Place your (pretend) bets..

[Habitat]

You can get 8/1 about Trump leaving office before his term expires. Doesn't sound very likely he will be forced out.

[Uncle Sam]

On 4/18/2019 at 6:33 PM, Farmer77 said:

I think the 12 secret indictments will make Trump want to maintain that presidential immunity from prosecution for as long as possible.

What is the crime he committed? Please tell me. Is it the crime of beating Hillary Clinton? Is it the crime of being an arrogant person? Is it the crime of being a bully? Is it a crime of being a businessman? Is it the crime of being right wing? Is it the crime of his father being a German? Is it the crime of standing up to corrupt people in FBI & DOJ? Is it the crime that he won the election? Is it the crime that he is making socialism and Democrats look bad? Is it the crime that he is breaking the Democrats hold over minorities and having them join Republican party? Is it the crime that he is squeaky clean? Is it the crime that he lies (Which all presidents have done)? Is it the crime that he is bossy? Is it the crime that is fixing our economy and has it booming? Is it the crime that he is trying to end old rivalries with other nations? Is it a crime that he is trying to end many of the wars we are in? Is it the crime that he is trying to do prison reform? Is it the crime of him trying to protect our southern border? Is it the crime of trying to stop a coup attempt by the DOJ and FBI? Is it the crime of beefing up prosecution on human trafficking and sex trafficking?

Please tell... what crime is it? If there is no crime involved, then stop putting out false information. You sound more like a conspiracy theorist at this point, constantly connecting dots that have is five people removed. All I been hearing is speculations instead of evidence, rumors instead of real reports, and insane instead of sanity. Enough is enough. 

At this point, this is technically you trying to prove Trump is evil.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Uncle Sam

[Space Commander Travis]

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

They don't?  Gee whillikers, I often watch my kettle boil - it's one of dose cool ones which has a glass body and it all lights up dramatically with blue leds.  And as I watch, I'm pretty sure it does boil.  Translation - you need to learn how to use proverbs better........

Here's a video of not that, just for you...  a small development...
 

 

 

Aren't you even a little embarrassed by the sheer desperation of nearly all the media to find any excuse at all, no matter how trivial, to get rid of their Big Ogre? Don't you find it a bit  how they seem to disregard democracy, as in the business of actually voting for people in elections, both in their desperation to get rid of the one who was elected by the system as it stands (however flawed or otherwise it may be), purely because he wasn't the one they wanted, and to forestall the appalling possibility that he might be re-elected next time ? Isn't this, to all intents and purposes, what amounts to an attempted coup? 

[RavenHawk]

You know Trump is yanking the Progs and MSMs chain?  The House is not above the law either.  It's clear as to what their intention is.  They and the President are *CO-EQUAL* branches.  Now that the Mueller report is out and for all practical purposes has exonerated an innocent man (note the oxymoron), Trump is stirring the pot, goading them into recklessness.  Trump is well within his powers to thwart the requests of the House and he'll push it out until the courts get involved and that should be sometime next year.  The House will get Trumps tax returns and as in the Mueller report, there won't be anything there and They will have more egg on their face.  That will assure Trump's re-election and pretty much destroy the Socialist movement in this country for some time.  Of course, any individual or entity revealed in that release will be attacked and destroyed by the Progs but by then karma (retribution) will be visited upon the appropriate persons.

[Robotic Jew]

19 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Aren't you even a little embarrassed by the sheer desperation of nearly all the media to find any excuse at all, no matter how trivial, to get rid of their Big Ogre? Don't you find it a bit  how they seem to disregard democracy, as in the business of actually voting for people in elections, both in their desperation to get rid of the one who was elected by the system as it stands (however flawed or otherwise it may be), purely because he wasn't the one they wanted, and to forestall the appalling possibility that he might be re-elected next time ? Isn't this, to all intents and purposes, what amounts to an attempted coup? 

What motivation would the media have for pushing trump out of office? Their ratings are at their highest when they're reporting on trump and his supporters idiotic nonsense.

[+OverSword]

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 1:05 PM, Razumov said:

How can anyone still believe that a scandal is going to take down Trump after he has already survived so many scandals that would have destroyed any other president?

 

The "last straw" that will destroy him is his complete flip on immigration policy, which could cost him his base in 2020.

What scandals?  You mean like being born in Kenya, bowing to foreign kings, selling guns to crime cartels, getting a bj in the oval office, selling secret tech to China, invading countries for WMD's where they don't exist, etc. etc.?  Let's face it, all these guys are bullet proof.

[+OverSword]

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 11:45 PM, Farmer77 said:

The GOP has shown themselves to be loyal to one thing only :power.

LOL!  Yeah.  Only the GOP has done that.  The partisanship between you Dems and Repubs is ****ing ridiculous. 

[ChrLzs]

On 22/05/2019 at 4:13 AM, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Aren't you even a little embarrassed by the sheer desperation of nearly all the media to find any excuse at all, no matter how trivial, to get rid of their Big Ogre? Don't you find it a bit  how they seem to disregard democracy, as in the business of actually voting for people in elections, both in their desperation to get rid of the one who was elected by the system as it stands (however flawed or otherwise it may be), purely because he wasn't the one they wanted, and to forestall the appalling possibility that he might be re-elected next time ? Isn't this, to all intents and purposes, what amounts to an attempted coup? 

Given the amount of indictable offences already revealed, and more to come, I'd take almost the exact reverse view.  Is there something wrong with having a different opinion?

The difference is that I'm trying to stick to facts, and not to suggest people should be embarrassed (llke you are about your ID apparently?) or that they are desperate or that it is a 'coup'.  Seriously?  

My personal opinion is that Trump is:

- a crooked business operator (well-proven)

- a misogynist (ditto)

- a racist (ditto)

- a liar (ditto)

and that he has misused electoral funds and quite a few other crimes (ditto, if not yet prosecuted - he will be).

I have little faith in your democratic system (eg the ridiculous way contenders for presidency float to the top (just like the really big chunks in any sewer system..) and the stupidity of non-compulsory voting) but I, unlike you, have explained my reasons rather than handwaved and thrown insults (well, not as many anyways..).  And I do have some faith in your legal system, even after Trump has stacked it with judges of his choice (more than any previous president ever dared to), and I believe that all will be revealed eventually - even the direct Russia collusion and money laundering (and I've discussed my research on that here too - I'll revitalise those threads when it is appropriate....).

Now, if you object to legal processes unfolding as they should and perhaps think that corruption extends beyond repair there also, then ... you've lost hope in your country.  Co-equal doesn't mean above scrutiny or the law.  So, for the moment, I'm happy to watch (and laugh or just be amazed) as the fall of Trump slowly takes place.  That fall will not happen because of ebil conspiracies, but because the legal system finally and inexorably and unstoppably catches up with him and all (or at least most) of those he has poisoned (quite a few of which have already been convicted..).

It may take a while to say I told you so, but I wouldn't your breath for vindication.  See you back here in a year...  And if Trump doesn't get thrown out of office earlier, may I ask what your reponse will be IF he loses office at the next election?  Perhaps the didn't-vote-last-time majority might just be tempted to get off their asses this time..)

I don't think we need to know what your response will be if he survives into another term - but as for me I'll happily apologise and say what a fool I was, if that happens....  Good luck.

[+DieChecker]

12 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

My personal opinion is that Trump is:

- a crooked business operator (well-proven)

- a misogynist (ditto)

- a racist (ditto)

- a liar (ditto)

and that he has misused electoral funds and quite a few other crimes (ditto, if not yet prosecuted - he will be).

Well, the State of New York is looking into his business dealings, and the IRS says there isn't any big deal with his taxes. 

As to being a bigot, racist, misogynist liar... those need to have charges pressed by individuals, which either didn't happen, or already happened.

As to campaign finance misspending, I imagine that's going to disappear, as it is impossible to prove other then what Cohen has said. But that also is being looked at by New York. 

And the State of New York government and judiciary is about as liberal stacked as possible, so if they aquit, or settle, it will not be due to bias.

[ChrLzs]

52 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, the State of New York is looking into his business dealings, and the IRS says there isn't any big deal with his taxes.

Has the IRS investigated his false asset claims?  Can you cite where they have said there 'isn't any big deal'?

52 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

As to being a bigot, racist, misogynist liar... those need to have charges pressed by individuals, which either didn't happen, or already happened.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, if you express those views on Twitfeed, you can avoid insulting an individual.... 

52 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

As to campaign finance misspending, I imagine that's going to disappear, as it is impossible to prove other then what Cohen has said. But that also is being looked at by New York. 

And the State of New York government and judiciary is about as liberal stacked as possible, so if they aquit, or settle, it will not be due to bias.

So, on most of these you concede or agree, and if not, they are still being investigated.  Which is pretty much what I said.  And then finally, you hint at bias due to 'stacking' - how is it you can have it one way, but not the other?  Aren't your judges all constrained somewhat by law, and thence subject to appeal and the constitution...?

Did you not see the judge's comments about the fact that these lawsuits that the Trumpmafia are presenting to delay scrutiny of his finances, are based on nothing, and that they have no legal grounding whatsoever?  This sort of thing is pretty basic.  Your Congress has every right to investigate the pres's finances, especially given what the Mueller report revealed.  It's a fundamental principle of your country.  The fact that idictment of him is a little complex is a complete side issue.

To put all this in simple terms, the end of Trump is now well underway.  Sure, this kinda stuff takes ages to unfold but hey, it's way more fun to watch than any trainwreck or reality show!

[+DieChecker]

33 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Has the IRS investigated his false asset claims?  Can you cite where they have said there 'isn't any big deal'?

I know the IRS said there is no reason Trump couldn't release his taxes, and that they wouldn't say if he is being audited or not.

Otherwise, no, I don't have a link. Technically speaking I was wrong to say that. More properly I should have stated that the IRS has not said anything, about Trump's taxes being wrong, right, or othewise.

Quote

Oh, yeah, I forgot, if you express those views on Twitfeed, you can avoid insulting an individual.... 

It is the American way. Deride groups all you like. Constitutionally protected free speech. But attack an individual... and you have a civil, or Federal, crime.

Quote

And then finally, you hint at bias due to 'stacking' - how is it you can have it one way, but not the other?  Aren't your judges all constrained somewhat by law, and thence subject to appeal and the constitution...?

In practice no. Judges use individual judgement, bias or otherwise, to decide cases in civil, and Federal, law. That's why getting "your guys" into the judiciary is important. Look at the SCOTUS... split by ideology on like 90% of issues.

I only meant stacking in New York as a fact, not as a symptom, or derogation, of the system. Like being found innocent by the hardest judge. If he gets off in NY then that part is done. 

Quote

Did you not see the judge's comments about the fact that these lawsuits that the Trumpmafia are presenting to delay scrutiny of his finances, are based on nothing, and that they have no legal grounding whatsoever?  This sort of thing is pretty basic.  Your Congress has every right to investigate the pres's finances, especially given what the Mueller report revealed.  It's a fundamental principle of your country.  The fact that idictment of him is a little complex is a complete side issue.

The fact is that there's been two years of Trump, and now, after the Mueller Report, all of a sudden, we need to investigate his taxes? Come on..... This is pure politics. 

I tend to agree that Nadler (or is it Schiff?) has zero actual reason for Trump's taxes.

Just like he refuses to go read the 99.99% unredacted Report, and insists on seeing all the Grand Jury names and such. Which are protected by law. He's just playing political games, not actually serving the people.

Are they going to sue? Sure. Are they going to win? It will be a horrible precedent either way. Congress getting anyone's taxes anytime. Or being unable to get tax documents at all. Nadler is an idiot to pursue this angle. Let New York figure it out is what I say.

Quote

To put all this in simple terms, the end of Trump is now well underway.  Sure, this kinda stuff takes ages to unfold but hey, it's way more fun to watch than any trainwreck or reality show!

Perhaps, but history shows that consequences, even impeachment, rarely have any real affect on a Presidential Administration.

You'll be lucky to see Trump do a few token days in a country club prison in 2025  for any tax  or business, misdeeds.

Edited May 23, 2019 by DieChecker

[+susieice]

On 4/22/2019 at 1:16 AM, Farmer77 said:

Well removal is out. If the dems decided to do so he could be impeached tomorrow since they hold the house. I do think there could be some value in the public nature of the impeachment process.

Not without the Senate. Pelosi knows this.

[EnderOTD]

This thread should last 2 years+. Hahaha

[Space Commander Travis]

7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Given the amount of indictable offences already revealed, and more to come, I'd take almost the exact reverse view.  Is there something wrong with having a different opinion?

The difference is that I'm trying to stick to facts, and not to suggest people should be embarrassed (llke you are about your ID apparently?) or that they are desperate or that it is a 'coup'.  Seriously?  

My personal opinion is that Trump is:

- a crooked business operator (well-proven)

- a misogynist (ditto)

- a racist (ditto)

- a liar (ditto)

and that he has misused electoral funds and quite a few other crimes (ditto, if not yet prosecuted - he will be).

I have little faith in your democratic system (eg the ridiculous way contenders for presidency float to the top (just like the really big chunks in any sewer system..) and the stupidity of non-compulsory voting) but I, unlike you, have explained my reasons rather than handwaved and thrown insults (well, not as many anyways..).  And I do have some faith in your legal system, even after Trump has stacked it with judges of his choice (more than any previous president ever dared to), and I believe that all will be revealed eventually - even the direct Russia collusion and money laundering (and I've discussed my research on that here too - I'll revitalise those threads when it is appropriate....).

Now, if you object to legal processes unfolding as they should and perhaps think that corruption extends beyond repair there also, then ... you've lost hope in your country.  Co-equal doesn't mean above scrutiny or the law.  So, for the moment, I'm happy to watch (and laugh or just be amazed) as the fall of Trump slowly takes place.  That fall will not happen because of ebil conspiracies, but because the legal system finally and inexorably and unstoppably catches up with him and all (or at least most) of those he has poisoned (quite a few of which have already been convicted..).

It may take a while to say I told you so, but I wouldn't your breath for vindication.  See you back here in a year...  And if Trump doesn't get thrown out of office earlier, may I ask what your reponse will be IF he loses office at the next election?  Perhaps the didn't-vote-last-time majority might just be tempted to get off their asses this time..)

I don't think we need to know what your response will be if he survives into another term - but as for me I'll happily apologise and say what a fool I was, if that happens....  Good luck.

well, gosh, there's a lot there. Well, first of all, the Awesome Donald isn't my Leader, I just look at it from a position of neutrality, and this never-ending campaign to have him ousted from office seems extremely petty and desperate from a point of view completely free from bias.  

But all the points that you bring up to emphasise his monstrousness; all those are things many people in many positions, certainly including but not limited to positions of political importance, share, if they are in fact true. They should now be grounds for removing someone from office just because he's horrible?   The point is that the Demcorats' campaign to subvert the 2016 election was based from the start on the assumption that the only possible explanation for their losing was that The Amazing Donald must have been a puppet of a Foreign Power that wanted to sabotage America. And what better candidate that the current all-purpose bogey, Vlad the Sinister?  The whole thing was so obviously a feeble attempt at finding some excuse right from the start, and now that Mr. Mueller, who they were so confident was going to rubber-stamp their attempted coup, showed himself to have some concern for things like proof and evidence and so on, though he was of course keen to point out that the dastardly Muscovites did of course try to interfere with Sacred American Democracy^(TM) (pictures of puppies on facebook!  ), the way that they're searching around for anything ("Obstruction of Justice! It sounds so grand and stirring!") does seem rather, well, petty and vindictive.  

 

Why, incidentally, is non-compulsory voting stupid? Do you have an option for "all the above are a bunch of w*nkers, so none of the above, thank you very much"? If not, I think choosing to withhold one's vote should in fact be counted as a vote for none of them. And if the amount of non-votes exceeds the number that did vote (as it nearly always is in the US and UK), that should be counted as a message that the people are dissatisfied with all of the choices.

[Space Commander Travis]

3 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

and not to suggest people should be embarrassed (llke you are about your ID apparently?)

er, sorry, say again? 

[ChrLzs]

On 23/05/2019 at 5:00 PM, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

er, sorry, say again? 

Point 1 = you managed to somehow quote/reply to yourself.  It was me who said that....

Point 2 = I think it's fair to suggest someone who has changed their name 13 times on this forum (that's you) might have a reason for doing so..  usually it's to escape embarrassment over an ill-considered post or three..

And previously...

On 23/05/2019 at 4:56 PM, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

But all the points that you bring up to emphasise his monstrousness; all those are things many people in many positions, certainly including but not limited to positions of political importance, share, if they are in fact true. They should now be grounds for removing someone from office just because he's horrible?

Who said it was just because he's horrible?  In fact, it seems very obvious to me that he will be ousted because of CRIMEs.  Sure, those crimes are in large part due to that horrible-ness, but your argument is a non-starter.

Anyways, I'm a very, very patient person.  I'll pop back in a few months once all the documentation starts to flow...

On 23/05/2019 at 4:56 PM, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Why, incidentally, is non-compulsory voting stupid?

Largely because all the power-seeking guys have to do is one or more of the following:

- lay low and keep the prepolls down so the other side doesn't feel the need to vote

- scare off the other side from turning up

- set up and use social media to fool the gullible (and ask, or just allow, other countries to help.. cough) 

- etc

All of the above were in operation in the last election (even though most are more often associated with countries with highly corrupt or dictatorial societies) - I believe they will be rather less effective this time around, even if he lasts to be a candidate.  Compulsory voting pretty much fixes all of those things... and yes, I choose to believe there are more non-gullible people than gullible.

On 23/05/2019 at 4:56 PM, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Do you have an option for "all the above are a bunch of w*nkers, so none of the above, thank you very much"?

Yes, we do.  But first a bit of basic reason for you to consider (I know it's not your thang, but try...)  A relatively simple and almost bullet-proof electoral roll exists in Oz - you turn up, give your name and address and they cross you off - no ID required, and there is a cross-checking process after every election for duplicates/errors.  It is currently about 95% accurate.  Second, the fines for not voting are not exactly high, so it's no big deal if you really don't wanna. Third, we know, therefore, how many actual functioning votes are forthcoming, and we have very high turnout - there is no movement I'm aware of towards non-compulsory voting here.  If there was, watching what has happened to the USA would have obliterated it..

But to answer the question, if you really wish to do the ****** thing, you can simply draw a donkey (or whatever turns you on) on your vote paper, or not even put a single mark on it.  That is called the 'donkey' vote, and those blank or illustrated ballot papers represent the conscientious objectors.  Last election the percentage of donkey / invalid votes was, wait for it.......... about 5%.

Do the maths.  To me, those numbers suggest something about the fact that most Ozzies aren't as dumb as they look, and are engaged pretty well with the system.  Sure, there is increasing distrust of gov't corruption, unfairness of the rich-v-poor gap etc.  But would we vote in a Trump, in (giggle) an attempt (chortle) to 'fix' (chuckle) those things?  You've got to be kidding...

Indeed we've just had a federal election - ask Clive Palmer how it worked for him - he's the nearest thing we have to a Trump, as a businessman who happily uses bankruptcies to escape liability for mismanaged ventures where he scoops off the money and runs - sound familiar?  So how did he and his 'United Australia Party' go?  He got a miserable 3% of the vote, and won not a single seat despite a *huge* "Make Australia Great" advertising campaign that scarily echoed Trump's approach.  He and it failed dismally.  The Greens party, and yes, that's exactly what you would think it is, got 10% of the vote and a seat in parliament (that's our 'Congress').

 

Sometimes, it's hard to be humble......

 

[Golden Duck]

On 23/05/2019 at 4:56 PM, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

...

Why, incidentally, is non-compulsory voting stupid? Do you have an option for "all the above are a bunch of w*nkers, so none of the above, thank you very much"? If not, I think choosing to withhold one's vote should in fact be counted as a vote for none of them. And if the amount of non-votes exceeds the number that did vote (as it nearly always is in the US and UK), that should be counted as a message that the people are dissatisfied with all of the choices.

There is nowhere, as far as I'm aware, that counts non-votes. They simply don't count. It's deluded to think you're making some statement by abstaining - you're simply being ignored. 

Boycotting the democratic process is basically what Russell Brand advocates - without ever suggesting how fix the "broken system."

So what do you suggest happens if an election shows voters want "none of the above"? The Government would become even more dysfunctional.  How can that be better?

There was always the option of voting for Gary Johnson if you didn't like the GOP or Dems. Personally, I think that would've still been a non vote; but, you still would've been involved earned the right to whinge. 

Voters are savvy enough to know how the system works and how to work the system. FWIW, I would've done what I could to avoid HRC.

[Golden Duck]

44 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

...

But to answer the question, if you really wish to do the ****** thing, you can simply draw a donkey (or whatever turns you on) on your vote paper, or not even put a single mark on it.  That is called the 'donkey' vote, and those blank or illustrated ballot papers represent the conscientious objectors.  Last election the percentage of donkey / invalid votes was, wait for it.......... about 5%.

...

It doesn't represent anything.  Those ballots are set aside. The only effect they possibly have is making the pool of votes smaller. It gives those prepared to vote more power.

As for the $20 fine - although it's not much why volunteer to give it to the Government, especially if you're disillusioned? It's madness to think someone will pay attention to someone who's willing to pay to be ignored.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Point 2 = I think it's fair to suggest someone who has changed their name 13 times on this forum (that's you) might have a reason for doing so..  usually it's to escape embarrassment over an ill-considered post or three..

seriously my old buddy? I think the laughability of that pretty much negates anything else you may have said. I was going to construct a reply to this but I can't stop laughing at that notion. Ok, just taking your notion and running with it; what, say, would you suggest I might be so embarrassed about I changed my name to disassociate myself with it?

Honestly, you do talk some silly.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

But first a bit of basic reason for you to consider (I know it's not your thang, but try...)

my word, you are an a*rse, aren't you. 

[ChrLzs]

So, you complete ignore the ontopic content, and have nothing to offer other than a playground jibe?

OK, it's your choice..

[+ouija ouija]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So, you complete ignore the ontopic content, and have nothing to offer other than a playground jibe?

OK, it's your choice..

Not a 'playground jibe' but a valid point shared by others as well as the poster currently known as Dumbledore the Awesome.

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So, you complete ignore the ontopic content, and have nothing to offer other than a playground jibe?

OK, it's your choice..

No, I completely ignore the on topic content because you're an arrogant and smug a*rse.  You haven't explained what your peculiar theory is that I've changed my user name because i'm embarrassed at what I've said in the past, and I expect you're not going to now because you're going to sulk aren't you. 

[ChrLzs]

12 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

No, I completely ignore the on topic content because you're an arrogant and smug a*rse.

OK.

I'll just politely repost the ontopic stuff that Dumbledore the Awesome (aka Vlad the Mighty/Manfred von Dreidecker/Grand Moff Tarkin/Otto von Pickelhaube/Norbert the Powerful\Incredible/Norbert Dentressangle/Valdemar the Great/Admiral Rhubarb/Colonel Rhubarb/Colonel Rhuairidh/Lord Vetinari) does not want to discuss  ...  on this Discussion forum.  Apparently for him (and all those 'friends'), it's an Insult forum only.

Anyone else?  Here's a copy of the ignored, ontopic, content:

 

Dumble: But all the points that you bring up to emphasise his monstrousness; all those are things many people in many positions .. share, if they are in fact true. They should now be grounds for removing someone from office just because he's horrible?  

Who said it was just because he's horrible?  In fact, it seems very obvious to me that he will be ousted because of CRIMEs.  Sure, those crimes are in large part due to that horrible-ness, but your argument is a non-starter.

Anyways, I'm a very, very patient person.  I'll pop back in a few months once all the documentation starts to flow...

Dumble: Why, incidentally, is non-compulsory voting stupid?

Largely because all the power-seeking guys have to do, is one or more of the following:

- lay low and keep the prepolls down so the other side doesn't feel the need to vote

- scare off the other side from turning up

- set up and use social media to fool the gullible (and ask, or just allow, other countries to help.. cough) 

- etc

All of the above were in operation in the last election (even though most are more often associated with countries with highly corrupt or dictatorial societies) - I believe they will be rather less effective this time around, even if he lasts to be a candidate.  Compulsory voting pretty much fixes all of those things... and yes, I choose to believe there are more non-gullible people than gullible.

Dumble: Do you have an option for "all the above are a bunch of w*nkers, so none of the above, thank you very much"?

Yes, we do.  But first a bit of basic reason for you to consider (I know it's not your thang, but try...)  A relatively simple and almost bullet-proof electoral roll exists in Oz - you turn up, give your name and address and they cross you off - no ID required, and there is a cross-checking process after every election for duplicates/errors.  It is currently about 95% accurate.  Second, the fines for not voting are not exactly high, so it's no big deal if you really don't wanna. Third, we know, therefore, how many actual functioning votes are forthcoming, and we have very high turnout - there is no movement I'm aware of towards non-compulsory voting here.  If there was, watching what has happened to the USA would have obliterated it..

But to answer the question, if you really wish to do the 'w*nking' thing, you can simply draw a donkey (or whatever turns you on) on your vote paper, or not even put a single mark on it.  That is called the 'donkey' vote, and those blank or illustrated ballot papers represent the conscientious objectors.  Last election the percentage of donkey / invalid votes was, wait for it.......... about 5%.

Do the maths.  To me, those numbers suggest something about the fact that most Ozzies aren't as dumb as they look, and are engaged pretty well with the system.  Sure, there is increasing distrust of gov't corruption, unfairness of the rich-v-poor gap etc.  But would we vote in a Trump, in (giggle) an attempt (chortle) to 'fix' (chuckle) those things?  You've got to be kidding...

Indeed we've just had a federal election - ask Clive Palmer how it worked for him - he's the nearest thing we have to a Trump, as a businessman who happily uses bankruptcies to escape liability for mismanaged ventures where he scoops off the money and runs - sound familiar?  So how did he and his 'United Australia Party' go?  He got a miserable 3% of the vote, and won not a single seat despite a *huge* "Make Australia Great" advertising campaign that scarily echoed Trump's approach.  He and it failed dismally.  The Greens party, and yes, that's exactly what you would think it is, got 10% of the vote and a seat in parliament (that's our 'Congress').

 

You'll note that i understand what a discussion forum is about, and have addressed Dumble's 'points', one by one, in detail.

His response?  I'm an ****.

[Farmer77]

On 5/22/2019 at 1:55 PM, OverSword said:

LOL!  Yeah.  Only the GOP has done that.  The partisanship between you Dems and Repubs is ****ing ridiculous. 

Man you incorrectly assume i dont or wont call the dems out when appropriate.

Regardless the current present threat is the GOP and I think this link quite nicely backs up what you quoted me saying. Dont you?

In reversal from 2016, McConnell says he would fill a potential Supreme Court vacancy in 2020