Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Leroy42

The problem is that I really don't think Trump thinks he is doing either badly or a bad job.

The latest reports say that he is given a favourable review folder twice a day made up of press clippings, tweets and screenshots of positive reviews of him.

Since he only pays attention to Fox News, and particularly Fox n Friends, then he is being fed the line that everything is someone elses fault with the horrible Dems etc to blame.

He managed to be elected, against what most people said, so it is quite likely that he thinks that things are doing fine. It is only the fake news and the Russia thing.

I actually think there is a grain of truth (in his mind anyway) when he says that he is the best ever, best speech ever, mos things done ever etc etc. I actually think he really does believe this to be the case.

If I am right, then why would he change course? When everything you have ever done has been perfect, only ever not working because other people failed, then why would he suddenly question himself. Take the Mooch appointment. I bet at no time has he questioned how he made such a terrible decision. In his mind, Mooch simply cracked under the pressure, it was a failing purely down to Mooch himself.

BuilderPlumber

B0jangles wrote: »

Donald Trump has been busily and loudly showing America exactly what kind of person he is for the last 50 years. Anyone who sat on their hands and didn't vote because 'both candidates are bad' is declaring themselves to be unbelievably, incomprehensibly ignorant.

Clinton was not a perfect candidate by any means but she's very experienced and very competent. If the U.S. was expecting The Perfect Candidate to show up and fix everything overnight, then I think they will be waiting a very long time.

Clinton was probably the better of the 2 candidates but sadly a lot of the flawed policies of modern America would unfortunately remain intact. Would she change America's obsession with so-called 'enemies'? Would she change America's relations with Saudi Arabia? I doubt it. Sadly, American foreign policy is deep rooted and while Obama tried to change some of it, he could not change most of it.

There was not much difference between Bill Clinton's policies from that of the 2 Bushes. Continuity on most issues. Sadly, this continuity was poorly thought out. Trump is more aggressive and immature but sadly his policies are not anything different to others. Sadly these policies run deeper than candidates.

Billy86

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

There was not much difference between Bill Clinton's policies from that of the 2 Bushes. Continuity on most issues. Sadly, this continuity was poorly thought out. Trump is more aggressive and immature but sadly his policies are not anything different to others. Sadly these policies run deeper than candidates.

That is a ludicrously false narrative to be honest which originated in the 'deep state!!' lack of an excuse from Trump supporters when it turned out he had lied to them on so many issues. I know you're not by any means a Trump supporter, and yeah a few are running the same, but claiming his policies in general are not anything different couldn't be further from the mark.

jooksavage

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Maybe the Democrats should have put forward a better candidate and the USA wouldn't even be in this position right now.

I think this is going to be one of the biggest challenges for the the Dems in the next 2 years. The split between traditional Democrats and the super-progressives is ripping the party asunder. A cursory glance at a pro-Bernie friend's Facebook page illustrates this: they're attacking the likes of Tom Perez and Kamala Harris instead of trying to find common cause with them. That's pretty frustrating.

My American friends, though not altogether averse to Sanders, think the progressives are deluding themselves by going all-in with Bernie. Primaries be-damned, come election day it's hard to see that progressive an agenda winning out in places like Ohio, Minnesota and North Carolina. There's been a lot of made of Corbyn's turnout and Bernie's folks must be very encouraged but as it's been pointed out, Theresa May is still Prime Minister. A Trump re-election would be unthinkable.

Nody

Ok; I think we can now clear any fears of Trump nuking North Korea based on the average American's understanding of Geography they are going be nuking pretty much everything else in the world before they get to NK and only by pure luck...

Silver Lynel

B0jangles wrote: »

Donald Trump has been busily and loudly showing America exactly what kind of person he is for the last 50 years. Anyone who sat on their hands and didn't vote because 'both candidates are bad' is declaring themselves to be unbelievably, incomprehensibly ignorant.

Clinton was not a perfect candidate by any means but she's very experienced and very competent. If the U.S. was expecting The Perfect Candidate to show up and fix everything overnight, then I think they will be waiting a very long time.

Yet the Democrats were unable to take advantage of this and still lost.

Even if you factor in Russia how could they be so poorly prepared to deal with "fake news" etc? Or were the Democrats suddenly not willing to get their hands dirty?

When it comes down to it you are saying to people who did not have the benefit of hindsight "I know we've shown we can't be trusted but trust us and vote for our bad candidate because the other one is more bad, honest".

It's simply not good enough.

Who's fault is this?

A reality TV star decides on a whim that he quite fancies a shot at being President and the entire political establishment and mainstream media utterly fail to stop it from happening.

OK, Trump voters are crazy for voting for the guy and they will continue to deflect and make excuses but the sad truth is that their side won.

The losing side are still pointing the finger and whining about injustice but actually the question they have to ask themselves before 2020 is "how the hell did we lose to this garbage and how can we stop it from happening again".

The dream of Trump only lasting a month, or not even making it to the White House at all, was nice and all but it's not looking like that's going to happen.

What needs to happen is they take a good look at themselves and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

An unqualified and inexperienced (and totally inappropriate) celebrity should not be able to just decide "I want to be President" and then be able to make it happen.

Incompetence, stubbornness and corruption, on all sides, from all parties, played a major role here.

The best they can hope for is that it doesn't happen again.

david75

rossie1977 wrote: »

Half of Republicans would support postponing the 2020 presidential election if trump proposed it

Wow https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/10/in-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it/

(g) Limitations upon Presidential power
Nothing in subsection (c) or (d) shall be construed to authorize the President to make any amendment to the rules and regulations of the Commission which the Commission would not be authorized by law to make; and nothing in subsection (d) shall be construed to authorize the President to take any action the force and effect of which shall continue beyond the date after which taking of such action would not have been authorized.


the executive branch of the government is purposely the weakest branch of the government in order to keep the presidency from turning into a monarchy/dictatorship among other things. I do worry at the level of corruption in congress and the legislature though. Extreme partisanship is a real threat to the system that's otherwise run very well over the last 250 years give or take, because of the numerous checks and balances that are supposed to be in place. Extreme partisanship blows that ideal to hell. And every time another extreme conservative gets put on the supreme court, only makes the scales tipped even worse




The WHY of this poll being floated among republicans is terrifying.

rossie1977

It didn't matter who the Democrats put forward they would be torn apart by the Republicans and right wing media in the US. The Koch brothers and the likes of murdoch simply won't let another Democrat into office.

The US was losing 800,000 jobs a month by November 2008 under a Republican president and still 60 million Americans voted for the frail old senile guy whose running mate was Sarah Palin. That's fu*king insane. McCain won 22 states in 2008. Trump in 2008 would have won more votes than he did in 2016.

Billy86

rossie1977 wrote: »

It didn't matter who the Democrats put forward they would be torn apart by the Republicans and right wing media in the US. The Koch brothers and the likes of murdoch simply won't let another Democrat into office.

The US was losing 800,000 jobs a month by November 2008 under a Republican president and still 60 million Americans voted for the frail old senile guy whose running mate was Sarah Palin. That's fu*king insane. McCain won 22 states in 2008. Trump in 2008 would have won more votes than he did in 2016.

This is 100% true on the first paragraph, and while I do think Clinton was genuinely just not a good candidate, had Sanders won we'd be hearing about his paedophile past and crooked money every bit as much from the exact same sources, talking heads, online posters, etc etc.

Don't agree on the second though, the Russian propaganda machine, Citizens United and a base fully indoctrinated in complete lunacy were not nearly at the levels they are now. Palin lost McCain votes in the long run most likely in 2008, in 2016 she would gain him them for these same reasons.

Christy42

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Yes. Yes, they should have.

Is it fair to use hindsight to say to people who didn't vote "this is partially your fault"?

How could they possibly know?

If both candidates are bad then how can anyone properly judge exactly how bad they will be? The future is unknowable.

It comes across as an attempt to assign blame but if we are assigning blame at all then surely the both Republicans and Democrats have to take some responsibility for not putting forward good candidates that are actual politicians?

American voters voted for a celebrity because the alternatives were not appealing. There were/are problems within both parties and Donald Trump is a consequence of that.

Even if we want to go all in and say that the GOP was taken over by the KKK then we have to ask what the hell is going on at the DNC that they can't win more states than a group as unpopular as the KKK.

It seems some of these groups have a serious problem with taking responsibility.

Trump is already a disaster and things are only going to get worse but so many people are happy to just lay the blame somewhere else and wait until their "side" is back in power.

I blame the Republicans for allowing their candidate selection process to descend into an absolute circus and I blame the Democrats for failing to put forward a good enough candidate to counter Trump.

FFS you are a career politician and you are going up against Donald Trump and you still mange to lose? That's a disgrace.

Plenty of people pointed out how mind numbingly terrible Trump would be before the election. And pointed out their reasons for these statements. Arguments were also put forward as to why Hillary would not be terrible. The Trump side were accusing people of shouting it too much (you have to find ways of complimenting Trump or else it isn't balanced:p).

Sure she was not a great candidate but not voting is like saying you have no opinion on whether you want a punch to the stomach or a knife to the stomach (sure their both bad:p).

Hillary being a career politician was a negative for her. How many times did we see here ah sure Trump did this before his politician days so who cares. He was a business man and therefore allowed be immoral. Heck it helped Obama in his run too that he had not been high profile for that long.

eire4

jooksavage wrote: »

I think this is going to be one of the biggest challenges for the the Dems in the next 2 years. The split between traditional Democrats and the super-progressives is ripping the party asunder. A cursory glance at a pro-Bernie friend's Facebook page illustrates this: they're attacking the likes of Tom Perez and Kamala Harris instead of trying to find common cause with them. That's pretty frustrating.

My American friends, though not altogether averse to Sanders, think the progressives are deluding themselves by going all-in with Bernie. Primaries be-damned, come election day it's hard to see that progressive an agenda winning out in places like Ohio, Minnesota and North Carolina. There's been a lot of made of Corbyn's turnout and Bernie's folks must be very encouraged but as it's been pointed out, Theresa May is still Prime Minister. A Trump re-election would be unthinkable.

I hear what your saying but I get the impression your implying that the Sanders faction should just go along with the corporate owned Democrats to win. But the leadership of the Democratic party has become more and more corporate bought off over the years. They do not speak for nor stand up for the vast majority of Americans. Thus we have a US government that when you include mid term turn outs in the mid 30%'s and presidential elections in the mid 50% range leads to a government which is elected by less then half the population. The Democrats in their leadership have show little interest in changing this and trying to actually attract and stand up for the half or so of Americans who have checked out given up or whatever their reasons maybe for not voting. Yet they have lost election after election to the point that the Republicans control all branches of the federal government including the supreme court and control roughly 70% of the state houses and governorships.
A classic example of the Democrats behaviour is on the issue of health care. They want to prop up the corporate supporting originally Republican plan that is Obamacare. Yet the majority of Americans support medicare for all. But good luck finding a Democrat in leadership pushing that. The Democratic leadership are always terrified of upsetting their corporate supporters or this mythical middle of the road voter and again and again show no inclination to try and work for and speak for the half or so of Americans not voting.

Christy42

eire4 wrote: »

I hear what your saying but I get the impression your implying that the Sanders faction should just go along with the corporate owned Democrats to win. But the leadership of the Democratic party has become more and more corporate bought off over the years. They do not speak for nor stand up for the vast majority of Americans. Thus we have a US government that when you include mid term turn outs in the mid 30%'s and presidential elections in the mid 50% range leads to a government which is elected by less then half the population. The Democrats in their leadership have show little interest in changing this and trying to actually attract and stand up for the half or so of Americans who have checked out given up or whatever their reasons maybe for not voting. Yet they have lost election after election to the point that the Republicans control all branches of the federal government including the supreme court and control roughly 70% of the state houses and governorships.
A classic example of the Democrats behaviour is on the issue of health care. They want to prop up the corporate supporting originally Republican plan that is Obamacare. Yet the majority of Americans support medicare for all. But good luck finding a Democrat in leadership pushing that. The Democratic leadership are always terrified of upsetting their corporate supporters or this mythical middle of the road voter and again and again show no inclination to try and work for and speak for the half or so of Americans not voting.

They went with Obamacare as they needed to work with Republicans at the time. Obama wanted far more.

They can't support medicare for all. Nearly half of America just voted for less healthcare last year. And those areas that do tend to vote for less healthcare have a far bigger voice per person than areas in favour of a proper healthcare system. They would get murdered for it. Now if they start voting in democrats, especially the more liberal ones across the board then you might have a chance but for the moment the people who were voted in by the public are those who campaigned against healthcare systems.

Democracy is based on votes. You don't vote you don't count. Never got the logic of staying quiet cos no one perfectly suits my views, letting those diametrically opposed to my views take all the power and hope everyone understands what I meant when I staying quiet offering no opinion.

Billy86

An issue is how many of those did not vote for less health care and would not vote for it... nor would they vote for more health care. Or the same amount of health care. Or equal quantities of health care to now, only distributed differently.

Huge chunks of those simply voted for the letter (R) like they always do because it's their duty in life and not something to question.

Itssoeasy

Trump just can't put the shovel down can he ? He's now quoted as saying that maybe his "fire and fury" comment may not have been strong enough.

Is there no one who can reign him in ?

Itssoeasy

Billy86 wrote: »

An issue is how many of those did not vote for less health care and would not vote for it... nor would they vote for more health care. Or the same amount of health care. Or equal quantities of health care to now, only distributed differently.

Huge chunks of those simply voted for the letter (R) like they always do because it's their duty in life and not something to question.

So people in this country are the same billy. I mean you out FF and FG after someone's name at an election and the person could be the biggest Langer this side of the alps and some people in this would still vote for them.

BabyCheeses

Silver Lynel wrote: »

Yes. Yes, they should have.

Is it fair to use hindsight to say to people who didn't vote "this is partially your fault"?

How could they possibly know?

If both candidates are bad then how can anyone properly judge exactly how bad they will be? The future is unknowable.

We don't need hindsight. Trump supporters have spent over a year claiming Trump would be great while everyone else pointed out that nothing in his history or what he is saying matches that fantasy. Now we are to act surprised that exactly what we said happened?

People voted for Trump because they liked what he would bring, it is their fault for this situation.

Professor Moriarty

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So people in this country are the same billy. I mean you out FF and FG after someone's name at an election and the person could be the biggest Langer this side of the alps and some people in this would still vote for them.

This is true. The Healy Raes spring to mind. They have The Donald and we have The Danny.

Billy86

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So people in this country are the same billy. I mean you out FF and FG after someone's name at an election and the person could be the biggest Langer this side of the alps and some people in this would still vote for them.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This is true. The Healy Raes spring to mind. They have The Donald and we have The Danny.

I'm not talking on a local level though, and can't see Danny Healy Rae picking up 40% of the vote if we had a direct vote for head of state (and even he isn't close to as bad as Trump on so many levels). Meanwhile if their equivalent of Larry Murphy won the nomination and ran with an (R) beside his name he would get a bare minimum of 35-40%.

Headshot

Im listening to Trump on CNN at the moment. I feel my brain cells are slowly dying.

MadYaker

I've tried listening to his speeches but I honestly can't bare more than a few seconds.

20Cent

Putin expelled 750 ish US diplomats.
Trump says thanks for reducing the payroll bill.

Headshot

MadYaker wrote: »

I've tried listening to his speeches but I honestly can't bare more than a few seconds.

It's great, we're really happy, it's great

He is awful with speeches

BillyBobBS

He's looked very presidential this week tbh.

Billy86

Yeah, all the great presidents tweet about "Fire and Fury!!!!" in a potential nuclear collision they've apparently been itching to create since early on, and shouting into the abyss at people to "get back to work!!" for promises that president failed to deliver on as they seem intent on losing their congressional support, all while wandering the golf course as they seem to be doing every other weekend anyways.

Which is probably why his approval ratings have plunged to new lows in the last week.

everlast75

20Cent wrote: »

Putin expelled 750 ish US diplomats.
Trump says thanks for reducing the payroll bill.

So much for creating new jobs...

Itssoeasy

The whole "I'm not going on vacation" hypocrisy with trump wouldn't sound as bad if he had gone to camp David which is the actual retreat of the US president and is more secure than his hotels and would probably cost less to the US taxpayer.

I couldn't care less what trump thinks of camp David as many presidents of both parties have used it.

Billy86

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The whole "I'm not going on vacation" hypocrisy with trump wouldn't sound as bad if he had gone to camp David which is the actual retreat of the US president and is more secure than his hotels and would probably cost less to the US taxpayer.

I couldn't care less what trump thinks of camp David as many presidents of both parties have used it.

Yeah but it wouldn't line his own pockets with tax payer money, now would it?

20Cent

everlast75 wrote: »

So much for creating new jobs...

The comment suggests he thinks that Putin expelling them means they are fired.
Almost like he thinks Putin is in charge..........

MadYaker

Headshot wrote: »

It's great, we're really happy, it's great

He is awful with speeches

It's not the content that bothers me, it's just the way he talks and his mannerisms I can't stand it.

Itssoeasy

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah but it wouldn't line his own pockets with tax payer money, now would it?

Fair point well made billy.

aloyisious

This Washington Post survey might put Don in a happy mood while he checks on what the media are printing about him. It leaves me hoping he doesn't take the idea at the heart of the article seriously, or run with it.....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbkP6T183VAhXiIcAKHdK-BLkQqUMIPDAH&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fmonkey-cage%2Fwp%2F2017%2F08%2F10%2Fin-a-new-poll-half-of-republicans-say-they-would-support-postponing-the-2020-election-if-trump-proposed-it%2F&usg=AFQjCNH_D_5M9pGFvk_wezXhk8mAjKVSag

BuilderPlumber

Billy86 wrote: »

That is a ludicrously false narrative to be honest which originated in the 'deep state!!' lack of an excuse from Trump supporters when it turned out he had lied to them on so many issues. I know you're not by any means a Trump supporter, and yeah a few are running the same, but claiming his policies in general are not anything different couldn't be further from the mark.

Apart from a lot of buffoonery and neck, there is not a lot different from what I can see between Trump and Bush 2. Blind eyes turned to Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of terrorism and to Israel (no matter what it may or may not do). Sabre rattling and name calling with supposed 'enemies'. Boasting about how 'great' America is. Relying on an evil man who directs policy. Bannon for Trump, Rumsfeld/Cheney for Bush. What makes Trump different to Bush 2 is he is not modest about himself. That is the only main difference. Every other policy he has was continuity with modern Republican party policy or planned policy that the Iraq war disaster crashed. Bush 2 regime's plan was to invade North Korea and others if Iraq 'went well'. The current regime is getting brave and thinks it can do this.

StringerBell

The flat out inability to go beyond the surface of any answer is infuriating.

The lack of knowledge is painfully obvious and it drives me nuts

Rjd2

rossie1977 wrote: »

It didn't matter who the Democrats put forward they would be torn apart by the Republicans and right wing media in the US. The Koch brothers and the likes of murdoch simply won't let another Democrat into office.

The US was losing 800,000 jobs a month by November 2008 under a Republican president and still 60 million Americans voted for the frail old senile guy whose running mate was Sarah Palin. That's fu*king insane. McCain won 22 states in 2008. Trump in 2008 would have won more votes than he did in 2016.

Clinton had plenty of powerful backers also,she had Obama campaigning like hell for her and plenty of the media were in her pocket as Sanders fans would agree to.

However despite facing a pussy grabbing, wall building, climate denying, health care abolishing, tax dodging, **** spewing demagogue she lost.

(jonathon pie quote:D)

How the hell can you lose to someone like that so flawed,a man who people in his party were openly speculating about replacing three weeks before the election.

Its entirely her and The Democrats fault they lost this election, shame on them for losing to such a unqualified, volatile disasterpiece.


Hopefully in the unlikely event of Trump been around in 2020, they find someone more inspiring to run against him.

Really Interested

Rjd2 wrote: »

Clinton had plenty of powerful backers also,she had Obama campaigning like hell for her and plenty of the media were in her pocket as Sanders fans would agree to.

However despite facing a pussy grabbing, wall building, climate denying, health care abolishing, tax dodging, **** spewing demagogue she lost.

(jonathon pie quote:D)

How the hell can you lose to someone like that so flawed,a man who people in his party were openly speculating about replacing three weeks before the election.

Its entirely her and The Democrats fault they lost this election, shame on them for losing to such a unqualified, volatile disasterpiece.


Hopefully in the unlikely event of Trump been around in 2020, they find someone more inspiring to run against him.

Trump made promises that no respectable party could make its that simple.

The religious right held their nose and voted for him on the abortion isssue. The Middle of america voted for him on the promise that the old jobs coming back, and he would end the drug epidemic. People voted for him because he talked about their worries and promised to fix them. It is exactly like the students voting for the dumb bully because he promised everyday would be breaktime with candy for lunch.

The Clinton vote is the 2nd highest in history, only beaten by Obama 08, its funny a failed women has got more votes than any white man in history. Using data Trumps campaign saw that by getting a few more votes than Clinton in a few small areas he would carry the election, hence why he promised everything to everyone to win something he has so far proved he is unable to do. Maybe the NK thing will be what turns this hole thing around and I hope it really does, because failure in this issue if the NK's have viable nukes and delivery system and Trump ****s it up millions will die.

ECO_Mental

Rjd2 wrote: »

How the hell can you lose to someone like that so flawed,a man who people in his party were openly speculating about replacing three weeks before the election.

Its entirely her and The Democrats fault they lost this election, shame on them for losing to such a unqualified, volatile disasterpiece.

I think you are forgetting that he beat was it 14 or 15 of the best qualified GOP candidates as well.....so the GOP couldnt do it also have they equal shame??

Trump being elected looking back in history will be one of those freaks of nature, a time where fake news and dirty tricks hopefully will have reached their zenith and your average Joe took whatever they read on Facebook as gospel

Clinton destroyed him in the debates and on the campaign, he had multiple scandals during the cycle (pussy grabbing, no tax returns, the russia thing etc etc ) now any normal person this would have sunk them straight away but he has a CULT following and it only boosted him.

Clinton was a good candidate despite what many would say definitely the most qualified candidate ever. But the GOP always new she would run so they spent the last 30 years slowing chipping away at her reputation painting her as evil, corrupt etc anytime she was mentioned on FOX (for the last 20 years) they would ALWAYS throw in a smart assed comment about "questions about her corruption" etc.

So I wouldn't blame the Dems or Clinton totally ( email scandal was blown out of all proportion) Trump fooled everybody including himself....because I don't think he actually wanted to be POTUS because he is exposed now and the FBI will get the bottom of his vast money laundering buisness he is running and there is a good chance he could go to jail

If he didn't win he could just hurl from the ditches like he had done for the last 50 years, but now he is found out with the absolute f**k up of a job he is doing.

Leroy42

Whilst HC was the wrong choice from the Dems, I'm not sure we can entirely blame her or them.

1st off, I think sexism played its part. I think she always had that barrier to cross and many of the things she was labeled with would not have had the same negative impact on a man. I think this played a part, but not the main factor.

I think Trump tapped into the very issue with democracy. Essentially it is a popularity contest. Normally, people will weigh up the alternatives and choose the least worst option. HC actually tried, in the main, to lay out a sensible message. Many people called it uninspiring, but it pointed out the realities. Coal mines would continue to close. Climate Change was real and needed to be dealt with. Globalisation was not going to reverse and US needed to focus on the future rather than harking for the past. Gun control was an issue that would need to be dealt with. Healthcare was costly but everyone needed it. Simply leaving millions to die is not an answer.

Trump simply appealed to everyone fantasies. Everyone would have jobs, healthcare, US would win everything all the time. Everything would be great and brilliant and the whole world would be better. Its not US fault that things aren't working, its the EU, China, Mexico, science, Muslims, the media, the swamp etc etc.

Its hard not to at least want this, and if you want it you can make yourself believe that this person is the one who can deliver it. You get everything you want and everything that is wrong is someone elses fault.

I think HC was simply not prepared for such a clearly irresponsible campaign. Even in the debates, she maintained her 'strong and stable' personna, simply laughing at the sheer mindnubbing craziness of Trump. But what she needed to do was adjust to his level, to actually call him out on it. She allowed him to continue to make these grand statements, and simply said they were crazy. She should have demanded he expand on them. Exactly how much is the wall going to cost, how will it be built, by whom, by when. What are the levels of immigration, arrests etc. Not simply grand statements, but actual statistics.

She was so scared of putting off voters, who in many cases were not going to vote for her anyway, that she failed to notice that his campaign was actually more about her than it was about him. Her professionalism and experience actually worked against her as she was looking at the long-term plan, how what she said now was going to impact on what she did as POTUS. HE never thought like that. He was focused on winning. End of. Whatever needed to be done would be done, why worry about the future until it happens.

Even saying all of that, had it not been for Comey's actions then she would have won. This myth that Trumps team developed a brilliant strategy and data mining etc, whilst it has truth to it, he was on course to get roundly beaten. Even up against one of the worst candidates, dislikes by many, a woman, a democrat, after 8 years of a democrat POTUS. And yet he still would have lost had it not been for the, later found to be pointless, action by Comey.

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

Even saying all of that, had it not been for Comey's actions then she would have won. This myth that Trumps team developed a brilliant strategy and data mining etc, whilst it has truth to it, he was on course to get roundly beaten. Even up against one of the worst candidates, dislikes by many, a woman, a democrat, after 8 years of a democrat POTUS. And yet he still would have lost had it not been for the, later found to be pointless, action by Comey.

I think that is something a lot of people forgot quite quickly also, there was a 40(!!) percent swing in polls in the 10-odd days between Comey's announcement and the day of the election, and Trump wound up winning 75 EC votes (so a swing of 150) by an absolute sliver of less than 1% per state.

Billy86

In other news, Trump has gone ahead and thanked his boss for expelling 755 US diplomats from Russia.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346108-trump-thanks-putin-for-expelling-us-diplomats-we-want-to-reduce-our

Trump said he was thanking Putin because the decision allows the U.S. government to "cut down our payroll."

“I want to thank him because we’re trying to cut down our payroll and as far as I’m concerned I’m very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll," Trump told reporters at his Bedminster, N.J. golf club.

Meanwhile the Manafort news has been getting more and more interesting, with Mueller apparently taking on more lawyers again - this time who specialise in tax, while also subpoenaing Manafort's tax records. The fact that Trump has given up even trying to hide the fact that he answers to Putin really can't be helping the cause of the collective defense.

StringerBell

In typical Trump fashion it doesn't even cut down the payroll, they will still be employed by the government.

What an insipid answer though, his deference to all things Russia is becoming impossible to hide too.

Edit: As one of the guys on Anderson Cooper said last night, not even a word out of common courtesy for all the department employees who now in August have to uproot their families and find new homes, new schools for their kids etc These are American citizens who he is supposed to have the back of.

Not a word for them other then some stupid remark about looking to cut back on payroll anyway, the man is a proper ******

Quin_Dub

StringerBell wrote: »

In typical Trump fashion it doesn't even cut down the payroll, they will still be employed by the government.

What an insipid answer though, his deference to all things Russia is becoming impossible to hide too.

I don't think it's that though.. His responses to negative things or anything that might be described as a "defeat" are akin to the kid who doesn't get picked for the school-yard kick about saying "yeah , well I didn't really want to play and these are my new runners and I don't want to get them dirty, so who cares anyway"

Quin_Dub

And as expected , following the news that Paul Manaforts house was raided by the FBI , the "Manafort ?? Who ??" statements have begun to arrive from the WH.

“I know Mr. Manafort. Haven’t spoken to him for a long time, but I know him,” Trump said of his former top campaign aide on Thursday. The president was reacting to news that a dozen FBI agents had raided one of Manafort’s four homes late last month and carried off tax documents and banking records, as The New York Times reported on Wednesday. “That’s pretty tough stuff,” Trump told reporters.

From the Daily Beast

Billy86

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And as expected , following the news that Paul Manaforts house was raided by the FBI , the "Manafort ?? Who ??" statements have begun to arrive from the WH.

From the Daily Beast

"A long time" being "about 14 months since I fired him as the manager of my campaign wherein he attended meetings with Russian officials and my family members to collude against the United States, and assisting in asking foreign politicians and business people for financial donations which would allow them to make demands of me while in office."

aloyisious

If what helped get DT elected was the James Comey "mistake" in saying publicly [we got it wrong on Hillary's emails], did the TV debates between Don and Hillary wherein he visually/verbally upstaged her at every chance in an assertive "man of action" manner have an effect on voters?

I know the comic sketches done of the tv debates made for great viewing but those sketches were also based on actual performances before a nation which was probably undecided to a large degree on whom to vote for. The sketch with the "jaws" theme was classic but essentially about a brutal monster waiting to eat the O/P, a message which may not have been understood by viewers or voters looking at Don then.

Billy86

aloyisious wrote: »

If what helped get DT elected was the James Comey "mistake" in saying publicly [we got it wrong on Hillary's emails], did the TV debates between Don and Hillary wherein he visually/verbally upstaged her at every chance in an assertive "man of action" manner have an effect on voters?

I know the comic sketches done of the tv debates made for great viewing but those sketches were also based on actual performances before a nation which was probably undecided to a large degree on whom to vote for. The sketch with the "jaws" theme was classic but essentially about a brutal monster waiting to eat the O/P, a message which may not have been understood by viewers or voters looking at Don then.

To be honest while she slipped badly in the second (where they both came across terribly) by "getting in the gutter" with him I thought Clinton made an utter fool of Trump in the other two debates. Well, somewhat that and also Trump as per usual making an utter fool of himself.

"No puppet. No puppet. You're the puppet" deserves to live on in pop culture for decades, it remains the dumbest, most immature utterance from any prominent western politician I have ever heard. And that was largely the standard throughout.

frostyjacks

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And as expected , following the news that Paul Manaforts house was raided by the FBI , the "Manafort ?? Who ??" statements have begun to arrive from the WH.





From the Daily Beast

Looks like a fishing expedition. If they can't find anything on President Trump by now, then they never will.

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

Looks like a fishing expedition. If they can't find anything on President Trump by now, then they never will.

They seem to have found plenty, and are finding more and more every week - you should ask yourself how and why the FBI got a pre dawn search warrant for example, and what is needed to obtain one of those.

They seem to be looking to get more and more in the net and firmly so they have multiples squealing, and apparently are looking to do a good deal at state level which Trump cannot pardon (president can only pardon federal crimes). There's a reason why so many top lawyers have left ridiculously well paying jobs to be a part of this investigation, and there's a reason Mueller has been stacking the team with more and more prosecutors as opposed to investigative lawyers as it has gone on.

I'm sure a few weeks into the Enron investigation they had apologists also claiming "this Mueller guy is a joke, look at him, he's stuck investigating the CEOs wives, hah!" and we all know how that turned out.

PopePalpatine

That reminds me, how long did the Watergate investigation take?

rossie1977

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That reminds me, how long did the Watergate investigation take?

Break in at Watergate hotel happened June 72, Senate Watergate committee hearings began in May 73 and Nixon resigned in August 74

Blowfish

frostyjacks wrote: »

Looks like a fishing expedition. If they can't find anything on President Trump by now, then they never will.

You don't get search warrants like that for 'fishing expeditions', you need to prove to a judge that there's probable cause to believe there's evidence at that location being targetted.

Given that Manafort had already met with the Intelligence Committee & Mueller and turned over documents the day before the raid, what that basically means is that Mueller was able to show that he knew that Manafort had certain documents which he didn't produce and that that there's a reasonable chance that he'd try and destroy them.

You need to bear in mind also how Mueller usually starts indirectly and not with the actual targets. In the Enron case, he indicted the wives of those involved first. In the Gambino case, it was the family's lawyers who they targeted first.