President Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and this is why...

[RelentlessOnanism]

You are a dreamer, big time.

Okay, so the answer to my original question, do they not believe or do they not care, is the former, rather than the latter.

That's a very useful insight into the mind of the Trump supporter. I'm very grateful.

 

[jp55665566]

Okay, so the answer to my original question, do they not believe or do they not care, is the former, rather than the latter.

That's a very useful insight into the mind of the Trump supporter. I'm very grateful.

There is no corruption to believe, or not believe. How is it that you imagine the dollars spent to protect the President when he visits places, "end up in Trump family bank accounts"? That's not true at all. Which "foreign officials" are staying at the Trump hotels? You spoke of some massive, daily corruptions, but don't seem to have any real examples.

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

There is no corruption to believe, or not believe. How is it that you imagine the dollars spent to protect the President when he visits places, "end up in Trump family bank accounts"? That's not true at all.

Well, it's genuinely fascinating that two people can look at the Trump presidency and can draw such different conclusions. You seem to think everything is completely above board, and I think he's a massive crook. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[jp55665566]

Well, it's genuinely fascinating that two people can look at the Trump presidency and can draw such different conclusions. You seem to think everything is completely above board, and I think he's a massive crook. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"Massive crook" do you have ANY example of that? No, you do not. Something about "foreign officials staying at Trump hotels"? You gotta be kidding? Just ONE example of President Trump being a "massive crook", please. Shouldn't be that hard, given that he is such a "massive crook". Maybe President Trump arranged for his son to get a lucrative job with a oil-gas company overseas? Maybe in Ukraine? Maybe he got some special privilege by claiming to be a Native American (Indian)?

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

"Massive crook" do you have ANY example of that? No, you do not. Something about "foreign officials staying at Trump hotels"? You gotta be kidding?

I gave you examples and you just dismissed them, out of hand. There are claims over his inauguration fund and where tens of millions of dollars ended up. There are reports that he's funnelled money from campaign donors into his family business. He got his vice president to stay at a Trump golf course miles away from where Pence was supposed to be visiting. He had military flights refuel at a Scottish airport, and getting personnel to stay at his golf resort. And then there's the officials in his cabinet who had to resign due to corruption. It literally takes two minutes to Google this stuff. Now, if you just want to ignore it all, and write it off as fake news or biased propaganda, I can't stop you. But he looks shifty as fuck to me.

 

[jp55665566]

I gave you examples and you just dismissed them, out of hand. There are claims over his inauguration fund and where tens of millions of dollars ended up. There are reports that he's funnelled money from campaign donors into his family business. He got his vice president to stay at a Trump golf course miles away from where Pence was supposed to be visiting. He had military flights refuel at a Scottish airport, and getting personnel to stay at his golf resort. And then there's the officials in his cabinet who had to resign due to corruption. It literally takes two minutes to Google this stuff. Now, if you just want to ignore it all, and write it off as fake news or biased propaganda, I can't stop you. But he looks shifty as fuck to me.

That makes no sense at all. "CLAIMS over his inauguration fund and where tens of million of dollars ended up." WHAT? CLAIMS that President Trump "funneled money from campaign donors into his family business." You're serious? That's it?

"He got his Vice President to stay at a Trump golf course"? Wow. Now I must admit THAT is some heavy-duty corruption.

You ARE a CNN guy/girl... *sigh*

Please tell me you do not regard "military flights refueling at a Scottish airport" as an example of Trump's corruption.

You are aware that President Trump takes NO salary at all as President?

Of course it "seems like shady-shit is going on all the time" << that's because you are consuming FAKE NEWS!

your comment:"The regular trips to Mar-a-Lago, where each time hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have to be spent, most of which ends up in the Trump family bank account." << Is completely absurd and untrue.

You deserve, like all Americans, to know the truth. It is not on CNN.

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

That makes no sense at all. "CLAIMS over his inauguration fund and where tens of million of dollars ended up." WHAT? CLAIMS that President Trump "funneled money from campaign donors into his family business." You're serious? That's it?

"He got his Vice President to stay at a Trump golf course"? Wow. Now I must admit THAT is some heavy-duty corruption.

You ARE a CNN guy/girl... *sigh*

Of course they're claims. What else would they be? Who do you think I am? A member of the Mueller inquiry? An FBI agent? I don't have reams of reams of legal documentation to hand, to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Trump is a crook. I look at the reporting of his behaviour and draw conclusions as a result. I can do no more than that. Nor can you. Although, I suspect if I provided you with a literal smoking gun, you'd dismiss it, or make some statement about Joe Biden's son.

One of the US networks worked out that in the first 900 days or so of the Trump administration, Trump spent nearly 300 days at one of his golf courses. It's believed those trips cost the taxpayer more than a 100 million dollars, most of which ended up in Trump's family bank accounts. Now, I don't have receipts to prove that, so therefore there's nothing to see here? A hundred million dollars is no big deal? That's not corrupt?

You genuinely believe Trump is completely honest and above board, and he's done nothing wrong? Fine. I can't make you believe what you don't want to believe. If you genuinely think none of this is a big deal, again that's absolutely fine. But it looks deeply and profoundly suspicious to me. A sort of ongoing, petty corruption that makes him look very, very bad.

 

[jp55665566]

Of course they're claims. What else would they be? Who do you think I am? A member of the Mueller inquiry? An FBI agent? I don't have reams of reams of legal documentation to hand, to prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Trump is a crook. I look at the reporting of his behaviour and draw conclusions as a result. I can do no more than that. Nor can you. Although, I suspect if I provided you with a literal smoking gun, you'd dismiss it, or make some statement about Joe Biden's son.

One of the US networks worked out that in the first 900 days or so of the Trump administration, Trump spent nearly 300 days at one of his golf courses. It's believed those trips cost the taxpayer more than a 100 million dollars, most of which ended up in Trump's family bank accounts. Now, I don't have receipts to prove that, so therefore there's nothing to see here? A hundred million dollars is no big deal? That's not corrupt?

You genuinely believe Trump is completely honest and above board, and he's done nothing wrong? Fine. I can't make you believe what you don't want to believe. If you genuinely think none of this is a big deal, again that's absolutely fine. But it looks deeply and profoundly suspicious to me. A sort of ongoing, petty corruption that makes him look very, very bad.

Are you talking about Secret Service expenses to protect the President? You seriously believe that "Trump family bank accounts" get that money? It's absurd. If you learn that that single fact is untrue, will you reexamine your notion that President Trump is a "massive crook"? CNN claims that President Trump is a "Russian agent". That for sure isn't true. They CLAIM he puts immigrant children in cages and makes them drink water from toilets. Don't believe that stupid shit. There is no "smoking gun" in regards to President Trump's imagined "massive crook"edness. There are only very cheap, salacious FAKE NEWS reports, by a Trump-hating media.

 

[YDB95]

Are you talking about Secret Service expenses to protect the President?

I suspect the reference was to the fact that Trump golfed on courses he owned, thus all money paid for greens fees, etc. - and it would be much more than usual given the size of his entourage, yes, including the secret service - ended up back in his pocket.

 

[jp55665566]

The REAL dangerous corruption is in the CIA, FBI, and other "Intelligence" services, in what is called the DeepState, and in a complicit MSM, main-stream "news media".

*Operation Mockingbird is ACTIVE and ONGOING.

 

[YDB95]

...And here we have why some people will never believe a single negative word about Trump.

 

[JKendallDane]

You are aware that President Trump takes NO salary at all as President?

That little gem right in the middle of all your ranting and raving in that post is so ironically perfect to showcase just how tunnel-visioned you guys have become.

"It doesn't matter what easily checkable facts are out there, dammit! Him not even cashing his paychecks proves he's not a crook!"

That's just "Fifth Avenue Donnie" running a Three Card Monte game on you gullible tourists. You're too busy watching where the paycheck went to notice him slipping $25k to $50k per golf trip into one of his pockets and fully writing off those salary "donations" on his taxes too. Eight or ten golf trips and he's in the black and making pure profit on all the other trips. That's just ONE of his grifts he's doing in plain sight.

And if he's doing that like he runs his "500 companies" scam on the IRS, then he's probably writing off that $400k a year salary "he doesn't take" at least twice each year. If New York hadn't padlocked his "foundation" for double dealing and self dealing, he would probably be running that presidential salary through it first and be able to write it off his taxes a third and fourth time.

If YOU wanna trust a guy that has EIGHT separate entities (with eight separate sets of books!) to own ONE helicopter to be playing it straight with the "I donate 100% of my salary" line...well, you may like that flavor of Kool Aid, but it doesn't pass the smell test.


.

 

[sharingfantasies]

You are aware that President Trump takes NO salary at all as President?

This is incorrect. He said he wouldn't. Then he said he would take a dollar. Then he said he wouldn't take any of it. However, by Constitutional law, he is required to take the salary. The Founding Fathers didn't want to open the Presidential position to bribery. He, like independently wealthy Presidents Washington, Hoover and Kennedy, donated the money. Every time he does, it is splashed all over the news. I am surprised that you haven't see it on the various sites.

Obama donated a portion of his salary.

https://www.thebalance.com/presidents-salary-4579867


Now how the taxes and charitable claims work on these donations is apparently dependent on many issues determined by IRS regulations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2017/04/04/trump-donates-presidential-pay-reminding-us-irs-rules-apply-to-everyone/#cc0272c2824b

 

[jp55665566]

This is incorrect. He said he wouldn't. Then he said he would take a dollar. Then he said he wouldn't take any of it. However, by Constitutional law, he is required to take the salary. The Founding Fathers didn't want to open the Presidential position to bribery. He, like independently wealthy Presidents Washington, Hoover and Kennedy, donated the money. Every time he does, it is splashed all over the news. I am surprised that you haven't see it on the various sites.

Obama donated a portion of his salary.

https://www.thebalance.com/presidents-salary-4579867


Now how the taxes and charitable claims work on these donations is apparently dependent on many issues determined by IRS regulations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2017/04/04/trump-donates-presidential-pay-reminding-us-irs-rules-apply-to-everyone/#cc0272c2824b

thank you for clarification

 

[Dumpington]

Way back in 1998, this is what Nancy Pelosi had to say about Republican Party efforts to impeach President Clinton, after Bill had been discovered to have lied under oath to obstruct an investigation brought against him for sexually harrassing women:

"Today, the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance... we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton. And until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer."

The House Speaker sounds EXACTLY like she's describing her very own Democratic Party colleagues today! It's NOT about justice or truth. What they care about is winning the 2020 presidential election. Democrat leaders have decided that impeaching Trump is essential if they're going to capture the White House next year, and so they're staking everything on another bizarre, flimsy scandal that the rest of us can barely understand.

Personal attacks on Trump have proven ineffective. If calling him a racist or a traitor had actually worked, Hillary Clinton would be running for re-election right about now. But it didn't work. The loser in this current impeachment nonsense is likely to be Joe Biden, who, you will recall, remains the apparent front-runner. He's supposed to be the safe choice, the guy who was going to re-energize the Obama coalition and take back the White House. Yet Democrats have now in effect demanded that we spend the next six months talking about Biden and his son's alleged corruption. That's what's at the core of this Ukraine story.

It was only a week ago that The New York Times launched its unfair hit piece on Brett Kavanaugh. Scandals that used to go on for months now seem to end in hours. Nothing illustrates this better than the Ukraine story. A week ago, no one had even heard of it. Then we were on the brink of impeachment, and now it seems it may be over already.

The same angry news anchors who brought you Stormy Daniels and the Russia hoax reported that Trump threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine did something bad to Joe Biden and his family. Supposedly, Trump was finished. But once again, the mob turned out to be wrong. The administration released a transcript of the president's phone call with the Ukrainian head of state, and it says none of the things the news anchors claimed it would. Read it for yourself. It's online. Try to find the extortion in there. There isn't any.

So what's driving all this insanity? Representative Al Green (D-TX) has been more honest about it than most. Green admitted straight up: "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." And there you have it: the Democrat's 2020 plan to defeat Trump in one simple statement!

 

[jp55665566]

From Dump - "Way back in 1998, this is what Nancy Pelosi had to say about Republican Party efforts to impeach President Clinton, after Bill had been discovered to have lied under oath to obstruct an investigation brought against him for sexually harrassing women:

"Today, the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance... we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton. And until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer."

The House Speaker sounds EXACTLY like she's describing her very own Democratic Party colleagues today! It's NOT about justice or truth. What they care about is winning the 2020 presidential election. Democrat leaders have decided that impeaching Trump is essential if they're going to capture the White House next year, and so they're staking everything on another bizarre, flimsy scandal that the rest of us can barely understand.

Personal attacks on Trump have proven ineffective. If calling him a racist or a traitor had actually worked, Hillary Clinton would be running for re-election right about now. But it didn't work. The loser in this current impeachment nonsense is likely to be Joe Biden, who, you will recall, remains the apparent front-runner. He's supposed to be the safe choice, the guy who was going to re-energize the Obama coalition and take back the White House. Yet Democrats have now in effect demanded that we spend the next six months talking about Biden and his son's alleged corruption. That's what's at the core of this Ukraine story.

It was only a week ago that The New York Times launched its unfair hit piece on Brett Kavanaugh. Scandals that used to go on for months now seem to end in hours. Nothing illustrates this better than the Ukraine story. A week ago, no one had even heard of it. Then we were on the brink of impeachment, and now it seems it may be over already.

The same angry news anchors who brought you Stormy Daniels and the Russia hoax reported that Trump threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine did something bad to Joe Biden and his family. Supposedly, Trump was finished. But once again, the mob turned out to be wrong. The administration released a transcript of the president's phone call with the Ukrainian head of state, and it says none of the things the news anchors claimed it would. Read it for yourself. It's online. Try to find the extortion in there. There isn't any.

So what's driving all this insanity? Representative Al Green (D-TX) has been more honest about it than most. Green admitted straight up: "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." And there you have it: the Democrat's 2020 plan to defeat Trump in one simple statement!"




The way Adam Schiff characterized Trump's phone call (in "parody"?) was disgraceful; but I doubt the censure proposal against him will go anywhere. We are just that corrupt.

 

[RoughSurf]

Very nice! Couldn't agree more.

 

[magicalmoments]

It interests me to see the label "antifa" being used routinely by trump supporters as an example of the "progressive left", whatever that means!?

Antifa: as I understand it is a relatively recent media invented appellation used to describe a wide and unconnected collection of individuals and groups who oppose White supremists. As I understand it there is no political party with the name, there is no community organisation registered under the name, it does not have a leader, it does not have an organising committee, it does not have a published manifesto. Itis a ghost, it does not exist in the real world.

What seems to happen is that when a group of white supremists decide to have a rally or some sort of display of their strength and natural superiority, various opposition groups and individuals decide to turn up to protest this. Of recent years these opposition groups are happy to meet the white supremists head on and with violence, or at the least meet the violence of the white supremists head on. None of your traditional left wing pacifism here!
The press have reacted to this new phenomena by calling the loose band of protesters "antifa".

Naturally, a lot of middle of the road moms and dads, especially in the USA, are appalled and the right have become apoplectic.

Now... Explain to me how this is an example of the progressive left? Because if it is such it has no voice, no power in a political sense, which would be needed to convince more and more of the public to their cause. It seems to me to be simply a device by a frightened and failing Republican Party to sow fear from ignorance with a gullible.and frightened broader community.

 

[JKendallDane]

Way back in 1998, this is what Nancy Pelosi had to say...

<snip> <snip> to remove plagiarized parts

....And there you have it: the Democrat's 2020 plan to defeat Trump in one simple statement!

Tucker? Tucker Carlson? Is that really you, Tucker?

It HAS to be you, Tucker! Because Faux Noise and Real Clear Politics says those are YOUR words up there under Dump's name.

Fuckin' thievin' plagiarist!

And then we have jp5-etc being dumb enough to quote the words Dump plagiarized and give him credit for writing them! LOLOLOL

No wonder 45* loves guys like you two. One is a good thief and the other is a good mark.

From Dump - "Way back in 1998, this is what Nancy...

same <snip> <snip> as above and for the same reason

...And there you have it: the Democrat's 2020 plan to defeat Trump in one simple statement!"

.

 

[Bodington]

The conventional wisdom is that to win the US Presidential election the base of each Party cancel each other out and so you win the election by winning the moderates and the undecided. However I think the opposite is true. In that the moderates and the undecided cancel each other out, after all that's why they're undecided in the first place, and it is the Party that has a higher turnout of its base that wins the election. There are many examples of part elections that support my theory and I will give you one. In the 2016 election, my state of Michigan went red for the first time since Reagan. There are two counties Wayne and Oakland which has a large population containing the city of Detroit and most of the heavily populated suburbs and they always vote Democrat. In the other counties the Republicans win the majority of the vote but because of heavy turnout in the Detroit counties the Democrat Presidential candidate has won. In 2016 the turnout in those counties were well below what was expected and ergo Trump won the state.

The Dems are buoyed by polls that show that head to head Biden tops Trump by as much as 18% margin. Do you really believe the accuracy of such poll? We haven’t had such an election landslide spread since 1984 when Reagan won 49 of the 50 states and he only lost the one state (Minnesota his opponent’s home state) by a margin of one per cent. However there is one poll that is ominous for the Dems for 2020. Trump has consistently polled between 85 to 90% support amongst Republican voters i.e. the Party base. Remember my theory.

That was a major reason why the political pundits got the 2016 election wrong. They discounted the huge rallies Trump attracted during the campaign compared to Hillary’s pathetic rallies. The pundits believed that the Dems had a well oiled get out to vote machine that would trump Trump- pun intended.

And you note that Pres Trump has conducted countless rallies since he took office and they all have been well attended w2ith overflow crowds. Some people even waited hours to ensure getting a seat in the rally. And the crowds are joyous and happy displaying complete satisfaction with the Trump Presidency. It bears noting that if one takes the time to attend a political rally one is most likely to vote and for the candidate of the rally.

Given the great economy and the lack of any leadership qualities being displayed by the Dems candidates, I would be truly shocked if Trump were to lose reelection. It would take a catastrophic recession to occur for Trump. I think most sensible Dems agree and are secretly hoping for one. In fact Bill Maher, the gadfly comedian on HBO publicly voiced such desire as the only way Trump gets defeated in 2020.

I know its impossible for Trump to replicate Reagan’s 1984 but I do predict Pres Trump will retain the states he won in 2016. In addition I say he wins also NM, NV, CO, VA and NH for an extra pickup of 37 electoral college votes to easily win reelection.

 

[YDB95]

And you note that Pres Trump has conducted countless rallies since he took office and they all have been well attended w2ith overflow crowds. Some people even waited hours to ensure getting a seat in the rally.

Erm, no. Remember the turnout for his inauguration, for example (and importantly, his blatant lies about it afterward). The man loves to talk himself up, and that is why we're hearing so much about huge adoring crowds, not because there's any real truth to it.

He is still very popular among his own base, that's true. But if he were to win re-election, it would defy all historical precedents given his mediocre poll numbers throughout his term.

 

[Dumpington]

Bodington writes: "The Dems are buoyed by polls that show that head to head Biden tops Trump by as much as 18% margin. Do you really believe the accuracy of such poll?"

Those same Democrats who were absolutely certain that Mrs. Clinton would landslide Donald Trump back in 2016 are the only people who believe those polls, Bodington! They STILL refuse to accept the fact that their candidate lost! There's NO WAY Creepy-Sleepy Joe is going to campaign well against Trump next year! He was a horrible candidate when he ran in 1988, in 2008, and will remain a horrible candidate in 2020!

"Given the great economy and the lack of any leadership qualities being displayed by the Dems candidates, I would be truly shocked if Trump were to lose reelection."

The Trump-haters believe that if they paint Trump as a racist, a sexist, a bigot, & a white supremacist, they will rally minorities & women to vote against him. Their strategy failed miserably in '16, and it will do even worse next year!

"I know its impossible for Trump to replicate Reagan’s 1984 but I do predict Pres Trump will retain the states he won in 2016. In addition I say he wins also NM, NV, CO, VA and NH for an extra pickup of 37 electoral college votes to easily win reelection."

I agree with your above assessment - except that I ALSO believe that President Trump will win Minnesota, in addition to those other states you've listed.

YDB95 writes: "He is still very popular among his own base, that's true. But if he were to win re-election, it would defy all historical precedents given his mediocre poll numbers throughout his term."

If you continue to believe those polls that forecast a Hillary Clinton landslide in 2016, then it's understandable how you can believe that a dumbass, hair-sniffing presidential gaffe-machine like Joe Biden can defeat Trump in 2020! Joe still has serious questions to answer about his withholding a billion-dollars in aid-money to the Ukraine over a prosecutor he wanted fired!

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "He is still very popular among his own base, that's true. But if he were to win re-election, it would defy all historical precedents given his mediocre poll numbers throughout his term."

If you continue to believe those polls that forecast a Hillary Clinton landslide in 2016, then it's understandable how you can believe that a dumbass, hair-sniffing presidential gaffe-machine like Joe Biden can defeat Trump in 2020! Joe still has serious questions to answer about his withholding a billion-dollars in aid-money to the Ukraine over a prosecutor he wanted fired!

Since you're so fond of Nazi analogies, it's worth noting that what you're doing here is ripe for one. They were big on repeating lies until everyone assumed they were true too.

 

[jp55665566]

Because this "impeachment" is going NOWHERE. It's been one accusation after another. Not a single attack against the President gained any traction, or had even a shred of truth. But THIS time it's supposed be REAL SERIOUS? Even Democrats don't believe their own BS anymore.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because this "impeachment" is going NOWHERE. It's been one accusation after another. Not a single attack against the President gained any traction, or had even a shred of truth. But THIS time it's supposed be REAL SERIOUS? Even Democrats don't believe their own BS anymore.

It doesn't have to be true.

Look ad YDB95......it's just gotta fit the narrative and he's 100% behind it, no facts needed.