Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The GOP has two major factions and those folks are in the not-maga faction. Meanwhile the majority of the voter base joined the maga faction in 2016. So its just a current slow creep (9 years and counting) of maga becoming removing and replacing the not-magas.

Then out of the MAGA faction, why have so many been convicted of crimes? Why did Trump hire criminals and then pardon them if he actually wants to fight corruption?

There are 8 total who are linked to Trump but not all are 'maga'. All of the cases have an aspect of political motivation and were sought/prosecuted by those aligned with the political establishment that maga is seeking to remove and replace. Trump in his first term is a preemptive president but whenever he/other maga recapture the WH they have a window of opportunity to do a reconstructive period. Its in that period when corruption could be targeted for long-term relief.

Manafort and Stone with their backgrounds in the Torturer's Lobby are pretty huge examples. There's no reason to include them unless you're planning to be corrupt because that's what they've been doing for decades. But Trump has been scamming regular people for decades through using various shady business methods and legal threats. Placing so much trust in him is ridiculous. You have to look at the things they've done, not the things they said to the media. Otherwise you're just going to believe whatever they want you to.

You mean they practiced law? You do realize that during the trial phase justice is suppose to be blind and that everyone is deserving of legal representation. I think one of the key things many left-of-moderate/classical liberal fail to discern is their opinions/assumed moral position or their 'team's opinions/assumed moral position' are not the universal baseline/standard. People get hired for campaign positions for their skills and/or sometimes their connections. Trust me when I tell you the rightwing sees Podesta and Elias as part of the 'usual suspects' in the Democratic campaign realm and thinks awful things about them but a conservative will never use those two men, their jobs or aspects of their work/social sphere as an opening/baseline statement of judgement about being hired by a campaign seeking their skills/connections to win an election. You do realize that Joe Biden was called the Senator from MBNA (as in the bank) for decades because his 'transactional' disposition is well known. And every politician who has entered DC only to see their personal and/or family wealth skyrocket is scamming their position/access using various shady actions. It has been a weird trip watching the Democratic side as it slips farther left (thanks Obama!) becoming the authoritarian albeit secular moralizers tsk tsksing and pro-war party but hey, the rightwing appreciates the opportunity to promote conservativism as a counter-culture and a rightward correction creep has already begun across the West and will eventually destroy much of the 'progress' gained by the century+ leftward lurch.

>You mean they practiced law? You do realize that during the trial phase justice is suppose to be blind and that everyone is deserving of legal representation. What are you talking about? Where have I ever called for someone to be convicted without a trial? I'm not even sure what part of my comment you're replying to. Manafort worked for worlds most worst despots that were abducting and torturing tens of thousands of their own people, among other things. Of course they are allowed to hire lawyers in the US, but only a terrible person would help those dictators achieve their goals. Manafort's own daughter referred to his fortune as blood money. >You do realize that Joe Biden was called the Senator from MBNA (as in the bank) for decades because his 'transactional' disposition is well known.  There's a lot of that in congress and I don't like it. But wake me up when Biden helped dictators remain in power so they could literally torture their own populations. >It has been a weird trip watching the Democratic side as it slips farther left (thanks Obama!) becoming the authoritarian albeit secular moralizers tsk tsksing and pro-war party but hey I've always thought morality was important in politics. Are you saying it's not? Also where did you get the authoritarian bit from? I haven't said anything about that. Did you accidentally reply to the wrong comment or are you assuming that I hold authoritarian positions for some reason? Republicans used to be on board with the idea of containing Russia and it's aggression, but ever since they hacked the DNC to help the Republicans, Republicans have grown softer on it. Now Trump is talking about offering Putin a deal that would force Ukraine to surrender. What makes you say Democrats are pro-war? Our most recent wars were started by Bush. Democrats do support foreign military aid to Ukraine, but they're fighting a defensive war and Democrats have always supported that sort of war. It's also not a war that we're fighting. It sounds like you're just making stuff up so you can "tsk tsk" about it.

Sorry meant to say lobby and wrote law because their lobby did go to bat for some during periods of legal investigations/trial. Just my brain malfunctioning. That said calling BMSK, the 'torturers lobby' is a label used in the leftwing but nowhere else. Authoritarianism always upticks in the 'far' sectors of our political landscape. The Democratic Party is currently suffering from the influence of leftist (which hail from the far-left sector). I am saying your moralizations are deeply prejudiced by your politics and you treat them as absolutes despite often times being a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I understand that you want to wax leftwing moralized narratives about Manafort and Stone but its pointless since the leftwing also has its morally questionable characters who are influential in DC and frequent Democratic campaigns as staff, lobbyist, outside advisers or financiers too. Biden/Dictators/torture - Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Prayuth Chan-ocha, Pham Minh Chinh, Hun Sen, Abdel Fatah El-Sisi, Mohammed bin Salman, Zelensky to name a few because geopolitics doesn't have much room for such moralizing. There are republicans who covet Russia's resources. The other type of republicans (maga) see that as a waste of time because they know the US electorate is not supportive of the lengths needed to achieve that outcome, they argue its easier to create a new alliance with Russia. The geopolitical world is in flux because the liberal international order (LIO) which has acted as a defacto global empire is struggling to maintain power. The LIO's western-based financial system also needs a reboot (Digital Bretton Woods). War has been decided upon as the best way to install their reboot globally & keep monetary dominance since two of the major BRICs nations are involved. The covetous republicans and democrats are aligned/agents of the LIO, the other republicans (maga) are not. This current war path results multiple regions at war while the US is rebuilding its manufacturing base by selling weapons just like we did from 1939-1945 and we recover first as a nation post-war. Russians have a massive emotional connection to Kiev because it was the throne of the Ancient Rus. Russia was baited/lured/wooed into invasion because we know Putin/Russian people will prioritize it over his ME allies as the proxy wars pivot and intensify in the ME before moving down in the South Pacific. We haven't been drawn in yet but the House passed [HR 8070](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8070/text?s=1&r=5&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22national+defense+authorization%22%7D) seeking to automate the registration of men aged 18-26 for the Selective Service. Currently its a trend in the rightwing to not register until a week before one's 26th birthday because most of them (maga) are just 'done' with the LIO

Where do you get your geopolitics news? Anyway, my point about Manafort and Stone is that they've helped those dictators stay in power through their work which was done for a paycheck. That doesn't tarnish the whole right wing, but it does mean they have ko problem helping someone do those things, and Trump had them as his closest advisors. Roger Stone took credit for inciting a riot to interrupt a vote recount in 2000 in exactly the same way the riot interrupted the certification in 2020. Trump obviously has no problem with Roger Stone's criminality and history of corruption because he commuted his sentence not long before the riot. Anyway, we've just barely touched on their histories. Manafort has worked for some of the world most oppressive leaders and just before Trump he was working for. Russian puppet president in Ukraine. You can claim he turned over a new leaf when he became Trump's campaign manager, but that wouldn't explain why he was passing data on Americans to Russian intelligence.

Like all dutiful politically engage moderates I source news/narrative across a broad spectrum. People get hired for campaign positions for their skills and/or sometimes their connections. A conservative won't moralize over individuals like you are doing, they are going to be looking at the individual's past results and current connections. I am not claiming anyone 'turned over a new leaf' - I am pointing out that no one on the right cares or moralizes, not about other republican campaign hirings or democratic campaign hirings. When the USSR collapsed Konstantin Kilimnik sought and was accepted to the International Republican Institute which is vetted/monitored by the intelligence community. So when the leftwing tries to suggest he is or has some nefarious ties to the Russian Intelligence the rest of us just ROFLMAO.

If moral considerations are irrelevant to you then, fine. But it's not "the left" that said Kilimnik is an intelligence agent. It's the US Treasury. They're not the same thing, but I realize anyone not supporting the official pro-Trump narrative gets lumped together as one big malevolent entity by rightwing media.

Well when the whole world is out to get one guy, it's really easy for people to take the easy route and dislike him too. That and he ticked a lot of people off, which is what happens when you're shacking up a corrupt status quo.

I mean, he also ticks people off because he's an impulsive asshole.

In your mind, it is an easier explanation that the world is out to get Trump rather than him being a narcissist who is difficult to work with? 

He's a tough boss. He demands excellence and hard work for the American people. A lot of people just want to chill and collect a paycheck.

I'm not sure if I have seen an example of this... Most of Trump's fallouts have been policy based. Several staffers resigned on Jan 6th John Kelly worked for Trump as his Chief of Staff for nearly 2 years said: >A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law. >“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.” https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-us-service-members-veterans/index.html I can't imagine a world where Biden's long time Chief of Staff says anything remotely similar and it barely breaks the news cycle. But I could go on for days about former Trump staffers who have spoken out against Trump's actions.

But to MAGA they’re all disgruntled employees with an axe to grind part of the swamp.

Right, like notoriously lazy Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson or infamously lackadaisical two-time AG and Time Warner Board member Bill Barr.

I’m loving this energy. Fucking rock on.

slacker Nikki Haley did not even last a year: just long enough to take a free round-the-world junket her last month, on my dime.

She could have at least gotten a few golf games in at MAL, spent your dollars on American products!

Because he's a criminal clown.

Don’t let the words of hundreds of military leaders, economists, and past business associates be forgotten. He is a criminal, propped up by people more than happy to let him be the distraction while they continue to perpetrate crimes against democracy.

Ironically his former aides , who have decided to endorse him, thought the Bragg prosecution was a gross overreach of political persecution via not reading of law correctly. That effectively united the party. None of the loser economists, former fired business associates or useless military leaders could describe the Bragg prosecution nor they expected that fake felony case to have any weight.

I have to assume this is a tongue in cheek comment. The way trump has treated the military, combined with his attitude about military strategy, has the generals at the highest levels on alert. They are frightfully aware of trump’s laissez faire attitude toward Russia, and of his embracing the leadership of such dictatorial leaders as North Korea’s Un and Putin. Ffs, trump saluted a North Korean soldier, but thats another story. I’m very curious to know what “loser economists” you’re referring to, or is that another fox talking point? It’s common knowledge now that the tax credit that he implemented (that expire next year) primed the country for a recession. Lowering the corporate tax rate did, as well. And the money the government gave businesses during covid - the money that was supposed to go to the workers - instead went to second and third homes for executives, it never “tricked down” to the workers. His policy was an unmitigated disaster. How could anyone pull out of that nosedive so quickly. I’m curious to know what economists you’re referring to that think all of those actions was the right move. I’d also like to know how you think the economy is doing today in the US compared to the rest of the first world countries

Do you think I'm lying here? Read the top comment here, all the people who he lost post J6 have endorsed him post Bragg. Barr, Meadows, Haley,etc who wanted him replaced have united behind one common enemy, the left.  You can Google this if you want. As for the "experts" the Supreme Court yesterday gave us a win where Chevron was reversed. That means the bureaucracy aka the administrative state no longer has unlimited power.  If "Our Democracy" means rule by unelected & unaccountable "experts," I will take my chances with "Fascism," where the people rule through written law enacted by representatives.

Do you remember trump’s meeting with Putin in Helsinki? His officials were embarrassed at how much he ducked up to Putin. Challenged him on nothing. Supported Putin’s claim that Russia didn’t meddle in the election, disparaging our own intelligence agencies (as well as those of England, france, and Israel, among others). Now, of course, *everyone* could have been lying and Putin was telling the truth, is that the story you believe? Remember the dozens and dozens and dozens of times trump has shit on our military? I can rattle off 50 or so examples right now if you’d like - I’ll even give you sources. From McCain to Vindman to WW2 soldiers to Blue Star families to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s disparaged the military more than every president in history combined. That’s not hyperbole. As for some retired four star generals, do you know who Adm. Steve Abbot, Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Gen. John Jumper, Adm. James Loy, Adm. John Nathman, Adm. William Owens and Gen. Johnnie Wilson are? Do you know what they think of trump? Do you know what they say about trump’s actions on J6? It should matter, but I doubt you care, because you know much more about our military and their role in our safety here in the US. I’m also guessing you think trump knows more than they do, is that fair to say? It’s not just Nobel award winning economists calling trump’s tax plan a joke, it’s CEOs calling out the plan as well. Again, you want to dismiss them as “losers”, because…why? Or better yet, how do you think trump’s plan to eliminate taxes and replace them with tariffs is going to work? Are you aware of who gets hurt the most with this kind of logic?

Damn I wish Americans cared about what the overhyped "nobel peace price winners" said. Remember back in 2016 when similar calls were being made by "experts". Trump's strength is the more these once deemed relevant "institutions" try to stop him, the more no one cares, not just on the right. Liberals LOVE being ruled over by the technocratic class. They don't see a problem with it. It would drive most people on the Right insane even if those technocrats were 100% accurate because there is no individualism/personal choice component. Many (smart) people are becoming increasingly dismissive of institutional expertise and authority. But there is also a growing minority who are outraged by the institutions and who will make a concerted political effort to harm and diminish them by whatever means arises. Chevron was removed for that reason alone.

Wow that’s pretty generic. With which Nobel winning economists did you disagree about their take on trump’s tax plan and with what criticism(s) did you disagree ?

Wow that’s pretty generic. With which Nobel winning economists did you disagree about their take on trump’s tax plan and with what criticism(s) did you disagree?

[удалено]

Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

so you won't vote for him, then?

No, I will not vote for a criminal clown

everyone of the founding fathers was a criminal according to the crown

TRump operates under a business model approach that uses an asset to its fullest potential and then discards it afterwards for another asset that will fill the next need. With this type of approach, it promotes short-term over long-term. So when you have an aspect of long-term loyalty, it very much goes against the nature of those relationships. People generally don't look favorably upon people they feel "used" to, and the model he does has a tendency to make it appear that way to the person involved. 

Anyone paying the least bit of attention should, by now, understand why establishment government and the complicit mainstream media hates Trump and wants you to hate him as well. He's an outsider who can't be controlled by the "elites" who rule us for their own enrichment and unquenchable lust for power. Most of you who hate Trump do it for one reason and one reason alone...you've been instructed to obey and comply. They're after us...and their doing a fine job of it. The truth is, Trump's just in their way.

>He's an outsider who can't be controlled by the "elites" who rule us for their own enrichment and unquenchable lust for power. How is a NYC billionaire who has been friends with the elite all his life, having the Clintons at his wedding, NOT an elite or somehow considered an outsider?

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I don't know about you, but the guy is pretty deplorable. In fact, as I understand, most conservatives hate him as well, they only vote for him because they want the Republican party in office, and all the perks that come with those policies. Many view him as morally bankrupt and don't care for him. Who is "after us"? Who is doing a good job at it? These are things that sound like they came straight from Trump's mouth.

Most conservatives don't hate Trump...it's only the very vocal ones here on Reddit.

[удалено]

Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

The idea that Trump- a NY billionaire who held the highest office in the nation for 4 years- isn’t an “elite” is so laughable.

He's a financial elite for sure...but he's not a Washington insider. And, Trump's main messages and goals are simple. Put the American people first. He has opened people's eyes to the fact that most elected and unelected officials with enormous power are making policy decisions that benefit mega corporations, wealthy individuals and groups like big pharma and the military industrial complex that are not looking out for the average American's best interests. Take issues like illegal immigration and the war in Ukraine. Our government doesn't care about how many people flood into our country unchecked. It hurts working class Americans. It's a drain on our schools, healthcare facilities and infrastructure...but they don't care. Illegal aliens are more important to the Washington elite than the average American citizen. With Ukraine, our leaders are happy to send hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars to some place on the map that really doesn't effect us. We are fighting a proxy war with Russia...for what? How is sending money to Ukraine and enriching people like Zelenskyy a positive thing for the average American? For companies like Black Rock, it's awesome, but for us...it's a big FU.

if everyone of them endorsed him fully tomorrow you would pivot and attack from another position

They must not like him or something...

Non-story because we have enough information on Trump to judge him for ourselves. His character vs his policies as president. This would be a story if he was a less public and less publicly scrutinized figure and I needed to substitute my judgement with someone who knows him better. My personal opinion, I don't trust politicians. They're filthy and they've done nothing for the working class. So a lack of endorsement from filthy people is something I think folks would consider to be a positive. We've all developed an opinion of Trump and the opinion of filth in Washington should not adjust yours.

The Democrats encouraged people to harass Trump's cabinet in public, especially Maxine Waters who told people not to let them rest, to go to them in public places and "let them know they are not welcome here." After all of that, I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to distance themselves from Trump, as I imagine they got more than their fair share of hatred and bile from people who took the words of Dems like Waters to heart. Pence I imagine is the same, but likely a coward to boot, so he didn't just try to draw distance from Trump, but to try to appease the Democrats he turned against him entirely. Rolled over and showed his belly so the Democrats knew he wasn't going to do anything to stand in their way, and so they would not direct their ire at him.

You think the democrats spewed more bile towards Pence than MAGA has? Do you not remember the gallows on the west lawn of the Capitol? "Every Republican that has crossed Trump has only done so because they're afraid of the leftists coming for them" is such a ridiculous take.

They absolutely have/did, pence being a human in ‘20 doesn’t expel y’all from all the vile shit you spewed during the ‘12,16, and ,20 elections. GTFO

Spewed where? Did anyone build a noose and gallows and scream for hours about hanging him?

Who got arrested for any of these supposed plots against the VP? Nobody, because they were made up. At best, you took the words of 3 or 4 meat-heads in the crowd and tried to apply them to a whole sea of people. I would link you a picture to those "gallows," but you'd just laugh at how ridiculous and unserious they look. If you think that's obscene, you should try going to...well, any protest in American history.

Yes, the left are leagues and above greater than MAGA in terms of spewing bile and hate. I say this as a former leftist, the Democrats have literally declared everyone right-of-center to be Nazis, white supremacists who want to turn women into slaves and who want a new holocaust of everyone who doesn't look like them. They treat their opposition like scum, and then when anyone pushes back, they act shocked and offended and shout 'look at how mean they're being to us!'

Former leftist here as well. Remember, you once felt this way, too. And then you turned 25. This is a constant battle. Leftists grow up and become conservatives, only to be replaced the newest crop of 18-20 year olds with "fuck you, dad" energy. The only difference is that now you have a whole host of 25-30 year old hanger-ons because of social media and the lack of future prospects. We now have a whole generation of 30 year olds who are still leftists because they can't buy a home and raise kids, ironically due to their own obscene voting habits.

About the have kids thing. I know a ton of people that arent rich and have kids because they want kids more than they wanted to be comfortable. It turns out you can always get what you want if you are willing to sacrifice. Its just a lot of people are unwilling to sacrifice, or work hard, or work smart.

Do you think the testimony from his staff in the Jan 6th investigation was also made up?

I personally don't think it matters if it was or wasn't. Pence's life was never in danger. Go to any political protest, they all have those few blowhards who say stupid shit. If there was an actual plot against his life, there would've been multiple people indicted on that charge, and they'd be in the hole for 30+ years. MSM took the chants of a few people and plastered it everywhere, and since you already hate Trump and his supporters, you took media clickbait at face value. Imagine if we zeroed in on the words of any given BLM, Palestine, LTGB protest/riot - you'd hear similar sentiments.

>MSM took the chants of a few people and plastered it everywhere, and since you already hate Trump and his supporters, you took media clickbait at face value. Basically it was overblown and not that big a deal? Did I hate Trump and his supporters when I voted for him in 2020 and was appalled when I heard that?

ive strongly detested Pence for years as I lived in Indiana for a while ane have lots of friends there whom he’s harmed, but I was still absolutely appalled and shocked on Jan 6. His family was there with him that day. I never wanted any of them to be harmed. It was shocking.

It wasn't a plot against Mike Pence, but a plot to steal the presidency. The plan was to have Pence use the fake electors the Trump admin recruited to say the election was contested and he couldn't certify it. After they stopped the certification the plan was to derail the normal procedure and try to maneuver so the election would be determined by a House vote, which was majority Republican. Then when the violence was happening, Trump refused repeated requests from family and staff to Tweet to the rioters and call it off. Eventually he tweeted something about Mike Pence betraying them and the violence continued. After a few hours, he finally tweeted for them to go home and they stopped, but during those hours, he was still attempting to get the certification halted so he could continue the plan they wrote about here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman\_memos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos) So do you think the staff testimony about his attempt to overturn the election is worth listening to? Are you aware they drafted an executive order to seize voting machines and only didn't carry it out because his AG refused?

>It wasn't a plot against Mike Pence, but a plot to steal the presidency. The plan was to have Pence use the fake electors the Trump admin recruited to say the election was contested and he couldn't certify it. Uh, where do you get this from? The plan was for Pence to send the issue back to states, particularly the ones that were still litigating the issue. Pence couldn't "use the electors," that's not how the process works, and that's not what they were asking. Pence was the tiebreaker vote. If there were challenges raised about specific states during the confirmation process, the certification could've been halted. This would've expedited the issue within the legislature. It's clear as day that they were contesting the result and had no resolution yet. The fake electors are also a scam because there are always two sets of electors in the General Election. If one side doesn't have electors, who do they send if they win that state? I'd urge you to look into the process of the electoral college.

From Step 4 of Trump's written plan to overturn the election: >Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe's prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the [12th Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote ..." Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well. It's all pretty clear and available to look into. This is also why he illegally recruited fake electors. The president doesn't have the power to designate electors for a state without the state's knowledge, but he needed them for step 2 of the plan: >When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. Pence even confirmed he was asked to do this. Edit: And those electors forged and signed fraudulent documents to lie about being authorized by their state. Some of them are being charged for it and for trying to actually submit their votes

Again, none of this matters because they were all acting under their belief that the vote was fraudulent, and they believed in the courts to rule in on it. Unfortunately, no case ever reached discovery and were thrown out on "standing." https://hereistheevidence.com/

It does matter. We can’t commit crimes simply based on our true beliefs that our actions are jjustified.

It does matter. The president doesn't get to assume power over a state's vote just because he's convinced there's fraud. That's dictator behavior and they always have a justification like that when they act outside of their power. Even if he's being honest, we can't let a president take the result of an election into their own hands. But we know Trump wasn't being honest because when Pence refused to veto the election, Trump told him he was too honest. >Unfortunately, no case ever reached discovery and were thrown out on "standing." And that's how it should work. Texas doesn't get to object to Wisconsin's election procedures. A lot of them were also tossed out for lack of evidence. Trump undermines the courts every time something doesn't go his way and spreads a lot of lies about it.

1960 and 1877 it was allowed.  And in 1960 the fake electors were in Congress despite the governor of Hawai certifying it 

>A lot of them were also tossed out for lack of evidence That's not how law works. You first present your premise to a court, they accept or reject it, then the other party is officially notified, and then you enter in evidence. They were all thrown out for frivolous reasons like "this person wasn't directly impacted by the election," "the certification is not complete, thus there's nothing to dispute," etc. I'm not even imply any conspiracy here, I just think the courts wanted nothing to do with this simply because of the gravity of this and the unprecedented nature. Whichever way they ruled, one side would have the pitchforks ready.

Here's some info about the cases. I'll paste the ones where they examined evidence or merits of the case. I have to put it into two comments because there are so many. It seems like you've been lied to. [https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections](https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections) >While the district court stated that the claims of plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—could be dismissed for lack of standing, the district court nonetheless analyzed the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. First, the district court was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated the Elections and Electors Clauses by allegedly violating the Michigan Election Code because it found that deviations from state election law are not the same as modifications of state election law. Second, the district court found the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim to be too speculative, finding no evidence that physical ballots were altered. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on Dec. 18, 2020. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11. .. >[Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020)](https://electioncases.osu.edu/case/ward-v-jackson/) – The superior court denied relief requested by the plaintiff in an election contest because the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for such a contest .. >[Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020)](https://electioncases.osu.edu/case/law-v-whitmer/) – The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ election contest on the merits. First, the plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—failed to prove that there had been either a voting device malfunction or the counting of illegal/improper votes in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the election’s outcome. Next, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the election board or any of its members were guilty of malfeasance. Finally, the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants had manipulated or altered the outcome of the election. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020. .. >[Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2020)](https://electioncases.osu.edu/case/donald-j-trump-for-president-inc-v-boockvar/) – While the district court found that Trump lacked standing, the court decided to touch upon the merits of his Equal Protection claim, ultimately rejecting the claim. The district court held that different counties implementing different types of notice-and-cure policies (many implementing none) did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the clause does not require complete equality in all situations—“a classification resulting in ‘some inequality’ will be upheld unless it is based on an inherently suspect characteristic or ‘jeopardizes the exercise of a fundamental right.’

Yeah and that's not illegal, otherwise they wouldn't change the electoral count act in 2022. I've read everything about the fake electors hoax and I know this surely that John Roberts will think John Eastman did nothing wrong. Not even the charges show the fake electors scheme hoax is directly charged instead they used a substitute charge ( which SCOTUS has ruled on yesterday ) , of fraud to fit their political narrative 

Even if there really is no law against it, it was a blatant attempt to steal the presidency after losing the election. Do you support those efforts? Should we trust a president who has done that?

All I'm saying is that, it was open to interpretation. Entire conservative media was propping Eastman's theory. I think it could have resulted in a civil war but that area was open to interpretation. In the civil war era, that theory was used by many radical Republicans in order to stop democrats from cheating voting in the South. Just that era, forget the labels here. I'm saying what I saw at that time, I never bought it anyway, but a lot of people within conservative circles - I'm talking about freaking SCOTUS and federal judge's law clerks, interns at the capital hill for Congress and Senators, were claiming this theory would work. Social Media post November 2020 was wild, I wasn't actually paying that attention even though I used to see threads of many people I follow on twitter, pushing that thing. These were from the higher ups of the party. Very connected people. I want SCOTUS to make this clear someday, and I think they will.

>I'm talking about freaking SCOTUS and federal judge's law clerks, interns at the capital hill for Congress and Senators, were claiming this theory would work. >... >These were from the higher ups of the party. Very connected people. That's what worries me so much. It seems like the Republican party supported his attempt to override a states chosen electors with his own set. >I want SCOTUS to make this clear someday, and I think they will. I think it's pretty clear already. The states get to decide their votes, not the president. If the states certifies an alternate set of electors, that's in their power. The president has no authority to do it when they don't want that.

I've read everything about the alleged fake electors scheme And it seems like a giant hoax of a coup attempt narrative. I'm super confident that John Roberts knows that nonsense electors theory of a supposed coup is a joke. 1877 and 1960 also had fake electors in Congress 

So you do believe that the president is empowered to recruit alternate electors and put those votes forward alongside the electors that were designated by their state? And they can do this without the state government being involved? Are candidates allowed to do that also or is it just an advantage we give to the current sitting president? Because if that's the case, then I feel a lot better about Biden's chances. But it's not the case, so he won't be recruiting his own electors behind the states' backs.

Biden can't do it now because Congress made that a law back in 2022. Read what I said here, in 1877 and 1960 it was done, and in 1960, Nixon had a stack of fake electors in his arms and that was after the governor had signed on the real electors of Hawaii. That's not illegal, otherwise they wouldn't have changed the electoral count act in 2022. I've read everything about the fake electors thing and I know this surely that John Roberts will think John Eastman did nothing wrong. Not even the charges show the fake electors scheme is directly charged instead they used a substitute charge ( which SCOTUS has ruled on yesterday ) , of fraud/obstruction to fit their political narrative.

The difference is those electors were certified by their state because the results were still unclear. In Trump's case, the state was sure about their vote, but Trump was the one saying it was contested all by himself. But there was no contest. The states were submitting their clear results and Trump tried to subvert that. If the incumbent candidate is allowed to unilaterally pick electors for a state against the state government's will, is the other candidate also afforded that same privilege in your view?

No, in 1960, Nixon had fake electors in his hands even after the governor had certified the real ones. In 1877 that happened too. I keep hearing this narrative that in 1960 "it was done legally, as they were really alternate electors". All I'm saying is that area was open to interpretation. I think John Roberts knows this as well.

The key point is the state only designated alternate electors because the state itself had questions about their own result. The president can't start that process without the state's knowledge because he personally thinks it is contested.

I think if someone puts up a gallows outside your workplace and hordes of people are yelling to hang you, your life just might be in danger.

Mike Pence was afraid of mean ole Democrats? This is laughable.

Yeah, I lived in Indiana for years, and democrats there HATE him and have for decades, yet none have ever tried to harm him or publicly called for his death.

Yeah I find it interesting that the take is that Mike Pence is afraid of Democrats and not the Republicans who wanted to hang him in front of the Capitol.

I don’t think Mike Pence is afraid of the democrats, but I also don’t think he is afraid of any republicans. He absolutely knew he wasn’t in any danger. Could I see him being extremely angry about how much those people hated him? Yea. Of course.

He was angry because his family was there with him in the capitol that day, including his wife and daughter. I’m sure he was also concerned about potential harm coming to them.

There are a lot of reasons Mike Pence does things. Appeasing democrats has not and never will be one of them. The rest of your reasoning is flawed because of how cracked that logic clearly is.

Because he doesn't toe the line like the political elites want

But Trump was the one who selected his Cabinet, and he specifically chose a lot of people who were not political elites. And if he *did* pick political elites who refuse to support or endorse him, how is that still not a reflection on Trump's managerial ability? I just don't get this line of reasoning at all.

Yep, the inexperienced guy picked from a list he was given He later corrected his early mistake by firing them

What is an example?

>Yep, the inexperienced guy picked from a list he was given Why wouldn't I view this as a reflection on Trump's competence? Besides, what list was Rex Tillerson on? Or Bill Barr? >He later corrected his early mistake by firing them And selecting replacements who likewise refuse to support/endorse him? We're not talking about one policy issue here. We're talking about pretty much all Trump's subordinates across departments, industries, and policy areas who virtually universally have the same opinion of him *after working for him*.

Well for one thing, the guy elected president did the picking If Biden wins, unknown handlers will do the picking

>Well for one thing, the guy elected president did the picking That's exactly my point.

Unknown handlers picked by Biden, the guy who was also elected.

You think Biden is picking his handlers?

I do. He’s not a great speaker and he’s getting old but he’s not completely inept.

Why not? He's been in government for a long time and knows many people that have expertise and experience.

A list who made for him ?

Which is not giving corporations huge tax breaks and subsidies? If Trump had actually worked to remove all corporate subsidies including farming I might actually believe this bs. Because isn’t that truly what the free market MAGAS want? What do they actually want besides a complete dismantling of the Fed gov? Point me to the MAGA charter I’m truly interested.

Corporate subsidies help people You oppose Trump giving tax breaks to companies that created jobs in poor urban areas?  Why?

As of a couple weeks ago when I last checked, at least 16 of Trump’s Cabinet officials had endorsed him, and only one of Biden’s had endorsed him (Pete Buttigieg). 1. Ben Carson (HUD Secretary) 2. Ric Grenell (Acting DNI) 3. Mark Meadows (Chief of Staff) 4. Steve Mnuchin (Treasury Secretary) 5. Wilbur Ross (Commerce Secretary) 6. Russ Vought (OMB Director) 7. Matt Whitaker (Acting AG) 8. Ryan Zinke (Interior Secretary) 9. Bill Barr (Attorney General) 10. David Bernhardt (Interior Secretary) 11. Kelly Craft (Ambassador to the UN) 12. Nikki Haley (Ambassador to the UN) 13. Linda McMahon (SBA Administrator) 14. Mike Pompeo (Secretary of State, Director of Central Intelligence) 15. John Ratcliffe (Director of National Intelligence) 16. Tommy Thompson (Secretary of Health and Human Services) And that’s with a month to go before the convention.

There are a few who haven’t. 1. John Kelly- longest acting chief of staff 2. Mike Pence 3. James Mattis 4. Mark Esper-second Secretary of defense 5. Mark Milley 6. Rex Tillerson 7. Chris Christie 8. HR McMaster 9. John Bolton 10. Mick Mulvaney 11. Anthony Scaramucci 12. Stephanie Grisham 13. Betsy Devos 14. Elaine Chow 15. Richard Spencer 16. Tom Bossert 17. Ty Cob 18. Alyssa Faith Griffin

Does Milley even count as a member of the administration? Regardless, most of the rest you’ve listed were lower-level people whereas I only listed Cabinet-level officials (I’m sure I could list more if you really want to get into it), and some of them, like Ty Cobb, were never even Trump supporters to start with. Do you have a source for McMaster, Spencer or Mulvaney disendorsing him against Biden?

It's not just whether they've endorsed him. Many of Trump's cabinet and core staff have felt the need to speak out against him. Here's a good list, but it's paywalled so you'd probably have to check through an archive site: [https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/29/metro/donald-trump-former-cabinet-officials-reelection/](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/29/metro/donald-trump-former-cabinet-officials-reelection/) There's a lot of damning condemnation in there from his own people. I don't believe we've seen anything like it in history. Certainly not recent history.

The real answer: he trusted the establishment to take on the establishment. He thought having an (R) next to their name meant they weren't on the same team as his out-in-the-open opponents. The RNC had leverage over Trump the first go around, and put all their people in his admin, including VP Pence. You should look into Pence and Ryan's plot to take over the ticket at the 2016 Convention. The Pence pick was the RNC compromise. Every last one of these people you've mentioned are career politicians - ya know, the exact thing MAGA is explicitly against. This time around, Trump owns the party and there will be no RNC compromises and/or, for the lack of a better term, spies.

The "establishment" were the people that stopped him from using the military to police American citizens and from issuing an executive order to sieze the voting machines. Trump's been running scams his whole career, and next time he's in office, the rest of his staff will be in on the corruption, much like the felons on his staff he pardoned.

What's so spooky about seizing the machines to be inspected? Even if you believe the 81 million number is legit, half of the country doesn't. We never got to see the issue play out in court. No, he did not "lose" 60+ cases. They were all tossed on technicality and thus never reached the discovery (evidentiary) phase. We need to settle the issue to where it's impossible to question the outcome. Perhaps maybe a few billion of the 100s of billions sent to Biden's pals could've gone to researching and creating a new sustainable election system. Some people advocate for blockchain technology. It sounds good on paper, but that's well above my expertise. However, the way we do elections now is clearly a recipe for an impending disaster.

>What's so spooky about seizing the machines to be inspected? Because no matter what they find, he'd claim the machines were rigged. It'd be like his investigators he claimed to have in Hawaii looking into Obama's birth certificate that couldn't believe the things they were finding. He's repeatedly claimed election fraud without any evidence in every election he's ever lost. He even said Ted Cruz rigged the Iowa primary against him. Eventually you have to recognize the pattern in his behavior. He's going to claim this election is rigged too if he loses. >We need to settle the issue to where it's impossible to question the outcome. It's not impossible to question the outcome. We saw several audits and investigations into the election. What's bad is telling the public there's election fraud without evidence while he was the one trying to commit election fraud.

He claimed the election he won against Hillary was rigged because he should have won by a HUGE margin. The comedy show never ends with him.

The audits don't do anything, though. They're just recounting ballots. The issue of contention was the legality of many of these ballots. For example, ballots with multiple return dates, ballots received after Nov 3rd, ballots received after the grace period, ballots with signature issues, adjudicated ballots. In PA, the number of contested ballots far outweighs the margin Biden won by. Recounting ballots doesn't address any of these problems. Hereistheevidence.com has the most extensive and current data regarding every incident compiled.

The audits confirm that the ballots are submitted and counted according to procedures. Anything else is a matter for the courts, and Trump was allowed to file as many lawsuits as he wanted. He just didn't have a case for any of it. But what's not supposed to happen is the president designates a set of alternate electors for the state and then sends them to have their votes counted without the state's knowledge. Only the state gets to determine who they vote for, not the president. That seems like a controversial opinion these days.

The courts threw out every case on standing. Not one case made it to the stage of presenting evidence. I'll point you again to the data in the previous link. The findings coming out of these counties will shock you if you're actually open to the idea of Mr. Rent-Free being maybe possibly potentially right.

During all of this Giuliani had a famous quote. He said they had a lot of theories about election fraud, but no evidence. He would make wild claims in the media, but he wouldn't repeat them in court because that would get him into serious trouble. Also, do you really have no concerns about a president unilaterally deciding there is fraud and then stepping outside his authority to commit election fraud himself to counteract it? Would you trust Biden to do that?

They also stopped him from seizing voter registration information from states. Which I found absolutely ridiculous. What was he intending to do with that information I wonder?

You can argue the pardons all you want. Pardons have been questionable on both sides. Look at Marc Rich……

A pardon from Bill Clinton over 20 years ago? What does that have to do with Biden? Check out Manafort's history. He's a serious felon and was working for a Russian backed-president in Ukraine before he started managing Trump's campaign. He has a long history of working for terrible dictators and was still in contact with Russian intelligence while on the Trump team. And then there's Roger Stone, the guy with a Nixon tattoo, that once took credit for sending a riot to stop a vote count in the Florida 2000 election. It's strangely similar to the riot that stopped the certification in 2020. It's a pretty long list full of political corruption. You have to look at what they do, not what they say, to see what they're really up to.

Manafort was just not registered as a foreign agent. What Manafort did is not unlike what Hunter Biden was engaged in. He should be convinced under FARA. Biden will lose and pardon his son and that with be that.

>What Manafort did is not unlike what Hunter Biden was engaged in. He should be convinced under FARA Tell me what meaningful connection exists between these 2 crimes?

Manafort also worked for dictators that were abducting and torturing tens of thousands of their own citizens. He'd lobby the US government to give them foreign aid and then shave a few million off for himself. He has a ton of terrible deeds in his past and his own daughter referred to his fortune as "blood money". Russian intelligence was running an influence campaign to attempt to flip American's votes, and Manafort gave them data on Americans that campaigns use to try to flip American's votes.

Here's some info on Manafort and the "torturers lobby" that he and Stone were key parts of. https://www.newsweek.com/heres-where-paul-manafort-did-business-corrupt-dictators-1061470

This is the answer and the establishment is still trying to cause problems. They did nothing since Reagan and they wonder why Trump has gained support.

I’ve read practically all his former cabinet members have trashed Trump. Doesn’t mean they can’t endorse him. Didn’t Harris basically suggest Biden was racist for supporting busing ?

They trashed him after working under him as president, not during a campaign where they were running against him. If Harris came out now to warn us that Biden was unfit, I'd listen. She's in a position to know more than I am.

No Pence? why? When has anyone ever changed VP's before?

FDR twice

the question was why wont the majority of his former staff support him. you listed the very small minority that does.

Trying to include all staff would make this awfully difficult, since not all of them may be noteworthy enough to even be mentioned in lists of endorsements, so I focused on the first half of “cabinet members or staff”. But you said that a majority refuse to support him, so do you have a list of more than 16 people who have refused to endorse him? As far as I can tell, most have remained silent (like 98% of Biden’s Cabinet), and the vast majority of the ones who have endorsed have endorsed Trump.

See: Mike Pence. When has a president ever changed VP's?

I think Bill Barr is so odd... He called Trump "detached from reality" Barr believes that Trump's "the election was stolen" claim was "bullshit" (his words under oath, not mine) Barr said the only thing keeping Trump in check was the threat of losing a second term... He said Trump was unfit for office. Now he supports Trump? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4375167-barr-predicts-abuse-of-government-power-if-trump-reelected-2024/

I think that just tells people how bad biden is. No matter how much you hate trump or think he is unfit... Biden is a huge step further in the unfit direction. I'm not sure that Biden would be capable of doing something as simple as getting a list of groceries, let alone run the country...

>No matter how much you hate trump or think he is unfit... Biden is a huge step further in the unfit direction Both have their moments where they sound like rambling old men. You can see Biden the next day and he is on point and very passionate... Would have been nice to have it the day before And you have moments where Trump is ranting about some unintelligible thing, like you need an ID to get groceries, or how it's the wettest hurricane "in terms of water" But let's pretend like Biden really is a senile old man, would you rather have that or someone who will abuse power (Barr's claim about Trump, not mine)?

This isn't about small lapses in memory. Biden has some severe mental health issues. They are not comparable in that regard. Sure, sometimes Biden can read a script and sound ok at the right time of day, but when he is bad... it is just so bad that you feel like he couldn't handle the simplest of tasks. I have seen Trumps rambling, but nothing that goes beyond what I would consider to be more normal for someone that gets tripped up with words occasionally. Both lie like crazy, so I would prefer the one that I think can read and COMPREHEND something. I really don't think Biden can do that most of the time. How can we "pretend" he is senile? He is. It is a fact. That's why the dems are all freaking out about replacing him. Will trump abuse his power? I think he probably will, but so did Biden and Obama before him.

>Will trump abuse his power? I think he probably will, but so did Biden and Obama before him. Trump's own Attorney General thinks Trump will abuse power. Trump's Vice President said Trump asked Pence to disobey his oath to the Constitution. It's not the same as doing semi questionable things. It's literally breaking their oath to the Constitution. I'd rather have a senile man for one term, then allow someone who will disregard the Constitution for one day in office. And no I'm not convinced Biden is senile. Biden stutters pretty bad at points, and with a 2 minute time limit late at night, with a cold, it's going to hurt him even more. But I'm not ready to tell my kids I let Trump get in office a second time because Biden didn't sound to good one night. Overall, I have not seen Biden disregard the rule of law. He let the investigation into his classified documents case go uninhibited. (Read Part 2 of the Mueller report, Trump did not do that). Biden allowed the investigation into his son's gun and tax crimes go uninhibited. And I am 100% convinced that if Biden loses in 2024, he will concede and peacefully transfer power. Trump has already proven he will do none of those things. He should never be President again.

I really feel like you are downplaying what everyone saw by calling it some stutters... did you see the man's face??? It is everyone's choice what they would prefer. Is trump a criminal? Yes. Are most politicians criminals imo? Also yes. I really wish there was an alternative, but trump is the only option right now. I don't think our country can handle another 4 years of bidenomics or his border policies. Things have gotten so bad. All he does is just deny reality and pretend like our economy is strong at the times that he seems lucid. At least trump acknowledges these issues and does not look lost.

The economy crashed under Trump. Under Biden, the United States has had some of the lower inflation rates after COVID. And Biden's boarder policy isn't an open policy. He closed several port of entries and even now, he has limited people who can seek asylum if the boarder crossings go above a certain number. And Biden supported a boarder bill written by a Republican, but Trump instructed Republicans to deny that bill... Why? You downplay how bad Trump was, once again, Trump refused to peacefully transfer power. He tried to break his oath to the Constitution (Mike Pence's claim). Trump also attempted to sabotage investigations into himself on multiple occasions. (Part 2 of the Mueller report) Even **IF** I conceded that Biden was senile, Trump is still obviously the worst option. We cannot allow corruption in the White House.

My experience is that the economy has become a lot worse since Biden took office.

Trump lost more jobs from the start to the finish of his president than any other President. You'll probably blame COVID. Then you'll turn around and say Biden is responsible for inflation despite the fact that our inflation is lower than the global average. Am I unfair in any of those assessments?

We must be using different definitions of "endorse." Bill Barr called Trump "unfit for office." He said he was voting for Trump in the following statement: >“**I opposed Trump for the nomination and I spoke out**, you know, from the time I left the administration to just about now, **hoping that someone else would be the Republican nominee**,” Barr said. “What I’m saying is that **between the two of those candidates**, Biden and Trump, I plan to vote Republican. >“**I don’t think either of them are good candidates, and I think I have to vote for the person I think will do the least damage**,” he said.

And the other 15? Did they "endorse"? Or were you just seizing on that singlular one? What word **would** you use for Barr then? Btw, I looked around, and far left Vanity Fair also took your side to emphasize the acidity of Barr's endorsement, and yet [still used the word "endorsement."](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/donald-trump-accepts-bill-barrs-endorsement-by-implying-hes-a-tub-of-lard) Leftwing The Hill also likes your narrative line and yet [still used the word "endorsement."](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4620415-trump-mocks-bill-barr-after-endorsement/) This Florida News article [used the word "endorses" and "endorsing."](https://tampabaysmix.iheart.com/featured/florida-news/content/2024-04-18-bill-barr-endorses-trump-another-biden-term-would-be-national-suicide/) MSNBC, who often takes your side of things on President Trump, called Barr's endorsement ["an endorsement."](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/endorsement-hand-trump-takes-new-steps-humiliate-bill-barr-rcna149318) Hell even Mother Jones is here [wording it as an "endorsement"](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/04/bill-barr-donald-trump-vote-cnn-kaitlin-collins/). And on and on, The New Republic, Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Yahoo, Fox, Salon, New York Magazine, and so many I just stopped, they kept using "endorsed" or a grammatical derivative. I can throw you one bone. The ever catty and bitchy Washington Post used "effectively endorsed" which may fit your bill for how you'd prefer to frame Barr's endorsement of President Trump. Are you sure you didn't just knee-jerk on this one to nit-pick that word?

I was just commenting on the one about which I had prior knowledge.

Barr damns Trump with faint praise. Here’s the thing though: I suspect most independent voters, after viewing the debate, can be convinced that Barr’s opinion is valid.

Do you believe Barr endorsed Trump? Will you be voting Biden or Trump in November?

I’m voting for neither. But I’ll vote for every downstream moderate Republican who is not affiliated with Trump.

Do you believe Barr endorsed Trump?

> “**I opposed Trump for the nomination** and I spoke out, you know, from the time I left the administration to just about now, hoping that someone else would be the Republican nominee,” Barr said. “What I’m saying is that between the two of those candidates, Biden and Trump, **I plan to vote Republican**.” No. That is not an endorsement of Trump.

Why do you think so many news organizations (see my earlier links & list) and people use the word (or it's grammatical variations, if you are one of those legalistic types that will try to pounce on that as an angle) to describe what Barr said? What's your special add-on to the meaning of the word that you think they're not including? I'm trying to figure out if you are inventing a higher bar for the word just for Trump or not. It's been THE go-to method for nearly 10 years now to suddenly demand different standards, raising or lowering, to make sure something does not even hint of going in Trump's favor. Past and future bar standards be damned.

> Why do you think so many news organizations (see my earlier links & list) and people use the word (or it's grammatical variations, if you are one of those legalistic types that will try to pounce on that as an angle) to describe what Barr said? Why should I substitute the opinion of news organizations for my own well reasoned analysis? > What's your special add-on to the meaning of the word that you think they're not including? There is no special add-on meaning. Endorse: 1. declare one's public approval or support. Barr is not declaring support for Trump. In fact, he does the opposite and condemns Trump by saying, “I oppose his nomination”. Barr has declaring that he will vote for the Republican candidate. “I’ll hold my nose and vote for Trump because (R),” is not endorsement of Trump. It’s a sign of resignation, or in other words its acceptance of something undesirable but inevitable > I'm trying to figure out if you are inventing a higher bar for the word just for Trump or not. It's been THE go-to method for nearly 10 years now to suddenly demand different standards, raising or lowering, to make sure something does not even hint of going in Trump's favor. Past and future bar standards be damned. No. I’m taking Barr at his word.

I like Bill Barr. Problem with him is that he thinks he's dealing with 80s and 90s era democrats. This democratic party is psychotic and will do anything for power. Barr thinks he can solve the issue by norms. But for democrats the norm is their power. Barr can't fix institutions because democrats have already killed them  , they will wear their dead institutions as a carcass and demand we bow down.

Yeah using bill barr as an example of someone that "endorses" trump is... laughable. I don't remember the primary but didn't Nikki Haley basically say DT was unfit as well?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/shows/meetthepress/blog/rcna70456 I feel like Haley's spine is at risk in a stiff breeze.

Yea, Nikki Haley isn't like by most Republicans, so that's not a great example to lean on. But then again, Kamala Harris stood on the Democrat debate stage and called Joe Biden a racist who voted for racial segregation and that it hurt her personally, then swooned when she was nominated to be the VP.

From the article Wikipedia uses to source the endorsement: >On Wednesday, Barr maintained that voting for Trump would still be “Russian roulette” but claimed that a “**continuation of the Biden administration is national suicide**, in my opinion.”

Because he’s not fit to be president.

Out of interest, who do you vote for given the combination of that opinion and your flair?

[удалено]

So being against Trump and Christian nationalism makes you a leftist?

Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.

Because most of the party's wallpaper has always disliked him. Trump thought he could win them over by hiring them. It didn't work

So nothing his own staff says about him is worth considering? Do you think they're all lying?

No. Trump wasn't well-versed in swampology and hired establishment hacks because they had (R) next to their name. Thankfully, it appears as though he's learned from that mistake.

> Trump wasn't well-versed in swampology and hired establishment hacks because they had (R) next to their name. Should he not be criticized based on the people he personally hires and endorses?  >Thankfully, it appears as though he's learned from that mistake. Based on? 

But you trust the members of his staff that he pardoned for felonies more?

So the genius got conned? But it won’t happen again because he’s learned his lesson?

Wow, sounds like Trump makes bad decisions. Should we vote for someone who consistently makes so many bad decisions? Do his past decisions show a pattern of poor judgment?

Yeah let's all vote for establishment politicians to show Trump how mad we are at him for hiring establishment politicians! Very sound logic there

What insights do you have that indicates that Trump will make better decisions?

In terms of hiring, I don't have any. The debate gave me the impression he would be picking Senator Scott as VP so if anything, it's as bad as ever in this respect

Popularity

Probably because Trump is not the establishment candidate they want. Even so, it's not as bad as the lack of support Biden is getting. His own party is now reportedly calling for him to step down. So I guess each party has its own problems to deal with.