Categories
Trump could be in political trouble if found guilty – politicalbetting.com
Trump could be in political trouble if found guilty – politicalbetting.com
Trump stands to lose majorities of swing state voters if found guilty: poll https://t.co/KVBkItD6hp
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Humans are very bad at predicting what their opinion would be under some future hypothetical.
Surely all this is already priced in?
I said the independents were the ones to watch.
Trump is A Friend of Ours
In fact I recall my posts on PB from a year ago, as a lone sceptic if that from Sunak’s own lips is the definition of the Windsor Agreement, then it’s absolutely insane he is gaining in the polls from signing it. Because is it not an absolutely bonkers thing to sell to the people of NI with the rest of the UK listening in to him selling it like that?
As support for BREXIT, or at least the feeling it’s been implemented well and is going well, has fallen away - it’s probably been helped on its way by the Windsor Agreement particularly the way Rishi sold it.
I’m sticking by my theory that everyone is, as in 2016, totally underestimating Trump. There’s tens of millions of Americans who are not better off than they were four years ago.
Though it should be.
File also under 'Too good to be true'.
At the kindest, the Trump organisation was riddled with incompetence that should politically debar somebody from holding the office of America's CEO.
(There's also a $50m "loan" that has been discovered - a "loan" that risks further criminal charges being laid. It was discovered by the person put in charge of the Trump business empire from making transfers that could frustrate the recovery of the disgorgement payments. When he is on the media railing against that person making work to justify her charges, remember the appointment of that person was approved by Trump.)
They’re still booming now, but there’s been a massive wealth transfer in the past four years, and the headline statistics don’t mean much to the average Amercian in a swing state.
Personally I’d probably vote for whichever party ditches the octogenarian, but I don’t have a vote!
Ernest Saunders eat your heart out.
My wife is selling a collectable item for an elderly relative. We advised said relative to visit a dealer, but she preferred us to sort it via Facebook/Ebay. It's up on Facebook marketplace for a few £100s, probably about £50-£75 over the going rate to allow for haggling.
Someone got in touch today and offered the asking price. Very keen, very fast replies. Got location (only town and postcode) and wanted to pay immediately by bank transfer or paypal to collect on Friday. Requested bank/paypal details again after a few minutes non-response while my wife came to talk to me (slight alarm bells ringing for her). After some discussion, we suggested cash on collection, but this was quickly declined due to item being picked up by brother who does not have cash and the person messaging paying for it instead (ignoring the fact that the buyer could simply send the brother the money and the brother go to an ATM a mile or so from our house - if brother has no bank accountit's hard to see why he's in the business of buying relatively expensive collectable items!).
There are enough alarm bells that we're not shifting:
- Facebook profile looks a bit random with not much information
- Speed and insistence, definite attempts to rush my wife
- No hint of haggling on the price, which is a bit high
- Refusal, very quickly, to do cash on collection - which is obviously safer for buyer too, odd to offer to transfer substantial amount of money for something that may not even exist and without having been given a precise address even!
The thing is, out of curiosity, I do wonder about the angle. Name plus address plus bank details would be enough to fake an authentic looking bank statement and get somewhere with identity fraud, but we have not provided full address (although we would after receipt of the money, although not before, perhaps the next play would be to pressure for that before transfer). On PayPal, the angle seems less clear, but I guess there'd the fake 'money received' email option, possibly with alleged overpayment and a need to 'refund' the accidental overpayment?TLDR: It looks dodgy and we're pulling the plug, but I'd like to understand the scam.
Of course it's possible Trump will win, I doubt decisively (depending on how you define it), I'd guess it's going to be close either way. There's a long way to go but Biden has a bit more potential to improve his position than Trump so far as I can tell
Also, if Trump is jailed ahead of the election (unlikely) will it be because he is a 'political opponent', or will it be because he has committed crimes? Do you think there should be blanket immunity from any kind of prosecution for anyone running for election?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/
Not sure what having my phone number could do, but I'm not handing it out, especially when the boss never has their own LinkedIn profile...
In all probability, Trump tries to remain nominee - and with votes and delegates in the bag, could well do so.
Oh and the existential threat is not Biden, it's Trump.
Said mentoring relationship being that 30 years ago the Judge had been a partner at a 1000-strong firm, whilst the Lawyer had been a Junior there for a couple of years.
The Lawyer slapped it down as BS.
And the article contains content explaining what Habbadabbadoo planned to do, so she knew about it.
Which means that La "I would rather be pretty than smart; I can fake being smart" Trumpette would seem to have deceived the Court. Again. Having already been sanctioned multiple times.
The Judge can withdraw her right to practise in NY.
Oooops. Or 5-dimensional chess?
That said, some time ago someone was selling a smart TV near to me pm FB at a good price so I said I'd buy it. Why are you selling I asked - he has a larger one, was the reply. Like an idiot I suggested the station car park for the handover so there was no way to know whether the TV worked (it did, perfectly).
Anyway, since that time I have noticed many TVs for sale on FB by the same seller.
Ho hum.
Trump: 42%
Biden: 37%
Haley: 12%
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/january-2024-national-poll-trump-and-biden-remain-neck-and-neck-in-likely-rematch/
A few years back I sold a brand new kids bike on Ebay. Posted it, buyer claimed there were parts missing (there were not, as became apparent on return). Buyer initiated return via Ebay. I had to cough for the outward and return postage and give a full refund, ended up about £30 down with a bike that was now open box rather than BNIB. No recourse other than to report buyer, which I did. Not a scam per se, buyer presumably just changed mind and didn't fancy paying the return postage. But the scope for similar issues here is off-putting - buyer dislikes, claims broken etc and returns, no recourse. We'll probably do a collection only Ebay option, but even then not entirely safe.
Tempted to take it to a dealer ourselves and just pass on the sale price (but would be almost certainly lower than the relative is looking for).
ETA: Re your story, at least is someone ever nicks your telly you'll be able to recover it for a reasonable fee
In terms of timeline, that splits down as:
Jan / Feb: 158
March 1-4: 173
March 5: 874
March 9-12: 170
March 15-19: 359
In other words, it's only just over a month to Super Tuesday, and around 6 weeks until half the delegates have been awarded, with well over two-thirds gone by mid-March. If something is going to happen to deprive Trump of the nomination, it will have to happen very quickly.
More likely, they either:
1. Want you to ship the item without confirmed funds received.
2. Will claim back to the bank that you delivered them a brick.
3. On PayPal, that company will almost always settle a dispute with the buyer.
If they’re collecting an item physically, insist on CoD.
It seems that you have less liability as a business owner than as a trustee of a charity. This must be wrong.
Are there Republicans who might choose to sit at home if convicted but would vote otherwise?
Are there Democrats annoyed with Biden who might see Trump as unpalatable if convicted?
Surely the answers to these are yes and in significant numbers. Whether they will be sufficient or not, who knows?
In yesterday's political monitor it looked at the % that might change their mind on who to vote for.
Previously the percentage that might change their mind reduced over the term of the parliament - this makes sense as the closer to an election the more certain your vote becomes.
However since 2019 there has been little change. Why?
Run away!
Any criminal action against Trump will be portrayed as politically motivated by his supporters, which isn’t helped by the civil cases that have clear political motivations.
Unless he’s actually in prison on Election Day, I suspect he wins.
You probably won't agree but I suspect the bigger benefit to the Trump side of the equation is it will provide cover and justification for more Trump officials to allow cheating in the vote counts.
https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1632783128170201088
Yes, we DO still need cash !!
But on "sore losers", I understand only Texas (a big one admittedly) and South Dakota purport to apply sore loser laws to Presidential elections, and they'd probably lose a serious legal challenge on the matter. Quite a lot of losing primary candidates have in fact stood and been on the Presidential ballot in states with sore loser laws - e.g. John Anderson in 1980 (GOP/Independent), Lyndon LaRouche in 1992 (Democrat/Independent), and Gary Johnson (GOP/Libertarian) in 2012.
Firstly, as someone interested in such and as a former PCC member, I cannot recall any examples of PCC members who have been found liable as charity trustees for any problems. I am sure there are some, but they would normally be all over national media using their "horrific problems in Church of England" headline function key. There are something like 10-20 PCC members in each of around 5-10k parishes.
Secondly, the importance of support for trustees of small charities. PCC members can access quite extensive expertise and backup should they require it, as the setup is that PCCs are viewed in some ways as parts of larger organisations at Diocese level. Were I a trustee of a small charity, I would want to put support systems in place for myself - perhaps via individual membership of a support organisation, or set up a mentoring relationship with an acquaintance experienced as a trustee.
Having said that, I'd certainly agree that some do not know what they are taking on - Anglican parishes can be complex, and reasonably large organisations. It is not unusual to end up as a stakeholder or client in projects costing several million.
What could be next, I wonder? An authoritarian misanthropic paleo-environmentalist nativist in the Sandy Rentool mould?
Might be worth considering how Trump reacts to court decisions against him - of course he will play the victim, but too much raving and threats of coming after his opponents once he's president might put a few independents off don't you think? Especially if he repeats his legal theory that US Presidents have immunity from murdering political opponents...
https://xkcd.com/2888/
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/other-ideologies-primitivism
https://xkcd.com/2882/
A lot of the frustration people have with him is because they can't lay a finger on him.
ETA: Haven't been able to find an earlier reference though, so maybe it's me!
By Drachinifel, so well researched, and may include occasional transformations of Japanese words into incidents of collateral damage by mispronunciation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTQ3ud-CN7w
Which means he's in prime shape to capture two crucial swing states: Arizona and Nevada.
The problem for him is that the big driver of dissatisfaction in Biden is illegal immigration, and its salience drops very sharply with latitude. A few weeks ago, I posted polls - by a Republican pollster - for Michigan and Texas. In Texas, immigration was the number one concern of voters. In Michigan, it didn't even make the top ten. (Actually, that's not quite true, at number nine there was a concern about a lack of people to fill jobs.)
Yesterday I was passing an HSBC and decided I would pay the cash into my nephew’s account as he’s at University and thought he would make good use of it.
It turns out that the cashier refused it as it’s not been permitted to pay cash into another person’s account for about two years. I could pay it into my own account (at another bank) and transfer it online but not by cash.
I had absolutely no idea of this and didn’t know if it is the same in the UK? If so it’s another downside to cash for the future.
That Trump is barely getting half of the vote in New Hampshire when he's effectively presumptive nominee already is ridiculously awful, but matches what an awful candidate he is.
But you can't win an election with your own zealots alone, you need to carry the middle too. And Trump is toxic to most American centrists too.
Which is why Trump lost last time, and why he'll most likely lose again this time.
But this is all detail, other than to say that Trump can (and in all probability, would) win the election with a small deficit in the popular vote. It might be a stupid system but it is the system.
What's much harder to explain is why, of the gallery of possible Republicans, all of them pretty right wing, it has to be Trump.
That does need explaining, and I don't think the explanation would be a nice one.
Hillary = 65,853,514 votes
Trump = 62,984,828 votes
for those who need guidance on how to give it away:
"At Cheltenham Races you can use cash to place bets while on course. Bookmakers typically accept cash for wagering on the races, allowing racegoers to place bets directly with them. There are also betting facilities, such as betting windows or booths, where you can use cash to place your bets on-site."
*APART FROM THE BOOKIES
John Schneider (Luke Duke) I believe is a big MAGA supporter. Apologies if he is not.
Make a baseless allegation: one completely unsupported by any facts. And sure, it gets slapped down. But the right people (Trump's base) hear the original allegation, not the fact that it was - in essence - a lie.
You cannot unring a bell.
Millions of people will now believe that the whole process was a sham, involving collusion between a prosectutor and her old mentor. Even though there is not a shred of truth in it.