Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

He's not a patch on some people in this thread though

What happened to all that stuff about the Logan Act? Arrests definitely imminent....impeachment of POTUS....
Its all very quiet out there now?

I see The Donald has made a diplomatic breakthrough with NK and a bilateral meeting between himself and Kim is on the cards. What no previous US president has been willing/able to do.
US economy surging ahead...... this presidency has been an outstanding success so far.

His campaign chairman has how many charges against him? His NSA has been charged and admitted to lying to the FBI. A number of his cabinet have been embroiled in financial scandals. He has lied about paying off an affair to cover it up prior to the election, with possibly an illegal use of campaign funds. He has still to answer for lying about his sons meeting, and using the WH press corp to do it.

Impeachment has not gone away,but luckily for Trump the GOP are in charge and so the ability of any process to advance is very unlikely. Thus, Mueller is basically going to have to deliver a slam dunk and that takes time.

Trump has made no diplomatic breakthrough. SK made all the running and put a proposal to Trump which he agreed to without any planning or, apparently, expert input.

And now the WH is faced with Trump having agreed to something completely at odds with Trumps stated position (denuke first, yet he has already agreed to the meeting with nothing from NK).

And based on his comments on immigration (I'll sign it if a deal is done, oh no, forget that) or his comments on guns (I want to make a difference, oh a free dinner you say, fine sell guns to whomever you want) surely even you can agree that we need to see what happens before trying to give Trump any credit and no matter what you think of him everyone can see that the man has a issue with following true on his announcements.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Tbh manic that entire post is about how the democrat side won't 'work' with the republican sides agenda and frankly if it has to come to that then so be it.

It's sprung out of undemocratic ideals brought forward by them.


Good enough I say.

In what world is refusing to work with the FBI to stop people blowing up your city "good enough?"

I don't know what was going on in North Dakota or Texas when Obama was in charge, as I don't live there (yet). I do know what's going on here in San Francisco, and I just gave an example of the increased recent entrenchment. You are more likely to hear on the radio about local leaders opposing Trump on something than you are about local leaders actually fixing local problems. That said, San Jose has just this week approved spending a few thousand dollars removing a statue of Christopher Columbus, as he's offensive, so at least that local problem is fixed.

California has a fairly long history of not always going along with the Federal Government. The local leadership has decided to stake its ground on the immigration debate, exactly the same debate that Trump decided to fight on in his election campaign: Enhanced conflict was inevitable after the Kate Steinle shooting (Tourist shot and killed in SF by a repeat illegal immigrant that SF released instead of giving to ICE for deportation) and provided fodder for Trump in the campaign. The result, both sides started doubling down. However, we're not talking about more moral issues like gay marriage or marijuana. Actively prohibiting local law enforcement from co-operating with federal law enforcement agencies has a practical effect on the safety of the citizenry, which should be the primary area of concern of any leadership.

This isn't a pro-democrat/pro-republican concern. This is a government concern. I, personally, have an issue with the local governments spending our tax money on anti-border wall lawsuits, or setting up law services for illegal immigrants instead of fixing our transportation infrastructure which is (literally) falling apart. I have a number of political differences, but, hey, we all can vote, and I'm in the minority on a few issues around here. Not all, not even most, but a fair few. I can accept that. Public safety is not a political difference. Risking that for politics, I won't accept.

In the meantime, the locals are leaving. The Bay Area has the highest net emigration rate in the US. Survey this week says 49% of residents are considering leaving San Francisco. A neighbour moved to Arizona last week, the cost of the truck rental was ten times more going from here to Phoenix than coming back the other way. Could be worse, the prices to Las Vegas are 16 times higher. Fortunately for me, the price to Texas is only about double. Why Texas? My employer is shutting its SF office at the end of this month, and relocating there. (Not a particularly small office, we made the newspapers). Some of my colleagues have moved already, "I should have done this years ago".

So, apparently, the local leadership here agrees with you. For them, and their base, obstructing the Republicans seems to be "good enough". For the rest of us, we're upping stakes. I'm going to miss California. It's a beautiful state, with fantastic weather. But I've had enough of the politicians ruining it. Last month, we got "Worst quality of life in the US." What does this tell you?

listermint

Il give you just this reply.

You can get some levels of holier than now manic about not working with federal government to prevent terrorist attacks . Which as you fully now are extremely unlikely statistically speaking in the US.

Yet when it comes to actual home grown terrorism via mass shootings you have no such level of views for working with the federal government to advance gun limitations.


Strange that.


...

Oh and you're an immigrant seems you conviently forget that often enough

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

You can get some levels of holier than now manic about not working with federal government to prevent terrorist attacks . Which as you fully now are extremely unlikely statistically speaking in the US.

I don't care how 'unlikely' it is that someone will try to plant a bomb in SF, it happened. A man is now in jail for planning to explode bombs in San Francisco over Christmas, and SFPD were prohibited from working with the law enforcement organisation charged with preventing it. That's not a 'holier than thou', and saying it's "Unlikely" would be of small consolation for those who would have been caught up in it had it turned out to be something in which two police agencies not talking to each other might not have stopped.

Yet when it comes to actual home grown terrorism via mass shootings you have no such level of views for working with the federal government to advance gun limitations.

We differ on the correct political solution to the mass shooting problem. What is the alternate position on solving bomb problems to 'law enforcement agencies working together within the existing legal framework', which generally works?

Oh and you're an immigrant seems you conviently forget that often enough

A legal one, yes.

listermint

It's plain to see that your kids are more likely to be murdered by one or more of their classmates than mustapha the illegal immigrant but because it's YOUR guns that are in charge it doesn't come across the radar.


Beggars belief.

Grrrrrr democrat's grrrrrrr California grrrrrrrr and so on and so forth.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

It's plain to see that your kids are more likely to be murdered by one or more of their classmates than mustapha the illegal immigrant but because it's YOUR guns that are in charge it doesn't come across the radar.


Beggars belief.

Grrrrrr democrat's grrrrrrr California grrrrrrrr and so on and so forth.

Which has what to do with the price of fish?

You can disagree with me on the solution to school shootings. What is your point of disagreement about police agencies trying to stop terror attacks within the current legal framework? Especially in a town which generally agrees with you on the school shooting issue anyway.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which has what to do with the price of fish?

You can disagree with me on the solution to school shootings. What is your point of disagreement about police agencies trying to stop terror attacks within the current legal framework?

What's good for the goose as they say.


I call it hypocritical that's my point. It's blatantly and obviously hypocritical what most republicans will get upset about. Yet when that upset is reflected back on them and their choices and their views it's never awknowledged . Ever .

Manic Moran

So you are in favour of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

The one is a difference of opinion. I believe there is a solution to the school shooting problem which is a different solution to your solution to the school shooting problem. We both want it fixed, we both think there is a way of fixing it. I acknowledge the opposing arguments, I understand the logic behind the opposing arguments. We merely disagree on the relative merits of cost/benefit in achieving the desired end result, or its likelihood of achieving it.

So, I ask yet again. What is the cost/benefit to public safety of prohibiting co-operation within the law enforcement agencies charged with ensuring that public safety? If there is no reasonable correlation, then what we have is a political stunt, not public policy, and that has nothing to do with the positions of Republicans on gun control.

(This entire discussion is bringing us back to the original question of partisanship)

Leroy42

I think, Manic, that the point is that there is little point GOP complaining about this sort of carry on (which I agree is counterproductive) when they have shown themselves be be more than happy to carry out the very same. What was it the McConnell said upon Obama getting elected? Something like his job was to be against him at every turn.

You only have to look at how accepting the GOP have been of Trumps put down of the FBI/CIA and his quietness over Russia to see that the GOP are willing to set aside pretty much any position in order to maintain power. Their passing of the recent tax bill shows just where they stand. After preaching fiscal prudence for years they couldn't wait to land the country with possible many billions of additional debt for short term gain.

So if you are feeling frustrated with the dicking around, then it really is just the feeling that others have been facing for years. The gun thing is another case in point. You are asking that others compromise on issues for the good of everyone but, through their full alignment with the NRA, are unwilling to even consider making compromises on guns. No wanting to get into the gun debate here (we have plenty of that on the other thread) but more to point out how ideologies can restrict potential on both sides.

One only ever notices it when the issues are against ones wishes.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

So you are in favour of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

The one is a difference of opinion. I believe there is a solution to the school shooting problem which is a different solution to your solution to the school shooting problem. We both want it fixed, we both think there is a way of fixing it. I acknowledge the opposing arguments, I understand the logic behind the opposing arguments. We merely disagree on the relative merits of cost/benefit in achieving the desired end result, or its likelihood of achieving it.

So, I ask yet again. What is the cost/benefit to public safety of prohibiting co-operation within the law enforcement agencies charged with ensuring that public safety? If there is no reasonable correlation, then what we have is a political stunt, not public policy, and that has nothing to do with the positions of Republicans on gun control.

(This entire discussion is bringing us back to the original question of partisanship)

I disagree with trump's immigration stance. It's being battled on the front line by actions such as this.

And no I don't really think it has any impact on terrorism prevention because frankly it's minimal risk minimal.


So using the Helen Lovejoy on it doesn't cut it with me.

Manic Moran

And no I don't really think it has any impact on terrorism prevention because frankly it's minimal risk minimal.

Part of the reason that the risk is minimal is because law enforcement agencies are pretty good about stopping plots. They tend to stop more than actually occur. If you inhibit their ability to do so, the risk gets less minimal.

It's being battled on the front line by actions such as this.

Then let it be battled by relevant actions. The lawsuits. The legal defense funds. Non-disclosure of immigration status. At the higher level, congressional action by our elected representatives. They are applicable to the desired goal, and they have limited negative effect on local public safety. I may not agree with the use of taxpayer funds for some of this, but at least I acknowledge that it's a legitimate policy which is targeted to achieve the stated goal. For the fifth time, I ask: How does SF's position on co-operating with the FBI on terror threats benefit the people of SF?

So if you are feeling frustrated with the dicking around, then it really is just the feeling that others have been facing for years. The gun thing is another case in point. You are asking that others compromise on issues for the good of everyone but, through their full alignment with the NRA, are unwilling to even consider making compromises on guns. No wanting to get into the gun debate here (we have plenty of that on the other thread) but more to point out how ideologies can restrict potential on both sides.

The problem with the firearms analogy is that there are clearly positives and minuses to both sides. OK, the NRA in particular are being extremely intransigent, but at least there are arguments in favour of much of the pro-gun position. You may not consider them sufficient, or overriding enough, but they are there and they are valid. "Fewer guns on the streets" macro level vs "More chance of successful protection" micro level, sort of thing. We disagree on the relative balance. These sorts of policy arguments can be made for anything from marijuana to healthcare to oil drilling, and they've gone this way and that over time.

However, here we have a case of local law enforcement being actively hampered in achieving what I think pretty much everybody wants done, because the leadership in Washington has differing opinions on matters at the national level. The only explanation for this is increased partisanship over where we were, say, two years ago. Whilst I may disagree with the McConnell position of being against Obama for the sake of being against Obama, that doesn't make the current position of Bay Area cities any better.

listermint

No the reason they are minimal is because of your location, geography and existing passport control that's been around for decades.

Nothing to do with fbi or any other agency pulling heroic acts of detection.

The US thrives on a constant state of dear it's a money spinner without this constant state of fear billions would be lost in various industries gun manufacturing not withstanding.

Terrible reliance to have.

The fact that you think a terrorist attack is just around the corner is a manifestation of that same abject fear. Surprisingly you've fell for it given your training.

That's what I find so surprising given your Irish education your up bringing not being directly influenced by this nonsense the move to US soil has instilled this feeling in you. Fear Defence offense fear.

There's a study in there somewhere, an interesting study

Manic Moran

Nothing to do with fbi or any other agency pulling heroic acts of detection.

What part of "The FBI foiled a plot to bomb San Francisco" (by a domestic muslim convert, if it matters) did you miss?

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

What part of "The FBI foiled a plot to bomb San Francisco" (by a domestic muslim convert, if it matters) did you miss?

Yeah ? Is that the jist of your position that press release can mean anything from a young school going lad toying with chemicals from a manual, to an ex soldier trained in explosives buying material he shouldn't have.

None of which proves your point


Those types of stories are releases solely to stead fast the ever present surreal threat . And ensure that you think there is a threat and there are people out there working hard for you against it.

$$$$$$$$

listermint

I do have one question, why don't you care as much about the real threat to your children from within the confines of their classrooms.

Statistically they have more chance of being caught in a serious firearms incident than ever seeing a bomb or someone that knows how to make one.

Their friend who's having a bad week with the access to the AR15 is a far more serious and fearsome opponent

Manic Moran

Yeah ? Is that the jist of your position that press release can mean anything from a young school going lad toying with chemicals from a manual, to an ex soldier trained in explosives buying material he shouldn't have.

Well, in this case, it's ex-soldier. Well, technically, ex-Marine.

why don't you care as much about the real threat to your children from within the confines of their classrooms.

Why do you think I do not? That I do not agree with your solution to the problem does not mean that I don't consider it a problem worth addressing. I have a daughter, I have another kid on the way. If you think I don't care about them, we have another issue entirely about understanding each other's perspectives, let alone political solutions.

Besides, whatever my opinions on firearms, reducing the chance of seeing a bomb is not particularly related to the chance of reducing death by firearm (Exceptions such as the Fort Dix shooting plot noted, however). Addressing the former need not have a positive or negative effect on the latter. Where's the problem with working with the FBI? What if the clues may be leading to an indicator that someone might be looking to do a school shooting? It's not as if such indicators don't go between local and federal enforcement, we have a fairly recent case in point in Florida.

listermint

An ex army man walked into a home for veterans to today and killed 4 people with a rifle.

Wheres your urgent need to address that particular mentally ill individual.


You don't seem to be moving state to address that particular real and regular threat.







. Why

Manic Moran

Since it only happened yesterday, and since we have basically zero information other than the fact that the man was a veteran who had been asked to leave the facility a few days prior, it's not as if I have a heck of a lot of information upon which to base an informed opinion, is it?

Though I do note that 'mentally ill' does seem to be something of a factor in this case, as in a number of others.

Leroy42

Of course it had something to do with mentality, normal people don't go around shooting other people.

But that same argument can be used for anything. Road rage, domestic abuse, fights at niteclubs. The people involved will normally claim that "something snapped" or they reached boiling point.

The issue is how do we preempt these. Was this man showing murderous signs prior to this? In hindsight we can all look at these cases and say "see it was obvious" but at the time it wasn't. And in a country so based on freewill and free expression are people really suggesting that we start locking people up on the basis of what we fear they might do in the future?

It is a nice catch all line to throw out, like video game violence etc, but again it all falls down because the NRA have lobbied to keep the research into gun violence from being done. Without this it is impossible to move the debate on as neither side as the truth. Until the US deals with that there is no hope of this situation improving.

But of course the NRA and gun owners don't want that as it may lead to having all these (IMO) spurious arguments (and I say that as they don't appear to have the same effect in other countries) taken away.

Mental health. Ok, so lets run with that. What is the solution? Who gets to decide? Does the person have to have carried out a crime or is simply thinking about enough? Is it based on the amount of time or the level of medication? What about the mentally impaired?

And that is where Trump is failing yet again. He throws out simple, one line soundbites with no grounding in reality and does nothing more than muddy the waters more. If he really cared out the victims, both past and future, he would stop worrying about being seen to deliver the solution and actually go about finding one.

But that requires research, and investigation and time. It requires him to withhold his own ideas to await for the experts to gather all the data. To listen to all stakeholders (including of course the NRA, gun manufactures, gun clubs, hunters as well as no gun advocates etc) and try to come to a workable solution. But instead we get the usual 'thoughts and prayers' and more guns.

But its ok. Trump has already moved on, that was last week and its back to NK now.

jooksavage

Indeed, as per that trending tweet from the school in Holland last week, mental illness is NOT the determining factor in the deadliness of an attack. In that case, a mentally ill man attacked students with knives but was fended off when the same students threw their schoolbags at him and no one was injured. Probably wouldn't have ended as happily if the same man had access to a high-powered rifle and limitless ammunition.

aloyisious

Don, according to the S/Indo, is trying to goad Ophra to run against him in 2020 and "I don't know if that's popular, I don't know if that's unpopular" mentioned bringing in the death penalty for drug dealers "because they are responsible for thousands of deaths". He was at an election rally [in Pittsburgh Airport] on behalf of Rick Scaccone, an "embattled" republican in Pennsylvania's 18th district. The Dems got a mention "they will take away your 2nd amendment rights".

dr.fuzzenstein

aloyisious wrote: »

Don, according to the S/Indo, is trying to goad Ophra to run against him in 2020 and "I don't know if that's be popular, I don't know if that's unpopular" mentioned bringing in the death penalty for drug dealers "because they are responsible for thousands of deaths". He was at an election rally [in Pittsburgh Airport] on behalf of Rick Scaccone, an "embattled" republican in Pennsylvania's 18th district. The Dems got a mention "they will take away your 2nd amendment rights".

To me the problem isn't just that DT is a stupid, mean, self obsessed bully with the IQ of a 5 year old child and a 160 character attention span, but that the American people think those are the qualities they want in the leader of the free world.
Trump, along with Brexit and the AfD in Germany clearly displays that IQs in the world have fallen by about 20 points over the last 10 years, otherwise there is no other explanation.
To anyone who cares just a little bit and pays just a tiny bit of attention, it is like waking up in a lunatic asylum. The entire world is happily fiddling whilst the planet is burning.
Maybe it's just a bad dream.

aloyisious

There's a video on F/B of the rally and the "to and fro-ing" of peoples opinions on the rally, the video and other peoples opinions is hot and heavy, lot of "go to your safe-room, snowflake" from R's to O/P's. The time it'd take scrolling down the list, with replies coming in fast, would be tiring.

pixelburp

Worth pointing out that his comments about Oprah came during a 2020 campaign speech; he has already started drumming up support, that must surely be unprecedented, to start a reelection stint before the mid terms have happened?

Of course, I'm sure there's some tax loophole somewhere that allows him to declare flights, travelling etc as a campaign expense, in which case the public are footing the bill for his premature campaigning.

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

To me the problem isn't just that DT is a stupid, mean, self obsessed bully with the IQ of a 5 year old child and a 160 character attention span, but that the American people think those are the qualities they want in the leader of the free world.
Trump, along with Brexit and the AfD in Germany clearly displays that IQs in the world have fallen by about 20 points over the last 10 years, otherwise there is no other explanation.
To anyone who cares just a little bit and pays just a tiny bit of attention, it is like waking up in a lunatic asylum. The entire world is happily fiddling whilst the planet is burning.
Maybe it's just a bad dream.

Intellect does play a part, but so does racism. What also plays a part is the fact that the established political parties that were traditionally 'left' have abandoned their core voters and have become free market centred, Labour in the UK and Ireland for example.

Not everyone who voted for Trump is either stupid or racist I think they thought hey let's roll the dice with him and see if he delivers, whether they vote for him again next time round will be debatable.

Leroy42

DubInMeath wrote: »

Not everyone who voted for Trump is either stupid or racist I think they thought hey let's roll the dice with him and see if he delivers, whether they vote for him again next time round will be debatable.

I've seen this line trotted out a few times and I reject it. If that was the case, just roll the dice, then where is the backlash against him now? Why are the GOP still gathering votes by standing by him.

Sorry, but the people that voted for him are racists. They might not be heading out burning crosses, they may even work and hang around with people of different races, but deep down the message that triggered them was take America back to what it was. Back to white's being in charge, back to when America was run by and for the majority and all this having to be nice to others (called PC nonsense) was around.

They can dress it up in whatever way keeps them from having to admit it, but Trump has basically played out the exact way that anyone looking could have foreseen. For every allegation labeling at HC his has not only delivered the same but revelled in it.

Crooked Hilary and Lock her Up were the two great 'out' phases they used so they could pretend that they hated voting for Trump, and certainly didn't agree with him, but they just couldn't vote for Hilary. Yet they see nothing wrong with trying to get information from Russia to help them win. They nothing wrong with clear conflicts of interest. They see nothing wrong with Trump standing by a NSA that lied to the FBI, or a AG that lied to congress.

They see nothing wrong with Trump using the state to pay for his trips to Mar-a-Lago and the pushing of his families business's (something his campaign manager and advisor and been found in breach of!).

They see nothing wrong with him potentially using campaign funds to pay to cover up an affair. They see nothing wrong with him calling Nazi sympathers 'good people'.

If they really didn't agree and merely wanted to shake things up his support would be in the 10's, not the late 30's.

Racist, misogynist and clearly out for himself first. All this was well flagged and yet people still voted for him and still support him.

VonZan

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

To me the problem isn't just that DT is a stupid, mean, self obsessed bully with the IQ of a 5 year old child and a 160 character attention span, but that the American people think those are the qualities they want in the leader of the free world.
Trump, along with Brexit and the AfD in Germany clearly displays that IQs in the world have fallen by about 20 points over the last 10 years, otherwise there is no other explanation.
To anyone who cares just a little bit and pays just a tiny bit of attention, it is like waking up in a lunatic asylum. The entire world is happily fiddling whilst the planet is burning.
Maybe it's just a bad dream.

Do you think that all people that vote for Trump are stupid? Anyone with a bit of critical thought can see that Trump is a symptom of a bigger problem but alas some people clearly can’t see that. It’s much easier to call people stupid than to reflect on how toxic the mainstream political establishment has become.

pitifulgod

VonZan wrote: »

Do you think that all people that vote for Trump are stupid? Anyone with a bit of critical thought can see that Trump is a symptom of a bigger problem but alas some people clearly can’t see that. It’s much easier to call people stupid than to reflect on how toxic the mainstream political establishment has become.

The thing is, Trump so far is showing himself to be far more toxic than the previous political establishment. This was all present in his campaign rallies prior to ever being elected. The amount of stuff that people are now accepting as the new normal would have had previous presidents being panned by both the GOP and Democrats.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

I've seen this line trotted out a few times and I reject it. If that was the case, just roll the dice, then where is the backlash against him now? Why are the GOP still gathering votes by standing by him.

Sorry, but the people that voted for him are racists. They might not be heading out burning crosses, they may even work and hang around with people of different races, but deep down the message that triggered them was take America back to what it was. Back to white's being in charge, back to when America was run by and for the majority and all this having to be nice to others (called PC nonsense) was around.

They can dress it up in whatever way keeps them from having to admit it, but Trump has basically played out the exact way that anyone looking could have foreseen. For every allegation labeling at HC his has not only delivered the same but revelled in it.

Crooked Hilary and Lock her Up were the two great 'out' phases they used so they could pretend that they hated voting for Trump, and certainly didn't agree with him, but they just couldn't vote for Hilary. Yet they see nothing wrong with trying to get information from Russia to help them win. They nothing wrong with clear conflicts of interest. They see nothing wrong with Trump standing by a NSA that lied to the FBI, or a AG that lied to congress.

They see nothing wrong with Trump using the state to pay for his trips to Mar-a-Lago and the pushing of his families business's (something his campaign manager and advisor and been found in breach of!).

They see nothing wrong with him potentially using campaign funds to pay to cover up an affair. They see nothing wrong with him calling Nazi sympathers 'good people'.

If they really didn't agree and merely wanted to shake things up his support would be in the 10's, not the late 30's.

Racist, misogynist and clearly out for himself first. All this was well flagged and yet people still voted for him and still support him.

Talked to a few Africa American colleagues who voted for him and their reasoning was that the Democrats just weren't supporting them as workers. Talking to them now they seriously regret voting for him, or so they say, but still doesn't change why the did it in the first place.

GOP supporters for the most case always vote republican and the hardcore element will always do so just so they don't vote democrat, they at least have an alternative in the tea party when some republicans have gone to soft as they see it.
The GOP supporters will vote

Leroy42

VonZan wrote: »

Do you think that all people that vote for Trump are stupid? Anyone with a bit of critical thought can see that Trump is a symptom of a bigger problem but alas some people clearly can’t see that. It’s much easier to call people stupid than to reflect on how toxic the mainstream political establishment has become.

Stupid in how easily manipulated and gullible they were, then yes.

Being intelligent does not mean that one cannot be mislead. I wouldn't ask a astrophysicist to carry out a heart transplant but that doesn't make them stupid, hell I wouldn't ask some of them to make a cup of coffee.

They either were stupid, ignored what the reality was, or simply agreed with his vision.

Sure they wanted change, I totally get that, but to back up voting for Trump with gains for the GOP doesn't portray an electorate looking to shake things up. It looks very like an electorate that simply didn't want HC in the WH or if she did they wanted the GOP to stimy her.