How Likely is It that Trump will Try to Proclaim Martial Law?

I don’t know if that’s “Trump supporter logic”, but it’s not something I, or anyone else in this thread, has argued. Of course you don’t need proof beyond a reasonable to begin an investigation. But you should have something.

I think you’re right that there is actually pretty good evidence of an alliance between Donald Trump and the National Enquirer. That fact is pretty thin gruel by itself, though. The fact that the NE might have assisted Trump with assembling and using blackmail material isn’t actually that they did, much less that Ted Cruz or any other Republican official was successfully blackmailed into spiking their own careers and giving up their own political power and autonomy.

One failed attempt doesn’t actually provide much evidence that they successfully pulled of this scheme, with much bigger stakes.

It’s certainly possible that at least some Republicans were intimidated enough by the possibility of being dragged through the tabloid mud that they didn’t think it was worth the cost of opposing Trump. That seems to be a weaker argument than the one I think you’re making, though.

That’s…that’s not evidence. At all. The fact that you “detected” Jared Kushner’s fingerprints isn’t actually evidence. The Bezos wrangle with the National Enquirer is also still a far cry from the idea that a sitting U.S. Senator and major Republican power player was somehow blackmailed into publicly reversing himself on Trump and, again, sacrificing his own personal political power and autonomy. Just what is this blackmail material supposed to be, anyway?

You’re not actually. I mean, yeah, you can, I can’t actually stop you, but…seriously? His father was a convicted extortionist? Generational contamination? That’s not only not actually evidence, it’s downright reprehensible.

That’s a folk adage, not evidence. It’s also reprehensible. Children aren’t their parents, and they don’t inherit guilt from them.

That doesn’t really follow. The fact that Jared Kushner stands by his father isn’t actually evidence that he’s an extortionist. It’s evidence that family loyalty blinds him to objective evidence.

I don’t think you actually have.

Again, it’s one thing to say that Trump’s allies in the tabloid press had a habit of harassing his enemies, and that might have been a factor in some Republicans’ reluctance to oppose him. If that’s actually all you’re saying, I’m right there with you.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. I think you’re arguing that Jared Kushner coordinated a blackmail campaign that intimidated Ted Cruz among others to give up their opposition to Donald Trump and start openly supporting him and spend their political capital on his behalf. If that’s what you’re arguing, I think you’re wrong.

I don’t think there’s any evidence of that happening. And yes, I know, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is an unfair standard for a message board discussion. But I don’t think there’s any evidence. And I actually do think, even on a message board, you should have evidence before you advance speculations like that. Obviously, you don’t technically need it. You can post whatever wild speculations you’d like (within the rules of the board). But I personally think these kinds of speculations are part of the toxic political environment that we’re in.

And, again, it’s just not necessary to explain what happened. A couple of Republicans fought a bitter primary battle, and after one became the nominee, the other one fell in line. That’s literally every contested Republican Presidential primary campaign in the modern primary era. This one was weirder than previous ones because Trump was a wrecking ball who smashed norms. Cruz was just playing by the old Republican handbook.

Maybe because he’s a party loyalist. Maybe because his a partisan tribalist. Maybe because he genuinely thinks Democrats are a threat to the country, and Trump was the lesser of two evils. Maybe because he has an authoritarian personality, and is naturally deferential to a blustering bully. Maybe because he calculated that it was in his own best interests to stay relevant in the party. Maybe because he was afraid of being primaried by a Trumpist down the line. Probably a combination of all of those. And sure, quite possibly the added factor of being the target of media sleaze campaigns weighed into his thinking. But that’s all open motivations. No secret blackmail schemes required.

You can speculate on whatever you want, with or without evidence. By the same token, I can object to those speculations and tell you that I think you’re wrong. I don’t think there’s anything silly about that.

Actually, I think you misunderstood what I am saying. I am saying that Trump has no ethics or sense of fair play when it comes to smearing his opponents. The Ted Cruz “Five Mistresses” story was a demonstration of both the depth of his sources and his willingness to expose the private lives of lawmakers in a way that had previously been sort of off-limits. I’m saying that the story sent a message to anyone and everyone that wanted to oppose or speak negatively of Trump and that it informed their behavior with regards to Trump. It didn’t necessarily make them all immediately fall in line and swear immediate fealty to Trump, but it caused them to not want to be the loudest critic in the room.
And I think it plays a large factor as to why a certain group of Republicans went into full retreat mode (the Bush-Ryan faction) rather than speaking up for traditional conservatism.
That’s why I think the Enquirer / Cruz stories were important in shaping the narrative and I think the Enquirer systematically went after his opponents. And I don’t think it’s a far cry to think that blackmail happened more than once, since we know it happened once.

Of course, I think Donald Trump is a criminal who only managed to avoid jail by using his power and influence to get what should’ve been felony level fraud charges reduced to high dollar civil settlements. I think the Trump Administration is a criminal enterprise and I think anyone that supports Donald Trump is some combination of stupid, uninformed and amoral.

If that sounds harsh, I do recognize that, when faced with the binary choice of a general election, someone that does not support Donald Trump might chose to vote for him. And while the person making that choice would have priorities that are vastly different than mine, they are not necessarily stupid, uninformed or amoral. My harsh comment is aimed at people that actually support him.

My opinion is a largely based on 30+ years of working with a wealthy clientele that includes prominent real estate magnates. While some large real estate companies are legitimate, others only exist and thrive because the regulatory atmosphere is much less rigid than it is in the financial industry.

As a result, there are some that are very shady barely legitimate businesses and The Trump Organization is high up on that list. He’s a gangster, Kushner is a gangster, the kids are gangsters and the fact that 60 million people voted to make him President in 2016 doesn’t mean he’s not a gangster.

Thank you for the clarification. We may not be as far apart as I thought.

I’d agree that the National Enquirer did at times seem to almost act as a propaganda arm of The Trump Organization. I think it’s self-evident that Fox News (at least the opinion programming part of it) acted pretty openly as a propaganda arm of Trump’s administration for most of the last four years, and various right wing “news” sources continue to do so. I’d agree that the prospect of public attacks from Trump’s media allies is part of the calculus that have cowed many Republicans that might otherwise have opposed Trump.

I don’t think a fear of secret blackmail files entered into it, though. And I think the fear of media attacks was only a relatively small and secondary component of their calculus. I don’t think most of them are afraid of secrets in their private lives being revealed. I think most of them are afraid of losing their relevance within the party, of losing the support of their constituents, and of losing their offices due to being primaried by a Trumpist.

Again, look at the timeline. I may be misremembering, but it seemed to me that none of his primary opponents dropped out unexpectedly early - they went as far and as long as their vote shares and donations would carry them. Trump’s opponents within the party became vocal supporters pretty much exactly in proportion to his vote totals. As he became the front-runner, then the presumptive nominee, then the nominee, then the President, his support grew. That’s exactly what we would expect to see from normal political bandwagon effects.

Also take a look at safe seats vs. “purple” seats. Trump’s support among Republican officials also seems pretty directly proportional to the threat they face of being primaried vs. the threat they face from losing in a general election. Again, normal political calculus. It’s not an absolute correlation, of course, but I don’t personally don’t see any evidence of a pattern of support that differs from what I’d expect to see from bog standard venal political calculations.

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia(born%20October,Conner%2C%20in%20Modesto%2C%20California.

Cameron Todd Willingham - Wikipedia(January%209,%2C%20on%20December%2023%2C%201991.&text=This%20coverage%20suggested%20that%20the%20arson%20evidence%20was%20misinterpreted.

Exercising an authority granted by Congress, when urged to do so by numerous other elected officials in Congress and the state houses, some from the opposite party, when the nation is facing a serious public health emergency, doesn’t strike me as dictatorial.

Well, I’d assume you agree Barack Obama wasn’t being blackmailed by Malaysia and Ronald Reagan was not on the payroll of the Spanish. You must have some evidence - even if it’s circumstantial - to accuse some people of being blackmailed. You’re not speculating randomly, right?

All 10 living former defense secretaries say he needs to give it up

When you lose Dick Cheney !

From the “coup” thread in this forum, I posted the following money quotes from the article:

“Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived".

(Any effort by the military to settle an election dispute) “would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory.”
“Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.”