There seems to be a misreading of comments on the thread. Some posters claim that I advertised that I wanted to make bets with others regarding the O/U that the Bidet would be in office. these same individuals made allegations that there were offers to take the bet and that I reneged. First, I didn't offer to bet, I stated that in my social contacts (which are limited due to government tyranny) all were of the opinion that the Bidet would not be able to withstand the Horrible's ambition more than 90 days. Then we have one person that claims the he was involved in the transaction of a rifle for which he desired. But a review of the threat for its sale shows if he did have aspirations for its purchase they were unknown as he failed to make even the slightest inquiry regarding it. His idea of an equitable bet was to have me put up the rifle against a hunt in Alaska which I noted that I had already done that back when Alaska was actually wild, or two hunts in Colorado, which I had already done several years ago. So those three hunts were of little value to me. So why should I place a valuable piece of history against three hunts of little value? the other offer for a bet was to wager $1,000 which would be a reasonable bet however it was being conducted over the Internet, open to observation by the IRS and other state and federal agencies. Such a bet is against the law since it involves an element of innuendo of harming the president as well as violating tax laws on such gains.
So even if I had made an offer for a bet the only two offers were either of no value or illegal so declining the offer isn't reneging.
To the issue of whether the Bidet will be in office for a full term. History shows that keeping an almost dead president in office to the end of his term is possible. See the last year of Woodrow Wilson's term. He was virtually out of sight and his wife ran the presidency. those wanting the Bidet to fill his term will likely follow this model. However communications and observation are much more advanced than they were a hundred years ago as well as the incentive for in-house personnel to leak for cash information. But beyond his health issues there are the problems of running the country. From what I have seen of the proposed picks for cabinet level positions he is doing nothing more than to retread the Obama administration - getting the country back into the various disastrous agreements that were tanking the US economy prior to the Trump changes. So the Bidet can stay out of sight and let Kerry deal with China, Iran, the various former Soviet states, North Korea and others. If Kerry's past performance is an indicator of future performance then the US is headed for deep problems. Add to that that China and Ukraine are going to want a return on their investment in the Bidet family, I just don't see that the Bidet will accomplish anything other than going down in history as the one that took Obama's place as the worst president in US history. Whether his term is 90 days or a full four years, the end result will likely be the same.
out of the rest of the forum.
(or worse 
)
