• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Could you explain why that would be a bad tactic?

2016 and 2018 demonstrated that just winning isn't enough due to the EC and Gerrymandering.
And that is before the obvious shenanigans Trump is up to with the Postal Service and Mail-in Ballots.

"Vote in numbers too big to manipulate" is exactly what Democrats should call for, because at a simple majority won't be enough to get Trump out of Office.
Click to expand...

It’s 2020.
It is time to stop pretending that overwhelming evidence, undeniable facts, and logic
have any influence at all over President Trump and his followers.

There is no majority big enough to sway the folks who drank the Kool-Aid. Trump will say, “this was predicted to be a close election and the Dem vote totals are way out of line with that. This right here is proof that they rigged the election.”

No matter what the outcome is, Trump will start tap dancing and claim that he is the winner.
To believe that there is any set of conditions that will lead him (and his followers) to do otherwise is foolishness of the first water.
 
Last edited:
The new thing I noticed recently about Trump's supporters is that his utterances are so insane they have to pretend he's doing reverse psychology.




He can't even do forward psychology.
 
Ladewig said:
It’s 2020.
It is time to stop pretending that overwhelming evidence, undeniable facts, and logic
have any influence at all over President Trump and his followers.

There is no majority big enough to sway the folks who drank the Kool-Aid. Trump will say, “this was predicted to be a close election and the Dem vote totals are way out of line with that. This right here is proof that they rigged the election.”

No matter what the outcome is, Trump will start tap dancing and claim that he is the winner.
To believe that there is any set of conditions that will lead him (and his followers) to do otherwise is foolishness of the first water.
Click to expand...
I see two types of scenarios that would impede Biden from taking office:

1. A legal process or challenge - getting the Repub state legislatures to de-certify the electors, or challenging the vote count a la 2000, or something similar;

2. Civil unrest spurred on by Trump's claim that the election was rigged.

So any tap-dancing from Trump would have to be of sufficient intensity to trigger enough civil unrest to somehow prevent the electors from meeting, and counting their votes. I'm not sure what that would look like, realistically. So I think 1 is far more likely.
 
Here's the sort of thing that usually gets people upset:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michel...-donors-to-his-private-business/#35c5e4c9735c

Summary: Forbes magazine details campaign expenditures by the Trump reelection committed where the vendor was the Trump organization. About two million dollars of money from donors was paid to Donald Trump's businesses. I think that 2 million dollars is last quarter.

Forbes isn't exactly some left wing shill mag. Good to see this sort of article.
 
RolandRat said:
I just don't think Trump being able to stay on if he is beaten is very credible, I can't see it happening despite the rhetoric Trump might put out.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He's always blustering, pretending to be tough. He's not tough at all. There's no army backing up a coup.

The worst he could do is contest the election and try to hold it up in court. People would let him know, there is no point.

But the bigger the EC landslide the better.
 
The Don said:
It would undermine his position if Republicans do pretty well nationally and it's just him that fails miserably.
Click to expand...



On the contrary, this would convince his supporters that it was all rigged.

"Those stupid Dems were so stupid, they only rigged the presidential election! Why would anyone for for a Republican Congress but not vote for Trump? Stupid Dems are Stupid!"
 
Meadmaker said:
Here's the sort of thing that usually gets people upset:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michel...-donors-to-his-private-business/#35c5e4c9735c

Summary: Forbes magazine details campaign expenditures by the Trump reelection committed where the vendor was the Trump organization. About two million dollars of money from donors was paid to Donald Trump's businesses. I think that 2 million dollars is last quarter.

Forbes isn't exactly some left wing shill mag. Good to see this sort of article.
Click to expand...

Yes, we need a million more articles like it that will have no effect whatsoever on his cultists.
 
Just read some comments about trump on Twitter. His base -- at least some of it -- seem like they are starting to turn on trumpy. Wonder if you can guess, who do you think is THE most nefarious deep agent of the Deep State?

Yep, that's right.
 

Attachments

  • Hello.jpg
    Hello.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 14
The Great Zaganza said:
Could you explain why that would be a bad tactic?

2016 and 2018 demonstrated that just winning isn't enough due to the EC and Gerrymandering.
And that is before the obvious shenanigans Trump is up to with the Postal Service and Mail-in Ballots.

"Vote in numbers too big to manipulate" is exactly what Democrats should call for, because at a simple majority won't be enough to get Trump out of Office.
Click to expand...

I withdraw my previous criticisms.
The Dems have to overwhelm Trump in the Electoral College. Because if they don’t, then one or two medium to large states that went Democratic could have state officials not certify the results by December 14. At that point, the 12th Amendment kicks in. The House-Elect then votes, but, each state gets one vote. That means the Republicans would win (TheY hold more states even though they don’t hold more seats).
 
Dems: the mommy party
Traditional Republicans: the daddy party
Trump Republicans: the abuser party
 
Paul2 said:
Dems: the mommy party
Traditional Republicans: the daddy party
Trump Republicans: the abuser party
Click to expand...

Trump, referring to Ghislaine Maxwell, the women who enabled Jeffrey Epstein and is perhaps the most notorious sex trafficker in the US: "I wish her well."

Law and order!
 
MRC_Hans said:
I'm optimistic.

One, Trump is ineffective. He has been uniquely ineffective for the entirety of his term. He doesn't even lie half well.

Two, there must be numerous republicans and current followers who consider him a liability, a loose cannon. Sure, they don't have the guts to stand up to him now and face the abuse, but once he has lost an election (if that happens), there will be defection. People will realize they lost a presidency term, will cut their losses and queue up at the hand-wash.

And from there on, it will be down-slope for Donnie.

Well, so I hope.

Hans
Click to expand...
This ^
 
Meadmaker said:
Here's the sort of thing that usually gets people upset:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michel...-donors-to-his-private-business/#35c5e4c9735c

Summary: Forbes magazine details campaign expenditures by the Trump reelection committed where the vendor was the Trump organization. About two million dollars of money from donors was paid to Donald Trump's businesses. I think that 2 million dollars is last quarter.

Forbes isn't exactly some left wing shill mag. Good to see this sort of article.
Click to expand...


Just Trump being Trump. :thumbsup:
 
Mojo said:
TRUMP: Who should we ask for an opinion on this?
BARR: How about Yoo?
TRUMP: Great idea!
Click to expand...

More like:

TRUMP: Who should we ask for an opinion on this?
BARR: How about Yoo?
TRUMP: Me?
BARR: No, Yoo.
TRUMP: Me?
BARR: No, Yoo.
COSTELLO: Third Base!
 
Meadmaker said:
Here's the sort of thing that usually gets people upset:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michel...-donors-to-his-private-business/#35c5e4c9735c

Summary: Forbes magazine details campaign expenditures by the Trump reelection committed where the vendor was the Trump organization. About two million dollars of money from donors was paid to Donald Trump's businesses. I think that 2 million dollars is last quarter.

Forbes isn't exactly some left wing shill mag. Good to see this sort of article.
Click to expand...

As the woman with the loud voice on the beach beside me said this afternoon, "That proves he's a smart businessman. Exactly the sort of person we need in charge instead of some socialist."

Note, we're in Canada, so I think she's implying we need to elect a Trump of our own.
 
shemp said:
Yes, we need a million more articles like it that will have no effect whatsoever on his cultists.
Click to expand...

His cultists are a small portion of the electorate.

There's another group that are not hard core Trump cultists, but they are hard core anti-Democrats, who would vote for any Republican against any Democrat. If those people represent more than 50% of the electoral votes, then there's no point in campaigning. The election is already decided.


Assuming there's at least one swing voter out there, this is the sort of thing that makes some people mad.
 
Belz... said:
I'm trying to ascertain if he's really that deluded, or if he's so far up in the role-playing that he'd say anything to kiss up to Trump.
Click to expand...

Newt's no dummy and, in his prime, he was a pretty good politician. Now, he's just sold out like so many other Republicans What's bit odd about it is that Newt has no future as a politician so he gains nothing with the sell-out.

As I wrote that, I realized it's not true. He still want to be an insider, a power broker, a prized guest on Fox. So that's probably why.

BTW, acknowledging Newt's one-time prowess as a pol does *not* mean that I approve(d) of his policy ideas. For example, he's yet another idiot supply-sider. Gah!
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Heck, come to think of it, do we even want Trump sacked this close to the election? I think Pence has a significantly higher chance of beating Biden, and I don't want four years of Pence more than I want four more years of Wannabe Hitler.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree. The problem with a Pence run is that he is most definitely not viewed as next to gawd like Trump is. The result would be that a LOT of Republican voters would just stay home. I think their view could be summarized with, "Pence? Meh."

That also carries the obvious implication for the down ballot races. The GOP will do all they can to retain Trump as their candidate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom