Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Rjd2

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

.

Another basic error from Clinton which was inexcusable given her funds, was so many of her speeches, tv spots focused on how awful Trump was and not enough on what she offered. So you can't blame someone for saying
"Ok I know Trump is rubbish, but what do you offer?"

Trump a political novice and idiot at least had the sense to offer something better for his supporters.

"We forgot to talk to people," said Tom Perez, who was secretary of labor until last month and a finalist to be Clinton's running-mate last summer. "I'm a big believer in data analytics, but data analytics cannot supplant good old fashioned door knocking. . . . We didn't communicate our values to people. When Donald Trump says, 'I'm going to bring the coal jobs back,' we know that's a lie. But people understand that he feels their pain. And our response was: 'Vote for us because he's crazy.' I'll stipulate to that, but that's not a message."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-dnc-clinton-trump-20170213-story.html

Harika

Deleted User wrote: »

Almost all the mainstream media were pro-Clinton

I think he means that Trump was in the headlines of all! medias all the time with spewing out nonsense that at the end didn't hurt him.

Hande hoche!

The Trump speech at the UN is a sight to see. Ample hand gestures from Trump and frosty looks from the audience. Still the empowering women line achieved a smattering of applause.

MadYaker

Rjd2 wrote: »

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.

I wounldn't say this forum is pro clinton. She was a terrible candidate, although probably a better president than Trump. This forum is vehemently anti Trump. But anti Trump doesn't mean pro Clinton.

Leroy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

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.

But was that because they simply loved HC not matter what or that they saw exactly what Trump was, the conman he was, and therefore went with what was the better choice for America?

Rjd2 wrote: »

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:

Many of Trumps supporters are deplorables. Part of his base is clearly racist. Clearly anti-Muslim. Many of them are misogynistic. They have shown on many occasions to have only a passing interest in the truth and are quite happy to be hypocritical in their positions where it suits them.

They either were aware of all the issues surrounding Trump, and choose to go with him rather than HC out of dislike for her. Or they were ignorant of the issues and voted for him believing the hype. Neither one is a good look.

Pelvis

Trump being Trump addressing the UN. Says that if forced to defend itself or allies, the US would "totally destroy" North Korea.

demfad

Harika wrote: »

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.

The results of the Investigations into Coordination with Russia will determine officially if she and her followers were offically cheated out of the presidential win by the Trump campaign.

Democrats are looking at 2020 and you'll have noticed successfully stopping some of the damage including Trump Care.
They also have the initial massive issue of having a president who may be in the pocket of Vladmir Putin. That must also be sorted.

Harika

demfad wrote: »

The results of the Investigations into Coordination with Russia will determine officially if she and her followers were offically cheated out of the presidential win by the Trump campaign.

Democrats are looking at 2020 and you'll have noticed successfully stopping some of the damage including Trump Care.
They also have the initial massive issue of having a president who may be in the pocket of Vladmir Putin. That must also be sorted.

Excuse my english, but colluding with Russia is not cheating for me. It is an impeachable offence, disgusting behavior but not cheating. Cheating would mean the voting machines have been manipulated towards Trump or officials were manipulating the counts.
Dems could only stop Trump Care, because some Republicans got on their side and the Republican Health Care Plan was nothing more than hot air, still it is possible that a amended bill passes the House and Senate, while Trump will sign any paper in front of him. Overall it was only 1-2 votes that saved Obamacare from total obliteration.

demfad

Rjd2 wrote: »

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.

The media spent more than 5 times covering Russian operative leaks and dumps about Clinton's emails than about Trump's deplorable criminal record.
They did not find one case where she acted without integrity. They found nothing.

It was a monumental cock-up by the media who were fed click bait by Trump and Russia to keep them away from the festering pit of his political, commercial, personal criminal life.

Trump had billions $ working for him he lied about the existance of superPACs in his primary. Kushner also stupedly admitted a half billion digital campaign which is now under investigation for collusion with Russia.

Trump used active measures by measuring the email dumps almost 200 times in speeches over the final month. He also protected Russia by denying that they were involved in meddling.

Even if there wasn't a tonne of evidence pointing to his treason Russia subverted her by the dumps, he cheated by amplifying them at every oppurtunity and covering for Russia and the media messed up royally by giving it the oxygen.

She was cheated.

Rjd2

Leroy42 wrote: »

But was that because they simply loved HC not matter what or that they saw exactly what Trump was, the conman he was, and therefore went with what was the better choice for America?



Many of Trumps supporters are deplorables. Part of his base is clearly racist. Clearly anti-Muslim. Many of them are misogynistic. They have shown on many occasions to have only a passing interest in the truth and are quite happy to be hypocritical in their positions where it suits them.

They either were aware of all the issues surrounding Trump, and choose to go with him rather than HC out of dislike for her. Or they were ignorant of the issues and voted for him believing the hype. Neither one is a good look.

Yeah but with all the media support and moolah and Trump constantly imploding every week she should have not lose this election. Ignore whether Trump's supporters are racists or not, she lost the election because she slipped in some easy Dem states. Trump did not really improve on the numbers compared to Mitt.

She took her eye of the ball hugely in the rust belt and that was cost her and was inexcusable, supposedly she acknowledged that in her book but did **** all to solve it.

I don't really want to have the debate of how Trump's base was racist or not as its been done to death, but it was political suicide. Its astonishing that a seasoned politician like Clinton could make such a terrible mistake. She lit a fire under The Trump base that night, something she was never able to do with her own base.

demfad

Harika wrote: »

Excuse my english, but colluding with Russia is not cheating for me. It is an impeachable offence, disgusting behavior but not cheating. Cheating would mean the voting machines have been manipulated towards Trump or officials were manipulating the counts.

Coordinating with a foreign power to hurt your country is treason and can be punished by execution.

Rjd2

MadYaker wrote: »

I wounldn't say this forum is pro clinton. She was a terrible candidate, although probably a better president than Trump. This forum is vehemently anti Trump. But anti Trump doesn't mean pro Clinton.

I've always found it very pro Clinton even running against Sanders. The issue which is annoying its impossible to debate her without someone bringing it back to Trump.

Would she have been a better president than Trump? Without a doubt, ffs Pence be a huge upgrade on Trump. That should not mean that she should not be criticised however for her own flaws even if obviously not as bad as Trumps.

MadYaker

Well start a thread about her if you want, this one is about trump. I find her hopelessly dull and devoid of any real personality so imo there isn't much to talk about.

wes

Pelvis wrote: »

Trump being Trump addressing the UN. Says that if forced to defend itself or allies, the US would "totally destroy" North Korea.

Normally North Korea, would have to make some stuff up, to rile people up. With Trump, they can just tell the truth.

Trump is pretty much perfect for Kim Jung Un, gives him all the justification in the world for a nuclear arsenal. After what happened to Qaddafi, any similar leader would be mad to do otherwise. Which of course sadly makes the world a far more dangerous place.

Peregrinus

demfad wrote: »

Coordinating with a foreign power to hurt your country is treason and can be punished by execution.

Not in the US, it isn't. Treason is defined in the US constitution as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Co-operating with Russia do do something adverse to US interests would only be treason against the US if done at a time when Russia had enemy status, which SFAIK has never been the case, and certainly isn't the case now.

Billy86

Rjd2 wrote: »

I've always found it very pro Clinton even running against Sanders. The issue which is annoying its impossible to debate her without someone bringing it back to Trump.

Would she have been a better president than Trump? Without a doubt, ffs Pence be a huge upgrade on Trump. That should not mean that she should not be criticised however for her own flaws even if obviously not as bad as Trumps.

My memory is far more people on this forum were in favour of Sanders over Clinton, which would explain why the number of people here that were pro-Clinton as opposed to anti-Trump was pretty low during the election campaign. I remember numerous occasions where "just because everyone here is a Clinton fan" was immediately shot down by multiple posters.

Either way though as mentioned, this is a Trump thread.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not in the US, it isn't. Treason is defined in the US constitution as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Co-operating with Russia do do something adverse to US interests would only be treason against the US if done at a time when Russia had enemy status, which SFAIK has never been the case, and certainly isn't the case now.

Espionage I meant.

That said, many people consider that Russia is at war with many western countries at the moment. When a large commission investigates the extent of Russian subversion of the US (and other States) the definition of war and thus treason may change to include 'cyber and hybrid'. Donald Trump and his ilk will then be guilty of aiding an enemy, by giving them control of the presidency.

rossie1977

Rjd2 wrote: »

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.

Endorsement means nothing. The media in the us were totally enamored with Trump and gave him thousands of hours of free advertising. No chance anyone else was winning after that. He blitzed a republican field with three guys many were predicting were strong favourites for the president before the primaries too.

Trump made more money from free advertising than Clinton, Bernie, Cruz, Rubio and Paul combined. https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html

The media just loved the guy. They spent hours airing his empty podium while ignoring his opponents speech http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/26/msnbc-cnn-fox-news-ignore-hillary-clinton-speech-show-trumps-empty-podium.html

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:.

Irrelevant. Trumps hardcore supporters were never in a million years voting Clinton anyway. I do find it funny that the alt right so obsessed with terms like safe space, sjw and snowflake to describe anyone to the left of their ideals would suddenly be so upset that someone called them deplorable..yeah not buying it.

Trump could get away with saying everything under the sun about Mexicans, women, blacks, Muslims, immigrants, Obama and we are to believe Clinton says one thing and it costs her.

Leroy42

Fire & Fury, and new he is saying that US will totally destroy NK.

Now, we have already seen in Vietnam, Iraq, Afgan etc that although US can indeed bring serious damage to a country it cannot totally destroy it, not with conventional weapons at any rate.

So are we to take from Trump can he is threatening nuclear attack? 25million people dead, that is without taking any account of NK ability to attack SK (even with conventional weapons that could cause many thousands to die).

US have been able to rule the world through a combination of respect and fear. Respect from many, and fear to those that cross them. Respect is the far easier and safer option. It is clear that Trump, and by extension the US, has lost respect of the international community. I doubt anybody was even taking notice of his bluster and nonsense in the speech.

On another point, far less important, but does he even practice his speeches beforehand. He always appears to be reading it for the 1st time and is unable to put any structure to it. Each word is almost read out as totally separate to that which goes before or after. its like listening to a 6 year old reading. Fair enough not everyone needs to be an Obama, but he is awful and doesn't even appear to try to get any better

Christy42

rossie1977 wrote: »

I do find it funny that the alt right so obsessed with terms like safe space, sjw and snowflake to describe anyone to the left of their ideals would suddenly be so upset that someone called them deplorable..yeah not buying it.

Few people are actively anti PC, most seem to just wish to change it so that PC means not insulting them.

The difference in scale is hilarious though, Trump referring to Mexican immigrants as rapists is cool but deplorable, damn it now you have crossed a line:P.

Larbre34

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fire & Fury, and new he is saying that US will totally destroy NK.

Now, we have already seen in Vietnam, Iraq, Afgan etc that although US can indeed bring serious damage to a country it cannot totally destroy it, not with conventional weapons at any rate.

So are we to take from Trump can he is threatening nuclear attack? 25million people dead, that is without taking any account of NK ability to attack SK (even with conventional weapons that could cause many thousands to die).

US have been able to rule the world through a combination of respect and fear. Respect from many, and fear to those that cross them. Respect is the far easier and safer option. It is clear that Trump, and by extension the US, has lost respect of the international community. I doubt anybody was even taking notice of his bluster and nonsense in the speech.

On another point, far less important, but does he even practice his speeches beforehand. He always appears to be reading it for the 1st time and is unable to put any structure to it. Each word is almost read out as totally separate to that which goes before or after. its like listening to a 6 year old reading. Fair enough not everyone needs to be an Obama, but he is awful and doesn't even appear to try to get any better

Have you been asleep for the last 2 years? He's bang up to par I would say.

Idea for a new series - 'The Apprentice - How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb'

demfad

rossie1977 wrote: »

Irrelevant. Trumps hardcore supporters were never in a million years voting Clinton anyway. I do find it funny that the alt right so obsessed with terms like safe space, sjw and snowflake to describe anyone to the left of their ideals would suddenly be so upset that someone called them deplorable..yeah not buying it.

Just to note. Terms like Cuck, snowflake etc. are not IN words in everyday life that happened to be taken up by the online community in the normal way that these things are.
The slang, the confusion, shaky ground were PLANNED as part of this attempt to change the western (global) order. The alt/far right rise is not a natural politicisation of a populist swell: rather it is the use of disinformation, division, corruption, manipulation, psyops to influence opinion and subvert democracy. This slang is just another part of the plan, appropriate slights for the enemy that fit the planned narrative.

When you see the Irish Times posting a dictionary of alt-right terms that some guy invented (in Russia probably) it is a mini example of how media are being used as pawns.

aloyisious

robinph wrote: »

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?

It would depend on what a US citizen running for president can legally do in seeking the help of a foreign sovereign power to swing the vote and get him into office, as distinct from a non-national foreign sovereign power deciding [without the candidate's request or knowledge] to assist him into office by interfering with the US election voting system.

Ref the chance that a re-run would be ordered by court, I doubt it would be considered by the court because of the implications for the whole system. I reckon constitutional lawyers would be "consulted" and a court decision would follow that either the V/P or the speaker would be nominated and both parties could breath a sigh of relief - amicable peace in our time. However, as I'm Moses Supposes-ing in that last bit, US citizenry contributors here must have gone through their constitutional law books re the presidential election laws and be experts on the what-if-ery of it by now, so I'll leave the floor to them.

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fire & Fury, and new he is saying that US will totally destroy NK.

Now, we have already seen in Vietnam, Iraq, Afgan etc that although US can indeed bring serious damage to a country it cannot totally destroy it, not with conventional weapons at any rate.

So are we to take from Trump can he is threatening nuclear attack? 25million people dead, that is without taking any account of NK ability to attack SK (even with conventional weapons that could cause many thousands to die).

US have been able to rule the world through a combination of respect and fear. Respect from many, and fear to those that cross them. Respect is the far easier and safer option. It is clear that Trump, and by extension the US, has lost respect of the international community. I doubt anybody was even taking notice of his bluster and nonsense in the speech.

On another point, far less important, but does he even practice his speeches beforehand. He always appears to be reading it for the 1st time and is unable to put any structure to it. Each word is almost read out as totally separate to that which goes before or after. its like listening to a 6 year old reading. Fair enough not everyone needs to be an Obama, but he is awful and doesn't even appear to try to get any better

Re destruction of NK, I'd read that to mean Kim and his politburo, not the NK landmass and its citizenry. Don always over-stresses what he can do, whenever he's handed a script cos he thinks he has to make it seem it's authentic to his audience, not because the script ain't realistic. He makes it unrealistic....

Leroy42

aloyisious wrote: »

Re destruction of NK, I'd read that to mean Kim and his politburo, not the NK landmass and its citizenry. Don always over-stresses what he can do, whenever he's handed a script cos he thinks he has to make it seem it's authentic to his audience, not because the script ain't realistic. He makes it unrealistic....

But therein lies the point. Of course he doesn't actually mean it. so why say it? Everyone accepts that when Kim spouts off about wiping US off the amp etc he is talking crazy, and now the world threats the POTUS with the same level. Why even threaten it when everyone knows that it is not possible, well not within any accepted international norms.

Fine when you are talking to the local rally, but this is a speech to the UN, it actually means something (or is supposed to anyway). If they can disregard that as simple hyperbole, where do you draw the line? How serious is a threat when you already know that the hardest part of it is make believe.

I assume he says it to look tough, to scare NK. Neither of which are true and he looks silly. Hence why I mentioned the lack of respect for the US.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fire & Fury, and new he is saying that US will totally destroy NK.


On another point, far less important, but does he even practice his speeches beforehand. He always appears to be reading it for the 1st time and is unable to put any structure to it. Each word is almost read out as totally separate to that which goes before or after. its like listening to a 6 year old reading. Fair enough not everyone needs to be an Obama, but he is awful and doesn't even appear to try to get any better

I'd settle for him being as good at public speaking as GWB is. How's that for a low bar? The guy'd fail a speaking class in high school. Poor phrasing, no timing, silly hand gestures. He makes SHS sound like Cicero when she's droning through a 'press conference,' reading prepared drivel and promising to get back on any question the press asks. Which she never does.

Itssoeasy

I've not seen or read all of trumps speech as I find it hard to listen to him talk or see his words written down. But the bits I did see it was clearly not for the international audience, it was for his base who think the whole world should get down on blended knee and geneflect to the US for their safety(like the us rose of Tralee this year) and every world organisation such as the UN and NATO are anti United states.

Manic Moran

I can't see how there would be any grounds for a re-run of the election. For starters, the Constitution has nothing written in it for such a thing.

Further, even if one were willing to invent a re-run process, one would have to demonstrate that the election was illegitimate to cause the re-run in the first place. That the votes counted did not reflect the votes cast. All the foreign collusion in the world will not change the vote of someone who pushed the button for Clinton into a vote for Trump, or delete that vote from Clinton. If the result of the election is a true reflection of the votes cast, then the election is beyond reproach.

That outside agencies were involved in the mere publicity/smear campaigns is hardly unusual. I don't think it matters much to a voter's decision-making process if the smears against Democrats are coming from the Russian government, the Irish Pro-Life Campaign, or the Klu Klux Klan. Such things are a factor of elections. Always have been, always will be.

This does not mean that there can be reprecussions if something illegal or immoral went down, but there is a process in place for that, to include impeachment and removal. Impeachment does not trigger a new election.

Christy42

aloyisious wrote: »

Re destruction of NK, I'd read that to mean Kim and his politburo, not the NK landmass and its citizenry. Don always over-stresses what he can do, whenever he's handed a script cos he thinks he has to make it seem it's authentic to his audience, not because the script ain't realistic. He makes it unrealistic....

I would say it did not mean anything. He said something he thought would make him sound tough. He has not thought through the next 5 minutes. Never mind the exact shape of any NK attack.

Like the fire and fury stuff that NK largely breezed through.

Water John

Manafort wiretapped by FBI before and after election: CNN.

Noel82

Water John wrote: »

Manafort wiretapped by FBI before and after election: CNN.

Didn't he live in Trump tower? Comey and Clapper said there was no wiretapping tapping of Trump's campaign. Strange that.

Water John

Well, a judge, twice granted a wire tap. All the transcripts are now with Mueller.
Seems Manafort was given to, encouraging Russians to get involved.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't see how there would be any grounds for a re-run of the election. For starters, the Constitution has nothing written in it for such a thing.

Further, even if one were willing to invent a re-run process, one would have to demonstrate that the election was illegitimate to cause the re-run in the first place. That the votes counted did not reflect the votes cast. All the foreign collusion in the world will not change the vote of someone who pushed the button for Clinton into a vote for Trump, or delete that vote from Clinton. If the result of the election is a true reflection of the votes cast, then the election is beyond reproach.

That outside agencies were involved in the mere publicity/smear campaigns is hardly unusual. I don't think it matters much to a voter's decision-making process if the smears against Democrats are coming from the Russian government, the Irish Pro-Life Campaign, or the Klu Klux Klan. Such things are a factor of elections. Always have been, always will be.

This does not mean that there can be reprecussions if something illegal or immoral went down, but there is a process in place for that, to include impeachment and removal. Impeachment does not trigger a new election.

It's quite amazing though what you are willing to accept.
If I was a betting man I would garner your opinion would be wholesale different if it was a democrat win and the same foreign state intervention was found to have aided assisted and Ultimately pushed the election to democrats

Of this I am in no doubt.

Water John

In most democratic countries, the judiciary are very reluctant to intervene in an election result. The chances of the 2016 Presedential Election being overturned are, nil.

Quin_Dub

Water John wrote: »

In most democratic countries, the judiciary are very reluctant to intervene in an election result. The chances of the 2016 Presedential Election being overturned are, nil.

I'd agree , even if they were to get definitive proof of collusion (or attempted) and went through with Impeachment and convictions etc. They'd never be able to show to what extent the result was influenced by the efforts.

Every last one of the Trump team could get jailed and there still won't be an election until 2020.

Leroy42

Noel82 wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

Manafort wiretapped by FBI before and after election: CNN.

Didn't he live in Trump tower? Comey and Clapper said there was no wiretapping tapping of Trump's campaign. Strange that.

But didn't Trump claim that he was wiretapped? At least that was the inference and that Obama had sanctioned it.

Manafort being wiretapped within the same building, and even Trump being caught up in some of the conversations is totally different.

BabyCheeses

Noel82 wrote: »

Didn't he live in Trump tower? Comey and Clapper said there was no wiretapping tapping of Trump's campaign. Strange that.

There wasn't, Manafort was being investigated. The campaign said he was barely involved.

Water John

Except Trump lied and was still talking to him, long after. It only stopped when their Councils insisted they stop.

aloyisious

Noel82 wrote: »

Didn't he live in Trump tower? Comey and Clapper said there was no wiretapping tapping of Trump's campaign. Strange that.

There were Russians as residents in the Tower as well. It may well have been some other resident as well, tapped to intercept their calls with whomever. It'd be unfortunate if some respondent to a call from a tapped line was recorded in the act of an illegal activity under federal or local law.

Kermit.de.frog

Gen John Kelly's reaction as Trump targets North Korea at UN with "total" destruction

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't see how there would be any grounds for a re-run of the election. For starters, the Constitution has nothing written in it for such a thing.

Further, even if one were willing to invent a re-run process, one would have to demonstrate that the election was illegitimate to cause the re-run in the first place. That the votes counted did not reflect the votes cast. All the foreign collusion in the world will not change the vote of someone who pushed the button for Clinton into a vote for Trump, or delete that vote from Clinton. If the result of the election is a true reflection of the votes cast, then the election is beyond reproach.

That outside agencies were involved in the mere publicity/smear campaigns is hardly unusual. I don't think it matters much to a voter's decision-making process if the smears against Democrats are coming from the Russian government, the Irish Pro-Life Campaign, or the Klu Klux Klan. Such things are a factor of elections. Always have been, always will be.

This does not mean that there can be reprecussions if something illegal or immoral went down, but there is a process in place for that, to include impeachment and removal. Impeachment does not trigger a new election.

It's quite amazing though what you are willing to accept.
If I was a betting man I would garner your opinion would be wholesale different if it was a democrat win and the same foreign state intervention was found to have aided assisted and Ultimately pushed the election to democrats

Of this I am in no doubt.

Why? I have a law degree. I like processes which follow the written law. If you have issue with the logic of anything you have quote above, I will be happy to discuss it.

Three simple true/false questions.
1) Nothing in US election law has provision for a do-over.
2) No evidence has been produced that the result of the election does not reflect votes cast.
3) The reprercussions of shady dealing by the President are both a loss of political support and the process in US law for impeachment and removal in particularly egregious circumstances. The result of impeachment is also written, and it does not involve a second election.

Take the most democrat-friendly attitude you can come up with. How would you explain to a judge that the above is not true, or even if it is correct, should be ignored.

Now an interesting question may be "what would happen if it could be proven that there was election corruption and the votes cast did not equal votes counted" and I would not want to be the judge dealing with that one. That is not the situation here, however.

Disgruntled Badger

I imagine the North Koreans are thinking..is he serious do you think? Not something that bothered the Russians when they marched into Crimea.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran is correct. In the US, the result of the Presdential election is certified ultimately by Congress. The courts have no role in the matter and - that tiresome separation of powers thing - they're not going to intervene in a matter which the Constitution explicitly leaves to Congress. They'll cheerfully prosecute and convict people who commit various crimes in connection with a Presidential election, but they will not overturn (or even comment on) the result of the election.

Nor, at this point, will Congress. They have already certified the result of this election and their processes contain no rules for going back and reconsidering that. Nor have they any power to order a re-run of the election; the Constitution is explicit about when elections are to be held, and Congress has no power to vary or modify what it says about that. At this point, the only course open to Congress would be to impeach and convict the President, in which event the Vice-President would step into his shoes.

Samaris

Round II, fight.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-graham-cassidy-bill-is-a-potential-disaster

Second bite at the health care apple. Learned their lessons from the first Republican bill and are trying to shove it through before the CBO can score it. That's definitely the point to have taken from the last debacle. Dammit Graham, you were faking being one of the sane ones.

Other than that, looks much the same. Kill the medicaid expansion and narrow medicaid as much as possible to have lots of lovely money to make tax cuts for the wealthy that will, cynically claimed, "pay for itself". No, stripping medicaid from 14m+ is not the tax cuts "paying for themselves". it's cynically exploiting the poor to pay the rich. And then lovely trickle-down economics means that everyone's in a job and happy. The free market and American Way solves all. Except everything it doesn't.

Complete bullsh*t. It really is. And some of these guys will be remembered and reviled for the crap they pulled in these couple of years.

Zubeneschamali

Samaris wrote: »

Round II, fight.

Why are they trying again right now? They need the savings from gutting health care for the poor and middle classes to give the rich a tax cut in the budget.

And the Koch brothers have $300-400m for Republicans in the 2018 cycle that they will only cough up if they get their tax cut.

Freedom!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/koch-network-piggy-banks-closed-republicans-healthcare-tax-reform

spacecoyote

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why are they trying again right now? They need the savings from gutting health care for the poor and middle classes to give the rich a tax cut in the budget.

My understanding is that, if they dont get it in by Sep 30th then theyd essentially lose the ability to get it through with the simple majority & would need 60 votes.

They can only use the simple majority once in a fiscal year & need to save that for tax reform

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Manic Moran is correct. In the US, the result of the Presdential election is certified ultimately by Congress. The courts have no role in the matter and - that tiresome separation of powers thing - they're not going to intervene in a matter which the Constitution explicitly leaves to Congress. They'll cheerfully prosecute and convict people who commit various crimes in connection with a Presidential election, but they will not overturn (or even comment on) the result of the election.

Nor, at this point, will Congress. They have already certified the result of this election and their processes contain no rules for going back and reconsidering that. Nor have they any power to order a re-run of the election; the Constitution is explicit about when elections are to be held, and Congress has no power to vary or modify what it says about that. At this point, the only course open to Congress would be to impeach and convict the President, in which event the Vice-President would step into his shoes.

What would they do if it turned out that the president was something totally unacceptable, such as Canadian?

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

What would they do if it turned out that the president was something totally unacceptable, such as Canadian?

Actually, being a Canadian citizen would not be a problem. The problem would be if he wasn't also a natural-born American citizen.

But, let's say he wasn't. The time to raise that objection is when the election result comes before Congress (or earlier, of course, when he is nominated). Once Congress has confirmed the result it's, well, confirmed. This is so even if they (probably) wouldn't have confirmed it, had they known the full facts.

One of the features a functioning constitution has to provide is certainty. Once the required constitutional processes have been followed, the result is certain. Like it or not, proper or not, Trump is the President of the United States, and the only way this can be changed is by his death, resignation or impeachment or by the expiry of his term of office.

robinph

So unsurprisingly Trumps campaign against Obama was pointless even if there had been anything to it. Once you are president then you are president even if you shouldn't be according to the rules.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

So unsurprisingly Trumps campaign against Obama was pointless even if there had been anything to it.

Utterly pointless, legally speaking (except that, if established during his first term, it might have prevented him from running for a second term).

Politically, if it could have been established that he wasn't a natural born citizen, that would have been very embarrassing and presumably would have cost him some support - not just in opinion polls, but in Congress, etc. In that sense it might have weakened his position.