Bitcoin Forum

What do you think about Trump's chances of being elected to a second term? 

You are able to change your vote, so it will be interesting to see how opinion changes as we get closer to the actual event.

https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-90c91/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/3105/6881/trump2020_300_1__95495.1502820482.png?c=2&imbypass=on

Like can you please piss off with this spam? No one wants you here and you've been reported to the mods for @Flying Hellfish for such activity.

But onto the subject here for ya OG.

Actual odds would have to be dependent on the candidate facing him -- if he's going against a scandal free Biden, I would have to say this is probably a coin flip. If he's going against Bernie, Warren, etc -- I just don't see the dems being able to bring out Indys and the moderates from the party. I think if he faces a candidate like that, a Warren or Bernie I'd put his odds at 70-30.

We'll see as this gets closer and the impeachment stuff in the house heats up.

HAHAHAHA scandal free. Hilarious. Love willful the blindness. The dems don't have anyone who stands a chance in hell against Trump, which is why they need to manufacture this whole impeachment coup attempt, because it is their only hope.

I still think he have a high chance of winning. Seems most of the dem's candidates were either unpopular or have scandals of their own. IIRC that Beto dude has already backed out after a backlash about his stance on guns.


Non-American observer here, was it Biden that supposedly pulled strings for his son's business in Ukraine and had someone fired for investigating?

Yes, there is some discussion about it in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5186660.0) (to stay on topic).

Biden is already losing his mind, and his body is visibly fading. He is tied in with all kinds of corruption dating back a long time, especially enriching family members using his official position. There is a lot more, but that is just the obvious stuff. I predict Killery will emerge out of her cave at the last second and the world will collectively groan on both sides.

Would vote "i have no idea" if I could.

Trump is very good at getting his opponents to highlight their hypocrisy/double standards, which erodes their credibility. I also strongly believe he is able to use big data to understand what resonates with voters. I think both of these reasons alone are enough for him to get re-elected.

Trump also was able to have record fundraising immediately after the impeachment inquiry was announced, and the same is not true for Democrats (the presidential candidates, or in general), which implies impeachment is causing Trump's base to get more enthusiastic, while not so much on the Left. I believe impeachment will help Trump's re-election prospects, and will probably allow him to win by a larger electoral college margin than when he did in 2016.   

I voted he'll be elected again without knowing his possible opponents. Who are they again?

Couple Socialists.
Couple old white Billionaires. (one of them is Trump rich, the other is obscenely rich)
A senile old man that doesn't know what state he's in.
White lady that thinks she's an Indian.
An Indian lady that thinks she's black.
Hawaiian lady that considers herself a person of color.
Millennial  that likes to make out with his boyfriend on stage.
Asian dude that wants to give $1,000 a month to everyone.
A Vegan.

Deval Patrick is also announcing he's going to run tomorrow.  Don't know what to make fun of him for yet though.

Who am I missing?

@OgNasty I have voted yes because Democrats have no suitable opponent against him, but things could get ugly if Hillary Clinton was back for the presidential race. According to Hillary Clinton she’s under enormous pressure to take on Trump, but I don’t think the Democrats will repeat the mistake of selecting her after last elections where Trump completely destroyed her reputation and easily won. While Trump may have pissed of some people with his decision making skills, let’s not forget he’s the only one who can take bold and swift decisions. Once this sham impeachment inquiry is over, there’s nothing that can derail his re-election bid.

Source: https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-11-13/hillary-clinton-says-she-faces-enormous-pressure-to-run-in-2020

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004701741/trump-to-clinton-youd-be-in-jail.html

I think it will be an easy win for Trump.

There's been so much drama and bs going on since his election, I can only summarize the entirety of his term in one quote I recently saw.
  " .... The only thing that has gotten worse since Trump was elected.... is the behavior of the Democrats. Everything else has gotten better..... "

Also what I was thinking. I think she's doing something on the side with those "book tours". Just let the party get desperate enough and then show up in the end and offer to run for them.

Wait...

So there ARE OPPONENTS?

(who would have dreamed that the collapse of the Clinton power system internal to the Dem party would have led to this...)

Forget the polls whereit claims that people really think that Trump should be impeached for the hullabaloo regarding the Ukrainian issue,  this issue has even galvanised lots of people regarding the witch hunt that the Democrats have exhibited during the entirety of the Trump presidency,  initially it was the alleged Election and Russian collusion and having spent close to 3 years and a whole lot of money,  the whole thing wasn't determined and now they have moved on to this which is very absurd.

Yeah not much to run against atm but they will throw in some joker, like Michelle Obama or perhaps Oprah haha or even Hillary might try to run again but that would be a sad story i guess!
I think Trump wins and hope he wins as well, just to see what can be unveiled concerning all the corruption that has been going on in and around previous administrations, go Trump!

Just want to point out that the Mueller investigation was not all about Trump, despite Trump making it seem like it was.  The investigation concluded that Russia did in fact interfere with the 2016 election.  They also figured out how they did it, which will help to defend against it in the future.

Also, as of last week, 6 Americans directly involved with the Trump campaign are convicted felons for things like failing to register as a foreign agent and lying to congress about Trumps business deals in Russia.  Many of these guys were also convicted of Bank/Tax fraud which resulted in the overall investigation being profitable for the federal government.  This will discourage future campaigns from doing illegal things, or hiring people that do illegal, which is a good thing for the country as a whole.

Just sayin.

But those guys had to be strung up either for entrapped charges (Flynn) or for stuff all those guys in the District of Criminals do routinely (not reporting offshore investments and income). In fact there was a large investment firm that catered just to that market segment (UBI).

If anything, this reinforces a view in DC that if you are on the correct side, you can get away with a wide variety of things, and if you are on the wrong side, you may be convicted for the slightest of things.

And that just encourages the sociopaths to get into politics.

I mean this is the most logical choice. None of us truly have no idea if Trump is going to be reelected because anything could fucking happen at this point. All of the current candidates are so old it wouldn't be surprising if someone dropped dead, dropped out due to health reasons, or finding dirt on Trump, finding dirt on Biden etc.

This is literally the weirdest timeline of politics which is possible, and we have the ability to live through it and see what's going on.

This is great, literally can't wait until Dem primary stuff starts. Pretty boring just seeing BS polls, annoying impeachment stuff, and no REAL races.

Its easy to feel like a winner when you don't put down any stakes eh?

^^^ Or, It's hard to feel like a wiener when all you put down is steaks?

 ;D

My understanding is that many lobbyists (if not nearly all of them) meet the definition of a "foreign agent" but have not registered as such.

The "how" Russia interfered with the 2016 election is an unproven allegation, and more importantly an unchallenged allegation. The Russian interference was also only looked into with regards to how it benefited Trump, and potential Russian interference that potentially helped Clinton was not looked into, even though the Steele "report" is prima-face evidence of foreign interference that benefited Clinton.

According to the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page, many foreign governments have attempted to interfere with our elections for generations, so to say that "Russia interfered with our election" without additional context is dishonest. The intent of the Russian interference was not even to benefit Trump, it was to sow discord within the US.       

And what a wonderful job they are doing carrying out Putin's wishes as puppets engaging in sowing division and discord.

I think trump won back then was only because his strongest opponent is Hillary. And a lot of americabs seem to have gotten tired of the conventional politician and Trump exudes an aura that hasn't been tested yet. I don't know about a reelection since there have been a lot of controversial decisions and statements during his term. Pretty sure though that a lot of those who voted for him them would still vote for him now.

He's going to win because the whole election in the US is just a theatre for the masses to make them think they have something to say. If Trump wins it will mean he struck a deal with 3 letter agencies and Jewish bankers. It's all about money and country leaders, especially in the US, are elected to make money for those who helped them get the chair.

Does it matter if Trump is elected? We were warned about big bureaucratic government, way back at the formation of the country.


The Antifederalists Were Eerily Prophetic  (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/271931-2019-11-17-the-antifederalists-were-eerily-prophetic.htm)




8)

If he manages to survive to survive the onslaught of impeachment against him, I believe he will win. By the time the House finishes their processes which then moved to the Senate, that would be getting to mid 2020 which means with less than 6 months to the election. he moment the Senate shuts down the impeachment moves, and Trump is able to have some major wins in security and economy uplifting, his rating would be so high that the Democrats would have been the one doing the campaign for him. Only needs to go to few debates and slide into victory.

More than 80% think he will be elected to a second term at this point. 18 to 4. A higher % than I was expecting.

EH I mean we do have to remember that the people taking this poll are mostly going to be libertarians. And while Trump isn't a libertarian by any means, he is the closest when you're comparing with Dems and other members of the GOP.

He's like -- the best of the many evils in the eyes of many libertarians / people that like less regulation, smaller gov, etc.

And also it's not a poll on who you want to win the election.  I voted for Trump because I think he's more likely to win, but certainly won't be voting for him on election day.  Although nobody can really respond to the poll honestly unless they have a crystal ball or are delusional enough to think they have the ability to see the future some other way.

Trump will be disqualified by a simple majority in senate. Therefore, he won't be eligible to run for 2020. Therefore, he won't win a second term.

These impeachment hearings are juicy as hell. Good chance Trump will get impeached by the house but it's doubtful that the Senate will elect to remove Trump from office. The optics of getting impeached are going to destroy his election chances which is pretty much what democrats want at this point. They have too much weight held in the primaries. If Biden doesn't get nominated and a far left progressive does, I'm not doubtful that Trump would win at that point.

Most polls have Biden up but if progressives take the plurality of the vote in almost all major polls. You run a progressive against Trump, Trump's in for a second term.

Voted yes


Best Trump meme i saw recently :D

https://i.postimg.cc/nrwSnh0C/trump.jpg

Even if you're convicted by the Senate you're still able to run for a third term -- as he wouldn't be term limited at that point, just removed from office. Not saying he would win or anything, but just pointing something out.

This is only possible if the Senate doesn't hold a disqualification vote -- meaning that the Senate doesn't vote on if he's able to run for President again.

This happened in the past to Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge from Florida who was impeached and convicted from his post by the Senate by accepting a $150,000 bribe in return for a lenient sentence for a particular individual. Due to the fact that the Senate hadn't held a disqualification vote from another Federal office, he had been able to run for the House and had won his election -- he's been serving since 1993 in the House.

He's also the #1 Ranked in the House for Nepotism claims, see below quote from Wikipedia


So yeah, fun little tidbit of knowledge.

Rofl, so many fucking idiots.

So, there's impeachment and disqualification.

Two entirely different things.

Disqualification means you can NEVER hold public office again. It requires ONLY a simple majority in Senate. Not 2/3rd majority to DISQUALIFY someone.


Impeachment is removal from office. It's the process to kick someone out of office. Normally, impeachment and then disqualification are voted on in that order. However, if you don't have the votes for impeachment, you can move to just DISQUALIFY someone from holding office.

Precedence has already been set historical. If you want to argue constitutional law, you look at precedence.

But go on, keep arguing you fucking armchair lawyers.

Edited my post to clarify with some evidence.


As I understand it a simple majority in a Senate impeachment trial means nothing.  2/3rds will vote to convict on one or more articles and the president will be removed from office, or the president will be acquitted.  These are the only two possible outcomes.

If however, the president is convicted, I think it's up for debate on whether or not he's eligible to run again.

From the constitution:


So if he's convicted, I don't think he could even run for the Mayor or West Palm Beach if he wanted.  But he can't be disqualified by a simple majority.

The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’s precedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).


---

Vote Required for Disqualification

Sec. 13.10 The question of disqualification from holding an office of
    honor, trust, or profit under the United States, following
    conviction and judgment of removal in an impeachment trial, requires only a
    majority vote of the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment.



https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5.htm

Trump will only be elected if he isn't assassinated. But if he isn't assassinated, nothing can stop him from being re-elected.

8)

What this says is that if the Senate passes a 2/3 vote favoring impeachment, THEN only a 1/2 vote is required to additionally impose disqualification.

What it does not say is that without the 2/3 vote and without impeachment, a 1/2 vote may disqualify.

No. He doesn't have a good approval rating at all

Yeah that..
Gotta think longterm, past the current fads.. Preserve the constitution as much as possible and maintain a constitutional SCOTUS..
Pretty important stuff..


I'll take a 0.1BTC 1:1 trump wins 2020..

I’m sure there will be some action when we get the final candidates.

Here you go ;)

https://www.betmoose.com/bet/will-donald-trump-be-elected-president-in-2020-4401#bets-1

Getting a little closer.

YES   - 24 (70.6%)
NO   - 10 (29.4%)

I don't think so to be honest... Everybody seems to hate on him. It would be weird if he won again. And very, very suspicious  :-\
But I agree that there are no candidates that could seem as strong as him. We'll see. Gladly I'm not American haha  ;D

Depends on who will be his opponent. As far as see, there isn't anyone who can win against Trump. This may change later but it is unlikely. Trump is not going to lose unless something very unordinary happens.

These all impeaching stuff is also adding more power to Trump. A smart guy would wait for him to make mistakes, not provoke him.

@OgNasty don’t worry Trump is not going anywhere at least not for now, but things will quickly change if Bloomberg decides to use his cash and his media power against trump. It’s worth mentioning that Bloomberg have already stated they’ll not pursue any democrat leaders, but will go on a full scale assault against Trump.


@mindrust the only democratic opponent who has the cash capital to match trump spending in these elections is Bloomberg, while he may not be the right presidential candidate but with media and cash on his side this elections can definitely be won by him.

Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-campaign-says-it-will-bar-bloomberg-reporters-over-political-coverage-policy-2019-12-02

Everyone doesn't hate him. Of course looking at our media you wouldn't know that. The rest of the world sees the US through our media, and without knowing and talking to residents here, based on that I can't blame anyone for thinking this place is insane, because that's what the media is.

Life goes on! Dems know that, outside of some bizzarre happening involving Trump, that they will lose 2020. But that's only 4 more years of Trump. Then they will be back in the driver's seat - they are hoping.

Trump is making a big dent in US and world operations. But it still is only a dent. If we like what he is doing basically, we need to be planning for the post-Trump era of 2024, just like the Deep-State Dems are doing.

Who better than Ivanka?

8)

I don’t get it though as why does the United States have only two presidents to run. And it is selected within the these two parties. I mean why can’t a person run independently with no party list or another partylist can be created. I think it linits the people choice because what if there is no one to choose among the choices made by these parties.

I don’t really know much about Trump since I don’t live in the US but most of the news that I heard aren’t that nice and I don’t know which to believe. It seems like people are just selecting which one is less worse than the other.

Freedom allows more than two. But, if you don't advertise and campaign, nobody will know you, or know to vote for you. Campaigning costs money. Only the wealthy or popular have or can get the money to do the campaigning.

8)

I am sure he will.. People usually love weird and racist people so they can elect him even 5 times. I can not see any opposition who is strong so I am pretty sure he would win the election again.

One on One w/ Adam Kokesh - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAIYZ2mSsxE.

FINALLY FREE AMERICA. Kokesh for President - https://kokeshforpresident.com/.

8)

You can technically run independently or without any specific party, but it means your exposure is limited to the point of being unelectable essentially. The founding fathers of this nation designed this to be a two party system purposely. The main idea was the government would be so busy bickering with itself they would have less time to molest the citizens of the nation. Also, if a 3rd party were to get popular, it would make it a simple task to divide the nation just enough to enable a radical minority to take power. You see this often in nations with a multiparty system as opposed to a binary one. Obviously a two party system is shit, but it is less shit than the shittier ones.

I'm in. Escrow or handshake?

Basic rules, which I hope you don't object to:

• Result is decided by the actual Electoral College meeting (not by the "pledged" counts of electors or anything like that).
• If the Electoral College doesn't meet by December 31 or some other reasonable date it's a draw (no winner).
• No presidential election in 2020 (martial law, martians invading, etc) means you lose (or a draw - not sure about this one).
• You win if Donald J Trump is elected president of the US in 2020 and I win in any other case.
• Donald J Trump not running for any reason (primaried out, dead, impeached, etc) means you lose.
• Any other candidate getting elected (democrat, republican, third party, etc) means you lose.
• If Donald J Trump is elected but doesn't get sworn in (dies, goes to prison, moves to Slovenia, etc) you win.

Anything else I'm missing?

What if Trump loses but says he won over and over again every day from Nov - Jan and TECSHARE believes him.

You should escrow and choose an arbitrator before bet is confirmed.

Doesn't matter. We go by Electoral College vote. If he loses but refuses to vacate the White House - I win. I guess we should define what happens if no one wins EC (tie or third candidate taking some votes). I would suggest a draw instead of following contingent election but I'm open to that if eddie13 prefers it.


I'm fine without escrow. I can trust eddie13 with 0.1 BTC. But if we want to choose an escrow and/or arbitrator it should be someone outside P&S whom we both trust. LoyceV comes to mind, if he would agree.

But he didn't lose, 400k puerto ricans each voted 5 times in Florida and they bussed in 300k Mexicans that voted 5 times each in Georgia.  And China hacked the voting system with help of the DNC so they could keep pushing their fake climate change hoax.

That's why I suggested a reasonable deadline for the EC meeting. If there is something going on that prevents the result from being determined we should make it a draw. What are the real possibilities here?

• Election goes smoothly, is not contested, EC meets - one of us wins.
• EC doesn't meet for some reason - contested results, court battles, etc? Draw.
• What else? Trump bribes electors? Hillary abducts them in a pizzeria basement?

If Trump loses, he will say he won.  Doesn't matter the reason he gives, TECSHARE will believe whatever Trump says and you won't be able to reason with him no matter how hard you try.  If he were to pay you, that would be the same as him saying Trump is wrong and admitting he was wrong, because he will cling to whatever the first excuse Trump gives and defend it at all costs - he's not capable of admitting either of those things.  You're in for a massive headache if you don't agree on an arbitrator before hand.

At first glance I may have some objections like, why do I have to lose if Trump dies? The last thing I need to do is put another .1 BTC on his head.. Or, if them aliunz finally come for our rectums?
What if the rapture happens and Trump floats into the sky?

I'll review this more thoroughly in the morning..

My bet offer is to eddie13 only. Not to TECSHARE or anyone else.


Well, you're the one betting on him winning :)

I don't even know who is running against him so why would I have to lose if Bernie croaks or Biden is outed as a kiddie fiddler? But I would admit that you would win if something like that happens.

I'm an idiot.

I thought you were making the bet with TECSHARE.

Carry on and ignore me.

Yeah not in a million years without escrow, you'd be right about that one.

On a second thought, I'd probably take it up just to be able to call TECSHARE a scammer ;)

Careful you don't trip over each other too hard in your unquenchable thirst to come at me bros. I really hope you take the bet just so I can laugh at you when you lose. You crazy kids don't suck each other off too hard or your lips will fall off.

Can you read? I've already taken the bet, it's just a matter of ironing out the details with eddie13. I had a good laugh at you when Republicans won the 2018 midterms so I'd be happy to return the favor.

Not sure what your sexual fantasies have to do with the election but whatever floats your boat.

Yeah that was pretty impressive how you lost the senate. Blue wave all the way. Stay thirsty.

You got me confused with somebody else. I wasn't running for Senate.

So what do you think, will Trump get reelected or not?

Actually it was theirs to lose. This is the third term in a row the Republicans have controlled the Senate, that's what you should be bragging about.

Individual Senate race outcomes are tricky though.  Usually each party has one decent advantage year every six years when they are less exposed and don't have to spread their money so thin, and 2016 was definitely that for Republicans.  2020 will be the close one and 2022 will favor Democrats...I think.

There were 33 Senate seats up for grabs in the 2018.

Republicans won 12
Democrats won 19
Lets give Agnus an R and Bernie a D and call it 13 to 20.
And the Democrats still lost a seat.

That's not including somehow a Democrat took Jeff Sessions seat (wtf?)

What should really be making the GOP nervous is that the Democrats had the largest national margin of victory ever (almost 10 million votes!), and they won the house by a large margin (41 seats), with a huge freshmen class that ran on holding Trump accountable (impeach the motherfucker).  It's a crazy game and elections have consequences.

Is that really surprising considering a literal alleged pedophile was running a campaign in a special election that people hardly ever show up to? Roy Moore was not a candidate that ever had a chance of winning. No potential pedo is ever going to win a senate seat.



Trump sucks with women suburban voters and it's the reason Republicans lost a lot of the house coin toss races. He got destroyed in the midterms with this demographic and he needs to carry it in 2020. I don't think the GOP has to be particularly worried because democrats, like normal fashion, are shooting themselves in the foot with their radical policy proposal and impeachment sham. (Fun fact, Nancy Pelosi has a worse approval rating than Trump does, and she is hardly the target of any media scrutiny.) The freshman class of newly elected congresswomen pushed the party so far left and it's evident by Joe Biden's lead that modern democrats are not willing to be propelled into the derangement of the hardcore left. Still, there's a split in the party with the moderate democrats and the far left which the GOP and Trump will take advantage of. 

Having people like AOC, Rashida Talib, and Ilhan Omar elected to congress were by far the best thing that could have happened to the GOP. Self proclaimed socialists and antisemites at the forefront of the democratic left, what could go wrong?

That's fair.  Honestly I think the biggest factor in that election was the fact that Roy Moores primary opponents last name was Strange.

Moore is running again in 2020 against Sessions for the seat Sessions gave up to be Trumps AG and whipping boy for a bit, that should be interesting.


They're freshman with no leadership positions.  Trump is trying to make them appear at the 'forefront' to make people hate the party that opposes him.  It's definitely working though.  But you are definitely more likely to hear about them in conservative media than MSM.

Well, hopefully, Trump wins, the other candidates are absolute garbage lol. Who in his right mind would vote for Warren or even Biden? The guy can't even form proper sentences.

Do you want someone else to win just because you dislike Trump or do you want someone else to win to do better things? People really need to think about their reasons.

You have said that the presidency is largely a figurehead position. This is exactly what Trump is showing us. His distastefulness has to do with his honesty in showing that the presidency is largely a figurehead position. Any other popular candidate or potential candidate would do just the opposite. He/she would attempt to solidify the idea in the minds of the people that his/her importance was something to be worshiped, like you honor a king, or Queen Elizabeth, for example.

The presidency is part of a corporation. This corporation is set up and accepted by many to run certain aspects of life operations among people. To do this, the corporation hides that fact (as much as possible) that jury nullification can get rid of any presidential decisions on a local basis. And if the same decisions are implemented by enough juries around the country, the laws will be changed. IN FACT, jury nullification is so important, and is such a danger to the control government wants to exert over the people, that it is barely heard of among the people. Government hides it as much as possible, just to maintain their control over the people.

More important than this is the fact that government essentially dupes people into thinking that it talks to them. With regard to the people of the nation, government literally uses entrapment tactics to get people to believe that they (the people) are the ones who are ordered to follow government regulations, and even government laws. But government can't even talk to the people except that the people ask them to. Slowly read this (https://redress4dummies.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf), and then look up the documents in the government that show it to be accurate - https://redress4dummies.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.

We are being duped to have much of a focus on the presidency at all. It doesn't affect us except that we ask it to.

8)

I agree. Let's disqualify everyone who can't form proper sentences.

I concur, and suggest myself as the sole arbitrator of what constitutes a proper sentence.

Sentences advocating Warren, or Biden are deemed improper automatically.

Sentences advocating Trump are automatically deemed proper.

:)

Yabut, what about the jokers who form proper sentences but don't display them properly?

 :D

I said it so I will honor it..

I think I was thinking more along the lines of "Trump would beat any of them in an election" Which would be more contingent on him running at all, including being alive to do so, or not simply retiring after his success and handing it off to someone else, which I wouldn't really blame him for.. Their isn't really even a race yet to bet on..
But that is not what I said..

In order to honor what I said exactly I guess Trump has to win the 2020 election from this very moment barring any and all circumstances or "rules"..
If Trump doesn't win 2020 I lose basically no matter the reason, which is kinda a shit bet, but I'll take it if you feel like holding me to it..

I like your contingency on the EC because what if Trump wins the EC but, the EC is abolished between now and then?
But I guess I would still loose if Trump lost because the EC was abolished..
I see all sorts of dirty tricks they could play..



Sadly this is a concern, but it would be decided through "If the Electoral College doesn't meet by December 31 or some other reasonable date it's a draw (no winner)." because serious investigations of voter fraud wold hold up the meeting, right?

Ok, how about this: let's call it a draw if Donald J Trump is not on the ballot in at least 26 states for any reason. That would reduce your risk of retirement or death, except if he dies between election day and the EC meeting. But this would take away your chance to win in another (very unlikely) scenario - if he's not on the ballot but wins via write-in.

What would you consider a reasonable deadline for the EC meeting? Is December 31 good enough, or should we make it January 31?


Abolishing EC is almost impossible, particularly in time for the 2020 election as it would require an amendment to the constitution. I think we can agree that the constitution stays put, short of Martian invasion.

The 2000 election results weren't official till the first week of January.

Sounds good, and Jan 31 sounds fine.. No rush.. I could see a lot of drama happening to slow the process..
Thanks for that concedence..

You want to write up a contract with that for me to sign after review?
I'm warming up my signature maker..

1vvSrTFiQY7akwbsv3iYPPe9mR3DsEbff
test test 12/7/19 eddie13
HzecTQsukcjqPt/fLhcXosLAevcRnNPnHwK6hlP1SUjfLSyWE7zKV8Rezo5lK0L4YlfC379+HzKh8LQyYsvZcP0=

Bet between suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=234771) and eddie13 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=580327)

suchmoon agrees to pay 0.1 BTC to eddie13 if Donald J Trump wins the 2020 US presidential election, and eddie13 agrees to pay 0.1 BTC to suchmoon if Donald J Trump does not win the 2020 US presidential election.

Decision logic:

Election result is considered decided by the Electoral College meeting. If the Electoral College elects Donald J Trump the president of the US following the 2020 US presidential election eddie13 wins the bet, in any other case suchmoon wins the bet except for the draw conditions listed below.

Conditions for a draw (neither side pays the other side):

• If there is no presidential election in 2020.
• If Donald J Trump is not on the ballot in at least 26 states.
• If the Electoral College doesn't meet by midnight January 31, 2021.

---

Would you like to involve an escrow/arbitrator?

Anyone feel free to comment or shore up the legalese if needed. I want this to be as simple as possible but also without any loopholes.

Some examples from my previous post, adjusted for the changes we made, just to make sure we're on the same page. All of it is already covered in the above but if you think any of this needs to be included explicitly let me know.

• EC decision is final regardless of popular vote, pledged electors, unfaithful electors etc.
• No presidential election in 2020 (martial law, martians invading, etc) means a draw.
• Donald J Trump not running for any reason (primaried out, dead, impeached, etc) means a draw even if he wins via write-in.
• Any other candidate getting elected (democrat, republican, third party, etc) means suchmoon wins.
• If Donald J Trump is elected but doesn't get sworn in (dies, goes to prison, moves to Slovenia, etc) eddie13 wins.

bc1qrelrvua55qnxw6r0hmexwpj8pn0jnytgv8g55t
suchmoon's address bc1qrelrvua55qnxw6r0hmexwpj8pn0jnytgv8g55t 2019-12-07
HxD6RqCE/m2jmfFXnx/oCL5EUyQflQauBacuJSM7SGAOBbvu1TxTD+j+C78wKZ7Rbx9At5KsFQ/OZaLrUK3mCuc=

Let me know if you can verify the above. If not I'll dig up some "1..." address that should be easier to verify.

Not really unless you do.. The public here are pretty good arbiters and any escrow is just about as likely to croak as either of us..

Sure, let it simmer for a bit..

I think I would have to know what software you used to sign it and use the same software to verify it? Not sure..
It didn't work on the one I tested mine with..

Electrum. But don't worry about that, I'll find a legacy address soon-ish.

Verified in Electrum 3.3.8, if it helps. Click for full size.

https://i.imgur.com/8rM5PXf.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/8rM5PXf.jpg)

Should we sign this soon?

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Way to keep things interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbE2SmV2bs

Hairy legs

I prefer this version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m68Pw-KZvvo

Note the original version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-A4VrEUyyI) is marked as "inappropriate for some users" and forces you to log in to view it. Amazing how anything critical of the establishment on Youtube is suddenly not fit for viewing, almost as if they are using protecting children as an excuse to restrict the spread of content they don't approve of.

It amazes me no one has any comment on this creepy lunatic. If anything even remotely similar came out of Trump's mouth this would be covered on every outlet 24/7 until the 2020 election.

Yes. Give me a day or two to restore my legacy wallet and I'll give you the address.

Edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208356

This is all great and everything, but at this point I think this bet should have its own thread.

I don't mind them keeping this thread in view.  I want to see the votes continue to roll in.  I like the idea of people putting their coins with their mouth is on the subject too.  It's refreshing when actual blockchain activity results from a thread here.

Keeping the thread on topic by it having its own thread doesn't stop any of those things.

Calm down. They were making a bet was on whether or not Trump will be elected to a second term, which is the topic of this thread.

Since we are projecting emotional states upon one another, stop having a psychotic break, the topic is "WILL TRUMP BE ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM?", not lets iron out 100 details about a side bet about it.

Seriously, a 0.1 BTC bet is worth its own thread.

It is like "that big of a deal."

Bet finalized https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208356

Seems that any bet against Trump remains heavily in the underdog camp.

I am personally not a big fan of gambling, but if I were I would be more than happy to use this as an opportunity to rob some blindly idealistic Marxists even more blind.

That was pretty funny..


Neither am I..
I've rolled dice like 3 times on yobit and have probably spun some faucet wheels.. That's about it except personal bets, where their is no 3rd party to take a cut, which is kinda where I draw my line, seems greasy..

Hmm... Not so sure. Not like this at least.

I think you focus on Trump's chances of winning or one of his opponent winning. You forget all the cases where Trump simply can't make it to the election!
-he can be killed by any terrorist or violent activist (not like the guy is trying to appease people angry against him)
-he can simply die from natural causes or accident, the guy is 73 old it's not that unlikely
-he can lose his son or wife and be unable to continue the campaign for personnal reasons
-he can be... persuated to withdraw
-he can refuse to run being tired of doing this forst term, not like the job is easy or he needs the money/power

And I probably forget lots of them...
Betting on Bernie is completely underdog. Betting on "anything but Trump" has rather good odds in my opinion.

Such good odds that I would take up to 2BTC bet on this (with escrow if that's too high ofc)

I wouldn't even think of his re-election, but damn dems just do everything to make this happen again. It's like they're being paid to fck up one time after another.
PS: each US president facing impeachment immediately got a wobbling boost in rating

REallY.?

A new OP ED just came out calling for Trump to be removed.  Its from the biggest Evangelical magazine.  Trump's firewall may be starting to crumble.

Yes, the whole impeachment proceeding is only unifying his base and turning off the undecided.

guess what the usa, will become marxist how is it going to motivate its workforce to sell their time to the rich?

if not, the american banking cartel gets nasty insults and nastily attacked by masses of the workforce.

but not just them the bankers get directly attacked by so called minorities, who want to run their own banking cartel (black dollar etc)

If they literally impeach Trump out of office, there will be some of us who will be starting a new United States of America. It won't be the simple civil war Rand Paul talks about.


All Signs Are Pointing To Civil War--Rand Paul Warning--Proof Included! (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/273509-2019-12-19-all-signs-are-pointing-to-civil-war-rand-paul-warning.htm)




Rand Paul Issues DIRE Warning—America Is Erupting As Patriots Make Their Move!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/L1ElivNx5xE/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEjCPYBEIoBSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLAwJ0Ny9xpL_mQ-znGqmMGJ3JD_Hw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1ElivNx5xE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1ElivNx5xE)


8)

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/house-senate-impeachment-impasse-would-mean-trump-wasnt-impeached-all-harvard-law-prof

Actually it is based on statements by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, but don't let that stop you from attacking the source in order to discredit the content. I am sure you know way more than a Harvard law professor.

Maybe nutildah IS Professor Noah Feldman.      ;D

My vote is yes, but I won't support him personally. The major reason being lack of leadership in the opposition. Democrat candidate might not be as presidential as Trump. So he might get more votes on the basis of that. Win is a win regardless how you'll get it.

Imagine if someone had a bet with TECSHARE on impeachment ::)

I'd put money down that he's going to win again.

If she continues in her path to senility, though...

The law is designed to leave very little if any room for opinions. Impeachment requires specific prerequisites in order to be in effect, which have not yet been met. Lets ignore the fact that no crimes or high misdemeanors were part of any of the articles of impeachment, Noah Feldman is a pro-impeachment Democrat witness. He says impeachment isn't official until the articles of impeachment are confirmed with The Senate. Of course this is the part where the Democrat plan blows up in their face, so of course they are going to avoid or delay this inevitability as long a possible.

more: Democrats HAVE NOT IMPEACHED Trump, Democrats OWN Witness Undermines Pelosi's Strategy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFVieP-isV4

Yes. He will be reelected for second term. Because of it's a USA. I think the USA administration elected him and blaming Russia for hacking US election. They will help him again for second term and will blame Iran for hacking.😁😁

The argument presented by Laurence Tribe is a non-sequitur. The ability of The House to impeach is not under dispute. What is under dispute is the process being complete or not, and since The Senate has the sole authority to try any impeachment, The House has not completed impeachment until transmitted to The Senate.

Calm your tits little girl, I know feeling like you won is very important to you seeing as you make a habit of following me around and passive aggressively antagonizing me, but this isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of yet another Harvard Law professor. At the absolute best for your position, this is a stalemate, but it is not as I explained your presented argument is a non-sequitur.

Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/legislative

Until the articles of impeachment are transmitted to The Senate, the act of impeachment is not complete as it is their responsibility to do so to meet the constitutional standards of impeachment.

That is a nice appeal to authority you have there. It would be a shame if some one were to point out it was a logical fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority). My quoted section infers just as much of my personal conclusion as your quoted section does to yours, but of course you REALLY want to be right so, reality bends to your will.

How can The Senate try an impeachment that didn't happen? Exactly my point. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either it did happen and The Senate must be allowed to move it to trial, or it didn't happen and the articles haven't yet been transmitted to The Senate. Good job proving yourself wrong there Nutilduuuhhhh.

Just for fun, have some precedent:

"(b) The language and structure of Art. I, 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose - that the Senate's Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and [506 U.S. 224, 225]   that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried - the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/506/224.html

That is a quite fascinating method of winning. I have been around some professors, and yes, some senior professors, and some with more senior rank, and none seem to have been aware of what authority and what win-status they may have had.

And this is a "Harvard professor."

Trump will be elected to a second term.     8)

He will win the election once more if he chooses to corrupt don't suppose he are in power once more if he chooses the legitimate manner Her words area unit thus funny most of the time she says ridiculous things.

Yes you are right because they blame someone else if they win This is why I think Poll Trump will be re-elected on a second term because those who are more influenced by the bad side try to win by betraying people Poll Trump will be re-elected if he tries to win a legitimate one.

What's the practical point of this? There has to be one, because these are actually power plays for which absolute legality is not required (neither does it exist).

Maybe to allow arguing on the part of the Dems that an "impeached president" should not be allowed to appoint the successor to Ginsberg?

No, a Harvard law professor made an argument and I agree with him. Your entire argument rests on the premise that the man you agree with being more senior automatically makes him more correct, which is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority, one that most children understand isn't a legitimate argument.


I know having a knob for a head makes thinking difficult, but this is a bit much. My logic is sound and this is the premise of the entire argument, you just turned it on its side and claimed it was something different. You claim he was impeached. If that is true then The Senate should have been transmitted the articles of impeachment to meet the constitutional standard of The Senate having sole authority to try impeachments. If the articles have not been transmitted then legally he is still not impeached. You can't have it both ways, these are exclusive concepts.

Tell me Nutilduuuh, how long did you spend reading the case law I linked? I know, I just want to see you try to lie about it first.

Maybe he doesn't but during all this impeachment nonsence democrats lowered themselves even further. And look at the embedded poll, I'm quite surprised by the result

Cool story bro.


Well?

How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon? If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president. The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional.

As you know I already answered this question, which you of course conveniently edited out of your quote of my reply. This is in fact an applicable precedent.

Yet you are debating it by claiming the precedent doesn't apply. Your entire argument is essentially "no you're wrong I'm right." with no other supporting argument. Once again, this is not my personal opinion, it is the opinion of many including well respected legal scholars who served as a witness for the Democrat party for these hearings. I simply agree with his assessment. Speaking of high crimes and misdemeanors, what is the crime exactly he is being accused of? The house can pass a resolution declaring turds as candy canes, it doesn't magically transform a pile of dog shit into peppermint.

What do you mean by you guys? I'm not a conservative. I don't follow anyone. It's just obvious, they're trying to impeach him over nothing, people are not that naive. It makes the Democrats look like babies.

Smat Democrats know what is going on, and a few of them are willing to come out and say it.


Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard says impeachment will only 'embolden' Trump and help him win a second term (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/274067-2019-12-29-democratic-presidential-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-says-impeachment-will-only-emb.htm)




8)

It's really quite strange.

Everybody knows that if things continue generally like they are, Trump will be re-elected.

8)

President Donald Trump will be returned elected as the United State of America even with the impeachment by the lower Chamber which I believe the decision of the lower Chamber not hold water in time to come. 

Trump vs Past 6 Presidents, net approval for first 1,078 days:

https://i.snipboard.io/kfaPKX.jpg

Carter and George H lost, the rest won a second term.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Check out that crazy bump Bush got after 911.

don't believe any statistics you haven't falsified yourself, these are full of lies especially if you take cnn statistics. or msnbc

fivethirtyeight is extremely transparent about how they build their models and do a good job of explaining it in laymen terms.  
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2019/

These are data scientists that collect polling data from tons of different independent pollsters every week and then weight each poll based on historical accuracy, collection technique and sample size.



https://i.gyazo.com/690079a2ba84eb600baae5e47fb62d0e.png

... And they are working in a biased environment.

Ever heard of double blind testing? Has it occurred to you THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REASON WHY DOUBLE BLIND TESTING IS REQUIRED?

These assertions you have made are commonly heard, sure. But they are worthless, and we all know it.

Are you saying opinion polling in general is just useless?  Or that the guys that compile all the individual polls into a data set are useless?  

There's always a bias in any collection technique, and they are always conscious of it and working to minimize it. That's part of what goes into determining margin of error.

Do you think the bias involves the personal opinions of the polling companies? Liek they're doing it intentionally?  I know Trump loves to imply that it's the Cable News Networks just trying to make him look bad with polls, that's not how they work though.

Polls are well known to be among the weakest form of empirical data and highly vulnerable to manipulation or even unintentional bias. There are so many variables that can be manipulated to get a desired result. At the end of the day most polling companies will produce whatever data you pay them to produce.

I think you just need to at my question, about double blind. If you know statistics, testing and a bit about experiments and populations, your answer is right there.

Anybody can impeach someone or something. Impeach the stars out of the sky. The point is the effect. In Trump's case, the impeachment serves to improve his chance for re-election.

8)

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore it.


Yes.  Yes.

I'm interested in your thoughts still.


I don't think opinion polling is considered empirical data, outliers happen and there is always a margin of error.

There's plenty of historical data that shows that polling companies have been pretty accurate over the past few decades.

To figure out how accurate political opinion polls are, all we have to do is look at the historical data since we know the results of the actual election.
This chart takes weighted average of all reputable polling companies, there's also data on each individual company and other data that could be considered, but, in general, the polls are able to get within a few %.
https://i.gyazo.com/3d001d5ca0966537f376114260aa16d5.png

There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size.

I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general.

https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=courses

He seems to still be the president..
Polls look good to me..
Trump will win as long as the odds say he has a minimum of 2% or so chance to win..  ;)
I think I chose "deep state"...

Polls are reliable, just look at these other statistics processed just like these polls to prove the polls are statistically polling correctly, statistically speaking. Who gets to decide which polling companies are reputable? That is not even to mention how polls are reported on.

Unless you are an expert in statistics and polling like 90% of people are not, there are way too many variables to know if data is manipulated in all of these types of data aggregation. If you are sick, you can hyper focus in on one blood cell and that is the fact of the matter for that cell there, but it is not telling you much about the rest of the body. This inversion of context and subject or hyper focus on one or the other is easily used to obfuscate the big picture, and polls as well as statistics are known to be easily massaged to get a desired result.

You don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand that at the very least polls are not just worthless.

The most simple way is to compare the polls from right before the election with the actual result of the election. (electoral college is a different since it's 50 different elections each weighted differently, I'm talking about a single election where each person polls responds A or B)

If a poll has 2% more responses saying they will vote Democrat than Republican, and a Republican wins by 3%, that's a 5 point error.
The same goes if the Democrat won by 7%, it would still be a 5 point error.

Reputable polling companies average around 5-point errors after several years or decades of 100+ elections a year.

I think the general public hold pollsters to unreasonable standards. For example if one poll has a Democrat winning by 1% and another poll has a Republican winning by 10%, and the Republican ends up winning by 1% everyone would just conclude that the first poll was wrong and the second was right.

It's not about wrong or right.  It's about getting the average error % as low as possible.

With all the drama going on in the politics and airstrikes, I will not be wondered if Trump gets elected another time. The Democrats dont have any strong candidate, everyone has a negative point of their own. Who knows, Trump may start a war in order to convince people to vote for him.  :o

I've worked in survey and poll design so your arguments don't impress me except in one very important respect.

You seem to illustrate an example of the bending of survey and opinion results to suit your personal desired narrative.

May I suggest, instead of just protesting, think about that a bit. It's likely not just you but perhaps most people in such work. Just like most reporters think they are unbiased, but to us outside of their field that's laughable.

Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best.

BTW twitchy if you are going to quote me in your sig please at least link the source.

An indicator is exactly what they are. I wish I would've just said that pages ago.

I'll add the link, and I'll remove the whole thing if it bothers you.  I just think it's funny.

It being bright is an indicator it may be daylight. However it might be a bus about to run you over. Oh it doesn't bother me I just want people to see that you endorse forced injections on remote minority populations after they are done looking at my inflammatory remarks.

Polls certainly are worthless, when used dimensionally for confirmation bias. That literally consists of a product of confirmation bias being used for confirmation bias.

true especially if the population feels intimidated to say what they truly think, like it was the case during the trump election, democrats and liberals accused everyone not on their side to be racist while many white americans increasingly considered the democrats to be racist, they never cared about that, until trump got elected.

4.8 or 5.2% is not "accurate." It is EXTREMELY INACCURATE.

I suggest you have a look at Taleb, the black swan, and the Thanksgiving Turkey problem.

Are you implying that polling techniques haven't done enough to adapt with changes over time and that they used to be more accurate than they are now?

It's not even being disputed that we know it's not being disputed.

8)

He's a fucktard foobar and he lost. I wanna know if the winner of this bet was paid..

It is no secret that the political supporters of Trump are the elite fringe filth that has been lurking in America ever since it was first formed. The civil war, the black protests are the causes and effects of the extreme left ideologies that people foster over there. It's a shame that the same filth exists in a progressive field like Blockchain.

But I guess that is also natural. Since they had money, they invested early. Since they were socially isolated, they adapted to anything online more easily than the progressive yet slow mainstream centrists and moderate right wings.

I've just seen this post, and looks like there are many sore losers in the comment section.

Just accept that Biden got elected, and trump lose. Easy as that, don't you think.

Damn...I sure do miss Techy and his amazing foresight.
Such a nice young man. So I do wonder why he went MIA...

It's fine. We got Tash taking over the duty of copy-pasting links to ridiculous shit.

Biden didn't get elected. He got squirreled into a position through fraud.

United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878):
Check the "Case" tab at the site. Biden isn't president, even if it takes a long time to adjudicate this fact.

Time for the people of the States to start recalling their Congress people, and even their elected judges in some cases.

8)

Yes he is.

No, he isn't. Someone else is signing for him.

This is Odd: Joe Biden’s Signature on Latest Official Documents Is Raising Eyebrows
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/odd-joe-bidens-signature-latest-official-documents-raising-eyebrows/

Yes, he is.

Sigh, now we’re having arguments about this.

Does the authorization of the President to sign something on his behalf mean that what he has authorized is not allowed? - https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/05/27/136724009/obamas-autopen-signing-of-patriot-act-raises-eyebrows-has-unlikely-ally

I’d think that’s a stretch. Highly doubt people would risk legislation being able to be shot down for something so simple as a signature if there isn’t judicial approval for this measure.

Lets get BADecker to settle this. Tash can be referee. I'm sure we can arrive at a logical outcome.....

I'm happy to step in as an impartial arbiter, as I never disagree with BADecker (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5311897.msg56236366#msg56236366) on anything, so can't be accused of bias.






Yes, he is.

The point is?



Yes He Is.

There is military machinery in place that could actually give Trump two more terms, depending on the direction that the military moves.

8)

They have the machinery to make Jussie Sommellet president if they wanted to.

Come to think of it, following the fact that a lot of manipulations could be done at the polls by a supposed on seat president with regards to running a second tenor i his favor and the fact that, America is world power and major stake holders in most of the organizations that looks to check mate stuffs such as this, who do they turn to for recourse when there isn't actual implicating evidence for the judiciary to act upon. How would such a case of injustice and unfairness be handled supposedly in America.

That's right. But Jessie was never a front runner, just like Biden never was.

Since it was the election fraud that messed up the election system, and since the fraud was done by other countries, the cyber-war forced the military to take over.

Normally when the military takes over, the President is the commander and chief. But since this cyber-war was a war to replace the President, and since there are all kinds of restrictions and details that have to be met, who was the President when the military was called into play? Trump was. He did the calling. They are still under his orders. Biden can't change those orders, because he isn't President, simply because of what the cyber-war was about. And Biden probably never will be President. The military time to act where we can see them acting, hasn't come yet.

On top of this, with Congress doing an impeachment, what status are they impeaching Trump under? If they are impeaching him as President, they are saying that he still is President. If they are impeaching him under some other status, that status is something that he never did any good or bad activity within so that he can be impeached for it.

When the military resets a President, they will either reset Trump, or they will reset formal elections without the fraud involved this time.


Now here is something that is interesting to think about. There are certain things that Trump did or was acting at that might not have been good... while he was President. Some of these bad things were simply that he didn't really change the system, although he made a dent in it. Biden is simply destructive evil incarnate, and will take the system down by his evil.

When Trump takes the Throne again, what will he do? I mean, he will have almost 8 more years; he will be given the 2024 election by the good he does, and the 2020 election isn't 4 full years so he will be allowed more... like a vice President who takes over when a President dies at the beginning of his term.

Consider that Bible predictions and prophesies often cover more than one thing. Revelation 13:3: Are we looking at a Trump fatal wound? Will that wound be healed? If the military sets him back on the Throne, will Trump really be in a position where he will wind up doing more evil than good? If the military sets him back on the Throne, won't he be inclined to become more proud than before, and repay them (the military) with all kinds of favors? Will this be worse for the people than every bad thing that has gone before?

8)

Justified answers, any proof? any LIABLE evidence that will proved the claims? oh theres none.

Congress does the impeachment before the inauguration, meaning that this was take in place to ensure that Trump will be liable for any to be proved liabilities that he will be facing, while he is the president. Now that he is not, this impeachment are just a formal courtesy for trump to have a major consequences with his actions.

And about the military, I don't see any connections how can it give trump another power.


And about this, am I reading some kind of fantasy light novel. Cause I need the title asap.

Let me put this whole thing into a sort-of chronological light.

Back in September of 2018, Trump sets his executive order in place. This EO criminalizes any interference in our elections by foreign entities. This means that many of our elections since then have been criminally done. There are other things in this EO, and other EOs that might influence any election cyber-warfare.

The election takes place for President near the end of 2020. On the night of the election, Internet surveillance, by the military, of voting machine hacking is recorded... by the military. The essence of this is war with countries interfering in our elections.

Congress becomes inactive. Why? In other wars, it is Congress that often directs some of the affairs of the fight. Why would Congress be inactivated in this war? Because members of Congress were part of the war against the US. They have proven it by supporting Biden and the election fraud. Congress has become the enemy, even if some of them are not involved. Because it's clear that the majority of the House, and at least a good part of the Senate are involved in this war against America because they are part of it. Congress has been suspended by the military, in the cyber-war, even if this suspension is not readily apparent.

When was Congress suspended because they are fighting a war against America? At least on the night of the election. But possibly earlier, depending on intel the military had received back before the election.

Since Congress has been suspended, nothing that they are doing has any relevance. Nothing. Everything depends on the activity that the military does. The military apparently has until the end of March to finalize whichever process they are going the direction of.

Why won't the military have their own coup? Because there are too many people with guns in the USA. An internal fight of the magnitude of the military against the people would destroy the whole country. The military doesn't want that.

What's stopping the military from simply accepting Biden and shutting down the whole conflict? The military doesn't like the idea of being a puppet of China. In addition, they are conditioned to obey orders. There would be a revolt within the military, because the whole Marine Corps is trained in a way that every member - each soldier - is supposed to think on his own regarding following orders. The Marines won't like it if their commanders don't follow Trump's legitimate orders.

In other words, this whole thing is not over... or do you have proof that military surveillance of election fraud is a lie? However, I am not an insider. I don't know that all the thousands of people who have shown the election fraud are not lying. I don't know the future any more than anyone else. I'm simply putting things together as everyone else is trying to do.


Regarding the Bible stuff, that is simply my thought. Certainly the Revelation in the Bible is not fictional. But my application of it was simply a thought. But wouldn't we be surprised if it turned out that way? Of course, it would only be worse if Biden was finalized in office.

8)

When Trump "lost" the election I thought this thread would die.  Then it came out that his supporters wanted him to run again in 2024 so I thought maybe there's a chance.  Now the democrats are impeaching and it looks like this thread may again get a definitive answer.  That is, until the next strange turn of events.  No matter how you look at it though, sitcom drama has made it's way to the White House and everything is right on schedule for our future Idiocracy. 

I dont think so. New government is doing everything needed to ensure that Trump wont be elected again. I dont blame them. It is very unprofessional to call elections irregular in democratic country like USA. This is something that questions democracy at its basic facts.

You forgot the part where he summoned the angry mob to go storm the capital so that he wouldn't 'lose' the election.

Doesn’t really matter on the impeachment side of things, he’s not going to be found guilty as you’d need to convince another 10 Republicans to vote with Dems on the issue which they won’t do as the members of the party still highly approval of Trump and think this round of impeachments is a real scam.

Pretty sure he’ll be eligible to run in 2024, but won’t run. Maybe he’ll run for some state office but I’m not expecting anything past that to happen.

Summoned the angry mob. LOL. As if people have no personal responsibility. If you think the government couldn’t stop a group of photographers chasing a couple weirdos for photo ops from running around in the capital then there is no hope for you.

He'll run (or pretend to) if he can make money from it, and seeing how ~75% of Republicans still support him - that's likely.

Fair point that I hadn’t thought of. He’ll be able to milk a good amount of money from his voter group, which will still most likely support him as their GOD just like they did during the most recent election fraud stuff.

Raised a few hundred million off of something that was not supported by facts and was so beyond crazy that even establishment Republicans started to turn on him towards the end of the Presidency.

Curious to see what his Leadership PAC does when it comes to exerting pressure on the GOP.

how is trump supposed to be elected the us is not a democracy anymore

What do you mean, will he be elected?! He's running the presidency right now, in his second term. All this Biden stuff is simply media propaganda.

8)

I've watched the impeachment hearings as republicans were ignoring the proof that was being presented.  And I bet those worthless senators will be re-elected by the people who only want the best for themselves.   I feel this is no different than Theymos ignoring the fact he is paying ponzi scammers to hold coin for the forum. 

I think it's unlikely, but there's a non zero chance that we've heard the last of Trump.  He's facing mountains of criminal charges, civil suits, and massive amounts of debt - he could realize that running his mouth will only make things worse for himself and his family.  Plus he's old and likes to play golf and lives in a nice resort that he can be the king of and surround himself with people that believe (or pretend to believe) the words that come out of his mouth.

Trump lost something like 5 billion dollars since running for President. I don't think he is going to run again for the money. Maybe for the attention, but not for the money. You might have Trump confused with Biden

Trump has never had 5 billion dollars to lose, and the losses he incurred were due to the economy, not because Don Jr. was pretending to be running the family company instead of him.  If he weren't president and instead there was a president who fucked up the economy in the same way Trump did, Trump would've had even bigger losses since he wouldn't have of had the revenue he generated by simply being president (foreign leaders dumping money into his properties, overcharging the federal government when he stayed at his own properties, the whole inauguration scam, etc.)

This sounds like the hopeful speculation back in late 2016 that Trump would somehow become more "presidential" once he gets to the White House. He is who he is, and unlikely to change at this age.

Also the media. I still see some "articles" about Trump being holed up at Mar-a-Lago and how he feels and whatnot. Like WTF. Why are they still promoting him. That's not even getting into the whole Fox/Newsmax/OAN/and-wherever-qanoners-hang-out sewage.

Just when you think this thread is about to be over, it sucks you back in. Now I’m going to have to remember this thread 4 years from now if Trump runs again. I don’t think he will. I’m sure he’s glad to have his life back. You never know though. Maybe he needs something to do or feels like a second term might add to his legacy. Who knows...

So are we going to have a new thread for a bet on whether or not our dear old former dimpotus will indeed be running for a (non consecutive) 2nd term?

Or better yet, whether or not he will be running the campaign from a prison cell?

He is getting ready for making a comeback. Impeachment has failed. Trump came clean. He is ready for 2024. I know he has lots of stuff to share.

Figthtng against all the odds.

Worked in 2016, will work even better in 2024.

mitch disagrees

"January 6th was a disgrace.
American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like.
Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President.
They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an election.
Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty."



"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while in office, he didn't get away with anything yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation."


trump wont run in 2024 bc he will have other things to worry about