nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Who thinks Trump will win?

whiskeyman

Hope the mods don't mind a new thread, but I just want to see how many of us think Trump will beat Biden in Nov?
I think he just has so much of a populist ground swell and I wouldn't be surprised if 'external' participants get involved in the process.

Do you think he'll get reelected?
Where will that leave America?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Tell me how

landofthetree wrote: »

BREAKING: Newly declassified notes show Obama knew of Hillary's plan to tie Trump to Russia...

"As a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."

Obama was briefed on this by Former CIA Director John Brennan in 2016.

Oh dear. Not good for Biden.

Oh fcuk!!!

This mean Hillary won't win. This is a catastrophe. This is the worst thing to happen so far in 2016 since Brexit back in July.
Will this year ever end!!!!!

Billy Mays

landofthetree wrote: »

BREAKING: Newly declassified notes show Obama knew of Hillary's plan to tie Trump to Russia...

"As a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."

Obama was briefed on this by Former CIA Director John Brennan in 2016.

Oh dear. Not good for Biden.

Try harder

mcmoustache

landofthetree wrote: »

BREAKING: Newly declassified notes show Obama knew of Hillary's plan to tie Trump to Russia...

"As a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."

Obama was briefed on this by Former CIA Director John Brennan in 2016.

Oh dear. Not good for Biden.

What's this? Newsmax? OANN?

Foxtrol

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

That argument does not stand. Mrs Clinton knew the rules going into the race, they are the same as when Barrack Obama and her husband Mr. Clinton won the US presidential election. You must look elsewhere to fund an excuse.

Your argument here is the one that doesn't 'stand'. You can know the rules going into the race and it can still be undemocratic.

Changing the rules means the election gets decided by California, New York and Northern cities - Chicago and Minneapolis. It is a different election and the campaigning and strategy would change accordingly and disenfranchise the heartland of the USA.

So your preference is to disenfranchise the many more people that live in more populated states?

The electoral college is bad but the rules for the senate is even worse. I understand why they were originally designed that way but they are well past their sell by date. In Irish terms it is like giving the same number of seats to Co. Cork as they do to Co. Leitrim and for a bonus if you lived in Dublin city you'd pay taxes but have no votes at all.

namloc1980

landofthetree wrote: »

BREAKING: Newly declassified notes show Obama knew of Hillary's plan to tie Trump to Russia...

"As a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."

Obama was briefed on this by Former CIA Director John Brennan in 2016.

Oh dear. Not good for Biden.

Hang on a second. You mean to say the Director of the CIA briefed the President on a potential national security issue....... that's absolutely shocking. I mean next you'll be telling us that water is wet.

[Deleted User]

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

For context that is Columbus Ohio, the state capital with a population about the size of Dublin. It normally leans Democrat as do large urban areas across the United States. 2016 results

Not surprising.

Bringing back jobs to places like Columbus was one area in which Trump battered Hillary in 2016. Obviously he was spoofing, as the following years will testify.

Hillary took several places for granted and did piss all campaigning in the same region.

[Deleted User]

Tell me how wrote: »

Oh fcuk!!!

This mean Hillary won't win. This is a catastrophe. This is the worst thing to happen so far in 2016 since Brexit back in July.
Will this year ever end!!!!!

If you think that's bad, hate to tell you what happens in four years time.

Basically the world is hit by a pandemic.
Trump is his usual self. Calls it a hoax, mentions a few stupid potential treatments on live television. Accepts no responsibility for the fu*k ups he caused and walks out of public health briefings when questions get to hard. He then says it is what it is, when more Americans die from it so far than lost in military action all the way through from Korea to the the second Iraq war, while calling those that died in military service losers.
In the meantime while this was happening he's stirring up racial tensions while riots take place.
He then apparently catches it and makes a miraculous recovery while a lot of those around him also test positive and have to isolate because he and his closest couldn't be bothered to follow basic medical advice.

You still have the same posters who must be paralysed from the neck down at this stage from the amount of twisting they do trying to defend him and everything he does, while posting the usual easily debunked edited videos etc. Oh and they are still going on about Obama and Clinton. Not to mention the usual reregs that pop in now and again to troll.

I'll give you the bad news about brexit another time, but basically bojo is in charge.

Tony EH

DubInMeath wrote: »

If you think that's bad, hate to tell you what happens in four years time.

Basically the world is hit by a pandemic.
Trump is his usual self. Calls it a hoax, mentions a few stupid potential treatments on live television. Accepts no responsibility for the fu*k ups he caused and walks out of public health briefings when questions get to hard. He then says it is what it is, when more Americans die from it so far than lost in military action all the way through from Korea to the the second Iraq war, while calling those that died in military service losers.
In the meantime while this was happening he's stirring up racial tensions while riots take place.
He then apparently catches it and makes a miraculous recovery while a lot of those around him also test positive and have to isolate because he and his closest couldn't be bothered to follow basic medical advice.

You still have the same posters who must be paralysed from the neck down at this stage from the amount of twisting they do trying to defend him and everything he does, while posting the usual easily debunked edited videos etc. Oh and they are still going on about Obama and Clinton. Not to mention the usual reregs that pop in now and again to troll.

I'll give you the bad news about brexit another time, but basically bojo is in charge.

:pac:

Yeh, pull the other one.

Pa ElGrande

Foxtrol wrote: »

Your argument here is the one that doesn't 'stand'. You can know the rules going into the race and it can still be undemocratic.

Incorrect. Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats accepted the rules when participating in the election as did those who voted. Some people did not like the outcome and wanted to override this by calling for mob rule, yet, had their preferred candidate won they would have been fine with the outcome. Find another reason for her loss, her husband won with this system, she did not.

The United States of America is a federal republic not a mass democracy and that was the intention of it's founders. Mostly they argued that democracy was an unstable form of government and they designed a system with 3 major branches to check the authority of the other which is why the power of the US president is really limited and cannot be autocratic.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!

Benjamin Franklin

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States to John Taylor

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

Neither does democracy mean good or enlightened government, and in the context of modern politics it's meaning has changed by the people talking about it to mean progressive governments that enforce social justice and equity on all the people within its jurisdiction and beyond.

dwayneshintzy

The electoral college is a relic, a compromise dreamt up to appease slave holders. You can be against the electoral college in principle, not everything has to be about how your own side will do. Hopefully a tipping point will be reached soon by enough states who will apportion EC votes to the popular vote winner that it will basically become irrelevant.

Danzy

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

The electoral college is a relic, a compromise dreamt up to appease slave holders. You can be against the electoral college in principle, not everything has to be about how your own side will do. Hopefully a tipping point will be reached soon by enough states who will apportion EC votes to the popular vote winner that it will basically become irrelevant.

Pretending that the electoral college is about appeasing slave holders is tabloid history.

If you don't like reading history that's fine but don't churn out such illiterate nonsense.

dwayneshintzy

Danzy wrote: »

Pretending that the electoral college is about appeasing slave holders is tabloid history.

If you don't like reading history that's fine but don't churn out such illiterate nonsense.

"Illiterate nonsense"?

There was one difficulty, however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=002/llfr002.db&recNum=60&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00218%29%29%230020061&linkText=1

If slavery had no role in the creation of the electoral college, what was it about then?

Outlaw Pete

Tell me how wrote: »

Oh fcuk!!!

This mean Hillary won't win. This is a catastrophe. This is the worst thing to happen so far in 2016 since Brexit back in July.
Will this year ever end!!!!!

The last line of that user's post was: "Oh dear. Not good for Biden" and so your reply is about as obtuse as it gets despite its many endorsements.

You (and others) can pretend these latest revelations (about how HRC and the Democratic Party behaved in 2016) won't hurt Biden but he was VP when it it would appear the Obama administration was briefed about intelligence that linked Hillary with an attempt to frame the Republican Presidential candidate and so there is every chance it will do just that.

Now, I won't be silly and suggest that the mainstream media will be shoving cameras in Biden's face tomorrow morning asking him if he knew anything about it (what with the MSM being corrupt and all) but nevertheless, given it stinks to high heavens that the Obama administration knew Hillary's finger prints were all over the Steele Dossier and FBI leaks to the media linking Trump to the Kremlin (and much of it a disgustingly salacious way too and all while Hillary and the DNC were retweeting articles from their media bootlickers about it ) then I would suggest that quite a lot of the American public may very well start to wonder if maybe (just maybe) Trump was correct all along when he labelled the Russia-Russia-Russia collusion stories a witch hunt and also if perhaps old Joe knew it was too.

Tell me how

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The last line of that user's post was: "Oh dear. Not good for Biden" and so your reply is about as obtuse as it gets despite its many endorsements.

You (and others) can pretend these latest revelations (about how HRC and the Democratic Party behaved in 2016) won't hurt Biden but he was VP when it it would appear the Obama administration was briefed about intelligence that linked Hillary with an attempt to frame the Republican Presidential candidate and so there is every chance it will do just that.

Now, I won't be silly and suggest that the mainstream media will be shoving cameras in Biden's face tomorrow morning asking him if he knew anything about it (what with the MSM being corrupt and all) but nevertheless, given it stinks to high heavens that the Obama administration knew Hillary's finger prints were all over the Steele Dossier and FBI leaks to the media linking Trump to the Kremlin (and much of it a disgustingly salacious way too and all while Hillary and the DNC were retweeting articles from their media bootlickers about it ) then I would suggest that quite a lot of the American public may very well start to wonder if maybe (just maybe) Trump was correct all along when he labelled the Russia-Russia-Russia collusion stories a witch hunt and also if perhaps old Joe knew it was too.

Trump contacts and the outcome of investigations in to their interactions, on his behalf with Russian operatives.

But sure, keep talking about Hillary.

Outlaw Pete

We're talking about Biden, and his likely knowledge of what went on in 2016 and whether or not that may harm him in 2020.

How many of the those listed above though, who had ties to Donald Trump, were charged with colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election?

Tell me how

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We're talking about Biden, and his likely knowledge of what went on in 2016 and whether or not that may harm him in 2020.

How many of the those listed above though, who had ties to Donald Trump, were charged with colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election?

The 12 Russian military personnel...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Twelve Russian military intelligence officers hacked into the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic Party and released tens of thousands of private communications in a sweeping conspiracy by the Kremlin to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election, according to an indictment announced days before President Donald Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Outlaw Pete

Ahem ...

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.. who had ties to Donald Trump ..

Tell me how

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ahem ...

12 military personnel

Via Russian Intelligence agent and Paul Manafort.

patnor1011

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

What don't you like about Trump, patnor1011?

No statesmanship. He is talking way too much - I do not like people who do have to express their opinion on everything. Sometimes even on things, they do not have a clue about.
On the other hand I have to add that his way of talking is sometimes refreshing as he mostly say what he think compared to other politicians which you can listen to for hours and at the end you will still have no idea what they said.

I do not like Hillary for the same too. She is one of those who always knows everything too. Plus her bad record of actually handling out problems she was presented with. She is not that much different from Trump but she appeared to be vastly pro-military solutions to nearly everything.

Biden is a no better choice, he is quite the same. Americans should stop voting for old people who can't be expected to deal with the amount of stuff required.

Pa ElGrande

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

The electoral college is a relic, a compromise dreamt up to appease slave holders. You can be against the electoral college in principle, not everything has to be about how your own side will do. Hopefully a tipping point will be reached soon by enough states who will apportion EC votes to the popular vote winner that it will basically become irrelevant.

If they switch to a simple majority system (i.e. the popular vote) then the outcome of the presidential elections will primarily be decided by the populations of 12 states with large populations on the East and West coasts of the USA and there will be very little consideration for the concerns of the other 38 states.

In order to make a change (an amendment ) their constitution requires ratification by three quarters of state legislatures (i.e. 38 of the 50), there are 7 states with populations under 1 million. Are the people from Texas or any other state going to submit to the people of the state of California (most populous) or vice versa? Whatever alternative system to the electoral college system they come up with has to avoid that outcome to stand a chance of being ratified by the states.

patnor1011

Igotadose wrote: »

Deflection by you, sorry. You were asked why Japan and SOuth Korea did well without severe restrictions and brought up China, which as you I think agree is a country with no liberties - that government is enormously repressive at all turns.

The reason South Korea and Japan did better, is the people their wore masks without being prompted. Hong Kong too, even with massive protests in the spring. It really is that simple. Trump's wanton disregard and disdain for mask wearing in order to keep himself in the limelight and a massive disinformation campaign orchestrated by his team is a huge contributor to the the death toll in the US. No other reason, simply the resistance to wearing masks. It's that simple.

Not really. You seem to simplify things. It is hard to compare europeans which are way more frail when senior with asian people. It is a no secret that our obsession with sugar and fast food make us bigger targets to every virus and bacteria. SKorea or Japan have much more healthier lifestyle therefore they will have less covid casualties.

It is that simple.

patnor1011

jmayo wrote: »

We were talking about US losses not the entire losses of the Vietnam war.
Hell you might as well widen the scope to include all the losses in Indochina during WWII as well.
Then you can add the Japanese ones to the mix.

Was not half of the Vietnam allied with them and by that logic their casualties when fighting shoulder to shoulder with Americans should be counted as US losses too?

jmayo wrote: »

Isn't it a bit rich complaining anti Trump people are hyping up irrational hatred.

Why does that song ironic keep playing in my head.

I do not know. I see hatred being hyped out which spilled into blm protests aswell. They are no longer just about police killings and racial rights. Socialism and communism is getting firmer hold in the USA. It will be almost comical to watch them submit to a system they fought against for so long if it was not a tragedy.

osarusan

Electoral college system is something of a relic alright, but both sides know the rules going into it. I don't actually think there is that much appetite to get rid of it in the US.

One possible change I think is interesting is a proportional distribution of electoral college seats, rather than the winner-takes-all approach used by most states. There are two states I think that use the proportional approach, first giving the winner of the state 2 EC votes, then dividing the rest based on the percentage of the vote...something like that anyway.

In a state like California, Trump got more than 4 million votes last time, but it meant nothing, and was never going to mean anything. Similar for the millions of votes Clinton got in Texas. These votes, and minority votes in every solid red or blue state, would take on new value.

But even making that change wouldn't really change things that much, just produce a new set of key areas to be campaigned in.

I can only assume that both sides have endlessly researched the likely outcomes getting rid of or changing the EC system in some way, and whether it would be to their benefit or not.

dwayneshintzy

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

If they switch to a simple majority system (i.e. the popular vote) then the outcome of the presidential elections will primarily be decided by the populations of 12 states with large populations on the East and West coasts of the USA and there will be very little consideration for the concerns of the other 38 states.

In order to make a change (an amendment ) their constitution requires ratification by three quarters of state legislatures (i.e. 38 of the 50), there are 7 states with populations under 1 million. Are the people from Texas or any other state going to submit to the people of the state of California (most populous) or vice versa? Whatever alternative system to the electoral college system they come up with has to avoid that outcome to stand a chance of being ratified by the states.

It doesn't necessarily require a constitutional amendment. States can decide how to apportion their EC votes; a number of states have already passed legislation that would assign their EC votes to the popular vote winner IF enough other states do the same. The tipping point for this has obviously not been reached yet, but hopefully it's something that can happen in the future ( Link ).

You bring up California, so let's go with that. I'm an American who votes in California; my vote is worth many multiples less than the vote of someone who lives in Ohio or Pennsylvania. Under a popular vote, the vote of an individual in California is worth exactly the same as someone in Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Alaska or anywhere else. Your point about Texas and California is slightly nonsensical to me; "submit" in what way? California is the most populous state, but doesn't even nearly have a majority of the American populace.

ILoveYourVibes

Some people on the left are saying it will be a landslide for biden .....i think they are being overly optimistic ..

joseywhales

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

If they switch to a simple majority system (i.e. the popular vote) then the outcome of the presidential elections will primarily be decided by the populations of 12 states with large populations on the East and West coasts of the USA and there will be very little consideration for the concerns of the other 38 states.

In order to make a change (an amendment ) their constitution requires ratification by three quarters of state legislatures (i.e. 38 of the 50), there are 7 states with populations under 1 million. Are the people from Texas or any other state going to submit to the people of the state of California (most populous) or vice versa? Whatever alternative system to the electoral college system they come up with has to avoid that outcome to stand a chance of being ratified by the states.

You are talking about states as if they are autonomous regions with distinct culture and history. The us is only about 250 years, many of these states are much younger. They are arbitrary lines drawn on a map. I don't see why one should have more or less of a weighting than 1 in a federal election based on arbitrary historic lines on a map that segments the country.

"One man one vote" after all, not .93 or 1.07 of a vote.

monseiur

cnocbui wrote: »

Trump won because of the undemocratic and ridiculous electoral college system.

Hillary won the popular vote by over 2 million votes. I'd give you 10 years in solitary confinement for calling Trump a 'statesman'. There is a very high likelihood he is the most corrupt politician and President the US has ever had.

Hillary is a snow white angel compared to boof-head.

I lived in Boston for some time in 2017, staying with a cousin who's a lecturer in politics in a prominent university in the city. Like so many of Irish decent in that city he was/is a Democrat.
He nor many of his extended family did not vote in the 2016 presidential election because of Hillary and they are the type of politically aware family that always voted.
As part of his job he had done background research into both candidates.
On reading some of what he uncovered about Hillary I was flabbergasted, some of the corruption went back long before she or hubby entered the White House.
But once in the White House she took full advantage of the powers that office bestowed on her.

It was the first time that I understood what an elderly lady meant when she remarked to some TV reporter when asked, just before the election, who was she going to vote for - she replied '' Being a lifelong Democrat I guess I'll have to vote for Hillary but I'll be holding my nose doing so''
It also why the vast majority of the so called 'Democrats Abroad' in Ireland voted for Bernie Sanders.
We live and learn !

Tell me how

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Some people on the left are saying it will be a landslide for biden .....i think they are being overly optimistic ..

When posting like this, can you add a link so we can see who is saying this.

Without evidence, it sounds like a Trump 'Some people say' statement which at this point is just a different way of introducing a lie.

Kermit.de.frog

As predicted his enablers are going to say they never heard of Trump, they were following the party line, nothing to do with them...

Watch as the rats jump from the sinking ship in terror

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1313689921350066181

Zubeneschamali

The polls are indicating a landslide is v possible, but "people on the left", and lots of other people, got burned when they underestimated Trumps chances last time and are very cagey about saying out loud what the polls are saying.