Trump Will Win In 2020 #DT2020

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 hours ago, DayTrader said:

What were you born with?  A cock and balls.  Right, you're a man.   Next!

That's my ''belief'' based on logic, evolution, biology and fact.

Not quite.  Notwithstanding the posting by Mr. Kirkman of the infuriated woman  (he tends to trot that one out on an irregular basis, mostly to annoy me), being born with a "cock and balls" does not exclude the possibility of also being born with some aspects of female genitalia.  At conception, there is no sex assignment.  That happens at some point during the gestation, where the unformed fetus is swathed in a vast sea of genetic materials, which then in turn craft the final sex assignment.  However, as you can intuit logically, if the mother has been exposed to external disruptive endocrine matter, the fetal development gets interfered with, by this now-altered bath of materials that would result in sex assignment.  It is not very often, I would hazard a guess at perhaps one in one hundred thousand, possibly a bit more, and I suggest it is the result of disruptors including various chemicals, typically in the food and drink  (and drink itself, in the form of alcohols, are themselves potential disruptors). 

What you end up with is a birth child with unclear genitalia, typically a vaginal opening and some penile material, which might be foreshortened or  otherwise mal-formed.  Historically, the parents totally freak out, the doctors freak out, and there is this rush for genital sex-assignment by surgery.  The infant then has the testes and the penile material surgically cut away, and is left with the vagina, although there might not be any ovaries or other like female matter such as Fallopian tubes which would allow for future reproduction capability.  Ironically, if the infant were left alone as to the vaginal cavity aspect, it might well be able to function as male, assuming that structure was not removed.  So in effect the freaked-out are not the adults in the room, their own sexual biases thus condemning the infant, who is being deprived any vote in the matter, of future sexual ability.   Not very nice, I should say. 

The question then arises: are you better off with a short-size cock than no cock?  And here you get into a cultural battle with the big-cock crowd, those with the sixteen-inchers that let it swing about going swish, swish through the jungle grasses like some bull elephant, whose ideas currently predominate in the public imagination and especially on Wall Street and in trading houses, but for the poor guy born with the small cock, hey, not exactly a pleasant choice.  Sometimes, in medicine, it is better to just leave things alone and deal with it much later, if at all.  

It also demonstrates that dealing with environmental contamination has a certain importance that I would place well above arguments over global warming and carbon taxes.  But hey, that is just my opinion, "you are free to disagree." 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

But hey, that is just my opinion, "you are free to disagree." 

Heh heh, Jan you are quoting almost verbatim my moderator tag line from the old Oilpro forum days:

Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

 

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Notwithstanding the posting by Mr. Kirkman of the infuriated woman  (he tends to trot that one out on an irregular basis, mostly to annoy me),

One non-infuriated meme for ya  : )

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 9/6/2019 at 8:47 PM, DayTrader said:

2. Who is this infamous person that will win, if not Trump?!

The short answer is:  we don't know.  We do not know if there will be a quality Republican challenger in the GOP primary, for openers.  It is not carved in stone that the incumbent is guaranteed some coronation by the Party, for the next election.  Obviously, if a quality candidate emerges and defeats Trump in the primary, then that is the end of it. 

Let's assume the implausible, that Trump actually intends to run again and intends to seek the Party nomination.  To do that he has to defeat a host of qualified candidates, including a good number of Governors past and present, as well as Ambassadors and Cabinet officials.  Historically candidates do not emerge from the House of Representatives, but sometimes do from the Senate  (MCCain).  And you have distinguished military officers, typically generals  (General Eisenhower for example).  So the field is out there, although some have impacted their chances by getting involved in sex matters  (i.e. General Petraeus).  Paula Broadwell was the Homecoming Queen at her high school in North Dakota, was married to a physician who also was an Army officer, she was a Lt. Colonel, and he was a married General.   Now, in America, that is an incendiary combination:  two quite physically attractive, and undisputedly very smart, people shagging each other  (British for getting in the sack and going for it) while married to others is time for lots of Schadenfreude, German for delight in the scandal shame. 

If you can get past the sex envy part, all those people so envious that they were not the lucky ones doing the shagging, then you are left with two highly qualified candidates for the President job.  In Republican America, that would mean the General, as it is so male-dominated.  It is the sex thing that kills those political careers, even though all those guys (exception being the Bush Presidents) are out there with total abandon, and all the voters also.  It is a peculiar aspect of US life. 

Moving past that, if Trump gets to the general election, it has been observed here that US elections are finalized by the votes in the Electoral College.  That is true, but the College is no longer a Convention of delegates as it was designed.  Instead, the delegates are mere figureheads, and vote according to the winning vote totals in the State election.  Getting past the charade, the popular votes are so close these days that the differences remain statistically insignificant.  I predict the scale tipper this time will be the suburban housewives, who historically have tended to vote more Republican than Democrat, but in 2020 will likely vote in major numbers for a Democrat.  You might be surprised by this, but I suspect the vote will trip over gun control.  Suburban housewives are already uneasy over the reality-TV aspect of Mr. Trump, and the general buffoonery, but the substantive issue will not be trade deals or China or even the Mexicans, it will be over guns. Suburban moms are nesters;  they marry and build a nice nest and hop in there to hatch the young, and anything that threatens that becomes existential.   Guns threaten that.  

The Republicans are never going to deal with gun control.  So those women will vote Democrat, as long as there is something resembling a viable and intelligent candidate out there.  That excludes the freaks that various Parties have trotted out, such as Sarah Palin.  It will exclude Kamela Harris.  The book is not yet closed on Mrs. Warren.  Could the final candidate not yet have been placed in contention?  Hard to say.  But if the Dems finally break with the Clintonistas then as long as there are no blatant sex scandals, such as with Governor Elliott Spitzer and the $4,500 hooker, I think they will take it.  

Edited September 15, 2019 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

36 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Heh heh, Jan you are quoting almost verbatim my moderator tag line from the old Oilpro forum days:

Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.

 

It was specifically intended to be a verbatim quote.  OK, plagiarism, if you like. 

36 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

One non-infuriated meme for ya  : )

YOU keep trtotting her out.  It is getting to the point where I think you are developing a sex crush on her!  Ha!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Notwithstanding the posting by Mr. Kirkman of the infuriated woman being born with a "cock and balls" does not exclude the possibility of also being born with some aspects of female genitalia. 

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

here you get into a cultural battle with the big-cock crowd, those with the sixteen-inchers that let it swing about going swish, swish through the jungle grasses like some bull elephant, whose ideas currently predominate in the public imagination and especially on Wall Street and in trading houses,

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

YOU keep trotting her out.  It is getting to the point where I think you are developing a sex crush on her!  Ha!

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

That excludes the freaks that various Parties have trotted out, such as Sarah Palin.  It will exclude Kamela Harris. 

 

GOLD

 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Gun control has been a hot button issue, due to mass shootings, in at least the past three elections....but never seems to be a ‘real issue’ at election time, and I do not think it will be next year.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

35 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Gun control has been a hot button issue, due to mass shootings, in at least the past three elections....but never seems to be a ‘real issue’ at election time, and I do not think it will be next year.

That is true, Douglas, but recall two further factors:   (1)  the previous levels of gun violence have been less, and less frequent, than currently. We are now running at three mass shootings a month.  (2)  The level of death and injury is becoming much higher.  IN October 1, 2017, during the current Trump Administration, a man (Paddock) went into the upper floors of the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino with 23 AR_style rifles and fired off 700 rounds of ammo into a music festival crowd below, killing 58 and wounding over 500.  That means that "suburban mom's" daughter is no longer safe anywhere, she is a prisoner inside a gated community, cannot go out, cannot go to some concert with friends, and might not even be safe in her own suburban school.  

Any Democrat candidate that develops a serious gun-control platform and sticks with it despite the rage of the gun crowd will take the general election.  Do we have such a candidate out there?  Nobody knows.  So far, the candidates have all caved.  I suspect Bernie Sanders of Vermont could develop such a platform, but he has a lot of other baggage to drag out, so his candidacy is speculative.  The Democrats have this special ability to go immolate themselves in these elections because they get sidetracked by their loony base into unwinnable, indeed indecipherable, areas of identity politics.  For people not living in America who are unfamiliar with this peculiar phenomenon, I illustrate:  Here in Vermont the Democratic super-majority legislature spent vast amounts of time debating, and then passing, legislation demanding that the usual "men" and "women" signs on lavatories be removed and replaced with a "unisex" sign, so that anyone who has gender-identity issues can use any lavatory.  Including in schools.   Meanwhile, 38% of the State lives in abject poverty.  

I call these people "limousine liberals," they are a unique American phenomenon, they have hijacked the Dem. Party and are using it to advance some absurd, utterly irrational, social agenda program to the utter defilement of both common sense and dealing with real issues.  Obviously, those programs go nowhere with most Americans.  And Republicans are doing the same with their ideas, mostly concentrated on ideas of having the State reach into doctor's offices and control the dialogue between physician and patient.  All this absurdity is why US politics is so locked.  take your pick on who is worse. 

Now, "if" some Dem candidate emerges who can ignore the Party crap on identity politics and craft a realistic gun-control policy, which incidentally is easy enough to do and which would satisfy gun owners across the board, then that candidate would take the suburban mom vote, and defeat Donald Trump.  We shall see if the Dems can put it together.  Skeptics are entitled to be profoundly skeptical.  American politics today is a complete mess. 

If I can develop a workable, sane policy in fifteen minutes of thinking about it, then so can some intelligent Dem candidate (OK, that assumes there is any left).  

Edited September 9, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just stumbled across this, and it triggered me.

(Look closely at the pictures, Jan)

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

So what is a sane gun control policy? To outlaw guns?

The cities with the strictest gun ownership laws seem to have the highest rates of ‘gun’ crime.

Ban semi-automatic rifles, or just those that look like assault rifles.

Limit magazine capacity? Okay, the lunatic can kill less people before he/she reloads.

Then there is the Second Amendment to consider. Just because ‘you’ do not feel comfortable or safe around guns is no reason to criminalize firearm ownership among those who do.

Lastly, criminals, by definition, have no respect for the law. Laws only have an impact on law abiding citizens. It has been said before, but I’ll say it again, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

The problem is not firearms, but how we vet those with access to firearms.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

43 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Then there is the Second Amendment to consider. Just because ‘you’ do not feel comfortable or safe around guns is no reason to criminalize firearm ownership among those who do.

See, here's the thing, Douglas; you are out there jumping to conclusions.  "I" don't have any problem with guns, I live in a State where there are no gun laws at all.  Only just this year are guns prohibited on personal carry inside the State House.  You can walk into any bank, any bar, get on a bus, walk down the street, armed; you can be open carry, you can be concealed carry, the gun or guns can be loaded or unloaded, nobody cares.  And this is a very peaceful State.  I have zero concerns.  But remember, it is rural, so you don't have all the craziness that you get in cities. 

The aspect of guns is perfectly straight-forward: it is the mentally ill that do all the carnage.  And most of those are in the age bracket of 16 to 25.  Not all, but a lot.  OK, so the way you do this is to require a gun owner to lock his gun up inside a big hefty sturdy gun safe.  Now what you accomplish is to put a physical barrier between the gun (and the ammo) and the adolescent, and also between the gun and the house burglar, and between the gun and the mental case.  You separate the gun from the person who wants to do harm.  Is it foolproof?  No, but it will make a huge dent in the problem.  

And, of course,anybody who is mentally unstable has to be separated from access to a gun.  That part is obvious. 

As for the criminals with  guns, you do have to change the penal law and probably have to re-introduce public flaying as a penalty. Gets them off the street, anyway. 

Will Trump run again in 2020?  Personally, I doubt it.  His poll numbers are abysmal.  The Republican Congress hates him. He does all these crazy tweets that so alarms even his supporters.  He offends everybody.  His people skills have gone to zero.  He is an undeniable narcissist.  Will he expose himself to humiliation, to a crushing defeat at the polls?  I don't think so.  Plus, if he does, Melania just might divorce him.  She is not happy living out in the limelight. It all adds up to not accepting the nomination to  run again.  Trump is not a man to brook defeat.  He had a fluke the last time, it is not likely to be repeated.  OK, if the Dems run someone utterly ridiculous, then maybe, but the public is soured on Mr. Trump.  I think that has not filtered down to Malaysia. I predict your boy is going to take a walk. 

And P.S.  I was on my college shooting team.  OK, those were 22's at short range, but still.  "Not comfortable"?  That moniker does not fit me.  Cheers.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

First Jan, I used the single quotation marks in an effort to show that it was not you personally that I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion.

I tend to agree with your points concerning firearms except for the idea that you place your firearm in a gun safe to put a physical barrier between you and the house burglar, rapist, axe murderer....that defeats the whole purpose of keeping a firearm for home protection....may as well not have a firearm! I am thinking of when you are asleep at home specifically and are awakened by an intruder....but the same applies anytime you would actually need access to the weapon in a hurry.

I grew up with guns in the house in Colorado, so did everyone I grew up with, and I can not remember anyone getting shot accidentally or otherwise. What has changed?

I’ll avoid a conversation on Trump and the upcoming election...

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Here in Vermont the Democratic super-majority legislature spent vast amounts of time debating, and then passing, legislation demanding that the usual "men" and "women" signs on lavatories be removed and replaced with a "unisex" sign, so that anyone who has gender-identity issues can use any lavatory.  Including in schools. 

Unreal. 

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The problem is not firearms, but how we vet those with access to firearms.

Of course. Correct me if I'm wrong, obviously over here the idea of even having a gun is mad, but it's your right blah blah, that's not my point. After 1 of the latest shootings, the news and Trump suggested we need to look into background checks of people first. My initial thought was obviously ''woah hold on, can any 'lunatic' there just buy whatever they want, no questions asked?''  Is that true?

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

And, of course,anybody who is mentally unstable has to be separated from access to a gun.  That part is obvious

Ah just saw this. So they can?! That's ridiculous. 

55 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I’ll avoid a conversation on Trump and the upcoming election...

Haha why? It's the thread title. 

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So what is a sane gun control policy? To outlaw guns?

The mentally ill not having access would be a good start

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 9/9/2019 at 9:16 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

I tend to agree with your points concerning firearms except for the idea that you place your firearm in a gun safe to put a physical barrier between you and the house burglar, rapist, axe murderer....that defeats the whole purpose of keeping a firearm for home protection....may as well not have a firearm! I am thinking of when you are asleep at home specifically and are awakened by an intruder....but the same applies anytime you would actually need access to the weapon in a hurry.

Douglas, the purpose of a gun safe is emphatically NOT to keep the rightful owner from having his gun handy (presumably a pistol), but instead to keep his mentally ill child, upset adolescent, enraged wife, the house burglar when he is not home, and so forth from easy access to firearms.  Obviously, if the homeowner and gun owner wants to go sleep with a pistol under his pillow, or perhaps preferably in one of those night-stand safes that open only with his palmprint, then hey that still keeps it away from the unstable and the criminals.  The problem arises when the owner just leaves his guns lying about and the unstable or enraged takes that gun and goes out and commits mayhem. 

Example:  locally an unstable woman with terrible, just awful relatives became unhinged when the awful relatives called up DCF  (childrens' services) and told some tale of wickedness.  The DCF worker showed up and took away her daughter.  The mom became unhinged, went to her boyfriend's house (he not home), took his rifle and ammo, went back to the dysfunctional house with the crazy relatives, blew them away, then went to the DCF office and shot and killed the DCF worker.   Now, none of this would have taken place had that gun been secured.  It is the attitude of just leaving firearms lying around in an unsecured place in an unsecured building, with no one around, that starts the problems.  The Columbine killers, teenagers, shot up their school because they were able to access the unsecured weapons of their parents.  The shooter in the Sandy Hook, Connecticut school massacre was seriously, profoundly mentally ill, and nonetheless his mom goes and buys some guns so that he can "feel like a man" down at the range.  To mo surprise, he gets the guns, shoots his mom dead while she is asleep in her bed,then goes off to the school  (where he was previously a student) and shoots several dozen children dead.  Is that mom irresponsible?  But of course.  Who buys guns for a mentally ill person?  The (divorced) father spent $250,000 a year on psychiatric help for his son, all undermined by the totally crazy wife.  Several dozen other parents paid the price for this appalling misconduct.  In that case, there should not have been any guns in the house, and the boy was seriously dangerous to himself and others.  That mom was profoundly stupid, but stupid women are known to be out there.  I run into stupid women every day. 

Keep guns away from the mentally ill and the profoundly stupid women.  Put them in sturdy gun safes.  That is the best solution for right now.  I would doubt that any serious gun owner and member of the NRA has any objection at all to this proposal. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Jan van Eck
typing error

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

but the same applies anytime you would actually need access to the weapon in a hurry.

If you think you need access to your gun, then buy yourself a holster and strap it on.  That way it is in your possession, not lying around on the top of the dresser, where your unstable child can get at it.  Or where a burglar can steal it. Nobody has a problem with open carry in my State.  I see guys with open carry all day long.  So what?  It is a non-issue, and especially as the nearest policeman might well be 40 minutes away, it has a certain advantage to have civilians armed.  Although, in all candor, the real crimes here are done by drug addicts out stealing, and so far I have not run into that. But undeniably the local stores get hit by addicts constantly - another reason to simply hand out narcotics to the addicts, keeps the crime to a negligible level.  No drugs, basically no crime. 

If I see a fellow walking  along the road and still six miles from Town, carrying a big rifle, I think nothing of swinging over and offering him a ride.  He is not going to be a problem. You have to get past your fears in the countryside.  He might well shoot me and steal my car in say Baltimore, but not in Vermont. Never happens.  Cheers. 

[Guest]

This will get abuse but gonna chip in my English 2 cents.

I never see stories of someone in the USA using their gun because of an intruder in their house. I just see maniacs on shooting sprees.

One of the main arguments for pro gun people seems to be the 2nd amendment. Well this was written nearly 250 years ago. Times change, laws change. You guys used to have slavery, we used to hang people. Hell we used to hang, draw and quarter people. Maybe the amendment should be 'amended'. 

If people want guns then fine. Obviously it is their right in the USA to do this, not gonna argue with that. Crack on. Enjoy. However your laws clearly need looking at. Dunno if still the case but when you can buy a lethal weapon at a Walmart you need to ask yourself some serious questions. 

I agree with Jan. If it's for an intruder and protecting your family in your house then obviously not gonna argue with that. Keep it under your pillow but lock it away when you get up, or keep it on you all day. Whatever. However I feel this is the excuse given for having and wanting guns. ''Incase of intruder'' - it's arguably more true that it's actually ''coz everyone else has one / coz you never know who has one...''

Buy a dog and train it, intruder issue sorted. Buy surveillance for your house, intruder issue sorted. Have a baseball bat by the bed, intruder issue sorted. Use a gun on an intruder ....  you potentially don't see your children grow up and your life is destroyed...?

47 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The problem arises when the owner just leaves his guns lying about and the unstable or enraged takes that gun and goes out and commits mayhem. 

Exactly, every one of your anecdotes is about a gun misplaced or just taken or some dumb woman buying one for the child. 

Not having a pop at pro gun people. Just saying your laws should make it waaaaaay harder to be able to buy one in the first place. For example the mentally ill.

Then go from there. 

And yes there are dumb women around. Men too.

'Cheers'

Edited September 9, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

He might well shoot me and steal my car in say Baltimore, but not in Vermont.

This shouldn't be funny but it is

[Ambrose Bierce + 2]

What a trashy thread. I sometimes think Trump supporters can't go any lower, then they surprise me

[Guest]

Glad to hear it. Your opinion is of huge significance and fittingly adds to the trash. 

Feel free to start a thread with your vast list of seemingly moronic candidates. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Guest
perspective

[Alfredo + 3]

No dudo la veracidad de lo dicho por Gregory R. Copley, en su artículo ¿Está llegando a su fin el conflicto más candente en el Medio Oriente?. Por el bien de los amantes de la libertad y democracia, espero gane Trump.

[Guest]

I repeat. Sexy but pointless. 

[SERWIN + 749]

On 9/7/2019 at 12:57 PM, fozzir said:

If Trump does lose, (which is highly unlikely) it will be the first time a President has been unseated by a cartoon character. 

I talked to her and God this morning, neither is willing to be a candidate for the Democrats....

[SERWIN + 749]

The whole thing about Trump is that the Democrats have done nothing but run around and blame him for everything, shooting in El Paso, his fault. Shooting in Odessa, his fault. Shooting in Ohio, his fault. All of them running their mouths about having to "do something" about these incidents. But none of them wants to talk about what they "did" when 30 some people lost their lives in that nught club shooting in Orlando, even though they had control of both houses and the POTUS. Nothing was done then, but now "we have to do something about this"... Anyone with any intelligence can see through the lies, they won't vote for a Democrat because this is their "status quo", doing nothing but pointing fingers and blaming people for things they have nothing to do with. Only the really dumb believe that the Democrats are going to actually do something to help them, because we all know how wealthy they are, and we also know they are not going to give that money up. 

You also have to remember that the southern states were horribly segregated, even up to the seventies the southern governments wanted to keep it that way. I was alive, I remember, they were all staunch Democrats that were doing that. They don't want to talk about that though, and I don't see anything changing about their attitude, they have just changed venues, using the dumb in the big cities to further their agenda. Now they want us conservatives to not be allowed to say certain things(freedom of speech removed), but they don't want anyone to censure what they say. They want guns removed(right to bear arms) so they can roll over us and do their will upon us(good luck with that one, they can pry my guns out of my cold dead fingers). They have decided that socialism is obviously the way to go(good luck with that one as well). They have decided that laws are only to be upheld when it is convenient for them, not all the time(Hilliary server disaster, Comey lying to the judiciary comittee in order to get a warrant, the false report that Hilliary paid for, and so much more). Not even starting a committee to fact find on any of this yet.

I can't wait until Trump's second term and he orders the courts to release Obama's birth certificate to the public....LMOA

When Trump said drain the swamp I think he meant get rid of the Democrats....

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

10 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

First Jan, I used the single quotation marks in an effort to show that it was not you personally that I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion.

I tend to agree with your points concerning firearms except for the idea that you place your firearm in a gun safe to put a physical barrier between you and the house burglar, rapist, axe murderer... that defeats the whole purpose of keeping a firearm for home protection....may as well not have a firearm! Iam thinking of when you are asleep at home specifically and are awakened by an intruder....but the same applies anytime you would actually need access to the weapon in a hurry.

I grew up with guns in the house in Colorado, so did everyone I grew up with, and I can not remember anyone getting shot accidentally or otherwise. What has changed?

I’ll avoid a conversation on Trump and the upcoming election...

Exactly!

Guns are for hunting, not defense.

"Less lethal" things like tasers and pepper spray should be easier to get, guns much harder.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

49 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Guns are for hunting, not defense.

I disagree 100%.

The U.S. 2nd Amendment is specifically for U.S. citizens to defend themselves against the government if it becomes tyrannical.  The U.S. 2nd Amendment is not about guns being used for "hunting".

Related:

 

 

Hong Kong: