Skip to main content

2012 US Presidential Election

Oh I think I figured it out.

He's going to announce that as Obama will lose the election and soon be looking for a job. So he will give him a spot on the next season of Celebrity Apprentice. It's just a big PR stunt.

That's my number one bet.
 
The bombshell is

Donald Trump's dirty bombshell revealed: Tycoon to claim he has Obama divorce papers


TOMORROW I will be tweeting on only one subject," Donald Trump told his 1.6 million Twitter followers yesterday. A minute later he tweeted: "My announcement is tomorrow!"

But the big bombshell the tycoon is threatening to drop on the Obamas, a bombshell he claims could change the course of the US Presidential election, has been revealed ahead of time by a financial adviser with links to Trump.

Douglas Kass, who often appears with Trump on the US talkshow Squawkbox and has written for the Wall Street Journal, tweeted: "High above the Alps my Gnome has heard that Donald Trump will announce that he has unearthed divorce papers between the Prez and his wife."

The tycoon and Apprentice host, who has a history of making false allegations about the President, will allegedly claim that the papers show Barack and Michelle Obama seriously considering splitting up.

The divorce rumour first reared its head in a recent book about Obama by author Ed Klein. He said the Obamas hit a rough patch in 2000 and Michelle "actually had divorce papers drawn up". The claim was denied by the White House.

When asked by Mail Online about Kass's tweet, Trump's spokesman did not deny it. The day before Trump's right-hand man, Michael Cohen, denied that Trump would be speaking about an anonymous rumour that Obama sold cocaine in college.

The fact that Trump announced he would be dropping a bombshell the day after the last presidential debate smacks of dirty campaigning by America's hard right.

Trump has tried to smear the President before. He was a vocal proponent of the discredited "birther theory", that Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii, and is therefore disqualified from being President of the United States.

Even if the divorce papers are genuine, it's hard to see how they could hurt the Obama campaign; it's more likely the backlash against Trump will hurt the Republicans and their candidate, Mitt Romney.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...a-divorce-papers/story-e6frfmqi-1226502243725
 
SHOCK HORROR

If anything the fact they went through a rough patch and were able to reconcile is a good thing?


Also Trump has been married how many times?
 
Big deal. I think they've been open about the fact they went through a rough patch years ago anyway.
 
what im going to enjoy about Trump, and its the only thing I enjoy about Trump, is that when he sprouts this shit, it actually makes it worse for the Reps.
 
what im going to enjoy about Trump, and its the only thing I enjoy about Trump, is that when he sprouts this shit, it actually makes it worse for the Reps.

Which is great.

Bet Obama etc are now doing jigs & singing Thank You Trump.
 
Seriously. I can't believe this isn't a foregone conclusion. (And why hasn't Obama pointed out whenever Mitt mentions how he successfully ran the Olympics that the only way he could balance the budget was with a billion-dollar-plus taxpayer-funded bailout?)

A bit lit on the debate memes, but:
n2jrvk7z41.jpg
 
Holy moly! What is up with all the Obama hate? Is that a general Aus attitude or that of the posters above?

I think there is only one around here, that's crazy Derspatz, and everyone has his posts on ignore - he's like the funny old grumpy uncle everyone has.

Anything else is IRONY....if your haning around Aussies you better get an irony & sarcasm handbook, and just consider that we often basically talk opposite language - so if someone is called slim they are chubby
 
I think there is only one around here, that's crazy Derspatz, and everyone has his posts on ignore - he's like the funny old grumpy uncle everyone has.

Anything else is IRONY....if your haning around Aussies you better get an irony & sarcasm handbook, and just consider that we often basically talk opposite language - so if someone is called slim they are chubby

Thank you for the insight and advice! :)
 
Trump is a moron. He doesn't realize he's a joke.
Remember a year or more ago he was talking about all the amazing stuff his anti-obama team were turning up. None of it which every saw the light of day because he's all about publicity over substance.


There'll be two possible outcomes.

It'll be some wild allegation with no proof. Possibly one we've heard before.

Or he'll make some big claim that there's some reason preventing him from releasing it but it was huge!


Actually there's more outcomes but less likely. Something that is just, "meh" on the level of shit we know like Obama did cocaine. Or ate dog.

Another thin tenuous link to someone with an "Extremist" view at some point in his life.


It'll be nothing. I base that on Trump is a moron and if there was something huge it'd have come out long ago. Not now. It's just dirty tricks to attack the president because they aint got anything better.


It would be interesting if it was some insane allegation which is incapable of being cleared up before the election and Obama lost. Or if it was something that the typical moron's will just believe because they want to and the proof it's bogus is a conspiracy.



YOu were right too. :)
 
From here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...he_favorite_of_every_voter_who_isnt_american/

"Obama - the favorite of every voter who isn’t American"

obama_chart2_thumb.JPG

The latest four polls show Romney ahead of Obama:

R 50% O 47%...

R 50% O 47%...

R 49% O 48%...

R 47% O 46%...

Should Romney win, few readers of the Fairfax reporting will understand why. Many, I warrant, will be astonished.

But Kates is right to note that the media bias alone can’t explain the wild support of non-Americans for Obama.

Here’s another factor. Romney, like most Republican politicians, is focussed on grass roots politics, and that means talking directly to Americans - not foreigners. Obama is more the internationalist, seeming to take more heed of the opinions of the rest of the world, and therefore more under “our” control.

And a final factor. The rest of the world doesn’t have to pay the bill for Obama’s wild spending. We can forgive his trillion dollar deficits like few American taxpayers will.

Speaking of debt, not too long ago I worked out and shared in these forums how long it would take for Oz to get rid of the debt that KRudd, Fabian Socialist Gillard, and Goose managed to lumber upon our once great nation in only a few short years while showing nothing worthwhile in return.

My calculation based upon Goose's own (now failed) promises re: a "surplus budget" ("surplus" meaning "not having to extend the credit card any further" but nothing to do with actually paying of existing debt) was that it would take at least SIXTY YEARS just to pay of the credit card, to bring it back to just zero. A credit card that only a few years ago had many billions of dollars on the positive side !

Anyhoo, long story short, it would seem that my "back of beer coaster" calculations have been vindicated somewhat by a professional. As in, somebody who used to be in charge of Oz finances and who actually used to achieve budgest surplusses as well as maintain a positive balance on the Oz credit cards.

Note, P.C. isn't even talking about getting that massive debt paid off in the following ... he's talking about how long it will take, under current Gillard & Goose policy, just for BUDGET surplusses to become the norm.

Once again, a budget surplus does NOT mean Oz's debt with its crippling interest is paid.

From here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...with-swans-tiny-surpluses-20121023-283cp.html

n truth it matters little whether a budget is 0.1 per cent in deficit or 0.1 per cent in surplus. What matters is that over the medium term the government does not spend more than it raises. A budget deficit simply means that at a particular time, a society is prepared to enjoy more services than it is prepared to pay for. If at a later time it is prepared to pay for more than it spends on itself, then that surplus can pay off the deficit. What is not acceptable is if a society persistently takes benefits and passes the cost on to future generations by running up debt.

...

Over four budgets from 2008, deficits have cumulated 12.8 per cent of gross domestic product. Taking this year and the following three budgets, this will be followed by cumulative surpluses of 0.8 per cent (provided the economy grows at trend). Four years of surplus will pay back 1/16th of the four years of deficit. At that rate it would take half a century before we get to the stated goal of "surplus on average".

"Sooner or later, socialists run out of other people's money to spend" - M Thatcher.

Kinda ironic don't you think that socialists (like Gillard and Obama) claim to be about "social justice" and "helping the poor" and all that, yet devote themselves to an ideology that smash businesses (you know, those things that employ people and create wealth and prosperity) and by doing so, create MORE of the poor ...

Their kind of socialism is actually to create a ruling elite, get rid of independance and the "middle class", create a massive all intrusive monster of a government, and have as many people as possible dependent, from cradle to grave, upon the "ruling elite" and massive government, while they, the ruling elite, enjoy every privilege possible for as long as they can.

Deem a bunch of references to "Animal Farm" included.

My question to you is, "why are you supporting such a system and ideology with your vote ?"

Is it because you are already dependent upon the government from near cradle to grave ?

That "the state" is in fact your husband or your wife and you just couldn't survive without it ?

regarDS
 
Election Nightmare Scenarios: What Could Happen on Nov. 7?
By Massimo Calabresi
Oct. 26, 2012

For those old enough to have covered the 2000 election, close presidential races trigger flashbacks of late-night interviews with lawyers at the Florida Division of Elections and close readings of the 12th Amendment. The neck-and-neck 2012 race for the White House is unharnessing a stableful of nightmares.

First, Nate Silver estimates the possibility of a decisive battleground state going to a recount at 10%. Most of the states that could tip the election have mandatory recounts if the winner’s margin is slim (typically, 0.5% or less). Recounts tend not to change a large percentage of the votes cast and counted, but as Florida showed, they can move some. Of the nine likely battleground states that could tip the election, Silver rates Ohio as far and away the most important: he gives it a 50% chance of making the critical difference on Election Day. There is good and bad news on that front.

Despite recent left-wing conspiracies suggesting the GOP could easily steal the vote there, Ohio is among the most reliable in the case of a recount, according to a recent study by Common Cause, Rutgers School of Law and the Verified Voting Foundation. In all of its counties, Ohio has paper records for all votes, including for machines that tally votes electronically. The paper records can be inspected by voters to ensure their votes have been accurately cast and can be audited after the fact to provide a backup to the electronic tally. That means any recount in Ohio should be free of the mess that engulfed Florida with its hard-to-read butterfly ballots in 2000.

The bad news is that Ohio may face a counting problem, not a recounting problem. As USA Today reported Thursday, in an effort to make voting easier, Ohio sent absentee ballots to 1.43 million voters who requested them; 800,000 people who asked for those ballots have received them but not yet completed them. Any one of those 800,000 who decides to vote in person on Election Day instead will be given a provisional ballot to ensure they are not voting twice — once by absentee ballot and again at the polls. That means potentially tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of ballots will be provisional, which under Ohio state law won’t be counted until Nov. 17 at the earliest. Four years ago Ohio had 207,000 provisional ballots. It’s not hard to see the additional provisional ballots from the 800,000 would-be absentee voters adding up to enough votes to make a difference this time around.

Then there’s the possibility of a tie. This one is a favorite of legal scholars and historians, because it revivifies arcane 18th century constitutional debates and 19th century legal tweaks to the electoral process and turns them loose on the November vote. I go over the details of what happens in the event of a tie in this week’s magazine. The short version is that if both men get fewer than 270 Electoral College votes, including the case of a 269-269 tie, all hell breaks loose.

First there will be an attempt to find and sway electors who might be willing to change their votes, since any one elector’s vote could determine the winner. A small-d democrat, for example, might feel it was his duty to vote for the winner of the popular vote even if he had originally committed to the opponent. It’s also possible that a state legislature could try to replace one or several “controversial” electors: the Florida legislature briefly toyed with the idea in 2000, and states are explicitly allowed to do so until Dec. 11. If no candidate has the support of 270 electors when the college meets and casts votes Dec. 17, the decision goes to the newly elected House, which follows a 225-year-old formula for picking the next President. In a meeting on Jan. 6, each state gets one vote, determined by a vote of the members of its delegation, and a majority of states (26) is required. The House stays in session until a winner is picked.

As things stand, such a vote would likely go to Romney, though it’s pretty hard to game out, since the vote of a state with evenly divided delegations doesn’t count. (New Hampshire could have one D and one R in the new House, for example.) If it must go this way, there is one consolation: under the Constitution, the House would pick the President, but the Senate, which looks likely to stay Democratic, would select the Vice President. That would mean a Romney-Biden White House, which would be worth the price of admission.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/26/election-nightmare-scenarios-what-could-happen-on-nov-7
 
Back
Top