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; } } }

What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

alchemist33

I've seen two main options put forward on this forum, (1) that he'll remain a political force until the 2024 primaries start up and the Republicans have to take him seriously or (2) that he'll be so mired in litigation that he'll have no time for politics.

There are of course other options for the next 4 years - prison, exile, death or ill-health (he isn't young and he's been under stress), no politics but a business success, emperor. But it'd be an interesting exercise for people to lay their cards on the table now and make their predictions.

Personally I think his political influence will die quickly after the Capitol fiasco but someone else will emerge in 2 years, once the memories have waned, to be the standard-bearer for the QAnon wing.

Threadbanned:
Real Donald Trump
12gauge dave
Sweetemotion
Timberrrrrrrr
Cognitive Dissident
arthursway
Wojtek the Bear
BornTobyWilde
Tonesjones
BruteStock
tooka
brenbrady
naughtyboy
DubInMeath
extra gravy
Briabnwilldoit
Yurt2
Notnattynate
SnakePliskin
lizzyjane
erlichbachman
Tony EH
RobbieV
Kermit.de.frog
Enter Name here
Piskin
Applehunter

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

[Deleted User]

I really don't know why people bother responding to such obvious trolls.

everlast75

Sweetemotion wrote: »

He was asking questions.

You asked me where he said that and i showed you, and you still won't admit you're wrong.

No wonder you lept to the aid of the other poster who was doing the same.

Sad trait in Trump supporters. I wonder where they get it from ("it was a perfect phone call")

[Deleted User]

Tony EH wrote: »

Why would you choose to defend a camp you disliked purely based on your dislike of another camp? That makes no sense. That just sounds like your not thinking for yourself and you're just looking for a side to support, while trying to damn the other "side" at every opportunity.

Because they were obviously lying at times, and they were being hysterical frankly..

[Deleted User]

everlast75 wrote: »

You asked me where he said that and i showed you, and you still won't admit you're wrong.

You seem very intent on getting people to admit they're wrong on the internet..

You should probably keep an eye on that..

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they were obviously lying at times, and they were being hysterical frankly..

And the other "side" weren't lying?

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

I am though..

Initially I didn't like trump any more than anyone else..I thought he was just boorish and a bit of a scumbag really..

I've gotten to the point where I'm almost defending him due to the media coverage he's gotten from pretty much day one..and the holy show the democrats have made of the entire American system over the last few years..

On the election, I was kind of watching the reports on the day of people being kept out of count centres..dodgy ballots all over the place..

Yeah, it will be whitewashed out of history but the whole "most bestest election ever held anywhere ever" is just ridiculous too..

I have no idea what you mean about the holy show the democrats have made. Are you not thinking of the time Trump had protestors cleared so he could hide a bible upside down when we all know that the only bible for him is the Wall street journal?

The media only responded to his craziness. He looked at the great wall of China and decided he wanted a great wall of Trump. Dropped the Paris agreement, because, after all, he'll be long gone before the consequences will kick in.

MadYaker

I bet this thread will have way more posts than the one about the current president. Looks like Palm Beach town council are not so sure if Trump is actually allowed to live at Mar a Lago or not. Where else can he go? Presumably he could just purchase a property somewhere if he has to. I know he has debts but he can definitely get a few million together.

nolivesmatter

I know it's for the best that he doesn't have it but I kind of wish he still had Twitter. Just for the lols it would provide.

fantaiscool

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem very intent on getting people to admit they're wrong on the internet..

You should probably keep an eye on that..

lol how many times have you ever heard or read something where someone seriously says "ok, I admit it, I was wrong". It's quite rare, there is probably not one case of it happening on internet message boards.

Timberrrrrrrr

MadYaker wrote: »

I bet this thread will have way more posts than the one about the current president. Looks like Palm Beach town council are not so sure if Trump is actually allowed to live at Mar a Lago or not. Where else can he go? Presumably he could just purchase a property somewhere if he has to. I know he has debts but he can definitely get a few million together.

Well if he is stuck for somewhere to stay, Trump hotel in DC seems to have some to spare :pac:

https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/1354533185909043200?s=19

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You seem very intent on getting people to admit they're wrong on the internet..

You should probably keep an eye on that..

I was curious to see if a Trump supporter could avoid accepting they were wrong.

Despite being asked multiple times, it wasn't done.

You called it fake instinctively.

When presented with proof, instead of saying "CNN were right on this occasion, but overall they are not credible", which woule be an entirely reasonable thing to say, you doubled down, comparing CNN to Qanon.

It's quite something.

It's kind of a microcosm of what Trump was able to manufacture in larger numbers in the U.S.

"Fake news", "alternative facts" and then the clincher - "but her emails". Fascinating stuff.

Anyway, I'll leave it there.

(PS - as a grown man, not being able to accept you're wrong is a big issue. I'd look keep an eye on that.)

For Forks Sake

Tony EH wrote: »

What an absolute cunt.

Where would you get off in harassing a young lad, who was nearly wasted by some psycho, like that.

SMH.

That young fella did the right thing. Don't even engage with someone like that.

Probably destined to fail, but still of note.

Democrat introduces resolution to expel Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress after CNN reported that she had expressed support for executing Pelosi

everlast75

I know this thread is about Donald Trump Snr, but junior seems to have made a change in his life....

https://twitter.com/TrumpsAlert/status/1354610228357160966?s=20

ohnonotgmail

MadYaker wrote: »

I bet this thread will have way more posts than the one about the current president. Looks like Palm Beach town council are not so sure if Trump is actually allowed to live at Mar a Lago or not. Where else can he go? Presumably he could just purchase a property somewhere if he has to. I know he has debts but he can definitely get a few million together.

It is clear. He signed a covenant that mar a lago would not be used as a residence. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/16/trump-cant-live-full-time-at-mar-a-lago-because-of-1993-covenant/

everlast75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is clear. He signed a covenant that mar a lago would not be used as a residence. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/16/trump-cant-live-full-time-at-mar-a-lago-because-of-1993-covenant/

The question is whether the locals have the resources or the will to fight this all the way to court.

ohnonotgmail

everlast75 wrote: »

The question is whether the locals have the resources or the will to fight this all the way to court.

that is not the same as saying the local council are not sure if he is allowed to live there.

Quin_Dub

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Probably destined to fail, but still of note.

Democrat introduces resolution to expel Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress after CNN reported that she had expressed support for executing Pelosi

Requires a 2/3rds vote , which will categorically never ever happen.

Which just shows the utter abdication of honesty and morals from the GOP.

It's not like the seat would be at risk - If she were to be expelled , the seat would be filled by the GOP Governor and then in a special election the GOP would walk the seat. That's how she got elected in the 1st place - It's one of the most GOP leaning districts in the country.

There is literally nothing that a GOP Representative could do that would make the GOP vote against them , absolutely nothing.

[Deleted User]

The posting history of CQD makes me think he/she is a fan of Alex Jones, but it's not that outrageous to say CNN is not the most trust worthy source out there. CNN are paid for the democratic party as far as I can see. If CNN aligns perfectly with your opinions, maybe it's harder to see.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The posting history of CQD makes me think he/she is a fan of Alex Jones, but it's not that outrageous to say CNN is not the most trust worthy source out there. CNN are paid for the democratic party as far as I can see. If CNN aligns perfectly with your opinions, maybe it's harder to see.

The problem is that the proposed alternative are random cranks on the internet who support Trump.

I've never met a rational human being who thinks that the media are benevolent but at least they're somewhat accountable.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The posting history of CQD makes me think he/she is a fan of Alex Jones, but it's not that outrageous to say CNN is not the most trust worthy source out there. CNN are paid for the democratic party as far as I can see. If CNN aligns perfectly with your opinions, maybe it's harder to see.

When I bring up Alex Jones I'm taking the p1ss..
CNN have about as much credibility though..

That was my point..

Jesus..

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The posting history of CQD makes me think he/she is a fan of Alex Jones, but it's not that outrageous to say CNN is not the most trust worthy source out there. CNN are paid for the democratic party as far as I can see. If CNN aligns perfectly with your opinions, maybe it's harder to see.

For you, for they, for all: stop blaming the media for your lack of critical thinking. Great rant by Dan Abrams

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/yes-the-media-can-be-biased-but-what-about-your-obligation-to-check-facts/

Yes The Media Can Be Biased, But What About Your Obligation To Check Facts?

On my daily radio show on Sirius XM, after a monologue or interview with a guest, a good part of the program usually involves taking calls from listeners. It is my favorite part of the show and I have long found it invaluable to hear directly from smart people across the country, with very different perspectives, about the political and legal landscape. My show is broadcast on Sirius XM’s POTUS channel — which tends to have many politically moderate listeners from both parties and a good number of Independents.

I do my best to provide fact-based opinion in an effort to welcome both sides of the political aisle. For example, in the past week I criticized what I viewed as many in the mainstream media fawning over Vice President Kamala Harris, and the next day, in the context of a discussion on impeachment, denounced the explanations from those still questioning the election results.

While I am regularly criticized by what I would characterize as the extremes on both sides, recently I have endured more incoming vitriol from those convinced the election was not above board. Some are not even Donald Trump supporters as much they are just furious with the news media, and welcome the opportunity to vent at a member of said community. That desire for media accountability is always a noble and fair goal, but I also demand accountability from them. It’s not their profession, but when they have the megaphone on social media or on radio, the obligation should go both ways. In my humble, and totally biased opinion, the debates that sometimes ensue make for pretty compelling radio.

What I have found most frustrating as of late have been the sweeping indictments of the media based on falsities — mostly election fraud talking points that have infected the public discussion. Not opinions or nuances or bias, but facts. It’s not a problem exclusive to this topic, but the virus of disinformation about this election remains particularly potent and treacherous.

“Why didn’t the media cover the fact that 205,000 more people voted in Pennsylvania than there were registered voters?” (Because it’s not true.) “How can you ignore what I saw with my own eyes with those Georgia officials kicking out observers and taking out those hidden ballots under the table?” (Because we know exactly what happened and they did nothing wrong.) “Why won’t you talk about the hundreds of dead people who voted in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania?” (Because it didn’t happen.) The list goes on and on. I never know which conspiracy I will have to respond to on a given day so I have to be prepared for anything and everything.

Former President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and some of their media allies have been wildly effective at lumping together every possible error or mistake — which occur in most every election — with false claims of wrongdoing and fraud and a smattering of constitutional and procedural arguments, making for a confusing disinformation stew.

Sometimes I am blindsided by a random claim about a particular county and have to fact check it in real time on the air. Armed with bits and pieces of information and heaps of fury and confidence, callers seek to hold me, and by proxy the media, accountable for failing to cover the election fairly. I appreciate the sentiment but in the vast majority of these cases, these mostly savvy and educated callers, simply didn’t review the known facts or are unwilling to take the time or make the effort to do so. Only when a wild theory like the Dominion and Smartmatic voting machines supposedly changing votes becomes so thoroughly debunked, does a new one become the focus.

To be clear, there are real issues to evaluate about how our elections are conducted. In every major election, there are rules and procedures that are determined by courts before, and sometimes after, the election — rulings that are legitimate subjects for debate. Which ballots should be accepted; how people should be able to vote; what should be the cutoff date; what is the proper procedure for curing a ballot, who gets to decide the rules, etc. But many have been lumping together legal decisions about voting systems with which they disagree, and broader claims of voter fraud. “It just doesn’t add up” seems to have become the vague, blanket, and all too common refrain. That dodge is not, and should not be, enough. I have enormous respect for my listeners so I demand that those who criticize the media for ignoring facts about the election come to the table with more than just passion and opinions.

I am a proud member of the mainstream media but I am also a critic. For example, I take serious issue with what I view as an unwillingness by the mainstream news media to admit a left-leaning bias that has fueled distrust from many on the right. I started Mediaite in part because I felt there wasn’t enough accountability for the often self-righteous and pious leaders of the highly politicized media on both sides. There can be, and is, bias in how they/we cover stories. But on something factual like mass election fraud, there isn’t right and left, just right and wrong. While those of us in the media critic business regularly engage in hand wringing about mistakes or errors in judgment, is it too much to ask those who go public with their theories to do a little research before virtuously wagging fingers?

I truly appreciate the callers who disagree with me. In fact, I tend to take their calls more than ones who will just echo my viewpoint. But since they can and should demand accountability from me, I will continue to do the same from them.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

[Deleted User]

That people can go around apologising for a media that has very obviously been politicised, and they fail to see the danger that poses, just because they happen to agree with it now, is half the problem too..

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When I bring up Alex Jones I'm taking the p1ss..
CNN have about as much credibility though..

That was my point..

Jesus..

But its bs. There is simply no comparison between the two.

Heck even Alex Jones stated, in court, that he was simply playing a character.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

That people can go around apologising for a media that has very obviously been politicised, and they fail to see the danger that poses, just because they happen to agree with it now, is half the problem too..

Seeing as you couldn't name one that you felt could be trusted (despite developing the opinion that the election was fradulant from SOMEWHERE!) can you name one that isn't politicised? And just to be clear, you've already used OAN, Newsmax and Alex Jones as "joke" divertioary tactics, so that won't work any more.

[Deleted User]

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seeing as you couldn't name one that you felt could be trusted (despite developing the opinion that the election was fradulant from SOMEWHERE!) can you name one that isn't politicised? And just to be clear, you've already used OAN, Newsmax and Alex Jones as "joke" divertioary tactics, so that won't work any more.

Tbh I don't follow the news anymore..I spent way too long doing that and realized none of them are to be trusted..if I watch something left leaning I'm aware of that..if I watch something right leaning I'm aware of that..CNN would have been reasonable years ago..
Honestly I think anyone who believes what they see on the news without context is naive..

Re the election..five states sent contested electors.. senators stood up and said that there was fraud..Biden won the lowest amount of countieses ever and 1 of 19 bellwether constituencies..those jumps at 4in the morning were dodgy.. As well as the censorship in the lead up to it..

There was never any reasonable look at any of that..it was the most transparent election ever..
Look, it doesn't matter now.. The corporate war machine is back in control..

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

That people can go around apologising for a media that has very obviously been politicised, and they fail to see the danger that poses, just because they happen to agree with it now, is half the problem too..

You're making a lot of assumptions there. I can assure you they are quite wrong. You dismiss most media and people who get their information from such media, yet you consistently refuse to state where you get your 'news'. One can only draw the logical conclusion that your 'news' comes from far right bullsh1t websites and TV channels. This logical conclusion can be supported by the fact that you believe that Biden didn't win the election. So your credibility isn't worth a lump of dog sh1t.

[Deleted User]

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So your credibility isn't worth a lump of dog sh1t.

Come on man..

No need for that..

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Come on man..

No need for that..

Okay. Make me take it back. Show your credibility.

dwayneshintzy

Deleted User wrote: »

The corporate war machine is back in control..

Ah ok, is it now?

How would you compare arms deals and financing of Saudi Arabia in support of the Yemeni war under Biden as opposed to the previous administration?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh I don't follow the news anymore..I spent way too long doing that and realized none of them are to be trusted..if I watch something left leaning I'm aware of that..if I watch something right leaning I'm aware of that..CNN would have been reasonable years ago..
Honestly I think anyone who believes what they see on the news without context is naive..

Re the election..five states sent contested electors.. senators stood up and said that there was fraud..Biden won the lowest amount of countieses ever and 1 of 19 bellwether constituencies..those jumps at 4in the morning were dodgy.. As well as the censorship in the lead up to it..

There was never any reasonable look at any of that..it was the most transparent election ever..
Look, it doesn't matter now.. The corporate war machine is back in control..

Trump brought 60 cases to court over the election. And none of them progressed in any meaningful fashion and all have been discarded.

You can say that you are objective and aware of any bias, and yet, in the same post, you parrot baseless nonsense.

Not to mention your 'corporate war machine is back in control' rubbish which could have been lifted direct from a Kayleigh McEnaney press release.