[POLL] WILL TRUMP BE ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM?

[eddie13]

That was pretty funny..

I am personally not a big fan of gambling

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..

[Oxstone]

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

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)

[canaris1985]

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

[Spendulus]

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

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

.....

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

REallY.?

[coins4commies]

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.

[snkneo]

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

[KingScorpio]

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.

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)

[BADecker]

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!

America is ticked! They are sick and tired of the Democrats' games and hoax impeachment! Today, people are rising up in protest! In the video below, I reveal how "impeachment" has become unpopular even within the democrat's own party. I further reveal a warning from Rand Paul as well as how we are nearing civil war. All that and more below…

Rand Paul Issues DIRE Warning—America Is Erupting As Patriots Make Their Move!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1ElivNx5xE

[TECSHARE]

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

I think this is just a conservative talking point. Trump never had very much support. The only reason he won is because Hillary was so despised by both parties. She still managed to win the popular vote, by a lot. I think her problem is unique. As I've said before, you never heard about a "Never Biden" or "Never Bernie" camp.

To get an idea of how out of touch the majority of the forum (P&S, anyway) is with what's actually happening in politics, here are the results from a poll I posted back in October.

https://i.imgur.com/tgvh0nW.png

The majority of votes went to "He won't be impeached."

The majority of voters in this poll chose "Yes" to the question will Trump win a second term.

Quite frankly, you guys just don't know as much as you think you do.

Right now I'd put "Other" at about 60% and Trump at 40%. Most people here I'm sure are 1o0% TRuMp.

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

[TECSHARE]

https://www.zerohedge.com/

Your article is based on an opinion piece in Bloomberg that doesn't carry any actual weight.

Semantics and wishful thinking aside, there's no way Pelosi won't deliver the articles of impeachment.

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.

[BADecker]

https://www.zerohedge.com/

Your article is based on an opinion piece in Bloomberg that doesn't carry any actual weight.

Semantics and wishful thinking aside, there's no way Pelosi won't deliver the articles of impeachment.

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.     

[ubercool]

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.

[suchmoon]

Imagine if someone had a bet with TECSHARE on impeachment

[QEHedge]

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.

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

[Spendulus]

https://www.zerohedge.com/

Your article is based on an opinion piece in Bloomberg that doesn't carry any actual weight.

Semantics and wishful thinking aside, there's no way Pelosi won't deliver the articles of impeachment.

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

[TECSHARE]

https://www.zerohedge.com/

Your article is based on an opinion piece in Bloomberg that doesn't carry any actual weight.

Semantics and wishful thinking aside, there's no way Pelosi won't deliver the articles of impeachment.

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.

Its an opinion piece. Its one particular interpretation of the constitution. Its not a ruling or a reminder of a precedent. Its a statement of opinion.

Somebody better inform Donald Trump of the good news that he hasn't been impeached, seems no one has told him yet.

https://i.imgur.com/i6O35nk.png

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

[russel123456]

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.😁😁

[TECSHARE]

The law is designed to leave very little if any room for opinions.

In that case, show me the constitutional provision that says what you are claiming to be true. Here's mine showing that the impeachment already happened:

"The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." -Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1207839832992604160

@NoahRFeldman is making a clever but wholly mistaken point when he says Trump hasn’t “really” been impeached until the Articles reach the Senate. Under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period.

- Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe

The title “University Professor” is Harvard’s highest academic honor, awarded to just a handful of professors at any given time and to just 68 professors in all of Harvard University’s history.

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

Prove it. Show me the part of the constitution that backs your words.

Regardless, I don't know why you think your opinion trumps that of a senior law professor from Harvard. And my Harvard law professor is more tenured than yours, so... I win.

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.

[TECSHARE]

At the absolute best for your position, this is a stalemate

It's not. My Harvard professor is of a more senior ranking than yours, and level of authority is what you are going by, so I win.

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 quoted section infers none of your personal conclusion. How can a senate try an impeachment if it didn't happen? We're not talking about a conviction by the senate -- that's not even part of what is being debated.

C'mon, try harder. Its not like I'm asking you to produce documents that aren't available to the public.

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. 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