Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

And he's still not qualified for the job.

Plus one billion.

He is amongst the least qualified people to ever hold this position.  He has no intelligence experience.

His sexual orientation isn't a qualifier.

[pilferk]

You those calling him a Russian agent at this point, after that mammoth investigation just look as silly and childish as he does.

Keep in mind, also in that report, was a thorough detailing of how Trump and his campaign obstructed the mammoth investigation, and that the conclusions of Part A were seriously effected by the obstruction detailed in Part B.

The two options here are that Trump and his campaign were truly stupid and were complicit via that stupidity OR there were agents within his campaign who were intentionally complicit with a bonus option of whether Trump knew or didn't (circle back to stupidity).

I wouldn't call him a Russian agent.  I also wouldn't say he was innocent of collaborating with Russia to aid his own election.  That collaboration might not rise to the level of conspiracy, but I think it was close enough (possibly out of stupidity) that Trump and his campaign felt a need to obstruct the investigation.

And there is CERTAINLY enough evidence in the Mueller Report to support that position.

[COMAMOTIVE]

You those calling him a Russian agent at this point, after that mammoth investigation just look as silly and childish as he does.

Keep in mind, also in that report, was a thorough detailing of how Trump and his campaign obstructed the mammoth investigation, and that the conclusions of Part A were seriously effected by the obstruction detailed in Part B.

The two options here are that Trump and his campaign were truly stupid and were complicit via that stupidity OR there were agents within his campaign who were intentionally complicit with a bonus option of whether Trump knew or didn't (circle back to stupidity).

I wouldn't call him a Russian agent.  I also wouldn't say he was innocent of collaborating with Russia to aid his own election.  That collaboration might not rise to the level of conspiracy, but I think it was close enough (possibly out of stupidity) that Trump and his campaign felt a need to obstruct the investigation.

And there is CERTAINLY enough evidence in the Mueller Report to support that position.

I wouldn't argue with any of that.
I'm not defending the jerk off either - but it is tiring hearing how the president of the USA was planted by Russia - meaning he knowingly works for them.
That is ridiculous

[jarmo]

Not being qualified is a good thing remember? Drain the swamp. Lock her up and all that.....

Also, now because of Bloomberg some are concerned that with money you can go far in a presidential election. Hello?



/jarmo

[pilferk]

I wouldn't argue with any of that.
I'm not defending the jerk off either - but it is tiring hearing how the president of the USA was planted by Russia - meaning he knowingly works for them.
That is ridiculous

Planted?  Probably not.

Preferred by?  Probably true.

And, wittingly or unwittingly, acting in a way that largely benefits Russia?  Absolutely true.

I honestly don't think he's the Manchurian candidate.   But I do think that his actions benefit Russia with alarming frequency, and often in contrast to the best interest of the country of which he is president.  Again, I'm totally on board with "it's because he's stupid and has autocratic tendencies".

It just doesn't change the outcome.

[COMAMOTIVE]

I wouldn't argue with any of that.
I'm not defending the jerk off either - but it is tiring hearing how the president of the USA was planted by Russia - meaning he knowingly works for them.
That is ridiculous

Planted?  Probably not.

Preferred by?  Probably true.

And, wittingly or unwittingly, acting in a way that largely benefits Russia?  Absolutely true.

I honestly don't think he's the Manchurian candidate.   But I do think that his actions benefit Russia with alarming frequency, and often in contrast to the best interest of the country of which he is president.  Again, I'm totally on board with "it's because he's stupid and has autocratic tendencies".

It just doesn't change the outcome.

Again - I would agree with everything you just said.

It is just killing me that the Dems are falling into the same crap over and over - Regardless of how dedicated Trump's fanbase is - there is a large contingent of this country right in the middle - yours truly -  and I assure you - Bernie Sanders giving away everything for free is not going to push them to the left in this election

[pilferk]

Again - I would agree with everything you just said.

It is just killing me that the Dems are falling into the same crap over and over - Regardless of how dedicated Trump's fanbase is - there is a large contingent of this country right in the middle - yours truly -  and I assure you - Bernie Sanders giving away everything for free is not going to push them to the left in this election

I would certainly prefer a more moderate, centrist candidate. I'm socially liberal and more fiscally conservative (in the "we should find a way to pay for shit" kinda way...not a "lets hand out corporate wellfare and believe in trickle down economics" kinda way). And I think if the Dems selected one...they'd have an easier time in November.

But I also think there is a sizable contingent of independents (like yours truly) who will vote for anyone other than Trump.  And I think that contingent has grown over the past 4 years.

But at the end of the day, nobody is moving Trumps 40-ish%.  They are dug in and have adopted their support of Trump as their identity.  No matter what he does, no matter what evidence to the contrary is put in front of them, no matter how much data you give them, they're not voting for a Dem (or anyone but Trump).

The question, ultimately, is: How far left are the remaining voters willing to go to get Trump out of office.  That's the question we don't know the answer to.  And we'll see come June-November (ish).

As an aside: IF Repubs lose in 2020 to a candidate like Bernie....they only really have themselves to blame.  THEY will have pushed the country that far left.

The other thing to remember is that Bernie has not, remotely, garnered the majority of voters in ANY of the primary/caucuses so far.  He's under 50% in every single one.  There'a good chance he may have a plurality of delegates come the convention, but not a majority.

Which means it's likely a brokered conference....and I don't think Bernie wins in that situation.  And especially not without significant policy concessions.  I think there are too many moderate candidates who are accumulating delegates that would pitch them to a different candidate.   And, to be frank, that's the way this process is supposed to work. That's the way it's worked for a very long time, in terms of the rules.  

We'll know a LOT more about how things are going to go after March 3rd.  South Carolina, on the 29th, should be interesting because it MAY be Bidens first real win.

It's hard for me to muster a lot of energy for the primary process, anyway.  As a registered indie voter, I don't even get to vote in our state's primaries.  I'm stuck with whoever the 2 parties put in front of me in November (plus an indie or two...).

And I can tell you one thing: There is a snowballs chance in hell I vote for Trump in November.  And I've never sat out an election. So....it's either the Dem or one of the indie candidates.  Not that it matters....CT will vote blue no matter who I vote for....and thus the Dem will get our electoral votes.  But, in all honestly, no matter who the Dems put on the ballot, it will be a better choice than Hillary was, so......

[pilferk]

Of course Bernie would say that. He's most likely to have the most at that point so far. What's wrong with letting it okay out to get to the 1991 delegates needed. I don't think anyone even Bernie should get it without the needed delegates. I don't think that scenario will happen though.

Thats the thing: They said it because...um....those are the rules of the convention and have been for...well, as long as I've been alive.  You either get a majority of delegates...or its a brokered conference.  Same rules apply on the Republican side.  Stevenson and Eisenhower were both "brokered" candidates.  I'm not sure why anyone would expect otherwise, unless they flat out don't understand how the conventions work. (I'm looking at you, Bernie!)

Sanders said what he said likely out of self interest: He's the front runner, and in the situation detailed, he'd be the one mostly likely to have the plurality vs majority.  And he also knows that, in a brokered conference...especially a close one...he'd probably lose.  Because...well...he's not a democrat. Well, unless he wants to use the democratic parties resources and $$ to run for president.  Then he's a democrat for the election season....and changes his party affiliation right back again post election.  But that's neither here nor there.  In a brokered conference, I'd guess the more moderate candidates would ask their delegates to support one of the more moderate candidates.  Hell, I'm not even sure Warren would throw in with Bernie, at this point.  Which makes it a whole lot harder for Bernie to win a brokered conference. Moderates tend to win in situations like that.  And say whatever you want about Bernie (in support or otherwise)....one thing you can't say about him is that he's a moderate.

[pilferk]

And he's still not qualified for the job.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-new-spy-chief-used-to-work-for-a-foreign-politician-the-us-accused-of-corruption

[tim_m]

And he's still not qualified for the job.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-new-spy-chief-used-to-work-for-a-foreign-politician-the-us-accused-of-corruption

Shocking!

[tim_m]

Again - I would agree with everything you just said.

It is just killing me that the Dems are falling into the same crap over and over - Regardless of how dedicated Trump's fanbase is - there is a large contingent of this country right in the middle - yours truly -  and I assure you - Bernie Sanders giving away everything for free is not going to push them to the left in this election

I would certainly prefer a more moderate, centrist candidate. I'm socially liberal and more fiscally conservative (in the "we should find a way to pay for shit" kinda way...not a "lets hand out corporate wellfare and believe in trickle down economics" kinda way). And I think if the Dems selected one...they'd have an easier time in November.

But I also think there is a sizable contingent of independents (like yours truly) who will vote for anyone other than Trump.  And I think that contingent has grown over the past 4 years.

But at the end of the day, nobody is moving Trumps 40-ish%.  They are dug in and have adopted their support of Trump as their identity.  No matter what he does, no matter what evidence to the contrary is put in front of them, no matter how much data you give them, they're not voting for a Dem (or anyone but Trump).

The question, ultimately, is: How far left are the remaining voters willing to go to get Trump out of office.  That's the question we don't know the answer to.  And we'll see come June-November (ish).

As an aside: IF Repubs lose in 2020 to a candidate like Bernie....they only really have themselves to blame.  THEY will have pushed the country that far left.

The other thing to remember is that Bernie has not, remotely, garnered the majority of voters in ANY of the primary/caucuses so far.  He's under 50% in every single one.  There'a good chance he may have a plurality of delegates come the convention, but not a majority.

Which means it's likely a brokered conference....and I don't think Bernie wins in that situation.  And especially not without significant policy concessions.  I think there are too many moderate candidates who are accumulating delegates that would pitch them to a different candidate.   And, to be frank, that's the way this process is supposed to work. That's the way it's worked for a very long time, in terms of the rules.  

We'll know a LOT more about how things are going to go after March 3rd.  South Carolina, on the 29th, should be interesting because it MAY be Bidens first real win.

It's hard for me to muster a lot of energy for the primary process, anyway.  As a registered indie voter, I don't even get to vote in our state's primaries.  I'm stuck with whoever the 2 parties put in front of me in November (plus an indie or two...).

And I can tell you one thing: There is a snowballs chance in hell I vote for Trump in November.  And I've never sat out an election. So....it's either the Dem or one of the indie candidates.  Not that it matters....CT will vote blue no matter who I vote for....and thus the Dem will get our electoral votes.  But, in all honestly, no matter who the Dems put on the ballot, it will be a better choice than Hillary was, so......

I don't think we need a moderate to win. Look at the current occupant, Trump is in no way a moderate. The Democrats haven't done well with centrist candidates in recent memory, Obama being an exception.

[PermissionToLand]

Well, don't you just look sillier with every passing day?  

Are you saying the dnc didnt steal the nomination from bernie in 2016?

Nice dodge.  

No, they put their thumb on the scale last time, and as I'm sure you have pointed out with Russia influencing the 2016 election, there is no way to know whether that actually changed the outcome.

Memes from the Sanders campaign is your counter argument?

So, nothing is your counter argument?  

Something being put forth in meme format does not make it untrue. Are you feeling okay?

As always, you can't counter argue the facts, so you attack the style they are presented in.

Unless he does something unthinkable the guy is going to get re-elected in a landslide - not because of Russia but because of a clueless Democrat party combined with his strong supporters who truly are convinced he has made this country better.

 

You might want to check the polls in the swing states...

It is just killing me that the Dems are falling into the same crap over and over - Regardless of how dedicated Trump's fanbase is - there is a large contingent of this country right in the middle - yours truly -  and I assure you - Bernie Sanders giving away everything for free is not going to push them to the left in this election

• "I'm in the middle"
• "Bernie Sanders is giving away everything for free"

Hmm... something here does not track...

So you agree that Trump is a traitor courting foreign interference in our democracy, falling just short of collusion, but somehow Bernie advocating strong social programs makes him equally bad, if not worse?

I always have to wonder if these kind of people are just conservatives embarrassed to admit what they are, or this is truly how far right the center has shifted in this country...

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-new-spy-chief-used-to-work-for-a-foreign-politician-the-us-accused-of-corruption

FILL THE SWAMP!

I don't think we need a moderate to win. Look at the current occupant, Trump is in no way a moderate. The Democrats haven't done well with centrist candidates in recent memory, Obama being an exception.

Agreed. Bernie is beating Trump in swing state polling.

[PermissionToLand]

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-cuts-programs-responsible-for-fighting-coronavirus-2020-2

In 2018, the CDC cut 80% of its efforts to prevent global disease outbreaks because it was running out of money. Ultimately, the department went from working in 49 countries to just 10.

Trump has:

• Shut down the entire global-health-security unit of the National Security Council.
• Eliminated the US government's $30 million Complex Crises Fund.
• Reduced national health spending by $15 billion.

This is the very real effect of the disease of Trumpism: American citizens are going to die.

This is the result of treating the running of a country as nothing more than an opportunity to advance your own agenda and "own the libs", damn the consequences.

[COMAMOTIVE]

 

[pilferk]

Nice dodge.  

No, they put their thumb on the scale last time, and as I'm sure you have pointed out with Russia influencing the 2016 election, there is no way to know whether that actually changed the outcome.

And here's the thing: The DNC actually has the right to do so.  They have the right to distribute the funds they collect under the umbrella of the Democratic party ANY WAY they want to. They have the right to run the DNC the way they see fit.  And they have a right to "prefer" a candidate who is ACTUALLY a democrat (and not just in election season).  The courts upheld that right.

You can argue whether they should.  You can argue if it was ethical to do so.  But they have the RIGHT to do it.  And thus...it's not stealing.

Along with exactly what you said: There's no way to know how much effect that had on the outcome.

To add: I would sure rather have a domestic political party weigh in and have a preference vs a foreign power doing so every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

If someone disagrees with what the DNC did....man,  they must be FUMING over how the RNC handles Trump!!!

[pilferk]

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-cuts-programs-responsible-for-fighting-coronavirus-2020-2

In 2018, the CDC cut 80% of its efforts to prevent global disease outbreaks because it was running out of money. Ultimately, the department went from working in 49 countries to just 10.

Trump has:

• Shut down the entire global-health-security unit of the National Security Council.
• Eliminated the US government's $30 million Complex Crises Fund.
• Reduced national health spending by $15 billion.

This is the very real effect of the disease of Trumpism: American citizens are going to die.

This is the result of treating the running of a country as nothing more than an opportunity to advance your own agenda and "own the libs", damn the consequences.

This is gross.  Rerouting money from the CDC to pay for pet projects (or corporate well fare tax cuts) is just patently disgusting.

And, like many of Trumps fiscal decisions/prioritizations, it looks like it was a pretty poor one!

Maybe this one is the next to fall over in a stiff breeze?

[COMAMOTIVE]

Apparently Trump is addressing Coronavirus at 6pm today

[LunsJail]

Apparently Trump is addressing Coronavirus at 6pm today

Of course he is now.  The stock market has tanked all week because of it.

[COMAMOTIVE]

Apparently Trump is addressing Coronavirus at 6pm today

Of course he is now.  The stock market has tanked all week because of it.

Yep

[sandman]

way to go liberals. you got it down to 2 pearly white millionaire men pushing 80. not very woke!