|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
A bit late, but because I wasn't paying attention to primary elections, I've been told that Sanders got screwed by his own party so Hillary Clinton could keep running for president. Is it true? If it is, then it could explain why we have Trump now.
|
On March 06 2017 09:58 Shield wrote:
A bit late, but because I wasn't paying attention to primary elections, I've been told that Sanders got screwed by his own party so Hillary Clinton could keep running for president. Is it true? If it is, then it could explain why we have Trump now.
the long answer is it's complicated. Also should note that Sanders is technically an independent.
somebody else can probably better explain it. Personally I think it was more of an optics problem than an actual conspiracy but it didn't look good. And Bernie prob still would have lost anyway (he lost registered democrats by 30 percentage points).
|
On March 06 2017 09:58 Shield wrote:
A bit late, but because I wasn't paying attention to primary elections, I've been told that Sanders got screwed by his own party so Hillary Clinton could keep running for president. Is it true? If it is, then it could explain why we have Trump now.
The consensus is mostly that it was so, and that people were rightly pissed about it. A few core Clinton denialists (a core demographic, to be fair) will say it isn't so, but most others do feel that he never had a chance.
Good place to start for proof is the DNC leaks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/
|
On March 06 2017 06:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 05:02 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: On March 05 2017 03:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A good number of tweets that make a good point:
You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 02:55 xDaunt wrote:
I find it interesting that Clapper is denying that there was a FISA wiretap granted, but Obama's people are hedging their answers so much as to imply that there was one. They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about). Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else. Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one." Or why don't we wait and see what happens over the next week before jumping to any conclusions? While there's a special irony in arguing to wait for all the facts before judging in this case, it's not necessarily a bad idea. I'll ask this, though: in the fairly likely case that Trump produces no evidence or clarification at all (much like the birther stuff, or the alleged 3-5 million illegal voters), and just moves on to the next news cycle, are you comfortable condemning the baseless accusation?
Probably not gonna get a commitment from xDaunt on this. Too bad
|
On March 06 2017 10:14 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 06:32 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 05:02 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
They are likely talking about different things since Trump is being so vague (because he doesn't know himself what he is angry about).
Clapper probably denies there was a wiretap for Trump himself while Obama's people talk about the server There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else. Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one." Or why don't we wait and see what happens over the next week before jumping to any conclusions? While there's a special irony in arguing to wait for all the facts before judging in this case, it's not necessarily a bad idea. I'll ask this, though: in the fairly likely case that Trump produces no evidence or clarification at all (much like the birther stuff, or the alleged 3-5 million illegal voters), and just moves on to the next news cycle, are you comfortable condemning the baseless accusation? Probably not gonna get a commitment from xDaunt on this. Too bad
Well xDaunt has always been willing to admit that Trump is a habitual liar - but my guess is that he would conclude that there are bigger fish to fry.
|
On March 06 2017 10:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 10:14 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 06:32 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 05:02 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 04:58 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 04:39 ChristianS wrote:On March 06 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? What do you mean by no proof? There's been quite bit of reporting on a FISA application being made and granted. Wait, you need to make up your mind. People initially talked about how the FISA tap had been reported on for weeks, and was to do with his server that seemed like it might be talking with the Russians, not some Watergate-like tap of his campaign: You said we shouldn't assume that's the wiretap he's talking about. On March 05 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:
It strikes me as rather presumptuous to conclusively declare what wiretaps Trump is referring to without waiting for clarification from his Administration. Okay, fair enough, maybe he's talking about a different wiretap, of Trump Tower maybe. Then when people say he should release his proof if it's some other legal or illegal tap of Trump Tower, you say he's still in the process of getting access to it: On March 06 2017 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There are really two things that I want to know. First, I want to see what is in the FISA affidavit. This is particularly interesting given that the original application was apparently denied. Second, I want to know the extent to which FISA-acquired info was leaked. These are the two areas where the Obama administration could get in trouble. Of course, it could also be that the FISA affidavit verifies Trump-Russian collusion, but I doubt it given all of the statements from various people saying that there is no evidence of such a link. Well you should ask Trump since it seems that as President he has access to de-classify the FISA. Since he instead did not blow the lid of the biggest corruption case of the decade and buried Obama is disgrace, but rather tweeted about the Apprentice ratings I'm going to remain somewhat sceptical of his 'proof'. Well, it appears that he is trying to get access to the subject FISA file, so we will see soon enough. And I don't blame him for tweeting a little prematurely. He has bumped the Sessions nonsense from the headlines. When I say he shouldn't make shit up or accuse without proof just to change a news cycle, you refer back to the earlier ones that had been reported on already. So either he's talking about the wiretaps the FBI did investigating his server, in which case the earlier-quoted tweet chain applies, or he's talking about another illegal wiretap for which he has proof, in which case he should put up the proof or shut up, or he's still in the process of obtaining proof, in which case he shouldn't have started slinging accusations until he had proof. So which is it? Don't be so obtuse. We clearly don't know exactly what Trump is talking about. All we know is that there have been reports of a FISA application previously being granted in October. Trump could be referring to this one. He could be referring to different FISA application that has not been reported on yet. It could be something else. It's absurd for you to expect me to know what he's doing. I'm just watching and waiting like everyone else. Okay, we don't know which. In each case what he's doing is bad, and your response to criticism has been to deflect to one of the other cases. If all the scenarios are bad, it's not a defense to say "maybe it's not that scenario, maybe it's another one." Or why don't we wait and see what happens over the next week before jumping to any conclusions? While there's a special irony in arguing to wait for all the facts before judging in this case, it's not necessarily a bad idea. I'll ask this, though: in the fairly likely case that Trump produces no evidence or clarification at all (much like the birther stuff, or the alleged 3-5 million illegal voters), and just moves on to the next news cycle, are you comfortable condemning the baseless accusation? Probably not gonna get a commitment from xDaunt on this. Too bad Well xDaunt has always been willing to admit that Trump is a habitual liar - but my guess is that he would conclude that there are bigger fish to fry.
Doesn't cost him anything to condemn it though. Considering he was defending the accusation on grounds of "maybe Trump will offer evidence this time" it would go a long way to also admit that if he doesn't, that's bad.
|
On March 06 2017 09:58 Shield wrote:
A bit late, but because I wasn't paying attention to primary elections, I've been told that Sanders got screwed by his own party so Hillary Clinton could keep running for president. Is it true? If it is, then it could explain why we have Trump now.
She had the support of the establishment- the DNC and superdelegates- so even though she was more popular than Bernie Sanders in the primary (she won by millions of votes), it left a bad taste in the mouths of some voters, who decided not to vote for Hillary in the general election as a result. To many voters, Hillary and the DNC represented the political machine that people were jaded with.
Sanders ran as a Democrat because we have an unfortunate two-party system (so if he ran as a third party candidate against both Hillary and Trump in the general election, the liberal votes would have been split between Bernie and Hillary, and Trump would have been guaranteed the win), but Sanders has always been more of an Independent. It wasn't surprising at all that the Democratic party preferred the candidate who was traditionally Democratic (Hillary).
|
On March 06 2017 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 09:03 Leporello wrote:On March 06 2017 08:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Trump would sit by the sidelines and constantly insinuate that Hillary rigged the election (and his loyalists would believe it), Republicans and Democrats would still be in deadlock, no one would forget the reasons why Hillary isn't well-loved, and in general it would look like ugly either way. Keep in mind - a friendlier "deal" for Russia was probably not going to happen. There is just too much resistance to that in the US. Yeah, that's the problem /sarcasm I think, purely hypothesizing, that what Russia hoped to gain from Trump was gained before he even ran for President. Years before. I think Trump's no-tax-returns and strange Russian-favoritism puts his "Birther" movement in a new light. I honestly think Trump was paid to be a political agitator. Taking loans, maybe some Russian bank did him a favor with the caveat that he use his clown act to feed the right-wing American masses some crazy bullshit, a job that suits a con-man like a glove. I don't think he is a "Manchurian Candidate". But I do think he has Russian money, and that has obviously influenced his politics to a degree that should be unacceptable to everyone -- regardless of which country his conflicted interests lie with, and regardless of your politics. Yeah, from what I've read it looks like he was more of a political hitman than a Manchurian. The money connection looks pretty clear. The whole selling a mansion for more 2x what you paid for it to a front for a Russian billionaire, then he never visits it and plans to just tear it down doesn't look great. Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 09:06 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Him being president is probably more problematic for them than it would have been for him to lose. Certainly would be less attention paid to their influencing. I don't think it's too much of a problem really. They have the Senate bogged down in procedures long enough to make Trump sign off to make it legal. That, or we're so far away from actually looking at how to do anything about Russia specifically that it will be years before we actually get there - and frankly it would be surprising if the sentiment weren't more along the lines of, "we should let it go, it's been years" by then. I don't think Republicans have 4 years of dealing with Trump's stupidity in them. Sooner or later he'll say or do something (or enough somethings) that they see it will be easier for them to cut and run then to try to rationalize and justify his actions. Comically enough that Trump is habitually golfing after ripping Obama for golfing has some of his supporters realizing how full of shit he is.
I actually do remember that sale,trump spoke about it on a talkshow a few years ago where they also discussed the selling of the spelling house in Beverly hills which was impossible because of the market. He more or less bragged about it. He sold that manion in florida at the absolute peak of the housing market to a rusian billionaire (they pay good prices and still do,just look at London and NY these days) he also said that he could not have sold it today for that price (this was just after the housing market started to collapse) I don't remember the name of the talkshow though. It did and still does look like a normal sale to me. Suggesting that this was in some way a money transfer is just silly,you dont even seem to know how the market was back then.
There are more interesting things in real estate by the way and not only with trump, dealing with far bigger numbers.
|
On March 06 2017 10:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 09:58 Shield wrote:
A bit late, but because I wasn't paying attention to primary elections, I've been told that Sanders got screwed by his own party so Hillary Clinton could keep running for president. Is it true? If it is, then it could explain why we have Trump now. She had the support of the establishment- the DNC and superdelegates- so even though she was more popular than Bernie Sanders in the primary (she won by millions of votes), it left a bad taste in the mouths of some voters, who decided not to vote for Hillary in the general election as a result. To many voters, Hillary and the DNC represented the political machine that people were jaded with. Sanders ran as a Democrat because we have an unfortunate two-party system (so if he ran as a third party candidate against both Hillary and Trump in the general election, the liberal votes would have been split between Bernie and Hillary, and Trump would have been guaranteed the win), but Sanders has always been more of an Independent. It wasn't surprising at all that the Democratic party preferred the candidate who was traditionally Democratic (Hillary).
To add on, in the beginning it never seemed like Bernie had much of a chance, but after the first few primaries, Bernie started to seem competitive versus Hillary. Still trailing mind you, but he had a lot of momentum. However, the big factor was that most of the superdelegates aligned with Hillary, which made Hillary's lead look insurmountable, and it annoyed many people that news outlets would mostly report their actual delegate + expected delegate count, which, because of the superdelegates, projected Hillary winning by a very wide margin, instead of a closer margin without the superdelegate count, which people argued would skew later voters into just voting with Hillary instead of considering Bernie as a legitimate contender. In the end Hillary won by a wide margin, even without the superdelegates, because Bernie seemed to run out of steam midway - maybe if the superdelegates were more undecided instead of all reportedly going for Hillary, there would've been closer or different outcome.
|
The problem wasn't really just Bernie losing - frankly even people like GH probably could have reluctantly got on board with Hillary if she had made a genuine effort to court them. But instead she did everything possible to spite them and so there is no love lost between the leftists and the Hillary apologists.
|
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief.
|
On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief.
Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable.
|
On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable.
Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries.
|
On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries.
Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops."
Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won.
|
On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief.
? Shield asked a question, and we addressed it.
|
On March 06 2017 10:51 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 09:03 Leporello wrote:On March 06 2017 08:55 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Trump would sit by the sidelines and constantly insinuate that Hillary rigged the election (and his loyalists would believe it), Republicans and Democrats would still be in deadlock, no one would forget the reasons why Hillary isn't well-loved, and in general it would look like ugly either way. Keep in mind - a friendlier "deal" for Russia was probably not going to happen. There is just too much resistance to that in the US. Yeah, that's the problem /sarcasm I think, purely hypothesizing, that what Russia hoped to gain from Trump was gained before he even ran for President. Years before. I think Trump's no-tax-returns and strange Russian-favoritism puts his "Birther" movement in a new light. I honestly think Trump was paid to be a political agitator. Taking loans, maybe some Russian bank did him a favor with the caveat that he use his clown act to feed the right-wing American masses some crazy bullshit, a job that suits a con-man like a glove. I don't think he is a "Manchurian Candidate". But I do think he has Russian money, and that has obviously influenced his politics to a degree that should be unacceptable to everyone -- regardless of which country his conflicted interests lie with, and regardless of your politics. Yeah, from what I've read it looks like he was more of a political hitman than a Manchurian. The money connection looks pretty clear. The whole selling a mansion for more 2x what you paid for it to a front for a Russian billionaire, then he never visits it and plans to just tear it down doesn't look great. On March 06 2017 09:06 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 08:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it kind of funny that the deeper we look into this Russia thing the more clear it becomes the Russians never anticipated Trump winning. That it was an unintentional outcome rather than the point. What was the point then? To bog Clinton down domestically so that her attention on global affairs was more limited, and just generally cause disruption of our perception of our electoral system (which is obviously massively distorted already). I'm not sure how the Russians colluding with the Trump campaign would have bogged Clinton down domestically if Trump lost though. Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Russians to try and befriend the legislative or judicial branches, rather than a potential executive branch (future Trump administration) that wouldn't have existed- by definition- if Clinton had won? Him being president is probably more problematic for them than it would have been for him to lose. Certainly would be less attention paid to their influencing. I don't think it's too much of a problem really. They have the Senate bogged down in procedures long enough to make Trump sign off to make it legal. That, or we're so far away from actually looking at how to do anything about Russia specifically that it will be years before we actually get there - and frankly it would be surprising if the sentiment weren't more along the lines of, "we should let it go, it's been years" by then. I don't think Republicans have 4 years of dealing with Trump's stupidity in them. Sooner or later he'll say or do something (or enough somethings) that they see it will be easier for them to cut and run then to try to rationalize and justify his actions. Comically enough that Trump is habitually golfing after ripping Obama for golfing has some of his supporters realizing how full of shit he is. I actually do remember that sale,trump spoke about it on a talkshow a few years ago where they also discussed the selling of the spelling house in Beverly hills which was impossible because of the market. He more or less bragged about it. He sold that manion in florida at the absolute peak of the housing market to a rusian billionaire (they pay good prices and still do,just look at London and NY these days) he also said that he could not have sold it today for that price (this was just after the housing market started to collapse) I don't remember the name of the talkshow though. It did and still does look like a normal sale to me. Suggesting that this was in some way a money transfer is just silly,you dont even seem to know how the market was back then. There are more interesting things in real estate by the way and not only with trump, dealing with far bigger numbers.
It was actually after the peak and when the collapse was already happening, but point taken. It's more of an optics thing. It doesn't take much to convince people Trump is at minimum on the take from Russian interests.
|
On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries. Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops." Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won.
And he lost all that charm after the primary?
|
On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries. Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops." Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won. And he lost all that charm after the primary?
Somehow, yes.
|
On March 06 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries. Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops." Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won. And he lost all that charm after the primary? Somehow, yes.
So he looked like a strong candidate against Republicans but not against Clinton?
|
On March 06 2017 12:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries. Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops." Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won. And he lost all that charm after the primary? Somehow, yes. So he looked like a strong candidate against Republicans but not against Clinton?
Yeah, he was clearly the front runner who was smashing his Republican opponents pretty hard.
Everyone was a liar, but he lied with a lot more charm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
