Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty

robinph wrote: »

May isn't too keen on Trump shooting his mouth off on Twitter so freely, and surprisingly has actually said so now rather than just repeating niceties back and forth about "working together with our partners in US/ UK" or some such:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41283984

Whither the special relationship?

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

I know there is internal dissention within the Dems as well about any cooperation with DT. But Schumer and Pelosi may be the only politicians getting anything actually done. That will really isolate the right of the GOP.

A point which was made amongst the talking heads on the local radio this morning.

Over the last year or so, the left has been basically railing on Trump and working up the base. Trump is evil, everything he stands for is wrong, and so on and so forth. Now Pelosi and Schumer have to go to the Democratic base and say "Yeah, we've been saying this since the election, but we're going to work with him now." There are questions as to how the left base is going to react to this.

A bigger problem for the Dems, though, is their message. If they have a message other than "We stand against Trump", polls say that people don't know what it is. By working with Trump (and don't get me wrong, if they're achieving good things, they should do it), they are either undermining their own message by not standing against Trump, or alternatively, they are undermining the weight of the message, by saying "We stand against someone we are willing to work with." If Trump keeps reaching across the aisle like this, it may well have an effect as we enter the 2018 election cycle, unless the Democrats get off their posterior, stop talking about 'what happened', and actually come up with a message and a plan to get it out.

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

A bigger problem for the Dems, though, is their message. If they have a message other than "We stand against Trump", polls say that people don't know what it is.

To be fair that pretty nails what the GOP stood for for more or less the last decade, and it worked a treat for them. Though on the other hand, those that typically to the centre or left tend to look for more than just the letter beside a politician's name in order to make their decisions.

Igotadose

Billy86 wrote: »

To be fair that pretty nails what the GOP stood for for more or less the last decade, and it worked a treat for them. Though on the other hand, those that typically to the centre or left tend to look for more than just the letter beside a politician's name in order to make their decisions.

That, and white supremacy as described by Coates in https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

A point which was made amongst the talking heads on the local radio this morning.

Over the last year or so, the left has been basically railing on Trump and working up the base. Trump is evil, everything he stands for is wrong, and so on and so forth. Now Pelosi and Schumer have to go to the Democratic base and say "Yeah, we've been saying this since the election, but we're going to work with him now." There are questions as to how the left base is going to react to this.

A bigger problem for the Dems, though, is their message. If they have a message other than "We stand against Trump", polls say that people don't know what it is. By working with Trump (and don't get me wrong, if they're achieving good things, they should do it), they are either undermining their own message by not standing against Trump, or alternatively, they are undermining the weight of the message, by saying "We stand against someone we are willing to work with." If Trump keeps reaching across the aisle like this, it may well have an effect as we enter the 2018 election cycle, unless the Democrats get off their posterior, stop talking about 'what happened', and actually come up with a message and a plan to get it out.

I don't know whether any of mine below will make sense to you at home in the US as workable ideas/notions.

Nancy and Co will have to put out and accentuate messages that Don is being forced by circumstance to drop [for however long] his stated plans for the country and WE have come to an agreement with him on some deals in line with what you, the voters, want Congress and the President to work: that is, for your good. It's up to them to manage the new message in a manner that covers all of Don's sensitivity.

Nancy and Co will gain if the GOP leadership continues to squabble amongst themselves on how to get working with Don, giving her and the Dems a free-er hand with Don.

I don't know how Nancy and Co will manage the left base mentioned above, but assume it's not as large as the left section of the Dem Party/Bernie Sanders, and that part of the party may work hand in glove with Nancy and Co [despite it being also with Don] if it is sensible and actually is for the better good of the voter.

MadYaker

The democrat base will be happy to see democrats in congress working with trump if it means congress pass things that the democrat base are in favour of. Trump has done a u turn on the DACA issue, he did this because he realised that by working the democrats he might actually get something done since unlike the GOP they don't have their heads all the way up their own asses and they can actually work as a group. I can't see democrat voters having a problem with schumer and pelosi working with don just because it's don. That's an attitude more commonly taken by consevatives who are totally bound to their ideals, regardless of whether those ideals are actually pragmatic and workable.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

That did'nt last long, since he's back out in defense of his white supremacist base again. And now Sen. Russianbacker is in on the same, trying to call the Charlottesville terrorist attack "a set up".

Racism, or just continuing on with Putin's bidding?

Russianbacker, an earned name if ever there was one, sounds like he might be getting a little bit desperate hot under the collar.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918

WASHINGTON—A U.S. congressman contacted the White House this week trying to broker a deal that would end WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s U.S. legal troubles in exchange for what he described as evidence that Russia wasn’t the source of hacked emails published by the antisecrecy website during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The proposal made by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.), in a phone call Wednesday with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, was apparently aimed at resolving the probe of WikiLeaks prompted by Mr. Assange’s publication of secret U.S. government documents in 2010 through a pardon or other act of clemency from President Donald Trump.

Samaris

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/16/insane-clown-posse-trump-juggalo-march-on-washington

Won't that be a fun day. Clowns and Trump supporters marching around. Wonder what will happen if those parades meet?

Glad I don't have to be in DC.

aloyisious

MadYaker wrote: »

The democrat base will be happy to see democrats in congress working with trump if it means congress pass things that the democrat base are in favour of. Trump has done a u turn on the DACA issue, he did this because he realised that by working the democrats he might actually get something done since unlike the GOP they don't have their heads all the way up their own asses and they can actually work as a group. I can't see democrat voters having a problem with schumer and pelosi working with don just because it's don. That's an attitude more commonly taken by consevatives who are totally bound to their ideals, regardless of whether those ideals are actually pragmatic and workable.

I don't know the personal political mindsets of the recent appointees to the W/H staff [all the way to the top] made by Don and if they have actually been able to steer Don towards [if it was actually necessary to - given that besides his ego - he must have a arithmetical/sensible side to his brain] political moves to the advantage of the US without giving him the impression he was being parented and insulting his ego. I'd imagine that Don probably has some obviously Dem staffers [even if they don't wear party colours at work] in the W/H.

HivemindXX

MadYaker wrote: »

The democrat base will be happy to see democrats in congress working with trump if it means congress pass things that the democrat base are in favour of. Trump has done a u turn on the DACA issue, he did this because he realised that by working the democrats he might actually get something done since unlike the GOP they don't have their heads all the way up their own asses and they can actually work as a group. I can't see democrat voters having a problem with schumer and pelosi working with don just because it's don. That's an attitude more commonly taken by consevatives who are totally bound to their ideals, regardless of whether those ideals are actually pragmatic and workable.

Or to put it another way: "Trump hates his own guys so much he is willing to give us something we want to publicly stick it to them. We get something we want and the rift between Trump and the Republican party widens. Why on earth should we refuse this?"

aloyisious

HivemindXX wrote: »

Or to put it another way: "Trump hates his own guys so much he is willing to give us something we want to publicly stick it to them. We get something we want and the rift between Trump and the Republican party widens. Why on earth should we refuse this?"

It might be that Don originally thought of the GOP as part of the swamp but it was the lesser of two evils [in his mind seeing as he is a former member of the Dem Party] and necessary to his plan, and he now sees the evils are not what he thought. It might simply be he is sticking to his original plan of draining the swamp [aka f***ing over both parties].

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

It might be that Don originally thought of the GOP as part of the swamp but it was the lesser of two evils [in his mind seeing as he is a former member of the Dem Party] and necessary to his plan, and he now sees the evils are not what he thought. It might simply be he is sticking to his original plan of draining the swamp [aka f***ing over both parties].

It might be that he is a bullsh!t artist, has no plan and never had a plan.

Samaris

Don't see the Democrats have much choice but to work with him when he signals he's willing. The December debt ceiling thing is a nasty pill for the Republicans and I doubt the Dems even thought it was on the cards.

At least when he's working somewhat ineffectually with the Democrats, he's not trying to enact the so-far poorly thought out and fairly malevolent current Republican agenda (or at least, he's doing it less successfully before, but he gets "wins" so ...everyone's happy apart from his base and his core political support. I don't see a downside to this from my non-Trumpian perspective.)

Could always backfire on the Dems eventually. They'll need to be careful about how they go about it, and I've not been that impressed by either Pelosi or Schumer so far. The Democratic party really needs a leader who can inspire them.

Or America in general needs to break this two-party system and start working to govern the country, not their ideologically preferred bit of it.

Leroy42

The thinking across some in the media seems to be that Trump is reaching across the isle, SHS said he had done more in 8 months for bipartisanship than Obama had in 8 years!

Given Trumps track record
- Originally a democrat and big supporter of the Clintons
- In favour of abortion and now defunding the groups helping those in need of it.
- His stated position during the primaries that if the GOP didn't select him he would run as an Indep.
There are plenty more but the point being that all this signals is that Trump needs a win. He feels let down by the GOP for failing to get (a badly thought out and Trump clearly did understand) Repeal and Replace and then he had the humiliation of having the Houses force him into signing the Russian Sanctions bill, and he feels that he can get something from the Dems.

No doubt some more left wing Dems will refuse, as will some right wing GOP, but he is hoping that the centre ground can deliver.

Its funny, because the centre ground was exactly what he was railing against.

I also think, based on the rowing back and confused messages coming out from the WH, that the Dems are about to find out that Trumps word is worth nothing at all. You don't have any deal until he has done everything he promised. Otherwise he will likely change his mind at any stage.

Igotadose

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It might be that he is a bullsh!t artist, has no plan and never had a plan.

This was proven emphatically some time ago by Fareed Zakaria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kJpttKLUtI

Water John

That Dana Robha (R- Cal) is totally pro Russian and has no credibility.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

That Dana Robha (R- Cal) is totally pro Russian and has no credibility.

Is the above in connection with this? He seems even weirder than Don. Dana Tyrone Rohrabacher.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjBsaXzwKrWAhXGI8AKHSd6CcEQFghBMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fwikileaks-julian-assange-pardon-russia-evidence-dana-rohrabacher-2017-9&usg=AFQjCNGNMY6K9YQ1hL_8nXLLqVKGJZeQ5g

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjBsaXzwKrWAhXGI8AKHSd6CcEQFghTMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fpolitics%2Fessential%2Fla-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-rep-dana-rohrabacher-blames-democrats-1505426333-htmlstory.html&usg=AFQjCNGg1ssXFDQU4RkPvVE6Javr2vAMKQ

rossie1977

Leroy42 wrote: »

The thinking across some in the media seems to be that Trump is reaching across the isle, SHS said he had done more in 8 months for bipartisanship than Obama had in 8 years!

Which is absolute bs though. Obama spent a full year trying to get the Republicans on board with the ACA even allowing them suggest changes and not one would budge. Republicans opposed Obama at every turn for 8 years not the other way around. The whole tea party movement started in 2009 with the idea that they were going to replace those currently in power.

Trump is only going the Dems now because he is on the verge of his first budget and it looked like there was going to be a government shut-down, which would have been disastrous for him.

Not sure how the Democratic leaders come out looking better in this. Trumps approval ratings among Dem voters was around 12% in July. Pelosi has the lowest approval rating among the big 5 politicans in the states and Schumer isn't far behind. Both lower than Trump.

Harika

Seems like Trump changed the stance of pulling out of the Paris climate deal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-wont-withdraw-from-paris-climate-deal-1505593922
I think the democrats realised it is better to play with Trump, stroke his ego and manipulate him into doing what you want, than let the republicans get their way. Something that Stoltenberg and the chinese president already did.
I think the wall is dead and DACA will stay, as long as Schumer and Pelosi can keep the direct line to him up.

Edit: Already disputed by a white house spokesman, but really do they know what Trump is doing? lol

Christy42

rossie1977 wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

The thinking across some in the media seems to be that Trump is reaching across the isle, SHS said he had done more in 8 months for bipartisanship than Obama had in 8 years!

Which is absolute bs though. Obama spent a full year trying to get the Republicans on board with the ACA even allowing them suggest changes and not one would budge. Republicans opposed Obama at every turn for 8 years not the other way around. The whole tea party movement started in 2009 with the idea that they were going to replace those currently in power.

Trump is only going the Dems now because he is on the verge of his first budget and it looked like there was going to be a government shut-down, which would have been disastrous for him.

Not sure how the Democratic leaders come out looking better in this. Trumps approval ratings among Dem voters was around 12% in July. Pelosi has the lowest approval rating among the big 5 politicans in the states and Schumer isn't far behind. Both lower than Trump.

I feel like the lesson is only the Dems will get anything done at this point. Pelosi and Schumer are not perfect but right now they are seeming like the most influential people in Washington.

That might say more about the state of the Republicans right now than them though

Igotadose

Trump's WH staffers complaining about their legal bills. "Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas." Article in the pro-Trump Washington Examiner, a right-wing scandal rag.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/russia-probes-leave-trump-associates-struggling-with-huge-legal-bills/article/2634655

It quotes Michael Caputo, and an anonymous WH staffer. The anonymous one says Trump should pay. Go for it, I say. As for Caputo, he's a disciple of Roger Stone and a well-worn Russia-connected GOP flack. Hope this costs him plenty: http://buffalonews.com/2016/03/05/the-radical-adventures-of-conservative-radio-host-mike-caputo/

MadYaker

The latest classic from r/thedonald, Justin Trudeau's real father is actually Fidel Castro! Who knew :pac: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/70kfl8/justin_trudeau_is_the_lovechild_of_fidel_castro/

Billy86

MadYaker wrote: »

The latest classic from r/thedonald, Justin Trudeau's real father is actually Fidel Castro! Who knew :pac: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/70kfl8/justin_trudeau_is_the_lovechild_of_fidel_castro/

Well considering the majority of that reddit is Russian bots and paid trolls, you've gotta laugh at the others who actually frequent it! :pac:


Apparently Trump is reversing on the Paris Agreement and the US may well the staying in, and the White House's denial of basically acts as confirmation. On the other hand, Congress are also trying to secretly repeal Obamacare recently while the attention is elsewhere. Once a paymaster's puppet, always a paymaster's puppet I guess. It will be interesting to see how those two stories develop.

Hande hoche!

MadYaker wrote: »

The latest classic from r/thedonald, Justin Trudeau's real father is actually Fidel Castro! Who knew :pac: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/70kfl8/justin_trudeau_is_the_lovechild_of_fidel_castro/

The same idea was floating around when Castro croaked.

everlast75

Classy as ever, oul Tiny Hands retweets this

https://twitter.com/Fuctupmind/status/908163011793358848


The irony of this guy calling Hillary crooked. He is being investigated by the FBI, and yet he still hasn't "locked her up"?

swampgas

The Mueller investigation moves ahead:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/mueller-obtains-warrant-for-russia-linked-facebook-ads-and-accounts-2017-9?r=US&IR=T

FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly obtained a search warrant for records of the "inauthentic" accounts Facebook shut down earlier this month and the targeted ads these accounts purchased during the 2016 election.

The warrant was first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal on Friday night and the news was later confirmed by CNN.

Legal experts say the revelation has enormous implications for the trajectory of Mueller's investigation into Russia's election interference, and whether Moscow had any help from President Donald Trump's campaign team.

This is being flagged as significant in the linked article which suggests that a warrant would only be obtainable if there were already lots of solid evidence in place, to convince a judge to grant such a warrant.

The article also suggests that Mueller may be moving to charge "Foreign Entities" of a crime - Russia I presume...

aloyisious

swampgas wrote: »

The Mueller investigation moves ahead:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/mueller-obtains-warrant-for-russia-linked-facebook-ads-and-accounts-2017-9?r=US&IR=T



This is being flagged as significant in the linked article which suggests that a warrant would only be obtainable if there were already lots of solid evidence in place, to convince a judge to grant such a warrant.

The article also suggests that Mueller may be moving to charge "Foreign Entities" of a crime - Russia I presume...

And it's coincidental F/B closed the accounts earlier this month? Hmmm, I can't help but wonder if F/B was contacted by Mueller & Co last month.

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

Classy as ever, oul Tiny Hands retweets this

https://twitter.com/Fuctupmind/status/908163011793358848

Again, one must ask. Why hasn't anyone changed his Twitter password yet?

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, one must ask. Why hasn't anyone changed his Twitter password yet?

Fuctupmind... :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why hasn't anyone changed his Twitter password yet?

Twitter are loving the publicity, so they will not act.

His staff probably think tweeting nonsense lets Donald think he is doing something which is better than having him actually doing things, since being utterly crap at the Presidenting job, the only thing he can actually do in practice is fire his staff.

RobertKK

Big discussion on CNN that the US government had Paul Manafort wiretapped when he was campaign manager for Trump and till after the election, and that when Trump claimed he was wiretapped earlier on in the year, he may have been incidentally wiretapped when speaking with Manafort.

Kermit.de.frog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Again, one must ask. Why hasn't anyone changed his Twitter password yet?

Twitter handle is "Fuctupmind"


That's who he retweeted :rolleyes:


Child.

mayo.mick

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/909916043585433600

Igotadose

Hilary Clinton doesn't rule out contesting the election, based on the findings of the Mueller investigation. Now, I wonder if this'll get us a new round of tweet storms:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-trump/index.html

Gross is Terry Gross, the best interviewer working in the US imho:
---
Gross: I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?
Clinton: No. I would not. I would say --
Gross: You're not going to rule it out?
Clinton: No, I wouldn't rule it out.
--

Given how cautious Clinton is, this is clearly something she's thought about. But, wow, if this happens... wow.

Samaris

..Huh. I hadn't really thought about that aspect. Didn't think it would be provable that the Russians plus shenanigans swung the election in a way that people would accept (and let's face it, unless there were actually Russians changing the votes in the machines, I don't think Trumpists or Republicans will accept a challenge from Clinton).

I do feel sorry for Clinton, as most of the things being thrown at her were either rubbish or distorted. Not saying there was nothing, but there was little enough that deserved the screaming about it. And compared to what Trump has been doing blatantly regarding pay-to-play and raking in money from rent using his position...jeez.

Still though, for the sake of the country, if Trump is impeached and Pence gets it as well for being up to the neck in it - okay, the next few choices aren't great either (Ryan, Hatch), it would probably serve the US better to have a clean, short election to choose someone with a modicum of sanity and common sense. And preferably someone that isn't tainted by the 2016 debacle, which, at fault or not, Clinton is. Don't think this is a thing in American politics though.

And the length of their election cycles is really unnecessary.

Billy86

A concern is that if Clinton goes and gets involved in the middle of this again, you can expect to see a lot of Republicans who have been slowly detaching themselves from Trump and possibly leaning towards supporting impeachment (even if just to try to save their own asses next November) immediately do a 180 back to pretending "nothing bad happened" within a matter of days.

Harika

Billy86 wrote: »

A concern is that if Clinton goes and gets involved in the middle of this again, you can expect to see a lot of Republicans who have been slowly detaching themselves from Trump and possibly leaning towards supporting impeachment (even if just to try to save their own asses next November) immediately do a 180 back to pretending "nothing bad happened" within a matter of days.

That depends on how solid it is what is coming from Muller. If that is strong enough, the republican leadership will drop him like a hot potato as he will be toxic and an alignment with him, will threaten your own job.
Clinton herself, imo, should keep out of it, as whatever happens, she won't get the job. It will be Paul Ryan before her.

robinph

Depending on the involvement that is found though surely they would be obliged to have a re-run of the election.

For example, if there had been anything in the lies about Obama not having been eligible to stand due to where he was born then the whole election would have been null and void, you couldn't have just handed the presidency to Biden as he would also have not been a legitimate VP at that point. The president and VP come as a pair in the voting so if the president is deemed to have got the job illegally then the VP has to be gone as well.

It all depends on where the line is for the illegal happenings though. Is Trump acting illegally to get Russia to hand him the presidency different from Russia acting illegally to get Trump the presidency. Who knew what and who was acting on behalf of who to do what?

demfad

I am amazed with people's insistence that Clinton should keep out of it.
She won the popular vote easily and it seems she and the majority of US voters were cheated out of the presidency.
Even Bernie Saunders who she beat out the gate in the primaries is telling her to keep quiet. What right has he to speak above her?
The far right's poisonous disinformation through the Benghazi inquiry, Russian disinformation, Movies/Books (eg Clinton Cash produced by Bannon/Rebekah Mercer) still festers. And don't forget the emails.
If people are basing their views on her based on any of this you need to reset.
She has every right to speak. Silencing her and her supporters was the goal of the far-right. I would not give an inch.

Harika

demfad wrote: »

I am amazed with people's insistence that Clinton should keep out of it.
She won the popular vote easily and it seems she and the majority of US voters were cheated out of the presidency.
Even Bernie Saunders who she beat out the gate in the primaries is telling her to keep quiet. What right has he to speak above her?
The far right's poisonous disinformation through the Benghazi inquiry, Russian disinformation, Movies/Books (eg Clinton Cash produced by Bannon/Rebekah Mercer) still festers. And don't forget the emails.
If people are basing their views on her based on any of this you need to reset.
She has every right to speak. Silencing her and her supporters was the goal of the far-right. I would not give an inch.

Just that the election in the US, doesn't get decided by the popular vote. So no, she was not cheated out of the presidency as even with all the negative press, she still won the popular vote, what is nice for her but at the end meaningless.
It is time for the Dems to move on and stop complaining that they won the popular vote but Trump is president and look for the errors that were made and define strategy and tactics to win the 2020 thing, as until now they are not doing it.

Leroy42

If, and its a big IF, Trump was found to have colluded with the Russian, and that makes his election victory illegimate, then Clinton has every right to feel aggrevied and unfairly treated.

However, were Trump to be removed, it would be the biggest political scandal in US history, possible the democratic world. The US would really need to press reset. Having HC run would only keep those wounds open.

Is that fair on HC, no. However would going backwards really help the US? She was unpopular to start with. Dems would be well served to bring in a fresh face, a new broom. She would still be tainted with the Saudi money, Wall Street blah blah. It might not be fair, or even right, but it is safe to say that a large portion of the US electorate will simply not accept her.

US would need time to heal and bringing such a divisive figure would not help in that.

Hande hoche!

demfad wrote: »

I am amazed with people's insistence that Clinton should keep out of it.
She won the popular vote easily and it seems she and the majority of US voters were cheated out of the presidency.
Even Bernie Saunders who she beat out the gate in the primaries is telling her to keep quiet. What right has he to speak above her?
The far right's poisonous disinformation through the Benghazi inquiry, Russian disinformation, Movies/Books (eg Clinton Cash produced by Bannon/Rebekah Mercer) still festers. And don't forget the emails.
If people are basing their views on her based on any of this you need to reset.
She has every right to speak. Silencing her and her supporters was the goal of the far-right. I would not give an inch.

That's a bit much. I'm sure you can find opinions that Sanders was cheated out of the nomination.

oscarBravo

An interesting take on the Arpaio pardon:

A federal judge in Arizona will soon consider whether to overturn President Trump’s pardon of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. The answer to this question has consequences not just for Arpaio and the people he hurt but also for the entire country. And although the conventional legal wisdom has been that a presidential decision to grant a pardon is unreviewable, that is wrong. In this circumstance, Trump’s decision to pardon Arpaio was unconstitutional and should be overturned.

[...]

During a Virginia debate over whether to ratify the Constitution, George Mason worried that the president might “pardon crimes which were advised by himself.” James Madison replied that a president who did so could be impeached. Trump’s pardon of Arpaio should trigger congressional hearings on whether it constitutes an impeachable offense.

But it strains logic to suggest that, although a president can be removed from office for an unconstitutional pardon, the pardon itself must be judicially enforced.

demfad

Hande hoche! wrote: »

That's a bit much. I'm sure you can find opinions that Sanders was cheated out of the nomination.

Opinions carry more weight when they are backed up by the existence of two congressional Intelligence committee investigations, judicary commitee investigatiosn, a special prosecutor, a huge FBI probe and many off-shot probes, pentagon investigations etc. and a train load of evidence.
The train load of evidence theory is backed also by the special counsel hiring prosecutors not investigators.

This for example, is how the Trump-Russia investigation is zoning in on data now. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/jared-kushner-data-operation-russia-facebook

Robert Mueller’s office are equally focused on a more explosive question: did any Americans help target the memes and fake news to crucial swing districts and wavering voter demographics? “By Americans, you mean, like, the Trump campaign?” a source close to one of the investigations said with a dark laugh. Indeed: probers are intrigued by the role of Jared Kushner, the now-president’s son-in-law, who eagerly took credit for crafting the Trump campaign’s online efforts in a rare interview right after the 2016 election. “I called somebody who works for one of the technology companies that I work with, and I had them give me a tutorial on how to use Facebook micro-targeting,” Kushner told Steven Bertoni of Forbes. “We brought in Cambridge Analytica......"

Rjd2

demfad wrote: »

I am amazed with people's insistence that Clinton should keep out of it.
She won the popular vote easily and it seems she and the majority of US voters were cheated out of the presidency.
Even Bernie Saunders who she beat out the gate in the primaries is telling her to keep quiet. What right has he to speak above her?
.

She lost an election she shouldn't have lost and Sanders and his ilk want to move on and ideally drive the party further towards the left which I think there is plenty of appetite towards in America. She also was critical of Sanders in her book and had unfair advantages over him in the debate.

demfad

Rjd2 wrote: »

She lost an election she shouldn't have lost and Sanders and his ilk want to move on and ideally drive the party further towards the left which I think there is plenty of appetite towards in America. She also was critical of Sanders in her book and had unfair advantages over him in the debate.

She hammered Sanders in the primary, hammered him.
What unfair advantages did she have? (Without including Russian/Bannon fake news and propaganda)
She lost by 70,000 votes over 3 swing states. It was outside her power to fight the disinformation campaign and Russian interference during the election, and to fix the medias biased coverage towards Donald Trump and against her.

demfad

demfad wrote:

to fix the medias biased coverage towards Donald Trump and against her.

Almost all the mainstream media were pro-Clinton

circadian

I think it's unfair of her to put some of the blame on Sanders, he ran a clean campaign in a democratic (sort of) system as was his right to do so. She eventually won the primaries and lost to Trump which was a shock.

Leroy42

But it will be very hard to ever prove that there is a direct link from any collusion to an actual voters decision. Many factors go into the decision to vote a certain way. Disinformation obviously plays a part, but HC had the chance to counteract some of these and put forward plans and ideas that people would vote for regardless.

Many Trump supporters found many aspects of him distasteful/unlikeable but found HC to be offering nothing new. Whilst her book correctly identifies many of the reasons that impacted on her loss, she omits that she and her lack of any positive message or new ideas also played a large part.

Is it unfair if Trump is found guilty that she losses out? Yes. But US will need a restart, something fresh to try to clear the lingering taste. Obama was a major beneficiary of this in winning his 1st term. HC would offer nothing of the sort and would, IMO, be the wrong person to take US forward in such a scenario that they would face if Trump would ever be found guilty.

Rjd2

demfad wrote: »

She hammered Sanders in the primary, hammered him.
What unfair advantages did she have? (Without including Russian/Bannon fake news and propaganda)
She lost by 70,000 votes over 3 swing states. It was outside her power to fight the disinformation campaign and Russian interference during the election, and to fix the medias biased coverage towards Donald Trump and against her.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/31/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-debate-question-podesta-emails-cnn

She also had most of the media in her pocket compared to Bernie. She lost those states because she simply did not pay enough attention to them. Trump targeted them and won the election due to that. Clinton had all the money and media on her side v Trump and lost.

What was the newspaper endorsement? Something like 51 v 2 for Clinton v Trump? LOL.

She also called her opponents supporters deplorables an absolute no-no in any election. Her supporters then helped her, by saying that she was to conservative with her numbers:pac:

I know this is a hardcore pro Clinton forum and obviously she would have been better than Trump, but I just wish people would start to admit that she played some part in her own loss.