El Presidente Trump

Professor Moriarty · 15-12-2016 01:43PM

osarusan wrote: »

You're no bookmaker.

The odds should be the other way round.

Well spotted. Indeed I am not a bookmaker, the odds are from a site called Oddschecker (good site). I'd put my mortgage on his resigning or being impeached, but herself and the bank would be whining.

BattleCorp · 15-12-2016 01:46PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well spotted. Indeed I am not a bookmaker, the odds are from a site called Oddschecker (good site). I'd put my mortgage on his resigning or being impeached, but herself and the bank would be whining.

Why do you think Trump will resign or be impeached?

What's lurking around the corner for him?

osarusan · 15-12-2016 01:47PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well spotted. Indeed I am not a bookmaker, the odds are from a site called Oddschecker (good site). I'd put my mortgage on his resigning or being impeached, but herself and the bank would be whining.

Seriously - there is a site offering odds, and they have prices of 2/1 on him not being president in a year's time - and also a price of 6/4 on him being impeached or resigning within a year's time?

because the odds really are the wrong way round.

Professor Moriarty · 15-12-2016 01:55PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why do you think Trump will resign or be impeached?

What's lurking around the corner for him?

Firstly, his personality. He's a Narcissist and his craving for admiration will motivate him to behave in impulsive and reckless ways. Secondly, he has history of behaviour unbecoming to a president, for example cat catching. Thirdly, he has claimed that he will separate himself from his business dealings. I think that will be impossible and conflicts of interest will emerge. Fourthly, he won't release his tax returns, so something stinks there. Fifth, he has surrounded himself with some bizarre people who will advise him accordingly. And so on.

wonderfullife · 15-12-2016 01:55PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well spotted. Indeed I am not a bookmaker, the odds are from a site called Oddschecker (good site). I'd put my mortgage on his resigning or being impeached, but herself and the bank would be whining.

I'd put good money on him committing at least a dozen impeachable offences and not resigning or being impeached.

The blind backing and sell-out by the GOP and Republicans means impeachment or resignation is a near-impossibilty.

He would have to be caught literally killing someone on tape with a gun or literally sexually assaulting someone and even then he'll weasel out of it.

There's already plenty out there that should preclude him from the Presidency or warrant congressional hearings:

1. Grabs women by P****. The fact that alone didn't stop women voting for him is pretty sad.

2. Owes Deutsche Bank $350 million, same bank facing a multi-billion $ fine. That conflict alone is ridiculous. But DB must be happy.

3. Has numerous sexual assault and rape allegations against him. Before anybody says Bill Clinton, he was actually impeached for the lies he told about this.

4. Said he'd date his own daughter, who he repeatedly called "hot" and "sexy", if she wasn't related to him. That's whole other level of weird.

5. His children vetting and interviewing people for Cabinet. Super wrong. They'll clearly be getting in men/women who they feel will make decisions that will enrich the Trump "Empire".

You could go on all day about the amount of things that would literally make any other candidate pull out of the race and/or be impeached, forced to resign.

Truth is, nothing he does will get him in any hot water. Nothing. There's no Watergate that can bring this guy down, no Monica Lewinsky...... people have already heard him bragging about sexual assault and still elected him, any "proof" of such crime will be deemed "fake news" and propaganda.

World is stuck with Trump for 4 years end of.

Hope he does really well for all our sakes but I predict doomsday-esque consequences of having Steve Bannon so heavily involved.

orubiru · 15-12-2016 01:56PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Gone into overdrive now. They're using the Russian narrative and the media to push the notion an electoral flip is possible and not some crazy idea. Back to paying celebrities again, but this time to try and influence electors not voters.

Wow. That is amazing.

I'd love it if they actually did manage to flip the election result.

Can you imagine sitting there believing you are fighting the good fight and believing that you stand for justice and equality while you try to undermine the democratic process in order to put a corrupt politician like Hillary Clinton in the White House? Amazing.

It think Americans are really struggling to understand that the main reason that Trump was able to win was down to the terrible quality of the opposition.

In the 2008 election Obama won 28 states. In 2012 Obama won 26 states. In 2016 Clinton only won 20 states and almost all of those had voted democrat since 1992.

In 2008 Obama won 365 electoral votes and in 2012 he won 332 electoral votes. Clinton won 232 electoral votes.

She did win more of the popular vote but it does not help if you get 5 million extra votes from areas that were already guaranteed to be democrat.

Her campaign was an utter disaster.

I'm seeing post after post about how bad Trump is, and I agree with them, but real questions have to be asked about how America did not have a single politician who could take on this guy and win.

In hindsight, I think Democrats should really be asking if Clinton was a good candidate and if they wish they would have taken the opportunity to nominate someone else.

If the answer to that is no she was not a good candidate then what's the point in even trying to overturn the result?

I'm not sure about the Russian stuff but if the leaks contained factual information then shouldn't we be asking why the Russians have been doing the job that American journalists should have been doing?

In an Irish context, let's say the Irish media covered up or ignored relevant information about a politician. Then people with connections to the UK leaked that information. Should we blame the corrupt politicians or the incompetent media or the foreign interests who've told us the truth?

If there was collusion between Trump and Putin but they were leaking facts to the public, and not misinformation, then why is this is a bad thing?

From an American perspective it feels like they are just fine with getting involved in the affairs of other nations, with varying degrees of success and failer, but when it's done to them it becomes unacceptable.

Professor Moriarty · 15-12-2016 01:56PM

osarusan wrote: »

Seriously - there is a site offering odds, and they have prices of 2/1 on him not being president in a year's time - and also a price of 6/4 on him being impeached or resigning within a year's time?

because the odds really are the wrong way round.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics

Call Me Jimmy · 15-12-2016 02:01PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Gone into overdrive now. They're using the Russian narrative and the media to push the notion an electoral flip is possible and not some crazy idea. Back to paying celebrities again, but this time to try and influence electors not voters.

Whatever side you're on I don't care those videos are abhorrent

wonderfullife · 15-12-2016 02:06PM

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Whatever side you're on I don't care those videos are abhorrent

Appealing to the Electoral College to effectively give the job to Mike Pence is not abhorrent it's patriotic.

Pence, for all his flaws, is steady and competent.

Trump is a lunatic.

People seem to think these people want Hillary. They don't. They want anybody but Trump.

Fair case.

GreenFolder2 · 15-12-2016 02:10PM

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

It looked terrible before the election. Threatening to imprison political opponents who haven't committed crimes always looks terrible.

Well it makes you look like a wannabe dictator. If your audience and electorate is for some bizarre reason very keen on being ruled by an authoritarian however....

osarusan · 15-12-2016 02:11PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics

Thanks.

i see that the 6/4 is for the first term, not the first year, which explains it.

sorry for the sidetrack all.

Christy42 · 15-12-2016 02:13PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

How do we know Hillary won't be in trouble down the line and Trump knows this? The FBI and congress still have two separate investigations ongoing into the Clinton foundation, and likely several more. There's surely people who want her locked up even more than Trump does.

He's continued to say he'll build a border wall for example, and that along with locking Hillary up was his most outlandish claim.

Might be all moot anyway, there's a sh1tstorm coming with this Russia stuff.

Well for one thing he would point to those investigations in his speeches and say let them do their job.

Instead he does a complete u turn on it. So whst if it doesn't happen (as seems likely given Republicans have tried for years and failed).

He did say he would build a wall. Some people believed him. What parts of his campaign did you believe?

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 02:16PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Appealing to the Electoral College to effectively give the job to Mike Pence is not abhorrent it's patriotic.

Pence, for all his flaws, is steady and competent.

Trump is a lunatic.

People seem to think these people want Hillary. They don't. They want anybody but Trump.

Fair case.

If Trump doesn't get in they'll be civil war. He's flawed but if they flip it somehow it's essentially saying your vote isn't worth a thing.

A Little Pony · 15-12-2016 02:22PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

wonderfullife wrote: »

Appealing to the Electoral College to effectively give the job to Mike Pence is not abhorrent it's patriotic.

Pence, for all his flaws, is steady and competent.

Trump is a lunatic.

People seem to think these people want Hillary. They don't. They want anybody but Trump.

Fair case.

If Trump doesn't get in they'll be civil war. He's flawed but if they flip it somehow it's essentially saying your vote isn't worth a thing.

Wouldn't be the first time. Let the yankees do their worst.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 02:30PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Well for one thing he would point to those investigations in his speeches and say let them do their job.

Instead he does a complete u turn on it. So whst if it doesn't happen (as seems likely given Republicans have tried for years and failed).

He did say he would build a wall. Some people believed him. What parts of his campaign did you believe?

He did pretty much every rally, albeit OTT

.

His main policies are improved healthcare for Veterans, immigration control and the wall,School choice, repeal of Obamacare, job creation, Army and infrastructure investment,lower Business tax, uphold 2nd amendment, School choice etc.

I don't see why he can't do any of those things. My favorite "Policy" is how he'll help stop the crazy PC bs that has taken over Western Civilization, and add a bit of humor along the way.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/809357594930401281

Oh, and ISIS. That will obv be very difficult.

dark crystal · 15-12-2016 02:46PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If Trump doesn't get in they'll be civil war. He's flawed but if they flip it somehow it's essentially saying your vote isn't worth a thing.

Quite the opposite - almost 3 million more Americans voted for the other candidate. Why don't their votes count for anything?

Christy42 · 15-12-2016 03:01PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

He did pretty much every rally, albeit OTT .

His main policies are improved healthcare for Veterans, immigration control and the wall,School choice, repeal of Obamacare, job creation, Army and infrastructure investment,lower Business tax, uphold 2nd amendment, School choice etc.

I don't see why he can't do any of those things. My favorite "Policy" is how he'll help stop the crazy PC bs that has taken over Western Civilization, and add a bit of humor along the way.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/809357594930401281

Oh, and ISIS. That will obv be very difficult.

Thank you for replying. Do you think he will continue to retract his promises about the wall and repealing Obama care? Granted we seem to have received mixed signals on them so maybe they are still going ahead.

Once the pc nonsense goes away will we be allowed to boo the vice president and call people deplorable again?

I think he will struggle on the humour front following Obama though. Obama had more self confidence (not ego) to allow jokes against himself as well (see snl, lion king birth video, thanks Obama video). Obama could also let shows take the piss out of him without taking to twitter

. Obviously that humour bit isn't the most important thing but hey I still liked it.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 03:02PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Quite the opposite - almost 3 million more Americans voted for the other candidate. Why don't their votes count for anything?

Because of places like California for e.g. with high densities where she won by 3 million. That's as if only Dublin Cork and Limerick Counted if we had an election. Not disputing she got more votes but it's hardly fair.

Look at the county map.

BattleCorp · 15-12-2016 03:13PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Quite the opposite - almost 3 million more Americans voted for the other candidate. Why don't their votes count for anything?

Same happens in Ireland.

One example in Carlow/Kilkenny was when Jennifer Murnane O'Connor received approx. 2000 votes more than the candidate below her. However the candidate below got elected because his running mate had a surplus of nearly 3000 votes so he transferred the surplus to his party colleague and he got elected instead of Murnane O'Connor.

So, there was an example of someone having 2000 more first preference votes than her challenger yet she didn't get elected.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 03:14PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Thank you for replying. Do you think he will continue to retract his promises about the wall and repealing Obama care? Granted we seem to have received mixed signals on them so maybe they are still going ahead.

Once the pc nonsense goes away will we be allowed to boo the vice president and call people deplorable again?

PC culture will never go away, it's a mental disease IMO :pac:

I think he'll build a wall, it might be party fenced or patrolled a long the way but will do the job. Other countries like Hungary who used a combination of wall, fence and patrol have seen 90-95% reductions in immigrants crossing.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/03/28/20160328_fence.jpg

Obamacare they'll probably leave parts of it. In all honesty I don't know enough about it to speculate.

seamus · 15-12-2016 03:16PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Because of places like California for e.g. with high densities where she won by 3 million. That's as if only Dublin Cork and Limerick Counted if we had an election. Not disputing she got more votes but it's hardly fair.

What's hardly fair?
In Ireland when we vote for a President or a referendum, the urban areas can carry the whole vote.

That's democracy, the will of the majority.

However in Ireland, we avoid the "tyranny of the majority" problem by limiting the amount of power that can be granted through direct votes. The President has no real power, constitutional amendments are typically small. And the parliament is elected in a representative manner.
Therefore the ability of the majority to lead everyone else by the nose is limited.

The US electoral college is supposed to prevent the tyranny of the majority, but instead it provides for a different kind of wrong - the tyranny of the minority. In a union where "all men are created equal", your vote has a higher value depending on what state you live in.

That's hardly fair.

The presidential system in the US is inherently broken. For many, many reasons it's not a democratic system and cannot call itself that.

Jelle1880 · 15-12-2016 03:17PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

PC culture will never go away, it's a mental disease IMO :pac:

I think he'll build a wall, it might be party fenced or patrolled a long the way but will do the job. Other countries like Hungary who used a combination of wall, fence and patrol have seen 90-95% reductions in immigrants crossing.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/03/28/20160328_fence.jpg

Obamacare they'll probably leave parts of it. In all honesty I don't know enough about it to speculate.

There is already a massive fence across the entire border with Mexico though, there's really no need to expand on that unless people think he'll build an Israel-style wall. Which will not happen imo.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 03:24PM

seamus wrote: »

That's hardly fair.

The presidential system in the US is inherently broken. For many, many reasons it's not a democratic system and cannot call itself that.

What's not fair is when a state like California can decide the entire outcome of the election because of such high density and like minded folk who are never going to vote Republican. It still has the highest amount of electoral votes so right from the off it's an uphill battle.

Look at the County map, it's all red but she ended up walking the popular vote.

Hillary supporters should get on the back of her strategy team because they clearly made mistakes and Conway of Trumps team made all the right ones.

ebbsy · 15-12-2016 03:27PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What's not fair is when a state like California can decide the entire outcome of the election because of such high density and like minded folk who are never going to vote Republican. It still has the highest amount of electoral votes so right from the off it's an uphill battle.

Look at the Country map, it's all red but she ended up walking the popular vote.

Hillary supporters should get on the back of her strategy team because they clearly made mistakes and Conway of Trumps team made all the right ones.

They need to weed out all the dead people that voted for Hillary. No wonder the Walking Dead set has had fewer zombies, they were all down voting Democrat.

osarusan · 15-12-2016 03:27PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What's not fair is when a state like California can decide the entire outcome of the election because of such high density and like minded folk who are never going to vote Republican.

That's what democracy is almost all over the world - you count all the votes in the country and the person with the most wins.

Now, I don't agree with the argument that it's unfair that Clinton lost - everybody knows the electoral college system and how it works and they (should) plan the campaign accordingly.

But the notion that a straight nationwide count would be unfair is just as pointless.

Changing to a straight nationwide count would just mean people campaigned differently.

A Little Pony · 15-12-2016 03:29PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

dark crystal wrote: »

Quite the opposite - almost 3 million more Americans voted for the other candidate. Why don't their votes count for anything?

Because of places like California for e.g. with high densities where she won by 3 million. That's as if only Dublin Cork and Limerick Counted if we had an election. Not disputing she got more votes but it's hardly fair.

Look at the county map.

That map just shows what a kicking he gave her. How can anyone dispute his win. Look at the map for gods sake, annihilation.

Hank Scorpio · 15-12-2016 03:32PM

osarusan wrote: »

Changing to a straight nationwide count would just mean people campaigned differently.

They'd spend most of the time in states like California or Texas and very little on others. At least with the way it is now they have to go all over the Country and spread it out somewhat equally.

seamus · 15-12-2016 03:36PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They'd spend most of the time in states like California or Texas and very little on others. At least with the way it is now they have to go all over the Country and spread it out somewhat equally.

And that's why either having a direct vote or pretending that there's a direct vote (like they currently do) is stupid.

If the electoral college was a representative vote that would be a good start.

But a far better system would be a parliamentary style system where the president is nominated and voted on from the house of representatives.

The dog-and-pony show that happens at the moment results in poor governance and reactionary politics.

Trent Houseboat · 15-12-2016 03:38PM

ebbsy wrote:

They need to weed out all the dead people that voted for Hillary. No wonder the Walking Dead set has had fewer zombies, they were all down voting Democrat.

They need to weed out all the space pirates who voted for Trump, no wonder the worked so hard to get Mark Whatney home to stuff ballot boxes.

osarusan · 15-12-2016 03:38PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

At least with the way it is now they have to go all over the Country and spread it out somewhat equally.

No they don't. How much time did Clinton spend in Texas, or Trump in California or New York. It would be much the same as now really - heavy canvassing in a number of places with many others left unvisited. Some of the places being canvassed would change though.

My point is though, that there's nothing unfair about just having a straight nationwide count.

Also, I already suggested proportional allocation of electoral college seats based on state results (you win 60% of the votes, so you get 60% of the seats - which happens in 1 or 2 states) - I don't see what the problem is with it.

El Presidente Trump

Comments