US Politics Thread

[britbox]

Different circumstances, but similar worst case outcomes. The stuff Wikileaks got was not from the server being compromised. Let's not revise history.

Again you go with spy imputation. This informant is someone who is embedded in more than one active national security issue, which Trump had to be aware of. I know you're just trying to be obtuse and avoid giving an answer. I guess that's information of a sort. Thank you

They aren't similar worst-case outcomes by any stretch. Having an agent in a dangerous overseas scenario compromised is on a different level than somebody outing a mole in their own camp. I doubt seriously that Stefan Halper's life is at risk or those of his associates.

 

[britbox]

Lol! No, my question was whether what Trump is trying to do affects how you feel about him. Who cares about HRC?

How do I feel about Trump? Well, it's an ongoing situation... but I think it's safe to say a lot about Trump's behaviour and the way he does business was pretty apparent long before the election. I don't think we're seeing any major changes in expected behaviour. Is anybody surprised? Are you surprised?

I thought from the outset that if Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best two candidates that could be fielded, then god help America. Fielding HRC as the candidate was a massive mistake by the Democrats. 70% of the electorate thought she was dishonest and untrustworthy before the hustings even began. What were they thinking? It's like a Biblical Character popularity contest where Cain has been put forward by the Republican Disciples and the Democrats have responded with "Hey, there is this fella called Judas who has been around a while, let's put him up for it"

For all the hysterical stuff about Russian inferference.... Trump won because he fought a far smarter campaign than HRC. He offered something different that appealed to a large demographic. Clinton offered the status quo. It's the same reason somebody like Corbyn nearly nicked the election in the UK.

 

[Federberg]

How do I feel about Trump? Well, it's an ongoing situation... but I think it's safe to say a lot about Trump's behaviour and the way he does business was pretty apparent long before the election. I don't think we're seeing any major changes in expected behaviour. Is anybody surprised? Are you surprised?

I thought from the outset that if Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best two candidates that could be fielded, then god help America. Fielding HRC as the candidate was a massive mistake by the Democrats. 70% of the electorate thought she was dishonest and untrustworthy before the hustings even began. What were they thinking? It's like a Biblical Character popularity contest where Cain has been put forward by the Republican Disciples and the Democrats have responded with "Hey, there is this fella called Judas who has been around a while, let's put him up for it"

For all the hysterical stuff about Russian inferference.... Trump won because he fought a far smarter campaign than HRC. He offered something different that appealed to a large demographic. Clinton offered the status quo. It's the same reason somebody like Corbyn nearly nicked the election in the UK.

Pretty much agree with your first two paragraphs. Your last one though is pure fantasy. And it's the garbage argument that Trump and his cronies continuously put forth. If the Russian interference thesis is correct - even if you set aside collusion - then the idea that social media couldn't have swayed 80,000 voters in 3 swing states stretches belief. Even Clapper is now saying that it's increasingly obvious that the Russians did indeed decisively impact the election. It's no secret that I have a lot of sympathy for this view, but I have never hung my hat on it. I've always believed that Comey's was the more decisive intervention. What is absolutely clear to me however, is that the "Trump won because he fought a smarter campaign" trope is an anti-factual proposition. How Trump won has nothing... nothing... to do with how Corbyn won.

 

[Federberg]

Trump cancels NK summit! No Nobel prize for him then!

In all seriousness it was inevitable after Bolton said all that Libya nonsense. Insulting Pence was just the way they picked to force Trump to be the one to back out of it

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No Nobel prize for him then!

You never know. He may get Nobel prize for literature. The citation will read that he is the author of so many interesting conspiracy theories that even learned men often gave them some credence.

 

[Federberg]

You never know. He may get Nobel prize for literature. The citation will read that he is the author of so many conspiracy theories that even learned men often give them some credence.

 

[Moxie]

You never know. He may get Nobel prize for literature. The citation will read that he is the author of so many interesting conspiracy theories that even learned men often gave them some credence.

I know they don't award the Nobel in Literature for spelling, but Trump did misspell the name of the leader of North Korea in his most recent tweet.

 

[Moxie]

How do I feel about Trump? Well, it's an ongoing situation... but I think it's safe to say a lot about Trump's behaviour and the way he does business was pretty apparent long before the election. I don't think we're seeing any major changes in expected behaviour. Is anybody surprised? Are you surprised?

I thought from the outset that if Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best two candidates that could be fielded, then god help America. Fielding HRC as the candidate was a massive mistake by the Democrats. 70% of the electorate thought she was dishonest and untrustworthy before the hustings even began. What were they thinking? It's like a Biblical Character popularity contest where Cain has been put forward by the Republican Disciples and the Democrats have responded with "Hey, there is this fella called Judas who has been around a while, let's put him up for it"

For all the hysterical stuff about Russian inferference.... Trump won because he fought a far smarter campaign than HRC. He offered something different that appealed to a large demographic. Clinton offered the status quo. It's the same reason somebody like Corbyn nearly nicked the election in the UK.

I'm not sure where you get that 70% of the US electorate thought that HRC was untrustworthy. And do remember that she won the popular vote by 3 million votes. You should also notice that she was always given a hard time while running (sexism? What are the chances?) and then was greatly admired while in office, as a Senator from NY, and as Secretary of State.

As to Trump's behavior, and all of the potential ethical issues, you ask "is anyone surprised?" Is this a good enough answer? I'd ask you if you're appalled, anyway? Ever? Just because he's as sleazy as advertised, or perhaps worse, is that really enough reason to accept it and tolerate it?

 

[Horsa]

I know they don't award the Nobel in Literature for spelling, but Trump did misspell the name of the leader of North Korea in his most recent tweet.

He even spelt his wife's name wrong on a get well card for when she got out of hospital so I heard.

 

[britbox]

I'm not sure where you get that 70% of the US electorate thought that HRC was untrustworthy. And do remember that she won the popular vote by 3 million votes. You should also notice that she was always given a hard time while running (sexism? What are the chances?) and then was greatly admired while in office, as a Senator from NY, and as Secretary of State.

As to Trump's behavior, and all of the potential ethical issues, you ask "is anyone surprised?" Is this a good enough answer? I'd ask you if you're appalled, anyway? Ever? Just because he's as sleazy as advertised, or perhaps worse, is that really enough reason to accept it and tolerate it?

68% - my bad, Moxie... and it was a CNN poll.

Greatly admired by you no doubt... but clearly not greatly admired enough where it counted to win the presidency... and clearly despised by many.

Sexism is a pretty comfortable excuse to fall back on... Rough ride? Like CNN giving her the questions to a presidential debate in advance?

 

[britbox]

Hillary Clinton is a typical career politician where self-preservation, feathering their nest and seeking a power base are the primary motives of existence.

She represents the default politician... Self over Conviction. She'll change her tune with the electoral wind and then is stupid enough to even deny her previous stance. She's the type of politician that I vehemently detest.

A self-appointed "womens rights" icon who crucifies a lowly female intern taken advantage of by her husband... who has the hypocrisy to accept millions in donations from places like Saudi Arabia, Quatar and UAE where women's rights are virtually non-existent... for her "charity" that was largely focused on furthering women.

A "right-on" supporter of Gay marriage when it became vogue, having previously been against it and then denying she was against it in the first place.

I won't even mention Whitewater... or all the other controversies she's been involved with.

Her attitude to American military action was frankly disgusting...



Yeah, Hillary... laugh away... fuck the thousands of dead left behind by your carnage... but anyway, in other front page news Trump spelled somebody's name wrong in a Tweet.

 

[Horsa]

Hillary Clinton is a typical career politician where self-preservation, feathering their nest and seeking a power base are the primary motives of existence.

She represents the default politician... Self over Conviction. She'll change her tune with the electoral wind and then is stupid enough to even deny her previous stance. She's the type of politician that I vehemently detest.

A self-appointed "womens rights" icon who crucifies a lowly female intern taken advantage of by her husband... who has the hypocrisy to accept millions in donations from places like Saudi Arabia, Quatar and UAE where women's rights are virtually non-existent... for her "charity" that was largely focused on furthering women.

A "right-on" supporter of Gay marriage when it became vogue, having previously been against it and then denying she was against it in the first place.

I won't even mention Whitewater... or all the other controversies she's been involved with.

Her attitude to American military action was frankly disgusting...



Yeah, Hillary... laugh away... fuck the thousands of dead left behind by your carnage... but anyway, in other front page news Trump spelled somebody's name wrong in a Tweet.

I agree. She shouldn't have stuck up for her husband when he was President & his wrong-doings came to light. I know I wouldn't have & I'd have had a few choice words with him.

Ha! Yes, sorry I was wrong. It was a get well tweet to his wife. I still do some things the old way so am used to the old way of doing things so although I read things properly & understand them, unless I really need the information forget some of the details then some of the stuff I really need to forget I have trouble forgetting. I don't always see everything (spec probs) & sometimes I'm 1/2 asleep when answering or multi-tasking. I'm sometimes reading things in all ways possible or see things in every way except the 1 meant.

 

[britbox]

Pretty much agree with your first two paragraphs. Your last one though is pure fantasy. And it's the garbage argument that Trump and his cronies continuously put forth. If the Russian interference thesis is correct - even if you set aside collusion - then the idea that social media couldn't have swayed 80,000 voters in 3 swing states stretches belief. Even Clapper is now saying that it's increasingly obvious that the Russians did indeed decisively impact the election. It's no secret that I have a lot of sympathy for this view, but I have never hung my hat on it. I've always believed that Comey's was the more decisive intervention. What is absolutely clear to me however, is that the "Trump won because he fought a smarter campaign" trope is an anti-factual proposition. How Trump won has nothing... nothing... to do with how Corbyn won.

Clinton spent $768 million on the campaign, to Trump's $398 million. Facebook ads with tenuous links to Russia were estimated at $100,000. So we have a so-called greatly admired Senator (according to Moxie) who outspends Trump more than 2/1 and the Russians 7680/1, had the second debate questions in advance, was the heavy favourite going in, and you don't think Trump fought a smarter campaign?

Comey was a factor for sure... probably reinforcing the doubts of some floating voters... but you should watch a talk by Newt Gingrich a few days after the election on how Trump maximized his return on investment. I posted it on this site at the time. He ran a smart focused campaign aimed at winning the electoral college.

 

[Federberg]

Clinton spent $768 million on the campaign, to Trump's $398 million. Facebook ads with tenuous links to Russia were estimated at $100,000. So we have a so-called greatly admired Senator (according to Moxie) who outspends Trump more than 2/1 and the Russians 7680/1, had the second debate questions in advance, was the heavy favourite going in, and you don't think Trump fought a smarter campaign?

Comey was a factor for sure... probably reinforcing the doubts of some floating voters... but you should watch a talk by Newt Gingrich a few days after the election on how Trump maximized his return on investment. I posted it on this site at the time. He ran a smart focused campaign aimed at winning the electoral college.

still trotting out that flawed data? What a yawn. Let's stipulate that money buys you time on television. Trump was given such a vast amount of tv time for free by the media that it easily overwhelms the amount of money Clinton spent. I've heard estimates of $2bn equivalent tv time for free for Trump. The sad thing is that I think you know this perfectly well. I don't get why you're using these arguments as a neutral observer. But it's disingenuous. If you want to call Trump's polemic smart please feel free, I think there's certainly a case to do so. It says less about Trump and more about the motives of the so called Clinton friendly press. They had a profit objective, executives freely admitted that Trump was good for their ad revenue. But please continue to argue your points. I think we both know the truth

 

[britbox]

still trotting out that flawed data? What a yawn. Let's stipulate that money buys you time on television. Trump was given such a vast amount of tv time for free by the media that it easily overwhelms the amount of money Clinton spent. I've heard estimates of $2bn equivalent tv time for free for Trump. The sad thing is that I think you know this perfectly well. I don't get why you're using these arguments as a neutral observer. But it's disingenuous. If you want to call Trump's polemic smart please feel free, I think there's certainly a case to do so. It says less about Trump and more about the motives of the so called Clinton friendly press. They had a profit objective, executives freely admitted that Trump was good for their ad revenue. But please continue to argue your points. I think we both know the truth

What's flawed about it? Trump utilised his "personality", his social media standing and focused his money in the correct areas. If you want to kid yourself that Clinton fought a smarter campaign with twice the money then explain away....

 

[Federberg]

What's flawed about it? Trump utilised his "personality", his social media standing and focused his money in the correct areas. If you want to kid yourself that Clinton fought a smarter campaign with twice the money then explain away....

Lol! Please show me the place where I've said anything other than her campaign was an abomination. Trump did not use his personality. He pandered to racism, misogyny and so many other norm-busting strategies. As I said you can credit him for his methods, but the truth of the matter is that the error was made by the 4th estate. FFS Trump is only really now being properly vetted. This is entirely due to a media that is still not accepting responsibility for their failure to inform the people. You might side with Trump and claim CNN is fake news, but the truth is CNN along with other media outlets spent so much time trying to be balanced their coverage of Clinton became immensely lopsided and even one dimensional. Don't misrepresent me as someone who thought Clinton's campaign was any good. Trump is corrupt, mendacious, fraudulent and those are his good qualities. The man is eroding democratic institutions and alliances at home and abroad all so he can evade justice. It's pretty clear given his actions that he is guilty of something. I'll say this for him, his moronic base will probably give him a pass for just about anything he does

 

[britbox]

OK, you lost me halfway in the wild rant... but I got the gist that you thought Clinton ran a crap campaign. My comment was that Trump ran a smarter campaign than Clinton. From your comments, that in itself wasn't particularly difficult.

 

[Federberg]

no mate. It's less about Trump being smart and more about how the media has utterly failed, and continues to do so.

 

[britbox]

You guys need to wise up... seriously. It's not the media's job to fail... or succeed in getting somebody elected. It's their job to provide reasonable and fair coverage. Trump got little favourable coverage outside Fox... Clinton got a far better shake across the board.

Let me make this crystal clear... I am not a fan of Donald Trump.

But I'm even less of a fan of Jeremy Corbyn... yet, I can acknowledge and understand why people vote for them. People want CHANGE! Clinton didn't offer change... May didn't offer change... just a continuation of the status quo. Both Trump and Corbyn promised "out of the box", albeit from totally different ends of the political spectrum,... radical change... hell, it even nearly carried Bernie Sanders on the same ticket... Brexit was carried on the same notion.

So forget Russians, media etc... It doesn't really matter. The status quo isn't doing enough for a large enough segment of the population. A segment that will only grow and grow.

 

[Federberg]

Lol! There you go again trying to create a parallel between Trump and Corbyn. There simply isn't one, sorry. Corbyn is a political figure who's been around for over 40 years, Trump was an unvetted celebrity who had created a fraudulent persona and was allowed to sustain it in a campaign without challenge. Corbyn's campaign brought in new voters, Trump's campaign with the assistance of Russia managed to do the exact opposite.

Yes there was a change paradigm. One of the necessary albeit not exclusive factors that made Trump's win possible. I find it hilarious that many people are effectively reinventing history to make it seem that Trump's campaign was destined to win. It wasn't. It took a confluence of 3 or 4 devastating factors to unseat Clinton, an admittedly incompetent and complacent campaigner.

But let's get to the heart of things. It is the job of the 4th estate to communicate facts to the electorate. In reality the media obscured the facts of the campaign, and the competing policy proposals weren't stress tested. Faced with a clearly ignorant and inexperienced candidate, media companies focussed on generating revenue for themselves. They all assumed Clinton would win, therefore they covered her campaign in a completely different way to Trump's. It's still not clear to me that the lesson has been properly learned. Trump is allowed to repeat lies continuously even today, and the media companies seem to operate on the assumption that it's up to the opposition and the opposition alone to inform the public. The reality is that it's never been up to the opposition to do that. Let politicians lie if they want, but in a functioning democracy we rely on the 4th estate to provide us with the facts that enable us to make informed decisions. You can kid yourself if you want, but far from getting a fair shake Clinton actually experienced a level of bias I don't think I've ever seen in politics before