ForumGarden

Infrastructure was one of his major platform promises at the election, it's not coming out of nowhere.

spot;1517832 wrote: Infrastructure was one of his major platform promises at the election, it's not coming out of nowhere.


True,

Anybody paying attention could see what is coming.



ART OF THE DEAL

Yup, that pig considers himself the great deal maker. That may be good for business where the sole objective is to put your competitor out of business, don't see where that applies to working for the public good.

It is all about politics, using taxpayer money to buy votes.

National infrastructure projects generally offer 80% federal money and 20% state & local. He is offering the opposite: 20% federal, 80% state & local meaning local taxation must rise heavily to pay for the bulk, meaning there will be little to no infrastructure interstate, state or local projects actually accomplished.

With new federal regulations for taxation, state & local taxes no longer deductible, or deductible up to a small amount. The lunatics who bought the idea of the tax bill actually lowering their taxes are in for a sticker shock once the bills come in.

His deal sucks, just like he does.

On the other hand your infrastructure is in a third-world condition and has been for decades, you-all desperately need to upgrade major components and I don't just mean bridges. I mean water and electric utilities to start with. I've seen better electric distribution in Delhi.

spot;1517848 wrote: On the other hand your infrastructure is in a third-world condition and has been for decades, you-all desperately need to upgrade major components and I don't just mean bridges. I mean water and electric utilities to start with. I've seen better electric distribution in Delhi.


You are correct, sir. That is not to say it won't get worse. Maybe Russia can pitch in and help.

The plan is a disaster. It is a gift to private business at the expense of the taxpayer and would make the cost of living more expensive.

The rest of his budget plan is also a disaster, since it makes cuts to anything designed to increase quality of life without anything to show for it.

Spend a trillion and there will be nothing but bliss.

Where did all the fiscal conservatives go? This huge deficit spending would be a giant red flag if a Democrat was in the White House or if they controlled Congress.

I have this unshakeable uneasy feeling in my stomach that all of this spending is just the set up for attempts at huge cuts to any government program that actually helps people.

Wandrin;1517993 wrote: Where did all the fiscal conservatives go? This huge deficit spending would be a giant red flag if a Democrat was in the White House or if they controlled Congress.

I have this unshakeable uneasy feeling in my stomach that all of this spending is just the set up for attempts at huge cuts to any government program that actually helps people.


"Fiscal Conservative" has been a lie all along.

Like "Yes, I'll respect you after this"

second term?

im hoping he gets impeached or dies before the end of his second year

beowulf;1518111 wrote: second term?

im hoping he gets impeached or dies before the end of his second year


How pleasing, it's our modeller. Welcome back.

It's an odd attitude, wanting him impeached or dead. He's acting on behalf of the United States, not for any other country. So far he's steered where he said he'd steer before he was elected. He has his own style, so did every other incumbent, but he's not acting against his own country's interest. He's not declared a war, which is something few recent Presidents could claim by this point in their presidency. As a man he's an obnoxious creep but as a President I think he's doing his job effectively.

spot;1518116 wrote: How pleasing, it's our modeller. Welcome back.

It's an odd attitude, wanting him impeached or dead. He's acting on behalf of the United States, not for any other country. So far he's steered where he said he'd steer before he was elected. He has his own style, so did every other incumbent, but he's not acting against his own country's interest. He's not declared a war, which is something few recent Presidents could claim by this point in their presidency. As a man he's an obnoxious creep but as a President I think he's doing his job effectively.
I'd disagree. He's not acting on behalf of the US. He's acting on behalf of Donald Trump.

FourPart;1518120 wrote: I'd disagree. He's not acting on behalf of the US. He's acting on behalf of Donald Trump.


He's authorized to act. Anything he does, within the law of the land, is by definition on behalf of the country by virtue of his elected office. If he fails to be re-elected he'll stop, but I don't actually see him losing in 2020.

what he does has an impact on the rest of the world

he is dangerous, he is narcissistic, a racist and a complete sexist creep

and thankyou, i came back simply cos i found the link in my 'dead link file' (where i put links to places i dont enjoy anymore) and thought id take a look..........see the place hasnt improved any and in fact has slipped even further......lik a lot of forumsthese days it seems to be full of trump lovers and religitards

bye

beowulf;1518129 wrote: what he does has an impact on the rest of the world

he is dangerous, he is narcissistic, a racist and a complete sexist creep

and thankyou, i came back simply cos i found the link in my 'dead link file' (where i put links to places i dont enjoy anymore) and thought id take a look..........see the place hasnt improved any and in fact has slipped even further......lik a lot of forumsthese days it seems to be full of trump lovers and religitards

bye


I hope you don't include me in either of those categories - although I know what you mean about the Religitards pulling the forum down.

Oh, good. Just what we need. another old hat with a case of the Crabbies.

Welcome back, anyway.

We're not all trumptards.

spot;1518122 wrote: He's authorized to act. Anything he does, within the law of the land, is by definition on behalf of the country by virtue of his elected office. If he fails to be re-elected he'll stop, but I don't actually see him losing in 2020.


He has the job and like it or not he has all the authority and responsibilities that come with it.

Thing is for me is I just flat out don't like the guy and have a hard time giving him credit for anything. It would be a miracle come 2020 when he runs I would vote for him, but if I do it would because he did a good job.

Hope the sex was worth it, NOT

Trump Lawyer’s Payment to Stormy Daniels Was Reported as Suspicious by Bank

The bank used by President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer to wire $130,000 to a former adult-film actress flagged the transaction as suspicious and reported it to the Treasury Department, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The lawyer, Michael Cohen, wired the money to a lawyer for former actress Stephanie Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, from an account at First Republic Bank . The money was received on Oct. 27, 2016, 12 days before the presidential election, another person familiar with the matter said. It isn’t clear when First Republic reported it to the government as suspicious.

Mr. Cohen said he missed two deadlines earlier that month to make the $130,000 payment to Ms. Clifford because he couldn’t reach Mr. Trump in the hectic final days of the presidential campaign, the person said.

Ms. Clifford was owed the money in return for signing an agreement that bars her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump in 2006, people familiar with the matter said.

I'm sure Putin is very pleased with his achievements. As Anne said elsewhere, I'm not sure if there was actual provable collusion between Trump and Putin; I'm a lot more sure that Putin did everything he could to get Trump elected and Trump is doing as hoped: wrecking the western alliance, destroying American credibility, reducing and isolating America and freeing Putin up to have a free hand in Europe to go at the EU now it seems he's peeled us away from them.

The only people over here that I've seen who appear to approve of Trump are from our extreme far right. Even most brexiters appear to dislike him which I find ironic since I regard them as basically the same sort of people as those who support Trump (I'm sure there are many Trump supporters honestly convinced he's doing a great job and who don't believe a word of all these smears against him)

I notice that both brexit and Trump had Putin's backing as far as he could possibly get away with it and that that both have the wholehearted backing of the extreme racist far right and a lot of billionaires who talk about opportunity.

Clodhopper;1518184 wrote: The only people over here that I've seen who appear to approve of Trump are from our extreme far right.


Oh!

I rather resent that!

I support President Trump's "wrecking the western alliance, destroying American credibility, reducing and isolating America and freeing Putin up to have a free hand in Europe" from a centre-left stance - I deplore extremism.

Hmm. Sorry about that. I didn't think you approved of Trump, I just thought you approved of what he was doing: trashing the US and reducing its power and influence globally.

I was referring to the ordinary folk who support Trump and who don't seem to believe he's as bad as made out, without being the ones who don pointy white hats and dodgy robes of a weekend.

edit: ...and I suppose to the billionaire backers' support from dodgy charities and far right propaganda outlets, bot farms, trolls, all so it's easier for Putin to show how he can murder opponents anywhere he likes, and occupy Ukraine, Georgia, anywhere he feels like owning, basically.

As an individual, a tribe or a type I find him nauseating. As a President of the USA I can think of nobody better suited to the job and I'm confident he'll see out his second term.

An inspection of my posts on ForumGarden will find that I've banged on about my presumptioon that violent computer games are harmful and desensitizing to those who play them. I've seen very few posts agreeing with my position.

Finally a public discussion is on the cards:

Trump to hold games violence meeting - BBC News

I think we owe the President a round of applause, and those are words I've never written before.

spot;1518207 wrote: An inspection of my posts on ForumGarden will find that I've banged on about my presumptioon that violent computer games are harmful and desensitizing to those who play them. I've seen very few posts agreeing with my position.

Finally a public discussion is on the cards:

Trump to hold games violence meeting - BBC News

I think we owe the President a round of applause, and those are words I've never written before.


Yup, ban video games. That's the answer.

spot;1518207 wrote: An inspection of my posts on ForumGarden will find that I've banged on about my presumptioon that violent computer games are harmful and desensitizing to those who play them. I've seen very few posts agreeing with my position.

Finally a public discussion is on the cards:

Trump to hold games violence meeting - BBC News

I think we owe the President a round of applause, and those are words I've never written before.


The subject was brought up a few years ago, and some studies were done.

The conclusions were along the lines that, yes, such games could contribute to desensitization and to aggressive "acting out" by some players.

This has not really been news for a while.

However, if unstable people are going to act out aggressive behavior, it seems to me that limiting their access to extremely dangerous weapons might limit the level of acting out that is done, and limit the damage of such episode.

Several grandkids of mine have been playing many of the violent video games for decades, and not a single on has ever committed a violent act against a single living being. Ever.

I suggest that any such influence of video games and such will prove to be, at most, a minute contributory factor.

Children's commercial television consists primarily of Japanese Anime-children sending animal spirits to hurt, damage or kill those of their "enemies". I consider such fare utterly disgusting. The progression to violent video games seems obvious.

Kudos to the Trumpet.

Trump’s bellicosity secures a diplomatic coup — for now

For the moment, at least, it appears to be a clear-cut victory — the biggest foreign policy win of his young administration. President Trump has brought his arch-nemesis, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, a.k.a. “Little Rocket Man, to the table to negotiate away his nuclear arsenal.

Optimists declared a major breakthrough. Even pessimists acknowledged that Trump’s hard line against Pyongyang, after decades of less forceful U.S. effort, played a significant role in moving one of the world’s most vexing and threatening problems in a potentially positive direction.

tude dog;1518223 wrote: Kudos to the Trumpet.

Trump’s bellicosity secures a diplomatic coup — for now

For the moment, at least, it appears to be a clear-cut victory — the biggest foreign policy win of his young administration. President Trump has brought his arch-nemesis, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, a.k.a. “Little Rocket Man, to the table to negotiate away his nuclear arsenal.

Optimists declared a major breakthrough. Even pessimists acknowledged that Trump’s hard line against Pyongyang, after decades of less forceful U.S. effort, played a significant role in moving one of the world’s most vexing and threatening problems in a potentially positive direction.




Looks like it. Possibly. I'll wait and see what actually happens, or doesn't happen.

There's an intriguing idea that Kim is prepared to deal with a like mind but not a rational decent human.

edit: aaaand it took me a while to remember the Lucy/Charlie Brown and the football cartoons I remember from my childhood, where she always but always whips away the football at the last second...

AUGH whump, iirc

Regarding computer games I think they have certainly helped remove inhibitions. People have rehearsed a lot of situations they might not in real life. In some circumstances it's called "training".

So yeah, I would say computer games play a part in the current US problems. But we have the same games here without the same issues so I'd still say it's the easy availability of guns, big f***in guns, that is the main cause of the mass killings.

Clodhopper;1518228 wrote:

So yeah, I would say computer games play a part in the current US problems. But we have the same games here without the same issues so I'd still say it's the easy availability of guns, big f***in guns, that is the main cause of the mass killings.


You are absolutely right.

AnneBoleyn;1518232 wrote: You are absolutely right.


So the easy availability of alcohol is the main CAUSE of drunk driving which results in much more carnage than all the " big f***in guns," in America.

My point being it is not the inanimate product which causes the pain, suffering, and grief, but the nut gripping the bottle/trigger.

tude dog;1518233 wrote: So the easy availability of alcohol is the main CAUSE of drunk driving which results in much more carnage than all the " big f***in guns," in America.

My point being it is not the inanimate product which causes the pain, suffering, and grief, but the nut gripping the bottle/trigger.


1. Alcohol is the only cause of drunk driving, and no, I am not saying bring back Prohibition, just stating the obvious.

2. Assault rifles are unnecessary. Most nuts can probably pass a background check, and yes I am saying bring back the ban on assault rifles. To put a stop to the killing of masses of people at once I am stating the obvious, as Clodhopper did. Can't tell who is likely to go nuts next; can't tell if the nut bought his own or borrowed, or stole, or inherited. Tired & sick & sick & tired of these mass abominations. The product is not manufactured for the purpose of remaining inanimate, the product is made to be used.

AnneBoleyn;1518237 wrote: 1. Alcohol is the only cause of drunk driving, and no, I am not saying bring back Prohibition, just stating the obvious.

2. Assault rifles are unnecessary. Most nuts can probably pass a background check, and yes I am saying bring back the ban on assault rifles. To put a stop to the killing of masses of people at once I am stating the obvious, as Clodhopper did. Can't tell who is likely to go nuts next; can't tell if the nut bought his own or borrowed, or stole, or inherited. Tired & sick & sick & tired of these mass abominations.


Alcohol does not cause drunk driving any more than cell phones cause distracted driving which results in auto accidents.

Food does not cause obesity.

AnneBoleyn;1518237 wrote: The product is not manufactured for the purpose of remaining inanimate, the product is made to be used.


Not unlike alcohol, cell phones or food. All can be abused.

False equivalencies. Inconsistent logic. Apples and oranges.

I think video games and many movies give/reinforce the idea that violence is a natural response to frustrations and problems. Very few, if any, promote any other thought process or solution to the problems presented. As such, I think they help build the mindset that can lead to violence in real life. The aggrieved victim picks up a weapon to find "justice" for the wrongs he/she has endured.

In the games and movies, guns of some sort are the "solution". They produce casualties from a distance, if only a few feet, as opposed to something like a knife. When guns are easier to get than a driver's license, we have a problem.

There are 4 things I have found Trumps supporters to have in common, and the chances are that those who fall in any of the categories are likely to be Trump supporters. A=B & B=A.

1. Religious Zealots. These are the people who are gullible by nature & who actually believe that he has led by some sort of Religious Crusade - totally ignoring, of course, his many anti-Christian acts.

2. Racists. Needless to say his "Building A Wall", banning all Muslims & referring to "****hole Countries" would obviously appeal this this type.

3. Gun Nuts. It is no surprise that he has the support of the NRA, as he tries to blame anything & everything on the increasingly commonplace school massacres on anything but guns. If you see a child hitting another child with a stick do you give the other child a bigger stick so that he can fight back - or do you take away the stick?

4. The Sickeningly Wealthy. Why would they want to actually pay their fair share of taxes? Least of all so that they would be less of a burden on the rest of the population.

FourPart;1518247 wrote: There are 4 things I have found Trumps supporters to have in common, and the chances are that those who fall in any of the categories are likely to be Trump supporters. A=B & B=A.


Is that algebra?

FourPart;1518247 wrote: 1. Religious Zealots. These are the people who are gullible by nature & who actually believe that he has led by some sort of Religious Crusade - totally ignoring, of course, his many anti-Christian acts.


Exactly who are you talking about?

FourPart;1518247 wrote: 2. Racists. Needless to say his "Building A Wall", banning all Muslims & referring to "****hole Countries" would obviously appeal this this type.


Border control is not racist.

FourPart;1518247 wrote: 3. Gun Nuts. It is no surprise that he has the support of the NRA, as he tries to blame anything & everything on the increasingly commonplace school massacres on anything but guns. If you see a child hitting another child with a stick do you give the other child a bigger stick so that he can fight back - or do you take away the stick?


I was shocked when first the NRA endorsed the Trumpet. No surprise to hear him turn his back on the organization which gave him 30 million dollars.

FourPart;1518247 wrote: 4. The Sickeningly Wealthy. Why would they want to actually pay their fair share of taxes? Least of all so that they would be less of a burden on the rest of the population.


What is a fair share?

I regard brexiters and Trumpists as fundamentally the same people. Both were supported by the:

1) Racists: Both are about blaming immigrants and getting rid of them. Racists are not going to support the multiracial, multicultural EU by definition and we know the KKK support Trump

2) Extreme far right: Often they are racists but in addition they want to reduce both countries to low tax low service states. They are not necessarily uniformed thugs, they occupy boardrooms as a rule, but the thugs are among them. Members of this forum might recall one ex member who told us how the old British National Party were moving into UKIP

Both the above groups have shown they are in contact across the Atlantic. Trump retweets British fascists and going the other way US charities like Cambridge Analytics, set up to help far right US candidates, also helped the brexit campaign.

3) The ultra wealthy. People like Murdoch, Banks, the Barclay brothers, my own MP Zac Goldsmith - all see opportunity in brexit and in Trump. Trump's tax cut for billionaires shows why.

4) Putin backs Trump and brexit. The extent of his involvement is undoubtedly greater than it should be and he may have materially affected both results, perhaps decisively.

5) The bulk of the followers who have been duped into believing that Trump and brexit will solve their problems and that it will be easy. As easy as building a wall or leaving a golf club. And that somehow doing these things will make everything better - their leaders said so. None of these people were in any way at all affected by any of the previously mentioned groups or anything their leaders said, and they acted from the purest of patriotic motives. In their opinion. But the US ones believe that Trump and the UK ones believe that brexit will make things generally better in their countries. Everyone is going to be richer and freer as a result of Trump and brexit. In their opinion.

I'd add that we have a few examples from the past of the rise of extremist movements in Europe - and for that matter the US - and there are parallels with the present. We have leaders and movements offering hugely oversimplified or plain wrong solutions to real problems. The political landscape is polarising and people are moving away from the centre ground. It feels a lot like the 1920s to me. I've quoted it before but it bears repetition because it is so relevant now.

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

THE SECOND COMING (1919)

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

You don't have to "understand" it much to get the feel of it, and it's the feel that is important

What puzzles me is that the US and UK have been blatantly and openly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations throughout my lifetime. Russia now does it back and kapow, it's a crisis all of a sudden. Why on earth shouldn't the Russians play the identical game?

Something of a sickener: Austerity.

The current account deficit has been eliminated. This at least means that the country as a whole is not getting more and more into debt every day. This is very good news. Or it would be if we weren't going to brexit.

Even brexiters these days have moved from, "We can have our cake and eat it," and "negotiations will be easy," to "Of course everyone always knew there would be some pain," usually given if a number is given at all as five years.

So even brexiters now agree that brexit will make us worse off. Which means the country as a whole is poorer. Which means the painfully won gains of austerity are wiped out. It's either more austerity or more debt and more poverty for our children and grandchildren.

Well done, brexiters.

I agree entirely. I have it in mind that there are enough non-voting potential electors in the UK to bring a new majority party into government if they can be sufficiently enthused, but I can't see any of the existing parties doing much about the problem. One may admire Jeremy Corbyn but still doubt his capacity to hold onto the Labour Party if it gets within sniffing distance of forming an administration.

spot;1518276 wrote: What puzzles me is that the US and UK have been blatantly and openly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations throughout my lifetime. Russia now does it back and kapow, it's a crisis all of a sudden. Why on earth shouldn't the Russians play the identical game?


Sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander? Well, if you are the goose or the gander rather than the one pouring the sauce you object!

Then there is the fact that the first duty of a government is to protect its citizens from hostile acts by other states or organisations. To fail to do so is to be seen to fail in that fundamental first duty and I think one of the key points Putin is making: "UK government cannot protect you from me." While the kindest interpretation of poisoning exchanged spies is to call it bad mannered what concerns me is that there are traces of the stuff all over Salisbury and the policeman poisoned. That needs a response.

I have noticed also that they seem to have kept the man and his daughter alive so far (unless they've died and they are just staying quiet about it for now while the investigation is getting underway) and the policemen is serious but stable. Does that mean we are developing some expertees in the treatment of these chemical/nerve agents?

I agree entirely. I have it in mind that there are enough non-voting potential electors in the UK to bring a new majority party into government if they can be sufficiently enthused, but I can't see any of the existing parties doing much about the problem. One may admire Jeremy Corbyn but still doubt his capacity to hold onto the Labour Party if it gets within sniffing distance of forming an administration.


If we brexit I'd rather a Corbyn run one than a Davis, Rees-Mogg and/or Johnson run one because with Corbyn we might end up owning our own transport, water, power etc whereas under the far right of the tory party anything as yet unsold, like (most of) the NHS will all be sold to the yanks or anyone else they can get a dollar or two out of to feather their nests. At present the centre seems dead.

Does it not occur to you that the UK providing asylum to all these Russian kleptomaniac billionaire thieves is the initial error, and that the present Russian government has every right in the world to make an example of people who blatantly stole assets previously held in trust for the benefit of the nation? Every Russian oligarch should be serving a lifetime sentence in Siberia, not buying football clubs.

I note that Sergei Skripal has a different background, having sold state secrets for gain while working in Russian Intelligence, but it's damn close to similar.

Yep. Agree about many of them. However we are where we are and a lot of these people are Putin supporters with big assets here - football clubs and the like. That actually gives us more accessible targets if wanted.

BBC report says Russia considering what diplomats it is going to expel. I suspect that is where it will stay for the moment. At least in public.

Clodhopper;1518275 wrote: I regard brexiters and Trumpists as fundamentally the same people.


So I suppose that as a Card carrying Member of the Labour Party & a Corbynite, because I am also in favour of Brexit that makes me a Far Right Trumpist. Hmm. Nice logic there, Batman.

I have some observations now that the Singapore meeting with Chairman Kim has ended.

What's the one thing the Chairman can't avoid reacting to in a hostile way? The annual joint military exercises in the South of the Korean peninsula. President Trump is very good at destroying stumbling blocks before they become inevitable. No more exercises, they cost a fortune and they're a deliberate offense. The Pentagon says it wasn't told? That's fine by me.

I'm having a hard time working out why this prejudice against President Trump continues. Yes he's made a mockery of the office, nobody is ever going to say respect the office regardless of the man any more. That's fine by me too.

And people really still think he's not going to be re-elected in 2020?

Of course he is.

spot;1519554 wrote: I have some observations now that the Singapore meeting with Chairman Kim has ended.

What's the one thing the Chairman can't avoid reacting to in a hostile way? The annual joint military exercises in the South of the Korean peninsula. President Trump is very good at destroying stumbling blocks before they become inevitable. No more exercises, they cost a fortune and they're a deliberate offense. The Pentagon says it wasn't told? That's fine by me.

I'm having a hard time working out why this prejudice against President Trump continues. Yes he's made a mockery of the office, nobody is ever going to say respect the office regardless of the man any more. That's fine by me too.

And people really still think he's not going to be re-elected in 2020?

Of course he is.


I just don't like the guy. He reminds me of a good buddy I worked and hung out with. He was smart we worked well together. It was after a while I realized he was not good for his wife. I'll spare you all the soap opera, but it came to a time I did not think of him as a friend and did what I could do to avoid him. We both benefited from our working relationship, but he suddenly not being the decent guy I thought he was not someone I wanted to deal with.

There was no explosion between us, we both eventually just drifted in separate directions.

Thing is there are some behavior I have no reason to tolerate.

BTW None of this has anything to do with Trump's wives.

tude dog;1519556 wrote: I just don't like the guy.


How does liking him come into it? The man's a repellent slug, he's recruited a White House coterie that resembles a mafia family, he's the archetypal pussy-grabber. That doesn't mean he's unelectable, far from it. He has mocked America but that doesn't mean his choices aren't heading him into a second term. This thread started six months before his election when it became clear nobody could keep him from a first term. Given that the alternative President is Mike Pence we should all be praying for President Trump's good health until at least 2024.

spot;1519558 wrote: How does liking him come into it? The man's a repellent slug, he's recruited a White House coterie that resembles a mafia family, he's the archetypal pussy-grabber. That doesn't mean he's unelectable, far from it. He has mocked America but that doesn't mean his choices aren't heading him into a second term. This thread started six months before his election when it became clear nobody could keep him from a first term. Given that the alternative President is Mike Pence we should all be praying for President Trump's good health until at least 2024.


I fully expect that he may be reelected.

I don't care if he cured the sick and heald the blind.

If he were on fire I wouldn't spit on him so to relived any suffering.

Just don't like the guy.

tude dog;1519559 wrote: I fully expect that he may be reelected.

I don't care if he cured the sick and heald the blind.

If he were on fire I wouldn't spit on him so to relived any suffering.

Just don't like the guy.


Are you prejudiced against all fat old degenerates, or just this one?