Generational Dynamics World View News

[Navigator]

I do see Trump getting the Republican Nomination at this point, but that view changes if he gets convicted (of anything), and, also at this point, the chances of that are pretty high.

The polling I've seen says that his support will greatly diminish if/when that happens.

Some people may be "up in arms" over this, but no more would take action than did on Jan 6, and the repercussions those people have suffered will most likely dissuade others. But there very well could be some rioting.

On the other side, Biden continues to increasingly manifest signs of cognitive decline, and a couple of even more serious gaffes, especially mid 2024, would really hurt him.

And of course additional revelations (of which I think at this point either the Ukrainians or Israelis could expose) concerning his career long selling of political favors through his family members (son and brothers), could really hurt him too.

All of this could lead to a constitutional crisis, but as long as the constitution is followed, it will be worked out.

Personally, I hope the "No Labels" proto-party puts forward Manchin as a candidate, and the majority of Americans, who are sick of both current major parties, will opt for him.

But all of the ensuing political chaos will only embolden China/Russia/Iran.

[Guest]

RFK Jr. In 2024.

It's time for a new party in America.

[Guest]

Personally, I hope the "No Labels" proto-party puts forward Manchin as a candidate, and the majority of Americans, who are sick of both current major parties, will opt for him.

How is Manchin any different?

[Navigator]

Personally, I hope the "No Labels" proto-party puts forward Manchin as a candidate, and the majority of Americans, who are sick of both current major parties, will opt for him.

How is Manchin any different?

He's not an extremist (Trump) or the front for them (Biden on other side). He's the best shot at a sane leader who would try to build consensus and try to do the right things for the country. Look at the "No Labels" platform.

[Guest]

Personally, I hope the "No Labels" proto-party puts forward Manchin as a candidate, and the majority of Americans, who are sick of both current major parties, will opt for him.

How is Manchin any different?

He's not an extremist (Trump) or the front for them (Biden on other side). He's the best shot at a sane leader who would try to build consensus and try to do the right things for the country. Look at the "No Labels" platform.

That might work if America still had a political center; it doesn't. We are polarized to hell and back.

[guest]

Personally, I hope the "No Labels" proto-party puts forward Manchin as a candidate, and the majority of Americans, who are sick of both current major parties, will opt for him.

How is Manchin any different?

He's not an extremist (Trump) or the front for them (Biden on other side). He's the best shot at a sane leader who would try to build consensus and try to do the right things for the country. Look at the "No Labels" platform.

But does Munchi speak Spanish?

[John]

** 12-Dec-2023 World View: The Supreme Court and Trump's immunity

There was a very interesing political
development on Monday.

Donald Trump's "special prosecter," Jack
Smith, asked the Supreme Count to rule
on question of whether Trump is immune
from criminal convictions over the
January 6 charges. He asked the Court
to fast-track this decision, so that his
trial of Trump can begin on the day
before Super Tuesday.

The REALLY interesting development was
that the Court not only accepted the
case, but agreed to fast-track it. Oral
arguments are scheduled for next
Wednesday. What is the Supreme Court up
to?

**** Dred Scott decision - 1857

My analysis of this sitation starts with
the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision
in 1857. Dred Scott was a black man,
and the court was asked to rule whether
he was a human being. The Court ruled
that under the Constitution, he was not
a human being.

This decicision caused a massive
political explosion. The American Civil
War began three years later, and many
people blamed the Court for causing or
triggering the Civil War.

The Court itself was deeply affected by
these events. The mission of the court
had alway been to settle legal
disputers, but now the Court had an
additional mission: To do what it can to
preseve the Union. The thought is that
if the Court had ruled that Dred Scott
was, indeed, a human being, then the
Civil War would have been prevented.
This is absurd, of course, but some
people believed i,

**** Gore v Bush - 2000

I started thinking about this subject
during the 2000 presidential election,
which couldn't be decided because of the
results were too close in just one
precinct in southern Florida. (Remember
"hanging chads"?)

This was a huge battle involving tens of
millions of dollars in lawyers' fee, but
after several weeks the Supreme Court
settled the situation by declaring
George Bush the winner. Of course this
infuriated the Democrats, who still
claim that Gore, not Bush, should have
won the election.

My opinion of this is that the Supreme
Court ruled with the Dred Scott decision
im mind. The coutroversy could have
gone on for months, and the country
wouldn't have had a President for
months, withth possibility of massive
civil strife.

My opinion at the time was that the
Supreme Count had made this decision to
preserve the Union.

**** Donald Trump circus - 2023

I have been following the political
situation for decades, and I have never
seen a circus like the one going on in
Washington now.

First off, Donald Trump is hated by a
group of people (the Democats). This
hatred is venomous and completely
irrational, and I can only compare it as
similar to the hatred that Iran and
Hamas feel for Israel.

This hatred has spawned hundreds of
ill-advised criminal investigations in
multiple states, often brought by
prosecuters who announced in advance
what the final outcome will be. Today,
there are 91 pending charges in four
states, which is absolutely ridiculous.
And it's never-ending: now there are
lawyers trying to use an absurd
interpretation of one clause of the
Constitution trying to keep Trump off
the ballot.

So, in my opinion, the Justices have
been watching this never-ending circus
with horror, as an extential threat to
the Union. In my opinion, the reason
they decided instantly to accept the
case, and to expedite it, is because
they want to use it as an opportunity to
end the circus.

In my opinion, here's what they must do:
Guarantee that there will be no blocks
to Trump appearing on the ballots of all
50 states; consolidate the 91 charges
into 3 or 4 that can be tried in an
orderly fashion.

In my opinion, whatever the Court
decides must be a 9-0 decision, since
otherwise there will be a political
battle possibly extending to violence.

[Cool Breeze]

BB has literally aligned himself with the most vile, disgusting, and stupid leftist values, it's amazing that you could even put us in the same paragraph. His Father is who I've always said it was. He believes that these people can make a great kingdom out of this world, it's just those pesky people who actually believe in virtue, principle and God that get in the way. Amazing.

I used to think people like BB were extreme leftist fringe types; I realized decades ago that these people are common among the left.

Yes, there are a lot of collectivist losers out there. It was a fact we were going to have to deal with when the baby boom came and religion was substituted with communism/socialism, because in numbers is the only way these guys can cut it.

[Cool Breeze]

In my opinion, whatever the Court
decides must be a 9-0 decision, since
otherwise there will be a political
battle possibly extending to violence.

It will not be, and I guarantee you we will see significant violence across America in Q3-4 2024.

What I find interesting in your analysis also is that it implies, or perhaps even directly states, that something is more important than the Constitution/law of the land. You say it's "preserving the union." That means that the rule of law actually doesn't mean anything, ultimately, which has been my point for years. It's just words on paper. When you have immoral, or amoral people (like Bish), the words on paper become just tools for the political system to do whatever it wants... eventually. We are seeing that quite obviously and clearly right now.

I hope I don't see a response to this that isn't thought out, keeping in mind that I have thought through the possible objections. Let's see if saying this stops the responses I think I'll see ...

[spottybrowncow]

Thank you, John and Navigator, for your insights. I have great respect for both of your opinions.

However, while I haven't seen the polls Navigator referenced, I can't see Trump's popularity decreasing significantly with a conviction. In fact, if anything, I think a conviction would increase his popularity, because all of his supporters (and a good number of his detractors) think most or all of his prosecutions are politically motivated. The man is like Godzilla - lobbing atomic bombs at him just seems to make him stronger.

I think John is on to something. "Trumpism" (whatever that is) is NOT going away unless he is beaten in a general election that most people believe is conducted fairly. Hopefully the SC is planning to ensure that.