Leroy42 wrote: » It doesn't mean they weren't aligned, and certainly the Trump Tower meeting with Trump Jr is becoming ever more serious by the day, but neither does any of this mean that they actually were.
Leroy42 wrote: » Another issue that seems not to have been discussed is the public's responsibility in all of this Russian interference. Voters need to ask themselves how it was so easy for the Russians to be able to interfere? Not from a technical POV, but just how easily they well led. There is little doubt that the Russians were able to interfere to the extend that they were because of the acceptance of many of these items at face value by many supporters. So well apart from whether Trump was involved, what this episode has shown is that it is relatively easy and cheap to manipulate a sufficient amount of voters. The FBI etc can do all they can, but in the end interference will, and I suppose always has been, a part of any democracy. So what systems are you going to put in place to limit any potential outcomes? Based on the current state of the political system in the US, it won't be them who come up with any solutions, as they both hope that they will gain the advantage next time.
aloyisious wrote: » If you accept that it's a fact that the Russian Govt, through it's agencies and agents, interfered directly with the US voting system, one has to ask was it to get one candidate into office over the other. Asking for a reason to the Russian Govt's decision point's toward what people say about HRC, she was a hawk that Russia realised it couldn't make sweetheart deals with, leaving Russia with no choice, it had to be the GOP candidate. Don, the "I know ho to make deals" businessman, enters the electoral stage and, with the assist of the GOP nominee system, win's the nomination. For Russia, whatever choice it had up til then, it was a one-horse race after that. The gift was that Don was, and still is, solely interested in making deals, the thing he still think's he's the best in the USA at. Russia screwed over the US all the way to the bank with Don and the GOP as patsies into the bargain. The Dems could well make their electoral slogan for 2020 "We're the party with the American Candidate" and keep pushing the angle that the GOP put it's interests first, not the U.S. interests, by promo-ing a friend of Russia.
aloyisious wrote: » The Dems could well make their electoral slogan for 2020 "We're the party with the American Candidate" and keep pushing the angle that the GOP put it's interests first, not the U.S. interests, by promo-ing a friend of Russia.
Leroy42 wrote: » Oh, I wasn't aware he was that old. In that case I agree with you. Kaine did really poorly against Pence in the VPOTUS debate. If I recall correctly, he simply stuck to a few talking points and Pence came out of it pretty well. How much of that was done to how the HC campaign was being handled is unknown, but I from the limited amount that I have seen Kaine does not have the personality to engage people.
Peregrinus wrote: » If elected, Biden would be 78 years old on inauguration - 8 years older than Trump was, 9 years older than Reagan was. I think that pretty well rules him out.
Igotadose wrote: » I liked Tim Kaine, HRC's running mate. Boring, straightforward, centrist, bilingual Spanish/English. Haven't heard much from him lately he's a low-key Senator. Not sure he wants the job, you have to be crazy to want that job (current holder qualified in that regard.) I still wonder if there'll be a Republican opponent to Trump in the primaries. No reason there can't be; Rubio and Cruz are still out there.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Ah, the wonders of "first past the post". Personally, I'm resigned to the assumption that if Trump makes it to Election Day 2020 and hasn't presided over a recession, he's the favourite based off the likelihood he'll copy Bill Clinton's 1996 motto of "It's the economy, stupid".
Manic Moran wrote: » I don't think his fanatical support is even at 30%. I'm sure a lot of folks who voted for him in the primaries regret that decision, however, that doesn't mean that they regret voting for him over Clinton in the election. It's going to come down to the candidate the Democrats put up. If it's Sen Warren, Schumer or Harris, for example, the dislike to the coastal Democrats which seems very evident in middle America is going to stay and make what should be an easy win a bit more difficult. On the other hand, if they went with someone like Sens. Manchin or Tester, that's a lot less off-putting to folks in Ohio or Wisconsin who may yet decide "Trump is an idiot, but he's not actually done any particular damage, so better stick with the devil we know" simply because they have less in common with the coast Democrats in question. And the folks from the Coast states like CA are going to vote D if it's a moderate or a further left candidate with the 'D' ticket.Remember the unfortunate truth of American elections, we tend not to vote for the person we want, we tend to vote against the person we don't want.
Axios reported on Sunday that during President Donald Trump's trip to China in November, a Secret Service member tackled a Chinese security official. The incident reportedly began when Chinese detail tried to prevent the military aide carrying the "nuclear football" from entering a room behind Trump. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly intervened, and was grabbed by a Chinese security official, who was then tackled by a Secret Service agent. The nuclear football was never in contact with a foreign official, and the Chinese security detail later apologized.
david75 wrote: » Isn’t there millions going through his Doonbeg property from bogey Russian sources? There was an article linked to that here a While back
Water John wrote: » Slowly Slowly, catchy monkey. If there is a Trump case.Mueller will get there. From above Manafort has two choices. Sing or do a long spell in prison.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » His fanatical support will vote for him no matter what he does. Personally, I would put that at about 30%. It's the relatively centrist/floating people that will continue to turn away from him. If the Dems address the reasons why people voted for Trump and put forward credible candidates then Trump will become a toxic hot potato for the GOP.
recedite wrote: » Yes, we're expecting the evidence for that to emerge any day now.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I don't think so. I would imagine many undecided/floating/centrist voters regret their decision as they voted Trump because Clinton didn't appeal or they thought he would e.g. drain the swamp. As you say, a small e.g. 5% swing would be devastating to the GOP. Hopefully.
laugh wrote: » Having prostitutes piss on a hotel bed seems like an oddly specific thing to make up.
PropJoe10 wrote: » He's sort of acknowledged it, but is refusing to do anything about it. Pretty obvious that Putin has him in his back pocket. I'd love to know what dirt the Russians have on Trump!
david75 wrote: » Well even dt has acknowledged that happened and is just denying involvement. To be fair the entire US seems to have woken up to that and are aware of it. How can it be stopped in future is the big question.
