PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Steingar on August 22, 2018, 05:40:47 AM
-
implicates Trump.
-
Another perfesser drive by. ::)
And it's an accusation at this point, not implication. But the liberal talking points didn't cover that.
Here's some factual information the MSM is conveniently leaving out of their narrative:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/21/alan-dershowitz-cnn-scenario-trump/
Dershowitz took issue with Rodgers’ contention by arguing that a candidate is allowed to contribute to their own campaign.
“Any candidate has the right to contribute unlimited amounts to his own campaign,” said Dershowitz. “Any candidate. It may sound terrible, and it may be terrible, but any candidate has the right to pay hush money to somebody to influence the outcome of the election.”
“Not if it’s unreported,” interrupted Rodgers.
“Well, that’s the next question is whether it has to be reported, and is that a technical violation?” Dershowitz responded. “Do you know how many technical violations has the Obama campaign committed and every other campaign committed? Failure to report a contribution by the candidate itself is essentially jaywalking.”
Dershowitz then laid out the “credibility issue” with Cohen who, facing life in prison, would be tempted to say whatever prosecutors wanted him to say.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/21/mark-levin-hannity-cohen/
“It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent,” he continued. “That is number one. Number two, just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything.”
Levin went on to use an example to illustrate his point that what Cohen alleges Trump did is not illegal.
“Say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of money. We have had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them. I’m a candidate, I don’t want the negative publicity. So he says to the private lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done. Is that illegal? It’s perfectly legal. Yet according to the prosecution of the Southern District of New York, it’s paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, how stupid is your point?”
-
implicates Trump.
According to bigots like you, if Trump breathes he is guilty of denying oxygen to black, lesbian, transgender, feminist, pigmies, who drink codfish oil.
-
implicates Trump.
Steingar, from now on your Delta name is "Aunt Mikey."
-
What's my Delta Chi name?
-
What's my Delta Chi name?
Mallard.
-
Steingar, from now on your Delta name is "Aunt Mikey."
Only if yours is Uncle Nincompoop.
The really sad thing is none of this was in any way necessary. Trump didn't have to pay off his little conquests, they could have sung until their throats were raw. The allegations surprised exactly no one. Everyone knew who and what he was. He was utterly right about one thing, he could really shoot someone in the head on 5th avenue and you clowns would still support him. You'd find something wrong with the victim or claim it was fake news.
-
Only if yours is Uncle Nincompoop.
The really sad thing is none of this was in any way necessary. Trump didn't have to pay off his little conquests, they could have sung until their throats were raw. The allegations surprised exactly no one. Everyone knew who and what he was. He was utterly right about one thing, he could really shoot someone in the head on 5th avenue and you clowns would still support him. You'd find something wrong with the victim or claim it was fake news.
Early on I heard that he paid the women off to keep it away from Melania. Not that I approve of that, but it is believable.
And when is it a crime to pay people to help try to sway an election. It is done all the time. Or are ALL those campaign staff workers volunteers? And if so, then wouldn't that be considered an illegal campaign contribution? If paying people to help influence an election is a crime, then every politician is a criminal.
-
Only if yours is Uncle Nincompoop.
The really sad thing is none of this was in any way necessary. Trump didn't have to pay off his little conquests, they could have sung until their throats were raw. The allegations surprised exactly no one. Everyone knew who and what he was. He was utterly right about one thing, he could really shoot someone in the head on 5th avenue and you clowns would still support him. You'd find something wrong with the victim or claim it was fake news.
Yet you breathlessly supported a man who raped several women and you knew exactly what he was, but that didn't seem to bother you.
You supported a woman who saw men fighting and dying but didn't want to help because of political ambitions. You watched as this same woman smear the women her husband abused and raped and drug them through the mud, but that didn't seem to bother you.
You watched another man send guns to Mexico that resulted in innocent people being murdered, yet that didn't bother you. You watched this same man use various government departments to punish his political enemies, yet you still supported him. Then you watched as this same man deny American citizens their due process of law under the constitution and brutally murder them with drones, and that didn't seem to bother you. And you watched that same man sit by with the woman above while brave Americans fought to the death and refused them help, then tried to blame it on a youtube video. And that didn't bother you.
You're a spineless fuckin' hypocrite of a little man perfesser.
-
Early on I heard that he paid the women off to keep it away from Melania. Not that I approve of that, but it is believable.
And when is it a crime to pay people to help try to sway an election. It is done all the time. Or are ALL those campaign staff workers volunteers? And if so, then wouldn't that be considered an illegal campaign contribution? If paying people to help influence an election is a crime, then every politician is a criminal.
NYT's writes an editorial supporting a candidate for president. This is millions of dollars worth of an endorsement and is written to "sway an election". Can we prosecute them under the FEC laws?
Let's say a sick old tired criminal woman decides to run for president. During the campaign she uses her parties funds to hire a foreign agent to go to a foreign country, say an adversary of the US to dig dirt on her opponent. Let's also say this woman uses a law firm to funnel money from her campaign to the agent and a company to compile a dossier on her opponent. Also, lets say that this dossier was leaked to the media to discredit her opponent, then used by her associates in the FBI and the DoJ to get a FISA warrant so these agencies can place spies in the opponent's campaign and to also wire tap his communications.
Think this was a violation of FEC laws? Was this in fact used "to sway an election"? And did this woman's campaign disclose the money that was paid for the dossier as "campaign research"?
-
Only if yours is Uncle Nincompoop.
The really sad thing is none of this was in any way necessary. Trump didn't have to pay off his little conquests, they could have sung until their throats were raw. The allegations surprised exactly no one. Everyone knew who and what he was. He was utterly right about one thing, he could really shoot someone in the head on 5th avenue and you clowns would still support him. You'd find something wrong with the victim or claim it was fake news.
So what? There is nothing illegal here. Since it didn’t involve campaign money, it is not a campaign finance violation. Period. You may wish it to be illegal, but that doesn’t make it so.
-
And for those like the perfesser here's a little tidbit you've seem to have forgotten about your messiah.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/flashback-remember-when-obama-campaign-was-fined-375000-for-campaign-reporting-violations-and-no-jail-time/
President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned.
-
So what? There is nothing illegal here. Since it didn’t involve campaign money, it is not a campaign finance violation. Period. You may wish it to be illegal, but that doesn’t make it so.
Here's what idiots such as the perfesser can't seem to comprehend. Of course, the perfesser only goes on talking points from establishments such as CNN, so he's essentially clueless.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/22/michael-cohen-plea-agreement-trump/
Michael Cohen’s admission must be taken in the proper context. First, his admission was part of a plea deal. What this means is that the prosecutor offered Mr. Cohen a “deal” of some sort for his testimony.
Oftentimes, plea deals include a lesser charge or a reduced sentence. And just because a defendant is offered a plea deal does not necessarily mean that his testimony is truthful, honest, and/or corroborated. Moreover, a plea deal is not an adjudication of guilt and does not create legal precedent. In other words, Mr. Cohen’s plea agreement cannot be used or presented to a court as legal authority.
The terms of the plea deal are also a bit unusual. According to former federal prosecutor John Lauro, it is shocking that the plea deal did not include a cooperation agreement. Lauro explained the possible reasons that there might not be a cooperation agreement.
“It can only mean one of two things,” he said. “Either he didn’t have something to give the prosecutor, or they weren’t convinced that he was completely honest with them.”
-
So what? There is nothing illegal here. Since it didn’t involve campaign money, it is not a campaign finance violation. Period. You may wish it to be illegal, but that doesn’t make it so.
Which brings up a point I thought about earlier, listening to Rush discuss this - if Cohen rolled over and pled guilty to a crime which is not really a crime, in order to get a slap on the wrist for his very real tax evasion - doesn't this just go further to if not exonerate, at least give defense, to Trump on the same point? It's not a crime to do what Trump did, he can't be charged for it, and ultimately Cohen can't be sentenced for it because it's not a crime. So Cohen gets off light on the tax evasion while appearing to make Trump look guilty of a crime that isn't a crime, and everybody walks away with a slap on the wrist. Did Cohen do this intentionally to screw Mueller? It sure seems to me that's the upshot here...
-
Which brings up a point I thought about earlier, listening to Rush discuss this - if Cohen rolled over and pled guilty to a crime which is not really a crime, in order to get a slap on the wrist for his very real tax evasion - doesn't this just go further to if not exonerate, at least give defense, to Trump on the same point? It's not a crime to do what Trump did, he can't be charged for it, and ultimately Cohen can't be sentenced for it because it's not a crime. So Cohen gets off light on the tax evasion while appearing to make Trump look guilty of a crime that isn't a crime, and everybody walks away with a slap on the wrist. Did Cohen do this intentionally to screw Mueller? It sure seems to me that's the upshot here...
Yeah this was my take on it too (no I'm not that Rush). The MSM and the left must be salivating thinking they've finally got Trump but it's nothing but mist, there is no "there" there. It's just a continuation of what they've been doing ever since the election, a lot of mindless thrashing trying to overthrow the result they cannot accept.
-
Yeah this was my take on it too (no I'm not that Rush). The MSM and the left must be salivating thinking they've finally got Trump but it's nothing but mist, there is no "there" there. It's just a continuation of what they've been doing ever since the election, a lot of mindless thrashing trying to overthrow the result they cannot accept.
I'll add that this is nothing more than an attempt to rally the democrat base for the mid terms. They have flamed out badly, no message, nothing inspiring.
-
Steingar is desperate to find something - ANYTHING - to blame on President Trump that he is willing to prostitute the facts to pretend outrage, which when considered in context, makes him another low-information liberal, which we all knew.
-
Steingar is desperate to find something - ANYTHING - to blame on President Trump that he is willing to prostitute the facts to pretend outrage, which when considered in context, makes him another low-information liberal, which we all knew.
Unfortunately, he is characteristic of the breed. The Left (Dems) have allowed the Progressive mindset to rot their brains through indoctrination. It is a scary fact of today's society.
-
So what? There is nothing illegal here. Since it didn’t involve campaign money, it is not a campaign finance violation. Period. You may wish it to be illegal, but that doesn’t make it so.
I would respectfully disagree in this case for two reasons. First, the who. The loyal fixer/lawyer for Trump paid the women off. The relationship to Trump, and the women makes this in the realm of campaign activities. Had the two women not had a semi-credible story to tell, there would have been no payoff, and they could go ahead and make any wild claim they wanted. But - at some time in the past, they can apparently prove to the satisfaction of the lawyer that they were in proximity to Trump, for a sufficient amount of time, and in a place where an affair could have happened(I will call this the blue-spooge testimony).
The second is the when. Apparently these alleged dalliances happened many years before the campaign started, but the payoff was during a contentious part of 2016, just as the Trump campaign had the nomination close to being locked up. The choices here were to let them come out in the Nat Enquirer and say they had the affair, and could at least partially prove it(time, place, people above) and let the candidate deal with the consequence. Or - they could say it didn't happen, pay off the parties, and try to suppress until the candidate is nominated, and hopefully elected.
The lawyer chose #2, which was unwise at a minimum, and if Trump did tell him before the fact to make the payments, that could be construed as a campaign finance contribution or disbursement that is unlawful.
A rational inference can be drawn from at a minimum these two elements to place the money squarely in the campaign's activities to advance a candidate for public office. Now in his defense, this kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME, and it happens in every campaign, and it happens to every candidate. This dust up with Hunter in CA is showing just how wide spread the practice has become. In fact, it all leads back to Watergate where Deep Throat told Woodstein to "follow the money". Campaign spending is a swamp for every candidate, and Trump is no exception.
Sorry, I know this doesn't follow the Trump Only mantra, but he's kind got his ass in a jam on this. What will come up now is the timing and relationship between Trump and Cohen. The only real way out for Trump is if Cohen paid them off of his own money, and then Trump was asked for reimbursement in arrears. If it was setup that Trump knew beforehand, and then paid-off once the silence was bought - that could be very bad.
-
I would respectfully disagree in this case for two reasons. First, the who. The loyal fixer/lawyer for Trump paid the women off. The relationship to Trump, and the women makes this in the realm of campaign activities. Had the two women not had a semi-credible story to tell, there would have been no payoff, and they could go ahead and make any wild claim they wanted. But - at some time in the past, they can apparently prove to the satisfaction of the lawyer that they were in proximity to Trump, for a sufficient amount of time, and in a place where an affair could have happened(I will call this the blue-spooge testimony).
The second is the when. Apparently these alleged dalliances happened many years before the campaign started, but the payoff was during a contentious part of 2016, just as the Trump campaign had the nomination close to being locked up. The choices here were to let them come out in the Nat Enquirer and say they had the affair, and could at least partially prove it(time, place, people above) and let the candidate deal with the consequence. Or - they could say it didn't happen, pay off the parties, and try to suppress until the candidate is nominated, and hopefully elected.
The lawyer chose #2, which was unwise at a minimum, and if Trump did tell him before the fact to make the payments, that could be construed as a campaign finance contribution or disbursement that is unlawful.
A rational inference can be drawn from at a minimum these two elements to place the money squarely in the campaign's activities to advance a candidate for public office. Now in his defense, this kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME, and it happens in every campaign, and it happens to every candidate. This dust up with Hunter in CA is showing just how wide spread the practice has become. In fact, it all leads back to Watergate where Deep Throat told Woodstein to "follow the money". Campaign spending is a swamp for every candidate, and Trump is no exception.
Sorry, I know this doesn't follow the Trump Only mantra, but he's kind got his ass in a jam on this. What will come up now is the timing and relationship between Trump and Cohen. The only real way out for Trump is if Cohen paid them off of his own money, and then Trump was asked for reimbursement in arrears. If it was setup that Trump knew beforehand, and then paid-off once the silence was bought - that could be very bad.
None of your rant even falls within the law and even the former head of the FEC has said it doesn't violate campaign laws, and several legal experts have already weighed in that this doesn't violate FEC laws.
And speaking of violating campaign finance laws (FEC), even the almighty messiah BHO had the largest FEC violation ever levied against him during 2012 ($375,000) yet no one went to jail, no one was "indicted" and not a nary call for impeachment for his "crimes".
-
None of your rant even falls within the law and even the former head of the FEC has said it doesn't violate campaign laws, and several legal experts have already weighed in that this doesn't violate FEC laws.
And speaking of violating campaign finance laws (FEC), even the almighty messiah BHO had the largest FEC violation ever levied against him during 2012 ($375,000) yet no one went to jail, no one was "indicted" and not a nary call for impeachment for his "crimes".
I was hoping you would jump in. We will see what we will see. The time, place, and people involved can make a point that it is a campaign violation. We're at the legal point now that it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. Or, as was the case in Watergate, what did he know, and when did he know it.
If I were so inclined, as are many fanatical liberals I could make up a decent case that the money was a campaign expenditure. Even if it never officially enter the campaign account. Off-book expense/income payments is how plenty of fat cats get caught. We see that right now in Manafort. He thought that because some of his income was obtained and kept offshore, that he didn't have to report it or pay tax on it. After-all, technically the income he made in Russia and banked in the Caymans(or where-ever it was) didn't touch US shores, so he thought he didn't have to report or pay taxes on it. Wrong.
It is not a far leap of faith at all that the expenditure was to advance the cause of the candidate. If that can be proved, I don't care if the girls were paid in Thai Baht, from an account in Barcelona. The fact is that the purpose of the payment was to advance the cause of the candidate. And that - is a campaign expenditure, no if/ands/buts about it. Now, was it a lawful campaign expenditure - is a question for a jurist, with full knowledge of the complex, and irrational campaign finance law.
I have agreed that all parties, and all candidates violate the law, so your example of BO simply reinforces that it happens to everyone. To then exclude Trump from similar campaign violations is a rather ludicrous oxymoronic logic.
-
I would respectfully disagree in this case for two reasons. First, the who. The loyal fixer/lawyer for Trump paid the women off. The relationship to Trump, and the women makes this in the realm of campaign activities. Had the two women not had a semi-credible story to tell, there would have been no payoff, and they could go ahead and make any wild claim they wanted. But - at some time in the past, they can apparently prove to the satisfaction of the lawyer that they were in proximity to Trump, for a sufficient amount of time, and in a place where an affair could have happened(I will call this the blue-spooge testimony).
The second is the when. Apparently these alleged dalliances happened many years before the campaign started, but the payoff was during a contentious part of 2016, just as the Trump campaign had the nomination close to being locked up. The choices here were to let them come out in the Nat Enquirer and say they had the affair, and could at least partially prove it(time, place, people above) and let the candidate deal with the consequence. Or - they could say it didn't happen, pay off the parties, and try to suppress until the candidate is nominated, and hopefully elected.
The lawyer chose #2, which was unwise at a minimum, and if Trump did tell him before the fact to make the payments, that could be construed as a campaign finance contribution or disbursement that is unlawful.
A rational inference can be drawn from at a minimum these two elements to place the money squarely in the campaign's activities to advance a candidate for public office. Now in his defense, this kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME, and it happens in every campaign, and it happens to every candidate. This dust up with Hunter in CA is showing just how wide spread the practice has become. In fact, it all leads back to Watergate where Deep Throat told Woodstein to "follow the money". Campaign spending is a swamp for every candidate, and Trump is no exception.
Sorry, I know this doesn't follow the Trump Only mantra, but he's kind got his ass in a jam on this. What will come up now is the timing and relationship between Trump and Cohen. The only real way out for Trump is if Cohen paid them off of his own money, and then Trump was asked for reimbursement in arrears. If it was setup that Trump knew beforehand, and then paid-off once the silence was bought - that could be very bad.
First, if you’re talking about me on the “Trump Only mantra”, go screw yourself. You haven’t been paying attention.
Second, would you admit that a payment to silence an extortionist, by any other citizen, not using campaign money, would be legal?
If so, then it should be legal for Trump. The fact that a world renowned cad, who probably cheated on and subsequently divorced very beautiful women, had an affair a decade earlier probably would have had a negligible effect on his candidacy, especially given the goings on with numerous previous presidents, including blow jobs with interns in the Oval Office. Hell, if he was a democrat it would have been a resume enhancer.
To be a campaign violation, you would have to say that such a payment was directly motivated to further his presidential run, and deny that it may have been made to protect his reputation, protect his marriage, protect his children, protect his businesses, etc. that is the hypothesis of leftists with an agenda, not from fair viewers of the law.
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2018/08/23/dershowitz-claims-that-cohens-plea-makes-trump-an-unindicted-coconspirator-are-just-wrong-n2512223
“The law is clear that a president may contribute to his own campaign so if the President had paid $280,000 to these two women even if he had done so in order to help his campaign,” Dershowitz explained to Fox’s Bret Baier, “that would be no problem, that’s legal, and if Cohen himself made the contribution that would be unlawful because he has a limit of $5,200 so the complicated issue is what if Trump told him to do it as Cohen says?”
Dershowitz explained that, in that case, it would still not be a crime as Cohen would be acting as the president’s representative.
“The campaign contribution would be lawful as long as the president ultimately paid for it,” he said, “so the prosecutor’s in a little bit of a Catch-22. If he believes Cohen that the president directed him to do it then it’s not a crime at all if he doesn’t believe Cohen then Cohen has committed a crime but not the president.”
On that basis, Dershowitz dismissed the label of “unindicted co-conspirator” that pundits and many prominent Democratic senators have been calling the president since Cohen’s plea.
“You don’t become an unindicted co-conspirator if your action is lawful even though the action of the other person is unlawful,” he emphasized.
-
Second, would you admit that a payment to silence an extortionist, by any other citizen, not using campaign money, would be legal?
If so, then it should be legal for Trump.
And further, according to FEC law as written, it IS legal.
Discussion over. There was no crime. Mueller convinced Comey to plead guilty to a non-crime, they are both idiots.
-
And no one is mentioning Cohen's lawyer, none other than Clinton sycophant Lanny Davis. Yep, the same Lanny Davis who has been with the Clinton's throughout one scandal after another. No one is wondering who is paying Lanny Davis or what his actual motives are.
Had Cohen "hired" any other lawyer, any lawyer without political connections, there may be a trace of viability to what is unfolding. But now we have a long time Clintonista working on his behalf which taints the whole process as yet just another political attack from the Clinton Crime Family.
-
And further, according to FEC law as written, it IS legal.
Discussion over. There was no crime. Mueller convinced Comey Cohen to plead guilty to a non-crime, they are both idiots.
Yep. See my post above concerning Cohen's "lawyer". When you consider that Mueller has surrounded himself with Clintonistas, you can begin to see what is actually transpiring.
-
And further, according to FEC law as written, it IS legal.
Discussion over. There was no crime. Mueller convinced Comey to plead guilty to a non-crime, they are both idiots.
I think you mean Cohen, not Comey, but I get your point.
Throw in the fact that Cohen’s lawyer is Lanny Davis, special counsel and advisor to Bill Clinton, and I think we’re witnessing a small part of the Deep State imploding, because the antagonists have swung for the fence, and whiffed.
-
And no one is mentioning Cohen's lawyer, none other than Clinton sycophant Lanny Davis. Yep, the same Lanny Davis who has been with the Clinton's throughout one scandal after another. No one is wondering who is paying Lanny Davis or what his actual motives are.
Had Cohen "hired" any other lawyer, any lawyer without political connections, there may be a trace of viability to what is unfolding. But now we have a long time Clintonista working on his behalf which taints the whole process as yet just another political attack from the Clinton Crime Family.
Beat me to it by 4 minutes.
-
Those who live by the Hate Trump mantra can't see anything beyond their hatred.
I'm not inferring that inflataspin(sp) is in that camp. The entire democrat party has become a bunch of bed wetting, bigoted, hateful, harridans and any attempt to speak truth to them is considered apostasy. The fact that they can't bring themselves to condemn ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter is proof that these people have no concept of reality.
-
What this country needs is a full on exposure of the manipulative misdeeds of the Clintons and Barack Obama. Front page, irrefutable, caught in the headlights, followed by prosecution. It is my opinion that if that were to happen, the country would swing back to its senses, at least partially. The facades have to come down.
-
In a kingdom of the blind the most dangerous person is the one-eyed man.
He can see the truth and the blind would kill him because they fear what he can see, and what he knows.
-
First, if you’re talking about me on the “Trump Only mantra”, go screw yourself. You haven’t been paying attention.
I wasn't, but thank you very much.
-
And further, according to FEC law as written, it IS legal.
Discussion over. There was no crime. Mueller convinced Comey to plead guilty to a non-crime, they are both idiots.
First, FEC law doesn't write was is legal. All laws in the US defined not legal, but illegal activities, as we are not a proscriptive form of govt.
Second, Mueller has not indicted, tried, convicted Comey for any crime.
Boy - you are right on top of things.
-
Those who live by the Hate Trump mantra can't see anything beyond their hatred.
I'm not inferring that inflataspin(sp) is in that camp. The entire democrat party has become a bunch of bed wetting, bigoted, hateful, harridans and any attempt to speak truth to them is considered apostasy. The fact that they can't bring themselves to condemn ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter is proof that these people have no concept of reality.
Thank you. My issue is that even those who appreciate that Trump is in office have a hard time pointing out flaws. Trump has done a bunch of good and a few great things so far. But - he is not immune to mistakes. Right now, given the coterie of charges, indictments, and convictions of the lieutenants surrounding the pres, it's troubling me that Trump has not vetted or chosen some of his staff very well.
From what I've heard in the MSM, they had Cohen cold on tax evasion, and some banking regulations. The feds were going through his accountant, and business partners, along with possibly his wife who also signed his tax returns. He was looking at being tried on at least 20 separate counts. Like Manafort, even if he had been acquitted of some of those, the big ones are tax evasion. The tax people rarely lose, not because they are right, but because they have unlimited power, and funds to crush anyone. In this case, it would seem Cohen didn't make it very hard to show him hiding money, and taking tax breaks that were not only unwarranted, but directly disallowed by statute.
I'm by no means a liberal Trump hating sycophant. Everytime I try to hop on the Trump bus, and start cheering I find out he's done something else bone-headed. Like publicly telling the world his father is German. WTF? Anyway, if he told Cohen to pay off these girls, and the REASON he did it was to advance his campaign for public office, that is a violation of campaign expense. No - matter - where - the - money - came - from. If he didn't tell Cohen to pay them off, and then they were paid off by Cohen, and then Trump paid Cohen back afterward from his own pocket, that is likely NOT a campaign violation, and simply a business expense, although the reason was still advancement of the candidate. If it were for other personal reasons like his marriage, or kids, or standing in the community, that is a matter of determination for a jury, but for me it is sufficiently timely that the campaign had a direct influence on the decision to pay off.
The law may be blind, but it isn't stupid.
-
I was hoping you would jump in. We will see what we will see. The time, place, and people involved can make a point that it is a campaign violation. We're at the legal point now that it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. Or, as was the case in Watergate, what did he know, and when did he know it.
No. Nothing illegal transpired. It's been tried before and failed spectacularly.
-
I’m constantly waiting for Trump to really step in it.
People who do a lot, say a lot, and achieve a lot, usually have a lot of public history that can be criticized.
As our Rush once said, Trump is a narcissist, who selfishly wants to leave a big legacy of making America great again. Schindler was an industrialist who wanted personal profit and to save some Jews at the same time. Perfection, if it existed in a leader, would probably be a weakness!
I’m just glad Trump has turned his formidable energies toward exposing threats to our republic and lifting America and Americans up from the battering we’ve taken from the Uniparty.
-
No. Nothing illegal transpired. It's been tried before and failed spectacularly.
Actually, in both of my references; 'meaning of "is" is', and Watergate - both executives were either impeached(Clinton was found not guilty but had his law license revoked), and Nixon's top cabinet all went to fed prison, while Nixon was forced to resign before he was going be successfully impeached and removed. Two spectacular successes. Further as noted, the prev guy got caught committing spectacular violations and the campaign paid several large payouts. While nothing was done to the pres, the DNC paid a lot of money and several staffers were ordered removed for cause.
-
Anyway, if he told Cohen to pay off these girls, and the REASON he did it was to advance his campaign for public office, that is a violation of campaign expense. No - matter - where - the - money - came - from. If he didn't tell Cohen to pay them off, and then they were paid off by Cohen, and then Trump paid Cohen back afterward from his own pocket, that is likely NOT a campaign violation, and simply a business expense, although the reason was still advancement of the candidate.
Again, several legal experts have gone on record and said this does not violate any laws, period. Also, the former FEC Chair has gone on record and said this does not violate any laws, period.
Your legal analysis is the shit being pushed by the MSM with no basis in fact or law.
If it were for other personal reasons like his marriage, or kids, or standing in the community, that is a matter of determination for a jury, but for me it is sufficiently timely that the campaign had a direct influence on the decision to pay off.
The law may be blind, but it isn't stupid.
Jury? For what? Please cite the laws supposedly been violated here? There is nothing against the law for paying someone off to go away and entering into a NDA. Nothing. It's done every day. Hell, even Bubba paid off Paula Jones ($850,000) with a check from his lawyer at the start of his second term as President.
This whole deal of trying to attach this as a violation of election laws is laughable on it's face.
-
52 USC 30118(a), 30109(d, 1, A), 30116(a,1A), and 30116(a,7)
Proffer:
Knowingly and willfully caused a corporation to make a contribution and expenditure … to ensure that Woman-1 did not publicize damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.
[and]
Knowingly and willfully made and caused to be made a contribution … in excess of the limits of the Election Act … to Woman-2 to ensure that she did not publicize damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.
Get your 'legal experts', and FEC chair on retainer. They will make good witnesses for the defense. Because you said 'period' with such authority(twice), I'm sure the rest of the world will agree with you.
-
First, FEC law doesn't write was is legal. All laws in the US defined not legal, but illegal activities, as we are not a proscriptive form of govt.
Second, Mueller has not indicted, tried, convicted Comey for any crime.
Boy - you are right on top of things.
When I first started reading through these threads, I picked up on a lot of hostility from you and I figured there was some personal history involved and y'all were having fun being an ass to each other. Now I come to realize you're just an unmitigated unwashed ass, across the board.
Got it.
-
52 USC 30118(a), 30109(d, 1, A), 30116(a,1A), and 30116(a,7)
Proffer:
Knowingly and willfully caused a corporation to make a contribution and expenditure … to ensure that Woman-1 did not publicize damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.
[and]
Knowingly and willfully made and caused to be made a contribution … in excess of the limits of the Election Act … to Woman-2 to ensure that she did not publicize damaging allegations before the 2016 presidential election and thereby influence that election.
Get your 'legal experts', and FEC chair on retainer. They will make good witnesses for the defense. Because you said 'period' with such authority(twice), I'm sure the rest of the world will agree with you.
Given your self proclaimed legal expertise (I'm sure you'll tell us at some point in your life you were a top shelf lawyer among other things) you can keep on harping about how these laws apply when it's been debunked by actual real lawyers as nothing more than slinging shit at the wall and hoping something sticks.
-
When I first started reading through these threads, I picked up on a lot of hostility from you and I figured there was some personal history involved and y'all were having fun being an ass to each other. Now I come to realize you're just an unmitigated unwashed ass, across the board.
Got it.
I love it! Being accused of hostility by being - hostile. Classic.
-
I am still waiting for mueller to present the first evidence of Russian collusion that wasn't fabricated to make it look like Hilary wasn't the perpetrator.
Of course sessions and hilary were quite friendly when both were in the senate... just like her and mccain.
Hmmm.... I guess all that cross pollinating of cash between mueller and comey while the lying pig mueller was at Lockheed Martin aren't important enough for the dept of injustice to look into and prosecute.
Lying to the FISA judges to get warrants based on fraudulent information that were used to phony up make believe evidence the Donald Trump was somehow at fault when it was their dear friend felonious, is not important enough to interrupt a good witch hunt, is it?
Just like the lemmings they are, the liberal (nazi) left are salivating about the make believe evidence worthy of impeachment.
Stupidity is the only thing liberals adore as much as abortion.
-
I love it! Being accused of hostility by being - hostile. Classic.
Fighting fire with fire is a well established defense.
-
Notice that the MSM has gotten quiet about the dossier since Lanny Davis torpedoed it the other day when he said everything in it about Cohen was not true.
-
Notice that the MSM has gotten quiet about the dossier since Lanny Davis torpedoed it the other day when he said everything in it about Cohen was not true.
Yep. In typical Lanny fashion, he sometimes opens mouth and inserts foot. In his quest of attempting to paint Trump as an "unindicted co-conspirator" of a made up crime he forgot his handlers were the ones behind the dossier.
-
Just Michael trolling again. Nothing to see here.
-
Just Michael trolling again. Nothing to see here.
Yep, his typical drive by.
-
The Cohen deal seems to have more or less blown over quickly. Trump is still banging on Sessions for investigations into the Dems. While there is a lot of meat on that bone, I think Trump is kind of being petty trying to influence the DOJ in what it should be investigating. Not that he's wrong, just that the DOJ isn't supposed to be a partisan shop, and the pres advising justice to go after a political opponent seems a bit uncouth.
I don't think there's much of anything left for the pros in the Cohen deal. Aside from the payments to the bimbos it appears to be just straight up tax and bank shenanigans.
-
The Cohen deal seems to have more or less blown over quickly. Trump is still banging on Sessions for investigations into the Dems. While there is a lot of meat on that bone, I think Trump is kind of being petty trying to influence the DOJ in what it should be investigating. Not that he's wrong, just that the DOJ isn't supposed to be a partisan shop, and the pres advising justice to go after a political opponent seems a bit uncouth.
I don't think there's much of anything left for the pros in the Cohen deal. Aside from the payments to the bimbos it appears to be just straight up tax and bank shenanigans.
The DoJ is part of the executive branch, and the AG is a cabinet position. Thus, this department and this AG report to the President.
The President has the constitutional right to direct the DoJ and the AG. The problem at hand is the politics that are tying the President's hands to direct his administration. The house and the senate are purposely trying to usurp the President's constitutional authority which is wrong.
-
Yes, that's fine. Then as the chief executive, call Sessions into a meeting, with the AG, and exec counsel and TELL him in no uncertain terms to direct his energies toward this, or that, or the other crimes he sees being committed by HRC, Bernie, DNC, etc. If the head of the DOJ then refuses, and the AG is present, Trump can then tell Sessions/Rosenstein he/they are no longer needed in govt service, may I have your badge and ID, and security will show you to the door - have a nice day.
Going on network TV and excoriating your own empl with a completely partisan rant is unprofessional. I don't care if you are the CEO of the biggest business in the world, or president of the biggest nation. Internal dissension is not for public consumption.
-
Yes, that's fine. Then as the chief executive, call Sessions into a meeting, with the AG,
Sessions is the AG.
and exec counsel and TELL him in no uncertain terms to direct his energies toward this, or that, or the other crimes he sees being committed by HRC, Bernie, DNC, etc. If the head of the DOJ then refuses, and the AG is present, Trump can then tell Sessions/Rosenstein he/they are no longer needed in govt service, may I have your badge and ID, and security will show you to the door - have a nice day.
Going on network TV and excoriating your own empl with a completely partisan rant is unprofessional. I don't care if you are the CEO of the biggest business in the world, or president of the biggest nation. Internal dissension is not for public consumption.
To be fair, with the current political situation in which the house and senate are attempting to usurp the presidential constitutional authority with outright threats of impeachment if the president acts within his authority, I can understand the frustration and the reason to get this out in the public domain without the censorship or rewrite of the MSM.
The bigger story here is why, with mountains of evidence already out there, the AG refuses to investigate the scandals of the democrats and the progressives, along with their deep state operatives?
-
Yep, his typical drive by.
Maybe Aunt Peggy was really a dude professor, and Steingar pulled one over on everyone at POA. Their M.O.s are identical.
-
Sessions is the AG.
Sorry, I missed "asst" AG, Rosenstein. Get em both in the room and explain the way things will be. But - do it in the oval office, not in a sound bite on CNN/Fox
-
Sorry, I missed "asst" AG, Rosenstein. Get em both in the room and explain the way things will be. But - do it in the oval office, not in a sound bite on CNN/Fox
And within minutes of the meeting, the leaks begin. Rosenstein calls his BFF Mueller and says "The President is obstructing justice!!!" as Sessions runs for cover. Then we have the chorus in the house and senate running in front of the cameras declaring "If the President fires either Sessions or Rosenstein we will impeach!!"
Then CNN/Fox will develop their own soundbites to make the President look bad anyway.
It's a shit sandwich no matter how it's sliced.
-
Maybe Aunt Peggy was really a dude professor, and Steingar pulled one over on everyone at POA. Their M.O.s are identical.
I have met both Michael (Steingar) and Aunt Peggy at the same POA fly in a few years ago, so know they are not the same person. Michael was friendly as was his very nice wife. Aunt Peggy was not. She knew I was a conservatarian, so held it against me even though I tried to be friendly towards her. Typical lib.
-
And within minutes of the meeting, the leaks begin. Rosenstein calls his BFF Mueller and says "The President is obstructing justice!!!" as Sessions runs for cover. Then we have the chorus in the house and senate running in front of the cameras declaring "If the President fires either Sessions or Rosenstein we will impeach!!"
Then CNN/Fox will develop their own soundbites to make the President look bad anyway.
It's a shit sandwich no matter how it's sliced.
Sauce, for the goose. Yet one more reason to justify the firings. A confidential meeting with Trump, Sessions, Rosenstein, and WH counsel. Only 4 people could leak, and it wouldn't be Trump or WH counsel. Then have the new AG investigate Sessions and get him under oath and ask him if he leaked, or knows who did.
Stop playing the media game, and do the job he was sent to do. Drain the swamp, even if you hired the swamp-thing, admit the mistake, fix it and move on.
-
If you listened to Rush today, you heard him lay out what's really going on. They are working with Trump's CFO now to go get his tax returns.
-
If you listened to Rush today, you heard him lay out what's really going on. They are working with Trump's CFO now to go get his tax returns.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/08/24/getting-rid-of-trump-is-all-that-matters-to-mueller/
-
Tax man gets everyone. Maybe because the fed tax code is 858,933,814,754 pages long, and full of impenetrable double-speak.
-
Tax man gets everyone. Maybe because the fed tax code is 858,933,814,754 pages long, and full of impenetrable double-speak.
None of which applies to that scum bag, racist, Al Sharpton, or most liberals...
-
Has anyone else noticed how quickly the MSM dropped Omorossa and John Brennan?
-
Has anyone else noticed how quickly the MSM dropped Omorossa and John Brennan?
They throw up anything, and everything to see if something sticks. Now they are trying to create something out of nothing again with Cohen, and Manafort. The Media has NO credibility anymore, yet some still value their propaganda. It reinforces my opinion of Progressives (totalitarian communists) who are so easily duped, indoctrinated, and brainwashed into believing more government is the solution to everything.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/27/mark-levin-trump-mueller-impeachment/
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/27/dershowitz-hannity-manafort-cohen-trump/
-
The left and the media are now in full collective psychopathic rage. If there is no such term as collective psychopathy there needs to be and I'm inventing it right now.
-
I have met both Michael (Steingar) and Aunt Peggy at the same POA fly in a few years ago, so know they are not the same person. Michael was friendly as was his very nice wife.
Mrs. Steingar likes exactly no one (including me), but thought you were quite charming. I swear I never heard her use that word to describe anyone else.
Steingar is desperate to find something - ANYTHING - to blame on President Trump that he is willing to prostitute the facts to pretend outrage, which when considered in context, makes him another low-information liberal, which we all knew.
This is hysterical. All I said was that Cohen pled guilty and implicated Trump, both of which he did. You can read it on Fox news even. You guys remind me of him when he says he didn't say the things he said on tape.
-
Mrs. Steingar likes exactly no one (including me), but thought you were quite charming. I swear I never heard her use that word to describe anyone else.
It may have been the Tequila that made her think that. :)
I had a very nice time with the both of you, and also thought Mrs. Steingar was quite charming. You certainly married well Michael. Maybe someday you can give me your secret as I certainly haven't! LOL!
-
This is hysterical. All I said was that Cohen pled guilty and implicated Trump, both of which he did. You can read it on Fox news even. You guys remind me of him when he says he didn't say the things he said on tape.
Cohen is not capable of "implicating" anyone. To implicate means he has shown the President to have committed a crime, which he didn't.
What Cohen did do was make an accusation, one not based in law.
A high school student would understand the difference.
-
Cohen is not capable of "implicating" anyone. To implicate means he has shown the President to have committed a crime, which he didn't.
What Cohen did do was make an accusation, one not based in law.
A high school student would understand the difference.
Don't you understand Mr. Triple Digit thinks he is smarter than a fifth grader.
-
It may have been the Tequila that made her think that. :)
I had a very nice time with the both of you, and also thought Mrs. Steingar was quite charming. You certainly married well Michael. Maybe someday you can give me your secret as I certainly haven't! LOL!
I appreciate this exchange. It's a good reminder that some of us here are real people. And a few of you have even met to confirm the same!
Well, the invitation is open for those who ever get down to Florida. I'm in West Central, Tampa area. Message me here and we'll get together, and I'm happy to host.
-
I appreciate this exchange. It's a good reminder that some of us here are real people. And a few of you have even met to confirm the same!
Well, the invitation is open for those who ever get down to Florida. I'm in West Central, Tampa area. Message me here and we'll get together, and I'm happy to host.
We can get caught up in politics, and have to remember even if we disagree, we are still people with a similar interest, and good folks. Thanks for the offer!
-
We can get caught up in politics, and have to remember even if we disagree, we are still people with a similar interest, and good folks. Thanks for the offer!
True. Well, except for a few of us.
-
I have really enjoyed meeting quite a number of people from this board. We're all pilots, and that is such a huge shared experience that the rest just gets drowned out.
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/cliffnichols/2018/09/02/memo-to-president-trump-prosecute-hillary-clinton-or-perish-n2515001
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/cliffnichols/2018/09/02/memo-to-president-trump-prosecute-hillary-clinton-or-perish-n2515001
I was with him until he said all of this is being brilliantly orchestrated by Hillary Clinton. I don't give her that much credit; I think she was very involved in creating this Frankenstein Monster but just one of many, and if she were to die today, this corrupt machine will continue without missing a beat. I don't believe for a minute she's running it all from behind the scenes at this point, she's a sick washed up old hag, but I suppose I could be wrong.
THIS is what I fear:
Unconstrained, those with such potentially unlimited power could easily go rogue and morph into a government unto to themselves.
The more Democrats leave the party and the more the improving economy raises Trump's approval rating, the more they will have to "go rogue" and use thug tactics to hang on to power. I'm having trouble understanding why Trump is hesitating to exercise his authority to directly "drain the swamp" like he promised. Didn't he say in one of the debates that he would see to it Hillary is prosecuted? He's keeping a lot of his promises, I'm still waiting on these.
Is he waiting til after the elections? Is he afraid voters will swing blue again if they perceive him behaving too unilaterally?
-
I'm having trouble understanding why Trump is hesitating to exercise his authority to directly "drain the swamp" like he promised. Didn't he say in one of the debates that he would see to it Hillary is prosecuted? He's keeping a lot of his promises, I'm still waiting on these.
Is he waiting til after the elections? Is he afraid voters will swing blue again if they perceive him behaving too unilaterally?
Problem is not only the lunatic fringe democrats, but the establishment republicans as well. Several senators (republican) have already stated that if the President fires Sessions (which he has every right under the constitution) that they will stonewall his replacement. He's also been threatened by these same loons if he fires Sessions, or Rosenstein or even Mueller they'll concoct articles of impeachment.
This should make it very clear this is the deep state at work. The President has clear authority under the constitution but this cabal has thwarted those powers via corrupt means. Those in the beltway that still value the constitution, this should be the wake up call. If they can get away with this on the President, then they are next.
We are witnessing the greatest scandal in the US government being carried out. The weaponization by BHO of federal agencies has grave consequences if this is not stopped and these perpetrators are not prosecuted.
-
The more Democrats leave the party and the more the improving economy raises Trump's approval rating, the more they will have to "go rogue" and use thug tactics to hang on to power. I'm having trouble understanding why Trump is hesitating to exercise his authority to directly "drain the swamp" like he promised. Didn't he say in one of the debates that he would see to it Hillary is prosecuted? He's keeping a lot of his promises, I'm still waiting on these.
Is he waiting til after the elections? Is he afraid voters will swing blue again if they perceive him behaving too unilaterally?
He would have to (at least) replace Sessions to get charges brought, and he's probably afraid that he would trigger a blue wave in the midterms if he did that, so he is waiting until after to do it.
Most likely the Dems will make enough headway in the midterms to claim a blue wave anyway though. Other than among committed Republicans, Trump is not very popular and his endorsements are not likely to make the difference in the general election anyway.
The bigger problem is that the FBI all but cleared her of criminal wrongdoing. It would also take reopening the investigation. If there's new evidence against her, it should be done; if she committed crimes she should be prosecuted, same as anyone indicted out of the Mueller investigation. Let's clear the air.
-
^^^^In what are you basing your claim that Trump isn't very popular? The Media? Democrats? I don't believe in polls, but most of them are relatively favorable to Trump.
-
^^^^In what are you basing your claim that Trump isn't very popular? The Media? Democrats? I don't believe in polls, but most of them are relatively favorable to Trump.
If you don't believe in polls, then what's the point to answering? I don't trust any single poll either, but all of the recent polls are placing him somewhere between 36% and 46%, with an average down around 40%. How is that relatively favorable to Trump?
-
If you don't believe in polls, then what's the point to answering? I don't trust any single poll either, but all of the recent polls are placing him somewhere between 36% and 46%, with an average down around 40%. How is that relatively favorable to Trump?
Yep, polls are important! Just ask President Hillary about her landslide victory in 2016. Even the exit polls at 6pm eastern on election day had Hillary winning by a landslide.
Polls are a political tool, and with the alt left progressive MSM they are there to help sway voters to their side. 2016 should have been the wake up call, but as we see today the progressive mindset is they want to believe their own bullshit and delusions.
-
If you don't believe in polls, then what's the point to answering? I don't trust any single poll either, but all of the recent polls are placing him somewhere between 36% and 46%, with an average down around 40%. How is that relatively favorable to Trump?
The polls I am seeing are at 50% approval. In addition Trump won the only poll the matters. THE ELECTION which was not very long ago. Anyway, where were Obama's polls? Would you say he wasn't very well liked?
-
Yep, polls are important! Just ask President Hillary about her landslide victory in 2016. Even the exit polls at 6pm eastern on election day had Hillary winning by a landslide.
Yes, Hillary was expected to win, and the polls were wrong (sometimes they are), but these are half truths. First of all, exit polls at 6pm are too early to be a good indicator of the final result - and which time zone was that? If eastern, they were WAY too early, given that most people in the western time zones had not even voted yet.
The exit polls I see when looking up the election history show a clear victory for Trump, though when they were taken is not stated.
Second, though all the polls leading up to the election had Hillary ahead, most were not by landslide margins and several had Trump within reach depending on how the undecideds swung.
Anyway, Trump's current approval rating is comparable to Obama's at the same point in their presidencies, low to mid 40s (source: Rasmussen). The midterm elections are often a referendum on the sitting president, and we all know what happened in the 2010 midterms. Remains to be seen if the same thing will happen this year, but it's a reasonable thing to predict that the Repubs will suffer significant losses, and that is all I was saying.
-
I'm answering because I feel like answering. Got a problem with that? The polls I am seeing are at 50% approval. In addition Trump won the only poll the matters. THE ELECTION which was not very long ago. Anyway, where were Obama's polls? Would you say he wasn't very well liked?
You misunderstood, I meant what would be the point in MY answering, since my opinion was based on the polls.
And I'm only going by the average of the polls. A couple are indeed up around 50%, but the average is much lower.
As I said below, his current approval rating is comparable to Obama's in early September 2010.
-
Anyway, Trump's current approval rating is comparable to Obama's at the same point in their presidencies, low to mid 40s (source: Rasmussen). The midterm elections are often a referendum on the sitting president, and we all know what happened in the 2010 midterms. Remains to be seen if the same thing will happen this year, but it's a reasonable thing to predict that the Repubs will suffer significant losses, and that is all I was saying.
So why make the statement that Trump is not well liked? Hey, we are all entitled to our opinions, but clearly there is no basis in fact for that statement.
-
So why make the statement that Trump is not well liked? Hey, we are all entitled to our opinions, but clearly there is no basis in fact for that statement.
The alt left talking points in play by azure. They must keep up the mantra of how the President is unpopular. This way they can continue the fantasy of “the blue wave”.
-
Yes, Hillary was expected to win, and the polls were wrong (sometimes they are), but these are half truths. First of all, exit polls at 6pm are too early to be a good indicator of the final result - and which time zone was that? If eastern, they were WAY too early, given that most people in the western time zones had not even voted yet.
The exit polls I see when looking up the election history show a clear victory for Trump, though when they were taken is not stated.
Second, though all the polls leading up to the election had Hillary ahead, most were not by landslide margins and several had Trump within reach depending on how the undecideds swung.
Anyway, Trump's current approval rating is comparable to Obama's at the same point in their presidencies, low to mid 40s (source: Rasmussen). The midterm elections are often a referendum on the sitting president, and we all know what happened in the 2010 midterms. Remains to be seen if the same thing will happen this year, but it's a reasonable thing to predict that the Repubs will suffer significant losses, and that is all I was saying.
Wow, talk about revisionist history!
And you seriously don’t understand polling, and even exit polls. I’m not going to take the time to go through you blather to show how this is true, after all most of your postings here are the classic liberal drive by types. You’ll disappear again shortly when you realize people aren’t buying your talking points drivel.
-
So why make the statement that Trump is not well liked? Hey, we are all entitled to our opinions, but clearly there is no basis in fact for that statement.
Neither was Obama at the same point in his presidency, and the (apparent) result was a catastrophe for the Dems in the midterms. That was the point of my statement. How can you say it has no basis in fact?
-
The alt left talking points in play by azure. They must keep up the mantra of how the President is unpopular. This way they can continue the fantasy of “the blue wave”.
Evidently anything that disagrees with your view of the Trump phenomenon as a revolution is "alt left talking points". ::)
And I never said there would be an actual blue wave in the midterms to compare with the red wave in 2010, just enough Repub losses for them to claim such.
And if you think I would be gloating if that came to pass, you'd be mistaken. The Dem Party is moving farther and farther to the socialist left as the Repubs move farther right into Trump nuttiness. I will likely vote for Phil Scott in our gubernatorial race this November and some of the more moderate candidates for local seats, and sit everything else out. I HATE what is happening to politics in this country. :(
-
Neither was Obama at the same point in his presidency, and the (apparent) result was a catastrophe for the Dems in the midterms. That was the point of my statement. Did you even read my other post that I alluded to?
So are you saying Obama, as well as all/most Presidents suffer from the same midterm slump? So Trump is no less well liked than Obama, right?
-
Evidently anything that disagrees with your view of the Trump phenomenon as a revolution is "alt left talking points". ::)
And I never said there would be an actual blue wave in the midterms to compare with the red wave in 2010, just enough Repub losses for them to claim such.
And if you think I would be gloating if that came to pass, you'd be mistaken. The Dem Party is moving farther and farther to the socialist left as the Repubs move farther right into Trump nuttiness. I will likely vote for Phil Scott in our gubernatorial race this November and some of the more moderate candidates for local seats, and sit everything else out. I HATE what is happening to politics in this country. :(
No, but the rare times you stop by to post are little more than talking points from the dems. You and another academic here are very predictable in your postings and the drive by technique.
The only difference between yourself and the other academic here is at least he admits to his progressive ideology.
-
So are you saying Obama, as well as all/most Presidents suffer from the same midterm slump? So Trump is no less well liked than Obama, right?
Partly, yes. The main difference is that Trump's approval rating was for most of his first year well below Obama's during his first year in office (2009) -- see Rasmussen. Trump then caught up to Obama earlier this year, and they are currently doing about equally well. You could frame it as a "midterm slump", but considering how low he was for much of 2017, where he is now is an improvement. So I think it's more that he's improved his standing a little thanks to some popular decisions (e.g. tax cut, maybe North Korea), but he's still not a popular president, outside of the Republican party.
-
Partly, yes. The main difference is that Trump's approval rating was for most of his first year well below Obama's during his first year in office (2009) -- see Rasmussen. Trump then caught up to Obama earlier this year, and they are currently doing about equally well. You could frame it as a "midterm slump", but considering how low he was for much of 2017, where he is now is an improvement. So I think it's more that he's improved his standing a little thanks to some popular decisions (e.g. tax cut, maybe North Korea), but he's still not a popular president, outside of the Republican party.
He was popular enough to get elected, so he must of at least attracted some Democrats, and Independents, but I agree we as a country are very, very divided on party lines. Very few if any Progressive Democrats which make up most of the party "like" Trump. In fact they hate him even though things like Black Unemployment being at an all time low should make them at least think a bit.
Many Trump supporters, including myself, don't think of themselves as Republicans anymore.
-
No, but the rare times you stop by to post are little more than talking points from the dems. You and another academic here are very predictable in your postings and the drive by technique.
Frankly, academics don't have a lot of time for political conversations on boards where their positions are in the minority. Takes too much time, too aggravating. So yes, I'll probably disappear again after the holiday weekend
The laughable (or maybe sad) thing is, I'm pretty far to the right of Michael politically, yet I'm STILL an alt-lefter to you. Just goes to show how ultra-polarized our politics has become. Not a good thing at all, IMHO.
-
Frankly, academics don't have a lot of time for political conversations on boards where their positions are in the minority. Takes too much time, too aggravating. So yes, I'll probably disappear again after the holiday weekend
The laughable (or maybe sad) thing is, I'm pretty far to the right of Michael politically, yet I'm STILL an alt-lefter to you. Just goes to show how ultra-polarized our politics has become. Not a good thing at all, IMHO.
The only person you are fooling is yourself.
The “ultra polarization” of politics can be laid directly in the laps of the progressive wing of the democrat party. The over the top “resist” movement is a perfect example. The unhinged msm is another prime example.
The ultra left wing meltdown that began on election night 2016 is all a product of the Democrats.
-
To be fair, we would have to ask detailed questions of azure's (or anyone's) position on many issues, to determine exactly how far left or right they are. Unfortunately we have the two party system where a third cannot seem to break into, and so most people support either one of the only two options, and we are now so polarized that whichever you support, you believe that whomever supports the opposite one is an extremist.
Ergo if you voted for Hillary you are a leftist commie and if you voted for Trump you are a zenophobic white supremacist.
I am hoping most people are neither but I think the biggest problem is people take a position without facts to support it, and I see this as a huge problem on the left, with people supporting "socialism" for example without any real clue what the hell it actually is. On the right, I do NOT see the average Trump voter hating anyone with brown skin. So I have to say on average, the left is more delusional than the right. But that's only on certain (very important) issues. On other issues the right can be more delusional, like for example that we should get even tougher with the War on Drugs. I'm not sure that's a good current example though, there seem to be a lot of conservatives coming around to facts and reality that imprisoning more citizens than any other country in the world has not solved the drug problem.
Conversely, I see some on the left coming around to seeing that they've been misled on jobs and the economy, for example, the blacks who are finally waking up to what a disaster the Democrats have made of the inner cities.
I hate to throw people into the right and the left dismissively, without knowing their thoughts on all these issues.
-
He was popular enough to get elected, so he must of at least attracted some Democrats, and Independents, but I agree we as a country are very, very divided on party lines. Very few if any Progressive Democrats which make up most of the party "like" Trump. In fact they hate him even though things like Black Unemployment being at an all time low should make them at least think a bit.
He did attract many who voted Blue in previous elections. The Dems forgot much of their constituency and paid too little attention to the rural center of the country. Trump promised to bring back industries like coal that are losing out because other energy sources such as natural gas are now cheaper, and that won him many converts in states like PA. But in some states that he won, and the ones that put him over the top (e.g. MI), the margin wasn't very wide and it would be easy for him to lose those states next time. IMO he is making a political mistake by focusing so strongly on his base. He needs to bring in more folks from outside the party, and he doesn't seem able to do that.
I agree with the positions of Trump's administration on a number of things - most foreign policy matters, fiscal policy, immigration to an extent - though I would be against cracking down on LEGAL immigration from other countries based on nationality, if it comes to that (not clear if it will or not). And the zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration was poorly thought out and executed. I'm trying to keep an open mind on the way he plays hardball with our allies on trade; it might bring good results for us, but could also lead to real damage to our alliances. I am against his catering to social conservatives, e.g. his stated desire to overturn Roe v. Wade, to bar transgender troops from serving, etc. But I object mostly to Trump himself, especially his us vs. them mentality that is helping to polarize this country even more, and his apparent tone deafness in the area of race that is pushing things in the same direction. I said a few months ago that I give him low marks for leadership, and that's what I meant.
I'm also not thrilled with his statements on climate change and I think his pulling out of the Paris Agreement was politically a bad move (even though I think Paris was itself premature).
Many Trump supporters, including myself, don't think of themselves as Republicans anymore.
That surprises me, since at least in the primaries so far, Republican candidates endorsed by Trump have fared much better than others. On NPR it has become a cliche that "Trump now owns the Republican Party".
I was a Hillary supporter (holding my nose somewhat, but I can't stand Trump), but I don't consider myself a Democrat anymore either. If Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are the future of the Democratic Party then I want no part of it.
-
Other than among committed Republicans, Trump is not very popular and his endorsements are not likely to make the difference in the general election anyway.
There are a lot of committed Republicans that were unhappy with Trump before the election and only voted for him because the alternative (Hillary) was even worse. I think it is fair to say the same about a bunch of independents, and even a bunch of Democrats.
But almost two years in, Trump is even more popular with many of those Republicans. After seeing him keep promise after promise, it is dawning on a lot of people that he was misjudged early on.
It is true though that committed Democrats still hate him. Probably even more than they used to because he keeps whooping their ass and proving that their policies are fucked up.
-
No, but the rare times you stop by to post are little more than talking points from the dems. You and another academic here are very predictable in your postings and the drive by technique.
The only difference between yourself and the other academic here is at least he admits to his progressive ideology.
The world does not all fit in your two little boxes.
-
The world does not all fit in your two little boxes.
You just wish you had a box.... ::)
-
To be fair, we would have to ask detailed questions of azure's (or anyone's) position on many issues, to determine exactly how far left or right they are. Unfortunately we have the two party system where a third cannot seem to break into, and so most people support either one of the only two options, and we are now so polarized that whichever you support, you believe that whomever supports the opposite one is an extremist.
Ergo if you voted for Hillary you are a leftist commie and if you voted for Trump you are a zenophobic white supremacist.
I am hoping most people are neither but I think the biggest problem is people take a position without facts to support it, and I see this as a huge problem on the left, with people supporting "socialism" for example without any real clue what the hell it actually is. On the right, I do NOT see the average Trump voter hating anyone with brown skin. So I have to say on average, the left is more delusional than the right. But that's only on certain (very important) issues. On other issues the right can be more delusional, like for example that we should get even tougher with the War on Drugs. I'm not sure that's a good current example though, there seem to be a lot of conservatives coming around to facts and reality that imprisoning more citizens than any other country in the world has not solved the drug problem.
Conversely, I see some on the left coming around to seeing that they've been misled on jobs and the economy, for example, the blacks who are finally waking up to what a disaster the Democrats have made of the inner cities.
I hate to throw people into the right and the left dismissively, without knowing their thoughts on all these issues.
I agree with you on the two party system. There are scores of reasonable people that recognize the dynamic and varied views of the citizens of this country. Common sense instructs us that a majority of them don't fit neatly into two boxes.
And yet our polarized, two-party structure forces us to take one of two sides unless we're willing to make a statement vote.
-
You just wish you had a box.... ::)
This relationship is moving a bit fast for me. *Swipe left*
-
This relationship is moving a bit fast for me. *Swipe left*
I figured you as a Grindr type......
-
I figured you as a Grindr type......
Projection. 😉
-
I agree with you on the two party system. There are scores of reasonable people that recognize the dynamic and varied views of the citizens of this country. Common sense instructs us that a majority of them don't fit neatly into two boxes.
And yet our polarized, two-party structure forces us to take one of two sides unless we're willing to make a statement vote.
The problem is abundantly clear to me each day as I read a dozen or so new #WalkAway testimonials. There are trans and gay conservatives, gun-loving pro-choice gay Latinos, Black conservatives who are pro gay marriage, Latinos who love Trump and want the wall, and on and on.
The big distinction, though, is that these people are all leaving the Dems and the left for the bigger, more welcoming right. The left’s identity politics creates tiny rooms in a cramped house; a common complaint among those who #WalkAway is that they felt silenced and ostracized by the Democrats because they don't fit the rigid parameters the lefties create. Many just come to realize that their values really lie more in line with the right.
-
Neither was Obama at the same point in his presidency, and the (apparent) result was a catastrophe for the Dems in the midterms. That was the point of my statement. How can you say it has no basis in fact?
Entirely due to a little thing called “Obamacare”. What legislation has Trump signed that has the same negative attached to it? I suppose the 4.2% GDP is a downer or maybe the tax cut legislation or the record low unemployment for blacks, Hispanics. Maybe everyone is upset about the labor force participation rate or the steel mills reopening or coal mining coming back or all the oil we export or the new Foxcon plant in WI. Maybe it's having two new Supreme Court judges who know how to read the Constitution and apply it the the law. I suppose their upset about all the special elections that Republicans have won? I'm sure the answer is there somewhere. We're just getting tired of winning while the Democrats and Never Trumpers continue their whining.
-
Almost forgot the current 36% approval among blacks.
-
Almost forgot the current 36% approval among blacks.
A www, c'mon now.....CNN and MSNBC has told us that Trump hates blacks....
Why would they lie??
-
A www, c'mon now.....CNN and MSNBC has told us that Trump hates blacks....
Why would they lie??
When have they EVER told the truth????
That ugly guy that looks like the kid on the Wonder Years never tells the truth. I think his name is maddow.
-
Entirely due to a little thing called “Obamacare”.
That is possible. The law was quite unpopular throughout Obama's presidency not only among those on the Right, but also among Dems who felt it didn't go far enough. It wasn't until Trump took office and the prospect of its being repealed became a reality, that Dems started to look on it more favorably. And the timing is right, Obama's popularity really started to tank after the law was enacted in March, 2010.
But since much of the disapproval of Obamacare came from Dems, that doesn't explain the massive losses they suffered that November.
What legislation has Trump signed that has the same negative attached to it?
That's really beside the point though. Approval ratings depend on the way the question is asked, so they aren't necessarily only a judgment on what legislation he's signed. The Gallup question is "Do you approve or disapprove of the way <insert POTUS name> is handling his job as President?" That's awfully broad, and could well be affected by things like his constant tweeting, his handling of Charlottesville, the fiasco surrounding the separating of the families at the Mexican border, or his seeming deference to Putin at their press conference after their meeting in Helsinki.
Trump's disapproval rating according to Gallup has never been lower than 50% after his first week in office. And his approval among independents has rarely even touched 40% - the only time this year was the week of his meeting with Kim Jong Un in Singapore. He's currently running around 35% among independents, says Gallup.
The thing is the Republican party has become more the party of Trump than the Democratic party ever was the party of any single president, certainly not Obama. Whether the midterms are generally a referendum on the sitting president or not, I think this upcoming election probably will be a referendum on the controlling party, and that doesn't bode well for the Repubs.
-
Approval ratings depend on the way the question is asked,
Do you think approval ratings may also have something to do with the way a politician is portrayed in the media, including on shows like CNN, MSNBC and SNL?
-
Do you think approval ratings may also have something to do with the way a politician is portrayed in the media, including on shows like CNN, MSNBC and SNL?
Or how the polls are weighed? When a pollster only polls say 25% republican and then polls 50+% democrat, doesn't that skew the data?
This is why candidates use their own tracking polls. MSM polls are a political tool and not necessarily an actual reflection of voter sentiment. They are in fact propaganda driven. 2016 should have been the wake up call to just how low these polls would go in an effort to sway an election.
-
Do you think approval ratings may also have something to do with the way a politician is portrayed in the media, including on shows like CNN, MSNBC and SNL?
Of course media portrayals of the POTUS have an effect, how could they not? But even though the media has had a left-leaning bias for decades, some Republican presidents (e.g. both Bushes but especially 41) have had high or even very high approval ratings at this point in their presidencies, and some Democratic presidents (e.g. Clinton, Obama) have had approval ratings as low as Trump's. (Source: Gallup) So I don't think you can attribute it all to media bias.
I'll admit that the msm have gone overboard in the way they scrutinize Trump, more so than previous presidents. It's really telling that even PBS and NPR spend a lot of airtime speculating on whether Cohen and Manafort will implicate Trump in criminal wrongdoing. Enough already! But beyond that, Trump's quirks and actions that draw some of that negative attention are real - the incessant tweeting, tweets that sometimes contradict statements by his Cabinet members, the deference to Putin in Helsinki - all real.
Don't you think some of that might be partly to blame for Trump's low approval ratings?
-
I think the midterms will be all about Trump, a fact he would love if he understood it. Most of the GOP candidates are Trumpkins and have been personally endorsed by him. Many, if not most of the Democratic candidates are in the Bernie Sanders camp. I suspect we're seeing a historic realignment of the political parties, something that in the past has happened just about every generation.
And for a change people really have skin in the game. If the GOP wins out in November you can kiss Obamacare goodbye, and I think voters know it. Reminds me of a Greek curse: May you live in interesting times.
-
Reminds me of a Greek curse: May you live in interesting times.
Greek?
I know you don't like research or reading, but try this: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/12/18/live/
-
Of course media portrayals of the POTUS have an effect, how could they not? But even though the media has had a left-leaning bias for decades, some Republican presidents (e.g. both Bushes but especially 41) have had high or even very high approval ratings at this point in their presidencies, and some Democratic presidents (e.g. Clinton, Obama) have had approval ratings as low as Trump's. (Source: Gallup) So I don't think you can attribute it all to media bias.
I'll admit that the msm have gone overboard in the way they scrutinize Trump, more so than previous presidents. It's really telling that even PBS and NPR spend a lot of airtime speculating on whether Cohen and Manafort will implicate Trump in criminal wrongdoing. Enough already! But beyond that, Trump's quirks and actions that draw some of that negative attention are real - the incessant tweeting, tweets that sometimes contradict statements by his Cabinet members, the deference to Putin in Helsinki - all real.
Don't you think some of that might be partly to blame for Trump's low approval ratings?
The tweeting is a double edge sword. Any time anyone says any words, they can be twisted out of context or used to contradict something they said earlier (because no one is 100% consistent all the time or has perfect memory). But if he didn't tweet at all, I think the MSM would be just as brutal, they'd find other ways. Trump does however give them ammunition.
On the other hand, his tweets allow him to completely bypass the MSM and communicate directly with us the People. No other President in history has ever done that. The technology allows it and Trump is the first to fully take advantage of it. This means the MSM has lost a great deal of its power to control "truth".
In Trump's debates, and in his emails and tweets during the campaign, he bypassed the usual channels which was one of the things I liked about him and one reason I voted for him. I had long since lost trust in the MSM - Trump's wholesale contempt of them and dismissal of them and refusal to rely on them was something no other candidate did, which to my mind said, the rest of them are still allowing MSM to control thought, and Trump isn't. That is very new and refreshing. MSM has no credibility. So any politician not bypassing them now is suspect in my mind. I think Trump might have therefore changed the game permanently. It's one of the reasons MSM is so extremely angry, they know they've lost a great deal of power and they are not going to get it back, unless the left takes over by violent coup and censors the internet like North Korea. That's the only game they have left at this point. And that's unlikely as long as we avoid gun confiscation. But I bet they will try.
-
Evidently anything that disagrees with your view of the Trump phenomenon as a revolution is "alt left talking points". ::)
And I never said there would be an actual blue wave in the midterms to compare with the red wave in 2010, just enough Repub losses for them to claim such.
And if you think I would be gloating if that came to pass, you'd be mistaken. The Dem Party is moving farther and farther to the socialist left as the Repubs move farther right into Trump nuttiness. I will likely vote for Phil Scott in our gubernatorial race this November and some of the more moderate candidates for local seats, and sit everything else out. I HATE what is happening to politics in this country. :(
Please provide proof that “Repubs move farther right into Trump nuttiness.” As a Republican, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Yet you are parroting the line being advanced by the far left CNN and MSNBC. Saying things over and over and over doesn’t make it true, but apparently you’ve bought into it, unless you have actual direct knowledge or experience with said nuttiness.
-
The only person you are fooling is yourself.
The “ultra polarization” of politics can be laid directly in the laps of the progressive wing of the democrat party. The over the top “resist” movement is a perfect example. The unhinged msm is another prime example.
The ultra left wing meltdown that began on election night 2016 is all a product of the Democrats.
This is true. I’ve not seen anything like this in my life.
I was 8-9 years old the summers of 1968-1969, and the rage and rioting, while always inappropriate, was aimed at a far-away war, not a single person or party. In fact the youth were protesting the DEMOCRAT National Convention in Chicago, not the Republicans.
Today, after 8 years of Obama creating racial strife and fueling racial and economic division, I as a Republican and Trump supporter am being called a racist, Nazi, homophobe, and any other noun or adjective they can come up with to dehumanize me and my family.
The result is increased violence and anarchy on the streets, usually directed at conservatives and businesses, and the democratic leadership is fanning that flame, not tamping it down.
This violence will increase with time.
What the left doesn’t understand is that instead of trying to convince the other side of their positions, they are using shouting, violence, and mob rule to try to claim the high ground, unsuccessfully. They are pushing normal, moderate voters farther away from ever being able to be on the same page as a democrat, on ANY issue. In turn this is moving the independents and moderates away from that fringe, with only one way to go, and that’s toward the right.
-
The thing is the Republican party has become more the party of Trump than the Democratic party ever was the party of any single president, certainly not Obama. Whether the midterms are generally a referendum on the sitting president or not, I think this upcoming election probably will be a referendum on the controlling party, and that doesn't bode well for the Repubs.
Respectfully, you really need to get out of the faculty lounge. With the resistance to Trump from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, Trump has been successful IN SPITE of the Republican establishment, not because of it.
The Republican Party is not the party of Trump. The Party mechanism is fighting him every fucking step of the way.
Conservatives, or even moderates, ARE becoming the party of Trump, for no other reason than he is keeping his promises made to the voters. Few of us appreciate the inane Tweets, except when he is tweaking his opponents. But we appreciate that he is trying to do the job for the AMERICAN PEOPLE. We don’t vote for saints or for moral leaders. We vote for someone to keep their promises and do the job for which they were elected. Those that do that are a rare, once or twice in a lifetime presidencies. We are seeing one of those right now.
-
But beyond that, Trump's quirks and actions that draw some of that negative attention are real - the incessant tweeting, tweets that sometimes contradict statements by his Cabinet members, the deference to Putin in Helsinki - all real.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180904/ed42da23d968ef3130176b695f5aac0a.jpg)
-
Respectfully, you really need to get out of the faculty lounge. With the resistance to Trump from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, Trump has been successful IN SPITE of the Republican establishment, not because of it.
The Republican Party is not the party of Trump. The Party mechanism is fighting him every fucking step of the way.
Conservatives, or even moderates, ARE becoming the party of Trump, for no other reason than he is keeping his promises made to the voters. Few of us appreciate the inane Tweets, except when he is tweaking his opponents. But we appreciate that he is trying to do the job for the AMERICAN PEOPLE. We don’t vote for saints or for moral leaders. We vote for someone to keep their promises and do the job for which they were elected. Those that do that are a rare, once or twice in a lifetime presidencies. We are seeing one of those right now.
THIS NAILS IT.
Those of you on this board who hate Trump and cannot understand why we voted for him or think all Trump voters are right wing redneck Republicans, you couldn't be more wrong.
This election was about status quo elitist DC power mongers vs the rest of us. Trump is an outsider. The status quo DC politicians, both Dem and Rep have abandoned and forsaken all of us regular little citizens in every way possible and on every level.
The election was not about left vs right. If it had been, Bernie Sanders would have been put up by the left. Ted Cruz would have been put up on the right. Instead, both Democrats and Republicans tried their best to put up their insider pick. The Dems succeeded by cheating on Bernie, but the Republicans failed. Trump infiltrated the GOP and ran within it but he's an outsider, which explains the rage at him from so many insider Republicans.
I don't believe Trump has any conservative loyalties, or liberal loyalties or Democrat loyalties or Republican loyalties. His loyalties are about making himself successful, and he brilliantly used the failure of the status quo to do their job by the American people, their failure to keep the economy strong, their failure to keep illegals to a reasonable trickle, their failure in healthcare, their failure in foreign policy, he USED these failures, he figured out what they were and then addressed them, one by one. It was about acknowledging and validating the small citizen who has been too long marginalized and dismissed by an elitist government and a biased self-important media. He not only identified our true worries, he addressed us directly, in the way he spoke, his direct emails soliciting our opinions, and his tweets. He made us feel listened to and heard.
Trump winning the election was a revolt against the establishment more than anything I have ever seen in my life. So ironic that the anti-establishment aging hippies don't grok this at all.
-
As a right wing, red-neck republican, the above is very true. I'm registered independent so that I can get campaign info from both sides, but I haven't pulled the lever for a Dem in more than 16 years.
I chose Trump not out of loyalty to the republicans, and frankly - I would have pulled the lever for him had he run as a democrat. Trump has democrat friends, and some dem leanings, and could have run as a dem, but belongs more on the side of the right. However, the marriage of Trump and the RNC was clearly a shotgun wedding. They didn't want him, and I'm pretty sure he didn't want much to do with them. And not only am I fine with that, it was one of the qualities that drew me TO him rather than another Bush, or one of the other right wing empty suits. Barring that woman from HP, the right candidates were depressingly uniform. Also, they lesser candidates were just so damn MEDIOCRE.
Having said that piece, Trump is not remotely perfect, nor is he even very likeable(professionally). Personally, I think we would get along well, but from a policy perspective I can see plenty of faults. The backing down on immigration reform policy number 1 was a huge mistake, and cost the office a lot of political capital. Sadly, that political capital did not find its way back to the people, but was instead shifted to the senate, where they do not need more power from the exec branch.
The defining moment(s) for me were 'drain the swamp'. Sadly again, I think Trump is becoming more belt-way-like as he settles in, rather than trying to drain the swamp. He's simply changed some of the old swamp-dwellers, for some swamp-dwellers of his own choosing. Lets hope the process continues, even if it costs him more friends and colleagues. Swamp folk are swamp folk, no matter the party affiliation.
-
Respectfully, you really need to get out of the faculty lounge. With the resistance to Trump from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, Trump has been successful IN SPITE of the Republican establishment, not because of it.
The Republican Party is not the party of Trump. The Party mechanism is fighting him every fucking step of the way.
Conservatives, or even moderates, ARE becoming the party of Trump, for no other reason than he is keeping his promises made to the voters. Few of us appreciate the inane Tweets, except when he is tweaking his opponents. But we appreciate that he is trying to do the job for the AMERICAN PEOPLE. We don’t vote for saints or for moral leaders. We vote for someone to keep their promises and do the job for which they were elected. Those that do that are a rare, once or twice in a lifetime presidencies. We are seeing one of those right now.
Just in case Azure doesn't remember, Stan was definitely NOT a Trump fan at first. That came AFTER Trump showed he would keep his promises and that his policies are good for the country. That is just one example that disproves Azure's theory that Republicans are turning away from Trump.
At least, I think that is how it was.
-
The narrative that republicans are turning away from Trump is just a liberal's wet dream.
Does anyone actually believe a conservative, or a republican really wants to go back to the policies and lunacy that the democrats are offering?
-
I don't believe Trump has any conservative loyalties, or liberal loyalties or Democrat loyalties or Republican loyalties. His loyalties are about making himself successful, and he brilliantly used the failure of the status quo to do their job by the American people, their failure to keep the economy strong, their failure to keep illegals to a reasonable trickle, their failure in healthcare, their failure in foreign policy, he USED these failures, he figured out what they were and then addressed them, one by one. It was about acknowledging and validating the small citizen who has been too long marginalized and dismissed by an elitist government and a biased self-important media. He not only identified our true worries, he addressed us directly, in the way he spoke, his direct emails soliciting our opinions, and his tweets. He made us feel listened to and heard.
Trump winning the election was a revolt against the establishment more than anything I have ever seen in my life. So ironic that the anti-establishment aging hippies don't grok this at all.
It's the end of my holiday weekend (Tuesday is my day off from teaching) and this might be my last post for a while, but I just wanted to say that I agree with this 100% - and about the only thing that gives me some hope about Trump is that he isn't a confirmed ideologue but a pragmatist, in politics as well as in business.
As to my alleged theory that Republicans are turning away from Trump, I don't think I ever said anything remotely like that, at least not in the sense of there being a trend in that direction. I think the changes in his approval rating are largely due to more Republicans coming on board, vs. independent support waxing and waning with the events of the week. Republican support for Trump remains strong and Dem support is very weak, and I doubt that is going to change.
Interesting to read the reasons people voted for Trump. I knew that the fact that he was an outsider was a big part of his appeal. It is also one of the reasons I dreaded his coming into office, because Washington is so complex that I was afraid his learning curve would be too steep for him to be able to get much done. In that respect, he has exceeded my expectations somewhat, but it's still clearly been a bumpy ride for him.
Depending on how his trade negotiations and diplomacy toward our allies work out, I could still come on board if the Dems put up the likes of Ocasio-Cortez in 2020, but I'm taking a wait and see attitude for now. I still don't think he has the character to be a great leader though, thinking esp. of Charlottesville, and that will always be a big negative for me.
-
The shocking lack of reality in some of Azure's generalizations about Trump are so farcical as to make me think someone hacked his password and just posted bullshit written on a cork board on campus somewhere.
The establishment republicans HATE us for supporting Donal Trump. Their contempt is poisonous - not as poisonous, or pompous as the phony professor who posts here, but nearly so. The only real difference between establishment republicans and the entire democratic party, is that the democrats are all in and begging for violence, brutality, hatred, utter fabrications of facts to give them something to hate us for, and full blown mental delusion in the vein of maxine waters and chuck schumer.
Mitch and Paul HATE us so much they have completely stopped engaging our points of view and have decided to pretend that we don't exist and that the MSM, lame ass lying press, position on President Trump is the one and true truth.
To pretend otherwise is a symptom of another agenda, or mental deficiency.
-
There's plenty of truth in the facts that the RNC establishment has no value with Trump. However, being pols, things will change as successes mount. The old saw is true; 'success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan'. These coming mid-terms will be a watershed moment, one way or another. Liberals will claim some kind of victory, even if they only elect one HR member.
Just the same as a pol is willing to disassociate with any kind of trouble(who remembers the name 'Franken'?), they are just as fast to associate with a successful candidate or exec. The truth of coattails really has worked for many cycles. Obama was toxic for many Dems in the mid-terms which is why he lost the congress. The same could happen with Trump, and if it does - we are going to hear about it for the next 20 years.
In some ways, Trump has been his own worst enemy, by trusting people from his past with plenty of skeletons in the closet. Manafort and now Cohen are just the two more prominent, and like it or not - the convictions have hurt his standing. The fact he won't denounce them publicly makes it worse, although some would admire him for standing beside long time friends, even if they cost him, and are financial disasters.
-
Just in case Azure doesn't remember, Stan was definitely NOT a Trump fan at first. That came AFTER Trump showed he would keep his promises and that his policies are good for the country. That is just one example that disproves Azure's theory that Republicans are turning away from Trump.
At least, I think that is how it was.
That’s exactly right. He was literally my 17th pick. I campaigned for Ted Cruz, who won Wisconsin.
I have been impressed with his ability to move the needle, keep his promises, and not back down from a fight. The rest of his tweets and shit are just noise, and I could not care less.
-
That’s exactly right. He was literally my 17th pick. I campaigned for Ted Cruz, who won Wisconsin.
I have been impressed with his ability to move the needle, keep his promises, and not back down from a fight. The rest of his tweets and shit are just noise, and I could not care less.
I was a Scott Walker fan until he dropped out and then went full Cruz.
That was a washout but last longer than Marco Rubio.
When Donald Trump was the one left standing, I still couldn't get behind him.
His actions as President turned me all the way around.
Obama was a pussy, a liar and a traitor. That's why the likes of Steingar are so enamored with him.
Clinton was stone stupid, blind as a bat about foreign relations, as corrupt as Barney Frank and as evil as Chuck Schumer. No wonder the progressives loved her...
-
Like the last two posts, I was not for Trump at first either. I didn't vote for him in the primary. But after he won the primary he started winning me over with the emails asking for my opinion, then the Contract with the American voter, which included stuff I had said in my replies to him (not that it was there because I'd asked for it, but because no doubt thousands others had replied the same).
I also loved the way he "trash talked" (as I call it, a gamer term) - the bluntness that the left and MSM call "racist" I saw as high time somebody said it, for example the criminal illegals. MS-13 is a problem and everyone tip toes around it for PC but not Trump, he calls them out. And there is NOTHING racist about anything he said on that subject. There is nothing racist about wanting criminal illegals out of our country. It was so refreshing to hear a presidential candidate speak so aggressively toward these threats to our country, I'm sick of the conciliatory apologetic crap on subjects like that.
And maybe most of all, I started rooting for him when the Republican candidates failed to support him, which I took as a betrayal after I had supported them over Trump prior to the primary. I needed them to do anything to defeat Hillary, if they truly cared about the country. Withdrawing support from Trump I saw as supporting Hillary and that was unforgivable. So it threw me even more toward Trump and away from establishment Republicans.
So I pulled the lever for Trump, more than anything to defeat Hillary, but also heartened by what he promised, but I was not holding my breath that he'd actually keep his promises. I expected anything from Hitler level evil, to a bumbling incompetent, to an "adequate" President. I didn't expect him to hold firm to his promises to the extent he has. He is not perfect, and I never took his over-the-top statements literally, I understood them as starting points for negotiation, or just trash talk. But he has surpassed my expectations in what he's actually accomplished.
-
I'm right there with you Rush. I feel the same way about Trump.
-
Ditto.
I just wish Twitter would ban him. It would solve a lot of problems.
-
Ditto.
I just wish Twitter would ban him. It would solve a lot of problems.
He uses those to distract and misdirect.
-
I'm right there with you Rush. I feel the same way about Trump.
Ditto.