Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Nody

aloyisious wrote: »

If Lamb won by such a small margin, it say's load's about the Dem support baseline. I googled on the election some days ago and one item said the Dem's had 5,000 more registered voters than the Rep's in the voting district. His win in a gerrymandered-vote district also show's holes in the Rep master plan.

You are aware that in both 2012 and 2016 the Dems did not even bother to put up a candidate against the republican one; that was how heavily it was Republican strong hold in practice. The fact that a Dem now wins that with Trump and his posse doing all they can to support the Republican shows exactly what big loss this is for the Republican party.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

I asked you whether you felt that how the republicans had undertaken the 'investigation' was right. Have you got any answer?

Predictably, it was a party political farce from the start.

Now I'm asking you, do you not think the FBI are capable of investigating all this in an independent manner?

aloyisious

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that in both 2012 and 2016 the Dems did not even bother to put up a candidate against the republican one; that was how heavily it was Republican strong hold in practice. The fact that a Dem now wins that with Trump and his posse doing all they can to support the Republican shows exactly what big loss this is for the Republican party.

Ta.... Actually I wasn't aware. I've only got into US national elections as a result of Don entering the ring. I agree with the win, but was surprised at finding [a few days ago] the Dems voters outnumbered the Reps there. The gerrymandering of, and court decision on, the voting constituencies was another thing not known to me and explains the technical way of bypassing the voter majority again.

I was going to ask last night, will now: is there any transfer of votes from the weakest [and eliminated] candidate to others up the chain, as is done here in Ireland? I should have been aware as gerrymandering was a favourite tactic in N/I to sustain a fixed vote there.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

Predictably, it was a party political farce from the start.

Now I'm asking you, do you not think the FBI are capable of investigating all this in an independent manner?

Yes I totally think that Mueller is able to investigate it. He has already landed quite a few notable charges and pleas, which given that Trump has claimed from the start that the whole thing was a witch-hunt shows how far he (Mueller) is progressing.

What is required is that Trump stops trying to derail the investigation, stops calling it a witch-hunt, stops talking to witnesses and stops trying to obstruct it.

And Mueller has yet to come out with anything on Trump Jr, which based on what Trump Jr has already stated I think is only a matter of time. Nunberg is certainly of the view, based on being questioned by Muellers team, that they have something on Trump already.

In addition, yesterday a TV producer who was working on a film about Roger Stone, stated that Stone was looking to meet with Assange in 2016, adding to claims from two others sources that Stone had been in contact with them

Leroy42

aloyisious wrote: »

I was going to ask last night, will now: is there any transfer of votes from the weakest [and eliminated] candidate to others up the chain, as is done here in Ireland? I should have been aware as gerrymandering was a favourite tactic in N/I to sustain a fixed vote there.

No, its 1st past the post style.

jooksavage

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I totally think that Mueller is able to investigate it. He has already landed quite a few notable charges and pleas, which given that Trump has claimed from the start that the whole thing was a witch-hunt shows how far he (Mueller) is progressing.

What is required is that Trump stops trying to derail the investigation, stops calling it a witch-hunt, stops talking to witnesses and stops trying to obstruct it.

And Mueller has yet to come out with anything on Trump Jr, which based on what Trump Jr has already stated I think is only a matter of time. Nunberg is certainly of the view, based on being questioned by Muellers team, that they have something on Trump already.

In addition, yesterday a TV producer who was working on a film about Roger Stone, stated that Stone was looking to meet with Assange in 2016, adding to claims from two others sources that Stone had been in contact with them

It was pointed out yesterday that it may have been a bit short sighted of the house Republicans wrap up the Intel investigation at this point. Mueller clearly isn't finished his investigation, God only knows how many more indictments he's going to dole out. As long as the house investigation was ongoing, it provided opportunities for the likes of Nunes to muddy the waters. Now that tool is gone and all its bought them is a bit of coverage on Hannity.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

They said the exact same about the GOP a number of years ago. They never really changed, they didn't embrace minorities etc. They doubled down.

But the binary choice of US politics means that you only have to be a better choice than the other, not necessarily a good choice.

I find it odd that people keep trotting out the line that the DEMS need to do more than simply be against Trump, when Trump whole campaign was based around "not HC". And many of his voters have claimed not to have voted for him and his clearly racist, misogynistic and clearly ill-thought out positions, but rather that they just couldn't vote for HC.

Isn't that what is happening now, people are showing their disapproval for Trump and the GOP as a whole.

In an ideal world the Dems would use this to sculptor policies that would deliver for all Americans. But that is not the opponent they are up against. In many cases they simply have to not be Trump to win.

It's not as if a lot of HRC's campaign was equally "Not Trump". And "Not HRC" only worked because HRC was so disliked. At least Trump was willing to bring up topics which resonated with the right demographic to win.I still think that Sanders would have beaten Trump, not because of his policies, which as we know were usually more left than HRC, but because of who he was (or wasn't). No matter what the policies are, the candidate still has to get the vote.

I would go as far as to suggest that the only reason that 'doubling down' worked (and I should point out that there was quite a split in the Republican party over this as well) was because the competitor was HRC, and at the lower level, because the Democratic party as a whole has allowed itself to be taken over by the 'coastal elites'. The trend of the States going red at the State level pre-dates Trump, I strongly believe that the Democratic party has been losing voters faster than the Republicans have been gaining them, as it were.

demfad

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not as if a lot of HRC's campaign was equally "Not Trump". And "Not HRC" only worked because HRC was so disliked. At least Trump was willing to bring up topics which resonated with the right demographic to win.I still think that Sanders would have beaten Trump, not because of his policies, which as we know were usually more left than HRC, but because of who he was (or wasn't). No matter what the policies are, the candidate still has to get the vote.

I would go as far as to suggest that the only reason that 'doubling down' worked (and I should point out that there was quite a split in the Republican party over this as well) was because the competitor was HRC, and at the lower level, because the Democratic party as a whole has allowed itself to be taken over by the 'coastal elites'. The trend of the States going red at the State level pre-dates Trump, I strongly believe that the Democratic party has been losing voters faster than the Republicans have been gaining them, as it were.

HRC transition from being generally liked to being despised was due to propaganda working in coordination with a massive influence campaign against the US election unseen before in this world.

The propagandization of RW media and commercialization of all others aided this state of affairs massively.

She ran a pretty decent campaign. She was cheated out of the presidency: there is literally a Russian asset, a treacherous criminal now as POTUS. That can't be on her.

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not as if a lot of HRC's campaign was equally "Not Trump". And "Not HRC" only worked because HRC was so disliked. At least Trump was willing to bring up topics which resonated with the right demographic to win.I still think that Sanders would have beaten Trump, not because of his policies, which as we know were usually more left than HRC, but because of who he was (or wasn't). No matter what the policies are, the candidate still has to get the vote.

I would go as far as to suggest that the only reason that 'doubling down' worked (and I should point out that there was quite a split in the Republican party over this as well) was because the competitor was HRC, and at the lower level, because the Democratic party as a whole has allowed itself to be taken over by the 'coastal elites'. The trend of the States going red at the State level pre-dates Trump, I strongly believe that the Democratic party has been losing voters faster than the Republicans have been gaining them, as it were.

I have a real problem with the above analysis and some of the others proffered over the last day on this thread.

Firstly, the idea that Trump somehow managed to capture the zeitgeist and ride in on a wave of popular support just doesn't bare scrutiny. Trump lost the popular vote, by a significant margin. His victory is down to a the votes in a handful of counties (maybe even as low as three) and by margins in the tens of thousands. Any notion that Trump somehow discovered a genius trick for a solid victory just is not accurate.
Secondly, the idea that it was Trump's appeal to the poor or the 'forgotten man/woman' also deserves serious scrutiny. The statistics demonstrate that Hillary actually won the lower income brackets.
Thirdly, while undoubtedly true that the apparent shift to the red at state level predates Clinton's campaign, I think that this trend needs to be very critically assessed. Gerrymandering (while not solely the preserve of Republican's) has been happening in red, and leaning red, states at an incredibly aggressive level. SCOTUS has delivered several blows to this policy. I genuinely believe that, if America can make it out of this lacuna, this period and the preceding decade(s) will be seen as a very weak point in American democracy. The evidence abounds across many states, Democrats winning more votes but ending up with significantly less representation.

If Lamb does win, and even if he just came incredibly close, the significance of his achievement should not be underestimated. This was a beyond solid Republican district. Trump carried this place by nearly 20 points just months ago. The Democrats didn't even bother to compete in the last two elections. And it is a white as snow district.

Leroy42

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If Lamb does win, and even if he just came incredibly close, the significance of his achievement should not be underestimated. This was a beyond solid Republican district. Trump carried this place by nearly 20 points just months ago. The Democrats didn't even bother to compete in the last two elections. And it is a white as snow district.

If the GOP losses out it is a massive loss. As noted, Trump won this state by 20+ points. This was a red state, has been since 2002. Something went very wrong for the GOP.

This was assumed to be a given for the GOP. Commentators were talking about it being surprising that the Dems even made a race of it, and that even getting close would be a great result. To actually pull it off is massive.

The GOP also spent massively in this. For people to come out and say it is only a seat for a few months, why did the GOP go so agressive then? Why spend so much and put Trump into full rally mode?

Trump held a rally to try to get the GOP over the line and failed. Their leader, using the advantages of the office of POTUS, and within 14 months of being elected, failed to get the GOP over the line.

And this follows other high profile defeats (they are all high profile I suppose).

GOP and Trump will try to downplay this, but there is simply no excuse for a party that controls both houses and the POTUS should be doing this badly. There is a narrative coming out saying that this guy is practically a republican. So a nearly rep beat an actual Rep and thats a good thing?

They have already shot their big weapon (tax cuts) and what have they left? They are now looking at a trade war which will seriously hamper the promised growth in GDP that was going to pay for the tax reform.

Also, the GOP abandoned the tax reform message in the run up to the vote. What was signed as the central plank of their message has been discarded and they are back to simply attacking the Dems for being weak on crime etc.

Trump has sold the story that he is the font of all votes, that he is a winning machine, when the results (not just this one but even the Pres election) don't back it up.
Keep America great sound catchy, but as FG found out for all those that haven't been included in the upswing, whose wages haven't gone up much, whose costs continue to rise, whose friends and family are still unemployed, whose schools are still run down etc, that comes across as particularly patronising and can be a negative.

Quin_Dub

It's instructive to look at the front pages of the various News websites right now..

CNN - Lead Story is Hawking and 2nd is the news that the UK are kicking out 23 diplomats in retaliation for the poisoning but the Special Election is right there on the top row as a lead story , including a largish image showing Lamb Celebrating.

MSNBC - Election Result is the Co-lead story along side reporting on the Student Gun reform rallies

Fox News - Lead Story is something about traffic cameras in Ohio and then secondary stories are about Louis Farrakhan fighting with Black Politicians and a scandal around Alaskan Airlines. There's nothing on the main homepage about the election at all out of 13 headline stories. The only reference to it is a small entry in the left rail as the 3rd entry in the "exclusive clips" section with the title "Pennsylvania GOP official: Conor Lamb ran as a Republican" . If Saccone had won , would there be such little profile given to it?

rossie1977

Speaking of HRC, I see that the Family of Seth Rich a Clinton staffer who was murdered and his death turned into a far right conspiracy theory is now sueing Fox News.

I don't agree with many of Lambs political views but the way he has handled himself is impeccable especially in light of Trumps ridiculous childish name calling..still can't believe this guy is President of the most powerful nation on earth @ 2 minutes 45 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vrOYj44MAU

Manic Moran

demfad wrote: »

HRC transition from being generally liked to being despised was due to propaganda working in coordination with a massive influence campaign against the US election unseen before in this world.

At what point?

March 2016, before either party's candidate was identified, Clinton was suffering a net unfavorability rating. https://theintercept.com/2016/03/21/women-hate-donald-trump-even-more-than-men-hate-hillary-clinton/
The -only- candidate to have a net favorability rating was Sanders.

As the BBC observed in July: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36928142
The Clinton campaign elite that partied at the convention tends to live and operate in the rarefied world of the east and west coasts of the US. They don't spend a lot of time in the small towns of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia that will decide this election.

These are towns where a lot of people hate Hillary Clinton, really, really hate her. They may be underestimating the strength of that antipathy.

The propoganda/influence campaign would not have worked had Clinton not started from a position of negative impression. If the British are observing the distaste for Clinton in middle America months before the election, I would submit that there is something there.

Trump lost the popular vote, by a significant margin. His victory is down to a the votes in a handful of counties (maybe even as low as three) and by margins in the tens of thousands. Any notion that Trump somehow discovered a genius trick for a solid victory just is not accurate.

The counter to that is that Trump still managed to win despite being (I presume) the most disliked candidate probably of all time. He must have done something right to win all those EC votes. Imagine how he would have done if he had the same strategy, without boasting about grabbing women? The thing to take away from the result is that the Republicans had a better strategic outlook on the campaign, focusing on the deciding areas, and that somehow an otherwise fairly competent candidate managed to lose to Trump. It shouldn't have even been close.

The statistics demonstrate that Hillary actually won the lower income brackets.

Where? You can't really bundle the lower income voters of Harlem with the lower income voters of (Swing state) North Carolina, they are just too different to be treated as one 'block'. To be sure, there are a hell of a lot of low income voters in New York, which was not really a swing state. Indeed, in NC polling, the higher-income folks started trending to Clinton, and the working class started trending to Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/nc-precincts/
North Carolina's working class may not have had the numbers of those of NY or CA, but they certainly had the weight.

Your third point is fair enough.

Water John

The lesson for the Dems is to run the candidate most likely to win in his/her baliwick. A week for a Cheltenham analogy, horses for courses. That is unless the candidate is so, out of whack, to present a problem, down the line.
There are, only two parties, so you need a fairly broad church.

Igotadose

Kudlow... gag. Worst economist ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/14/larry-kudlow-gary-cohn-trump-administration

Krugman on Kudlow: "He gets everything wrong:" https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/larry-kudlow-and-the-failure-of-the-chicago-school/

And the embedded link to a more detailed report (with links) on how wrong Kudlow is: https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/gop-economist-bush-tax-cuts-worked-brilliantly.html

CNBC would trot him out pretty regularly back in the 2003-2015 period when I would watch CNBC every day at the gym. Very unimpressive guy, and when the crash hit, he disappeared (occasionally to show up and decry austerity and talk about how supply side would fix things.)

Hopefully not around long enough to do any real damage, doesn't like tariff's so maybe he's not a complete disaster, he's even more globalist/free trade than Cohn who he replaced.

Professor Moriarty

Igotadose wrote: »

Kudlow... gag. Worst economist ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/14/larry-kudlow-gary-cohn-trump-administration

Krugman on Kudlow: "He gets everything wrong:" https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/larry-kudlow-and-the-failure-of-the-chicago-school/

And the embedded link to a more detailed report (with links) on how wrong Kudlow is: https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/gop-economist-bush-tax-cuts-worked-brilliantly.html

CNBC would trot him out pretty regularly back in the 2003-2015 period when I would watch CNBC every day at the gym. Very unimpressive guy, and when the crash hit, he disappeared (occasionally to show up and decry austerity and talk about how supply side would fix things.)

Hopefully not around long enough to do any real damage, doesn't like tariff's so maybe he's not a complete disaster, he's even more globalist/free trade than Cohn who he replaced.

Sounds like he'll fit right in.

everlast75

Stormy Daniels has started a "crowd Justice" site (like gofundme)

Launched earlier today- this is where we are at currently

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

Stormy Daniels has started a "crowd Justice" site (like gofundme)

Launched earlier today- this is where we are at currently

The media were reporting yesterday that her lawyer said Stormy wanted to return the money she got from Don's lawyer so she could do a "tell all".

aloyisious

One possible change in the relationship between the US and Russia V the US and the UK is that the US Ambassador to the UN sided with the UK. CNN has the White House just issued a statement that Russia was respondible for the UK attack and the US stands in solidarity with the UK. I know that the new US Sec of State appointment has to be given approval from the hill but the W/H statement might be a sign of a new or changing relationship.

Lolling at Paul Ryan saying Rep Lamb won the election by copying Don.

Just in passing: did yesterday's election take place in the new court-ordered redrawn Pennsylvania voting map replacing the gerrymndered map or within the gerrymandered voting map? The signiicance of a win under the old map would increase it's message.

EDIT: got the answer to my question in press story link..... Pennsylvania Department of State spokeswoman Wanda Murren dismissed a third claim that the state's polling location website had been confusing voters as to whether they lived in the 18th District relevant to Tuesday's election. New, renumbered districts drawn by the state Supreme Court are set to take effect in May.

Professor Moriarty

aloyisious wrote: »

One possible change in the relationship between the US and Russia V the US and the UK is that the US Ambassador to the UN sided with the UK. CNN has the White House just issued a statement that Russia was respondible for the UK attack and the US stands in solidarity with the UK. I know that the new US Sec of State appointment has to be given approval from the hill but the W/H statement might be a sign of a new or changing relationship.

Lolling at Paul Ryan saying Rep Lamb won the election by copying Don.

Time for Vlad to release that video.

dr.fuzzenstein

everlast75 wrote: »

Stormy Daniels has started a "crowd Justice" site (like gofundme)

Launched earlier today- this is where we are at currently

She should just demand money or else she will publish Trump in the nip.
Target will be reached in nanoseconds.

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Just in passing: did yesterday's election take place in the new court-ordered redrawn Pennsylvania voting map replacing the gerrymndered map or within the gerrymandered voting map? The signiicance of a win under the old map would increase it's message.

This is the last time an election will be held under this district.

Itssoeasy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Stormy Daniels has started a "crowd Justice" site (like gofundme)

Launched earlier today- this is where we are at currently

She should just demand money or else she will publish Trump in the nip.
Target will be reached in nanoseconds.

Why would anyone type the words trump and nip in the same sentence ? I don't want that image in my head.

Water John

Will I have to get my magnifying glass?

aloyisious

I'm hoping that this doesn't happen. NRCC [ National Republican Congressional Committee] calls for investigation into Allegheny County voting machines..... including the claim that voting machines at several polling places had technical glitches that supposedly switched some voters' choices in favor of Democrat Conor Lamb.

http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/13421498-74/allegheny-county-rejects-claims-of-voting-machine-glitches-in-18th-district-special....

A one-liner in the article: The results won't be officially certified until April 2.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/politico/status/974157535044427776?s=19

This is beautiful.

If it works, Cohen has been deftly played. It appears Cohen is more a wanna-be lawyer and bully than a litigious genius. #OnlyTheBestPeople

dudara

Igotadose wrote: »

Kudlow... gag. Worst economist ever.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/14/larry-kudlow-gary-cohn-trump-administration

Krugman on Kudlow: "He gets everything wrong:" https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/larry-kudlow-and-the-failure-of-the-chicago-school/

He’s been on TV, so by Trump logic that means he’s good. Doesn’t actually matter how good his subject knowledge is.

jooksavage

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/politico/status/974157535044427776?s=19

This is beautiful.

If it works, Cohen has been deftly played. It appears Cohen is more a wanna-be lawyer and bully than a litigious genius. #OnlyTheBestPeople

This is hilarious. I hope it works. Even in the microcosm of the Trump universe, Cohen stands out as a singularly despicable human.

looksee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/03/14/in-fundraising-speech-trump-says-he-made-up-facts-in-meeting-with-justin-trudeau/?utm_term=.edd96733a894

This item by the Washington Post does not seem to be making any significant waves at all - the media is apparently completely overwhelmed by the amount of Trumpian outrageousness available at any one time. And sure, it was only Canada, who cares what they think?

everlast75

Apparently 2 senior republicans have mentioned to reporters that Trump has Sessions next on his list to fire.

It would be a huge move but hasn't he kept pushing the boundaries to date and not suffered for it. It's become his thing