OK. Thanks. THAT was funny.
Not a felon-a martyr.
Yup. That’s why I enjoyed a good belly laugh when l read posts upthread that suggest undecideds are fretting over topics like this:
We’re talking people who worry more about figuring out how to tie their shoes. It’s a miracle they remember to breathe in and out, all day every day.
There was some BS article in this morning’s paper, and they quoted some 21 yr old from McAllen Texas. Said something like, “I’d heard a lot of things about him, but never knew he was a liar!” 
“But I’ll still vote for him.”
Seems the Soviet of Washington has a law on the books that could cause the Orange Peril some problems:
Any of the following causes may be asserted by a registered voter to challenge the right to assume office of a candidate declared elected to that office, to challenge the right of a candidate to appear on the general election ballot after a primary, or to challenge certification of the result of an election on any measure:
(1) For misconduct on the part of any election officer involved therein;
(2) Because the person whose right is being contested was not, at the time the person was declared elected, eligible to that office;
(3) Because the person whose right is being contested was, previous to the election, convicted of a felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction not having been reversed nor the person’s civil rights restored after the conviction;
(4) Because the person whose right is being contested gave a bribe or reward to a voter or to an election officer for the purpose of procuring the election, or offered to do so;
(5) On account of illegal votes.
(Bolding obviously added.)
I’m sure there are multiple challenges just waiting in the wings for him to be certified as the candidate. Which would undoubtedly be challenged themselves [insert Monty Python sequence here], and the issue would almost certainly end up before SCOTUS (which will be in recess for most of the time in question).
I have no great expectation that it will amount to anything in the end, and it’s really a nothingberder anyway: if Trump were to win the SoW we might as well wave goodbye to the Great Experiment. Still, it’s an intriguing prospect.
It’s because they only get their news from Faux News. They not only don’t talk bad about Trump, they tell you not to believe any other news.
A Trump thing came up at work a while back and co-worker yelled at me, “NAME ONE BAD THING THAT TRUMP HAS DONE!!” How do you respond to something like that? They never hear the truth.
Without Fox, Trump would never have been president.
Never mind.
If Fox was around in 1974, Nixon would not have resigned.
Personally, I can’t imagine how anyone who hadn’t voted for him at least once already would vote for him now. Those who have already voted for him twice will surely vote for him a third time. I’m a bit encouraged by the early polling after the conviction but this far out, polling is pretty suspect. Wait until the debates when Biden mops the floor with him.
I don’t think Trump will debate. He’ll come up with some lame excuse not to. I think that even addled as he is, he knows that he’d screw up massively.
It’s similar to how he did not testify in the trial. He knew that he’d screw up. And then made up excuses/lies afterwards about why he didn’t.
I’m not sure. Testifying in that trial would’ve meant he could’ve been charged with perjury; lying in a debate would be nothing new for him.
Trump doesn’t know how to debate.
When he is unable to talk over his opponent, he’s going to have to try to string a coherent sentence together and make a point in 2 minutes. That’s going to be impossible for him.
He is still good at childish insults and name calling though.
Oh, and whining about how everyone is sooooo mean to him.
Sad little man.
The “perjury trap” is just an excuse. It’s so rare for a defendant to be charged with perjury after a criminal trial that we can say it never happens. (Allen Weisselberg was convicted for his lies as a witness in a civil trial.)
Trump didn’t testify because he didn’t want to be subject to cross examination. Period.
There’s a notable kinda-open white supremicist here in town with whom I had a handful of FB friends. I think most dropped him once it became apparent, and I disassociated myself from other mutuals who sang his praises. One friend used to try to engage him in debate online, and I remember this guy smugly replying, in response to the term “racist,” “I prefer traditionalist.” I gather a lot of the MAGA bigots simply view themselves as falling under this branch of the conservative tree. “Things were better and more ordered when…”
QFT. He rarely allows himself to be put in a situation where he may face tough questions or challenged, and never allows himself to be put in front of someone who may ask him a hostile question. His rallies are stacked with MAGAts, does not do “town hall” style events, and he rarely encounters views and voices contrary to his own. Being subjected to cross examination by a skilled attorney would wreck him - such a man-baby.
Biden could invite the America – hating fuckstick’s parole officer to appear. 
Biden should open with “Oh, I thought he’d be in an orange jumpsuit.”
If Trump gets hold of our military again, he will use it to support Putin. I shudder to think what Europe will look like when they are through. I sincerely hope you are preparing for that eventuality, because otherwise, there may not BE any more “Free World.”
I think the polls will change significantly once there is a sentence. And the harsher the sentence the worse it will be for Trump because many more people will finally realize how serious his crime was.
And what is critical here is not the loud and noxious MAGAs, but the small number of people in the “many more people” you mention that either switch their vote to Biden because of this, or are R-voters that decide not to vote at all, in several key states. That’s where the rubber will meet the road - if any of this moves the needle with Independents and those rare undecideds.