Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

CNN Town Hall with Beto O'Rourke on now. Ted Cruz turned down an invitation.

Cruz is probably wise to stay away. He's ahead in the race, and O'Rourke could out-perform him on a TV town hall. So, his appearance is unlikely to add to his vote, and he could feck it up.

Next week's rally is having to switch from a 9,000 venue to a 18,000 stadium venue that will be attended by Trump. Unlike in some other places, Trump is still very strong in Texas and Cruz will benefit from his proximity to Trump on the night.

Water John

The odds are with Cruz. He'll be sharing the stage with his good friend.

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

The odds are with Cruz. He'll be sharing the stage with his good friend.

It should be a fact-filled occasion with "Lyin' Ted" and "Don the Con" feeding red meat to the base...

pixelburp

Plenty of GOPers have kowtowed to Trump, but there's something particularly obsequious and honestly, pathetic, over Cruz's own falling into step. Trump went to town on him during the Primaries, between the nicknames, weird implication of Cruz's father in JFK murder, trashtalking about his wife, and so on; yet to watch the senator defend him, even canvas after Trump gained the nomination, shows a craven demeanour rather than the cynical tacticians of McConnell & co. I can respect scheming in a certain light, hard to respect someone who just gave up after Trump sank his teeth into him.

Water John

It's a mutual thing, with Trump seeking to ensure O'Rourke doesn't get platform for 2020.

StringerBell

I keep waiting for the big thing the Dems do to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the oh so Democrat way they often do, and maybe it has actually already happened with how the Kavanaugh hearing played out.

The Republican voters have been energised by it and I'm starting to think maybe that was it, maybe that was where they shot themselves in the foot nationwide this time.

Heitkamp won that seat last time with a tiny margin, she was always going to be up against it to hold on to it, especially with the voter suppression pursued by the Republicans there. Her voting No on Kavanaugh just sealed her fate really. Big error with the ad obviously but she has handled that as well as can be expected, it wasn't her mistake personally but she took full responsibility as she should have and I think she can come out of that particular problem ok, won't be enough to save her seat though.

Christy42

Trump praising violence against journalists. Maybe not the smartest thing right now but when has he ever done the smart thing. Trump supporters cheering about hitting someone asking a politician a question. One wonders where the people cheering got the nickname deplorable from.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/18/trump-greg-gianforte-assault-guardian-ben-jacobs

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Plenty of GOPers have kowtowed to Trump, but there's something particularly obsequious and honestly, pathetic, over Cruz's own falling into step. Trump went to town on him during the Primaries, between the nicknames, weird implication of Cruz's father in JFK murder, trashtalking about his wife, and so on; yet to watch the senator defend him, even canvas after Trump gained the nomination, shows a craven demeanour rather than the cynical tacticians of McConnell & co. I can respect scheming in a certain light, hard to respect someone who just gave up after Trump sank his teeth into him.

I don't know what's more damming. That the GOP seems to have virtually no principled politicians or that the Democrats seem unlikely to capitalise on it.

Jolly Red Giant

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Heitkamp is certainly coming from waaay behind... Among other things, she's going to suffer from:

1. She broke a previous promise to stand with the ND tribes against the pipeline running close to reservation water sources. This will damage her votes from Native Americans and sympathisers;
2. She voted against Kavanaugh. This will limit many votes from Republicans who might have gone with her previously;
3. Last week's appalling naming of ppl without permission in an advert...

The ratification of Kavanaugh is a non-issue in ND - just like it is a non-issue anywhere. It ranks something like 15th in the list of voter concerns (healthcare is top of the list).

StringerBell

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The ratification of Kavanaugh is a non-issue in ND - just like it is a non-issue anywhere. It ranks something like 15th in the list of voter concerns (healthcare is top of the list).

Really? Whatever about other places I thought it was pretty significant in ND all things considered.

She won by less than 1% of the vote last time, she was behind in the polls this time if I'm not mistaken. If you mean it was a non issue for her there as she wasnt going to get any of the conservative vote anyway I guess I can see your point.

Same as last time she was relying on the Native American vote which she got over 70% of last time to carry her to that narrow win. Given the suppression going on here the GOP are well on top of that situation and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

That's the seat I see them gain in the election, I don't see them lose any.

The house being a different story altogether

demfad

pixelburp wrote: »

Plenty of GOPers have kowtowed to Trump, but there's something particularly obsequious and honestly, pathetic, over Cruz's own falling into step. Trump went to town on him during the Primaries, between the nicknames, weird implication of Cruz's father in JFK murder, trashtalking about his wife, and so on; yet to watch the senator defend him, even canvas after Trump gained the nomination, shows a craven demeanour rather than the cynical tacticians of McConnell & co. I can respect scheming in a certain light, hard to respect someone who just gave up after Trump sank his teeth into him.

It wasn't what Trump did. Cruz criticised Trump at the GOP convention. Their bosses decided to end the spat:

After Cruz dropped out, many Republicans—including Cruz himself—recoiled from Trump. The Mercers, however, joined the Trump camp, and publicly rebuked Cruz, giving a statement to the Times. If Clinton won, the Mercers claimed, she would “repeal both the First and Second Amendments of the Bill of Rights.” Given the stakes, they said, “all hands” were “needed on deck” in order to insure a Trump victory. Cruz, they noted, had “chosen to stay in his bunk below.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-hedge-fund-tycoon-behind-the-trump-presidency

Rebekah and Robert Mercer owned Cambridge Analtytica switched from backing Cruz to backing Trump at this stage. It was clear that Cruz would get bazookad by the Mercers if he didn't fall in line.

Fun Fact: After Cambridge Analytica switched from Cruz to Trump, the St Persburg trolls dis likewise. (Reason in HERE)

Fun Fact2: Vote Leave spent nearly half its £7m allowance on one firm. BeLeave spent £.675 million on them (ilegally), Veterans for Brexit and the DUP also spend monies on them. Most of the DUPs shady £450,000 made its way to them also.
Who are this company? AIQ, Cambridge Analytica's Canadian office.

everlast75

Demfad is our own Ronan Farrow!

Great post

Water John

'Sawers, who was head of the British secret intelligence service until 2014, also claimed that the crown prince would only have acted if he believed he had licence from the White House to behave as he wished.

“I think President Trump and his ministerial team are waking up to just how dangerous it is to have people acting with a sense that they have impunity in their relationship with the United States,” Sawers said.' Guardian.

This is the result of Trump's disdain for the Press and journalists. It has consequences. The present administration in the WH has ownership of the murder of Kamal Khashoggi.

everlast75

To compound his utter contemp for journalists and be even more tone deaf... he cheered on a guy who pleaded down on an assault on a journalist yesterday....

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1053314832911351808?s=19

Leroy42

Because to many Trump supporters the US constitution only concerns the 2nd amendment.

These people are happy enough to accept that school children will continue to die in case anybody tries to mess with their constitutional rights, and if you recall a big rally cry from Trump was that HC would take away the 2nd amendment.

It is just another example of the hypocrisy of the Trump supporters that they claim to love the US, the constitution but only the bits that suits them.

Jolly Red Giant

StringerBell wrote: »

Really? Whatever about other places I thought it was pretty significant in ND all things considered.

The only people who regard the Kavanaugh nomination as significant are the Trumper rednecks - for everyone else the issue is over and done with.

StringerBell wrote: »

She won by less than 1% of the vote last time, she was behind in the polls this time if I'm not mistaken. If you mean it was a non issue for her there as she wasnt going to get any of the conservative vote anyway I guess I can see your point.

She won the last time on the back of the native Americans voting en-masse for her because she promised to oppose the pipeline. The native Americans declared en-masse that they wouldn't be voting for her this time because she abandoned opposition to the pipeline at the height of the Standing Rock protest. That was 30,000 votes - equivalent to approx. 10% of the entire poll. In the last opinion poll she was behind by 10% - that was 3 weeks ago, before the Republicans started to remove the native Americans from the electoral roll. Now the people in the pow camps are p*ssed and will register and go out and vote for Heitkamp just to stick it to the GOP for the stunt they pulled. It probably won't be enough to save Heitkamp - but the result is likely to be significantly closer than the opinion polls.

StringerBell wrote: »

Given the suppression going on here the GOP are well on top of that situation and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The tribal councils have been re-issuing personal ids to the native people free of charge (they normally cost $75 - a massive amount of money where the average annual income is about $3000 per family) - the SoS office in ND has been inundated with requests for registration and are being forced to hire extra staff to process the registrations. This has blown up big-time in the face of the GOP. On Wed the Daily Kos set up a corwdfunding page and raised $100,000 in 70 minutes to help with voter registration.

StringerBell wrote: »

That's the seat I see them gain in the election, I don't see them lose any.

The latest opinion poll in Tennessee shows the Dems 1% ahead - a consistent drift towards the Dems over the past couple of weeks - that was over a week ago. There is a major voter registration campaign underway after the GOP removed or blocked over 200,000 voters on the electoral roll.

The Arizona race is a toss-up - all the polls are within the margin of error. The GOP have removed over 340,000 voters in the past year - and again, a massive voter registration campaign is underway.

Same situation in Nevada - the race is a toss-up - again the GOP have removed 63,000 from the electoral roll - Heller won by 10,000 votes in 2012 and the Dems won in 2016

Opinion Polls in Texas have Cruz ahead by 7 points - here the GOP are trying to boot up to 1.5million voters off the roll. Cruz has repeatedly been shooting himself in the foot and is relying on Trump to save his bacon.

Now there are several seats that the Dems hold that could flip the other way.

Three factors are at play here -

1. The GOP have been purging opposition voters off the electoral roll in a blatant attempt to manipulate the election
2. The Senate election is (and always has been) designed to protect the conservative rural power base of big business America.
3. Despite this the Dems should be wiping the floor with the Republicans given the shambles that is Trump's presidency - they are not - and they are not because they are the representatives of financial capitalism and offer no alternative to the mass of the population in poverty. People are not voting Democrat - they are voting against Trump and the GOP.

The crisis in American society is manifest by the emergence of the right-wing populist, misogynist, racist, xenophobic and super-rich interests expoused by Trump (with the GOP having no option but to hang on his coat-tails) - coupled with a moribund Democratic Party and a wave of radicalism that is manifesting itself in workplaces and on the streets - as exemplified by the MeToo and BlackLivesMatter movements, the wave of strikes by teachers, steel workers, transport workers, amazon workers who have recently won a major pay increase - coupled with the emergence of radical candidates like Jovanka Beckles who is standing against the Dems (against Buffy 'the Bernie Slayer' Wicks who orchestrated the shafting of Bernie Sanders in the primaries) in California with billionaire Republicans backing the Dems in an attempt to prevent a democratic socialist candidate from being elected. This radicalisation is only beginning and will take further steps forward in 2019.

PopePalpatine

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because to many Trump supporters the US constitution only concerns the 2nd amendment.

Don't be so harsh on them, they know about the 1st Amendment too. That's the part about screaming racial abuse and spamming death and rape threats, right?

2 Scoops

Reports are that Mueller is to release his main findings on collusion and obstruction after the mid term elections. I don't generally follow O'Reilly but I agree with him here, and he probably has some inside information.

Rhineshark

2 Scoops wrote: »

Reports are that Mueller is to release his main findings on collusion and obstruction after the mid term elections. I don't generally follow O'Reilly but I agree with him here, and he probably has some inside information.

Obstruction probably, doubt collusion yet though.

Water John

Leaving NY to chase DTs old tax issues, sitting waiting for him once he leaves office. Great incentive to get re-elected.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Reports are that Mueller is to release his main findings on collusion and obstruction after the mid term elections. I don't generally follow O'Reilly but I agree with him here, and he probably has some inside information.

I can't bring myself to watch that ****** *******.

Can anyone provide a synopsis plesse?

TomOnBoard

If O'Reilly is correct, and Rosenstein told Trump that Mueller will report that there's no collusion problem, why would Trump not be leaking that out himself before the Mid-Terms? I think Trump personally might not get a direct hit from Mueller on collusion, but many in his orbit will, but it will be mostly ignorant collusion whereby they were used, rather than that they were knowing participants in a conspiracy. Some like Manafort and Stone may be seen as having been more culpable, but they're expendable...

2 Scoops

TomOnBoard wrote: »

If O'Reilly is correct, and Rosenstein told Trump that Mueller will report that there's no collusion problem, why would Trump not be leaking that out himself before the Mid-Terms? I think Trump personally might not get a direct hit from Mueller on collusion, but many in his orbit will, but it will be mostly ignorant collusion whereby they were used, rather than that they were knowing participants in a conspiracy. Some like Manafort and Stone may be seen as having been more culpable, but they're expendable...

Totally fair point and I wondered about that myself, the only thing that comes to mind is that Rosenstein told Trump he's going to be in the clear but others will be in trouble and not to talk about it. Then the question becomes would Rosenstein trust Trump to keep his gob shut about it? That's definitely questionable. Like O'Reilly said, it's speculation but it does make a lot of sense to me. There are witnesses who under oath said Rosenstein wasn't joking when he suggested wearing a wire.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because to many Trump supporters the US constitution only concerns the 2nd amendment.

These people are happy enough to accept that school children will continue to die in case anybody tries to mess with their constitutional rights, and if you recall a big rally cry from Trump was that HC would take away the 2nd amendment.

It is just another example of the hypocrisy of the Trump supporters that they claim to love the US, the constitution but only the bits that suits them.

Well, the same can be said about the Democrat supporters who are not exactly fans of the 2nd Amendment.

In fairness, the 2nd is, in general, the only contentious one. There are a few folks on both sides with their own ideas of the extent of the concepts behind the First and Fourth, and I think there seems to be greater commentary in support of the Tenth on the conservative side, but by and large the differences between the majority on both sides seem to be in the details on almost all of them. Only on the 2nd does there seem to be a particular battle line drawn, and even at that, there is wide variation internally within the two parties.

aloyisious

There was a televised townhall debate on gun control from Dalton, Texas three days ago, shown here on one of the Sky channels. Quite interesting to see the argument from the proponent of more or better control of guns was not met by hollering from the audience, while he was pointing out that most of the chiefs of police gun crime stats proved the point that the way guns were controlled helped reduce gun crime in their districts.

The extrapolation was unspoken that if the gun control measures employed by law were extended to other districts/regions where they were NOT practiced in/by law then the benefit of reduced gun crime would follow.

Manic Moran

There are two counterpoints to that.

One is that the reduction in crime may also be correlated with a reduction in lawful use as well, which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your position. This is also assuming the whole correlation/causation thing.

The other is that there is something of a split of opinion in law enforcement. As a rule, Chiefs of Police tend to prefer gun control. Sheriffs tend to oppose it. https://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/why-so-many-police-chiefs-favor-gun-control-when-most-sheriffs-dont/#axzz5URynmu37 There are two main reasons for this. One is that police chiefs generally are found in cities. They have urban problems where some solutions can be more beneficial than others. Gun control tends to suit their purposes. Sheriffs are not city, but county based. They usually have more rural areas, longer response times, and different problems. Firearms tend to be more useful for their citizens, and a lot of the urban problems (gang warfare etc) simply don’t apply to them. The other, though not quite as important, is that Sheriffs are usually directly elected by the citizenry as a whole, while Chiefs of police are accountable to the city leadership who appoints them. If the Mayor is anti-gun (eg SF) the Chief of Police had better be as well.
We chiefs get our opinion on firearm ownership when it is issued to us.”

The other is that in recent years, the opinion of police chiefs has become less unified.
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/446866939/gun-debate-divides-nations-police-officers-too
Jennifer Carlson, an American sociologist at the University of Toronto who studies police attitudes toward gun laws, says this divide has grown since the 1990s. A generation ago, she says, police chiefs made a common cause of legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady bill.

"And now you've really seen police not taking as much as a unified stance, at least publicly," she says. "That's been a major shift."

She thinks this may have something to do with the expansion of concealed handgun permits, which gun rights groups pushed for especially hard starting in the late 1990s. Police chiefs initially resisted the expansion of the gun permits, but Carlson says many of them changed their minds when they saw that increased permits didn't cause a big increase in shootings.

The other split is frequently the difference between police department leadership and the rank and file officers. Police usually take pro-gun positions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/as-states-expand-gun-rights-police-join-opposition.html
Despite the current conflicts, police officers and gun rights advocates have long been largely on the same side of the national debate over guns.

From the guys on the pointy end, for example.
https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/
PoliceOne has scored a major scoop in police journalism by conducting a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcers regarding their thoughts on gun control in America.
<snip>
More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.
<snip>
More than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient.
<snip>
From all ranks, from Sheriffs and Chiefs on down, the vast majority (95 percent) say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

This is in sharp contrast to my own home state of Colorado, where the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police stood in support of the magazine ban and other restrictions while many Sheriffs bluntly said in the press that they would not enforce any bans on magazines or so called assault weapons.

Again, that Chief/Sheriff divide.

Surprised you would be surprised that American can behave civilly in a debate.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, the same can be said about the Democrat supporters who are not exactly fans of the 2nd Amendment.

In fairness, the 2nd is, in general, the only contentious one. There are a few folks on both sides with their own ideas of the extent of the concepts behind the First and Fourth, and I think there seems to be greater commentary in support of the Tenth on the conservative side, but by and large the differences between the majority on both sides seem to be in the details on almost all of them. Only on the 2nd does there seem to be a particular battle line drawn, and even at that, there is wide variation internally within the two parties.

The 1st amendment isn't contentious because before Trump came along it was an accepted part of the fabric of the US. A vital cog in the wheel of the functioning of the state.

But now Trump has openly and repeatedly called it into question and Trump supporters have cheered and clapped and defended his actions as he attacks the 1st.

Compare that to how they treat even a conversation about the 2nd. Cries of attacking the constitution, taking away their rights etc. Suddenly people like yourself are the most ardent supporters of the constitution and cannot even countenance any change as it is written and therefore despite the continued deaths no change is allowed.

They have shown yet again that their support for Trump overrides their support for the things they say they believe in.

looksee

On a lighter note for a moment, I don't think that's exactly what they meant...

(CNN)A Russian who allegedly worked on funding online propaganda efforts to manipulate voters in the 2016 and 2018 elections was charged with a federal crime Friday as part of a wider conspiracy to hurt American democracy.

Water John

Very sad to see Trump already accepting Saudi nonsense of a fight gone wrong resulting in Khashoggi's death as credible.
Absolutely no one believes it.

pixelburp

Eric Trump was also on Fox, basically repeating the same thoughts as his father; that while murdering journalists is bad, the Saudis have bought billions of dollars of weapons so they can't be too harsh. Not like the US hasn't sold arms to dodgy countries before but the naked avarice is quite something.