Nicko wrote:

aban57 wrote:With all this, is there any chance his party decides to get rid of him ?

Doubt it and it wouldn't matter if it did.

Why/in what way wouldn't it matter?

Because Pence would be worse ?

Pence is a lot things but he is not a narcissist.

My feelings on Pence taking over for Trump are mixed. On one hand, many of his policies are worse than Trump's. He's also more capable of getting his agenda through. On the other hand, he's not an idiot who we have to worry about starting WIII through twitter. He'd most likely be a competent president and even if you don't like his policies we'll all survive until the next guy.

The wild card could be how long we should expect either to be in office. If Trump is surely a 1 and done POTUS but Mike Pence might have a 10-year presidency might it be worth risking Trump for a couple more years?

chango369 wrote:Looks like Charles Krauthammer has had enough re the Trump JR thing. I found this clip somewhat out of character for Fox News.

...

We'll see how long this one lasts.

As far as I can see and I am perfectly willing to change my mind, Pence is no worse than Trump.
In which case, one less nutter in charge is a plus in my book.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As far as I can see and I am perfectly willing to change my mind, Pence is no worse than Trump.
In which case, one less nutter in charge is a plus in my book.

I think Pence is worse because he's a true believer when it comes to right wing politics. Trump is just along for the ride and changes his mind with whichever way the wind is blowing. Pence would be much more focused and more capability of pushing his agenda through while Trump is, well, Trump.

purplerat wrote: Mike Pence might have a 10-year presidency might it be worth risking Trump for a couple more years?

4 years of Trump and then 8 of Pence is better?
Because I don't think the dems will have their shit together till the next election.
you might even face 8 years of Trump if the dems don't come up with a candidate that gets the GOP worried.
And then you might get 2 terms of Pence on top.

purplerat wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As far as I can see and I am perfectly willing to change my mind, Pence is no worse than Trump.
In which case, one less nutter in charge is a plus in my book.

I think Pence is worse because he's a true believer when it comes to right wing politics. Trump is just along for the ride and changes his mind with whichever way the wind is blowing. Pence would be much more focused and more capability of pushing his agenda through while Trump is, well, Trump.

Fair point.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote: Mike Pence might have a 10-year presidency might it be worth risking Trump for a couple more years?

4 years of Trump and then 8 of Pence is better?
Because I don't think the dems will have their shit together till the next election.
you might even face 8 years of Trump if the dems don't come up with a candidate that gets the GOP worried.
And then you might get 2 terms of Pence on top.

You're begging the question that the Dems not having their shit together will outweigh all the shite Trump will have managed to spew onto the US.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote: Mike Pence might have a 10-year presidency might it be worth risking Trump for a couple more years?

4 years of Trump and then 8 of Pence is better?
Because I don't think the dems will have their shit together till the next election.
you might even face 8 years of Trump if the dems don't come up with a candidate that gets the GOP worried.
And then you might get 2 terms of Pence on top.

You're begging the question that the Dems not having their shit together will outweigh all the shite Trump will have managed to spew onto the US.

close, the question is how much shit his supporters need to eat till they notice it's shit.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote: Mike Pence might have a 10-year presidency might it be worth risking Trump for a couple more years?

4 years of Trump and then 8 of Pence is better?
Because I don't think the dems will have their shit together till the next election.
you might even face 8 years of Trump if the dems don't come up with a candidate that gets the GOP worried.
And then you might get 2 terms of Pence on top.

It's amazing how short people's memories are, acting like Clinton lost in a historic landslide. It's almost as if they are listening to Trump say he had the largest electoral win in 30 years while also winning the popular vote and believing him.

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote: Mike Pence might have a 10-year presidency might it be worth risking Trump for a couple more years?

4 years of Trump and then 8 of Pence is better?
Because I don't think the dems will have their shit together till the next election.
you might even face 8 years of Trump if the dems don't come up with a candidate that gets the GOP worried.
And then you might get 2 terms of Pence on top.

It's amazing how short people's memories are, acting like Clinton lost in a historic landslide. It's almost as if they are listening to Trump say he had the largest electoral win in 30 years while also winning the popular vote and believing him.

He doesn't need to win in a landslide or win the popular vote; the GOP just needs to keep on gerrymandering.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote: Mike Pence might have a 10-year presidency might it be worth risking Trump for a couple more years?

4 years of Trump and then 8 of Pence is better?
Because I don't think the dems will have their shit together till the next election.
you might even face 8 years of Trump if the dems don't come up with a candidate that gets the GOP worried.
And then you might get 2 terms of Pence on top.

It's amazing how short people's memories are, acting like Clinton lost in a historic landslide. It's almost as if they are listening to Trump say he had the largest electoral win in 30 years while also winning the popular vote and believing him.

He doesn't need to win in a landslide or win the popular vote; the GOP just needs to keep on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering has zero impact on presidential elections.

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
4 years of Trump and then 8 of Pence is better?
Because I don't think the dems will have their shit together till the next election.
you might even face 8 years of Trump if the dems don't come up with a candidate that gets the GOP worried.
And then you might get 2 terms of Pence on top.

It's amazing how short people's memories are, acting like Clinton lost in a historic landslide. It's almost as if they are listening to Trump say he had the largest electoral win in 30 years while also winning the popular vote and believing him.

He doesn't need to win in a landslide or win the popular vote; the GOP just needs to keep on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering has zero impact on presidential elections.

So the electoral college is chosen entirely by popular vote in a state?

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote:
It's amazing how short people's memories are, acting like Clinton lost in a historic landslide. It's almost as if they are listening to Trump say he had the largest electoral win in 30 years while also winning the popular vote and believing him.

He doesn't need to win in a landslide or win the popular vote; the GOP just needs to keep on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering has zero impact on presidential elections.

So the electoral college is chosen entirely by popular vote in a state?

In all but two states, yes. Maine and Nebraska do split their electoral votes but there's no indication of gerrymandering.

I live in the part of Maine that chose Trump. Maine's bible belt.

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
He doesn't need to win in a landslide or win the popular vote; the GOP just needs to keep on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering has zero impact on presidential elections.

So the electoral college is chosen entirely by popular vote in a state?

In all but two states, yes. Maine and Nebraska do split their electoral votes but there's no indication of gerrymandering.

right, I had the impression it's whoever wins the most districts in a state gets the delegates.

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
He doesn't need to win in a landslide or win the popular vote; the GOP just needs to keep on gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering has zero impact on presidential elections.

So the electoral college is chosen entirely by popular vote in a state?

In all but two states, yes. Maine and Nebraska do split their electoral votes but there's no indication of gerrymandering.

Is it done using PR then?

Of course not. Gerrymandering is every where in the American system. Three swing states was enough for Trump to get elected and we all know who arranged them.

chango369 wrote:

chango369 wrote:Looks like Charles Krauthammer has had enough re the Trump JR thing. I found this clip somewhat out of character for Fox News.

...

We'll see how long this one lasts.

Losing Krauthammer is not a good thing for a RWer. Same for FauxNews, when you see them becoming more anti-Trump than pro, the end is likely near for Trump.