Re: The Trump Dump!
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:53 am
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
Trump isn't going to have the wall built. He likely never really wanted to. It's a political football to impress his fanbase. He'll have some fences built and call them a wall, then whine that the Evil Dems haven't allowed him to go any further.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ The wall is a stunt. Border agents didn't want it, it will do environmental damage, and be a costly eyesore and a black mark on our relations with Mexico, a important trading partner. It is arguable how much good it will do in deterring illegal immigrants. It was something Trump could say that simple-minded people could visualize and understand.
I have friends, long-time friends that work as border agents. I am not against securing our borders, but I am against costly and stupid stunts like the wall. I am against inhumane treatment of anyone, be it POWs or families crossing the border. I am especially against petty jingoism and crass idiocy. The Republicans had the big three and nada on immigration reform. They just wanna look tough to impress the gullible. It appears to be working.
Unbiased source, that at the same time he and his goofy son were pushing the Pizzagate conspiracy.BY LT. Gen. Michael T. Flynn (R) - 11/08/16 05:46 PM EST
Nah, he's fairly serious about it, from what I've heard. He thinks it will be part of his legacy, when his real legacy is going to be a very sticky set of precedents and some legal stuff that will delight future historians. Nixon's legacy is gonna look far better in contrast. Especially if they don't fix healthcare fast, and the death of the ACA plunges the markets into chaos.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Trump isn't going to have the wall built. He likely never really wanted to. It's a political football to impress his fanbase. He'll have some fences built and call them a wall, then whine that the Evil Dems haven't allowed him to go any further.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ The wall is a stunt. Border agents didn't want it, it will do environmental damage, and be a costly eyesore and a black mark on our relations with Mexico, a important trading partner. It is arguable how much good it will do in deterring illegal immigrants. It was something Trump could say that simple-minded people could visualize and understand.
I have friends, long-time friends that work as border agents. I am not against securing our borders, but I am against costly and stupid stunts like the wall. I am against inhumane treatment of anyone, be it POWs or families crossing the border. I am especially against petty jingoism and crass idiocy. The Republicans had the big three and nada on immigration reform. They just wanna look tough to impress the gullible. It appears to be working.
This really isn't rocket science. Flynn copped to lying to the FBI when he was asked about his dealings with foreign nationals. If a person pleads guilty to a crime that tells you a couple things: 1) there was enough evidence that a grand jury decided to issue an indictment for that thing 2) A judge reviewed the evidence and found it satisfactory, and found that the defendant was "of sound mind" and had adequate legal advice provided to understand his options. You can also often infer that the defendant is potentially liable for more than they are pleading to (because there is little strategic advantage to pleading guilty if you aren't making a deal with the prosecutor). So there is really no point in arguing from incredulity about whether there are "facts and cogent arguments". All of that was presented to a grand jury months ago, and when Flynn and his lawyer looked at the prosecutor's case, they decided that they had a small enough chance of arguing against the evidence that Flynn should just spill his guts and hope for leniency instead. It's not clear to me that all the evidence is out yet, since it relates to other people who are being targeted by the Mueller probe. My understanding is that all court filings eventually become public domain, so you'll be able to see the evidence for yourself once the probe is wrapped up.Steersman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:01 am
"arguably, you sold your country out"? I can argue that 2+2=5 but that doesn't mean it's right. And WTF is the judge doing by saying that? Isn't he supposed to be judging on the basis of facts and cogent arguments? Sure would like to know what Flynn has specifically been charged with, and what was the evidence that was put on the table in support of those charges.
Future people have already made an assessment of his legacy in the future...CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Nah, he's fairly serious about it, from what I've heard. He thinks it will be part of his legacy, when his real legacy is going to be a very sticky set of precedents and some legal stuff that will delight future historians. Nixon's legacy is gonna look far better in contrast. Especially if they don't fix healthcare fast, and the death of the ACA plunges the markets into chaos.
That now qualifies as "selling your country out", as treason? Kind of looks like the part and parcel of the over-use of words - like "nazi" or "misogynist(!!11!!)" - leading to a general reduction in their utility. You might take a gander at:Old_ones wrote: ↑This really isn't rocket science. Flynn copped to lying to the FBI when he was asked about his dealings with foreign nationals.Steersman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:01 am
"arguably, you sold your country out"? I can argue that 2+2=5 but that doesn't mean it's right. And WTF is the judge doing by saying that? Isn't he supposed to be judging on the basis of facts and cogent arguments? Sure would like to know what Flynn has specifically been charged with, and what was the evidence that was put on the table in support of those charges.
As I said earlier, Flynn may have been remarkably naive about our putative ally and fellow NATO member Turkey - see they're rejecting the sanctions on Iran - as Erdogan's Islam is hardly less odious than Gulen's. But rather a stretch to even suggest "treason" for simply dealing with a NATO ally - even apart from the supposed fact that Flynn wasn't actually "national security advisor" at the time.We all need to cool it with the ‘treason’ talk
By Seth Lipsky
One positive thing could come out of the fiasco of the sentencing hearing for Gen. Michael Flynn — a national teaching moment in respect of the meaning of “treason.” ....
I don’t wish to put the gloss on Flynn. What a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was thinking when he hired himself out to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey is beyond me. As is his thinking when he took a fat fee to give a speech at a banquet in Moscow, where he sat next to Putin.
Sleazy as they are, neither act gets anywhere near the constitutional meaning of treason, which is levying war against the United States or adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Speaking at a banquet of a rival like Russia, however ill it means us, or serving as an agent of a lousy “ally” like Turkey, doesn’t cut it. Which is why what happened at Tuesday’s hearing was so shocking.
The hearing was set by a US district judge, Emmet Sullivan, to sentence the general. He had pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI about what he said to the Russian ambassador in late 2016. ....
This reminds me of a Ronald Reagan joke about the fellow who, after he, his horse and dog had been injured in an accident, told the cop that he never felt better in his life.
Turns out that first the officer had shot the injured horse to put it out of its misery and proceeded to shoot the dog for the same reason. Only then did the officer ask the injured man, “And how do you feel?” ....
The judge started denouncing Flynn’s work for Turkey. “You were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president!” Sullivan yelled.
Yet Flynn had ceased his work for Turkey two months before he became National Security Advisor. ....
Kind of looks like that "evidence" is a bit "coloured" if not tainted by the judge's bias. Though he hardly looks to be the only guilty party on that score.Old_ones wrote: ↑If a person pleads guilty to a crime that tells you a couple things ... It's not clear to me that all the evidence is out yet, since it relates to other people who are being targeted by the Mueller probe. My understanding is that all court filings eventually become public domain, so you'll be able to see the evidence for yourself once the probe is wrapped up.
Bias?! You fucking numbskull. Sullivan is responding to the evidence he has in front of him. This is the end of the trial when Flynn gets sentenced, not the beginning when he is presumed to be innocent. It's completely right and proper for him to have formed an opinion about Flynn's conduct at this point. Flynn has only pled to one charge - lying to the FBI - but the other shit he was up to (i.e. corruptly working for foreign governments while employed at the highest echelons of the US government or trump transition team) can still be an aggravating factor. That's the sort of thing judges determine at this phase of a trial. Sullivan is warning Flynn that he takes a dim view of Flynn's past conduct, and he has every right to hold that opinion. It's his fucking job for fuck's sake.Steersman wrote: ↑That now qualifies as "selling your country out", as treason? Kind of looks like the part and parcel of the over-use of words - like "nazi" or "misogynist(!!11!!)" - leading to a general reduction in their utility. You might take a gander at:Old_ones wrote: ↑This really isn't rocket science. Flynn copped to lying to the FBI when he was asked about his dealings with foreign nationals.Steersman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:01 am
"arguably, you sold your country out"? I can argue that 2+2=5 but that doesn't mean it's right. And WTF is the judge doing by saying that? Isn't he supposed to be judging on the basis of facts and cogent arguments? Sure would like to know what Flynn has specifically been charged with, and what was the evidence that was put on the table in support of those charges.As I said earlier, Flynn may have been remarkably naive about our putative ally and fellow NATO member Turkey - see they're rejecting the sanctions on Iran - as Erdogan's Islam is hardly less odious than Gulen's. But rather a stretch to even suggest "treason" for simply dealing with a NATO ally - even apart from the supposed fact that Flynn wasn't actually "national security advisor" at the time.We all need to cool it with the ‘treason’ talk
By Seth Lipsky
One positive thing could come out of the fiasco of the sentencing hearing for Gen. Michael Flynn — a national teaching moment in respect of the meaning of “treason.” ....
I don’t wish to put the gloss on Flynn. What a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was thinking when he hired himself out to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey is beyond me. As is his thinking when he took a fat fee to give a speech at a banquet in Moscow, where he sat next to Putin.
Sleazy as they are, neither act gets anywhere near the constitutional meaning of treason, which is levying war against the United States or adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Speaking at a banquet of a rival like Russia, however ill it means us, or serving as an agent of a lousy “ally” like Turkey, doesn’t cut it. Which is why what happened at Tuesday’s hearing was so shocking.
The hearing was set by a US district judge, Emmet Sullivan, to sentence the general. He had pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI about what he said to the Russian ambassador in late 2016. ....
This reminds me of a Ronald Reagan joke about the fellow who, after he, his horse and dog had been injured in an accident, told the cop that he never felt better in his life.
Turns out that first the officer had shot the injured horse to put it out of its misery and proceeded to shoot the dog for the same reason. Only then did the officer ask the injured man, “And how do you feel?” ....
The judge started denouncing Flynn’s work for Turkey. “You were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president!” Sullivan yelled.
Yet Flynn had ceased his work for Turkey two months before he became National Security Advisor. ....
Kind of looks like that "evidence" is a bit "coloured" if not tainted by the judge's bias. Though he hardly looks to be the only guilty party on that score.Old_ones wrote: ↑If a person pleads guilty to a crime that tells you a couple things ... It's not clear to me that all the evidence is out yet, since it relates to other people who are being targeted by the Mueller probe. My understanding is that all court filings eventually become public domain, so you'll be able to see the evidence for yourself once the probe is wrapped up.
I'm just speculating, obviously, but I think the economy is going to start tanking this year and the long knives are going to come out for Trump. The economy is showing signs of weakening, and Trump's erratic actions are only going to exacerbate that. The Republicans in congress have been door mats for Trump, but right now they are afraid of primary challenges because he is still popular with republican voters. If his popular support tanks because of a recession (and every president's popularity tanks in a recession) they have no reason to back him up, and they might even benefit from making him a scapegoat. I honestly don't think there is a lot of love for the guy in the senate - I think there is a lot of self-interested calculation. Its instructive to look at the way the GOP treated W in 2008, for an analogy. He was a sitting president and didn't even speak at McCain's convention.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Anyone have psychic predictions about Trump in the New Year?
Will he badmouth Kelly and Mattis?
Make Sherrif Joe Arpaio head the DOJ?
Steven Segal for secretary of defense?
Justice Ginsburg will have been revealed to have been kept animated means for some times now, and as she isn't technically alive Trump Will have her replaced with Judge Jeannine Pirro from Fox News.
Mueller will accidentally fall out of a highrise window after suffering a heart attack.
I look forward to your predictions.
I agree that if there's an economic crisis and GOP base abandons Trump he is toast. I don't think he would resign if pressured, though. I think he would drag on and on the process, fighting and bickering all the way, until he'd have to be removed from office.Old_ones wrote: ↑I'm just speculating, obviously, but I think the economy is going to start tanking this year and the long knives are going to come out for Trump. The economy is showing signs of weakening, and Trump's erratic actions are only going to exacerbate that. The Republicans in congress have been door mats for Trump, but right now they are afraid of primary challenges because he is still popular with republican voters. If his popular support tanks because of a recession (and every president's popularity tanks in a recession) they have no reason to back him up, and they might even benefit from making him a scapegoat. I honestly don't think there is a lot of love for the guy in the senate - I think there is a lot of self-interested calculation. Its instructive to look at the way the GOP treated W in 2008, for an analogy. He was a sitting president and didn't even speak at McCain's convention.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Anyone have psychic predictions about Trump in the New Year?
Will he badmouth Kelly and Mattis?
Make Sherrif Joe Arpaio head the DOJ?
Steven Segal for secretary of defense?
Justice Ginsburg will have been revealed to have been kept animated means for some times now, and as she isn't technically alive Trump Will have her replaced with Judge Jeannine Pirro from Fox News.
Mueller will accidentally fall out of a highrise window after suffering a heart attack.
I look forward to your predictions.
I also think a lot of republicans take ISIS pretty seriously, and are fuming that Trump is suddenly pulling out of Syria without asking for anyone's advice (except for maybe Putin's). I don't think most of the republican party actually likes the way trump runs his foreign policy, and at a certain point, this could motivate some of them to turn on him (Lindsey Graham I'm looking at you).
Another factor is the blatant corruption. The legal issues are getting so big and distracting that they are going to be hard to ignore. With the number of investigations going on we are shaping up to have a year of nonstop corruption stories and possibly a big crisis if one of the many prosecutors after trump hits some of his family with indictments.
So I'm going to make a bold (possibly stupid) prediction and say that Trump gets forced out of office in 2019. This might happen by impeachment, by behind the scenes pressure leading to resignation, or maybe by a 25th amendment action (probably the least likely of these scenarios). If it doesn't happen in 2019 then it's because the republicans are still all in with trump, and want to face the 2020 election with a platform of overt corruption, influence peddling to foreign governments, and possibly a failed economy. Alternately, it could be because the Democrats have decided that they will do better in the 2020 election if they are running against the party of Trump, and don't want to help the republicans jettison him.
It should be an interesting year regardless.
:popcorn:
My prediction is that he will limp on towards 2020 until we encounter a distinctly sharp crisis, at which point even GOP congressmen will peel off. The crisis may happen to coincide with behind-the-scenes incentivization to cut a resignation-for-nonprosecution deal (of the Spiro T. Agnew variety) with federal prosecutors. This may well cause DJT to start shooting off the sort of orders which make the 25th Amendment look like an appealing option, even to those currently empowered to carry it through.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ My prediction for 2019 is that Trump will limp on towards 2020, becoming more and more deranged as he has to deal with legal trouble, accusing everyone of having betrayed him and conspiring against him, and trying to do meaningless virtue-signalling for his fanbase. There's probably going to be some kind of economic stagnation/crisis but unless it's a real catastrophe and happens really quickly it won't reduce Trump's support that much.
I mostly agree with you here. I don't think Trump is the kind of person who would ever resign of his own volition either to spare the country the trauma of an impeachment, or to spare himself the humiliation.
I would be willing to bet that Trump grows increasingly erratic. That is a pretty safe bet.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Anyone have psychic predictions about Trump in the New Year?
Will he badmouth Kelly and Mattis?
Make Sherrif Joe Arpaio head the DOJ?
Steven Segal for secretary of defense?
Justice Ginsburg will have been revealed to have been kept animated means for some times now, and as she isn't technically alive Trump Will have her replaced with Judge Jeannine Pirro from Fox News.
Mueller will accidentally fall out of a highrise window after suffering a heart attack.
I look forward to your predictions.
He'll kick and scream all the way through, and will trigger all kinds of crisis if he has to. Nixon also had to be forced by the Supreme Court to hand over the infamous tapes, and Trump is far dumber than Tricky Dicky. Yes, he's a coward, but he's also a narcissist AND an idiot. Never underestimate wounded pride and massive stupidity.Old_ones wrote: ↑I mostly agree with you here. I don't think Trump is the kind of person who would ever resign of his own volition either to spare the country the trauma of an impeachment, or to spare himself the humiliation.
What might change the equation, though, would be a particular kind of conversation he could eventually find himself having with Pence and McConnell. The two of them would sit him down and explain that the Senate has the votes to remove him, review the charges that he is likely to face in the various investigations against him, and finish with the stipulation that Pence will not consider any pardons for the president unless he resigns. Pence then suggests that if he resigns he need not worry about any legal jeopardy from the federal government.
Trump likes to pretend he is a tough guy, but he's actually a coward. IMO he would almost certainly cave if this kind of strong arm tactic were applied to him. I think a standard impeachment is somewhat more likely than this kind of scenario, though, because I'm unsure if Pence would ever be willing to go along with it. Strong-arming trump into a resignation might make for a tidier removal than an impeachment, but it might also require a greater degree of consensus among republicans that trump needs to go.
This is the most perplexing thing about trump's presidency so far. I can't wrap my head around how republicans can look at the way this guy acts and approve of it. I guess one conclusion we can draw is that republicans only give a fuck about corruption if its a Clinton who seems to be corrupt.
No doubt Trump is in a cheery mood this Christmas, what with putting many federal worker's paychecks in jeopardy. It must be a bit like the good old days when he used to stiff his workers and sub contractors.In one conversation, Trump asked a 7-year-old named Coleman, “Are you still a believer in Santa?” He listened for a moment before adding, “Because at 7, it’s marginal, right?”
The funny part is that lots of Trump fans believe in stupid shit that is as believable as Santa Claus, and they're adults. Perhaps he was checking to see if the kid was smart enough not to vote for him one day? :bjarte:free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Hoe hoe hoe. Santa doesn't exist you little retard. Merry Trumpmas.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4793619/dona ... -children/No doubt Trump is in a cheery mood this Christmas, what with putting many federal worker's paychecks in jeopardy. It must be a bit like the good old days when he used to stiff his workers and sub contractors.In one conversation, Trump asked a 7-year-old named Coleman, “Are you still a believer in Santa?” He listened for a moment before adding, “Because at 7, it’s marginal, right?”
There may come a turning point where Trump loses his ability to sink Republican candidates that speak out against him. Right now his base is nearly immovable, and saying what would ordinarily be sensible things will earn the wrath of Trump and his fanbois. They're in a tight spot; they know Trump is crazy and some of his policies are gonna bite them in the ass, but nobody dares say anything unless they're retiring. If the economy tanks, which is looking more likely than not, they will have a hard time not owning that.Sunder wrote: ↑ Republicans just need to pick a new rising star and start churning their propaganda outlets saying "Hey, this guy is everything we thought Trump was going to be, for reals this time! And actually don't forget Trump's an ex-Democrat so it's not so surprising he's let us down."
Thing is while Republicans do have message discipline once the party line has been decided, as far as I can see there's a dearth of actual leaders willing to create the party line. They all seem to be a bunch of chickenshits constantly side-eyeing each other waiting for someone to do something and fucking nobody will.
His personal base is not leaving him until they find someone Trumpier. The only chance Republicans have is to create such a person and then start the smear campaign of Trump as RINO.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑There may come a turning point where Trump loses his ability to sink Republican candidates that speak out against him. Right now his base is nearly immovable, and saying what would ordinarily be sensible things will earn the wrath of Trump and his fanbois. They're in a tight spot; they know Trump is crazy and some of his policies are gonna bite them in the ass, but nobody dares say anything unless they're retiring. If the economy tanks, which is looking more likely than not, they will have a hard time not owning that.
I nominate Rand Paul. As a a pure believer of the perfection of the invisible hand of the market and the Reagan pronouncement that the government is not the solution, it is the problem.Sunder wrote: ↑His personal base is not leaving him until they find someone Trumpier. The only chance Republicans have is to create such a person and then start the smear campaign of Trump as RINO.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑There may come a turning point where Trump loses his ability to sink Republican candidates that speak out against him. Right now his base is nearly immovable, and saying what would ordinarily be sensible things will earn the wrath of Trump and his fanbois. They're in a tight spot; they know Trump is crazy and some of his policies are gonna bite them in the ass, but nobody dares say anything unless they're retiring. If the economy tanks, which is looking more likely than not, they will have a hard time not owning that.
I think one facet of the madness is that the GOP hates government so much that they don't want their anti-government bathtub drowner to actually come from government. A more appealing option than Rand Paul (who has been a senator) might be some other right winger who is willing to say crass things about democrats and minorities but hasn't ever held elected office. Ted Nugent might be a good option.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑I nominate Rand Paul. As a a pure believer of the perfection of the invisible hand of the market and the Reagan pronouncement that the government is not the solution, it is the problem.Sunder wrote: ↑His personal base is not leaving him until they find someone Trumpier. The only chance Republicans have is to create such a person and then start the smear campaign of Trump as RINO.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑There may come a turning point where Trump loses his ability to sink Republican candidates that speak out against him. Right now his base is nearly immovable, and saying what would ordinarily be sensible things will earn the wrath of Trump and his fanbois. They're in a tight spot; they know Trump is crazy and some of his policies are gonna bite them in the ass, but nobody dares say anything unless they're retiring. If the economy tanks, which is looking more likely than not, they will have a hard time not owning that.
Here is my opinion. This idea that large countries should have small enough government that you can drown it in a bathtub is just stupid. The tea party crowd and many of the people that identify as libertarians have been able to spot problems, always easy, but don't have solutions.
Although they probably weren't as many dems before Trump started working their magic.President Trump early Thursday resumed his feud with Democrats on Capitol Hill over funding for a border wall, claiming that most of the hundreds of thousands of federal employees furloughed or forced to work without pay due to a partial government shutdown are Democrats.
The denial- with the 3 stooges voice over. Sure to become a classic if this Prague thing turns out to be true.
If you zoom into the data in the table entitled "Average Job Approval Ratings of Presidents, by Political Party" from Kirb's link to the Gallup report, we can see that what is happening is a process of increased party polarization (including both positive and negative partisanship) which has been going on ever since the Reagan/Bush era. Each team stands behind their own guy more and more (and the other guy less and less) for the last few decades.Old_ones wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:55 amThis is the most perplexing thing about trump's presidency so far. I can't wrap my head around how republicans can look at the way this guy acts and approve of it. I guess one conclusion we can draw is that republicans only give a fuck about corruption if its a Clinton who seems to be corrupt.
To be fair, he still technically has a GOP congress*, and has for his entire presidency, including the last two months. He might be trying to blame his lack of votes for wall funding on the Democrats, but he just shut down the government because he failed to get the votes for his wall in an entirely Republican controlled congress.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
I don't even think that Trump actually ever wanted to get the wall built. It was a political stunt right from the start. He's likely going to point out that some fences were built (many of which existed before his administration) and then whine that the Evil Democratic Deep State didn't let him "finish the job".Old_ones wrote: ↑To be fair, he still technically has a GOP congress*, and has for his entire presidency, including the last two months. He might be trying to blame his lack of votes for wall funding on the Democrats, but he just shut down the government because he failed to get the votes for his wall in an entirely Republican controlled congress.
So this is not only about Trump's priorities, but also about the fact that if congressional Republicans are going to run a huge budget deficit, they'd much rather do it by further enriching extremely rich people, than by funding his wall. He might have sold the wall to the pions, but a lot of the congressional republicans aren't buying. He's just a useful idiot to help them get their usual tax cuts and conservative judicial nominees. They don't care about his stupid ideas, because they have a mental age over twelve, and also because he isn't a skilled enough negotiator or politician to make them care.
* I say technically, because most of them are gone for the holidays and won't do him much good at this point.
Interesting factoid - Donald Trump won a lower percentage of the vote in 2016 (46.1%) than Mitt Romney did in 2012 (47.2%), John Kerry did in 2004 (48.3%) and both Gore and Bush beat his percentage in 2000 (48.4% and 47.9% respectively). Trump beats all of these candidates in raw count, but that is because, in general, more people are turning out every election. Clinton in 2016 beat both Bush and Kerry's raw score in 2004. The real story of the 2016 election isn't that Trump surfed in on a wave of popular fury - that was Obama in 2008 - who beat McCain by 7.2% and roughly 10 M votes. Trump eked out a win despite losing the popular vote by 2.1% or 2.9 M votes. He won an unlikely victory by selling his snake oil in the right geographical areas, while having the benefit of rat-fuck candidates like Jill Stein to draw off disaffected Hillary voters. He also benefited greatly from Russian propaganda which falsely insinuated that Hillary had rigged the primary (her electoral wins made it mathematically impossible for Sanders to win by mid May) and managed to spread lots of innuendo about her corruption based on a lot of hot air from illegally hacked emails. Clinton was not a good enough candidate to overcome these challenges - she is unlikable and power hungry - and left leaning voters will often shoot themselves in the foot and protest the wound afterward rather than vote for someone they don't like.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
In general right-wing populist leaders are great at promoting themselves, at getting people to vote for them, but they suck at delivering any real kind of political change. Trump's anti-immigrant and isolationist message won over the GOP fan-base easily after the neocon disasters and by selling the narrative that immigrants are to be blamed for everything, but I don't think that he or his cronies ever planned to actually go through with the most expensive and hardest parts of their platform.
I don't know for sure, but I think Trump actually wants his wall. Its a "solution" to the immigration problem that is entirely in keeping with the MO of his career - to put his name on giant buildings to make his penis feel bigger.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ Also it's possible that, just like abortion, "the wall" is nothing more than virtue-signalling, and that actually building a wall, just like actually outlawing abortion, might have hurt the Republicans electorally, by depriving them of a key element of their narrative of being the oppressed underdogs fighting for what's right against the Liberal Establishment.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... es-in-20191) Donald J. Trump’s presidency will not survive 2019;
2) The downward trajectory of every aspect of his tenure indicates we are headed for a spectacular political crash-and-burn — and fairly soon;
3) His increasingly erratic and angry behavior, his self-imposed isolation, his inability and refusal to listen to smart advisers that he hired, all are leading him to a precipice;
4) Meanwhile, the global and U.S. economies are softening in great part because of the unnecessary and ill-conceived trade war he launched against Canada and our European allies; if he wanted to conduct a legitimate trade war against China, wouldn’t it have made more sense to have trading allies such as Canada and Europe with us, instead of making them our adversaries?
5) Consumer confidence is declining and the American economy will slow noticeably in 2019. A recession is right around the corner, heading into 2020;
6) The volatility in the stock markets threatens to weaken Trump’s support among the GOP donor class, which will translate to GOP senators pulling away from Trump in short order;
7) Legally, Trump is in peril from not only from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation but also from separate investigations being conducted by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York into Trump’s life and business dealings;
8) Fox News hosts are beginning to question the Trump administration’s actions on air, showing cracks — albeit, small cracks at the moment — in Fox’s heretofore 100 percent fealty to Trump;
9) These cracks will expand into chasms as news and entertainment mogul Rupert Murdoch calculates Trump’s prognosis and decides he doesn’t want his Fox News network to go down the drain with Trump;
10) Fox recently lost several days in a row to MSNBC in the ratings race — and Fox host Sean Hannity has lost 20 percent of his nightly audience since the midterm elections;
11) Without Fox approving Trump’s agenda, his support will decline from the 40s into the upper 20s;
12) The Mueller investigation will come to an end in 2019;
13) Mueller will shock everyone with what he has discovered, and the result will be much worse for Trump than anyone has anticipated;
Snip
Hard to say. One possibility that disturbs me would be that things carry on more or less as they have without any real change in dynamics in Washington. Trump keeps being hit with bad news and bad allegations, the economy stagnates but doesn't shrink, and Trump keeps steadily damaging and abusing the executive branch. In this scenario nothing that happens is bad enough to precipitate any real action, Trump's approval stays steady, and the Republicans continue to view him as a necessary evil (or whatever it is they think about him).free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Old_ones:
I agree with most of that. Some of the timing may be a bit off? My fear is that Trump and co. are able to stall for long enough that the incentive to prosecute them goes stale and he gets away with it.
If so, bad news for the rule of law not only in the US.
13)Investigations have uncovered years of sleaze. Hopefully his core of support wakes up.
Trump doesn’t recognize, understand or respect institutional authority. He only understands personal power. He sees every conflict as a personal conflict in which he destroys or gets destroyed.
When the indictments come down, Trump won’t play by the rules. He’ll seek to delegitimize those rules. He’ll seek to delegitimize our legal institutions. He’ll personalize every indictment, slander every prosecutor. He’ll seek to destroy the edifice of law in order to save himself.
We know the language he’ll use. It will be the anti-establishment, anti-institutional language that has been coursing through the left and right for the past few decades: The establishment is corrupt, the game is rigged, the elites are out to get you.