Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

aloyisious

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

Look at the link I added in my last post

Your version of events seems to include the Dems having Assange hack into the Dems Govt's computers, given the timeline of events, in Obama's first term, and the Reps wanting to get him to testify to that effect. That sound's peculiar.

Not that news sources can be trusted NOT to publish something an interested party wants in the open without them being seen as the source, but I'm reading on MSN newsfeed that Assange has been charged by the US Govt with an offence of conspiracy to hack a computer related to his role in the 2010 release of reams of secret American documents, according to a criminal complaint unsealed Thursday after UK police had arrested him. Peculiarly enough the report doesn't say a US Govt computer, just a compute, but maybe that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Now if the US Govt wants to charge and try Assange in open court in the US with such an offence, with him in the court, I can't see him sitting quietly and playing along with a prosecution lead by Mr Barr. I guess we'll all have to sit and chew popcorn until Assange ends up in the US as a guest of the nation.

mcmoustache

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

What is this bar you speak of?

proficiency in complete sentences, forward planning, awareness of past, self discipline, not behaving like a child etc.

Whatever about the personal failings of past presidents, they were at least capable of running an administration competently. Trump can't even manage the basics and spends his time on live tweeting fox news or giving out about how UNFAIR everything is. Nixon was multiple times the man Trump is. That's how far the bar has been lowered.

peddlelies

On Assange - He's been charged with cracking whatever encryption were on those files that Manning stole, there's a charge connected to that which is very weak, saying that Assange encouraged him to do it. Manning contacted him initially. Maximum penalty is 5 years. Given the possible sentence, you can imagine additional cases or charges being brought up before he's thrown in front of a US jury.

DreamsBurnDown

mcmoustache wrote: »

Whatever about the personal failings of past presidents, they were at least capable of running an administration competently. Trump can't even manage the basics and spends his time on live tweeting fox news or giving out about how UNFAIR everything is. Nixon was multiple times the man Trump is. That's how far the bar has been lowered.

Goerge W Bush competent? A halfwit who was led by a bunch of neocons who sincerely believed they could transform the Middle East and bring democracy to the entire region. Resulting in destabilizing the whole region, the deaths of a million+ people, and all the carnage from ISIS etc. we have seen since.

Trump is playing to his base and will continue to do so up to November 2020. Nobody should be surprised at his behavior, it has worked for him so far. The mistake Democrats are making and I fear will continue to make is believing demonizing Trump and demonizing his supporters will win them the election in 2020. It didn't work in 2016, if anything it brought out the decisive votes in swing states.

peddlelies

Avenatti is in some serious deep doo doo

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/11/michael-avenatti-indicted-by-federal-grand-jury-in-los-angeles.html

"Celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti was slammed Thursday with a 36-count indictment by a federal grand jury in California that accuses him of ripping off clients— including a mentally ill paraplegic — for millions of dollars, shorting the IRS of millions more, swiping millions of dollars in employment taxes from his coffee company, and perjury."

mcmoustache

peddlelies wrote: »

Avenatti is in some serious deep doo doo

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/11/michael-avenatti-indicted-by-federal-grand-jury-in-los-angeles.html

"Celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti was slammed Thursday with a 36-count indictment by a federal grand jury in California that accuses him of ripping off clients— including a mentally ill paraplegic — for millions of dollars, shorting the IRS of millions more, swiping millions of dollars in employment taxes from his coffee company, and perjury."

Indeed. He could end up spending the rest of his life in prison as a result of this and rightfully so.

Itssoeasy

So I see trump is using the Manuel from fawlty towers defense when it comes to Wikileaks now. He knows nothing about Wikileaks when we know damn well he actually does and was quoted as saying as much during the campaign at least once.

Some craic if the UK give Assange over on that charge. Sets the stage for the US wiping the floor with the UK post-Brexit negotiations.

TomOnBoard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Some craic if the UK give Assange over on that charge. Sets the stage for the US wiping the floor with the UK post-Brexit negotiations.

I'd say he's practically on the plane at this stage. UK will want to see Assange shipped out ASAP, so he'll become a US rather than UK problem. That said, he may have a really slim hope of playing a Commonwealth card given his nationality although I'm not sure what that would buy him, except perhaps some time.

His best hope is to trade information (of which he has loads undoubtedly) for easier or shorter time. If not, he's heading for a Supermax in flyover country.

hill16bhoy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I see trump is using the Manuel from fawlty towers defense when it comes to Wikileaks now. He knows nothing about Wikileaks when we know damn well he actually does and was quoted as saying as much during the campaign at least once.

Assange and Wikileaks are no longer any use to Trump - he's no longer the hunter but the hunted, and the Mueller report has been handed in. I suspect Trump will try to use Assange as a pawn to try and clamp down on core press freedoms in the US. The fact that there is a glaring hypocrisy between wanting Assange indicted on hacking charges and deliberately turning a complete blind eye to hacking which has benefitted him is of course irrelevant to Trump because Trump is utterly shameless.

The CIA, FBI and the US military would also like to see Assange locked up for their own reasons.

That said, Assange should certainly be facing trial in Sweden for what he's alleged to have done as regards sex crime.

serfboard

everlast75 wrote: »

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/10/712058129/greg-craig-ex-white-house-counsel-expects-charges-in-ukraine-case-lawyers-say

"Greg Craig, Ex-White House Counsel, Expects Charges In Ukraine Case, Lawyers Say"

Thanks for posting this. I had missed it.

Craig worked for Skadden, Arps, which is a huge law firm (fourth-highest grossing law firm in the world in 2015). According to the NPR article:

NPR wrote:

Skadden, Arps, were hired by the government of Ukraine in 2012 in a deal brokered by [Paul] Manafort, who was working at the time as its advocate in the West.

The attorneys were commissioned to write a report assessing the prosecution by the Ukrainian regime of its political enemy, Yulia Tymoshenko.

The case against Tymoshenko had been widely criticized as an abuse of power aimed at silencing a critic, so the government of Viktor Yanukovych wanted to try to build some credibility in Western Europe and the United States.

Skadden did not report that work as it should have under the Foreign Agents Registration Act [FARA], which requires disclosures by people and entities in the U.S. working on behalf of overseas entities. As part of a settlement, the law firm disgorged to the U.S. government all the money it was paid for the Ukraine representation. Another Skadden attorney URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_van_der_Zwaan"]Alex van der Zwaan[/URL pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about the matter and served jail time.

As this article says:

The New York Times wrote:

The settlement between the firm and the Justice Department, which was made public on Thursday, is the latest indication that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry and related investigations are fundamentally challenging the lucrative but shadowy foreign-lobbying industry that has thrived in Washington.

For decades, lobbyists and lawyers have collected millions of dollars to burnish the images of sometimes unsavory foreign interests in Congress and the news media, often skirting requirements that they disclose the work under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
......
The 70-year-old firm has been roiled by the scrutiny from its dealings with Mr. Manafort, whose daughter went to work as an associate at Skadden Arps around the time the Tymoshenko report was released.
....
In an interview last month, Ms. Tymoshenko ... accused Skadden Arps of carrying water for the Yanukovych government.

“It’s a pity that such a well-known company like Skadden even considered to take this case to deliver,” she said. “This is a dirty, dirty, dirty contract."

peddlelies

What ever happened Tony Podesta, he was under investigation. Was he cleared?

TomOnBoard

I find it interesting and slightly ironic that, on the back of the Mueller and related investigations, a thin beam of light has been shone on the corrupt machinations of US-based so-called foreign agents like Manafort and Craig. Trump did promise to "Drain the Swamp", but I doubt this is what he meant to do.

Couple that with the downfall of Cohen and the likely imminent demise of Avenatti, each representing the amoral, Roy Cohn lawyer type, and we see a picture of total thuggery, corruption and clandestine wheeling- dealing that seems to represent the worst of professional services in America. These people can lord it over the 'great unwashed', living off the fat of the land holding all the power, while that 'great unwashed' lives in what has become a police state with few redeeming features.

The greatest country on Earth? I think not!

serfboard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

the 'great unwashed' ... lives in what has become a police state with few redeeming features.

The great unwashed of flyover country live in polluted, seismically unstable states like Oklahama, with only the comfort of opiods to (hastily) end their miserable lives more quickly - but who cares? As Noam Chomsky has said, they believe that Jesus is coming soon so they don't need to worry about protecting the earth.

Marx said that religion is the opium of the people - but we now have opiods when religion isn't quite enough.

A bit OTT? Ah yeah, possibly, but not that far from the truth. And the problem for the US is that the declining numbers of people in the Central States wield far more power proportionally in Senate and Presidential elections than those in the more populated coastal states. For instance, as Bill Maher often likes to point out, the 1.5 million people in the two Dakotas elect four senators - all Republican.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

What ever happened Tony Podesta, he was under investigation. Was he cleared?

Reportedly his case was handed off to investigators in New York. He has left the Podesta Group, so that might tell you something.

That whole "failure to register as a foreign agent" angle may be underpinning Podesta's investigation (Ukraine) as well as those of Gates/Manafort (Ukraine at least), Rafiekian- a former partner of Michael Flynn- (Turkey), Patten (Ukraine). One of Mueller's former prosecutors, Brandon Van Grack, has been put in charge of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) unit in the DOJ, and it looks like this whole area is being subjected to more scrutiny than it has received in decades. So, the likes of Podesta and I'm sure many others, are sleeping a little less soundly these nights...

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The mistake Democrats are making and I fear will continue to make is believing demonizing Trump

The definition of the word "demonize" is as follows:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/demonize

demonize somebody/something to describe somebody/something in a way that is intended to make other people think of them or it as evil or dangerous
He was demonized by the right-wing press.

---

Demonizing generally means to portray somebody or something as evil and/or dangerous, when they are not. It generally involves ludicrous exaggeration and propaganda and outright lies.

The demonization of Jews by the Nazis is the obvious example. Muslims in general are being routinely demonized now by right-wing politicians and media in a not dissimilar way.

Conversely, it could not be said that somebody genuinely dangerous and/or evil or who pushes evil policies is being demonized.

General Ratko Mladic was not "demonized". He was a genocidal maniac.

Gemma O'Doherty is not "demonized". She is a racist, anti-science, fascist propagandist.

Something similar applies to Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Vladimir Putin is not being demonized. He is a deeply corrupt, kleptocratic, authoritarian crypto-fascist who likes to corruptly influence politics in other countries and invade the odd former Soviet colony whenever he feels like it.

In a similar way, Donald Trump is not being "demonized". He is a racist, anti-Semitic demagogue and kleptocrat who is steadily rolling back democratic norms in the US and is attempting to undermine the very cornerstone of a democracy, the free press.

I guess it's a bit like defamation. Truth is a cast iron defence against defamation.

Far from "demonizing" him, the Democrats and the reputable media have been extremely lax on Trump up to now in terms of how they've framed him - impeachment proceedings should have been launched on day 1 of the new Congress. They would have been against any other president. They aren't against Trump because fascist techniques work in terms of cowing down your opposition and frightening them.

Trump is a true threat to democracy in the US. Therefore no "demonizing" of him is needed, because he is genuinely highly dangerous. He is categorically not being "demonized" because he is all of the things he's called out as being and then some.

serfboard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

One of Mueller's former prosecutors, Brandon Van Grack, has been put in charge of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) unit in the DOJ, and it looks like this whole area is being subjected to more scrutiny than it has received in decades.

As the NYT article I quoted above said:

NYT wrote:

Mr. Mueller’s inquiry and related investigations are fundamentally challenging the lucrative but shadowy foreign-lobbying industry that has thrived in Washington.

And about time too.

There has been and will be so much collateral information to come from the Mueller investigation (aside from the original purpose for which it was set up), that it will prove to have been money and time well spent.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I see trump is using the Manuel from fawlty towers defense when it comes to Wikileaks now. He knows nothing about Wikileaks when we know damn well he actually does and was quoted as saying as much during the campaign at least once.

Yeah, he has been reported as saying to the pool reporter“I know nothing about WikiLeaks...... It’s not my thing.”

This, despite having been recorded as mentioning Wikileaks over 100 times in the latter part of his campaign.

Although, in fairness, one shouldn't be surprised! He regularly speaks (if you can call his incoherent babbling speaking) about stuff that he knows nothing about...

hill16bhoy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Yeah, he has been reported as saying to the pool reporter“I know nothing about WikiLeaks...... It’s not my thing.”

This, despite having been recorded as mentioning Wikileaks over 100 times in the latter part of his campaign.

Although, in fairness, one shouldn't be surprised! He regularly speaks (if you can call his incoherent babbling speaking) about stuff that he knows nothing about...

We learned years ago with Trump that we should never be in any way surprised by this.

It was as predictable as Thursday following Wednesday that he would say this.

Active destruction of the concept of truth - the more preposterous the lie the better, is front and centre in fascism.

It's the most essential component of how fascists grab and maintain power.

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It's the most essential component of how fascists grab and maintain power.

Feck sake.

Here's the video

Danzy

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The definition of the word "demonize" is as follows:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/demonize

demonize somebody/something to describe somebody/something in a way that is intended to make other people think of them or it as evil or dangerous
He was demonized by the right-wing press.

---

Demonizing generally means to portray somebody or something as evil and/or dangerous, when they are not. It generally involves ludicrous exaggeration and propaganda and outright lies.

The demonization of Jews by the Nazis is the obvious example. Muslims in general are being routinely demonized now by right-wing politicians and media in a not dissimilar way.

Conversely, it could not be said that somebody genuinely dangerous and/or evil or who pushes evil policies is being demonized.

General Ratko Mladic was not "demonized". He was a genocidal maniac.

Gemma O'Doherty is not "demonized". She is a racist, anti-science, fascist propagandist.

Something similar applies to Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Vladimir Putin is not being demonized. He is a deeply corrupt, kleptocratic, authoritarian crypto-fascist who likes to corruptly influence politics in other countries and invade the odd former Soviet colony whenever he feels like it.

In a similar way, Donald Trump is not being "demonized". He is a racist, anti-Semitic demagogue and kleptocrat who is steadily rolling back democratic norms in the US and is attempting to undermine the very cornerstone of a democracy, the free press.

I guess it's a bit like defamation. Truth is a cast iron defence against defamation.

Far from "demonizing" him, the Democrats and the reputable media have been extremely lax on Trump up to now in terms of how they've framed him - impeachment proceedings should have been launched on day 1 of the new Congress. They would have been against any other president. They aren't against Trump because fascist techniques work in terms of cowing down your opposition and frightening them.

Trump is a true threat to democracy in the US. Therefore no "demonizing" of him is needed, because he is genuinely highly dangerous. He is categorically not being "demonized" because he is all of the things he's called out as being and then some.

ðŸ˜

TomOnBoard

serfboard wrote: »

As the NYT article I quoted above said:
And about time too.

There has been and will be so much collateral information to come from the Mueller investigation (aside from the original purpose for which it was set up), that it will prove to have been money and time well spent.

I read that there have only been 7 criminal prosecutions taken by the DoJ under the FARA laws in the 50 years from 1966 to 2016 and not a single civil case was taken in the 25 years between 1991 and 2016. The Inspector General reported in 2016 that policing the act had been very lax. So, it sure looks like the Swamp has got away with proverbial murder in terms of peddling influence to and from foreign parts. A disgrace really!

And they wonder why/how Russia might have been able to 'meddle' in the 2016 election? I'd say its been going on for decades.... Social Media just allows it to be more pervasive.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Demonizing generally means to portray somebody or something as evil and/or dangerous, when they are not. It generally involves ludicrous exaggeration and propaganda and outright lies.

Far from "demonizing" him, the Democrats and the reputable media have been extremely lax on Trump up to now in terms of how they've framed him - impeachment proceedings should have been launched on day 1 of the new Congress. They would have been against any other president. They aren't against Trump because fascist techniques work in terms of cowing down your opposition and frightening them.

Trump is a true threat to democracy in the US. Therefore no "demonizing" of him is needed, because he is genuinely highly dangerous. He is categorically not being "demonized" because he is all of the things he's called out as being and then some.

Your post is exactly the kind of hysteria I was referring to, and the kind of sensational demonizing that could get Trump reelected. Remember the US is by and large a conservative and centrist country (40% of potential voters are Independents who typically vote Republican or for a centrist Democrat) and the constant mantra of "fascists, racists, Nazis" towards conservatives isn't the smartest election platform to run on.

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election when she described half of Trump's supporters as "a basket of deplorables", calling them racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic. You don't think that was demonizing tens of millions of people? It was a monumental blunder, to write off a quarter or more of the potential electorate. Something she later apologized for, but too late. In one absurd, arrogant moment she just motivated the turnout for Trump and likely also turned away a lot of Independents who would have voted for her. Sixty three million people voted for Trump, to call 31.5 million voters "deplorables" was a monumental shoot yourself in the foot moment.

The chances of Trump being removed by congress are fairly slim if not non-existent, Mueller was the best shot. Impeached based on what crime? Clinton was impeached for perjury in front of a grand jury but was still not convicted by the Senate. Impeachment proceedings would be pointless as there is zero chance of getting a majority in the Senate to convict him, let alone a 2/3 majority. The Democrats are thankfully smart enough to realize this, Pelosi is actually a very experienced and pragmatic politician.

The task for Democrats between now and next year is to work on their platform and unify the party, if they end up in what Obama recently called a "circular firing squad" they will lose again. The way to win an election is to give voters a reason to vote for your candidate, not to give voters reasons to vote for your opponent. If the Democrats run a good candidate with a platform that is appealing to voters, Trump will be gone in Nov 2020, which is how democracy works.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Some craic if the UK give Assange over on that charge. Sets the stage for the US wiping the floor with the UK post-Brexit negotiations.

You're right here. The UK aren't in a strong negotiating position. The US will dictate the terms.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Your post is exactly the kind of hysteria I was referring to

Yet you didn't attempt to explain why, you merely stated it then abandoned the "point" without following up.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Remember the US is by and large a conservative and centrist country (40% of potential voters are Independents who typically vote Republican or for a centrist Democrat) and the constant mantra of "fascists, racists, Nazis" towards conservatives isn't the smartest election platform to run on.

In this exchange I'm not particularly interested in what is the smartest platform to run on. I'm really only interested in whether it's true whether Trump has been demonized or not.

It's demonstrably true that he hasn't been, and has in fact in many cases received extremely lax treatment as journalists shy away in the face of Trump's constant barrage of bullying, blustering bullshlt. See CNN and the New York Times headlining with Barr's propagandist narrative re the Mueller report, not the facts.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election when she described half of Trump's supporters as "a basket of deplorables", calling them racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic. You don't think that was demonizing tens of millions of people? It was a monumental blunder, to write off a quarter or more of the potential electorate. Something she later apologized for, but too late. In one absurd, arrogant moment she just motivated the turnout for Trump and likely also turned away a lot of Independents who would have voted for her. Sixty three million people voted for Trump, to call 31.5 million voters "deplorables" was a monumental shoot yourself in the foot moment.

Hillary Clinton was systematically demonized and vilified by Republicans and right-wing media in the US for years. She was baselessly said to be at the centre of a paedophile ring, and you can't get much more demonizing than that.

Was that "smart" on the part of Republicans and right-wing media, with a view to damaging her chances electorally? I would say it clearly was.

What's the difference? Are you trying to say that those same floating voters who didn't turn out for Clinton in key swing states in 2016 are more easily put off voting for a Democrat because of an actual campaign of demonization than they would be put off voting for Trump in 2020 because he's correctly called out on all the disgusting, hateful, corrupt, racist **** he gets up to?

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The chances of Trump being removed by congress are fairly slim if not non-existent, Mueller was the best shot. Impeached based on what crime? Clinton was impeached for perjury in front of a grand jury but was still not convicted by the Senate. Impeachment proceedings would be pointless as there is zero chance of getting a majority in the Senate to convict him, let alone a 2/3 majority. The Democrats are thankfully smart enough to realize this, Pelosi is actually a very experienced and pragmatic politician.

The chances of a successsful impeachment of Trump are zero - a Republican senate will not, under any circumstances, vote to remove him.

You do it because it's the right thing to do to try and protect what little democracy the US has left - to blow things out in the open with public hearings and expose the true rottenness at the heart of the Trump regime. I mean, 37 indictments and 199 criminal charges?

You try to impeach because of blatant criminality going on in full view.

Could you imagine if anything remotely like this had gone on under Obama? Do you think Republicans would have been pushing to impeach? That's a rhetorical question.

Here's why you impeach.

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/1109981166168432641

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The task for Democrats between now and next year is to work on their platform and unify the party, if they end up in what Obama recently called a "circular firing squad" they will lose again. The way to win an election is to give voters a reason to vote for your candidate, not to give voters reasons to vote for your opponent. If the Democrats run a good candidate with a platform that is appealing to voters, Trump will be gone in Nov 2020, which is how democracy works.

That's never not the task for any political party who has the best interests of ordinary people at heart.

And anybody who has the best interests of ordinary people at heart needs to also do their damnedest to expose the sham presidency of a man who plainly doesn't, for all its rottenness.

TomOnBoard

mcmoustache wrote: »

You're right here. The UK aren't in a strong negotiating position. The US will dictate the terms.

Assange has already been found guilty of the 2012 charge in the UK of failing to appear. So, he will be sentenced for that in due course.

In tandem with that will be the US extradition request (in respect of which he was also arrested today) and the separate Swedish rape investigation (in respect of which his extradition to Sweden has already been granted in 2012, which led to the Ecudorian embassy asylum palaver) .

The Swedes havent gone away! They only 'discontinued' their investigation in 2017, but didn't drop it. The Statute of limitations on some of those charges hasnt expired yet. SO, if the Swedes decide they want him, they may still claim him: there is after all an alleged rape victim in Sweden who wants justice.

If the Swedes were to fight for him, absent them doing a deal with the Yanks, then Assange may well agree to extradition there, if it leaves him less likely to have to do hard time in a US Supermax.

SO, as of right now, I reckon things are still more up in the air than they might have appeared to be earlier in the day.

Outlaw Pete

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Yeah, he has been reported as saying to the pool reporter“I know nothing about WikiLeaks...... It’s not my thing.”

This, despite having been recorded as mentioning Wikileaks over 100 times in the latter part of his campaign.

He was on the campaign trail. He said he loved WikiLeaks in the context of them exposing Hillary. Today he is saying he knows little about them in the context of what they and Assange are accused of.

There is no gotcha here. Well, none of note anyway.

Turns out Hillary knows little or nothing about Hot Sauce either.

TomOnBoard

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He was on the campaign trail. He said he loved WikiLeaks in the context of them exposing Hillary. Today he is saying he knows little about them in the context of what they and Assange are accused of.
.

Ah, c'mon! I admire the effort, but of all things Trump, everyone knows he doesn't do nuance!

So, outside of his own head, I don't think any human can be expected to understand that there are different contexts in which he spouts stuff.

I understand very well what he was saying then and what he is saying now, and the why of both. It has nothing to do with context and everything to do with manipulation / propagandising in each case.

Anyway, the next few weeks ought to prove interesting as Trump's many "I Love Wikileaks" witterings and such egging-ons from 2016 are replayed over and over while he mangles the English language trying to disassociate himself from his exhortations of that time.

As for your last point... Hillary who?

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Yet you didn't attempt to explain why, you merely stated it then abandoned the "point" without following up.

In this exchange I'm not particularly interested in what is the smartest platform to run on. I'm really only interested in whether it's true whether Trump has been demonized or not.

And anybody who has the best interests of ordinary people at heart needs to also do their damnedest to expose the sham presidency of a man who plainly doesn't, for all its rottenness.

But I have explained what hysteria is in this context, it's calling half the electorate "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic", as HRC did during the 2016 campaign, the only thing she missed was calling them "fascist" for emphasis. It is half the electorate btw, as how do those who would normally vote Republican, or might lean towards Republican, know which half HRC was referring to? Do you really think labeling half the electorate as "fascists" is going to help a Democratic nominee get elected?

Referencing what nutter alt-right sites claimed about HRC is about as relevant as referencing what nutter alt-left sites claim about Trump, most normal people pay no attention. I don't recall Trump or his campaign calling HRC or Democrats "paedophiles" during the campaign, the main thrust of his attacks was the email controversy, something the FBI investigated and found her to be "extremely careless" in her handling of sensitive material.

The reason HRC lost, which some progressive Democrats still can't get their head around, is she was a very poor candidate. She ran a very low energy campaign and assumed she would win the same swing states Obama won simply because she was a Democrat. It was tremendous arrogance not to visit Wisconsin for example, and just assume she would win there. Hopefully Democrats have learned that lesson for 2020, and nominate a candidate with high energy and a high likability rating.

When you say "ordinary people", do you mean ordinary Americans? I'm curious to know what you base this on, are you an American or have you spent lots of time there? Americans in general, including ordinary Americans, are strongly independent and if there's one thing they resent it's been being told what to think. It's one of the reasons left wing politics has never caught in in the US, as the left loves to lecture people on how they should think. It also loves to label people and if there's another thing "ordinary" Americans don't like, it's been labelled.

Calls for impeachment now are brain dead. It's not just Republicans, but most Democrats don't support impeachment. Even during the Mueller probe when a lot of Democrats presumed a much stronger judgement against Trump, there was literally no support when impeachment was raised. There is less now, so calls for impeachment are coming from a tiny minority who will have next to zero impact on the next election.

If the DNC consume the next 18 months relentlessly attacking Trump and failing to present their vision for the future to the American public, they will lose the 2020 election. I say that as an American who wants to see Trump defeated in 2020. The way forward is selecting the best candidate in a professional manner, present a sensible platform to the American people and get 100% behind the candidate.

aloyisious

Don's older sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry on the US federal Appellate Court, filed her retiring papers in Feb days after a court clerk informed four complainants of a court judicial misconduct inquiry into whether she was involved in fraudulent tax dodges with the Trump family thus ending the inquiry prematurely (according to an NYT report. I don't have an NYT firewalled account so am posting another link. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-sister-maryanne-barry-judge-retires-tax-fraud-investigation-a8864946.html