[Politics] Donald Trump, US President Elect 2025

[Badger Boy]

Trump isn't going to win. Right now the electorate en masse aren't engaged and gearing up for election day but come November it will be clear what is on the ballot. It is literally as simple as Democracy or Dictatorship.

There is no justification for voting Trump this time. In 2016 it was a bit of a laugh and Hilary is historically unpopular but there's no excuse in 2024. Trump is the scum of the earth, it's really that simple.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Trump isn't going to win. Right now the electorate en masse aren't engaged and gearing up for election day but come November it will be clear what is on the ballot. It is literally as simple as Democracy or Dictatorship.

There is no justification for voting Trump this time. In 2016 it was a bit of a laugh and Hilary is historically unpopular but there's no excuse in 2024. Trump is the scum of the earth, it's really that simple.

I don't share your optimism.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

...

Did you misunderstand my last point? I was commenting how much better off we are in the UK. You appear to have inferred I was implying our leaders and theirs are similar. And now deleted your comment....?

 

[tedebear]

I'm struggling to understand the Colorado decision (if it stands) to keep him off that states ballot...Can you remain on the ballot in other states and still win the nomination....I thought the collegiate voting system was hard enough to get your head around...

 

[tedebear]

I don't share your optimism.

View attachment 171642

I'm hoping neither of them will be in the running, so its currently a moot point...Biden's time is done, and Trump is about to do time...

 

[Albion my Albion]

"the polls" are mostly obtained by cold calling land lines in the states. Who bothers to answer their landlines at all in this day and age? Who even still has a landline? Mainly Boomers. Who are skewed to Trump. Hardly anybody under 30 is being included in these "polls". Gen Z are coming for Trump even if he is still on the ballot come Nov 2024....Which I very much doubt.

I don't share your optimism.

I do believe there are more anti-Trumpers out there but remember it's not the popular vote but it comes down to the battle ground states. So I believe it is and will be a total toss up.

The more other countries express their displeasure with a Trump dictatorship the better.

 

[Albion my Albion]

I'm struggling to understand the Colorado decision (if it stands) to keep him off that states ballot...Can you remain on the ballot in other states and still win the nomination....I thought the collegiate voting system was hard enough to get your head around...

Most likely it will have no effect because kept on the ballot he would lose Colorado anyway. But if other states including some battleground states exclude Trump from the ballot it could have a devastating effect on the total electoral votes for Trump. It is forcing the Supreme Court to make a decision and I feel SC will side with Trump and Trump will be on all ballots.

California is trying very hard to keep him off their ballot and their Supreme Court will probably weigh in too soon.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don’t think desperate, unarmed people, many of whom are seeking refugee status, was what the Texas or US Constitution had in mind when it confers power on the border States or federal Government to ‘protect its borders’ from ‘invasion’ - This phrase is being used by the far right and racists to describe migrants seeking a better life and is dog whistling to anti-immigrationists and those that feed into to the Islamophobic Great Replacement Theory with anti-muslim rhetoric:



If you think Russia only took 4 weeks to plan an invasion and amass troops on the Ukranian border, you clearly know little about either modern warfare or the history of Russia’s attempt to annex Ukrainian territory - Russia was already an illegal occupying force in Crimea and Eastern Moldova years before Russian tanks started rolling down the road to Kiev and has been in the making since Putin came to power on the back of the break up of the Soviet Union, the collapse of communism, the independence war in Chechnya and Georgia’s attempts to join NATO.

It is Trump who is seen as a weakling by Putin not Biden - Trump’s vanity and narcissism and therefore his tendency to placate authoritarian dictators made him the most dangerous personality ever to occupy the WH - Putin saw Trump as a leader that could sow discord and chaos in the American system - Putin’s cyber-interference on the 2016 GE were nothing but an attempt to support a candidate that would be easy to manipulate because of his character weakness and who would therefore most undermine US security. Trump’s support of Putin eg at Helsinki, was an attempt to circumvent the normal channels of diplomacy and the foreign service, to curry personal favours with a dangerous dictator to massage his own fragile ego.


Biden’s apparent physical weakness is not the same nor as dangerously problematic as a leader who is a political and global security threat because of a flawed and conflicted personality. However, Biden’s pro- NATO policies are a direct threat to an expansionist Russia that sees itself as defending against the expansionist policies of Western democracies through NATO membership.

As for why Russia didn’t invade Ukraine while Trump was in power, have you considered that perhaps he didn’t need to and it was a convenient hiatus to prepare for such an attack whilst allowing Trump to dismantle the forces that would prevent it. Trump was already aligned with Putin on undermining/destroying NATO by his policy proposal of withdrawing US membership; undermining the EU by aligning himself to Farage/Brexit; and being an American leader who was prepared to undermine Ukrainian security (by withholding arms to Ukraine) in exchange for election ‘dirt’ on his political enemies.

Opinion | Why Didn’t Putin Invade Under Trump? It Wasn’t Personal.

Trump wanted to be friends with Putin. But it was his policies, not his friendship, that mattered.

www.politico.com

I emphasize that I am not 'backing' Trump in any way. The reason he is ahead in the polls is not because Biden is physically weak. It is because he has a speech impediment that, coupled with ceaseless and increasing gaffes, makes him appear to be mentally unfit for the job. I seem to recall that it is law in America to be signed off as mentally capable to sit as president (I seem to recall one past president, could be Reagan, being effectively sidelined by his staff owing to this). Consequently, if Biden is already under the care of advisors by law he would have been instructed to not stand for a second term. So therefore he must be mentally competent, despite appearances. That said, if he suddenly pulled out of the presidential race it wouldn't surprise me. It is far more than an apparent physical weakness in the minds of many.

Biden’s biggest gaffes: Muddling up wars, dozing off mid-event and several tumbles

President Joe Biden has a well-documented history of embarrassing gaffes. Here are some of his most notorious blunders to date

www.independent.co.uk

 

[GT49er]

Did you misunderstand my last point? I was commenting how much better off we are in the UK. You appear to have inferred I was implying our leaders and theirs are similar. And now deleted your comment....?

Yes, realised in the light of day I had misunderstood.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm struggling to understand the Colorado decision (if it stands) to keep him off that states ballot...Can you remain on the ballot in other states and still win the nomination....I thought the collegiate voting system was hard enough to get your head around...

If you win a state you carry all the points associated with it. The points are disproportionately higher for agricultural states, so a thicky farmer's vote is worth, say, four times that of a NY lawyer for example. I think the answer to your question is 'yes'.

 

[Albion my Albion]

If you win a state you carry all the points associated with it. The points are disproportionately higher for agricultural states, so a thicky farmer's vote is worth, say, four times that of a NY lawyer for example. I think the answer to your question is 'yes'.

Points = electoral votes, yes

But states are alloted electoral votes based on the number of US Senators and members of the House of the Representatives. So many small states get one House electoral vote (Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, etc.) and two Senator electoral votes. So there are a minimum 3 electoral votes for even the least population US states.

I believe there is one state that is allowed to split their electoral votes but that state, can't remember if it's Vermont or another, but otherwise all the states electoral votes go to one candidate. The state that can split electoral votes only has 3 or 4 electoral votes so it has little effect on the final electoral vote tally.

 

[tedebear]

Thanks both, very helpful...although still concerning...

 

[Albion my Albion]

Which States Split Their Electoral Votes? - Electoral Vote Map

Which states split their electoral votes? Most states allocate electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, but Maine and Nebraska are different.

electoralvotemap.com

It's Maine & Nebraska that can split electoral votes.

"In 48 states, the state legislature currently mandates that the winner of the majority of citizen votes (known as the popular vote) receives all of the state’s electoral votes. This is known as a winner-take-all or unit rule procedure. Although how states assign votes was never debated in the constitutional convention, it became the universal practice of allocating electoral vote by the first third of the 19th century."

 

[chickens]

I include all that as coming under physical weakness ie physiological - as opposed Trump’s character/personality (which arguably in Trumps case are more ‘mental health’ weaknesses) - Biden’s gaffes are likely a condition of brain function usually caused by neurodegenerative disease which produce symptoms of cognitive decline (like Alzeimers/Parkinsons etc) not a ‘mental illness’ as such - that’s what I meant as included in physical weakness. However, we agree on the point being made - his cognitive symptoms of whatever is wrong with him is a liability for the Democrats - I said that months ago on this thread and it was met with quite an aggressive response from Dem supporters who accused me of supporting Trump for saying that. I also said that to my Democratic Party worker, Aunty nearly 8 months ago, that his health would become an issue and the Dems should find another candidate- she hasn’t written since!


I had to look this up - it means something vowel sounds that correspond to each other so I’m still none the clearer how it applies to Obama. I wondered if you mean un-assassinated? I could totally apply that to Trump - it is a wonder to me that he hasn’t been frankly (not that I am trying to incite violence).

There’s a lot of people burying their heads in the sand on this thread. There‘s a very real risk of Trump beating Biden and it is wishful thinking not based on fact, to say there isn’t. Apathy in the American electorate and a low turnout for a Candidate that frankly looks past it could be enough to see Trump elected. The only chance to really stop him would be for the Republicans to do the decent thing and field a candidate worthy of the office.

I’ve increasingly coming round to this conclusion too. Originally my thinking was that Trump was too polarising to gain new votes, over and above what he had before, but I can equally understand Americans being concerned over Biden’s health and how much governing is actually being done in his name, as opposed to by him.

Similarly, I feel what America really wants is another golden age, with a huge leap in the average person’s standard of living. Neither party are offering that, but because the status quo doesn’t feel like it’s working to the average American, I understand them feeling that they may as well vote for the disruptive influence, which is at least trying something other than the status quo.

Nationalism will always play well when your people don’t feel like they’re winning. The Republican Party’s abandonment of Ukraine to Russian aggression is absolutely shameful however, and shows that Europe as a bloc needs to increase defence spending significantly, America is no longer a reliable partner in international relations.

 

[Zeberdi]

Nationalism will always play well when your people don’t feel like they’re winning. The Republican Party’s abandonment of Ukraine to Russian aggression is absolutely shameful however, and shows that Europe as a bloc needs to increase defence spending significantly, America is no longer a reliable partner in international relations.

Absolutely- If you note my post above the one you quoted, you’ll see I agree but I would argue that this happened under Trump’s first term - as I said with his anti-NATO, pro-Putin rhetoric - the current Republican Party‘s refusal to approve funding aid for Ukraine and Israel btw, is a testament to how the ideology of isolationism has pervaded the GOP. It is no longer the Party of social conservatism and an ‘outward looking’ foreign policy but of Trumpism and MEGAism which may cost the Party in the long term or may encourage more cross party consensus in Congress as more moderate heads prevail.

This was an interesting article I thought

Trump’s Dominance in the GOP Isn’t What It Seems

He’s presiding over a movement, not a party.

www.politico.com

 

[chickens]

This was an interesting article I thought

Trump’s Dominance in the GOP Isn’t What It Seems

He’s presiding over a movement, not a party.

www.politico.com

That article is both interesting and depressing. It’s so concerning that America is so keen to elect a president whose only real goals are revenge, at what point does America strike out for sanity?

If ever a nation was ready for “a third way” - America is currently it. Neither red nor blue are in a good place, though from an international perspective a leader that understands and respects international law is preferable to somebody liable to make long term decisions out of anger or frustration.

I’d say America is ripe for a few alternative political parties.

 

[Bodian]

That article is both interesting and depressing. It’s so concerning that America is so keen to elect a president whose only real goals are revenge, at what point does America strike out for sanity?

If ever a nation was ready for “a third way” - America is currently it. Neither red nor blue are in a good place, though from an international perspective a leader that understands and respects international law is preferable to somebody liable to make long term decisions out of anger or frustration.

I’d say America is ripe for a few alternative political parties.

"Vote Purple"

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Trump going after the Evangelical vote - no surprise there. Must be about time for another "End of the World" or rapture type event

 

[A1X]

Trump going after the Evangelical vote - no surprise there. Must be about time for another "End of the World" or rapture type event

Does rather beg the question “what are the catholics trying to hide?”

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Does rather beg the question “what are the catholics trying to hide?”

I always thought Catholic Emancipation was a mistake. It was always going to lead to the COMMUNISTS getting in.

I'd never have voted for Wellington if I'd known he was a BOLSHEVIK.