Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ralph Nader is on Twitter. 84 years old apparently. Could have sworn he was still in his 70s.

    Comment


      Cheers for that 2000 campaign Ralph.

      Comment


        Was reading about the Bush v Gore 5-4 decision in 2000. I have a bit more understanding of legal mumbo jumbo now than I did 18 years ago.

        From what I understand, they ruled that no standard way could be established to do the recount, seeing as Florida has a multitude of different voting systems. So, therefore, the recount would have been unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.

        The insanity of that ruling is that it essentially rules not only the recount, but all elections in Florida unconstitutional (and possibly the entire country, seeing as most states would have multiple systems).

        So, a question for legal people on here: Could Gore have brought another case asking for the entire election to be thrown out (say, Gore v the United States), using the Bush v Gore ruling as a precedent? Indeed, could Trump do similar in 2020?

        Comment


          Trump will win 2020 with ease. He is delivering (or attempting to deliver) on his stated promises.

          He will not be impeached either as that would lead to the right revolting.

          Comment


            An interesting, but depressing, round-up of voter suppression ahead of the mid-terms:

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ing-suppressed

            Comment


              Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
              Trump will win 2020 with ease. He is delivering (or attempting to deliver) on his stated promises.

              He will not be impeached either as that would lead to the right revolting.
              I think so. Especially if the Democrats try to counter him with a Republican-lite who can appeal to moderates.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
                Trump will win 2020 with ease. He is delivering (or attempting to deliver) on his stated promises.

                He will not be impeached either as that would lead to the right revolting.
                I think you are right, but for the wrong reasons. He'll win because the Democrats will probably nominate a milquetoast fuckin' lib who will alternate between wringing their hands anxiously and reworking "America Is Already Great" with a smirk on their face. Trump will live rent-free in their head, the Dem base will roll their eyes and check out, and Trump will win a second term in a close election where he gets fewer votes but wins more states. If the Dems turnout, he will lose, because he still isn't popular and there's more Dems than Rs. But if they nominate a lib, the base will sit at home on polling day.

                I haven't moved an inch from the notion that it's Sanders or Barbarism.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
                  Cheers for that 2000 campaign Ralph.
                  Under no circumstances, read Greg Bear.

                  Comment


                    Flynnie: the only person who can beat 45 in 2020 is RuPaul.

                    Comment


                      If RuPaul is for Medicare For All (hey, it rhymes!) then they've got a chance.

                      My belief in Sanders is he is the only person who unequivocally doesn't give a fuck about what the Clintons think about him and doesn't buy Third Way bullshit.

                      Comment


                        I've only been in this country 3 years. Sanders, I liked. He should now fuck off as quickly and quietly as possible, BUT, leaving his message like a fart in a spacesuit, for all humans to ponder.


                        Whilst the Republicans rape your* country.

                        *Sorry 'OUR'.

                        Comment


                          (Is no-one getting this? WIN first. Then worry about the consequences. Shit, what the fuck do you think 45 is doing?)

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Tactical Genius View Post
                            Trump will win 2020 with ease. He is delivering (or attempting to deliver) on his stated promises.

                            He will not be impeached either as that would lead to the right revolting.
                            https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ometer/browse/

                            He's not even close to delivering his promises, and has controlled all the branches of government.

                            Comment


                              Does Trump think Greg Gianforte in Montana-at-large is in danger of losing? Or is he there because Gianforte beat up a reporter and lied about it?

                              In the Presidential election he got his swing campaigning right. Is Gianforte is in a swing district, things could be bad for the Republicans.

                              Comment


                                Tubbs: serious question. What do you gain from this?

                                I know a little more than fuck all, and I am struggling. Peeps like ... everyone else (ursus) who know a bit more, don't really need this shit to be rubbed in.

                                And, I know it's a forum where ideas are passed, but polls are not ideas. They are bets. I live in Las Vegas. I used to work in that sphere, and have a job offer relating to this, upcoming, depending on residency.

                                Sorry, it's frustrating here. If you want some lowdown local politics, read the online review-journal from here. It's unencumbered racism, with socio-political bollocks, and there is a particularly nice "Piers Morgan" alike who gets to vent his spleen on the readers page... as a "commentator".

                                Good luck.

                                Also, Google PAC.

                                (*Sorry, I know I've aimed at you a couple times recently. But your negative energy is twisting my melon man. And, My husband wants to move to fucking OKlahoma.)
                                Last edited by Gerontophile; 19-10-2018, 12:02.

                                Comment


                                  I was positive there, man. Trump thinking Greg Gianforte might lose (if he does think that) is interesting. I'm interested in Greg Gianforte losing because he's literally a thug. I'm interested in Montana because Larry Sanders went there when he walked out on his show.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                    I was positive there, man. Trump thinking Greg Gianforte might lose (if he does think that) is interesting. I'm interested in Greg Gianforte losing because he's literally a thug. I'm interested in Montana because Larry Sanders went there when he walked out on his show.
                                    I think you're being too optimistic. I'd assume he was there because he thinks they can win the Democrat Senate seat but as he was there wanted to talk about the House candidate too.

                                    Comment


                                      That makes sense actually.

                                      If they win that senate seat, they're going to be over the hill and faraway.

                                      Comment


                                        Does no-one remember ... the 8th of November?

                                        If you know any person willing to vote, ask them to vote.

                                        My husband didn't last time and 'we' won, here. This time, it's about 'him', and he is confused. He didn't fight his way through his stuff to get to here, and end up with a twat who is trying to keep him awake. He stopped caring. I am not allowed to own a taser.

                                        If I can get him to vote, I will have moved the world a little. This is not going to happen. See Orange County. He is 'sorted'. He cannot see why .... he will outlast me, and he has to realise that when he became American, he got the right to vote, and all he wanted was a happy life.

                                        Well, I am here to make sure that shit happens. But I don't get to vote.

                                        Comment


                                          Sorry, he doesn't understand that Social Security, and Medicare are under threat. He is 75, and wonderful. But, he fucking earned his life here. I haven't. I can't. He started to think "if you come into a room, and I am not looking good, you fuck off for a few hours."

                                          I agree with him, but under no circumstances, is this cool.

                                          Unfortunately, life goes on.

                                          *Just so y'all know, my husband has agreed to die, before I will cause myself... consequences. THAT's love.

                                          Comment


                                            *Sorry, I know I've aimed at you a couple times recently. But your negative energy is twisting my melon man. And, My husband wants to move to fucking OKlahoma.

                                            Erm, Vegas is one thing, but do they even know about Gay people in OK?

                                            Comment


                                              OOoooooklahoma, where the queers come a-sweepin' down the plains.....

                                              Comment


                                                So, a question for legal people on here: Could Gore have brought another case asking for the entire election to be thrown out (say, Gore v the United States), using the Bush v Gore ruling as a precedent? Indeed, could Trump do similar in 2020?
                                                No, at least on the face of the ruling, because the majority realised how absurd the argument was and explicitly said the ruling should not be a precedent in other cases:
                                                Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
                                                But they can't actually stop courts, including their own, from citing it anyway.

                                                Comment


                                                  Not to mention that Gore and the Democrats explicitly renounced better opportunities to challenge the result.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
                                                    Jesus. Missed that part. So their interpretation of the complexities, I assume, depends on who the majority of the court wants to win.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X