https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-erase-trump-campaign-ads-midterms-12592634
"The president is now being referenced in only 1 percent of Republican ads in October so far, compared to 47 percent back in May. In contrast, ."
Mentioning and associating themselves with Trump has been actually harming republican candidates this election cycle - with the writing on the wall, and a massive sweep in the senate and house in the works - Republicans prepare to distance themselves from Trump.
I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of pragmatic Republicans join Democrat efforts to impeach him this upcoming year - it's about the only way that they can really distance themselves from him and save their political future
The writings on the wall
#blue tsunami
#prison4trump
It's interesting that when I dare to respond in such political threads, which seem to pop up now with some regularity, I get called a "propogandist" by some, even though I am certainly not being employed to write.
Fascinating.
I hope all these enthusiasts who don't like Trump will actually read and consider the platforms of any party or political organization that opposes Trump. And realize what could happen.
And perhaps consider what the Left has brought to some other countries. Recently. Is it happiness? Or is it chaos and trouble.
Just observe. And think. Without immediately trying to win an argument and be "right." Of course, I don't mean "correct."
Nah, I'm not going to inspire any of the politically certain to change their minds. I just hope independents stop and think, before nodding along -- with me or with anybody else.
Consider, also, whether Biden's term was delightful for America. Consider the actual numbers. We can go right back to it, or to something more dysfunctional and sad, I guess, if enough people nod along with the more extreme candidates on the Left.
I think this is a CRTICAL midterm. Not just "yet another midterm."
I really hope I'm wrong. There's certainly always that possibility. But I like the Senate, and an independent Supreme Court, and a traditionally elected president, and the existing America system that has done a pretty good job of keeping up steady progress and representative, democratic government through times good and bad, without letting a few large cities rule all.
@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/GC6seXgC)
> It's interesting that when I dare to respond in such political threads, I get called a "propogandist" by some, even though I am certainly not being employed to write.
if you like the supreme court being independent then perhaps you would agree that the republican supreme court justice created rule of allowing limitless bribes is perhaps a bad one?
https://fixthecourt.com/2024/06/a-staggering-tally-supreme-court-justices-accepted-hundreds-of-gifts-worth-millions-of-dollars/
(by far most of these bribes go to repub justice clarence thomas)
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow
oh by the way all of the republican (and only republican) justices voted to allow bribery in ruling §666 (ironic right), and they have been by far, by multiple orders of magnitude the largest recipients
but we all know what bs they pulled on obama blocking him from appointing a supreme court justice when the election was approaching - and then pulling the exact same thing as soon as trump was about to leave office APPOINTING BARRETT LITERALLY A WEEK BEFORE ELECTIONS
lmao it's so hypocritical it would be hilarious if they hadn't been using all of their power to legitimize corruption and bribery
You mean Merrick Garland? Yes, how well do you think he did in his most recent appointed office?
In any event, the notion that anyone on the Court has allowed "bribery" is apparently your opinion of the situation. Your opinion is not law, is it? Can your opinions be mistaken?
Do you know much about Clarence Thomas and his hard and very inspiring life? I find it rather amazing that anybody might think he'd accept a bribe, if that's what's being implied.
Indeed, few in government strike me as less likely to behave without principle.
@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/L0vTdsQS)
> You mean Merrick Garland? Yes, how do you think he did in his most recent appointed office?
>
> And the notion that anyone on the Court has allowed bribery is apparently your interpretation. Your opinion is not law, is it? Can your opinions be mistaken?
>
> Do you know much about Clarence Thomas and his hard life? I find it rather amazing that anybody might think he'd accept a bribe. Indeed, fe...
this isn't a matter of opinion, I've provided multiple links on the matter.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a61429425/snyder-supreme-court-ruling/
"The Supreme Court Majority Has Legalized Bribery So Long As You Do It Right"
https://www.vox.com/scotus/357170/supreme-court-snyder-united-states-corruption
"The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat"
https://abovethelaw.com/2024/06/supreme-court-bribery-gratuities-snyder/
"If You’ve Appreciated The Service You’ve Received, Consider Tipping Your Supreme Court Justices! "
The case bluntly states, that while you can't bribe someone 'to do something' you can infinitely bribe them as a 'gratuity' for past acts - so as long as the briber says it was for something they already did they can give millions in gifts to supreme court justices.
Does this sound right to you?
Also I posted a direct link, it's not about "Oh his life is tough I bet he'd never accept a bribe" when there's direct evidence to the contrary, and him directly voting to allow such bribes.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-08-10/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-corruption-gifts-propublica-ethics-congress
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ corruption is intolerable. Here’s what we can do about it"
And I'll post it again cause I'm guessing you didn't read it
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow
"“For over 20 years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been treated to luxury vacations by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow.
He goes on cruises in far-flung locales on Crow’s yacht, flies on his private jet and keeps company with Crow’s powerful friends at the billionaire’s private resort.
The extent of Crow’s largesse has never been revealed. Until now."
https://fortune.com/2024/12/21/gifts-clarence-thomas-supreme-court-ethics-report-senate-democrats/
"Gifts accepted by Clarence Thomas ‘have no comparison in modern American history,’ Senate Democrats say"
Dudes literally one of, if not the most infamous government officials for taking bribes - you've been given numerous sources - and your response is his life was tough? This is the supreme court we're talking about, and the integrity of the nation - not a beauty contest or a reality show (albeit somebody in government certainly treats it like one)
Citing the opinions of opinion pieces that see things the way you do is not proof of anything, other than that you agree with some others.
Which actual law or ruling actually says that "bribery" of justices or officials is permitted.
Not what YOU think of as bribery -- since you could be mistaken about that, couldn't you? But "bribery" as actually defined by law (not merely by somebody's opinion) -- what statute or ruling expressly proclaims that THAT is allowed?
After all, what YOU think is bribery, or have been convinced to think of as bribery by reading opinion pieces, is not necessarily bribery as defined and interpreted by those in a position to formally and properly decide, I fear.
Or are you or your sources simply not capable of making a mistake about that.
Remember, some sources also were sure we were seeing the "best Biden ever," too. Did they turn out to be correct? I could go on. But the point is -- you're welcome to your opinion. I'm more convinced by black letter law and the ruling of judges and justices.
Over the last ten years, I've gotten more skeptical about political opinions. I still haven't seen the "pee tapes." And it looks like the Hunter Laptop was NOT a mere right-wing hoax after all. And I really DON'T think America's southern border was continually "secure" for a rather lengthy period of time.
And I know, from watching ENTIRE speeches, that some of Trump's own statements have been entirely misinterpreted by some -- with glowing confidence!
Oh, I guess I DID "go on," after all! Sorry!
@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/NFoiUMHl)
> Citing the opinions of opinion pieces that see things the way you do is not proof of anything, other than that you agree with some others.
>
> Which actual law or ruling actually says that "bribery" of justices or officials is permitted.
>
> Not what YOU think of as bribery -- since you could be mistaken about that, couldn't you? But "bribery" as actually defined by law (not merely by somebody's opin...
https://www.beneschlaw.com/insight/tip-away-scotus-rules-that-18-u-s-c-%C2%A7-666-does-not-criminalize-gratuities/
it's really simple and clear cut you can google it I shouldn't be expected to do your homework especially when it seems you're not reading any of the provided sources or articles
Trump is a liability instead of an asset to the Republican Party.
@JonSnow1998 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/xogOeHC8)
> "The president is now being referenced in only 1 percent of Republican ads in October so far, compared to 47 percent back in May. In contrast, ."
>
The only ads I have seen that reference Trump are ones by democrats mentioning how much their opponent is allied with Trump. Not exactly long coattails.