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

randd1

notobtuse wrote: »

On Monday former President Donald Trump said he has not conceded the November 2020 election. He went on to say "No, I never, the word is 'concede,' [and] I have not conceded."

He also said "You know, we were always known for free and fair elections." "Well, it turns out they weren't free, and they weren't fair, and the world is watching.”

So apparently Trump is using the current events I was discussing regarding the forensic election audits going on and in discussion in several states to keep himself and the forensic audits in the news and in the forefront of people's minds. I guess for some odd reason "the world" here can only watch these current events in the Conspiracy Theory section.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-not-conceded-november-210600776.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3

RE the bit in bold.

According to his own laywers, in Court under oath, they have no proof to the contrary. So it must have been, like numerous agencies, and members from both parties involved in the vote counting have agreed it was, a free and fair election. In fact, the only attempt to manipulate the vote came from Trump and his acolytes, it just didn't work.

Trump is man-baby whining because America told him no and the poor man-baby, and his moron conspiracy theorist supporters, just can't accept that reality. And they want to waste money on audits that will eventually only confirm they are morons (either by reality slapping them hard in the face and they realise their moronic behaviour or, far more likely, they delve deeper into the conspiracy and because more insane).

And as I said earlier, only a moron would waste money to prove they're a moron.

But then again, we are dealing with hardcore Trump supporters, the type of people who think IQ is a t-shirt slogan for support of an online conspiracy nut.

notobtuse

Smee_Again wrote: »

At some point Trump is going to have to show his (tiny) hand but until then any reasonable person will ignore his statements, while the unreasonable among us will lap them up.

So the mainstream media aren't reasonable people according to you, because they lap up and report on every one of his statements.

notobtuse

randd1 wrote: »

RE the bit in bold.

According to his own laywers, in Court under oath, they have no proof to the contrary.

So it must have been, like numerous agencies, and both parties involved in the vote counted have agreed it was, a free and fair election. In fact, the only attempt to manipulate the vote came from Trump and his acolytes.

Trump is man-baby whining because America told him no and the poor man-baby, and his moron conspiracy theorist supporters, just can't accept that reality. And they want to waste money on audits that will eventually only confirm they are morons (either by reality slapping them hard in the face and they realise their moronic behaviour or, far more likely, they delve deeper into the conspiracy and because more insane).

And as I said earlier, only a moron would waste money to prove they're a moron.

But then again, we are dealing with hardcore Trump supporters, the type of people who think IQ is a t-shirt slogan for support of an online conspiracy nut.

Ah... he's referring to the actual current events going on in several states.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Ya, the hat wasn't the issue which is the thing. It was idiots invading a federal building on the basis of a conspiracy theory. Pretty dishonest to ignore the actual point the poster was making.

Perhaps your issue should be with the poster who made a point of the hat thing.

Smee_Again

notobtuse wrote: »

So the mainstream media aren't reasonable people according to you, because they lap up and report on every one of his statements.

Reporting on it is one thing, he is and always will be a twice impeached former POTUS, but I would say anyone lapping it up is unreasonable as in no reasonable person could believe what he is saying.

randd1

notobtuse wrote: »

Ah... he's referring to the actual current events going on in several states.

No, he's referring to things that he thinks are happening.

In reality, he lost a free and fair election that he and his acolytes tried to tip in his favour, and since then him and his acolytes have spent the last 6 months denying basic reality, clawing to the most inane hope pulled out of their ass by QAnon (and the odd crazy congressman trying to rim his hole) as fact.

There's really nothing more to be said than that. Trump and his acolytes have proven they're little more than a cult that deny reality that's passed crazy into just plain moronic. At least with crazy you could have some pity for them because they're crazy but it's gone on for so long they have to be classed as morons.

All an audit of any sort would prove is what the normal world knew months ago, and would simply prove that Trumpists are actually morons denying reality. And as I said earlier, only a moron would waste money to prove they're a moron.

notobtuse

Smee_Again wrote: »

Reporting on it is one thing, he is and always will be a twice impeached former POTUS, but I would say anyone lapping it up is unreasonable as in no reasonable person could believe what he is saying.

Both impeachments processes by the Democrats were utter farces. Democrats in the House could have impeached him because they didn't like the color of his ties. Luckily the Senate has some semblance of reason.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

On Monday former President Donald Trump said he has not conceded the November 2020 election. He went on to say "No, I never, the word is 'concede,' [and] I have not conceded."

He also said "You know, we were always known for free and fair elections." "Well, it turns out they weren't free, and they weren't fair, and the world is watching.”

So apparently Trump is using the current events I was discussing regarding the forensic election audits going on and in discussion in several states to keep himself and the forensic audits in the news and in the forefront of people's minds. I guess for some odd reason "the world" here can only watch these current events in the Conspiracy Theory section.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-not-conceded-november-210600776.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3

Except trump admitted that he lost in a fox interview recently

https://www.mcclatchyd...rticle252177178.html

“We got them by surprise in ‘16, and in ‘20 we did much better than we did in ‘16,” Trump told Hannity. “Shockingly, we were supposed to win easily at 64 million votes and we got 75 million votes. We didn’t win, but let’s see what happens on that. The whole thing was shocking.”

briany

duploelabs wrote: »

Except trump admitted that he lost in a fox interview recently

https://www.mcclatchyd...rticle252177178.html

“We got them by surprise in ‘16, and in ‘20 we did much better than we did in ‘16,” Trump told Hannity. “Shockingly, we were supposed to win easily at 64 million votes and we got 75 million votes. We didn’t win, but let’s see what happens on that. The whole thing was shocking.”

He didn't say he won, but didn't say he lost either, and was inferring that there was still a possibility that he won. I wonder if he has ever in his life just admitted to losing at something.

dinorebel

notobtuse wrote: »

Both impeachments processes by the Democrats were utter farces. Democrats in the House could have impeached him because they didn't like the color of his ties. Luckily the Senate has some semblance of reason.

Now we know you're a troll.

Smee_Again

dinorebel wrote: »

Now we know you're a troll.

Was there ever a doubt?

Tippex

Tippex wrote: »

Can you point to these fact articles that you are referring to please.

Guess there is no chance they will respond with the facts lol

randd1

Tippex wrote: »

Guess there is no chance they will respond with the facts lol

In order for a fact to be a fact, it must first be based in actual reality.

Overheal

WhomadeGod wrote: »

Like the Dems after 2016?

What about the 40% of voters who didn't trust honesty of elections back on 2009 when Donald trump wasn't even on the scene?

What about the Dems after 2016? There was no insurrection and no efforts to reinstall Obama for a coup. There weren’t a bunch of hoax audits. We did, however, have confirmation from the US IC that Russia actively interfered in the election cycle.

Overheal

not_quite_last wrote: »

Don't forget, he also opened an investigation into the 2016 results as he couldn't believe he lost the popular vote!

That’s true. The Trump WH opened its own investigation into fraud in the 2016 election and came up empty.

Overheal

Every time we uncover actual evidence of voter fraud: a) that person is prosecuted, and b) they're Republican

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/gop-officials-curious-explanation-on-why-he-voted-for-trump-on-behalf-of-his-dead-father/

When you try to vote for a dead person, it's that simple to catch and arrest you for.

notobtuse

Tippex wrote: »

Can you point to these fact articles that you are referring to please.

Sure...

From the article I quoted:

"Alina Chan is one of 18 experts who signed a letter in May calling for a thorough exploration into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic. Although Chan voiced her support for an investigation into the possibility of a lab leak early in the pandemic, she told NBC that experts were careful not to lean too close to views linked to the former president."

"At the time, it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn't want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins"

Also from NBC:

"Chan said there had been trepidation among some scientists about publicly discussing the lab leak hypothesis for fear that their words could be misconstrued or used to support racist rhetoric about how the coronavirus emerged. Trump fueled accusations that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in the city where the first Covid-19 cases were reported, was connected to the outbreak, and on numerous occasions he called the pathogen the "Wuhan virus" or "kung flu."

"At the time, it was scarier to be associated with Trump and to become a tool for racists, so people didn't want to publicly call for an investigation into lab origins," she said."

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/lab-leak-theory-science-scientists-rcna1191

If that isn't enough for you to consider her statements as fact then you would probably have to ignore 90% or more of all reporting from everywhere.... and probably 100% of reporting on Trump

Billy Mays

https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1407730830663950351?s=20

🤔

ohnonotgmail

Billy Mays wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1407730830663950351?s=20

🤔

They must be RINOs

Overheal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They must be RINOs

expect death threats to follow. thats how they do things now: 'tell us Trump won or we're coming for you and your family' https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats/

“Until Trump is guaranteed to be POTUS until 2024 like he should be, we will bring death and destruction to defend this country if needed and get our voices heard.”

This is shyte al qaeda talk.

notobtuse

Billy Mays wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1407730830663950351?s=20

🤔

Help me out here, as I haven't read everything... Did people here have an issue with the Michigan election? I know I didn't as there weren't reports of major issues and irregularities as there were in other states.

Billy Mays

notobtuse wrote: »

Help me out here, as I haven't read everything... Did people here have an issue with the Michigan election? I know I didn't as there weren't reports of major issues and irregularities as there were in other states.

Has the Michigan State Senate started their review of the Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 yet, or are they about to start? If not, they should be run out of office"

Guess who???

[Deleted User]

notobtuse wrote: »

Help me out here, as I haven't read everything... Did people here have an issue with the Michigan election? I know I didn't as there weren't reports of major issues and irregularities as there were in other states.

Yes there were sore losers in Michigan, as there were in every state that Trump lost. And yes, there were reports of made up nonsense by said sore losers in Michigan, as there were in every state that Trump lost. And no, there was no evidence found of anything in these reports by said sore losers in Michigan, as was the case in every state that Trump lost.

ohnonotgmail

Billy Mays wrote: »

Guess who???

I needed that laugh. Thanks.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes there were sore losers in Michigan, as there were in every state that Trump lost. And yes, there were reports of made up nonsense by said sore losers in Michigan, as there were in every state that Trump lost. And no, there was no evidence found of anything in these reports by said sore losers in Michigan, as was the case in every state that Trump lost.

Well, yeah there are always going to be sore losers in every state from the party that lost... but the major areas of concern that don't pass the smell test and deserve a forensic audit come from the states of Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Wisconsin.

[Deleted User]

notobtuse wrote: »

but the major areas of concern that don't pass the smell test and deserve a forensic audit come from the states of Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Wisconsin.

And why do they need audits? Provide sources.

And you disagree with your dear leader that Michigan passed the smell test? You should donate $100 to him immediately in apology.

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Well, yeah there are always going to be sore losers in every state from the party that lost... but the major areas of concern that don't pass the smell test and deserve a forensic audit come from the states of Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Wisconsin.

There is a difference between sore losers and claiming the election was stolen.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

And why do they need audits? Provide sources.

And you disagree with your dear leader that Michigan passed the smell test? You should donate $100 to him immediately in apology.

I already addressed some of those. Let me know which ones I didn't.

I disagreed with Trump on many the occasion. I don't recall having a problem with the Michigan election. And I'm not sold on a Wisconsin problem, yet.

And I did donate to his campaign in 2016 and 2020. I don't believe he's running for anything right now, but there is talk of making him Speaker of the House when Republicans take it back in 2022. You have to admit US politics would be a hoot if that were to happen with an unfiltered Trump as Speaker.

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

There is a difference between sore losers and claiming the election was stolen.

I guess it depends on the election. As I recall Democrats were claiming the 2016 and 2000 elections were stolen.

[Deleted User]

notobtuse wrote: »

I already addressed some of those. Let me know which ones I didn't.

No you didn't. You provided no sources that showed evidence that that an audit was necessary anywhere. If you did, I'd highly recommend you call up some media outlets as you'd be famous.

notobtuse wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I disagreed with Trump on many the occasion. I don't recall having a problem with the Michigan election. And I'm not sold on a Wisconsin problem, yet.

List several of his policies that you disagree with.

notobtuse wrote: »

And I did donate to his campaign in 2016 and 2020. I don't believe he's running for anything right now, but there is talk of making him Speaker of the House when Republicans take it back in 2022. You have to admit US politics would be a hoot if that were to happen with an unfiltered Trump as Speaker.

Oof, the brainwashing is strong with this one.