Because America's Christians will be converted to
"wokeness", and will stop voting for Trump, thanks
to a commercial on the Super Bowl!

And don't blame the right-wing anti-abortion
Servant Foundation for it either. They let go of
their "He Gets Us" brand, and those commercials
are now done by another outfit, called Come Near.

So Hobby Lobby has not gone over to the Other
Side, Dark or Light as one's view may be.

As should be apparent, I am viewing this tempest in
a teapot which YouTube brought to my attention as
comical. Liberal churches will promote their beliefs
with TV commercials, and conservative churches
can do the same.

John Savard

Of course, though, the title should have been

Why 2025 Won't Be Like "1984".

Oh, well. (Because both my post, and the Apple Macintosh commercial,
were referring, in the second place, to George Orwell's novel, rather than
the actual year, and because Trump would only take office in 2025,
upon being inaugurated, not after becoming President-Elect.)

John Savard

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:15:02 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>Of course, though, the title should have been
>
>Why 2025 Won't Be Like "1984".
>
>Oh, well. (Because both my post, and the Apple Macintosh commercial,
>were referring, in the second place, to George Orwell's novel, rather than
>the actual year, and because Trump would only take office in 2025,
>upon being inaugurated, not after becoming President-Elect.)

Well, maybe ... depending on the Supreme Court and the voters.

I expect the Supremes to kick the can down the road for a while first.

But eventually they will wake up and realize that they really don't
want to be subject to the wrath of Trump II for not affirming his
right to hold office at their first opportunity.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:24:28 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:

> I expect the Supremes to kick the can down the road for a while first.
>
> But eventually they will wake up and realize that they really don't
> want to be subject to the wrath of Trump II for not affirming his
> right to hold office at their first opportunity.

I do suspect that, since there are valid legal reasons for doing so,
the Supreme Court won't allow states to use the insurrection clause
in the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.

But they're not likely to reverse the high court decisions denying Trump
absolute immunity.

It seems as though they're trying to convince us that they're a real
Supreme Court that judges cases based on the law, despite being mostly
appointed by Trump. So we're going to be kept in suspense. I've seen
the titles of YouTube videos by Trump supporters which I haven't bothered
to click on suggesting that Fani Wills has met with some reverses...

I am not able to eliminate Trump II as a possibility.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world has not gone to a war economy
in order to pick up the slack in aid to Ukraine created by the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

And the world has not yet taken global warming seriously enough to
put a stop to it, despite recent unusual weather.

I do not wish the world to be in such a state that when I attempt
to anticipate the future, what I see there is "doom!" - no, I agree
with Trump supporters on one thing. I want to bring back the bright
optimism about the future, and the properly functioning economy, of
the 1948-1968 period.

The rise of Trump after the long economic malaise of the post-1968
era, along with less than stellar regimes in Hungary and, until recently,
Poland... does bring to mind the fallout of the Great Depression, leading
to an authoritarian regime in Poland as well as Hitler and Mussolini.

A population that sees politicians failing to meet their economic needs
will cast about further and further in seeking solutions... and if they
don't get politicians who will do something, eventually they'll get to
someone like Trump.

And the American political system is rigged so that they'll get to Trump
before getting to someone like Fidel Castro or even Bernie Sanders.

But it's not clear to me that this, in itself, makes the ultimate outcome
any worse, since left-wing demagogues also have a rather bad historical
record.

John Savard

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 06:07:03 -0000 (UTC), Quadibloc
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:24:28 -0800, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> I expect the Supremes to kick the can down the road for a while first.
>>
>> But eventually they will wake up and realize that they really don't
>> want to be subject to the wrath of Trump II for not affirming his
>> right to hold office at their first opportunity.
>
>I do suspect that, since there are valid legal reasons for doing so,
>the Supreme Court won't allow states to use the insurrection clause
>in the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot.

At least in the Primaries.

I got my booklet for our Primary. As I recalled, I won't be voting in
it because you have to declare your Party to do so, and I am
independent.

And that's my point: regardless of how it's done (ballot or State
Convention), and regardless of whether the ballot actually chooses at
least some of the delegates to the National Convention or is merely
advisory, this is a /Party/ function and it should be the Party that
decides who the candidates are.

So, yes, even if they do not declare the insurrection clause
inapplicable for some reason or other, they not only probably will but
arguably should prevent States from interfering in internal Pary
matters.

The actual /election/ may be a different story.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"