Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

ELM327

endainoz wrote: »

Spelling ability checks out.

Or autocorrect, but whatever suits your agenda

ELM327

listermint wrote: »

Born and bred.... Read your words back and have a think about that for a minute.

Is there not something wrong in that statement. I mean it's not like a football team.

It's called colloquialism. "Born and bred" (spelled correctly) is a well known, well used idiom in both hiberno-english as well as british-english.

aloyisious

Penn wrote: »

The trouble is the primaries, same way Trump Sr got in. Most of the GOP rejected Trump entering, but once the votes started piling in for him they fell in line behind him. The GOP may not support Don Jr going for President, but if he were to start pulling in primary votes, they'll get in line even just for another 4 year stint to try grab as much for themselves as possible.

Is the GOP obligated to support some-one who's pulling in votes merely because he's strolled up & donned [no pun intended] the mantle of the GOP or can the party hierarchy say "the title GOP is party trademark property and not just for any person to stroll up and start using" and tell him to hop it?

listermint

ELM327 wrote: »

It's called colloquialism. "Born and bred" (spelled correctly) is a well known, well used idiom in both hiberno-english as well as british-english.

The fact you haven't understood the point I was making is telling. It wasn't a commentary of the vernacular.

dogbert27

dogbert27 wrote: »

What sitting president has ever had to do this to the White House on an election day?



Says it all really about Trump as a president.

He seems really confident of winning this though, a little too confident. It's been said in here before that he accuses others of what he himself is guilty of, vote rigging?!

I'm actually expecting a Trump win at this point at this administration has shown consistently that it has no morals or respect.

I know I'm quoting myself here but I came across this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8907577/Mystery-British-businessman-bets-5million-Donald-Trump-winning-presidential-election.html

Largest bet in U.S. presidential election history based on the business man speaking to "Insiders in the Trump camp".

I'd be surprised to see a fair election here. It's interesting that only 28 of the 50 States allow for independent monitoring of voting.

endainoz

ELM327 wrote: »

Or autocorrect, but whatever suits your agenda

When you say since day one, are you talking about when he was buddies with the Clinton's and pretended to be a democrat or after when he let Rodger Ailes control him like a puppet?

listermint

endainoz wrote: »

When you say since day one, are you talking about when he was buddies with the Clinton's and pretended to be a democrat or after when he let Rodger Ailes control him like a puppet?

Maybe when he took that full page ad out in the NY times calling for the death penalty.

endainoz

listermint wrote: »

Maybe when he took that full page ad out in the NY times calling for the death penalty.

He wasn't calling it the "failing New York Times" in those days.

Zubeneschamali

Penn wrote: »

The trouble is the primaries, same way Trump Sr got in. Most of the GOP rejected Trump entering, but once the votes started piling in for him they fell in line behind him

The problem in the Republican primaries was that all the usual assholes dismissed Trump and assumed one of them would win. Even when they were down to 3, Kasich was teaming up with Trump to dump on Cruz.

Next time, I think the establishment Rs will unite earlier against the Trumpists. Nikki Haley, maybe.

abff

If there was any justice, there is no way that Trump will still be President after next January. But I am very concerned that all the attempts that are being made to subvert the electoral process will actually work. I think the next couple of days are going to be very nerve wracking.

ELM327

endainoz wrote: »

When you say since day one, are you talking about when he was buddies with the Clinton's and pretended to be a democrat or after when he let Rodger Ailes control him like a puppet?

Buddies with the Clinton's what?

Anyway: Since he clothes-lined Vince McMahon at Wrestlemania.

Detritus70

I'm certainly no supporter of Trump, but I think it is not ideal to criticise posters for a typo.
Personally, I can see no logical reason to support Trump. It's more ideology at this point.

Brussels Sprout

Stallingrad wrote: »

As Biden tries to take the heat down nationwide DT will continue to do the opposite, grooming Don Jr or Ivanka for the the next election.

He'd be constitutionally eligible to run again himself in 2024 if he loses this one. It has even been done once before. Grover Cleveland was President from 1884-1888. He lost the 1888 election to Benjamin Harrison and then came back in 1892 to beat Harrison to serve a second term.

I think if there are no health or legal reasons for Trump not to then I could see him going again for the nomination. He'd only be a few months older then Joe Biden is now. He doesn't like anyone else getting the limelight, not even his children. It would also give him an excuse to continue doing his rallies for another 4 years.

VinLieger

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

He'd be constitutionally eligible to run again himself in 2024 if he loses this one. It has even been done once before. Grover Cleveland was President from 1884-1888. He lost the 1888 election to Benjamin Harrison and then came back in 1892 to beat Harrison to serve a second term.

I think if there are no health or legal reasons for Trump not to then I could see him going again for the nomination. He'd only be a few months older then Joe Biden is now. He doesn't like anyone else getting the limelight, not even his children. It would also give him an excuse to continue doing his rallies for another 4 years.

Not a chance of him being eligible with all the legal issues that are coming at him if he loses

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Alright, I know it's election day and people are a bit excited, but please do read the charter and heed it. We don't want to have to issue any more sanctions.

Remember, this is a discussion and debate forum. Don't post if your post consists solely or mostly of:

• Insults to other users or groups of users
• Abuse of public figures
• Tweets, links, videos
• One liners or jokes

As a rule of thumb, unless your post consist of at least one paragraph of your own contribution, think twice before posting.

Canice Picklington

abff wrote: »

If there was any justice, there is no way that Trump will still be President after next January. But I am very concerned that all the attempts that are being made to subvert the electoral process will actually work. I think the next couple of days are going to be very nerve wracking.

Yep.

I have no faith at all in American institutions. All the rhetoric about checks and balanaces has been nonsense. Irish coverage is especially bad. Has the anointed Irish-based US politics "expert" (he's expert in the same way Eamon Dunphy is an expert on Spanish football) Larry Donnelly mentioned the words "voter suppression" once?

Ever?

It's like these people are living in a different world.

check_six

dogbert27 wrote: »

I know I'm quoting myself here but I came across this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8907577/Mystery-British-businessman-bets-5million-Donald-Trump-winning-presidential-election.html

Largest bet in U.S. presidential election history based on the business man speaking to "Insiders in the Trump camp".

I'd be surprised to see a fair election here. It's interesting that only 28 of the 50 States allow for independent monitoring of voting.

I'm not sure I'd be relying on Trump Insiders to give me an honest appraisal of anything at all. Maybe the bet is based on the assumption that Trump will declare himself the winner at some point over the night and whether he actually wins or not is irrelevant to the bet.

I'm just thinking back to the election in 2004 and how it seemed against all reason that the US could possibly vote George W back in again. The race with John Kerry was a pretty close run thing and came down to Kerry conceding the Ohio count which was the difference between them in the end. There was talk of some hi-jinks there too in the end though I'm struggling to remember the exact details as clearly as the bizarreness of the 2000 count in Florida.

Could reason be thrown out the window again? Or will shenanigans take over to steer the result? Is there any danger of "The World's Greatest Democracy TM" having a transparent and fair election? All will be revealed as I watch on through the gaps in my fingers, probably.

robinph

Why would you take the opinion of someone on one of the competing teams as justification for placing a bet on them winning a 2 horse race...unless that horse was in a position to cheat and knew that was what they were going to do? If you were placing a bet on Biden winning the reason for doing so would be the polling data etc, not because Biden told you he was going to win.

Either the person placing the bet is an idiot, or it really some money laundering scam.

beggars_bush

When does the shredding begin?

banie01

I posted the below on the 31st March...
Don just claimed live on CNN that his actions have saved 2 million lives, I would say I'm shocked but I expected it.
The media need to really to start hammering him on this BS.

transylman

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

He'd be constitutionally eligible to run again himself in 2024 if he loses this one. It has even been done once before. Grover Cleveland was President from 1884-1888. He lost the 1888 election to Benjamin Harrison and then came back in 1892 to beat Harrison to serve a second term.

I think if there are no health or legal reasons for Trump not to then I could see him going again for the nomination. He'd only be a few months older then Joe Biden is now. He doesn't like anyone else getting the limelight, not even his children. It would also give him an excuse to continue doing his rallies for another 4 years.

Except I expect Biden will codify a lot of the things the presidential candidates have typically done, and should do, but Trump didn't, like release of tax returns, divestment of businesses, etc.

BonnieSituation

Canice Picklington wrote: »

Yep.

I have no faith at all in American institutions. All the rhetoric about checks and balanaces has been nonsense. Irish coverage is especially bad. Has the anointed Irish-based US politics "expert" (he's expert in the same way Eamon Dunphy is an expert on Spanish football) Larry Donnelly mentioned the words "voter suppression" once?

Ever?

It's like these people are living in a different world.

I have been most annoyed at RTÉ's coverage. Brian O'Donovan has been very soft on the GOP and Trump the last while.

It was like that time they got all swoony with Trump when he molly-coddled Caitríona Perry.

Come back Mark Little!

Water John

Wouldn't say he molly-coddled Catriona Perry. Nearer to leered.

ELM327

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

He'd be constitutionally eligible to run again himself in 2024 if he loses this one. It has even been done once before. Grover Cleveland was President from 1884-1888. He lost the 1888 election to Benjamin Harrison and then came back in 1892 to beat Harrison to serve a second term.

I think if there are no health or legal reasons for Trump not to then I could see him going again for the nomination. He'd only be a few months older then Joe Biden is now. He doesn't like anyone else getting the limelight, not even his children. It would also give him an excuse to continue doing his rallies for another 4 years.

If the Donald does lose then I'd love to see this.

rosser44

ELM327 wrote: »

If the Donald does lose then I'd love to see this.

Might be a bit hard to run for president from Rikers Island

ELM327

rosser44 wrote: »

Might be a bit hard to run for president from Rikers Island

There's as much a chance of that as the "lock her up" chants in 2016 had of succeeding.

Detritus70

ELM327 wrote: »

There's as much a chance of that as the "lock her up" chants in 2016 had of succeeding.

I dare say the chances are somewhat higher, in as much as he's actually probably guilty of various crimes, such as rape, tax fraud and money laundering to name but a few.
Al Capone wasn't locked up for murder, organised crime or bootlegging, it was taxes.
Which is somewhat more substantial than chanting to have someone locked up based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.

bocaman

Have to give it to Trump. He's the ultimate con man. Day of the election and with all he's said and done he's still in with a chance of being elected. Some people are easily bought.

Professor Moriarty

Detritus70 wrote: »

I dare say the chances are somewhat higher, in as much as he's actually probably guilty of various crimes, such as rape, tax fraud and money laundering to name but a few.
Al Capone wasn't locked up for murder, organised crime or bootlegging, it was taxes.
Which is somewhat more substantial than chanting to have someone locked up based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.

He'll spend years in court.

Corkblowin

ELM327 wrote: »

If the Donald does lose then I'd love to see this.

You can - He released them a few weeks ago. Just the 4 years waiting to see Donnie’s