• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would Trump have won the election, if Stormy Daniels didn't sign.

Would Trump have won, if Stormy's story came out a week before the election?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 50.7%

  • No

    Votes: 11 15.5%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 8 11.3%

  • Don't know, don't care

    Votes: 16 22.5%
  • Total voters
    71
American said:
Not that the popular vote means anything, but he lost by 3 million in New York and California; making that irrelevant.
Click to expand...
True on the first point. Your second point is dumb.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Media_Truth said:
If the Stormy Daniels story would have surfaced a week-and-a-half before the election, would Trump have won?
Click to expand...

I personally would say probably. He's been a public figure for 30-40 years I can't remember how long before I was born. We know he's not a good husband so quite honestly I don't think the voting base would have cared. They elected him knowing that he cheated on his former wife with his current wife and the same before these weren't really secrets.

I have been relatively okay with him up until the Syria bombing. That was the major thing that made me not want Hillary to be the president. Then he goes ahead and does it. I think potentially starting war with Russia is it bigger deal then who the hell he slept with 10 years ago.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I think potentially starting war with Russia is it bigger deal then who the hell he slept with 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

There will be no war with Russia over Syria and the President can hardly ever bother to say a bad word about Putin.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
There will be no war with Russia over Syria and the President can hardly ever bother to say a bad word about Putin.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why won't there be a war with Russia what makes you say that is it because you believe the conspiracy theories? I'm sorry I just haven't been convinced.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Why won't there be a war with Russia what makes you say that is it because you believe the conspiracy theories? I'm sorry I just haven't been convinced.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced of collusion. I'm just more on the side of neocons here. The President just has a distinctly dovish approach with Russia. Perhaps it is ego, because of the perceived "illegitimacy" of his Presidency (a President, elected by less than a plurality, under the circumstances of Russia meddling), perhaps it is because he is a bit of a fan boy of Putin and other tough men. I doubt the collusion narrative. Nevertheless, he is dovish. His administration works around it, oddly enough.

Furthermore, I sincerely doubt Russia looks at Syria as anything it must defend its interests with. Neither side wants an actual war over anything. The U.S. deserves to fight back on some matters, but it hasn't really been given the authority to do so.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
I'm not convinced of collusion. The President just has a distinctly dovish approach with Russia.
Click to expand...
sorry but that's evidence of nothing.

Perhaps it is ego, because of the perceived "illegitimacy" of his Presidency (a President, elected by less than a plurality, under the circumstances of Russia meddling), perhaps it is because he is a bit of a fan boy of Putin and other tough men. I doubt the collusion narrative.
Click to expand...
it's a conspiracy theory so its equel to JFK shooting conspiracy theories

Nevertheless, he is dovish. His administration works around it, oddly enough.
Click to expand...
Meh that's not evidence of anything.
 
CLAX1911 said:
sorry but that's evidence of nothing.

it's a conspiracy theory so its equel to JFK shooting conspiracy theories


Meh that's not evidence of anything.
Click to expand...

Okay, boyo.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/cybercom-rogers-trump-russian-cyber-threat/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-puts-the-brake-on-new-russian-sanctions-reversing-haleys-announcement/2018/04/16/ac3ad4f8-417f-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.584051f5f015

This President, even more so than his predecessor, if one could believe it, is taking an unjustifiably dovish viewpoint of Russia.
 
Last edited:
The left is too shallow since they appear to lack rational skills. Rational skills make you more independent and self reliant, whereas shallow is a prerequisite for group think. The left is driven by group think so they need to stay in the shallows, since they will drown in deep water; self floating. The Trump voter was deeper than the shallows.

Trump offer the new ideas which did not have enough time for group think, but needed common sense to be absorbed. Swimming in the deep waters allows the mud to wash off, easily. When Trump dove down into the deep water with his ideas, he came up again and again without the mud that is important to the left. If you are shallow and don't go deep; depend on fake news gossip, the mud is much harder to clean off and residue lingers. Hillary could not shake off her mud in the shallows.

Most deep people realize you can't judge a book by its cover. That is what shallow people do. The dust jacket is short and easy to read and allows one to pretend. Most of the most competent people, such as top scientists, are not pretty to look at, and may be awkward, socially. This tainted surface, relative to the left, does not mean they are not brilliant. The deep person will see this. They know the best people may not stand up to the shallow criteria.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Click to expand...

The renewing of the mind requires we swim in the deeper waters of reason, where the majority dare not go. They stay in the shallows less the shark get them.
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
The left is too shallow since they appear to lack rational skills. Rational skills make you more independent and self reliant, whereas shallow is a prerequisite for group think. The left is driven by group think so they need to stay in the shallows, since they will drown in deep water; self floating. The Trump voter was deeper than the shallows.

Trump offer the new ideas which did not have enough time for group think, but needed common sense to be absorbed. Swimming in the deep waters allows the mud to wash off, easily. When Trump dove down into the deep water with his ideas, he came up again and again without the mud that is important to the left. If you are shallow and don't go deep; depend on fake news gossip, the mud is much harder to clean off and residue lingers. Hillary could not shake off her mud in the shallows.

Most deep people realize you can't judge a book by its cover. That is what shallow people do. The dust jacket is short and easy to read and allows one to pretend. Most of the most competent people, such as top scientists, are not pretty to look at, and may be awkward, socially. This tainted surface, relative to the left, does not mean they are not brilliant. The deep person will see this. They know the best people may not stand up to the shallow criteria.



The renewing of the mind requires we swim in the deeper waters of reason, where the majority dare not go. They stay in the shallows less the shark get them.
Click to expand...

What is lacked is sufficient interest in the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom