War (crimes) and Peace (prizes) - Trump Thread #151

[Spandauer]

Don Snoreleone trying to stay awake long enough to bring all his racist dreams to fruition. So when can we bring about his personal "civilisational erasure”?

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5436537-cobwebs-in-congress-bigly-ballrooms-tariff-tantrums-dementia-denials-trump-thread-150

Today’s Pod Save America is an interview with Rahm Emanuel. I’ve got a lot of time for him (aside from the obvious reason, eh @JoshLymanSwagger) and he talks a lot of sense.

As they put it, he’s not NOT running, but right now I’m not sure the Democrats have many better candidates for the nomination.

If the Dems nominate Rahm I'll deregister. The party seriously need to clean house on these old school operatives and find some fresh voices. He won't win a primary, but if he did, I guarantee, the number of people under 40 who would turn out for him is absolutely miniscule.

That’s a fair point, and obviously I am not a US citizen so my opinion counts for nought.

Whether he runs or not, he does make some good points about areas the Dems could and should be focusing on now - cost of living, education, etc and the interview is worth listening to on that basis alone.

I never expected the DOJ to release all the files without fucking about, so the latest moves does not surprise me. They are protecting Trump, but more importantly, protecting GOP from having to take a stand on supporting a known pedophile. All those abused girls count for nothing.

{mention:wallaw}@wallaw, who should run for the Democrats nomination?

I personally think the Dems should go absolutely balls to the wall leftist with their nominee, like AOC. Time to say goodbye to the ageing centrists and try something new.

That would be a huge mistake in my opinion. Your New York/California voter would go along with it, but it would alienate huge swathes of the country and the way to win back people from MAGA is to appeal to the centre.

Kamala was perceived as “too left” by chunks of voters, in part because the Dems allowed the Republicans to frame and drive the narrative. A truly left candidate doesn’t have a hope at winning a Presidential election.

At least 15 image files no longer available on government's website - CBS
(published at 22:34 20 December)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyk526vlnlt?post=asset%3A0722f556-7933-4b55-a542-88cbba9471c6#post

(edited twice cos I'm a twit who can't put together a post)

@Deafnotdumb

I'm not @walllaw but I'd love to see Gavin Newsom run. He's proven he can 'take on' Scrotus in verbal battles and has had the balls to stand up to him (ie Prop 50). I know Scrotus won't be running, but I have a feeling he'll still be a big presence in the race, assuming that the actual candidate wants the cachet of the former POTUS' endorsement. They usually do, but then again no one wanted Dubya in their corner in 2008.

The problem is that Dem membership veers from extreme left to 'almost' right in their views. It's going to be hard to find the middle ground to get the maximum number of votes needed to carry the race in 2028. Those who tended to 'lean right' or wanted specific protections for 'natal' women didn't vote for Kamala because of her strong stances on Trans-rights. Those who 'leaned left' feel she didn't come on strong enough. And that's just one hot button issue. The 2028 candidate is going to have to straddle invisible lines not only on gender issues, but on abortion rights, immigration, and issues surrounding using federal funds for assistance to the poor and needy.

The GOP can 'just say no/just say yes' to everything and have their different factions vote for them anyway because they tend to 'vote the party line' or vote against the Dem candidate, witness the number that admitted to holding their noses when voting for Trump simply because he was the GOP nominee. The Dems tend to vote for candidates who support their personal beliefs and stay home if they don't. That's how Kamala lost the election, people stayed home because they couldn't support her views instead of voting against Trump.

At this point it doesn't seem there is much serious talk about a Dem candidate for 2028 although names get thrown out there, mostly by pundits. I think we'll see things get serious after the mid-terms next year. The platforms of the Dem winners of those races will point towards what the majority of Dems support and do not support. I think that's when the party will start throwing names against the wall and see who sticks.

AcrossthePond55
I know Scrotus won't be running, but I have a feeling he'll still be a big presence in the race, assuming that the actual candidate wants the cachet of the former POTUS' endorsement. They usually do, but then again no one wanted Dubya in their corner in 2008.

If he is still alive, how easy will it be for anyone to AVOID him endorsing them while still not giving terminal offence to anyone who has ever supported him?

Todd Blanche being called out

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3maixst5p5s2m

WELKER: Why was this photo of a desk with a drawer open containing photos of Trump taken down?

BLANCHE: You can see in that photo there are photos of women. We learned there were concerns about them.

W: Are you saying those women are victims of Epstein?

B: No, that's not what I'm saying.

https://www.kut.org/politics/2025-12-15/texas-trans-transgender-drivers-license-id-list-privacy

Good question!!!!

TBH it's going to be damned hard! I'm sure the Party PTB will try to convince him to take a back seat.

But there have already been a few races where I assume the party's preferred candidate, with the party's knowledge, didn't 'bend the knee', kowtow, and beg ask for his endorsement. As a result, he was noticeably quiet. They may outwardly support him because of the MAGA crowd, but I think in privacy they abhor him. Hell, I think most of his most ardent sycophants abhor him, they just want the dubious benefits that association with him gives them.

I'm sure Dubya was <ahem> 'spoken to' back in 2008 about his endorsements being 'unneeded'. He took the 'graceful' route and just said he was 'retiring from politics to paint'. Unfortunately, I can't see Scrotus doing the same. He'll thrive on the candidates groveling before him and the adulation of the crowd as he appears at rallies to 'bestow his blessing' and endorse the one who does the 'very best, most beautiful' groveling.

Sorry for not going back to name individual posters, but to answer questions - I think Rahm is right on some things, but equally, I think it's time for the old guard establishment to admit that they have played a huge role in fucking the party into eternity, put their time and money and behind the scenes energy into bringing along some fresh, new candidates. Just an example of how they're doing it again, look at Maine, which is blue with purple overtones (and a few deep red areas) and which could be a critical state for the senate. Spineless Susan is like a zillion years old, has some real support as she's done a decent job at bringing it home for her state, but should be infinitely beatable. Has the party spent time and energy nurturing bright young things who could beat her? Fuck no, they haven't. So now the alternative is Janet Mills, who has been a pretty good governor, but isn't universally popular, and who is 77 FUCKING YEARS OLD, and an unknown loose cannon with some populist rhetoric. And who's the party funding? Mills, of course. Sigh.

I also think the Kamala was seen as too left/too supportive of trans rights is a pretty surface analysis, and the real reasons were myriad, but had less to do with people not coming out for her than it did with Trump bringing out non-voters, many of whom seem to be deserting the Republicans in droves. If there was a real fault with her, I think it was that she seemed to 'programmed', people didn't know what she stood for, which to some extent made space for the Republicans to drive the narrative. I also don't think it's worth time or energy thinking about how to bring MAGA voters into the democratic fold. Swing or one-time Trump voters, yes, but anyone still in the Trump camp at this point can't be swayed by policy or reason. Look at what's happening to Labour as they bend over backwards to appease Reform voters.

@OrangeCrushes I don't disagree with you, but I think the question is how to find a way to target that kind of positioning to appeal to the more conservative states. Ultimately I'd like to see a bunch of people throw their hats in the ring and for the DNC to keep its beak out of it (it won't) - Shapiro, AOC, Newsom, Kelly, Wes Moore, Chris Murphy, Pete. Have at it and let's have a real slug it out primary, which was a big part of what was missing in 2024.

The next Dem candidate needs to be a quick thinking excellent speaker.
Neither of which Kamala was.
AOC does not do well when challenged live.

Newsom / Whitmer / Buttgieg could hold the centre and thus stack up the votes

but yes, the party grandees need to admit that they are the problem

@walllaw I actually think that a fair number of voters would support an authentic seeming candidate with leftist views. I think people are fed up of candidates that are obviously backed by corporate interests. Basically a populist type on the left, but hopefully not a fascist charlatan.

That said, it's difficult to overestimate the influence of Russian bots, Fox News, and Truth Social - but they would demonise ANY democratic candidate, so imo there's little left to lose.

That is, assuming anything like a semblance of fair elections is even possible.

And her opponent Donald Trump was a quick thinking excellent speaker?

@placemats
He is a good rabble rouser.
She was not.
Also she was hamstrung by having to say she would change nothing Biden had done.

The next Dem candidate needs to be able to talk to moderates as well as true believers.

I agree with that and I think in some ways being seen as not establishment is as important as anything else.

@Talkinpeace

Newsom / Whitmer / Buttgieg

See, I disagree with that completely.

Apparently the Dems biggest problem is that the only demographic they're reliably turning out is white, college-educated voters. They need someone who can appeal outside that group. I like all of them, but...

Newsom is funny, he has a great PR operative, but he's extremely divisive. Even in CA a lot of people loathe him. Whitmer is increasingly sounding like a lightweight and humiliated herself in that embarrassing photo op. Pete is extremely smart and well-spoken, white colleges educated moms (like me) love him, but there's no way he speaks to any other groups. Apart from being gay, he's the most establishment candidate of the three.

@Talkinpeace I actually think it's a lot of spin that Harris didn't talk to moderates. I'm trying to think of a position of hers that wasn't basically pretty centrist. If anything, I think the Harris-Cheney tour worked against her. I know lots of people 30 and under who either didn't vote or went third party because of her stance on Israel, for example.

@walllaw
Out of interest, who would be your three front runners for Democratic primaries.

And yes I agree that Newsom is divisive and your points about the other two are solid.

I honestly don't know, but in ordinary political times it would be quite early for someone from the out of power party to be a clear choice.

I'm a big Chris Murphy fan. I like Buttigieg and Shapiro, but I worry that all three are too establishment. I like that AOC understands the current media landscape. I like that Kelly is not afraid to be tough and stand his ground. Wes Moore has charisma but I don't know how deep it runs. Andy Beshear is pretty good, and seems to have managed to navigate being a Democrat and winning a very red state, but he's also a pretty conventional/establishment middle-aged white guy and I'm not sure this is their moment. Pritzker's been pretty good too, but afflicted by the same as most of the above.

I'm really looking forward to primaries and seeing who shines and who tanks.

The state of the media is a huge problem and is only going to get worse.

Adding that Obama seemed to come out of nowhere. He'd barely got his fee wet in the senate when he ran the first time, so there's always hope for a surprise candidate.

I doubt there is a human alive in the USA who can't find something about which if they wanted they could oppose any candidate for the presidency. It's that "if they wanted" that is the killer. I am fairly sure a lot of people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman, and arrived at spurious reasons for not voting for her ("but her emails!" and "she had a cold, she's not fit to run the country"); Mayor Pete has being gay for the reason and people not being able to spell/pronounce his name for the excuse; and so on. If being divisive is unacceptable, no candidate would be able to express any view about anything at all.

Devout Christians voted for Trump in spite of his being openly an adulterer and having been repeatedly divorced; they ignored his moral turpitude because they wanted. And after living through his first term, they had no possible real reason not to know who they were going to get if he won the election.

That's horrific. Also that's one seriously unfortunate acronym choice if one is a Dutch speaker.

Newsom/AOC 2028
Kelly/Buttigieg 2028

I'm an unapologetic Newsom 'fan'. He's done a lot for us here and has been able to keep the worst of Scrotus' political agenda EOs from affecting us too much. Obvs the Guard being 'federalized' to join ICE wasn't something he was able to stop but he's been fighting the good fight and the Guard was returned to state control earlier this month.

I think Gavin is more 'Clinton' than 'Obama' in his personality, but I'll vote for him as my next POTUS. But what I wouldn't give to have Obama back.

I think at this point most of the world would settle for "someone sane".

Vance is speaking at Turn point's NaziAmericafest

"In the United States of America you don't have to apologize for being white anymore"