiocy on both sides, and I don't even know what to make of the Fani Willis debacle.  That one is unbelievable.

However, I totally disagree that the differences between the two classified documents case is nuanced.  The difference is huge!  Biden cooperated.  Trump did not. He lied about having them, he showed them off to uncleared people, and he tried to obstruct their return. Hell, he probably still has some. Maybe to the average citizen that's a nuanced difference, but to somebody in the business it's anything but.

Trump getting 4 more years? I seriously doubt it.   Speaking in broad numbers, half the country is D, and the other half is R.  I doubt ANY Ds will vote for Trump, and there are still a good number of Rs with integrity who are never going to vote for Trump.  That doesn't add to a win for Trump in my mind.

Hi James:  The difference is huge because you are not the typical voter.  You are highly educated, very thoughtful, and appreciate nuance.   Ask Richard if the difference is huge and justifies prosecution in one case, but not the other.   So I agree with your assessment, but I am predicting a different assessment by some number of the rare persuadable voter bloc.

I also appreciate your broad stroke electoral college analysis. It makes a lot of sense to me.   Still, there are possibly swing voters in swing states who are feeling pain in the grocery stores, at the pump, or in a new mortgage who are willing to vote for Trump because their own blue-collar financial picture has deteriorated.   

Also, the polls are not as optimistic as you, and I fear that Biden is the one candidate who could possibly lose in 2024.  Thanks for the encouragement though!   Jim

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

James L - if your reading this; Jim is starting to show his age - he's starting to confuse the two of us.  Having read most of your posts over the years, I'll take that as a compliment.
LOL

Hi Brian,

Oops!   Indeed, mistaking your analysis for James L's analysis is a compliment!   That said, my reply to James is 100% applicable to you too!  Every word of it!  

p.s.  I am old!  Retired as of 2/1/24.  Digging it immensely!  I followed my wife on her business trip to Spain a week or so ago, which was fabulous.   Been messing around on some projects - can't wait for March/April, when the fly fishing season starts!   (And cycling and hiking in earnest!)   This January/February has been kind of cold and dreary.

Against my better judgement, I watched the video.   Sounds like routine stuttering to me.  Biden has stuttered his whole life.  Winston Churchill stuttered too.   Did you know that?

Originally Posted by James Lacey

You said persuadable voters won't understand the difference between Trump's and Biden's document cases, but I can't entirely agree. Moderates and independents are precisely the kind of voters who do understand nuance. On top of that, what about Mike Pence's classified documents case? Was he given political favoritism when his case was closed with no charge and no special counsel appointed? The whole reason a special counsel was even established in the case of Biden was to try and avoid the appearance of DOJ misconduct. I'm pretty sure that with the right messaging, these nuances will not be lost on persuadable voters in swing states.

Hi James, or Brian!  I hope you are right.  And, I should trust the voters more.  My main political worry right now is the prosecutions will backfire and get Trump elected.  This is the prism through which I am viewing things like the Hur report or the Fanni Willis hearing.  The prosecutions have pretty much undeniably rallied Trump's base.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

So, if it's the "slam dunk" decision in favor of Trump, like y'all say it is, then it, as I've previously stated, will enable Trump to proclaim his victimhood and vindication on the day ahead of his coronation as the standard bearer of his party.

9-0 Rod.   Sometimes even you have to admit that not every case is decided based upon Clarence Thomas's wife's political leanings.  

And yes, those who brought and supported this really poorly thought out case, including the CO Supreme Court, have strengthened Trump.    Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

As a democrat in Michigan and as the democratic SC of Michigan also decided I think it was the right decision.

I still think Thomas, Gorsuch,, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett bought a pair of Trump shoes.

Is this just political smack talk Jim?  Or do you actually believe that the conservative justices legal philosophies are the result of allegiance to Trump rather than the alternative correct answer as to their motivations?   The correct answer by the way is that the conservative legal philosophies of the conservative justices are the result of a lifetime of conservative legal jurisprudence and study.  Same as the liberal judicial philosophies of liberal justices.   

Rod and Rich will never see justices who disagree with them as anything other than political hacks.   Rational beings should know better.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I'm trying to see the bright side and hope that a) they decide the case quickly, b) the case is a slam dunk, no one is above the law, and his claim to immunity has already been rejected twice by lower courts, and c) after this immunity case is decided, and when Trump is found guilty by Jack Smith, he can't play the I didn't get due process card (even though he will try anyway).

Hi James, I know you did not mean what you typed above, but this is a telling typo.   No doubt Jack Smith would convict Trump singlehandedly if he could.   He would mete out punishment with his bare hands if he could.   Smith is a rabid attack dog, and that is why he gets overturned more often that other federal prosecutors.

I despair of convincing anyone, but the reality is that these cases against Trump present novel issues of law.   It takes the various layers of courts of appeal time to be briefed and to deliberate.   In this case, Rod is wrong, justice delayed is not justice denied.   He only thinks that because he has already decided, before the trial, that Trump is guilty and he is counting on a conviction to save Biden's chances.

The reality is that justice rushed is justice denied.  Every defendant, from Trump to the most heinous terrorist and mass murderer has the right to challenge any novel and legally unsettled aspect of the case against them.  To deny Trump his pre-trial arguments and appeals just because there is an election in November is wrong, corrupt, anti-American, anti-liberty and I am proud that the courts are having no part of it.   I am dismayed that you guys, some of you anyway, see this fundamental application of due process as reflecting the fix being in.  That's shameful.  Jim