Jump to content

Donald Trump Appreciation Thread


Guided Missile

Saints Web Official US election  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for?

    • Biden
      66
    • Trump
      17


Recommended Posts

I'm not saying it will but to give the election to Biden at this stage as a certainty is naive.

 

Biden, the man who proclaimed that all women should be believed when raising sexual harassment, the Me Too poster boy has been accused of.........sexual harassment.

 

When the claims first aired, him and his supporters asked why hadn’t she come forward earlier (a question they refused to ask the “victim” of Judge Kavanaugh whilst Biden was persecuting him). There then appeared a Larry King clip from the 90’s where the women’s mother rang in to say that her daughter was sexually harassed, and today a court document emerges from 1996, where her ex husband states the same. So it looks like she did allege this at the time & Biden’s office covered it up.

 

Trump’s going to have a field day over this. Now, clearly Trump is a sleaze ball as well, but you can’t really go round being the right on leftie, grandfather of MeToo, whilst being a grubby little sex pest. I also don’t recall trump ever announcing that any accuser should be believed. Trump’s sleaze is also factored in with any voter.

 

This may grow and hurt Biden, not because any of his supporters will switch to trump off the back of it, or any republicans thinking of voting for him will go back to Trump. But many may now not vote, and that could let trump in. Even if it doesn’t the irony of soft arsed leftie feminists holding their nose & voting for a sex pest will be delicious.

 

 

3e1a60c572dd988bdf611fd603be3526.jpg

 

 

 

ba4dfd6fe6920eac3d823472ed1882bb.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden, the man who proclaimed that all women should be believed when raising sexual harassment, the Me Too poster boy has been accused of.........sexual harassment.

 

When the claims first aired, him and his supporters asked why hadn’t she come forward earlier (a question they refused to ask the “victim” of Judge Kavanaugh whilst Biden was persecuting him). There then appeared a Larry King clip from the 90’s where the women’s mother rang in to say that her daughter was sexually harassed, and today a court document emerges from 1996, where her ex husband states the same. So it looks like she did allege this at the time & Biden’s office covered it up.

 

Trump’s going to have a field day over this. Now, clearly Trump is a sleaze ball as well, but you can’t really go round being the right on leftie, grandfather of MeToo, whilst being a grubby little sex pest. I also don’t recall trump ever announcing that any accuser should be believed. Trump’s sleaze is also factored in with any voter.

 

This may grow and hurt Biden, not because any of his supporters will switch to trump off the back of it, or any republicans thinking of voting for him will go back to Trump. But many may now not vote, and that could let trump in. Even if it doesn’t the irony of soft arsed leftie feminists holding their nose & voting for a sex pest will be delicious.

 

 

3e1a60c572dd988bdf611fd603be3526.jpg

 

 

 

ba4dfd6fe6920eac3d823472ed1882bb.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It's not a good look for him, and he's a depressing candidate, but what exactly is he accused of? A few comments, a pat on the ass, waving his todger around...?

 

Whereas we know Trump:

 

- grabs women's genitals, so he says

- sneaks into girls changing rooms

- is accused of raping a 13 year old up the ass

- used to hang out with Epstein

- sexualises his own young daughter

Edited by benjii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a good look for him, and he's a depressing candidate, but what exactly is he accused of? A few comments, a pat on the ass, waving his todger around...?

 

Whereas we know Trump:

 

- grabs women's genitals

- sneaks into under age girls changing rooms

- is accused of raping a 13 year old up the ass

- used to hang out with Epstein

- wants to **** his own daughter

Eh? Wasn't Biden accused of penetrating a woman with his fingers against her will?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh? Wasn't Biden accused of penetrating a woman with his fingers against her will?

 

That’s the accusation, yes.

 

It’s pretty irrelevant what trumps done, his voters don’t care. The people who do care will either hold their nose & vote for a milder sex pest, or not vote for either. Too many of the latter and The Donald gets back in.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to listen to people here praising trump, while also denying reality on a daily basis by 90% of the people I have to work with. This area has not had a lot of cases but it is in the area. The lockdown just means you cannot go in certain stores but walmart is still open and the DIY chains seem busy from the cars parked outside. I drive to from work and avoid all other locations, because if the virus starts freely circulating here it will rip through the area quickly.

 

Its a shame the choice now seems to be voting for the person who has done the less sexual assault. They needed an equivalent of an operation Yewtree to rip through the place and round up all these people. Notice how Epstein didn't seem to take anyone else along with him, which seems unlikely to me that he was the only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the lesser of two evils should probably be the wisest choice in most situations, how on Earth does Trump come out on top?

 

It’s simple really. Trump supporters won’t care, they’ll vote for him regardless. They’ll vote for a sex pest.

 

Biden’s supporters may stay at home, not wanting to vote for a hypercritical sex pest.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s simple really. Trump supporters won’t care, they’ll vote for him regardless. They’ll vote for a sex pest.

 

Biden’s supporters may stay at home, not wanting to vote for a hypercritical sex pest.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

And then there will be those who think that Biden won't last 4 years anyway and vote because of his running mate. Can't understand the sudden tendancy towards old fogies. Most US presidents have been around 55-60 when elected. Trump was already 70 and Biden will be even older.

Edited by Window Cleaner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump won Texas in 2016 by 9 percent.

The latest poll shows him level with Biden in Texas.

 

Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016.

Biden is now leading by 6% .... according to the latest poll.

 

 

:lol:

Edited by Tamesaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump won Texas in 2016 by 9 percent.

The latest poll shows him level with Biden in Texas.

 

Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016.

Biden is now leading by 6% .... according to the latest poll.

 

 

:lol:

 

Because Polls have been absolutely reliable over the last few years haven't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump won Texas in 2016 by 9 percent.

The latest poll shows him level with Biden in Texas.

 

Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016.

Biden is now leading by 6% .... according to the latest poll.

 

 

:lol:

You'd probably need to look at the polls before the 2016 election to make any real comparison. Clinton was well ahead in a few states that she lost I seem to remember. Trump shouldn't win, he shouldn't have won in 2016 either but at least in 2016 he had an electable opponent. It will all depend on Biden's running mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course everyone knows that polls are not reliable and it would be a good idea to compare 2020 polls with 2016 polls but …

 

On this side of the pond and on this forum there seems to be a view that Trump is bound to win in November. Polling in America would suggest that this is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd probably need to look at the polls before the 2016 election to make any real comparison. Clinton was well ahead in a few states that she lost I seem to remember. Trump shouldn't win, he shouldn't have won in 2016 either but at least in 2016 he had an electable opponent. It will all depend on Biden's running mate.

 

Dear god, you think Hilary Clinton was electable. Almost anyone vaguely electable would have beaten him.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it will but to give the election to Biden at this stage as a certainty is naive.
Of course everyone knows that polls are not reliable and it would be a good idea to compare 2020 polls with 2016 polls but …

 

On this side of the pond and on this forum there seems to be a view that Trump is bound to win in November. Polling in America would suggest that this is not the case.

O rly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.87 million more votes for Clinton than Trump. Go figure.

 

They just don't think do they? Pony et al just repeat the soundbites that fit the world view the papers have presented to them and try to pass it of as wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.87 million more votes for Clinton than Trump. Go figure.

 

What’s that got to do with anything?

 

Is that proof that Clinton was electable, not getting elected against the most flawed candidate a presidential election has ever seen?

 

You lefties just don’t get it do you, just keep on losing, and still don’t get it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s that got to do with anything?

 

Is that proof that Clinton was electable, not getting elected against the most flawed candidate a presidential election has ever seen?

 

You lefties just don’t get it do you, just keep on losing, and still don’t get it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Surely winning the most votes in a 2 way election means that you are 'electable'. By your logic Corbyn won the November GE.

 

Please give us your definition of Democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s that got to do with anything?

 

Is that proof that Clinton was electable, not getting elected against the most flawed candidate a presidential election has ever seen?

 

You lefties just don’t get it do you, just keep on losing, and still don’t get it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Surely winning the most votes in a 2 way election means that you are 'electable'. By your logic Corbyn won the November GE.

 

Why not give us your definition of Democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Duckie, in a 2 way election one candidate polls 2.87 million votes more than their opponent - who wins ?
The one who gets the most electoral college votes, I'm afraid. There are states that Clinton should have walked but Trump took.

 

Like Corbyn piling up vanity votes in North London, the absolute vote count is not (and should not) be the only determining factor. There's always a need to balance the votes of less populated areas.

 

I'm no fan if FPTP and I am no expert on the US system but if Clinton couldn't win Michigan then she didn't deserve to win the Presidency - stacking up votes in California and NY just irrelevant.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The won who gets the most electoral college votes, I'm afraid. There are states that Clinton should have walked but Trump took.

 

Like Corbyn piling up vanity votes in North London, the absolute vote count is not (and should not) be the only determining factor. There's always a need to balance the votes of less populated areas.

 

I'm no fan if FPTP and I am no expert on the US system but if Clinton couldn't win Michigan then she didn't deserve to win the Presidency - stacking up votes in California and NY just irrelevant.

 

Disagree. The American system is FTTP on steroids. The electoral college always votes en masse for the candidate who gets the most votes in that state - which means effectively there are only 51 constituencies. Each state can be hundreds of miles across - a huge mash together of urban and rural, black, white and hispanic, white collar and blue. If they instead divided the electoral college votes by the proportion each candidate gained in the popular vote or even counted the votes by each Senate and HoR seat - some 535 in total - it would make more sense and be fairer.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The won who gets the most electoral college votes, I'm afraid. There are states that Clinton should have walked but Trump took.

 

Like Corbyn piling up vanity votes in North London, the absolute vote count is not (and should not) be the only determining factor. There's always a need to balance the votes of less populated areas.

 

I'm no fan if FPTP and I am no expert on the US system but if Clinton couldn't win Michigan then she didn't deserve to win the Presidency - stacking up votes in California and NY just irrelevant.

The Electoral College penalises states with large populations or states where there is a large voter turnout, as each state has a fixed number of College votes based on the aggregate number of representatives from that state in the 2 houses of the national Government. As with General Elections in the UK being dominated by 'swing' seats, most Presidential campaigning concentrates on a comparativrly small number of swing states, as winning a state by 1 vote technically wins all of that state's EC delegates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. The American system is FTTP on steroids. The electoral college always votes en masse for the candidate who gets the most votes in that state - which means effectively there are only 51 constituencies. Each state can be hundreds of miles across - a huge mash together of urban and rural, black, white and hispanic, white collar and blue. If they instead divided the electoral college votes by the proportion each candidate gained in the popular vote or even counted the votes by each Senate and HoR seat - some 535 in total - it would make more sense and be fairer.
Yes, sounds fair and fine to me - as I said I am no expert. However, Clinton still had to win the election that she was actually in, not the "yeah-but-no the system" one we can all discuss after the fact.

 

But she didn't win, because she couldn't win states that Democrats typically win if they want the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, sounds fair and fine to me - as I said I am no expert. However, Clinton still had to win the election that she was actually in, not the "yeah-but-no the system" one we can all discuss after the fact.

 

But she didn't win, because she couldn't win states that Democrats typically win if they want the White House.

 

And against the most flawed candidate in living memory. If you can’t get elected fighting The Donald, I’m afraid you’re unelectable.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wonder people are apathetic about participating in elections.
It's odd that the vast majority of democrats in America didn't have a problem with things up until the point that trump won the election. If there were large campaigns before that then fair enough but there wasn't. Had hilary won in the same manner to trump, you'd have the same idiocy spouted from the republican side and they'd receive the same reply. It's just hypocrisy to complain about a voting system after you've lost. Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And against the most flawed candidate in living memory. If you can’t get elected fighting The Donald, I’m afraid you’re unelectable.

 

Thats a different point though. Hilary Clinton was only the candidate because of reflected glory from Bill Clinton and the way she stuck by him.

 

It's true a strong enough candidate wouild have won - but that isnt an argument for retaining a system which can be so heavily influenced by a few votes in a few states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd that the vast majority of democrats in America didn't have a problem with things up until the point that trump won the election. If there were large campaigns before that then fair enough but there wasn't. Had hilary won in the same manner to trump, you'd have the same idiocy spouted from the republican side and they'd receive the same reply. It's just hypocrisy to complain about a voting system after you've lost.

 

Haha, spectacularly ignorant of US politics. Remember Bush, Gore the popular votes and chads in Florida?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd that the vast majority of democrats in America didn't have a problem with things up until the point that trump won the election. If there were large campaigns before that then fair enough but there wasn't. Had hilary won in the same manner to trump, you'd have the same idiocy spouted from the republican side and they'd receive the same reply. It's just hypocrisy to complain about a voting system after you've lost.

 

I agree that it is an idiotic system. It is a present from the 18th century writers of the American constitution and their appeasing of states who didnt want to hand over all power to a potentially "tyrannical" Federal government. However only once since the start of the 20th century had the popular vote winner not been elected... and that was Gore in 2000 and there were plenty of legal constitutional challenges then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, spectacularly ignorant of US politics. Remember Bush, Gore the popular votes and chads in Florida?
Was there a giant concerted campaign about the unfairness of it all to the degree we had following the 2016 election result beforehand? Would democrats have been so vociferous about how unfair the system is if the result had been reversed? Of course not it's rank hypocrisy and the only reason that many of them are even remotely bothered is because their candidate lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of your more idiotic posts - and also one of those which again betrays your perennial claim to be centre politics when almost everything you post is through a right wing prism. How the **** can you protest in advance about something which had never happened before and was unforeseeable?

 

The legal challenges centred on whether votes had been counted correctly or not. It was not disputed that different counties in Florida counted differently because there was no clear definition in Florida law what constituted a valid vote - ie hole fully punched or not and candidates name written in. Depending on the definition used both Gore and Bush could have won. However the Republican majority US Supreme Court stopped Florida's recount and overruled the State Supreme Court handing the election to Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a different point though. Hilary Clinton was only the candidate because of reflected glory from Bill Clinton and the way she stuck by him.

 

It's true a strong enough candidate wouild have won - but that isnt an argument for retaining a system which can be so heavily influenced by a few votes in a few states.

 

??????

 

The point being debated by me was that Clinton was unelectable. You appear to agree. I wasn’t debating the rights or wrongs of the system, just her electability under that system.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of your more idiotic posts - and also one of those which again betrays your perennial claim to be centre politics when almost everything you post is through a right wing prism. How the **** can you protest in advance about something which had never happened before and was unforeseeable?

 

The legal challenges centred on whether votes had been counted correctly or not. It was not disputed that different counties in Florida counted differently because there was no clear definition in Florida law what constituted a valid vote - ie hole fully punched or not and candidates name written in. Depending on the definition used both Gore and Bush could have won. However the Republican majority US Supreme Court stopped Florida's recount and overruled the State Supreme Court handing the election to Bush.

I was referring to the 2016 election not Bush. It may well be fundamentally unfair how the US election is conducted but the fact remains that there was only ever a serious protest in regards to it from many many Democrats after they had lost. Where were the protests about how unfair the election is before the result? It didn't exist because had hilary lost the popular vote and won the presidency, the same people who have moaned about the system for four years would be defending it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The won who gets the most electoral college votes, I'm afraid. There are states that Clinton should have walked but Trump took.

 

Like Corbyn piling up vanity votes in North London, the absolute vote count is not (and should not) be the only determining factor. There's always a need to balance the votes of less populated areas.

 

I'm no fan if FPTP and I am no expert on the US system but if Clinton couldn't win Michigan then she didn't deserve to win the Presidency - stacking up votes in California and NY just irrelevant.

 

So shouldn't we have a similar system for (non-binding) referenda seeing as we need to represent rural areas differently for some reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So shouldn't we have a similar system for (non-binding) referenda seeing as we need to represent rural areas differently for some reason?
Well, there were lots of things that could have been considered - a threshold, a regional electoral college, a different question. Who knows. At the end of the day you need to win the election or referendum you've been dealt, and Remain lost.

 

Your hero is a lifelong leaver and got the result everyone knows he wanted so not sure what your point is a why you're addressing it to me. Also not relevant in a Trump thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wandering around a mask factory today while not wearing a mask.

Is social distancing a thing in the US? Him and his staff don't seem to be doing much of it judging by the videos I've seen.

 

Well, we saw what such hubris did to our own PM. We live in hope..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})