Ya’ll just had to do it. Now unless Trump implodes before the primary, Trump is the next President.
When I saw the raucous crowd at Trump’s rally go silent when Trump started knocking De Santis, I had hopes he was burning out before the primaries, but now he’s got a lock on the Whitehouse again.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“Ya’ll just had to do it. Now unless Trump implodes before the primary, Trump is the next President.”
I think your prediction is WAY off the mark. Most Americans believe that no one is above the law. No new people will be joing the rabid dopes who think he belongs anywhere but jail and if there is ANY “death and destruction” it will be held responsible. With that said, being an indicted or convicted criminal might indeed help him get the MAGA-Republican nomination and that would be brilliant news for Democrats.
This is the least serious of his offenses. There will be indictments around Georgia election interference, theft of classified documents, and the insurrection of January 6th. Your implication that somehow these prosecutions are political is – IMHO – a very silly one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can already see the ads.
A mug shot of Trump with the caption
“They’re really after you, I’m just in the way.”
LikeLike
Yeah, that is going to persuade swing voters. Sure it will.
Seriously, Dr. Tabor, at every opportunity you have predicted great things politically for Trump and Trumpism. You have cited Napoleon’s aphorism over and over again. And every time you have been dead wrong. Do you never wonder why? Could it be that you are old and totally out of touch with the people who are now the real Americans who decide these things?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have, on occasion, underestimated the gullibility and venality of the American voter.
But I remain hopeful they will say
‘enough” before things get so bad that we will have to let the whole thing collapse and start over.
LikeLike
“I have, on occasion, underestimated the gullibility and venality . . .”
On occasion? On every occasion where there were predictions to be made you predicted the rout of the Democrats.
But I am with you. I too have underestimated the gullibility and venality of tens of millions of voters. I understand being gulled by his promises in 2016 but to continue to support him after his four years in office, his countless lies, his massive failures, and his obvious crimes takes a very special kind of stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YOu are very slow to recognize reality.
I have repeatedly said I wish something would take Trump out if the primary, That is especially true as he repeatedly violates the 11th Commandment.
So, you are wrong in claiming I support Trump. I don’t like him.
But on policy, he remains the lesser evil compared to any current Democrat hopeful.
Recognizing a lesser evil is not support.
LikeLike
“Recognizing a ‘lesser evil’ is not support.”
It is close enough for all practical purposes. But sure, I accept that you do not like him. There is absolutely nothing about him to like.
With that said, the subject is your predictions which have, on every occasion overstated the coming rout of the Democrats. In 2018, 2020, 2022 you were saying then what you are saying now. You were wrong then, and, you are wrong now. IMHO. America is fed up with Trump and we do not like this latest GOP hate-mongering campaign dressed up as anti-woke either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would agree that Trump is standing in the way of a thorough rout of the Democrats.
With a less polarizing candidate at the top of the ticket, Democrats would get the drubbing they deserve.
LikeLike
“But I remain hopeful they will say
‘enough””
They did. IN November 2020.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I would agree that Trump is standing . . .”
In the spirit of good fellowship, I will agree that Trump becoming the nominee of the GOP would be good news for Democrats.
With that said, I do not believe that there will be a “drubbing” of Democrats at any time in your lifetime or mine. Trump has painted the GOP into a corner. Whoever seeks leadership in the GOP must poison his General Election chances as Youngkin did yesterday.
Demographics also works for Democrats and against Republicans. Bigly.
Finally, there is the question of fundamental rights for women. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. Dobbs pushing this issue four square into the political arena works for Democrats, not Republicans. And we can count on “Christian” extremists now trying to punish women as murderers, criminalizing morning after pills, and forbidding women travelling to other states to help us out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The last Senate election had a lot of vulnerable GOP seats and few Dems at risk, 2024 will be the opposite.
Unless Trump really alienates the voters in the campaign, the Senate will be GOP regardless of who is President.
LikeLike
Your batting average on political prognostication is below the Mendoza line. (Google it for reference.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The last Senate election had a lot of vulnerable GOP seats and few Dems at risk”…
The same could have been said about 2018 and DEMOCRAT held seats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The last Senate election had . . .”
Yes, the deck is stacked against Democrats in 2024. I have seen pundits noting that 2024 will be the last chance the Republicans will EVER have to take back the Senate for a term. Personally, I think they will – with Trump’s help – blow it yet again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW, Melania is more likely to be seen in divorce court than measuring drapes. Even a gold digger has some self-respect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Ya’ll just had to do it.”
I assume the “it” is Trump’s indictment by the Manhatten grand jury. Here’s WSJ’s story on it:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/grand-jury-votes-to-indict-donald-trump-a9512240?st=9wlndc78159nrf5&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
You may be right about the backfire effect. The indictment itself looks to me like a colossal waste of time.
LikeLike
TO you, I’m sure it does. TO the legal authorities in New York, crimes were committed. Doesn’t matter by whom. Over 30 counts related to business fraud? Not a small number. And if there is a conspiracy charge included, that makes it worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since the indictment is not available for public review, we don’t know how 30 counts are involved.
If they really could take Trump out with something real, that would not upset me, but striking at him ineffectively is stupid.
LikeLike
“Since the indictment is not available for public review”…
They could be released as early as today. But the reports across the board has been 30+ counts.
And fraud in business dealings IS real. Not sure what you mean by indicating it is not.
LikeLike
Again, we don’t know what the indictments are.
Cohen was Trump’s nuisance lawyer. He acted pretty much on his own, pretty much like Clinton’s Bimbo Eruption team.
It is pretty clear that he lied to Trump and everyone else. So, I have no idea what really went on but to spin this into a campaign finance conspiracy is going to take a lot of documentation.
Absent that campaign finance conspiracy angle, statute of limitations has long run out. So, unless there is something in there that we have not heard of, I doubt these charges will survive arraignment.
LikeLike
“It is pretty clear that he lied to Trump and everyone else.”
Rank (BAD) speculation. Remember unindicted conspirator Individual #1 from Cohen’s indictment? I wonder who that was?
LikeLike
[Cohen] acted pretty much on his own, pretty much like Clinton’s Bimbo Eruption team.
Cohen committed his crimes in concert with “Individual 1” – an undicted co-conspirator. NOT “pretty much on his own.”
You keep saying you do not support Trump but you keep spreading his bullshit as you are doing with this “fact.” How do you square that circle?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Bulwark article points out that Cohen paid nuisance settlements at his discretion from a “retainer” which was resupplied at $35,000 a month. Such arrangements are not uncommon it appears for wealthy people. Trump did not have to involve himself,
That is the underlying arrangement and supporting what is true, as opposed to your TDS fantasies, is not support.
LikeLike
“The Bulwark article points out that Cohen paid nuisance settlements at his discretion from a “retainer” which was resupplied at $35,000 a month.”
The Bulwark article says no such thing. There is NOTHING in their report about “nuisance settlements” nor Cohen’s discretion at settling them. You just made that up. As is your wont. Also known a LYING.
What it actually says is that this particular payment of $280,000 was funded by bogus retainer fees that had NOTHING to do with the provision of legal services. That arrangement in and of itself is a crime if those fees were treated as legal expenses against taxes payable. And a felony if done to hide another crime.
You can take your constant TDS jabs and shove them up your ass. You are one who is divorced from reality when it comes to Trump. Not me. This is a prime example where you have totally distorted what the evidence actually says in your defense of Trump’s criminal behavior.
LikeLike
The retainer fund was paid $35,000 per month. That was effectively Cohen’s money.
That is in the Bulwark article.
LikeLike
“The retainer fund was paid $35,000 per month. That was effectively Cohen’s money.
That is in the Bulwark article.”
And yet you LIED about what the article said. Why? You that bad of a reader? I doubt that.
The article made it clear that the retainer fees were bogus and their purpose was to reimburse Cohen for his part in the criminal behavior of falsifying business records. Duh!
LikeLiked by 1 person
” . . . striking at him ineffectively is stupid.”
Prosecutor Alvin Bragg is a well-educated (Harvard Law) lawyer with prosecutorial experience at the highest levels. He knows the stakes and would not have indicted a former President without very compelling evidence. And given such evidence it would be unethical to decline to prosecute for political reasons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump has already laid the simple groundwork for a complete dismissal. For fraud charges to exist there has to be a separate crime and there has to be intent proven. All Trump has to do is claim he followed attorney’s advice to protect his family because was personally a victim of extortion, which he has, and the campaign finance “crime” vanishes..poof. Anyway, the statute of limitations has long expired. Yes, this is a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money.
LikeLike
“All Trump has to do is claim he followed attorney’s advice “…
Ever see an attorney turn on a client in a “crime-fraud exception case”?
LikeLike
Tomorrow
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not cheer when it the announcement came in about the indictment. I didn’t weep, either. I am saddened that it had to come to this.
In 2016, this country elected a fraudster, huckster, and showman, not a leader. That night I did shed a tear because I understood what could potentially happen.
Mr. Trump has shucked and jived his way through the real estate world for decades. (It appears he has done the same thing in his political dealings, but that is yet to be proven in a court of law.) That he has been allowed to do that for so long is disturbing.
But now that a district attorney has brought forth an indictment for his business dealings, the supporters scream witch hunt, prosecutorial misconduct, overreach and several other cries of victimhood. These are the same people who voiced ZERO concern about the chants of “Lock Her Up!” that resonated for 7 years. (And there never was an indictment. Investigations that turned up nothing illegal, but no indictment.) It seems a reasonable conclusion that the GOP only wants criminal activities thought to be committed by Democrats to be prosecuted. When it is one of their own, they circle the wagons and wave the victim flag.
And there are still at least three other investigations and special prosecutor actions taking place.
Two federal and one in GA. We shall see how this all plays out.
Sad. Bigly sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ya’ll just had to do it. ”
There is no “Ya’ll” here. The DA in New York is doing his job. He isn’t being told what to do by some higher power (George Soros, according to the “pundits” and critics)
LikeLike