The Trump Presidency

by **Pal Joey** Tue 09 Jul 2019, 11:50 am

First topic message reminder :

Galted wrote:
Pal Joey wrote:Just between us few on here... I have a feeling the Queen likes Trump.

Don't ask me to explain why but their body language seemed to be in a sort of comfortable harmony when they stood beside each other in June or whenever it was. And I think he quite likes all of that pomp and ceremony... as someone who likes being the centre of attention would.

He's a cross between a court jester and a village idiot so she would love him. Probably lets him run round the grounds with the corgis.

Yes... and also the fact that he has just a touch of olde worlde charm (probably brutally drummed into him from the NY Military Academy) despite his apparently frightening unpredictability in this day and age.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 24 Jul 2020, 4:04 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You want to look at Reagan..

The savings and loans scandal which cost Taxpayers 200 billion....Assault on Unions that hit Workers rights...Administration that had the most officials investigated for corruption in modern history....Iran Contra.....

You want to keep looking or is that enough for now ???

Biden is no change...Already told Big pharma and Wall Street he won't touch them...No hunting down Tax dodgers.

USA is hurting....Record evictions...Record People bankrupted over Medical costs and we are replacing a Conservative with another one..

I'm no Biden fan you are right.....No change to No change.

Change is desperately needed.
Hear that? That was the sound of the 'point' going over your head. Maybe think sometimes, before firing off?

I didn't say I admired Reagan's policies or Iran-Contra. Jesus wept. What I said was he was judged a successful President etc. He was hugely popular w/ a lot of 'folks', was he not? He won two terms, did he not? The point was that it's a team w/ POTUS as the visible head. Trump has either employed scheisse or sacked those that probably weren't because they wouldn't either do, or allow Trump to do, bloody stupid things.

If Biden were to appoint sensibly, no reason people wouldn't ultimately look back on his time and say he did a good job.

Judged a succesful President.....By the Establishment well fancy....Obama was bigging up George Bush last week.....He was succesful too according to latest opinion...

Lyndon Johnson got more People medicare....Improved schools for poor children and brought in social policies that got millions out of poverty and improved working conditions....He is a bad president......Because he apparently lost a war....

Pointing out things about Reagan's presidency that you didn't know....You should be grateful to learn a few things......

Any President that isn't a danger to the meritocracy is a good president as long as the Economy is okay or he succesfully bombs some foreign country.......Lesson endeth !!

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 25 Jul 2020, 4:37 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You want to look at Reagan..

The savings and loans scandal which cost Taxpayers 200 billion....Assault on Unions that hit Workers rights...Administration that had the most officials investigated for corruption in modern history....Iran Contra.....

You want to keep looking or is that enough for now ???

Biden is no change...Already told Big pharma and Wall Street he won't touch them...No hunting down Tax dodgers.

USA is hurting....Record evictions...Record People bankrupted over Medical costs and we are replacing a Conservative with another one..

I'm no Biden fan you are right.....No change to No change.

Change is desperately needed.
Hear that? That was the sound of the 'point' going over your head. Maybe think sometimes, before firing off?

I didn't say I admired Reagan's policies or Iran-Contra. Jesus wept. What I said was he was judged a successful President etc. He was hugely popular w/ a lot of 'folks', was he not? He won two terms, did he not? The point was that it's a team w/ POTUS as the visible head. Trump has either employed scheisse or sacked those that probably weren't because they wouldn't either do, or allow Trump to do, bloody stupid things.

If Biden were to appoint sensibly, no reason people wouldn't ultimately look back on his time and say he did a good job.

Judged a succesful President.....By the Establishment well fancy....Obama was bigging up George Bush last week.....He was succesful too according to latest opinion...

Lyndon Johnson got more People medicare....Improved schools for poor children and brought in social policies that got millions out of poverty and improved working conditions....He is a bad president......Because he apparently lost a war....

Pointing out things about Reagan's presidency that you didn't know....You should be grateful to learn a few things......

Any President that isn't a danger to the meritocracy is a good president as long as the Economy is okay or he succesfully bombs some foreign country.......Lesson endeth !!

And still you miss the point. Word of advice: don't take up teaching as a career

.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sat 25 Jul 2020, 4:58 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You want to look at Reagan..

The savings and loans scandal which cost Taxpayers 200 billion....Assault on Unions that hit Workers rights...Administration that had the most officials investigated for corruption in modern history....Iran Contra.....

You want to keep looking or is that enough for now ???

Biden is no change...Already told Big pharma and Wall Street he won't touch them...No hunting down Tax dodgers.

USA is hurting....Record evictions...Record People bankrupted over Medical costs and we are replacing a Conservative with another one..

I'm no Biden fan you are right.....No change to No change.

Change is desperately needed.
Hear that? That was the sound of the 'point' going over your head. Maybe think sometimes, before firing off?

I didn't say I admired Reagan's policies or Iran-Contra. Jesus wept. What I said was he was judged a successful President etc. He was hugely popular w/ a lot of 'folks', was he not? He won two terms, did he not? The point was that it's a team w/ POTUS as the visible head. Trump has either employed scheisse or sacked those that probably weren't because they wouldn't either do, or allow Trump to do, bloody stupid things.

If Biden were to appoint sensibly, no reason people wouldn't ultimately look back on his time and say he did a good job.

Judged a succesful President.....By the Establishment well fancy....Obama was bigging up George Bush last week.....He was succesful too according to latest opinion...

Lyndon Johnson got more People medicare....Improved schools for poor children and brought in social policies that got millions out of poverty and improved working conditions....He is a bad president......Because he apparently lost a war....

Pointing out things about Reagan's presidency that you didn't know....You should be grateful to learn a few things......

Any President that isn't a danger to the meritocracy is a good president as long as the Economy is okay or he succesfully bombs some foreign country.......Lesson endeth !!
And still you miss the point. Word of advice: don't take up teaching as a career .

I ignored your point..Thought you might like a bit of perspective on Reagan who you know little about....As regards a career in teaching..

It's a shame that talented People tend to avoid the profession..

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 25 Jul 2020, 7:25 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You want to look at Reagan..

The savings and loans scandal which cost Taxpayers 200 billion....Assault on Unions that hit Workers rights...Administration that had the most officials investigated for corruption in modern history....Iran Contra.....

You want to keep looking or is that enough for now ???

Biden is no change...Already told Big pharma and Wall Street he won't touch them...No hunting down Tax dodgers.

USA is hurting....Record evictions...Record People bankrupted over Medical costs and we are replacing a Conservative with another one..

I'm no Biden fan you are right.....No change to No change.

Change is desperately needed.
Hear that? That was the sound of the 'point' going over your head. Maybe think sometimes, before firing off?

I didn't say I admired Reagan's policies or Iran-Contra. Jesus wept. What I said was he was judged a successful President etc. He was hugely popular w/ a lot of 'folks', was he not? He won two terms, did he not? The point was that it's a team w/ POTUS as the visible head. Trump has either employed scheisse or sacked those that probably weren't because they wouldn't either do, or allow Trump to do, bloody stupid things.

If Biden were to appoint sensibly, no reason people wouldn't ultimately look back on his time and say he did a good job.

Judged a succesful President.....By the Establishment well fancy....Obama was bigging up George Bush last week.....He was succesful too according to latest opinion...

Lyndon Johnson got more People medicare....Improved schools for poor children and brought in social policies that got millions out of poverty and improved working conditions....He is a bad president......Because he apparently lost a war....

Pointing out things about Reagan's presidency that you didn't know....You should be grateful to learn a few things......

Any President that isn't a danger to the meritocracy is a good president as long as the Economy is okay or he succesfully bombs some foreign country.......Lesson endeth !!
And still you miss the point. Word of advice: don't take up teaching as a career .

I ignored your point..Thought you might like a bit of perspective on Reagan who you know little about....As regards a career in teaching..

It's a shame that talented People tend to avoid the profession..

I rest my case.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 27 Jul 2020, 12:57 pm

Echelon Insights...Trump approval poll...
Approve 37
Disapp...60

Rasmussen....Trump approval poll...
Approve 49
Disapp...49

One poll sees Trump suffering the biggest landslide since Roosevelt vs Hoover.

The other sees him re-elected...

I expect the former is more in the ball park..

by **Pr4wn** Tue 28 Jul 2020, 8:09 am

Woman, man, person, camera, TV.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 30 Jul 2020, 10:29 pm

Never been a postponement of an Election in US history including when hundreds of thousands of Americans were fighting eachother in 1864...

Trump is peeing in the wind....This episode shows how confident he is...

Sad to see it looks like Kamala will be VP and most likely President..

Clinton apart I'd rather have any other Woman in the US..

Harris has principles it's just they keep changing..

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 11 Aug 2020, 11:35 pm

Just when you think it can't get any worse Kamala 'The ultimate careerist' Harris becomes the next VP and probably President in less than two years..Let's have a one minute silence.

Establishment gets his way...

Don't eat the strawberries Joe...Remember what happened to Zach !!!!..

by **Pr4wn** Wed 12 Aug 2020, 1:30 am

Who would you have preferred?

by **Pr4wn** Wed 12 Aug 2020, 9:28 am

Also, isn't it interesting how being the "ultimate careerist" is only ever directed negatively towards women?

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 12 Aug 2020, 12:27 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just when you think it can't get any worse Kamala 'The ultimate careerist' Harris becomes the next VP and probably President in less than two years..Let's have a one minute silence.

Establishment gets his way...

Don't eat the strawberries Joe...Remember what happened to Zach !!!!..

What's wrong with her wanting a decent career? Don't know her at all well enough, but seems well thought of by many. Perhaps it's a problem that a potential VP isn't in the Dan Quayle or Mike Pence mould of idiocy?

As for the strawberries, really? The fact she's now VP pick (and assuming Biden wins in November) means all she has to do is potentially bide her time for a run at POTUS 5 years from now. She's young enough to wait, w/o trying to bump off the incumbent.

by the-goon Wed 12 Aug 2020, 1:48 pm

Pr4wn wrote:Also, isn't it interesting how being the "ultimate careerist" is only ever directed negatively towards women?

I'm guessing he means that she has no principles and will say/do whatever suits her first and foremost, with her constituants priorities a last.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 12 Aug 2020, 1:58 pm

Pr4wn wrote:Also, isn't it interesting how being the "ultimate careerist" is only ever directed negatively towards women?

My goodness....

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 12 Aug 2020, 2:11 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just when you think it can't get any worse Kamala 'The ultimate careerist' Harris becomes the next VP and probably President in less than two years..Let's have a one minute silence.

Establishment gets his way...

Don't eat the strawberries Joe...Remember what happened to Zach !!!!..
What's wrong with her wanting a decent career? Don't know her at all well enough, but seems well thought of by many. Perhaps it's a problem that a potential VP isn't in the Dan Quayle or Mike Pence mould of idiocy?

As for the strawberries, really? The fact she's now VP pick (and assuming Biden wins in November) means all she has to do is potentially bide her time for a run at POTUS 5 years from now. She's young enough to wait, w/o trying to bump off the incumbent.

It's like debating with red necks...

Ideally people go into Politics to push for their principles or to help the majority..Call me old fashioned.

Saying you are for Healthcare for all and then u-turning hours later when it isn't popular with the press...Insinuating Biden is a racist and then saying he will be the perfect President when the VP slot is on offer....Laughing about banging away Cannibis smokers whilst bragging you used to enjoy it....Keeping innocent Prisoners locked up to suit your hard on crime image..

Doesn't strike me as a good VP choice...Sorry about that.

But then again may be I'm sexist....After all I wanted Elizabeth Warren or Nina Taylor to get the job and they are....Hang on.

Strawberries is a reference to Zach Taylor who many thought Millard Fillmore had poisoned....His VP..

Now Fillmore....He was sexist....and racist....and narcissistic...and just about anything vulgar you want to add..

Fillmore the biggest thug ever to be President.

by **Pr4wn** Wed 12 Aug 2020, 3:30 pm

the-goon wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Also, isn't it interesting how being the "ultimate careerist" is only ever directed negatively towards women?

I'm guessing he means that she has no principles and will say/do whatever suits her first and foremost, with her constituants priorities a last.

Her voting record states otherwise.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 12 Aug 2020, 4:06 pm

Pr4wn wrote:
the-goon wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:Also, isn't it interesting how being the "ultimate careerist" is only ever directed negatively towards women?

I'm guessing he means that she has no principles and will say/do whatever suits her first and foremost, with her constituants priorities a last.

Her voting record states otherwise.

Voting on Party lines so she can enjoy promotion....Wonder why she is the Democratic Establishment choice ??.. Cool

Anyway all the best with this site old buddy...... thumbsup

by **Pr4wn** Thu 13 Aug 2020, 1:10 am

I would have preferred Warren too - though she's another "career woman".

But Harris is not a bad choice at all. No BS, very successful in her previous career as a public prosecutor and with her in the VP spot, GOP can't credibly accuse the Dems of being soft on crime.

by the-goon Thu 13 Aug 2020, 9:02 am

Pr4wn wrote:I would have preferred Warren too - though she's another "career woman".

But Harris is not a bad choice at all. No BS, very successful in her previous career as a public prosecutor and with her in the VP spot, GOP can't credibly accuse the Dems of being soft on crime.

Warren would have been great. She is native american so it would be great for representation.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 13 Aug 2020, 10:37 am

the-goon wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:I would have preferred Warren too - though she's another "career woman".

But Harris is not a bad choice at all. No BS, very successful in her previous career as a public prosecutor and with her in the VP spot, GOP can't credibly accuse the Dems of being soft on crime.

Warren would have been great. She is native american so it would be great for representation.

10/10 for some original content.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 13 Aug 2020, 10:44 am

Either way, it's not a huge deal. No disrespect to Harris or any other potential VP candidates. If I were American I'd vote for Biden/Anyone over Trump/Pence.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 13 Aug 2020, 2:27 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just when you think it can't get any worse Kamala 'The ultimate careerist' Harris becomes the next VP and probably President in less than two years..Let's have a one minute silence.

Establishment gets his way...

Don't eat the strawberries Joe...Remember what happened to Zach !!!!..
What's wrong with her wanting a decent career? Don't know her at all well enough, but seems well thought of by many. Perhaps it's a problem that a potential VP isn't in the Dan Quayle or Mike Pence mould of idiocy?

As for the strawberries, really? The fact she's now VP pick (and assuming Biden wins in November) means all she has to do is potentially bide her time for a run at POTUS 5 years from now. She's young enough to wait, w/o trying to bump off the incumbent.

It's like debating with red necks...

Ideally people go into Politics to push for their principles or to help the majority..Call me old fashioned.

Saying you are for Healthcare for all and then u-turning hours later when it isn't popular with the press...Insinuating Biden is a racist and then saying he will be the perfect President when the VP slot is on offer....Laughing about banging away Cannibis smokers whilst bragging you used to enjoy it....Keeping innocent Prisoners locked up to suit your hard on crime image..

Doesn't strike me as a good VP choice...Sorry about that.

But then again may be I'm sexist....After all I wanted Elizabeth Warren or Nina Taylor to get the job and they are....Hang on.

Strawberries is a reference to Zach Taylor who many thought Millard Fillmore had poisoned....His VP..

Now Fillmore....He was sexist....and racist....and narcissistic...and just about anything vulgar you want to add..

Fillmore the biggest thug ever to be President.

Nice, but not surprising. Pretty derogatory term, 'rednecks', don't you think? Maybe not sexist, but quite possibly prejudiced in way too many other arenas.

What Harris said about Biden during the Democratic candidacy campaigning was politics, looking for an advantage - who gives a 4X? I'm sure she'll be asked about it, but I suspect she'll have a decent enough answer. Not that it'll matter though, given the polarisation and entrenched positions.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 08 Sep 2020, 1:29 pm

When put like it is in the below link, shows just what a sewer-dweller the incumbent POTUS actually is:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/everyone-knows-its-true/616138/

Doesn't even comment on the extras such as remarks to McCain, comments on George H.W. Bush etc.

by dummy_half Wed 09 Sep 2020, 5:05 pm

NBS

FAKE NEWS (according to Trump).

It's easy to get away with stuff like this if you can get your supporters to believe that the mainstream media is so biased against you that anything they say is a lie intended to smear you.

I wrote before about being in Canada last year and being exposed to Fox News and CNN (in the run-up to the impeachment). It's not a question of bias or spin, but of two apparently different realities, depending on what media you consume. Of course this also gets reinforced by the stories that come through social media, where your circle of 'friends' often hold similar views and will post as fact things that are either contentious or outright untrue (e.g. burning buildings from 'riots in Minneapolis' that are actually from Barcelona in 2019, or the Antifa camp in Portland which was actually a socially distanced camp set up to help homeless there during the pandemic).

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 10 Sep 2020, 1:11 pm

dummy_half wrote:NBS

FAKE NEWS (according to Trump).

It's easy to get away with stuff like this if you can get your supporters to believe that the mainstream media is so biased against you that anything they say is a lie intended to smear you.

I wrote before about being in Canada last year and being exposed to Fox News and CNN (in the run-up to the impeachment). It's not a question of bias or spin, but of two apparently different realities, depending on what media you consume. Of course this also gets reinforced by the stories that come through social media, where your circle of 'friends' often hold similar views and will post as fact things that are either contentious or outright untrue (e.g. burning buildings from 'riots in Minneapolis' that are actually from Barcelona in 2019, or the Antifa camp in Portland which was actually a socially distanced camp set up to help homeless there during the pandemic).

Good points. Some of the Atlantic article has been verified multiple times, even if by 'anonymous' sources. Can get why dyed-in-the-wool Trumpites might ignore that, but so much of this sort of thing is on record and out of his own mouth. Then again, easy for me to believe as I've always thought he's an example of a hideous human being.

by dummy_half Thu 10 Sep 2020, 2:23 pm

NBS

And the day after I wrote the above, Trump again plays the FAKE NEWS card against Bob Woodward's latest book, and claims that Trump intentionally down-played the potential severity of COVID-19. The problem for Trump this time is that his words are actually recorded and so exactly what he said can be heard verbatim (unlike the WWI cemetery quote, although I believe the one regarding McCain was recorded live).

I honestly cannot understand why anyone in the US would approve of Trump as the President, but somehow he's still got a 43% job approval rating and is close enough in the polls to Biden to at least keep things interesting in the run-up to the election - currently Biden looks to have about a 7 or 8% lead in the polls nationally, but about 2.5-3% of that gets eroded when looking at individual states and the Electoral College (i.e. a Trump loss by 51-49% in the national vote is likely to see him win the Electoral College, because more than the 2% difference is in CA and NY, which Biden will will bigly, while Trump would possibly take Florida and the midwest states that made the difference against Hillary). It doesn't take a big swing towards Trump or that big a polling error for this still to be a competetive election (God I hope it isn't).

I do think Biden's campaign team are missing a slogan or two:
Make politics boring again
Make Government competent again.

by Duty281 Thu 10 Sep 2020, 3:40 pm

It's more than a competitive election - Trump is currently the favourite, as I see it. He's closer to Biden than he was to Clinton at the same stage, I believe, and he's a stronger campaigner down the stretch than Biden is. If Biden turns up to the debates, he will get soundly beaten and exposed. Then you factor in the incumbency advantage, the fact that Trump energises his base and Biden is a lukewarm choice among Democrats (great comparisons to 1972 in this election), as well as the Republicans having a clearer message than the Democrats.

I make Trump about 60-40, maybe 65-35 favourite at this stage. If it wasn't for Covid, he would be near watertight. Bookmakers in this country mostly have Biden 5/6, with Trump evens, but there's a lot of flip-flopping amongst them...Trump was favourite only a couple of days ago.

by dummy_half Thu 10 Sep 2020, 4:40 pm

Duty

Wrong on a number of points - suggest you look at 538.com or similar. Their election model has Biden currently winning 3 times in 4 even allowing for uncertainty because we are still 8 weeks from the election, and 90%+ likely if the election was held today. The big difference between this election and 2016 is that Biden is polling around 50 to 51% nationally with a 7 point lead, so there are only about 5-6% undecideds in the polling this year. Even when Clinton had a similar lead (briefly after the DNC), her actual vote share was only around 45 % and undecided / undeclared were 12-15% of the electorate. Biden may be dull, but he does not have anywhere near the same level of dislike that Hillary had (whether justified or not). Trump is now a known incumbent, rather than a disrupter, and has strongly polarised the electorate.

Also have to remember that Trump's 2016 victory actually came down. to about 70000 votes in the midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) - lots of things fell for him in 2016, including a significant polling error in under-counting the vote from lower educated white male voters (since rectified, and perhaps even now over-represented), and over-confidence from Clinton supporters and other Not Trump voters, meaning some didn't bother to vote and others voted Green (a big enough cohort to have swung at least Wisconsin).

Currently Biden is forecast to win each of these states by between about 4 and 8 %, indeed the last 2 polls from Pennsylvania (which 538 are forecasting as about 4% lead for Biden, and which is likely to be the tipping point state in a Biden win, taking him past the 270 EVs needed) has him leading by 8% and 9%.

You also aren't accounting for Trump's unfavourable ratings - while personally I'd have liked a more inspiring (and younger) Democrat than Biden, there is a huge motivation amongst Democrats, independents and previous 3rd party voters to vote 'Not Trump', and they have generally realised that this means focusing on the main opponent rather than 3rd party protest votes. in 2016 there was probably a larger 'Not Hillary' than 'Not Trump' movement, but there really isn't the same about Biden, who is polling almost identically to a generic Democrat (probably because he basically is a bit of a faceless candidate, whose biggest asset is Trump's ability to beat himself)

Biden's not a great debater, but some of the Trump / Fox news stuff suggesting he's showing signs of dementia really doesn't hold up to scrutiny - indeed, Trump is perhaps showing worse signs of losing it. The problem for Trump's team is that this strategy sets expectations on Biden's debate performance so low that all he needs to do is sound coherent and vaguely competent to undermine the argument, something he managed to do (indeed comfortably exceed) in the Primary debates with Sanders.

Trump is only a good campaigner at playing to his base, which is about 40-45% of the electorate. He needs to reach out to others, and he is running out of time and showing no signs of changing his ways.

The only thing going for Trump at the moment is uncertainty over early / postal voting (which is expected to be strongly Democrat-leaning).

by Duty281 Thu 10 Sep 2020, 6:03 pm

Suggest you look at 538 or similar - have done.

Election models account for what polling is now. I'm predicting what the change in polling will be over the next couple of months and where we'll end up - and Trump will narrow the gap in that time because Biden's lead isn't big enough right now.

I pay little attention to the national polls (because as Gore and Clinton know, you can win the national vote but not the Presidency), instead I look mainly at state polls. This was brought to my attention a week or two back, from polling averages:

Spoiler:

I agree that Biden doesn't have anywhere near the same level of dislike as Clinton, but he doesn't excite the base or inspire many of the independent voters. The 'never Clinton' lot overlaps strongly with Trump's base, so it makes little odds here. I certainly am accounting for Trump's unfavourability ratings - they're little different from 2016 - he was widely disliked then, he still is now. You underrate Trump if you think he can only play to his base (which isn't as high as 45% of the electorate, he'd win a landslide if it were), as many senior Democrats and Republicans wrongly thought in the 2016 election.

The last two polls from Pennsylvania have Biden at a 4 and 5% lead, ones showing him at 8 and 9 earlier in the month look to be outliers, as does the one that has Trump level.

The most important factor in this election is going to be, as it usually is, the central message of the campaign. The Republicans are very clear on this front. The Democrats are not.

by lostinwales Thu 10 Sep 2020, 6:14 pm

How will Trump react if he loses? Some talk that he may try to not accept the results

by dummy_half Fri 11 Sep 2020, 9:21 am

Duty

I looked again at the info for Pennsylvania, and neither of us were quite right:
The Biden +9 poll was 1 of 2 released on 8th September (the other that day shows Biden +5), one poll (Biden + 3) was released yesterday.
The Biden +8 poll was a week old.

My point in highlighting this though wasn't really the individual poll results, other than that the do not show any evidence of Trump closing the gap - they do though generally show that Biden's lead is beyond the noise and standard error of polls. You'd much rather be the candidate who is polling between Even* and +9 than the one trailing by the same - remember this was one of the three surprising midwest pick-ups for Trump that saw him elected in 2016

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 11 Sep 2020, 9:23 am

lostinwales wrote:How will Trump react if he loses? Some talk that he may try to not accept the results

Anything but a clear Biden win and he'll argue the toss until Hell freezes over. Cohen suggested recently that if he does lose, he'll quit pre-January inauguration and Pence will then pardon him for any wrongdoing that he's done.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri 11 Sep 2020, 11:39 am

Duty281 wrote:If Biden turns up to the debates, he will get soundly beaten and exposed.

I've heard this kind of thing before, and I genuinely don't get it. What is it about Biden that will be 'exposed'? That he's a 77-year-old man? That he's a beat slower than he used to be? I don't think many Americans will be surprised by that.

Trump bridles at even the most gently critical questioning. We've seen him end a number of press conferences after only a handful of questions (just three questions last night!) because he doesn't like what he's being asked. He's not going to be any less irate during the debates. He's going to argue with the moderators, guaranteed. Who's he going to win over with performances like that?

I think a sufficient number of Americans are tired after four years of the Trump show. Voters know what they're getting with him now, a key difference from 2016. He also has a record to defend.

I'm fairly confident that Biden wins a free and fair election - but I have doubts that it will be free and fair.

by Duty281 Fri 11 Sep 2020, 12:41 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Duty281 wrote:If Biden turns up to the debates, he will get soundly beaten and exposed.

I've heard this kind of thing before, and I genuinely don't get it. What is it about Biden that will be 'exposed'? That he's a 77-year-old man? That he's a beat slower than he used to be? I don't think many Americans will be surprised by that.

Trump bridles at even the most gently critical questioning. We've seen him end a number of press conferences after only a handful of questions (just three questions last night!) because he doesn't like what he's being asked. He's not going to be any less irate during the debates. He's going to argue with the moderators, guaranteed. Who's he going to win over with performances like that?

I think a sufficient number of Americans are tired after four years of the Trump show. Voters know what they're getting with him now, a key difference from 2016. He also has a record to defend.

I'm fairly confident that Biden wins a free and fair election - but I have doubts that it will be free and fair.

Biden's lack of clear campaign message will be exposed. Biden's slower and not as quick-witted as Trump is - though Trump's mental state has declined in the past 4/5 years, he's still sharper than Biden. And Biden's very liable, in the debate time, to accidentally say something very damaging on a stage where there's nowhere to hide.

by dummy_half Fri 11 Sep 2020, 2:26 pm

Duty

I think you are overestimating Trump to call him quick witted or to suggest that he won't equally say something very damaging - indeed, one of Trump's biggest issues is his tendency to say the first thing that comes into his head even if it is verifiably untrue or nonsensical (the suggestion that bleach would be a useful medicine against Covid for example). I think it's really just a characteristic of Trump the salesman - the facts don't matter if you close the deal. It's a strategy that can work on a lot of customers the first time, but leads to diminishing returns over time.

As an aside, regarding age and mental acuity, the smartest guy I work with (one of the smartest people I've ever met and without a doubt smarter than either of these candidates) is now 71 - there is no doubt in my mind that he is much less sharp and able to retain and recall information than he was even 5 years ago.

I'm also not convinced that Biden needs a strong message - he's been selected to be the middle of the road candidate so his main job is to be 'Not Trump', rather than being radical. What he does need to persuade the majority of voters is that he can preside over a competent and stable administration rather than the chaotic goings on of the last 4 years (by which I mean the turnover of Cabinet members and White House staff, both of which are far and away higher than for a conventional administration).

by the-goon2 Thu 17 Sep 2020, 9:12 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:How will Trump react if he loses? Some talk that he may try to not accept the results
Anything but a clear Biden win and he'll argue the toss until Hell freezes over. Cohen suggested recently that if he does lose, he'll quit pre-January inauguration and Pence will then pardon him for any wrongdoing that he's done.

I guess he could invent a fake collusion conspiricy with a foreign rival and get all his lackies in the media to go along with it. No wait the dems already did that.

by **Pr4wn** Thu 17 Sep 2020, 9:25 am

He's already doing that with Hunter Biden. Keep up.

by the-goon2 Thu 17 Sep 2020, 12:54 pm

Pr4wn wrote:He's already doing that with Hunter Biden. Keep up.

That isn't fake, ergo not a conspiracy. Keep up

by **superflyweight** Thu 17 Sep 2020, 1:38 pm

I tihnk I preferred the original goon to this latest one.

the-goon2 is more goolie than goonie.

by **Pr4wn** Fri 18 Sep 2020, 3:16 am

the-goon2 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:He's already doing that with Hunter Biden. Keep up.

That isn't fake, ergo not a conspiracy. Keep up

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 18 Sep 2020, 4:37 pm

the-goon2 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:How will Trump react if he loses? Some talk that he may try to not accept the results
Anything but a clear Biden win and he'll argue the toss until Hell freezes over. Cohen suggested recently that if he does lose, he'll quit pre-January inauguration and Pence will then pardon him for any wrongdoing that he's done.

I guess he could invent a fake collusion conspiricy with a foreign rival and get all his lackies in the media to go along with it. No wait the dems already did that.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 27 Sep 2020, 1:03 pm

Smart move by Trump putting up Amy Barrett for the Supreme Court....Good percentage of Catholic vote is in the marginal rust belt areas...The trick for the Democrats is to oppose the appointment and not fall into the anti-catholic trap...

In certain polls Trump is only a few points down in Michigan and he is competitive in Ohio...Trump already has the less Catholic Red neck States sewn up...Where everyone is called Billy or Belle and Squirrel stew is the dish of the day.

'Right y'all'...

He takes Ohio..Michigan and Florida he wins..

Anyway always look at history for trends and as Trump.is 7 points down on average look at WH Elections of the past to see a comparison and only Truman gives him heart.

Truman was a dead duck but the Unions got out the vote and some of Dewey's vote didn't turn up because they thought it was a Non event..

Anyway here is a rundown of final poll averages before WH fights of the past....36 was the first recorded polling and where you see low percentages there would be decent third Party efforts like Perot in 92.

1936....ROOSEVELT.... .55% Landon......45%
1940....ROOSEVELT..... 52% Wilkie........48%
1944....ROOSEVELT......51% Dewey.......48%
1948....Dewey...............50% TRUMAN..45%
1952....EISENHOWER..55% Stevenson.44%
1956....EISENHOWER..59% Stevenson 40%
1960....KENNEDY..........51% Nixon........49%
1964...JOHNSON.........64% Goldwater.36%
1968....NIXON..............43% Humphrey.42%
1972....NIXON..............62% McGovern.38%
1976....Ford..................49% CARTER....48%
1980....REAGAN...........47% Carter........44%
1984....REAGAN...........59% Mondale...41%
1988....BUSH................56% Dukakis....44%
1992....CLINTON..........49% Bush.........37%
1996....CLINTON..........50% Dole..........37%
2000....BUSH................48% Gore..........46%
2004....BUSH................49% KERRY.......49%
2008....OBAMA.............53% McCain.....42%
2012....OBAMA.............49% Romney....46%
2016....Trump...............42% CLINTON..46%

Overall trend isn't Trump's friend.

Bad news for Trump...21 contests only 3 Candidates have won from behind and Truman the biggest upset was 2 points closer to his rival.....Also Trump's approvals are constant...56% don't like him on a good day..

Good news for Trump he is one of the three underdogs to win so he has history of out performing polls.....He has an opponent with obvious cognitive issues and three debates in which to expose him...Also CLINTON held similar leads..

I think Biden wins but I wouldn't bet the House on it..

by Samo Mon 28 Sep 2020, 7:17 am

Bad news for The Don as his 2016-2017 tax returns reveal he paid just $750 each year.

The (New York) Times obtained Donald Trumps tax information and revealed that the President paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the Presidency. In his first year in the White House he paid another $750. The report also reveals that Trump had “paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.” Trump responded to the investigation saying “It’s fake news, totally fake.” and his tax returns have not been released because “they are under audit”

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 28 Sep 2020, 3:18 pm

Samo wrote:Bad news for The Don as his 2016-2017 tax returns reveal he paid just $750 each year.

The (New York) Times obtained Donald Trumps tax information and revealed that the President paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the Presidency. In his first year in the White House he paid another $750. The report also reveals that Trump had “paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.” Trump responded to the investigation saying “It’s fake news, totally fake.” and his tax returns have not been released because “they are under audit”

Corporate guy in Tax avoidance shocker.....Whatever next ???

Hunter Biden's 3.5 million bung from a Russian Oligarch's Wife not interest you ???

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 28 Sep 2020, 3:43 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Samo wrote:Bad news for The Don as his 2016-2017 tax returns reveal he paid just $750 each year.

The (New York) Times obtained Donald Trumps tax information and revealed that the President paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the Presidency. In his first year in the White House he paid another $750. The report also reveals that Trump had “paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.” Trump responded to the investigation saying “It’s fake news, totally fake.” and his tax returns have not been released because “they are under audit”

Corporate guy in Tax avoidance shocker.....Whatever next ???

Hunter Biden's 3.5 million bung from a Russian Oligarch's Wife not interest you ???

No. Not unless you can provide the link to the evidence. Not even then actually, given what I think of Trump.

by Samo Mon 28 Sep 2020, 4:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Samo wrote:Bad news for The Don as his 2016-2017 tax returns reveal he paid just $750 each year.

The (New York) Times obtained Donald Trumps tax information and revealed that the President paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the Presidency. In his first year in the White House he paid another $750. The report also reveals that Trump had “paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.” Trump responded to the investigation saying “It’s fake news, totally fake.” and his tax returns have not been released because “they are under audit”

Corporate guy in Tax avoidance shocker.....Whatever next ???

Hunter Biden's 3.5 million bung from a Russian Oligarch's Wife not interest you ???

I didnt realise Hunter Biden was President. Silly me.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 28 Sep 2020, 4:51 pm

Samo wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Samo wrote:Bad news for The Don as his 2016-2017 tax returns reveal he paid just $750 each year.

The (New York) Times obtained Donald Trumps tax information and revealed that the President paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the Presidency. In his first year in the White House he paid another $750. The report also reveals that Trump had “paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.” Trump responded to the investigation saying “It’s fake news, totally fake.” and his tax returns have not been released because “they are under audit”

Corporate guy in Tax avoidance shocker.....Whatever next ???

Hunter Biden's 3.5 million bung from a Russian Oligarch's Wife not interest you ???

I didnt realise Hunter Biden was President. Silly me.

Yeah, but he's running for president. No, hang on....

by **Pr4wn** Tue 29 Sep 2020, 1:01 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Samo wrote:Bad news for The Don as his 2016-2017 tax returns reveal he paid just $750 each year.

The (New York) Times obtained Donald Trumps tax information and revealed that the President paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the Presidency. In his first year in the White House he paid another $750. The report also reveals that Trump had “paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.” Trump responded to the investigation saying “It’s fake news, totally fake.” and his tax returns have not been released because “they are under audit”

Corporate guy in Tax avoidance shocker.....Whatever next ???

Hunter Biden's 3.5 million bung from a Russian Oligarch's Wife not interest you ???

Look! Squirrel!

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 29 Sep 2020, 8:06 am

First debate tonight.. Biden busy telling everyone he's been a Senator for a 180 years yesterday...Looks good for it.

If he is just plain awful in these debates he wins the WH

If it is obvious he's mentally shot who knows.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 29 Sep 2020, 1:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Samo wrote:Bad news for The Don as his 2016-2017 tax returns reveal he paid just $750 each year.

The (New York) Times obtained Donald Trumps tax information and revealed that the President paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the Presidency. In his first year in the White House he paid another $750. The report also reveals that Trump had “paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years.” Trump responded to the investigation saying “It’s fake news, totally fake.” and his tax returns have not been released because “they are under audit”

Corporate guy in Tax avoidance shocker.....Whatever next ???

Hunter Biden's 3.5 million bung from a Russian Oligarch's Wife not interest you ???

Daily Mail wrote:The GOP report also states that between May 6, 2015 and December 8, 2015, Baturina sent 11 wires in the amount of $391,968.21 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA LLC, a technology startup based in Buffalo, New York. The transactions all listed 'Loan Agreement' in the payment details section.

Nine of the 11 transactions, totaling $241,797.14 were first sent from Baturina's accounts to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton bank account, which then transferred to the money to BAK USA, according to the report.

BAK USA, which proposed to manufacture computer tablets in partnership with unnamed Chinese partners, was repeatedly touted by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as a success story in his tax-break scheme to lure startups.

The company filed for bankruptcy liquidation in 2019 with $39.4 million in debts and just $147,000 in assets. It's unclear what connection Hunter Biden or his firm had to the now-defunct company.

Yeah, I know - the Daily Mail, but hardly likely to be a Biden fan. Nothing to see here.

New York Times wrote:The probe also found that Baturina sent 11 wires transfers between May and December 2015 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA, a tech startup that filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.
Nine of those 11 wire transfers were first sent to Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment firm founded by Biden and Chris Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, before being transferred to BAK USA.

All 11 transactions described the payments as “Loan Agreement” in the details section.

The report reads, “[B]etween May 6, 2015 and Dec. 8, 2015, Baturina sent 11 wires in the amount of $391,968.21 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA LLC (BAK USA). Nine of the 11 transactions, totaling $241,797.14 were sent from Baturina’s accounts to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton bank account, which then transferred to the money to BAK USA. The 11 transactions all listed ‘Loan Agreement’ in the payment details section.
“BAK USA was a startup technology company headquartered in Buffalo, N.Y., that produced tablet computers in cooperation with unnamed Chinese business partners. BAK USA filed for bankruptcy on March 29, 2019, with a reported loss of $39 million. These transactions were identified because of Baturina’s reported criminal activity,” it continues.

The probe and report’s commission were overseen by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Their investigative work found that in 2015, two Obama administration officials voiced concerns to White House officials about the possibility that the younger Biden serving on the board of Burisma could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, as his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, oversaw Ukraine policy.

The report states that the Obama White House knew that Hunter’s position prevented “the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine,” but that attempts by officials to raise alarms fell “on deaf ears.”

It also alleged that Hunter “formed significant and consistent financial relationships” with the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, and that his and his business partner Devon Archer’s firms “made millions of dollars from that association” while his father was vice president.

The committees also said they obtained records from the US Treasury Department that “show potential criminal activity relating to transactions among and between Hunter Biden, his family, and his associates with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh and Chinese nationals.”
The report adds, “The records also note that some of these transactions are linked to what ‘appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.’”

The younger Biden had no material experience to serve on the board of the energy and gas company, but was given a high-paying seat regardless.

Hunter Biden maybe made some money on daddy's connections. Obama raised the connection as possibly compromising. Duh. Oh, wow, what a major scoop this is. Aside from the fact that there appears to be no, you know, actual evidence of any actual, you know, wrong doing here, it is nothing, repeat nothing, compared to the apparent graft and corruption of Trump and (most of) his immediate family.

I'm not American, so I don't suppose it concerns me too much and no-one's perfect, but I wouldn't p!55 on Trump if he was on fire.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 29 Sep 2020, 1:36 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:First debate tonight.. Biden busy telling everyone he's been a Senator for a 180 years yesterday...Looks good for it.

If he is just plain awful in these debates he wins the WH

If it is obvious he's mentally shot who knows.

It could be interesting. Trump's caught himself out by slating Biden as mentally shot for months - not a high bar for Biden to exceed - and Trump's nicely set up some open goals for Biden to score from. Hard to see how Biden can't 'win' this first one.

by Sponsored content