Is Donald Trump Unhinged

[DJ-Garybaldy]

As the title of the topic says is Donald Trump Unhinged?

This latest disinfectant rant was just the most bizarre thing ever.

If you Inject cleaning solution because a President told you too then death will come a lot sooner than Corona Virus.

Mind we're not fairing much better in the UK look who we have in charge. 19,000+ deaths because they wanted to go down the fatal "herd immunity" route.

[gerryharris]

He now claims it was a sarcastic reply to a reporter's question.
Listening to his speech it didn't sound sarcastic to me, sounded as if he meant it.
Yes, he is unhinged.
Cheers
Gerry

[SienJoe]

This guy is unsinkable but I will see with interest whether Congress will begin the second round of history with impeachment.

[Warrior of the Light]

The guy's a senile clown, but we've known this for quite a few years now. I guess a geranium could do a better job.

[iomegajaz]

I'd have voted for Trump in 2016, if I could have. I'd vote for him this year, too.

Blaming Trump for a senile old biddy poisoning her husband – because she's senile, probably hard of hearing and obviously not very bright – is disingenuous at best. The left operates in bad faith and can't see past its Trump Derangement Syndrome to deal in facts, rather than feelings.

I look forward to your letters.

[NJK]

Originally Posted by iomegajaz

I'd have voted for Trump in 2016, if I could have. I'd vote for him this year, too.

? puzzeled by this, Did you become an American when you went to the states?

an Australian can't vote in the USA

[Vie]

Yes.

Watching his continuing mental decline is giving me nasty flashbacks to my grandmothers slow decent into madness.

[iomegajaz]

At the time of my previous post, I wasn't aware of the latest furore regarding Trump's latest comments, about injecting disinfectant; I don't consume much mainstream media and I'm not on social media. This article suggests that those comments aren't/weren't responsible for an increase in calls to the poison control hotline.

Originally Posted by NJK

? puzzeled by this, Did you become an American when you went to the states?

an Australian can't vote in the USA

No, I'm not a US citizen. I'm saying that if I could have (which implies that I couldn't – because I'm not a citizen, as you say) then I would have.

Sorry, I know English can be confusing.

[NJK]

Originally Posted by iomegajaz

Sorry, I know English can be confusing.

just missed the 'd -

[fc*uk]

Originally Posted by Warrior of the Light

The guy's a senile clown, but we've known this for quite a few years now. I guess a geranium could do a better job.

As in Amurican, I take great offense to this!!!

Oh, who the hell am I kidding... I couldn't have said it better myself, WOTL

[swingdjted]

Our state governor has better quotes.





That's an interesting way to say it.

[renhuang]

Yes, it feels dangerous in America now

[MourningStar]

sad that TDS appears here ...

[old and quite mad]

No need to be sad. Just laugh at the realization that The Donald is living in their heads, rent free, 24/7.

Life is good.

[YTrojan]

I wouldn't call Trump "Unhinged"

He's just making rather decisions that are strange on first glance, but make sense in the context to the situation.

[White Raven]

He's a complete and utter buffoon, but what else is new?
His incompetence as a leader and callous, narcissistic and ineffectual way of dealing with this pandemic as if the bloody virus is a personal insult is nothing short of embarrassing, but we knew that.

[gaekwad2]

Originally Posted by NJK

? puzzeled by this, Did you become an American when you went to the states?

an Australian can't vote in the USA

Looks more like his account got hacked by rockouthippie.

[Bizznatch]

Trump is the single greatest president I've seen in my lifetime. If I could vote for him again in 2024 I would.

[iomegajaz]

Maybe he'll let us...

[DJ-Garybaldy]

Originally Posted by Bizznatch

Trump is the single greatest president I've seen in my lifetime. If I could vote for him again in 2024 I would.

My Sarcasm detector is flashing

[Fishermanmax]

Trump is now calling for China to be punished for the spread of the coronavirus. I wonder how he proposes to do this? And in the 1920s, Spain must be punished for spreading the Spanish flu. Nonsense ...

[gaekwad2]

Originally Posted by Fishermanmax

And in the 1920s, Spain Kansas must be punished for spreading the Spanish flu.

fyp

[swingdjted]

Well that's interesting. I didn't know that. It seems a lot of sources agree that Kansas was where the first cases were discovered. Learn something new every day.

[Bizznatch]

Originally Posted by DJ-Garybaldy

My Sarcasm detector is flashing

I think you need a new sarcasm detector then. Then again I really couldn't give a rat's ass about the opinions of our President from someone who doesn't even live in the US.

[DJ-Garybaldy]

WOW! So I'm not allowed an opinion on American Politics because I don't live there...

Top trolling! I hadn't seen this post.

P.S: Donald Trump is a Childish Dangerous Mentally unwell person. I really hope he doesn't win this election

[iomegajaz]

Bizz didn't suggest you're not allowed to have an opinion. Stating disinterest in an outsider's opinion isn't trolling. Is Bizz not allowed an opinion?

P.S. Joe Biden is experiencing serious, rapid cognitive decline. I really hope he gets the help he needs.

[gaekwad2]

Bizz lives in California so his vote doesn't count anyway. Hooray for US-style "democracy".

[gaekwad2]

Also I promise I'll never comment on a US election again if you keep your pollution to yourselves and stop overthrowing elected governments elsewhere. Deal?

[iomegajaz]

Originally Posted by gaekwad2

Bizz lives in California so his vote doesn't count anyway. Hooray for US-style "democracy".

It's a federal system designed to fairly balance, weight and compromise the interests of individuals and the interests of states. California's electoral college votes (55) count more than any other state; the next closest being Texas with 38. California has as much say as eleven flyover states.

If the choice is between big-city states' individual voters each having less of a say (via the electoral college), versus flyover states having no say (via popular vote), I'm happier with the former.

If Biden had lost the popular vote but won the race to 270, leftists would have zero problem with the electoral college. Governmental systems are wielded as political tools to benefit the left, and should be conserved only so long as they benefit the left; if they result in unfavourable results for the left, the systems should be scrapped. Ref SCOTUS; electoral college; voter ID. Et cetera.

But that's just my opinion. worth about as much as the piece of paper that I didn't write it on.

[gaekwad2]

Keep projecting. In the real world (instead of maga-gaga-land) it was the Donald who said "scrap the electoral college" until the very moment it benefitted him. But DARVO has always been one of the right's favorite pastimes.

It's just disappointing how transparent you are in that your accusations aren't just utterly baseless, they're also exactly the things you regularly engage in. Or is it just that you're so corrupt you can't even imagine anybody acting differently anymore?

(That is, if you're serious. Otherwise congratulations, you've trolled somebody with nothing better to do than respond to nonsense in a dead forum.)

[mikm]

Originally Posted by iomegajaz

California's electoral college votes (55) count more than any other state; the next closest being Texas with 38. California has as much say as eleven flyover states.

So? California has a ton of people. California has a population of roughly 39 million and 55 electoral votes. The fifteen least-populous states (plus DC) have a combined 54 electoral votes, but only 17 million people. A nationwide popular vote (using ranked-choice voting or similar) makes far more sense. The states' interests can be represented in the Senate and in state legislatures/governors.

[DJ-Garybaldy]

CNN and NBC just called it ... President Biden I do believe... F**K You Trump you evil orange bumfaced baboon

[NJK]

The only thing left for Bankrupt Donald is to seek a mirror and do as he did before in The Apprentice, tell the man in the mirror "you are fired"
meanwhile Grandpa Joe is having his rocking chair shipped to the White House.

[gerryharris]

It looks like the USA has dumped the Trump
But it seems that he, and his army of overpaid lawyers, will try to insist he has been re-elected as President
To me, he just seems to be like a spoiled child always wanting his own way.
Cheers
Gerry

[gaekwad2]

[iomegajaz]

Originally Posted by mikm

So? California has a ton of people. California has a population of roughly 39 million and 55 electoral votes. The fifteen least-populous states (plus DC) have a combined 54 electoral votes, but only 17 million people. A nationwide popular vote (using ranked-choice voting or similar) makes far more sense. The states' interests can be represented in the Senate and in state legislatures/governors.

Why does a nationwide popular vote make far more sense?

Here's my take on it:

• Simple popular vote option favours residents in California. etc.
• Simple one-vote-per-state option favours residents in Wyoming, etc.
• Electoral college balances the two.

The USA is a collection of states, not a single massive block; however, some states are in fact more equal than others, so weighting is necessary, hence the electoral college system wherein one single state (CA) is given 10.22% of the say, while another single state (WY) is given 0.56%. In a popular vote scenario, WY would be worth only 0.17%, whereas in a scenario where each state has the same amount of input (which would also be "fair"), WY's share would be 2% and CA's share would also be 2%.

Reallocating, reapportioning and redistricting is always contentious, always seen to favour one side or the other. Stating that the intention of the EC is good and the goal of fairly balancing all interests at all levels is good... should not be a partisan statement.

I wish the silly rhetoric evident in the posts above this one were replaced by calm, rational, logical argument. I'm not surprised that it's not, I'm just disappointed.

[mikm]

The electoral college system is broken in the sense that candidates just need to focus on specific groups in a few swing states. As it stands, a few thousand votes in a few states can make or break a candidate. In the 2016 election, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes (0.23%), Pennsylvania by 44,292 (0.72%), and Wisconsin by 22,748 (0.77%). Even though she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and because the margin of victory in those states makes no difference, it all came down to those 77,000 votes.

The President leads the nation as a whole and a nationwide popular vote could force candidates to have broader appeal—they couldn't just focus on swing states, so the votes of independents in reliably red or blue states would matter much more. If it were a ranked-choice system (or something similar), it would be even better because it could help break the two-party stranglehold we currently have.

[gaekwad2]

As well as that, if you want a rational discussion you shouldn't just refrain from baseless accusations but also from making up criteria for "fair votes" that rely on explicitly not giving each person's vote the same weight, especially not based on the nonsensical arguiment of BuT ThEn LaRgEr PoPuLaTiOnS CoUnT MoRe, that's just how democracy works.

However, if you want to go there, wouldn't it make much more sense to give each ethnic group the same share of the vote? After all you can easily move to a swing state (if you can't because work that's, to quote your hero Ben Shapiro, a you problem) but you can't choose your ethnicity. Plus it could easily be argued that giving, say, native americans or aborigines (in case of straya) the same weight as white people would make things a lot fairer over all.

Though I guess you'd prefer the old feudal arrangement with one third each going to aristocracy, clergy and the unwashed masses.

Oops, seems I failed to take you seriously again. Could it have anything to do with the fact that nothing you posted in this thread so far deserves to be taken seriously? (Except in the sense that one can't simply disregard a lunatic with a chainsaw, but not in the sense that one would see any merit in attempting a rational discussion with such a person.)

[iomegajaz]

Originally Posted by mikm

The electoral college system is broken in the sense that candidates just need to focus on specific groups in a few swing states. As it stands, a few thousand votes in a few states can make or break a candidate. In the 2016 election, Clinton lost Michigan by 10,704 votes (0.23%), Pennsylvania by 44,292 (0.72%), and Wisconsin by 22,748 (0.77%). Even though she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and because the margin of victory in those states makes no difference, it all came down to those 77,000 votes.

The President leads the nation as a whole and a nationwide popular vote could force candidates to have broader appeal—they couldn't just focus on swing states, so the votes of independents in reliably red or blue states would matter much more. If it were a ranked-choice system (or something similar), it would be even better because it could help break the two-party stranglehold we currently have.

The EC is only 'broken' if places like CA can be disregarded, and they can only be disregarded if it's safe to assume they will go the same way, every. single. time.

A straight popular vote would not necessitate broader appeal, it'd necessitate different appeal. Folks in Wyoming etc. may as well stay home in a popular vote, for all their state's votes would be worth.

I agree that focusing on swing states is undemocratic. I just don't think that a popular vote is the solution.

I think preferential voting would be a great addition to the EC model, so that Jo Jorgensen's votes (for example) wouldn't be wasted and would instead go to her voters' next-preferred candidate.

I'd also like to see each state's EC votes going to individual candidates, not just to the "winner" for each state. E.g. CA's could go 42 to blue, 11 to red and 2 to other, instead of all 55 to blue.

I'm using CA as an easy example. The same logic applies to all states.

[iomegajaz]

Originally Posted by gaekwad2

As well as that, if you want a rational discussion you shouldn't just refrain from baseless accusations but also from making up criteria for "fair votes" that rely on explicitly not giving each person's vote the same weight, especially not based on the nonsensical arguiment of BuT ThEn LaRgEr PoPuLaTiOnS CoUnT MoRe, that's just how democracy works.

However, if you want to go there, wouldn't it make much more sense to give each ethnic group the same share of the vote? After all you can easily move to a swing state (if you can't because work that's, to quote your hero Ben Shapiro, a you problem) but you can't choose your ethnicity. Plus it could easily be argued that giving, say, native americans or aborigines (in case of straya) the same weight as white people would make things a lot fairer over all.

Though I guess you'd prefer the old feudal arrangement with one third each going to aristocracy, clergy and the unwashed masses.

Oops, seems I failed to take you seriously again. Could it have anything to do with the fact that nothing you posted in this thread so far deserves to be taken seriously? (Except in the sense that one can't simply disregard a lunatic with a chainsaw, but not in the sense that one would see any merit in attempting a rational discussion with such a person.)

If you want to post something coherent, I'd be happy to debate your genuine arguments.