Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

Nov 4 place your bets

  • Trump will win, 100%

    Votes: 42 16.9%

  • Hilary will win, 100%

    Votes: 82 32.9%

  • Trump will win, but I'm worried Hil might triumph

    Votes: 9 3.6%

  • Hilary will win, but I'm scared the chances.

    Votes: 116 46.6%
  • Total voters
    249
aleCcowaN said:
Thank you. It's a mistake I make as soon as I get a bit distracted. "Gente" (people) in Spanish is singular and feminine. I was told in the 70's that in BE it was acceptable and I learned it wrong.
Click to expand...
"People" unqualified is treated as a plural, as if it was the plural of "person"; but if you write "a people", which denotes a single population or nationality, you may use the singular verb. Or you might say "the American people" or "the French people". These may be treated as singular; but without the definite article they would be plural.
 
The Atheist said:
Craig B said:
These may be treated as singular;
Click to expand...

[/Pedant]

You're confusing plurals with collective nouns, which they are in the usage you're describing.
Click to expand...

Plurals, if turned into collective nouns still take the plural verb form, though. There should be no confusion if the noun is plural. It's when the noun takes a singular form that sometimes confusion ensues.

People are. The team is. But some people will try to say "the team are" and we all chuckle at them.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Assuming you mean to vote for Trump, what would change your mind?

What would be something about Trump that would mean you could not vote for him?

Just curious...
Click to expand...


Good question. Making me think.

I liked Trump from the apprentice days. Strong leader who was direct, and listened to his two advisors including the women. He got things done, although making mistakes which is a learning tool.

I agree with his analysis of the problems in the USA, and think that he will not only try to change the system but will use the force of his personality and the "bully pulpit".

I was not happy with his first debate performance. I do not think he listened sufficiently to his advisors. The one flaw as a leader is that he may be too sure of his own opinions. But he is not a seasoned debater, and one can let him lose his first one.

If he continues to take the bait and go off-message, then I will have concerns about his need to justify himself at all times.

But with Hillary as his opponent, the only thing that would make me change would be positive proof that he had literally done a deal with Satan.

His wives knew his reputation as a playboy. A rich kid who used his money as an aphrodisiac, or could buy his way out of trouble.

Being married 3 times is not a problem. Making a bad choice in a partner is common.

I knew a farm boy who just used to ask women straight if they would like to have sex (he was crude and lewd). He said that he got a lot of smacks in the face, but he got a lot of sex also.

So far, I know of no criminal behavior. All the rich (and many not so rich) use the tax rules to minimize taxes. The problem is the tax code.

I have a bit of a problem with Trump University, but am not sure I am getting the whole story. There are always dissatisfied customers, and ones who want publicity.
 
davefoc said:
(snip)

Still there are a lot of reasons why people were supporting Trump and those reasons haven't gone away. And there is the constant drumbeat about Clitnn's miscellaneous foibles (made up and real) and maybe something could pop there so Trump's chances seem to still be non-zero.

My question is how were there ever 30 people on this forum that Trump had a 100% chance of winning?(snip)
Click to expand...

See my previous post.

Trump is a leader who can be trusted, is anti-establishment, and has populist policies that resonate. The rest is distraction.
 
This says it better than I did. Found it after I posted mine.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/.../08/robert-mercer-donald-trump-tape/91802938/

If Mr. Trump had told Billy Bush, whoever that is, earlier this year that he was for open borders, open trade, and executive actions in pursuit of gun control, we would certainly be rethinking our support for him. If he had admitted to Mr. Bush that he had profited privately by allowing the sale to Russia of 20% of US uranium deposits or that he had amassed his personal fortune not by hard work in the private sector but by selling favors to foreigners on the American taxpayers' dime, we would certainly be rethinking our support for him.

If he had argued that he needed both a public and a private position on issues facing the American public, we would certainly be rethinking our support for him. And finally if Trump had serially terrorized and silenced the victims of violent sexual assault whom he feared could damage his political career, we would most definitely be rethinking our support for him.

Donald Trump's uncensored comments, both old and new, have been echoed and dissected in the media repeatedly in an effort to kindle among his supporters a conflagration of outrage commensurate with the media's own faux outrage. Can anyone really be surprised that Mr. Trump could have said to Mr. Bush such things as he has already admitted saying? No. We are completely indifferent to Mr. Trump's locker room braggadocio.

The same media that resolutely looked away when the most powerful man in the world, a sitting U.S. president with multiple violent sexual assaults to his credit, snared an impressionable young intern in his web and ruined her life, now expects us to gasp with revulsion at Mr. Trump's irreverent comments. America is finally fed up and disgusted with its political elite.

Trump is channeling this disgust and those among the political elite who quake before the boom-box of media blather do not appreciate the apocalyptic choice that America faces on November 8th. We have a country to save and there is only one person who can save it. We, and Americans across the country and around the world, stand steadfastly behind Donald J. Trump.
Click to expand...
 
PartSkeptic said:
Good question. Making me think.

I liked Trump from the apprentice days. Strong leader who was direct, and listened to his two advisors including the women. He got things done, although making mistakes which is a learning tool.

<snip>
Click to expand...

You do realize that "reality" is just a word used by the marketers and that Trump's persona is made-up, right? It's a product. Burnett re-invented him. Prior to that, Trump was a household name for being a poseur who Howard Stern made into his little bitch. Most of the problems from those Stern interviews are because Stern's a far better manipulator of media than Trump is. If you listen to the exchange when he (Trump) is cornered into agreeing that Stern can refer to Ivanka as "a great piece of ass" or the post mortem interview on Princess Diana, you hear a man-child trying to be accepted by the in crowd. Donald was on the outs and Stern wasn't.

More interesting is that you're basing your positive feelings about the guy based on a fictional character, a creation of Mark Burnett.
 
Is this an intellectual problem?
Is it really so hard for Trump supporters to see that, as a person under public scrutiny, what you think and what you say shouldn't be always the same?

The problem of "talking straight" is what has led GOP lawmakers to let their bills be written by lobbyists: they don't have the necessary flexibility to seek common ground.

Laws&Sausages, people: it's not a question of how they are made, it's who they benefit.
 
PartSkeptic said:
This says it better than I did. Found it after I posted mine.
Click to expand...

You should do a better job of identifying quotes. That is not the USA Today article, but a full quote in that article from the Mercers. The Mercers are actual billionaires, the sort that don't even let Fortune know what they're worth. They are also regressive paleo conservative reactionaries. They own Breitbart, fer crissake and are the midwives of the New Exciting Hillary Hating Trump leadership (Bannon, Conway, Coulter, Sessions, Stone, Klein, et al).

You are, of course, entitled to follow anyone you like and agree with whomever you agree with, but it's traditional on a skeptics' forum to better identify the source material. USA Today didn't state that; they have actually anti-endorsed Trump, coming out against him for one of the only times in their history.
 
I can sort of understand how some people would support Trump's stated positions on things (though I don't), but I find it odd and a bit frightening that anyone believes he can be trusted.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You do realize that "reality" is just a word used by the marketers and that Trump's persona is made-up, right? It's a product. Burnett re-invented him. Prior to that, Trump was a household name for being a poseur who Howard Stern made into his little bitch. Most of the problems from those Stern interviews are because Stern's a far better manipulator of media than Trump is. If you listen to the exchange when he (Trump) is cornered into agreeing that Stern can refer to Ivanka as "a great piece of ass" or the post mortem interview on Princess Diana, you hear a man-child trying to be accepted by the in crowd. Donald was on the outs and Stern wasn't.

More interesting is that you're basing your positive feelings about the guy based on a fictional character, a creation of Mark Burnett.
Click to expand...

His fictional character would also have been unsuitable as a leader. Just not as bad as the real Trump.
 
davefoc said:
I'm just joining this thread. A lot has gone on since this thread started. Right now it looks like Trump's chances have fallen to single digits. One would think that trying to do business with Castro while he was claiming that was a bad thing would be enough to put his Florida chance in the pretty low range.

And the audio where he bragged about getting away with assaulting women was just released yesterday. I would think that was not a good thing for his already low chances. I'm still a little unsure of this but it appears that somebody I know who has regularly posted pro-Trump stuff seems to have taken down his Trump posts after the Trump's bragging about sexually assaulting women story broke.

Still there are a lot of reasons why people were supporting Trump and those reasons haven't gone away. And there is the constant drumbeat about Clitnn's miscellaneous foibles (made up and real) and maybe something could pop there so Trump's chances seem to still be non-zero.

My question is how were there ever 30 people on this forum that Trump had a 100% chance of winning? Really? Why? It's been pretty well understood for awhile that he is a race baiting grifter that has left a strong of failed businesses and scams in his wake and that he is a sexist ******* that had probably sexually assaulted women (this was known to be very likely the case even before the recent revelations). Didn't one of those 30 people think that some of that might pose some kind of stumbling block for his election? Did they have any concerns that Trump has been on both sides of many major issues and that there was plenty of video of that available which would make him out to look like a flaming hypocrite?
Click to expand...

We do have a number of republickers here- enough to easily account for what you note and more.
 
PartSkeptic said:
.......Trump is a leader........
Click to expand...

Oh no he's not. Thank goodness for small mercies, but he absolutely is not, and never will be.

PartSkeptic said:
.......who can be trusted, is anti-establishment, and has populist policies that resonate. The rest is distraction.
Click to expand...

Trusted? You'd trust someone who lied, what, was it 30 , or maybe 40 times in just one live TV debate? BBC You'd trust someone who cheats on every woman he marries, within months of marrying them? WTF would he have to do for you not to trust him?

What we're seeing here is a classic case of "I've made up my mind, and there is nothing can change it". You rationalise everything through the prism of justifying your selection, and ignore the mountain of evidence showing you that you are just plain wrong. A bit like religion in a way. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, lie-le-lie...."
 
PartSkeptic said:
This says it better than I did. Found it after I posted mine.

[/Donald Trump's uncensored comments, both old and new, have been echoed and dissected in the media repeatedly in an effort to kindle among his supporters a conflagration of outrage commensurate with the media's own faux outrage. Can anyone really be surprised that Mr. Trump could have said to Mr. Bush such things as he has already admitted saying? No. We are completely indifferent to Mr. Trump's locker room braggadocio.​
Click to expand...

If I may quote Mr. Trump, himself - WRONG!
What kind of sick and distorted view of reality does someone need to have to say he wasn't surprised that a man running for president would have previously said in a casual manner, "grab their ******"? That is not normal talk. To pretend it is so normal for Trump as to be expected requires a willful blindness to Trump's many, many flaws. The same flaws that make him unqualified to be president.

PartSkeptic's citation said:
The same media that resolutely looked away WRONG! when the most powerful man in the world, a sitting U.S. president with multiple violent sexual assaults to his credit, WRONG! snared an impressionable young intern in his web and ruined her life, now expects us to gasp with revulsion at Mr. Trump's irreverent comments.WRONG. It is not the press that is gasping with revulsion, it is the Republican Party that is gasping with revulsion. America is finally fed up and disgusted with its political elite.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Okay. Debate two. First I watch CNN and think Trump lost the first part badly, and tied the second half.

Later I watch a rerun, and although Hillary did okay, Trump dominated the whole time. Hillary was on the defensive. Bill did not look too happy what with some of his past sitting in the audience. Despite Hillary's toughness, I think that one got to her a bit. Also maybe a bit tired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom