U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Ulysses]

Off to Russia in disguise to meet Vladimir Putin.

 

[Sharpie]

Watched his Pennsylvania performance tonight, mentioned his wife about eight time tonight, thats about eight times more than I have ever heard him mention her in these speeches, something else is going to come out. Called the Russian thing a hoax despite a united effort by his Intelligence people to warn that it is happening again. 

Edited August 3, 2018 by bobsharp

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

7 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Ah, gotcha.  I haven't seen any stats on those people.  

 

There's no doubt that many people decided to vote for Trump after Comey announced, in the last week of the election campaign, that he was re-opening the investigation of Clinton.  That announcement tipped the scales in Trump's favour.  I've read somewhere that a mere 70,000 votes in four key swing states decided who was going to be President ... 70k out of about 130 million! 

 

I wouldn't doubt that there is widespread 'buyer's remorse' among those people now that they've seen Trump in action, but who knows.

 

I actually don’t think that many of the floating voters are overly concerned by his presidency as long as gas prices stay low and the economy stays positive (regardless of how it’s being achieved). Sadly, money trumps morals in many cases. 

[Maple Leaf]

In his latest ego-feeding rally on Thursday, Trump said that Putin was very unhappy that he won the election.

 

He's a liar.

 

I watched the press conference at the end of the Helsinki "summit".  A reporter asked Putin, "Did you want candidate Trump to win, and did you direct your people to help him?"

 

Putin said "Da."

 

What's the total now?  Lie 1,000 of Trump's Presidency?

[Bindy Badgy]

11 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Ah, gotcha.  I haven't seen any stats on those people.  

 

There's no doubt that many people decided to vote for Trump after Comey announced, in the last week of the election campaign, that he was re-opening the investigation of Clinton.  That announcement tipped the scales in Trump's favour.  I've read somewhere that a mere 70,000 votes in four key swing states decided who was going to be President ... 70k out of about 130 million! 

1

 

114k votes in four states apparently but it seems to vary depending on which newspaper you read.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 hours ago, bobsharp said:

Watched his Pennsylvania performance tonight, mentioned his wife about eight time tonight, thats about eight times more than I have ever heard him mention her in these speeches, something else is going to come out. Called the Russian thing a hoax despite a united effort by his Intelligence people to warn that it is happening again. 

 

A hoax, that's seen 31 people being indicted and some of them pleading guilty and over 190 criminal charges brought.

But it's all a hoax, never happened, fake news or so Trump and his acolytes would like the faithful to believe and keep telling them at every opportunity.

 

Repeat a lie often enough................blah blah blah.

 

[Cade]

The worst thing is that if all the people who voted Libertarian had voted Democrat instead, Trump would not be president.

Their votes would have been enough to swing vital states to Clinton.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

3 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

A hoax, that's seen 31 people being indicted and some of them pleading guilty and over 190 criminal charges brought.

But it's all a hoax, never happened, fake news or so Trump and his acolytes would like the faithful to believe and keep telling them at every opportunity.

 

Repeat a lie often enough................blah blah blah.

 

You do understand that the Russian thing and the Russian thing are two completely different Russian things right?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

40 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

You do understand that the Russian thing and the Russian thing are two completely different Russian things right?

 

Trump doesn't though, he seems to think collusion & meddling are the same thing.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Trump doesn't though, he seems to think collusion & meddling are the same thing.

Who meddled and who colluded with the meddlers?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Who meddled and who colluded with the meddlers?

 

Guess you'll have to wait until the Mueller investigation is complete for the full story to emerge, of who did what & where & when and with whom.

 

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

9 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

In his latest ego-feeding rally on Thursday, Trump said that Putin was very unhappy that he won the election.

 

He's a liar.

 

I watched the press conference at the end of the Helsinki "summit".  A reporter asked Putin, "Did you want candidate Trump to win, and did you direct your people to help him?"

 

Putin said "Da."

 

What's the total now?  Lie 1,000 of Trump's Presidency?

 

4299 according to the Washington Post fact checker.  (Lies or misleading statements)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/01/president-trump-has-made-4229-false-or-misleading-claims-in-558-days/?utm_term=.1af3a4ef2c57

[Sharpie]

44 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Who meddled and who colluded with the meddlers?

 

There is certainly some confusionwith the investigations, for example and I do stand to be corrected, the Trial presently happening with Manafort has nothing directly to do with the Meddling problem. But am I not correct in saying that during the Russian investigation it was confirmed that Manafort had made money well prior to the invesatigation and campaign through Russian and Ukrainean sources.  The connections although coincidental are relevant in the fact that he did for a period become Trumps campaign manager.

There is some i hesitate to say evidence but certainly information that Donald jr, Jared Kushner, and Manafort    all were involved in a meeting to discuss with Russians getting dirt about Hillary Clinton in her E mails.  There is direct evidence from witnesses that on Air Force 1 the President participated in preparing a document which was puposely being written to hide the true purpose of the meeting. The most recent disclosure is by Michael Cohen, that Trump was well aware of the meeting. He however has been described by Rudy Giuliani as an honest and honourable lawyer and a lifelong liar, who is lying about his knowledge of the meeting.

It was reported recently that Trump himself has lied in the region of 7629 lies  or falsehoods since his election. It works out at an average of 7.6 lies per day.

Trump arguably was genius in his campaign, he offered a strong business acumen, he promised honesty and transparency, he promised to drain the swamp as he was not and never had been a part of it.  The American people to me had shown and proved that a black man could be President with a degree of success, they were tired of the old brigade one after the other getting the position, they were not ready for a first time ever woman President and certainly not Clinton. Many opted for the only other option Trump. They got what they voted for, a man who had made a career of lying if needed, bullying if needed, was involved in numerous law suits, and has some strong needs, to look good, to be praised, to be succesful,  and to do whatever has to be done to attain these objectives, which include lying, stealing and deception.

Edited August 3, 2018 by bobsharp

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Guess you'll have to wait until the Mueller investigation is complete for the full story to emerge, of who did what & where & when and with whom.

 

Exactly.

[Francis Albert]

 

18 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Ah, gotcha.  I haven't seen any stats on those people.  

 

There's no doubt that many people decided to vote for Trump after Comey announced, in the last week of the election campaign, that he was re-opening the investigation of Clinton.  That announcement tipped the scales in Trump's favour.  I've read somewhere that a mere 70,000 votes in four key swing states decided who was going to be President ... 70k out of about 130 million! 

 

I wouldn't doubt that there is widespread 'buyer's remorse' among those people now that they've seen Trump in action, but who knows.

And rather more people were confirmed in their view to vote for Trump after Hillary dismissed about half the electorate as "deplorables".

 

The real fight back against Trump will begin when people stop making excuses for an appalling Democrat candidate running an appalling campaign and deservedly losing.

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

 

And rather more people were confirmed in their view to vote for Trump after Hillary dismissed about half the electorate as "deplorables".

 

The real fight back against Trump will begin when people stop making excuses for an appalling Democrat candidate running an appalling campaign and deservedly losing.

 

I agree with what you say about the 'deplorable' comment, but the fact remains that Clinton was ahead in the polls until the Comey announcement, and behind in the polls immediately afterwards.

 

I don't know who you're referring to about people making excuses for the Dems and their failings, but to suggest that they will be the ones (whoever they are) who start a real fight back against Trump seems a bit of a reach to me.  Can you clarify that point?

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I agree with what you say about the 'deplorable' comment, but the fact remains that Clinton was ahead in the polls until the Comey announcement, and behind in the polls immediately afterwards.

 

I don't know who you're referring to about people making excuses for the Dems and their failings, but to suggest that they will be the ones (whoever they are) who start a real fight back against Trump seems a bit of a reach to me.  Can you clarify that point?

And if she and the Democrats had run a half decent and serious campaign less focused on the so called minorities and "liberals/activists" their candidate would have been so far ahead the Comey thing wouldn't have mattered. (I remember in the 60's and 70's Labour here usually faced "horrendous" monthly trade figures in the fortnight before the election, and that were usually downgraded to pretty ordinary figures once the final figures were in, months after the election. Labour still won more often than not)).

 

The point on the fight back is the one I have made a few times. Instead of chasing dreams like impeachment and banging on about Russian meddling and the accusations of porn actresses, the opponents of Trump in both major parties need to develop and argue for coherent alternative economic and social policies. If they do they will be fighting on grounds where they would undoubtedly have an overwhelming advantage ... as they should have had last time.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Justin Z]

16 hours ago, bobsharp said:

Watched his Pennsylvania performance tonight, mentioned his wife about eight time tonight, thats about eight times more than I have ever heard him mention her in these speeches, something else is going to come out. Called the Russian thing a hoax despite a united effort by his Intelligence people to warn that it is happening again. 

 

 

I'm certainly no Clinton fan (regardless of which), but this really says it, doesn't it?

[Maple Leaf]

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And if she and the Democrats had run a half decent and serious campaign less focused on the so called minorities and "liberals/activists" their candidate would have been so far ahead the Comey thing wouldn't have mattered. (I remember in the 60's and 70's Labour here usually faced "horrendous" monthly trade figures in the fortnight before the election, and that were usually downgraded to pretty ordinary figures once the final figures were in, months after the election. Labour still won more often than not)).

 

The point on the fight back is the one I have made a few times. Instead of chasing dreams like impeachment and banging on about Russian meddling and the accusations of porn actresses, the opponents of Trump in both major parties need to develop and argue for coherent alternative economic and social policies. If they do they will be fighting on grounds where they would undoubtedly have an overwhelming advantage ... as they should have had last time.

 

I doubt if there are many, if any, economic and social policies that both parties agree on.

 

The Democrats will do their best to unseat Trump in 2020.  Unfortunately for them, their best is usually pathetically inept.

 

It's the Republicans who most need to get their act together.  For generations, the Republicans have been the party of free trade, yet they now sit back meekly and watch as Trump imposes tariffs based on his personal whims and hot buttons.  And for generations, it has been the Republicans who were the most implacable foes of the USSR and Russia, and supporters of America's allies, yet now they again sit back meekly while Trump has an embarrassing public bromance with the Russians, and constantly criticises America's allies. 

 

If the mid-terms deal the Republicans a blow, the survivors might grow a spine and push back against President Pants-on-fire, but I'm not holding my breath. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

 

I'm certainly no Clinton fan (regardless of which), but this really says it, doesn't it?

 

Now wouldn't that be entertaining, Trump with his loyal lawyer Rudy Giuliani sitting there answering questions from a senate/congressional committee.

 

The very thought must give senior Republicans palpitations.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I doubt if there are many, if any, economic and social policies that both parties agree on.

 

The Democrats will do their best to unseat Trump in 2020.  Unfortunately for them, their best is usually pathetically inept.

 

It's the Republicans who most need to get their act together.  For generations, the Republicans have been the party of free trade, yet they now sit back meekly and watch as Trump imposes tariffs based on his personal whims and hot buttons.  And for generations, it has been the Republicans who were the most implacable foes of the USSR and Russia, and supporters of America's allies, yet now they again sit back meekly while Trump has an embarrassing public bromance with the Russians, and constantly criticises America's allies. 

 

If the mid-terms deal the Republicans a blow, the survivors might grow a spine and push back against President Pants-on-fire, but I'm not holding my breath. 

I didn't mean to suggest there were. I didn't say Republicans and Democrats need to work together to agree alternative policies ... just that separately they need to develop a coherent political position that offers an alternative to Trump. That shouldn't be difficult for either!

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Barack said:

Bet LeBron would get these wrong too...

 

 

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/donald-trump-has-some-trouble-with-geography-1292073027908

 

 

 

Based on Trump's latest gaffe which was to say that they used to call Great Britain England. The only mistake was the "used to". Unfortunately in most of the world (even for many in the biggest part of Great Britain) "Great Britain" and "England" are synonymous.

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Barack said:

Didn't watch the rest then?

 

Of course you did. You're a bit too intelligent, to be engaing in whataboutery, Albie.

I didn't. The voice and delivery of the presenter were too annoying. And I have looked at the rest now - it confirms Trump is pretty stupid and misspeaks more than he speaks. Who'd have thunk?

I stand my comment, triggered by the first excerpt, on Great Britain commonly being called England. Not sure where the whataboutery is in that.

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Based on Trump's latest gaffe which was to say that they used to call Great Britain England. The only mistake was the "used to". Unfortunately in most of the world (even for many in the biggest part of Great Britain) "Great Britain" and "England" are synonymous.

 

So true.  It drives me bashy to hear professional commentators getting it wrong, time after time.

 

As I've tried to explain to my befuddled Canadian and American friends, it's like referring to the USA as Alaska.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

7 hours ago, Barack said:

Aye, we get it. You're a racist.

 

 

 

"See this black guy you quite like and don't even really think of as black. Well, he's just like the rest of them".

[Ulysses]

[Sharpie]

So Pompeo says the North Koreans are not following the agreements of the Singapore meetings. The Intelligence community say that the Russians are meddling in the November elections. Intelligence sources say that Russia and China are going against sanctions by mid ocean transfers of sanctioned goods to North Korean ships.  North Korea through these transfers are shipping weapons to the Middle East, possibly even to areas where American troops are stationed. Yet Trump dismisses all these things with comments that they are a hoax, or a witch hunt, that Kim is an honourable man who loves his country and his people. He also extols the virtues of Putin,  and I can't remember Putin even describing himself that way, he is who he is, knows it and don't care one iota. 

 

If, and I am merely a critic of Trump so my opinion is worth not a lot, but if the crap hits the fan and in any area young American lives are lost, because of Trump's attitudes will those admirers of Trump still worship him, because that is what they are doing, or will they blame him absolving themselves of all responsibility. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

56 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

So Pompeo says the North Koreans are not following the agreements of the Singapore meetings. The Intelligence community say that the Russians are meddling in the November elections. Intelligence sources say that Russia and China are going against sanctions by mid ocean transfers of sanctioned goods to North Korean ships.  North Korea through these transfers are shipping weapons to the Middle East, possibly even to areas where American troops are stationed. Yet Trump dismisses all these things with comments that they are a hoax, or a witch hunt, that Kim is an honourable man who loves his country and his people. He also extols the virtues of Putin,  and I can't remember Putin even describing himself that way, he is who he is, knows it and don't care one iota. 

 

If, and I am merely a critic of Trump so my opinion is worth not a lot, but if the crap hits the fan and in any area young American lives are lost, because of Trump's attitudes will those admirers of Trump still worship him, because that is what they are doing, or will they blame him absolving themselves of all responsibility. 

 

I'd be more concerned about what Trump's reaction is likely to be when he finally realises that Kim has possibly been playing him like a fiddle all along and thus making him look an even bigger inept fool than everyone knows he is.

It usually doesn't end well, when someone with an ego as big as Trump has get's made to look a fool, he's likely to lash out, let's just hope the cooler heads around him (if there is any) manage to keep his tiny little hands off that biggggggggggg button he claims to have.

[ri Alban]

So when is he gonnae try to change the 2 term presidency. 

[peter_hmfc]

"There's blood, all over the floors of this hospital. They say it's as bad as a military warzone hospital, guns, guns, guns."

 

Chicago.

 

https://breaking911.com/war-zone-dozens-of-family-members-gather-outside-chicago-hospital-as-59-were-shot-8-killed-since-friday/

 

Clearly not enough good guys with guns.

[Sharpie]

23 hours ago, ri Alban said:

So when is he gonnae try to change the 2 term presidency. 

 

With all thats going on just now there was no meeting, there was a meeting, there is Russian meddling, its all a hoax, 7.6 lies per day, the two term Presidency will stop soon, it will become a one term Presidency, and thats the truth.

[RobboM]

6 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

With all thats going on just now there was no meeting, there was a meeting, there is Russian meddling, its all a hoax, 7.6 lies per day, the two term Presidency will stop soon, it will become a one term Presidency, and thats the truth.

Remember they originally claimed the meeting was all about adoptions of Russian children ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40786411

[Maple Leaf]

On 04/08/2018 at 22:03, ri Alban said:

So when is he gonnae try to change the 2 term presidency. 

 

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution says that no person can be elected to the office of President more than twice, for a maximum of 8 years.  That Amendment was enacted in 1951.

 

So the 22nd Amendment would have to be revoked, and that is no easy task.

 

First, two-thirds of both legislative bodes (the House and the Senate) have to approve it, THEN, each individual state gets to have a say, and two-thirds of them have to agree.  The chances of all three of those groups giving a two-thirds approval is almost zero.

 

BUT, there is a way around all that, and it wouldn't surprise me if Trump and his Republican boot lickers try to do it.

 

Suppose that he serves two terms.  He has to step down after the 2024 election.  Then he runs for election as Vice-President, with Mike Pence running as President.  With Russia's help again, they win the election, then Pence resigns.  Trump would automatically become President again.  In that crazy scenario, he hasn't violated the 22nd Amendment.

[peter_hmfc]

But but but you can't change an amendment!

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

58 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution says that no person can be elected to the office of President more than twice, for a maximum of 8 years.  That Amendment was enacted in 1951.

 

So the 22nd Amendment would have to be revoked, and that is no easy task.

 

First, two-thirds of both legislative bodes (the House and the Senate) have to approve it, THEN, each individual state gets to have a say, and two-thirds of them have to agree.  The chances of all three of those groups giving a two-thirds approval is almost zero.

 

BUT, there is a way around all that, and it wouldn't surprise me if Trump and his Republican boot lickers try to do it.

 

Suppose that he serves two terms.  He has to step down after the 2024 election.  Then he runs for election as Vice-President, with Mike Pence running as President.  With Russia's help again, they win the election, then Pence resigns.  Trump would automatically become President again.  In that crazy scenario, he hasn't violated the 22nd Amendment.

 

Is there anything in the constitution that in times of a national crisis/emergency that Congress could ask Trump to extend his term in office, for the stability and good of the nation.

 

Perhaps something along the lines of very serious civil unrest or the likes, which in that case it would be completely impractical and utterly dangerous to hold a presidential campaign.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution says that no person can be elected to the office of President more than twice, for a maximum of 8 years.  That Amendment was enacted in 1951.

 

So the 22nd Amendment would have to be revoked, and that is no easy task.

 

First, two-thirds of both legislative bodes (the House and the Senate) have to approve it, THEN, each individual state gets to have a say, and two-thirds of them have to agree.  The chances of all three of those groups giving a two-thirds approval is almost zero.

 

BUT, there is a way around all that, and it wouldn't surprise me if Trump and his Republican boot lickers try to do it.

 

Suppose that he serves two terms.  He has to step down after the 2024 election.  Then he runs for election as Vice-President, with Mike Pence running as President.  With Russia's help again, they win the election, then Pence resigns.  Trump would automatically become President again.  In that crazy scenario, he hasn't violated the 22nd Amendment.

 

In that scenario, wouldn't Trump be constitutionally barred from running for the office of Vice-President or serving as Vice-President because of the last sentence of the 12th Amendment?

 

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution says that no person can be elected to the office of President more than twice, for a maximum of 8 years.  That Amendment was enacted in 1951.

 

So the 22nd Amendment would have to be revoked, and that is no easy task.

 

First, two-thirds of both legislative bodes (the House and the Senate) have to approve it, THEN, each individual state gets to have a say, and two-thirds of them have to agree.  The chances of all three of those groups giving a two-thirds approval is almost zero.

 

BUT, there is a way around all that, and it wouldn't surprise me if Trump and his Republican boot lickers try to do it.

 

Suppose that he serves two terms.  He has to step down after the 2024 election.  Then he runs for election as Vice-President, with Mike Pence running as President.  With Russia's help again, they win the election, then Pence resigns.  Trump would automatically become President again.  In that crazy scenario, he hasn't violated the 22nd Amendment.

Thanks for that, ML. 

[JackLadd]

Crazy liar Trump is going to be flailed alive if he ever steps in front of American hero Bob Mueller. 

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

In that scenario, wouldn't Trump be constitutionally barred from running for the office of Vice-President or serving as Vice-President because of the last sentence of the 12th Amendment?

 

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

 

Apparently, it's debatable.

 

Some argue that "constitutionally ineligible" means not having reached the age of 35, or is not a naturally  born citizen, for example.  Those people believe that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply in the scenario I described.  If Trump ever decided he wanted to run for VP, the matter would probably finish up in the Supreme Court and, by 2024, the Supreme Court will have a Republican majority, with two of the judges owing Trump for their appointments.

[Sharpie]

The last time a Presidents term  extended was Roosevelt in WW2 time. It seems oddly coincidental that the Amendment was seen necessary in 1951.

[Maple Leaf]

11 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

The last time a Presidents term  extended was Roosevelt in WW2 time. It seems oddly coincidental that the Amendment was seen necessary in 1951.

 

I'm pretty sure that it was because of Roosevelt that the Amendment was enacted.

[Notts1874]

In related news. InfoWars has been banned from all platforms. Not sure where Alfa is going to get his scoops from now.

[Ulysses]

39 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Apparently, it's debatable.

 

Some argue that "constitutionally ineligible" means not having reached the age of 35, or is not a naturally  born citizen, for example.  Those people believe that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply in the scenario I described.  If Trump ever decided he wanted to run for VP, the matter would probably finish up in the Supreme Court and, by 2024, the Supreme Court will have a Republican majority, with two of the judges owing Trump for their appointments.

 

Some do argue that, but someone who has already served two terms as President is constitutionally ineligible to be President, and the purpose of the last line of the 12th is to prevent someone who is constitutionally ineligible to be President becoming the Vice-President.  It is difficult to see beyond the language of the Amendment, whether or not the judges looking at the text are liberals or conservatives.  Conservative justices have generally applied a tight or even literal reading of the text of the Constitution, and I doubt they would do differently in a case like this.  I'd say that if a proposal of that nature were to come before the Supreme Court - even with 2 or 3 justices appointed by Trump - the Court would vote almost unanimously to regard it as unconstitutional.

[Ulysses]

12 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

In related news. InfoWars has been banned from all platforms.

 

Does that include JKB?

[Notts1874]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

Does that include JKB?

Well he normally puts YouTube links on here and they've all been removed ?

[peter_hmfc]

25 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

In related news. InfoWars has been banned from all platforms. Not sure where Alfa is going to get his scoops from now.

 

 

Scumbags, hope this signals the beginning of the death of it, just hope Twitter follows suit. Couldn't have come at a worse time for that fat reptile Alex Jones as he faces two court cases having been sued by both grieving parents of Sandy Hook and a man he wrongfully accused of gunning down 17 people in a Floridian high school.

Edited August 6, 2018 by peter_hmfc

[The Real Maroonblood]

Trump warning countries not to trade with Iran.

Piss off you ****.

[maroonlegions]

 

 

 

[Francis Albert]

That arch anti-Trump organ the New Yorker has an interesting appeal in its latest addition. It basically says forget fantasies about impeachment or special prosecutors bringing down Trump . The only way to control him and in time remove him is the ballot box, first in this year's mid-term elections then in the presidential election the year after next.

It mentions some of the excuses for past and potentially future Democrat failure - voting restrictions, gerrymandering, funding and so on but broadly dismisses them (States with voter restrictions have not been more Republican than those without, gerrymandering has been a long standing and ongoing tradition for both Democrats and Republicans, Clinton raised twice the funding Trump did). But the real problem in the mid-term elections is differential turn-out,. Republicans have traditionally voted in greater numbers, particularly mid-term, than Democrats. In the last mid-terms only 17% of 19 to 30 year old Democrats voted.  Republicans seem pretty much united in support of Trump - there is nothing like a popular figurehead on the Democrat side.

The New Yorker appeals for Democrats to vote. Unfortunately the New Yorker's circulation and influence, particularly where it matters (outside Democratic strongholds like New York) is tiny.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Francis Albert

[peter_hmfc]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Jones is currently using the internet to tell everyone how he is banned from the internet.

 

First they came for Alex Jones, and I did not speak up, for I am not an inbred reprobate.

 

He insisted "We are all Alex Jones!". Wrong, other people can see their kids when they want.

 

Alex Jones insists this is government tyranny. So, gun-fanatics, I guess this is your time to shine?