Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[drogulus]

Can we blame the Russians for Bernie and Jill as well?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

     We should at least try to figure out what the effects on the election were for each candidate. I don't see how a strong prior conviction that the Russians didn't change outcomes serves any interest. I do want to know. The Trump case is looking more like Russia may have decided it, something I've been a little skeptical about while acknowledging the weight of evidence is growing away from my initial position that Russia didn't decide the outcome, which was largely based on the notion that they didn't falsify the count. I still think they didn't do that. What is becoming apparent is they had an effect elsewhere, in changing minds and altering turnout.

[BasilValentine]

     We should at least try to figure out what the effects on the election were for each candidate. I don't see how a strong prior conviction that the Russians didn't change outcomes serves any interest. I do want to know. The Trump case is looking more like Russia may have decided it, something I've been a little skeptical about while acknowledging the weight of evidence is growing away from my initial position that Russia didn't decide the outcome, which was largely based on the notion that they didn't falsify the count. I still think they didn't do that. What is becoming apparent is they had an effect elsewhere, in changing minds and altering turnout.

Also, there is the distinct possibility that Russian money was funneled to the Trump campaign through the NRA, Essential Consultants Llc, and other conduits. That kind of influence has direct and tangible results.

[bwv 1080]

will likely never know.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-did-russian-interference-affect-the-2016-election/

[bwv 1080]

Also, there is the distinct possibility that Russian money was funneled to the Trump campaign through the NRA, Essential Consultants Llc, and other conduits.

Clinton vastly overspent Trump, so cant blame this on $

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

[The new erato]

That's actually a good one. How the Democrats were so completely out af ideas that they managed to select one of the few candidates that would actually be able to lose against Trump, is beyound me. In fact, how both parties maneafed to be so short of credible candidates is a mystery.

[BasilValentine]

Clinton vastly overspent Trump, so cant blame this on $

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Didn't put much thought into that, did you?  You are saying that Hillary spent more money per vote than Trump, right? If that is so, then it means that every illegal campaign dollar Trump spent would have gotten him more votes than it would have gotten Hillary(?) What on earth does that have to do with your claim? On what planet does that support your nonsensical statement?

[Karl Henning]

Federal judge rejects Trump effort to stop lawsuit alleging he violates Constitution by doing business with foreign governments

[Karl Henning]

Can we blame the Russians for Bernie and Jill as well?

"As well" of course is a conflation 

If zb had posted that, it would have smacked of whataboutery  0:)

For the TV audience at home, what is the big difference between Bernie and Jill, and El Tupé?

1. A former Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, pursued Russia's help in the campaign, interacted with a suspected Russian agent who promised compromising information about Clinton, and later lied to the FBI about his activities.

2. Michael Flynn, who lasted just 24 days as Trump's first national security adviser. In the words of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, Flynn "compromised" himself -- made himself vulnerable to being blackmailed -- by lying about the contents of a December 2016 phone call with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak.

3. Manafort, Trump's onetime campaign chairman, received more than $17 million for his work with Ukraine's pro-Russian Party of Regions in 2012-2013 and, according to corporate records, took as much as $52.8 million in loans from companies controlled by Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska.

4. A U.S. energy consultant once listed by Trump as a foreign policy adviser, Carter Page's July 2016 visit to Moscow has drawn the FBI's interest.

We're just not going to find this baggage in Bernie's or Jill's back closet.

[drogulus]

     How Putin Played the Far Left

     It seems a little off point to me to consider the Russian intervention as wanting a candidate to win. What they wanted was to do as much damage though the electoral process as they could, and while they were doing it they found much to their surprise that Mr. Damage himself had a chance of winning. They didn't need to alter their game plan at all, they knew more about Trump than the American voters did. He was, in their eyes, perfect. By no means has this ever meant that Trump is their friend in their eyes. I judge Putinists have maximum contempt for their stooge. I do, and I'm not even Russian!

    Collaborators don't ever seem to catch a break when the collaboration ends. They bring up too many bad memories.

     I'll never forget the line in Zero Dark Thirty:

Politics are changing and you don't wanna be the last one holding a dog collar when the oversight committee comes.

[Karl Henning]

And, as "the business genius" tries to deflect from his ongoing dumpster fire:

Trump pushes 25 percent auto tariff as top advisers scramble to stop him

[drogulus]

     Immigrant held after Army base pizza delivery released

     Is it just me or is the concept of illegal people starting to crumble around the edges? Who decided these people have to be criminal? Was this wisely decided? I'm sick of bland assertions that people are criminal because because it serves some rotten interest that they remain so, so they won't have rights and can be treated like garbage in "right to work" states.

     I think we don't need a "treat them like garbage" class at all. They should be guest workers, and even if they don't have the full panoply of citizen rights they should still be protected enough to live in the open as respected members of the communities they belong to. Law based cruelty is still cruelty and laws can be changed.

     Also, chain migration is good. We want it. It allows extended families to offer mutual support and it's easier to integrate a family. Can you imagine if we really respected family values for immigrants? Actually we do, or did.

[Karl Henning]

The license to act out of bigoted hatred has been enabled by the President.  Increased incidents of "Go back to your home country!" spat at fellow citizens.

[Karl Henning]

Federal judge rejects Trump effort to stop lawsuit alleging he violates Constitution by doing business with foreign governments

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected President Trump's latest effort to stop a lawsuit that alleges Trump is violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign governments.

This is the nightmare — or one of them — that Trump has long feared, namely litigation in which his business operations, perhaps even his tax returns, are laid bare. Norman Eisen, who is co-counsel with the District and Maryland, tells me, "It is another major crack in the dam that has so far been holding back accountability. [Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III] is closing in; [Michael] Cohen is about to cut a deal; and now we have taken another leap forward in being able to understand how Trump is profiting off the presidency, including possibly from Russia." He adds, "'Follow the money,' the old adage goes, and we are going to do exactly that thanks to this decision."

The decision, running over 50 pages, is an impressive, detailed analysis of the Constitution and 18th century language. This is a judge who did his homework. The ruling is the inevitable result of Trump's decision to maintain ownership of his far-flung business operations and to continue to reap the benefits, foreign and domestic, resulting from his presidency. (Ivanka Trump sure seems prescient in her decision to dump her clothing business, which raises many of the same issues of conflicts of interest and foreign emoluments as her father faces.) The court held: "Plaintiffs have convincingly argued that the term 'emolument' in both the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, with slight refinements that the Court will address, means any 'profit,' 'gain,' or 'advantage' and that accordingly they have stated claims to the effect that the President, in certain instances, has violated both the Foreign and Domestic Clauses." In doing so, the court rejected Trump's argument that an emolument is only an emolument if the president gives the foreign government something in return[....]

[SimonNZ]

Trump Reportedly Threw a Tantrum After Seeing an Air Force One TV Tuned to CNN

"If there was any question as to whether Donald Trump's combative stance toward CNN, the network he's repeatedly labeled "fake news," is strategic posturing that he doesn't truly believe, a report in the New York Times puts that to rest with a story of his throwing a hissy fit when he saw a TV on Air Force One tuned to the news network.

The TV, the Times reports, was the First Lady's and by watching CNN on it, Melania Trump was violating her husband's Fox News–only policy.

He raged at his staff for violating a rule that the White House entourage should begin each trip tuned to Fox — his preferred network over what he considers the "fake news" CNN — and caused "a bit of a stir" aboard Air Force One, according to an email obtained by The New York Times.

Asked about the story, the First Lady's spokeswoman brushed aside a CNN reporter's question but did say that Melania watches "any channel she wants."

[bwv 1080]

The dems lost blue collar workers, its as simple as that - no need for elaborate Russian conspiracy theories (not that the Russians were not involved, but however comforting it may be to blueteamers its naive to blame the outcome on them).  These workers did not see income growth during Obama's two terms (not that it was Obama's fault, but it does not matter in politics) so they voted for someone who offered them something different

real median household income in the US only regained its 1999 peak in 2016
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

After the 1992 election, 15 of the 20 most manufacturing-intensive Congressional districts in America were represented by Democrats. Today, all 20 are held by Republicans.

The shift of manufacturing from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one is a major force remaking the two parties. It helps explain Donald Trump's political success, the rise of Republican protectionism and the nation's polarized politics. It will help shape this year's midterm elections.'

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-manufacturing-towns-once-solidly-blue-are-now-a-gop-haven-1532013368

Protectionism is a net loss to the economy but remains to be seen if it effects some income redistribution to manufacturing

[arpeggio]

I am tired of all of the Hillary gobbledygook.

People keep forgetting that in spite of everything she still won the popular vote by 2.7 million.  Trump won because of a quirk in our electoral system.  This was a greater margin than Obama over Romney.

The reason I hesitate to say this is I know of all the bogus gobbledygook the Trumpsters are going to come up with to counter this fact.  This is why I believe that most Trumpster live in an alternant reality.  Most of them do not believe in Darwin.  I have relatives who are like this.

[Karl Henning]

The dems lost blue collar workers, its as simple as that - no need for elaborate Russian conspiracy theories (not that the Russians were not involved, but however comforting it may be to blueteamers its naive to blame the outcome on them).  These workers did not see income growth during Obama's two terms (not that it was Obama's fault, but it does not matter in politics) so they voted for someone who offered them something different

Okay, I'll say it:  it's naive to attribute Trump's victory simply to dems losing blue-collar workers.  Per arpeggio's summary of the election results.  Especially naive, given the mindless devotion of the Trump base (on display in this very thread).

I'm not saying there is no point in your post.  But nuance is wanted.

[bwv 1080]

Okay, I'll say it:  it's naive to attribute Trump's victory simply to dems losing blue-collar workers.  Per arpeggio's summary of the election results.  Especially naive, given the mindless devotion of the Trump base (on display in this very thread).

I'm not saying there is no point in your post.  But nuance is wanted.

Yes, this thread has been all about nuance, and I think maybe one Trump supporter has ever posted here (not sure about Todd)

[Mahlerian]

Yes, this thread has been all about nuance, and I think maybe one Trump supporter has ever posted here (not sure about Todd)

Todd's an apologist more than a supporter.

[drogulus]

     It's not the case that Hillary lost for only one reason.  Why can't Putin have tipped the election because the working class defected in large numbers? Why can't Putin have tipped the election even though until the very last he had no idea he could?

     The cases are not IMV in the alternative but supplement each other. I personally think H Beast lost because people dislike her more than I do, which is only a little, and because Putin succeeded in making her disliked even more and gave her disgusting fatal diseases.

     Putin targeted swing states. Someone who knew what a swing state meant helped him.  How was this coordinated between Moscow and the U.S. end? If Putin's henchmen were good students, who was the good teacher?