Donald Trump

1…403404406408409…556

Comments

  • darkhairedlord
    darkhairedlord Posts: 7,180
    kingstongraham said:

    Pross said:

    Doesn't action that looks to be trying to force him out play into his hands and his claims of conspiracy? It could backfire.

    Can't be done without the agreement of the vice president, so as long as she makes that absolutely clear, it's just drawing more attention to his craziness. And on a practical level providing a way to actually remove him if his condition goes backwards again. He's not signing over control ever.
    Is this not simply a plan for if he loses the election and goes bat-sheet crazy or refuses to leave? They put pence in change for the last month to ensure an orderly transition.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 21,007
    Pross said:

    Doesn't action that looks to be trying to force him out play into his hands and his claims of conspiracy? It could backfire.


    Democrats' best-case scenario for the election is an incapacitated and nuts (but still POTUS) Trump. That's not necessarily the best-case scenario for the US, especially as Trump, in theory, carries on being POTUS till January, even if he's defeated.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,703
    Ideally he'll win a fight against being declared mentally unfit and he then won't be able to claim it to his benefit when and if he finds himself in Court after his term is over.
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,496
    the latest trump is much oranger that the one that came out of hospital, obviously it's a double

    where's the real trump?
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • step83
    step83 Posts: 4,170
    sungod said:

    the latest trump is much oranger that the one that came out of hospital, obviously it's a double

    where's the real trump?

    Same trump, just freshly dunked in the shade of shed paint he likes most.
    Titanium Px Spitfire
    Easty commuter
    Tripster AT
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,496
    look, here i am trying to launch a conspiracy theory that he's being held in a rubber room while a mcconnell controlled simulacrum emits random nonsense and you go and claim he's simply had a respray

    that's obviously a cover up! (geddit?)
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,477
    Biden a mile ahead with fewer 'undecided' or '3rd Party' voters than 2016



    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    On a state by state basis, which is more relevant, the FiveThirtyEight model has Biden around 8 points ahead.

    _
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Isn't 8 points ahead considered the level needed for a Biden win? I'm sure I heard that on a news report a few days back?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,305
    tangled_metal said:

    Isn't 8 points ahead considered the level needed for a Biden win? I'm sure I heard that on a news report a few days back?

    It might be the level needed to make it virtually impossible for Trump to win the electoral college, but a 5 point win should do it

    This is what 538 say about the percentage chance of a Biden win with a lead in the popular vote of:

    0-1 points: just 6% chance of a Biden win!
    1-2 points: 22%
    2-3 points: 46%
    3-4 points: 74%
    4-5 points: 89%
    5-6 points: 98%
    6-7 points: 99%

    So virtually certain with 5 points, but likely with a 3 point lead.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 21,007
    Wise people are telling Democrats to take nothing for granted, and to carry on behaving as if the polls are still level... remembering that they were pretty certain of a Clinton win in 2016, according to the polls...

    The energy and big money the Lincoln Project folk are putting into defeating Trump is quite something: the viciousness of their messaging is something else.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Does anybody know why they don't have a one man one vote system with the winner being the one with the most votes?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    edited October 2020
    surrey_commuter said:

    Does anybody know why they don't have a one man one vote system with the winner being the one with the most votes?

    people who drew up us constitution didn't believe in direct politics and thought the layer of state electors who would then offer their votes towards the presidency would help avoid dodgy situations.

    Nowadays that layer is a formality
    _
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 21,007
    surrey_commuter said:

    Does anybody know why they don't have a one man one vote system with the winner being the one with the most votes?


    I think part of it was to make sure that the sparsely populated rural states weren't disadvantaged in in comparison with the states with large populations and big cities... might be misremembering... it's quite complicated how they've ended up with the pig's ear of a system they have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,703
    I have to admit, I really don't understand the system. I also struggle with the US system altogether with some things done at state level, others at national level, police services split in all sorts of weird ways with some areas contracting their service to another area. District attorney, US attorney etc. etc. I enjoy watching Billions but find the whole political stuff even harder to follow than the financial bits (and I don't understand them at all).
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 21,007
    Pross said:

    I have to admit, I really don't understand the system. I also struggle with the US system altogether with some things done at state level, others at national level, police services split in all sorts of weird ways with some areas contracting their service to another area. District attorney, US attorney etc. etc. I enjoy watching Billions but find the whole political stuff even harder to follow than the financial bits (and I don't understand them at all).


    I suspect it's ended up that way as bits have been added on and everything adapted ad hoc since the establishment of the US. Like most systems, I guess you'd not design anything like it if you started from scratch now, not least, in the US's case, as there seems to be a biblical-like belief in the Constitution almost as "the word of god", and no-one dares mention that some of it is, well, a bit sh!t for today's world.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    I have to admit, I really don't understand the system. I also struggle with the US system altogether with some things done at state level, others at national level, police services split in all sorts of weird ways with some areas contracting their service to another area. District attorney, US attorney etc. etc. I enjoy watching Billions but find the whole political stuff even harder to follow than the financial bits (and I don't understand them at all).


    I suspect it's ended up that way as bits have been added on and everything adapted ad hoc since the establishment of the US. Like most systems, I guess you'd not design anything like it if you started from scratch now, not least, in the US's case, as there seems to be a biblical-like belief in the Constitution almost as "the word of god", and no-one dares mention that some of it is, well, a bit sh!t for today's world.
    That would be the next question - if the Democrats won both houses and the presidency could they change he electoral system?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,305
    surrey_commuter said:

    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    I have to admit, I really don't understand the system. I also struggle with the US system altogether with some things done at state level, others at national level, police services split in all sorts of weird ways with some areas contracting their service to another area. District attorney, US attorney etc. etc. I enjoy watching Billions but find the whole political stuff even harder to follow than the financial bits (and I don't understand them at all).


    I suspect it's ended up that way as bits have been added on and everything adapted ad hoc since the establishment of the US. Like most systems, I guess you'd not design anything like it if you started from scratch now, not least, in the US's case, as there seems to be a biblical-like belief in the Constitution almost as "the word of god", and no-one dares mention that some of it is, well, a bit sh!t for today's world.
    That would be the next question - if the Democrats won both houses and the presidency could they change he electoral system?
    No. Would require an amendment approved by two thirds of the senators and ratified by 38 states.

    Also, there is no advantage to either party unilaterally changing from the "winner takes all" format in the states they have a majority in.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?

    The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...

    The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,703
    coopster_the_1st said:

    What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?

    The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...

    The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.

    This makes even less sense than your usual rubbish. Who are the losers of which you speak? Surely the musing above specifically referenced it being in the event of controlling both houses and the presidency. It would be very hard to call a Party with control of all three as being the losers even in your distorted universe.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    I hope trump takes your advice. Try tweeting it to him after November elections.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    tangled_metal said:

    I hope trump takes your advice. Try tweeting it to him after November elections.

    What a weird reply but you go ahead and tweet him!

    My fear based on the democratic events of the last few years is that which ever side is the loser they will fail to respect the democratic outcome.

    For Trump that could be his refusal to accept the result and thus leave the Whitehouse.

    For the Democrat losers, huge protests and rioting.

    I don't see either side accepting the result...
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 21,007
    Pross said:

    This makes even less sense than your usual rubbish. Who are the losers of which you speak? Surely the musing above specifically referenced it being in the event of controlling both houses and the presidency. It would be very hard to call a Party with control of all three as being the losers even in your distorted universe.


    Trolling rarely makes sense, except as trolling.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,305
    coopster_the_1st said:

    What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?

    The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...

    The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.

    What is it about trying to improve a system you object to?
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,644
    coopster_the_1st said:

    What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?

    The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...

    The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.

    When Clinton (H) got more votes than Trump and Trump became still became president because of the electoral college system, surely democracy is the 'looser'?
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    pinno said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?

    The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...

    The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.

    When Clinton (H) got more votes than Trump and Trump became still became president because of the electoral college system, surely democracy is the 'looser'?
    That is the system, so that a large state does not have a disproportionate influence as explained further up-thread.

    It's happened before and will happen again but it is a check and balance built into the system by the forefathers. Hence the check and balance of the system required to change this.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,305
    coopster_the_1st said:

    pinno said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?

    The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...

    The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.

    When Clinton (H) got more votes than Trump and Trump became still became president because of the electoral college system, surely democracy is the 'looser'?
    That is the system, so that a large state does not have a disproportionate influence as explained further up-thread.

    It's happened before and will happen again but it is a check and balance built into the system by the forefathers. Hence the check and balance of the system required to change this.
    But it is not working anything like they designed it to. As explained up thread.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    kingstongraham said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?

    The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...

    The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.

    What is it about trying to improve a system you object to?
    That it is the losing side that are trying to change the system because they do not agree with the original democratic outcome but are happy with the system when they win.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    kingstongraham said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    pinno said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    What is it about the losers who don't like the democratic outcome, then want to change the system?

    The same people seem to go quiet on changing the system when democracy goes their way...

    The world would be a much improved place if the losers were mature enough to accept the democratic outcome.

    When Clinton (H) got more votes than Trump and Trump became still became president because of the electoral college system, surely democracy is the 'looser'?
    That is the system, so that a large state does not have a disproportionate influence as explained further up-thread.

    It's happened before and will happen again but it is a check and balance built into the system by the forefathers. Hence the check and balance of the system required to change this.
    But it is not working anything like they designed it to. As explained up thread.
    I've just seen the losers trying to discredit the system as they did not like the last result.

    They are no different to Trump and his attacks on the US postal vote system.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,640
    edited October 2020
    To be fair we have our problems here. BJ won a massive majority with 43.6% of the vote. Everyone happy with the tub of lard? "Winners" only, obs. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.

Categories