|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Aug 30, 2024 10:19:32 GMT
Trump had already run for president before the roast tho (2000). Which is probably why he wouldn't have run again if not for Obama mocking him........again that's the irony  Trump didn’t run because Obama roasted him over his birth certificate crusade. He ran because NBC wouldn’t meet his price tag to keep doing The Apprentice. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 30, 2024 10:35:00 GMT
Which is probably why he wouldn't have run again if not for Obama mocking him........again that's the irony Trump didn’t run because Obama roasted him over his birth certificate crusade. He ran because NBC wouldn’t meet his price tag to keep doing The Apprentice. Maybe............but that's less funny and more dull tbh........ the "making fun of him" stuff is way more cinematic - like a viliain's origin story Both are just theories anyway.......I don't thnk he ever admitted to eiither one afaik
“I think that is the night he resolves to run for president,” Stone says in the opening scene of FRONTLINE’s two-hour documentary on Trump and Clinton, which premieres on Tues., Sept. 27 at 9 p.m. EST/8 p.m. CST on PBS stations nationwide.
“I think that he is kind of motivated by it: ‘Maybe I’ll just run. Maybe I’ll show them all,’” Stone adds.
Stone isn’t the only Trump surrogate to tell FRONTLINE that Obama’s mockery that night was a motivating moment in Trump’s journey from flamboyant businessman and reality TV star, to the Republican presidential nomination.
“I thought, ‘Oh, Barack Obama is starting something that I don’t know if he’ll be able to finish,’” says Omarosa Manigault, a former Apprentice contestant who was at the dinner that night, and is now Trump’s director of African-American outreach.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/watch-inside-the-night-president-obama-took-on-donald-trump/
|
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 30, 2024 15:35:10 GMT
Which is probably why he wouldn't have run again if not for Obama mocking him........again that's the irony Trump didn’t run because Obama roasted him over his birth certificate crusade. He ran because NBC wouldn’t meet his price tag to keep doing The Apprentice. pretty much. He was gonna run against Obama in 2012 but I believe he dropped out once he got money to continue his show.. NBC must have given him his fee but that changed in 2015. 😩 |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Aug 30, 2024 17:15:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Aug 30, 2024 17:25:40 GMT
Clearly a sane, normal man who should have access to nukes and the military. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 30, 2024 17:36:15 GMT
What's particularly childish about Trump is he never originates that shit ^ - because THAT would be too much work......... like if HE said “Funny how blowjobs impacted both their careers differently...” I'd be like "Bold post tbh"  .......instead he just reposts the stupidest shit from others......moronic |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Aug 30, 2024 17:41:19 GMT
Rambling about bacon and wind power (???) incoherently like the double digit IQ retard he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Aug 30, 2024 17:59:45 GMT
Nahhh that is just the stupidest shit even for Trump  |
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 4,164 
Likes: 4,844
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Aug 30, 2024 18:31:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 30, 2024 18:47:53 GMT
Nahhh that is just the stupidest shit even for Trump This man lies period. He waves at empty space and pretends crowds are waiting for him.so.... |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Aug 30, 2024 18:55:22 GMT
Bruce Wayne seems a little autistic so that makes sense for Vance to be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Aug 30, 2024 19:02:16 GMT
This must be what Trump had in mind when he picked Vivek as the Flash  |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 30, 2024 22:19:39 GMT
Trump has just flip-flopped on abortion. He's back to being pro-choice again. I mean... Who isn't when they actually think about the issue? lol Trump flip-flopped again. He is now against the Abortion amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 30, 2024 22:57:16 GMT
I mean... Who isn't when they actually think about the issue? lol Trump flip-flopped again. He is now against the Abortion amendment. He must have had 100s of I won't vote for your ass emails this morning. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Aug 31, 2024 0:44:36 GMT
Trump flip-flopped again. He is now against the Abortion amendment. He must have had 100s of I won't vote for your ass emails this morning. Trump's positions tend to be very ambiguous, especially on abortion. We all know it's a campaign killer for the GOP. It's the reason why the Democrats were able to gain seats in the Governorship and Senate in 2022, despite high inflation and COVID outbreaks.
I perfectly understand his issue: If you don't appeal to the Pro-Choice crowd, you risk losing non-partisan voters. If you don't appeal to the Christian Right Pro-Life crowd, you run the risk of losing Florida and Texas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Aug 31, 2024 15:12:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 31, 2024 18:15:30 GMT
I dunno for sure but I'm pretty sure he's throwing serious shade at Tim Scott |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 1, 2024 13:01:12 GMT
If Trump wins this will literally be topic #1 everywhere, for 4 years  |
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Sept 1, 2024 14:38:45 GMT
I do think there needs to be changes to the electoral process. The winner-take-all electoral college makes little sense nowadays with such a large population scattered in such an uneven way. I also understand the concern about eliminating it altogether resulting in the flyover states becoming irrelevant, so I'd be in favor of a proportional electoral college where each state's electoral votes are split in accordance with the popular vote within that state. So let's say a candidate wins 51% of Ohio's popular votes: instead of giving all 17 electoral votes to that candidate, that candidate would receive just 9. This way all states are still relevant and the margins matter even more, incentivizing candidates to thoroughly campaign throughout each state since every electoral vote is up for grabs.
I'd also prefer a ranked-choice voting system over single-choice voting to allow a more accurate assessment of the voting preferences of the populace and make voting for third party candidates more viable, or at least not a waste of a vote since the two main party candidates will still be in the ranking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Sept 2, 2024 1:33:39 GMT
I do think there needs to be changes to the electoral process. The winner-take-all electoral college makes little sense nowadays with such a large population scattered in such an uneven way. I also understand the concern about eliminating it altogether resulting in the flyover states becoming irrelevant, so I'd be in favor of a proportional electoral college where each state's electoral votes are split in accordance with the popular vote within that state. So let's say a candidate wins 51% of Ohio's popular votes: instead of giving all 17 electoral votes to that candidate, that candidate would receive just 9. This way all states are still relevant and the margins matter even more, incentivizing candidates to thoroughly campaign throughout each state since every electoral vote is up for grabs I'd also prefer a ranked-choice voting system over single-choice voting to allow a more accurate assessment of the voting preferences of the populace and make voting for third party candidates more viable, or at least not a waste of a vote since the two main party candidates will still be in the ranking. Splitting the electoral college votes up is not going to work. There are three reasons why: Nobody likes to share. Do you really think the California or New York Democratic party will want to share votes with the Republicans? On the other side, the Alabama / Arkansas / Texas Republican party does not want to give up power to the Democrats. Currently 49 out of the 51 "states" (DC counts as a state under the EC) have a winner-take-all system. Nebraska and Maine divide it out by district. States are free to dispute their electoral college votes as they wish. The second big issue here is it creates more chaos. You split up the vote, you bring more elections into tiebreaker mode. The third reason is it makes campaigning more difficult. At the moment, the campaigns visit at most 12 states. You split up the votes, then you have to do a 51 state campaign.
The argument that Electoral College is good because "flyover states matter" is nonsense. Under the current system, the smaller states get little-to-no-attention. And this is true for even in the primaries. One of the advantages of the EC is that it makes campaigning easier. You don't have to visit all 51 states / contests. You can focus your attention at 7-12 states. For 2024, we have Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Penn, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota as your "swing states". Florida and Texas are "maybe swing states".
The big issue with the electoral college is that your vote gets weighed differently depending on your state. It's not a 1:1 ratio.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Sept 2, 2024 3:02:09 GMT
I do think there needs to be changes to the electoral process. The winner-take-all electoral college makes little sense nowadays with such a large population scattered in such an uneven way. I also understand the concern about eliminating it altogether resulting in the flyover states becoming irrelevant, so I'd be in favor of a proportional electoral college where each state's electoral votes are split in accordance with the popular vote within that state. So let's say a candidate wins 51% of Ohio's popular votes: instead of giving all 17 electoral votes to that candidate, that candidate would receive just 9. This way all states are still relevant and the margins matter even more, incentivizing candidates to thoroughly campaign throughout each state since every electoral vote is up for grabs I'd also prefer a ranked-choice voting system over single-choice voting to allow a more accurate assessment of the voting preferences of the populace and make voting for third party candidates more viable, or at least not a waste of a vote since the two main party candidates will still be in the ranking. Spiting the electoral college votes up is not going to work. There are three reasons why: Nobody likes to share. Do you really think the California or New York Democratic party will want to share votes with the Republicans? On the other side, the Alabama / Arkansas / Texas Republican party does not want to give up power to the Democrats. Currently 49 out of the 51 "states" (DC counts as a state under the EC) have a winner-take-all system. Nebraska and Maine divide it out by district. States are free to dispute their electoral college votes as they wish. I at no point said it's a system I think Republicans and Democrats would want to do. But just because they wouldn't want to do it doesn't mean I can't think it'd be a better system. There are plenty of things the parties are not doing that I think would be better for the health of the country, this is just another example. The second big issue here is it creates more chaos. You split up the vote, you bring more elections into tiebreaker mode. The third reason is it makes campaigning more difficult. At the moment, the campaigns visit at most 12 states. You split up the votes, then you have to do a 51 state campaign. The argument that Electoral College is good because "flyover states matter" is nonsense. Under the current system, the smaller states get little-to-no-attention. And this is true for even in the primaries. One of the advantages of the EC is that it makes campaigning easier. You don't have to visit all 51 states / contests. You can focus your attention at 7-12 states. For 2024, we have Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Penn, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota as your "swing states". Florida and Texas are "maybe swing states". The big issue with the electoral college is that your vote gets weighed differently depending on your state. It's not a 1:1 ratio. You're bringing up my own argument for the proportional electoral college. Under the current system, only swing states really matter. Under the popular vote (the most popular alternative), large metropolitan areas matter more - hence the concern for flyover states who are usually vocal that they find the electoral college preferable since it weighs things more in their favor. I don't care for making campaigns harder: candidates should have to visit and talk to people in every state, not just a few ideologically inconsistent swing voters in 5 states. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Sept 2, 2024 12:49:29 GMT
I at no point said it's a system I think Republicans and Democrats would want to do. But just because they wouldn't want to do it doesn't mean I can't think it'd be a better system. There are plenty of things the parties are not doing that I think would be better for the health of the country, this is just another example. You're bringing up my own argument for the proportional electoral college. Under the current system, only swing states really matter. Under the popular vote (the most popular alternative), large metropolitan areas matter more - hence the concern for flyover states who are usually vocal that they find the electoral college preferable since it weighs things more in their favor. I don't care for making campaigns harder: candidates should have to visit and talk to people in every state, not just a few ideologically inconsistent swing voters in 5 states. If Republicans and Democrats do not want to give up power, then it's a no-go. That's why it's a dead-on arrival idea. You could tweak the idea by saying winner-take-all if one candidate gets at least 50%. If less than 50%, then you split up the electoral college votes. Are you proposing this done on a federal level or a state level? The constitution gives each state the power to determine the rules for how their electors will be divided out. Before the Civil War, many states did not have a popular vote contest. They simply gave the power to state government to determine the slate of electors.
For me, I think they should just do the National Popular Vote. The reason is pretty simple: Every vote counts the same. For example, Joe New York and Joe Delaware vote for President of the United States. Why is it logical for Joe Delaware's vote to be counted MORE than Joe New York's vote? Everybody should be treated the same. The electoral college, regardless of how you decides to split up the votes, creates an uneven playing field.
But I am a realist and understand that the Republican MAGA Party would never vote to overturn the electoral college. The GOP has benefited from Electoral College too many times. Since the 90s, the GOP has only won the popular vote once and continues to struggle to hit the 48% mark. Also, Andrew Jackson is the only non-Republican to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote. Hayes, Harrison, Bush, and Trump all ran as Republicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Sept 2, 2024 19:56:10 GMT
I think polls are just keeping Trump relevant. The only way he wins this is if he cheats. Period.
The people who care about the country and democracy ain't checking for someone who wants to be dictator for one day. One day, my ass.
The real problem is Americans think Biden is responsible for inflation and he's not. Trump is the guilty one.
Even Haley and Deacantos put him on blast for that.
Just a bunch of lies lies lies from Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Sept 2, 2024 20:06:25 GMT
I think polls are just keeping Trump relevant. The only way he wins this is if he cheats. Period. The people who care about the country and democracy ain't checking for someone who wants to be dictator for one day. One day, my ass. The real problem is Americans think Biden is responsible for inflation and he's not. Trump is the guilty one. Even Haley and Deacantos put him on blast for that. Just a bunch of lies lies lies from Trump. Honestly, if the polls continue to be this close, then it is a major W for the Democrats. Ever since Dobbs, Democrats have consistently over-performed and Republicans have under-performed. Abortion is a campaign killer for them. For Trump to win these swing states, he needs to be up by at least 3%. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 2, 2024 23:50:40 GMT
If Trump loses it will be a little odd since he is leading on the 2 biggest issues - cash / lack thereof and the border - and you know he's awful so he can easily lose....if Harris loses it will be for something goofy like this shit .......wtf is with that accent.....I'd lose that..........anyone who voted "Hot" for her change your f'n vote ffs |
|
.......instead he just reposts the stupidest shit from others......moronic
