@WarChiefZeke So, is Hilary's past wrongdoing more important right now than what our current sitting president is doing?
I said let Trump pay for his crime and I meant it. Wanting others to do the same is equal treatment, not special treatment.
I also don't think the kind of institutionalized corruption we saw will just "go away" without accountability of some sort. She might have been the one to do it, but the very fact that she could do it and get away with it merely gives other and incentive to rig elections as well.
His affair with Stormy Daniels is ancillary at best. From the beginning of this particular branch of the story, I have pushed only the campaign finance violation aspect, and that it was done to deliberately deceive the public in the last two weeks of a Presidential election. And quite frankly, I myself was wondering whether the actual law would see it the way I did. But apparently the evidence against Cohen was so strong that Cohen himself doesn't even see the point in bothering with a trial. And it's not like Cohen is some poor sod being represented by an overworked public defender. All evidence that came forward yesterday amounts to the conclusion that what Cohen did at the direct behest of the President (and of course that is what happened, because who else on Earth benefits but Trump??) was an open and shut case. And quite frankly, I have to concur with what alot of legal analysts on TV have been saying the last 24 hours. If Trump is not the sitting President, he likely gets indicted yesterday. Which is the troubling aspect of the story, because it is becoming clear that there is no legal mechanism to hold Trump accountable, only a political one in the Congress.
It's funny you bring up that meme, because it so perfectly serves as an example of the dismissal any claims about criminal wrongdoing have been treated by the left for the past couple of years, it was treated as trivial at best.
But somehow we're supposed to be audibly gasping at payments due to an affair. Priorities are awfully skewed.
It's funny you bring up that meme, because it so perfectly serves as an example of the dismissal any claims about criminal wrongdoing have been treated by the left for the past couple of years.
But somehow we're supposed to be audibly gasping at payments due to an affair. Prioroties are awfully skewed.
The FBI spent (as far as I'm aware) an entire year investigating her email issue and concluded (twice) that no laws were broken. Now if you want to make the claim that the frickin' FBI is full of raging pinko commies who were out to clear Hillary Clinton by any means necessary, that is certainly an argument can be made. But I don't know if it's a very convincing one.
However, you may still get your wish, because as Trump's house of cards continues to crumble, he still has the "prosecute my political opponent" "lock her up" card in his back pocket. In actuality, even when Hillary Clinton dies and has been in ground for 2 decades, the American right will still be trotting her out as a foil. She's served that role for almost 30 years, and they can't give it up now.
It's funny you bring up that meme, because it so perfectly serves as an example of the dismissal any claims about criminal wrongdoing have been treated by the left for the past couple of years, it was treated as trivial at best.
But somehow we're supposed to be audibly gasping at payments due to an affair. Priorities are awfully skewed.
If you're referring to the covert support by the DNC for Hillary, as has been said many times that wasn't criminal (though describing it as wrongdoing is fair enough).
In relation to the affair, it's not the payments that are the problem - in themselves there's nothing illegal about those. As is often the case it's the lying and covering up that is the real problem (both politically and legally).
If Trump is not the sitting President, he likely gets indicted yesterday. Which is the troubling aspect of the story, because it is becoming clear that there is no legal mechanism to hold Trump accountable, only a political one in the Congress.
This was discussed some time ago. There's nothing preventing Trump being indicted now. It certainly is possible that the Supreme Court would eventually block such a process, but I don't think that's reason not to start it. At the moment there's something of a constitutional gap between the legal and political processes for dealing with a President acting in an illegal manner. Even if SCOTUS ruled that a sitting President could not be prosecuted in certain circumstances, it would still be helpful to clarify this area.
If Trump is not the sitting President, he likely gets indicted yesterday. Which is the troubling aspect of the story, because it is becoming clear that there is no legal mechanism to hold Trump accountable, only a political one in the Congress.
This was discussed some time ago. There's nothing preventing Trump being indicted now. It certainly is possible that the Supreme Court would eventually block such a process, but I don't think that's reason not to start it. At the moment there's something of a constitutional gap between the legal and political processes for dealing with a President acting in an illegal manner. Even if SCOTUS ruled that a sitting President could not be prosecuted in certain circumstances, it would still be helpful to clarify this area.
Trump has proven the last 18 months that alot of what was holding this government together was decorum and norms. If someone is willing to throw them aside, there really isn't anything stopping them. Trump is simply going to be willing to do things to survive this that will prey on people attempting to protect those norms. In other words, people who act in fairly good faith are going to get steamrolled by anyone who thinks doing so is naive weakness.
It's funny you bring up that meme, because it so perfectly serves as an example of the dismissal any claims about criminal wrongdoing have been treated by the left for the past couple of years, it was treated as trivial at best.
But somehow we're supposed to be audibly gasping at payments due to an affair. Priorities are awfully skewed.
Here is the thing: what the DNC did (and not Hillary btw) didn’t do anything criminally wrong.
And if you are now talking about the emails, no charges were filed after a lengthy investigation into it. There was no crime according to those who were in charge of looking at all the evidence provided.
BTW, not once did Clinton demand that the investigation stop as it would/was interfering with an election, the same calls Trump and associates have been saying for the last month or so claiming his investigation is a political witch hunt as September rolls near.
So yes I will pull out the meme anytime Trump or associates is found to be be doing some wrong and a person’s response is “but Hillary...” It’s buyers remorse IMO.
The Ontario Liberals were playing this card against the Tories for a decade and half and they were able to because it worked in the beginning. Hold accountable to what you have in the present and don’t compare it to any misgivings from the past.
If Trump is not the sitting President, he likely gets indicted yesterday. Which is the troubling aspect of the story, because it is becoming clear that there is no legal mechanism to hold Trump accountable, only a political one in the Congress.
This was discussed some time ago. There's nothing preventing Trump being indicted now. It certainly is possible that the Supreme Court would eventually block such a process, but I don't think that's reason not to start it. At the moment there's something of a constitutional gap between the legal and political processes for dealing with a President acting in an illegal manner. Even if SCOTUS ruled that a sitting President could not be prosecuted in certain circumstances, it would still be helpful to clarify this area.
Trump has proven the last 18 months that alot of what was holding this government together was decorum and norms. If someone is willing to throw them aside, there really isn't anything stopping them. Trump is simply going to be willing to do things to survive this that will prey on people attempting to protect those norms. In other words, people who act in fairly good faith are going to get steamrolled by anyone who thinks doing so is naive weakness.
I agree that Trump is willing to throw them aside, but that doesn't mean everyone else is. I imagine Manafort felt until recently that he was above the law and he might be having second thoughts about that now .
Personally I think there is in fact a pretty good chance that SCOTUS would allow a prosecution of Trump - because they have an extremely strong vested interest in maintaining the norms that Trump is undermining. For similar reasons I think there are limits to the extent the Republican party will be willing to support him in exercising ever more obviously lawless behavior.
I have discussed the 2016 Democratic Primary at length before, but it was in the old thread, so....once more, for posterity's sake:
I am guessing I probably followed this particular race closer than anyone here, since I am the only one who is actually an admitted member of the Democratic Party. I actually supported Bernie. I wasn't gung-ho about it, but I preferred him at the time (in retrospect, I'm not at all certain I should have). So what happened in this race??
Well, for starters, Bernie Sanders joined very late in the process because he saw Hillary had no serious challenger. All well and good on the surface of things, but it also meant that no actual work had gone into courting key groups of voters, namely, African-American women in the South. Bernie got big media wins in his virtual tie in Iowa and his big win in New Hampshire, but in regards to the actual delegate count, it wasn't really all that significant. All sizzle, very little steak. The problem came once the race shifted to the South. Whatever you think of them, the Clinton's had been cultivating relationships with African-American Democrats in the South for decades, and Bernie got clobbered in those primaries. Bernie was winning states, but winning them by a small or moderate amount. Hillary was winning some states in the South by an 80-20 margin, and with proportional delegates, that put Bernie in an almost insurmountable hole.
He caught ahold of a life raft when he pulled off a huge upset in Michigan. At that point, everything hinged on him winning the Ohio Primary which took place on March 15th. Hillary won by 13%. The race was over at this point. In any reasonable mathematical scenario, there was no way he could catch up. It just wasn't possible. Nevertheless, Bernie and left-wing media outlets online continued to push this narrative that Bernie still a chance to pull this out for 3 more months. It was never the case. And that 3 month period where Bernie supporters were being told that some miracle was going to take place is when the division that was one of the things that cost Hillary the election took place and cemented itself.
As for the DNC an inproper behavior?? What else needs to be said. Did the DNC want Hillary to win?? 100% yes, absolutely they did. Did they, however, CAUSE her to win?? No, not in any way. The extent of their interference was scheduling debates where it could be argued that the least amount of people would watch them (and I tend to agree this is pretty much what they did) and Donna Brazile tipping the Hillary campaign off about a question about the death penalty in a CNN debate (for which she was immediately fired when the news came to light). Are both of those incidents shady?? Yeah, the later far more than the former, but yes. Did they amount to the rigging of a primary?? Not even remotely, especially since the race was for all intents and purposes over by the time most of it even took place. Nothing remotely as shady as illegally hacking private email servers or engaging in a quid pro quo with a foreign adversary is even alleged, much less took place. I will also point out that of COURSE the DNC preferred Hillary as a candidate, because Hillary is actually a Democrat, and Bernie Sanders isn't. He was an independent who was using the party as his platform for the Presidency. So again, did the DNC engage in some shady practices?? Yeah, of course, and both of the women responsible for those actions were exiled from the forefront of Democratic politics. But did they have any tangible impact on a national race that Hillary won by almost 4 million votes?? No. And of course the key point to all of this is that nothing even remotely illegal took place.
I am guessing I probably followed this particular race closer than anyone here, since I am the only one who is actually an admitted member of the Democratic Party. I actually supported Bernie. I wasn't gung-ho about it, but I preferred him at the time (in retrospect, I'm not at all certain I should have).
I'm a Democrat, too. I liked both Clinton and Sanders; I couldn't decide on which. I had hoped that they would run together on the same ticket.
As for the DNC an inproper behavior?? What else needs to be said. Did the DNC want Hillary to win?? 100% yes, absolutely they did. Did they, however, CAUSE her to win. No, not in any way. The extent of their interference was scheduling debates where it could be argued that the least amount of people would watch them (and I tend to agree this is pretty much what they did) and Donna Brazile tipping the Hillary campaign off about a question about the death penalty in a CNN debate (for which she was immediately fired when the news came to light).
That's the scandal in a nutshell. It's definitely not fair to manipulate the debate scheduling, and leaking a question is definitely worth firing. But I don't think the Democratic National Committee showing preference for a Democrat (as opposed to an independent) in a privately-run primary election by making a minor adjustment to a debate schedule doesn't really amount to serious wrongdoing.
I'd be more upset if there was any chance that it impacted the end result of the primary.
To make the argument that the debate question about the death penalty shifted the primary result, I think you would have to make the case that Hillary Clinton's answer in regards to the death penalty on the CNN debate was responsible for shifting over 150,000 Democratic votes in Ohio in the span of one week. I don't find that remotely realistic in any scenario. In comparison, I do find it VERY likely that news of an affair with a porn star coming out a week before the election would have a very good chance of moving 70,000 votes here or there in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Comparing the potential political fallout of these two incidents is like comparing apples to see-saws. Before Trump, in MOST cases, news of an affair like that would be a political death sentence. Of course, in the case of Trump, it could also be argued that it wouldn't have made a difference, as he had already admitted to sexual assault on tape just a few weeks earlier. But we'll never know because they conspired to cover it up in what has now been found to be an illegal act. But at the very least, it would have drowned out some of the breathless coverage of the reopening of the email investigation (which amounted to jack-squat), and not leaving that alone as the top story for the last 7 days of the campaign. If the law had been followed, it is very likely that the last thing voters would have been thinking about before they entered the voting booth was not "emails" but "Stormy Daniels". And Nate Silver and the folks at 538 have done pretty extensive research showing Clinton's lead evaporated in the last 7 days. Because she was receiving wall to wall negative coverage during that time, while Trump, who should have been having his own last-minute crisis to deal with, didn't have to because of an illegal campaign contribution that took the form of a hush-money payment.
Mind you, this particular post is mostly about the inside baseball, horse-race aspects of the campaign. But I think it shows just WHY the payoff to Stormy Daniels was so significant. I can't prove one way or another it gave Trump the Presidency. But I think I can make a strong argument that it certainly might have. Just to spitball, how many moderate white women in the 3 key states don't vote for Trump based on a last minute revelation of an affair he had with a porn star in a time period where his wife had just given birth to their child?? Because that is the kind of visceral image that can swing a vote, and it wouldn't have take many.
Neither of those two candidates should have been running for president in 2016. Period!
Both parties need to figure out what the Hell happened and move on. One of the reasons Trump won is precisely because he ran against Hillary. I don't care about comparisons between the two because I didn't like either of them. It just turns out that since I'm fairly conservative I disliked Hillary more.
The dearth of Hillary campaign slogans/license plates here in Michigan was one of the reasons I wasn't as surprised by Trump's win as most people. Nobody around here seemed excited by her at all. How did that level of apathy go unnoticed by the DNC?
How did the RNC not figure out about that exact same apathy about their chosen candidate (Jeb)? I would not have voted for Jeb so the Republicans might have been lucky that he didn't win the primary since I doubt I'm alone in my opinion.
@Balrog99 I remember hearing somewhere that Hilary's campaign notes were leaked. So its not quite so much that her campaign didn't work, as she wasn't able to campaign as effectively because the other side was also able to snipe the same targets.
That being said, I didn't and wouldn't vote for either Hilary or Trump. If the Republicans had fielded Jeb, I may have voted for him. Bernie Sanders was the, "At least he isn't the other two" for me. Despite leaning Libertarian, I don't think I even know who the candidate was this last go round.
Why are we discussing Hillary Clinton's emails more than Trump being an unindicted co-conspirator implicated in felonies?
Cohen pled guilty to multiple felonies that he said that Trump told him to do.
The power of "Whataboutism"
It's how conservative media is forced to defend Trump - by trying to make (false) equivalences. Trump pay off a porn star via his lawyer in an illegal campaign contribution and then attempt to hide it? "But Obama committed a campaign finance violation too!", as if these things are interchangeable.
Neither of those two candidates should have been running for president in 2016. Period!
I hear this a lot, and the supposition is: If someone else had run, that they would have voted for that other person.
Here's a question @Balrog99 - If the election were tomorrow, and it was Trump vs any of the likely candidates for the Democrats (So: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker) - would you vote for any of them? (You dont really have to answer the question if you dont want, obviously. I dont like putting people on the spot to voice something significant like who they'd vote for, but I'm curious if I can find even a single conservative that would go across party lines)
IF Trump makes it to 2020, no matter who the Democratic candidate is, within 24 hours of them securing the nomination, we will start hearing about how they need to be investigated for.....something. Again, it won't matter who the candidate is, or what the so-called scandal will be. This is as close to a mortal lock as anything in the universe. Harris, Booker, Warren, Gillibrand.....won't matter. Trump and Republicans will insist on a full-scale FBI investigation into any/all of them by default. As if it is just a matter of course rather than something that happens for an actual reason. Again, this is going to happen. Democrats could nominate the most squeaky-clean boy scout in the history of American politics and it wouldn't change this dynamic.
Here's a human interest story about Venezuela. The UN estimate that 7% of the population have now fled the country and things continue to deteriorate for those who are left.
Here's a human interest story about Venezuela. The UN estimate that 7% of the population have now fled the country and things continue to deteriorate for those who are left.
It's just possible that it is not a good idea to have 95% of your economy being propped up by oil exports.
IF Trump makes it to 2020, no matter who the Democratic candidate is, within 24 hours of them securing the nomination, we will start hearing about how they need to be investigated for.....something. Again, it won't matter who the candidate is, or what the so-called scandal will be. This is as close to a mortal lock as anything in the universe. Harris, Booker, Warren, Gillibrand.....won't matter. Trump and Republicans will insist on a full-scale FBI investigation into any/all of them by default. As if it is just a matter of course rather than something that happens for an actual reason. Again, this is going to happen. Democrats could nominate the most squeaky-clean boy scout in the history of American politics and it wouldn't change this dynamic.
We'll need at least five investigations into the next tan suit scandal equivalent.
Anyways, yeah man Trump does and has done things that are totally illegal. Republicans are like those three monkeys - see no evil, hear no evil, and he said no evil. Even things they'd have a cow about if a Democrat did those things like the treasonous Helsinki summit with Putin where Trump bent the knee to "Dad"imir Putin. Do you think a Democrat could have done that without a peep from Republicans? No man, they are all totally spineless and complete sellouts of party before country. All of them.
There's been an attempted hack of the Democratic Party's voter files. The FBI is investigating the matter but we currently don't know who's responsible.
EDIT: Apparently it was a false alarm, the result of a security test.
In an interview this morning with FOX News, Trump offered the opinion that the entire practice of criminal defendants flipping on those they can implicate in the same crime should be outlawed. I'm sure somewhere in hell, John Gotti approves of this line of thinking.
I'm fairly sure the practice of flipping criminal defendants is as old as the legal system itself, but by all means, let's change the entire system because it threatens one man. This is another concrete example of why this man should not be in office. His view on the world is myopic to the point that he is incapable of seeing past himself. The guy who screams "law and order" on a daily basis would let thousands upon thousands of criminals walk free if it meant saving himself. Donald Trump thinks what Jimmy Conway told Henry Hill when he got pinched selling stolen cigarettes at the beginning of "Goodfellas" is sound, moral advice. But, as I've said many times, Trump was in New York real estate in the '70s and '80s. The guy rubbed shoulders with mobsters his entire adult life. He couldn't have completed his construction projects without doing so.
He's also shifting to his next line of defense. With 'I've done nothing wrong' looking ever more shaky he told Fox News that the market would crash if he were impeached.
Political waters are getting a bit choppy in the UK as well. At the moment it doesn't look like there's a Parliamentary majority in favor of any conceivable deal with the EU - meaning that the chance of exiting without a deal is becoming ever more realistic. The government issued a series of technical papers today telling businesses and citizens what to do to prepare against this possibility. Further papers are due over the next couple of months, but the intention was to calm people's nerves by showing the government was prepared for all eventualities - my impression is that it's not been particularly successful in that.
Why are we discussing Hillary Clinton's emails more than Trump being an unindicted co-conspirator implicated in felonies?
Cohen pled guilty to multiple felonies that he said that Trump told him to do.
The power of "Whataboutism"
It's how conservative media is forced to defend Trump - by trying to make (false) equivalences. Trump pay off a porn star via his lawyer in an illegal campaign contribution and then attempt to hide it? "But Obama committed a campaign finance violation too!", as if these things are interchangeable.
Neither of those two candidates should have been running for president in 2016. Period!
I hear this a lot, and the supposition is: If someone else had run, that they would have voted for that other person.
Here's a question @Balrog99 - If the election were tomorrow, and it was Trump vs any of the likely candidates for the Democrats (So: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker) - would you vote for any of them? (You dont really have to answer the question if you dont want, obviously. I dont like putting people on the spot to voice something significant like who they'd vote for, but I'm curious if I can find even a single conservative that would go across party lines)
If Bernie had run last time I would have voted Libertarian. In your hypothetical scenario I'd vote for Trump over Warren but would throw my vote to the Libertarian If he were running against the others you mentioned. I'm not a fan of Elizabeth Warren. I don't think there is any Democrat I would vote for because I don't believe in their platform for the most part. That is what being a conservative means. Under no conditions would I not vote at all.
Would you have voted for say, Kasich, if he'd been the Republican candidate? I doubt it...
He's also shifting to his next line of defense. With 'I've done nothing wrong' looking ever more shaky he told Fox News that the market would crash if he were impeached.
If that argument works then every criminal should use it as a defense.
Defendant: "Your honor, I can't go to jail because it will be a financial hardship."
Judge: "Well, ok then."
So seriously though Trump is arguing he should be able to be a criminal, right.
If Bernie had run last time I would have voted Libertarian. In your hypothetical scenario I'd vote for Trump over Warren but would throw my vote to the Libertarian If he were running against the others you mentioned. I'm not a fan of Elizabeth Warren. I don't think there is any Democrat I would vote for because I don't believe in their platform for the most part. That is what being a conservative means. Under no conditions would I not vote at all.
Would you have voted for say, Kasich, if he'd been the Republican candidate? I doubt it...
Would I vote for Kasich if it meant Trump was less likely to be president? Or if they were in a head-to-head race? A million times yes. I dont agree with a majority of his political views, but I think Trump is an absolute tragedy in the making. Kasich has his own warts, but they're largely comparable with any politician's.
Would I vote for Kasich over Clinton? Of course not. I'm not on the boat of people that somehow think she's worse than the devil. She was a flawed candidate. Would still have been a more effective leader than Trump, in my opinion, based on the first 20 months of his Presidency.
I appreciate your candor in a response. My experience (and expectation) in the people I see in this case is that they will find a way to vilify every single possible candidate for president in an attempt to get back to the "Lesser or two evils" argument from last election.
If Bernie had run last time I would have voted Libertarian. In your hypothetical scenario I'd vote for Trump over Warren but would throw my vote to the Libertarian If he were running against the others you mentioned. I'm not a fan of Elizabeth Warren. I don't think there is any Democrat I would vote for because I don't believe in their platform for the most part. That is what being a conservative means. Under no conditions would I not vote at all.
Would you have voted for say, Kasich, if he'd been the Republican candidate? I doubt it...
Would I vote for Kasich if it meant Trump was less likely to be president? Or if they were in a head-to-head race? A million times yes. I dont agree with a majority of his political views, but I think Trump is an absolute tragedy in the making. Kasich has his own warts, but they're largely comparable with any politician's.
Would I vote for Kasich over Clinton? Of course not. I'm not on the boat of people that somehow think she's worse than the devil. She was a flawed candidate. Would still have been a more effective leader than Trump, in my opinion, based on the first 20 months of his Presidency.
I appreciate your candor in a response. My experience (and expectation) in the people I see in this case is that they will find a way to vilify every single possible candidate for president in an attempt to get back to the "Lesser or two evils" argument from last election.
People keep talking about Kasich making a legitimate primary challenge if Trump makes it to 2020. It's hogwash. Trump is as popular among Republican voters as any President has ever been at 87% as we speak. Kasich would get slaughtered.
If Bernie had run last time I would have voted Libertarian. In your hypothetical scenario I'd vote for Trump over Warren but would throw my vote to the Libertarian If he were running against the others you mentioned. I'm not a fan of Elizabeth Warren. I don't think there is any Democrat I would vote for because I don't believe in their platform for the most part. That is what being a conservative means. Under no conditions would I not vote at all.
Would you have voted for say, Kasich, if he'd been the Republican candidate? I doubt it...
Would I vote for Kasich if it meant Trump was less likely to be president? Or if they were in a head-to-head race? A million times yes. I dont agree with a majority of his political views, but I think Trump is an absolute tragedy in the making. Kasich has his own warts, but they're largely comparable with any politician's.
Would I vote for Kasich over Clinton? Of course not. I'm not on the boat of people that somehow think she's worse than the devil. She was a flawed candidate. Would still have been a more effective leader than Trump, in my opinion, based on the first 20 months of his Presidency.
I appreciate your candor in a response. My experience (and expectation) in the people I see in this case is that they will find a way to vilify every single possible candidate for president in an attempt to get back to the "Lesser or two evils" argument from last election.
People keep talking about Kasich making a legitimate primary challenge if Trump makes it to 2020. It's hogwash. Trump is as popular among Republican voters as any President has ever been at 87% as we speak. Kasich would get slaughtered.
That and no Republican has ever stood up to Trump in reality. Some might say something, talk big like your Corker, Flakes and McCain but then they vote for whatever nonsense he wants anyway. I guess the lone exception was McCains thumbs down on taking away healthcare.
Comments
I also don't think the kind of institutionalized corruption we saw will just "go away" without accountability of some sort. She might have been the one to do it, but the very fact that she could do it and get away with it merely gives other and incentive to rig elections as well.
"Trump just committed murder!"
"But Hillary deleted emails!"
But somehow we're supposed to be audibly gasping at payments due to an affair. Priorities are awfully skewed.
However, you may still get your wish, because as Trump's house of cards continues to crumble, he still has the "prosecute my political opponent" "lock her up" card in his back pocket. In actuality, even when Hillary Clinton dies and has been in ground for 2 decades, the American right will still be trotting her out as a foil. She's served that role for almost 30 years, and they can't give it up now.
In relation to the affair, it's not the payments that are the problem - in themselves there's nothing illegal about those. As is often the case it's the lying and covering up that is the real problem (both politically and legally).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/technology/facebook-political-influence-midterms.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
It's an ominous sign. The last thing we need is for social media to be weaponized and used just to incite strife in foreign countries. Worse still, the more common this becomes, the easier it will be to paint your domestic enemies as foreign pawns.
And if you are now talking about the emails, no charges were filed after a lengthy investigation into it. There was no crime according to those who were in charge of looking at all the evidence provided.
BTW, not once did Clinton demand that the investigation stop as it would/was interfering with an election, the same calls Trump and associates have been saying for the last month or so claiming his investigation is a political witch hunt as September rolls near.
So yes I will pull out the meme anytime Trump or associates is found to be be doing some wrong and a person’s response is “but Hillary...” It’s buyers remorse IMO.
The Ontario Liberals were playing this card against the Tories for a decade and half and they were able to because it worked in the beginning. Hold accountable to what you have in the present and don’t compare it to any misgivings from the past.
Personally I think there is in fact a pretty good chance that SCOTUS would allow a prosecution of Trump - because they have an extremely strong vested interest in maintaining the norms that Trump is undermining. For similar reasons I think there are limits to the extent the Republican party will be willing to support him in exercising ever more obviously lawless behavior.
I am guessing I probably followed this particular race closer than anyone here, since I am the only one who is actually an admitted member of the Democratic Party. I actually supported Bernie. I wasn't gung-ho about it, but I preferred him at the time (in retrospect, I'm not at all certain I should have). So what happened in this race??
Well, for starters, Bernie Sanders joined very late in the process because he saw Hillary had no serious challenger. All well and good on the surface of things, but it also meant that no actual work had gone into courting key groups of voters, namely, African-American women in the South. Bernie got big media wins in his virtual tie in Iowa and his big win in New Hampshire, but in regards to the actual delegate count, it wasn't really all that significant. All sizzle, very little steak. The problem came once the race shifted to the South. Whatever you think of them, the Clinton's had been cultivating relationships with African-American Democrats in the South for decades, and Bernie got clobbered in those primaries. Bernie was winning states, but winning them by a small or moderate amount. Hillary was winning some states in the South by an 80-20 margin, and with proportional delegates, that put Bernie in an almost insurmountable hole.
He caught ahold of a life raft when he pulled off a huge upset in Michigan. At that point, everything hinged on him winning the Ohio Primary which took place on March 15th. Hillary won by 13%. The race was over at this point. In any reasonable mathematical scenario, there was no way he could catch up. It just wasn't possible. Nevertheless, Bernie and left-wing media outlets online continued to push this narrative that Bernie still a chance to pull this out for 3 more months. It was never the case. And that 3 month period where Bernie supporters were being told that some miracle was going to take place is when the division that was one of the things that cost Hillary the election took place and cemented itself.
As for the DNC an inproper behavior?? What else needs to be said. Did the DNC want Hillary to win?? 100% yes, absolutely they did. Did they, however, CAUSE her to win?? No, not in any way. The extent of their interference was scheduling debates where it could be argued that the least amount of people would watch them (and I tend to agree this is pretty much what they did) and Donna Brazile tipping the Hillary campaign off about a question about the death penalty in a CNN debate (for which she was immediately fired when the news came to light). Are both of those incidents shady?? Yeah, the later far more than the former, but yes. Did they amount to the rigging of a primary?? Not even remotely, especially since the race was for all intents and purposes over by the time most of it even took place. Nothing remotely as shady as illegally hacking private email servers or engaging in a quid pro quo with a foreign adversary is even alleged, much less took place. I will also point out that of COURSE the DNC preferred Hillary as a candidate, because Hillary is actually a Democrat, and Bernie Sanders isn't. He was an independent who was using the party as his platform for the Presidency. So again, did the DNC engage in some shady practices?? Yeah, of course, and both of the women responsible for those actions were exiled from the forefront of Democratic politics. But did they have any tangible impact on a national race that Hillary won by almost 4 million votes?? No. And of course the key point to all of this is that nothing even remotely illegal took place.
I'd be more upset if there was any chance that it impacted the end result of the primary.
Mind you, this particular post is mostly about the inside baseball, horse-race aspects of the campaign. But I think it shows just WHY the payoff to Stormy Daniels was so significant. I can't prove one way or another it gave Trump the Presidency. But I think I can make a strong argument that it certainly might have. Just to spitball, how many moderate white women in the 3 key states don't vote for Trump based on a last minute revelation of an affair he had with a porn star in a time period where his wife had just given birth to their child?? Because that is the kind of visceral image that can swing a vote, and it wouldn't have take many.
Both parties need to figure out what the Hell happened and move on. One of the reasons Trump won is precisely because he ran against Hillary. I don't care about comparisons between the two because I didn't like either of them. It just turns out that since I'm fairly conservative I disliked Hillary more.
The dearth of Hillary campaign slogans/license plates here in Michigan was one of the reasons I wasn't as surprised by Trump's win as most people. Nobody around here seemed excited by her at all. How did that level of apathy go unnoticed by the DNC?
How did the RNC not figure out about that exact same apathy about their chosen candidate (Jeb)? I would not have voted for Jeb so the Republicans might have been lucky that he didn't win the primary since I doubt I'm alone in my opinion.
That being said, I didn't and wouldn't vote for either Hilary or Trump. If the Republicans had fielded Jeb, I may have voted for him. Bernie Sanders was the, "At least he isn't the other two" for me. Despite leaning Libertarian, I don't think I even know who the candidate was this last go round.
Cohen pled guilty to multiple felonies that he said that Trump told him to do.
It's how conservative media is forced to defend Trump - by trying to make (false) equivalences. Trump pay off a porn star via his lawyer in an illegal campaign contribution and then attempt to hide it? "But Obama committed a campaign finance violation too!", as if these things are interchangeable.
I hear this a lot, and the supposition is: If someone else had run, that they would have voted for that other person.
Here's a question @Balrog99 - If the election were tomorrow, and it was Trump vs any of the likely candidates for the Democrats (So: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker) - would you vote for any of them? (You dont really have to answer the question if you dont want, obviously. I dont like putting people on the spot to voice something significant like who they'd vote for, but I'm curious if I can find even a single conservative that would go across party lines)
Anyways, yeah man Trump does and has done things that are totally illegal. Republicans are like those three monkeys - see no evil, hear no evil, and he said no evil. Even things they'd have a cow about if a Democrat did those things like the treasonous Helsinki summit with Putin where Trump bent the knee to "Dad"imir Putin. Do you think a Democrat could have done that without a peep from Republicans? No man, they are all totally spineless and complete sellouts of party before country. All of them.
EDIT: Apparently it was a false alarm, the result of a security test.
I'm fairly sure the practice of flipping criminal defendants is as old as the legal system itself, but by all means, let's change the entire system because it threatens one man. This is another concrete example of why this man should not be in office. His view on the world is myopic to the point that he is incapable of seeing past himself. The guy who screams "law and order" on a daily basis would let thousands upon thousands of criminals walk free if it meant saving himself. Donald Trump thinks what Jimmy Conway told Henry Hill when he got pinched selling stolen cigarettes at the beginning of "Goodfellas" is sound, moral advice. But, as I've said many times, Trump was in New York real estate in the '70s and '80s. The guy rubbed shoulders with mobsters his entire adult life. He couldn't have completed his construction projects without doing so.
Political waters are getting a bit choppy in the UK as well. At the moment it doesn't look like there's a Parliamentary majority in favor of any conceivable deal with the EU - meaning that the chance of exiting without a deal is becoming ever more realistic. The government issued a series of technical papers today telling businesses and citizens what to do to prepare against this possibility. Further papers are due over the next couple of months, but the intention was to calm people's nerves by showing the government was prepared for all eventualities - my impression is that it's not been particularly successful in that.
Would you have voted for say, Kasich, if he'd been the Republican candidate? I doubt it...
Defendant: "Your honor, I can't go to jail because it will be a financial hardship."
Judge: "Well, ok then."
So seriously though Trump is arguing he should be able to be a criminal, right.
Would I vote for Kasich if it meant Trump was less likely to be president? Or if they were in a head-to-head race? A million times yes. I dont agree with a majority of his political views, but I think Trump is an absolute tragedy in the making. Kasich has his own warts, but they're largely comparable with any politician's.
Would I vote for Kasich over Clinton? Of course not. I'm not on the boat of people that somehow think she's worse than the devil. She was a flawed candidate. Would still have been a more effective leader than Trump, in my opinion, based on the first 20 months of his Presidency.
I appreciate your candor in a response. My experience (and expectation) in the people I see in this case is that they will find a way to vilify every single possible candidate for president in an attempt to get back to the "Lesser or two evils" argument from last election.