F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems like a risky stance to me. I don't see any reason why Democrats shouldn't do their darnedest to run it home. I discounted the red hats before; I'm not doing it again. If Dems win by an unusually large margin and we end up over-doing it.... good. No one is gonna be like, "see, we really shouldn't have tried so hard."

They should be pushing a progressive agenda right now.. no, 3 months ago. Democrats have ideas. They just need to sell them.
 
And they have been. Just ask Connor Lamb.

Also, or did Schumer and Feinstein change their stances on marijuana out of nowhere?
 
Oh hey, I understand that they are making some winkey eyes at the base... I just feel like this under the table support isn't enough.

We have thoughts about universal health care and immigration reform and economic policy. They have to start sticking up for their own beliefs, or they're not going to energize their base. Feeding some meat (pot) to their young voters isn't the same as presenting a strong, brave, competent platform. They just aren't talking about that stuff right now. Comey's termination will not convince the red hats to change their minds... and like 80% of Republicans are red hats now. We need to give them compelling policy choices.

Trump is telling his people that this election is an existential threat. I think that's much more likely to get out the conservative base than legalizing pot will get out the liberals... during the midterm no less. And let's be honest... we all know the Democrats are limping into these positions. We need brave politicians who actually fight for what they support. Yes... amnesty has to be included in immigration reform; we shouldn't run from it. Yes... universal health care should be our goal; we shouldn't run from it. Yes.. we believe in choice; we shouldn't run from it.

I know... it's an old complaint about the Democrats. This is nothing new. It just worries me I guess. I think that Dems are playing by the old rule book, and I wish they would look up a little more, and actually see what they're up against. Trump's appeal is real, and we should stop thinking it's just going to blow over. Just ranting.
 
Last edited:
Wall Street Journal - Mueller Asked Ford for Records After It Rejected Michael Cohen Consulting Overture

(WASHINGTON)— Michael Cohen, who has served as President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, made an overture to provide consulting services to Ford Motor Co. in January 2017, but was quickly rebuffed, people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Cohen, touting his proximity to the president, contacted Ford’s office in Washington D.C.—an approach that Special Counsel Robert Mueller later learned about in the course of his investigation, the people said.

Mr. Mueller’s team has since requested information from Ford about the outreach, including emails and records, and has interviewed Ford’s head of government affairs, Ziad Ojakli, the people said.

The pitch was made in an informal phone call and the exchange was short. Mr. Ojakli rejected the offer and had no further conversations about it, the people said.

It is unclear when Mr. Mueller sought information about the overture from Mr. Cohen. Representatives for Mr. Cohen didn’t respond to a request for comment; Mr. Mueller’s spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Cohen’s consulting work has drawn scrutiny from federal prosecutors.

He set up a company, Essential Consultants LLC, that he used to make a payment to the former adult-movie actress Stephanie Clifford—known as Stormy Daniels—in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair with President Donald Trump.

Last year, Mr. Mueller’s office sought information from the pharmaceutical company Novartis AG and the telecommunications firm AT& T Inc. dealing with payments they made to Essential Consultants in exchange for Mr. Cohen’s advice.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ford-rejected-michael-cohens-consulting-overture-1526079214

ABC News - Mueller probing donations with foreign connections to Trump inauguration: EXCLUSIVE

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has questioned several witnesses about millions of dollars in donations to President Donald Trump’s inauguration committee last year, including questions about donors with connections to Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, sources with direct knowledge told ABC News.

Those interviewed included longtime Trump friend and confidant Thomas Barrack, who oversaw the fundraising effort, as well as individuals familiar with the massive inaugural fund, according to sources with direct knowledge.

Barrack, a real estate investor, has long been described as a Trump “whisperer” whose close friendship with the president landed him a prime appearance during the GOP convention the night Trump accepted his party’s nomination.

Intrater, an American relative and business associate of Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg, runs a U.S. company with deep ties to Vekselberg’s Russia-based global conglomerate, Renova Group. Renova was recently sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department.

Intrater serves as the CEO of Columbus Nova, an investment company based in New York. FEC records show Intrater made a $250,000 donation to the Trump inauguration committee in early January 2017.

Following the donation, he and Vekselberg attended Trump’s inauguration, according to published reports. Also in 2017, Intrater gave another $35,000 to Trump Victory, the joint fundraising committee for the Trump campaign and Republican party. Of that, $29,600 went to the Republican National Committee.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exc...s-foreign-connections-trump/story?id=55054482
 
He claimed that he would drain the swamp looks like all the snakes in the swamp have been his friends.
 
Yeah, I knew the House was leaning to a change, just sort of figured the Senate was at least in play too.

6 months in bizarro Trump world may as well be 3 years. At the rate damaging news stories have been released during this presidency anything could happen.

Now, barring some bombshell indictment of Trump or his family members from the Mueller investigation, I do believe there is a very real risk of the same type of overload from negative press that a lot of Americans just tuned out of in the last election that could work in Trump's favor.

Kind of like being nose-blind, you smell crap for so long the brain just tunes it out.

I think Democrats are making the same mistake that they made in 16 by assuming that their eggs have already hatched. A massive blue victory in November is not assured... we shouldn't think it is.

Have you guys seen Trump in these rallies? He knows how to gin people up, and he's ALREADY priming his base for a big turn out. He's saying that his presidency is in jeopardy. He's saying that liberals are against "everything we believe in." He's making this a cultural war... and you know what... his voters are gonna come out for him, big time.

We need every vote. A lackluster performance by Democrats simply won't do. We need all guns ablazing this time around. All hands on deck. This is an emergency. I'm just not getting that feeling from Democrats. I'm getting more of a "oh, you know we're gonna pick up a lot of seats in the midterms... it's gotta happen under Trump." No it doesn't.

His theatrics and absolutely no qualms for telling outright lies to rustle the Jimmies of his base is a very real threat too. Historically, midterm elections are considerably lower than presidential ones so if that happens the Dems will be lucky if they can take back anything.

As with the last election, apathy will be the downfall of this country if folks don't get active.
 
Luckily, enthusiasm still seems to be with the Dems.
 
Which is what was assumed literally up to election day 2016, too. The morning of voting day, Hillary was going to win. Only she didn't.
 
Which is what was assumed literally up to election day 2016, too. The morning of voting day, Hillary was going to win. Only she didn't.

Except of course the two things you already know:

She won the popular vote.

The contest was for the longest time within the margin of error. The polls never had some Hillary landslide being predicted on the whole.
 
Right. And it's very likely the predictions are right and that the Dems take back the House here.

But banking on it as an inevitable seems a little unwise, given last election day.

Also, popular vote means d*ck, but yep, you know this too.
 
Right. And it's very likely the predictions are right and that the Dems take back the House here.

But banking on it as an inevitable seems a little unwise, given last election day.

Also, popular vote means d*ck, but yep, you know this too.

Alas, all of this is so very true, :(
 
With the clarification that the popular vote meaning d*ck is a good thing. Better than if we did it that way, at any rate.
 
Because the person getting the most votes shouldn't win should they? Sheesh...
 
Right. And it's very likely the predictions are right and that the Dems take back the House here.

If you look at all the polls just before the election(they averaged 3.3% more for Clinton) they were much closer then alot of the polls during the campaign. Alot of the blame goes on people who didn't notice some trends in polling when they tried to decipher what they mean.

I know Nate Silver got raked through the coals saying Trump has a 33.3% chance of winning for instance by other Presidential predictors who had Clinton at 98 and 99%

Looking back on polling before the election one thing I found was Trump does something stupid we all of a sudden get a 48-38 poll for Clinton, if Trump goes a week relatively free of doing something stupid, all of a sudden we get a 46-42 poll. The fact Clinton could never break 50% should have sent off warning signals plus the fact the polls generally reflected the scandal of the moment

As a whole polling in 2016 was pretty spot on other then a few states in the mid west(much better then 2012 polling)
 
Because the person getting the most votes shouldn't win should they? Sheesh...

This thread has been through this particular argument a bazillion times, but no. And most western democracies don't operate on the popular vote (a few smaller nations in Europe and South America do though). The Commonwealth countries use a different system, but it's still representative-democracy like it is here, not a direct popular-vote tally.

So, basically...nah, the person with the most votes shouldn't win. The big developed countries figured that out a couple centuries ago. Representative democracy is the standard, basically.
 
Yeah, and generic national polls aren't that great when you have an electoral college like ours.

Still, districts that went double digits to Trump are falling to Dems. And with a large number of GOP seats with no incumbents (including Paul Ryan's seat), yeah, the room for large pickups is great.
 
Yeah, and generic national polls aren't that great when you have an electoral college like ours.

Still, districts that went double digits to Trump are falling to Dems. And with a large number of GOP seats with no incumbents (including Paul Ryan's seat), yeah, the room for large pickups is great.

My 2 cents is watch the suburb districts that Republicans won. Those are the potential pick up for Dems. it seems in the age of Trump the biggest voting block turning on Republicans is College Educated (White) Females and those generally live in Suburbs
 
My 2 cents is watch the suburb districts that Republicans won. Those are the potential pick up for Dems. it seems in the age of Trump the biggest voting block turning on Republicans is College Educated (White) Females and those generally live in Suburbs

[remembers those that claim that the Women's March did nothing]

In other topics, I am really, really curious where Avenatti is getting all his information. He seems to have gotten access to some fairly private stuff. Good for us, but I am very curious what his sources are.
 
Bolton is ****ing nuts if he thinks that's going to actually happen.
 
6 months in bizarro Trump world may as well be 3 years. At the rate damaging news stories have been released during this presidency anything could happen.

Now, barring some bombshell indictment of Trump or his family members from the Mueller investigation, I do believe there is a very real risk of the same type of overload from negative press that a lot of Americans just tuned out of in the last election that could work in Trump's favor.

Kind of like being nose-blind, you smell crap for so long the brain just tunes it out.



His theatrics and absolutely no qualms for telling outright lies to rustle the Jimmies of his base is a very real threat too. Historically, midterm elections are considerably lower than presidential ones so if that happens the Dems will be lucky if they can take back anything.

As with the last election, apathy will be the downfall of this country if folks don't get active.

That and they really, really need to do all they can to fight the voter suppression laws in red states. I really feel that is the key to the 2016 election. 5 of the 7 swing states she lost had those laws. You know it cost her votes and other Democratic candidates votes up and down the ballot.

I don't know how seriously the DNC takes that problem, but it's clearly huge. And more importantly than it being bad for them, it's bad for democracy and it's morally repulsive.
 
Last edited:
This thread has been through this particular argument a bazillion times, but no. And most western democracies don't operate on the popular vote (a few smaller nations in Europe and South America do though). The Commonwealth countries use a different system, but it's still representative-democracy like it is here, not a direct popular-vote tally.

So, basically...nah, the person with the most votes shouldn't win. The big developed countries figured that out a couple centuries ago. Representative democracy is the standard, basically.

Ya that system works great for big countries, assuming of course, one of the two major parties hasn't gerrymandered all of the voting districts into as much of their favor as they can. #LandOfTheFree
 
Bolton is ****ing nuts if he thinks that's going to actually happen.


It's not going to happen, that's not what he's getting at. It's directed at private-sector European companies who are weighing whether or not it's worth doing business with Iran in the face of U.S. sanctions. It's to try to tip the balance for them and their decision in favor of isolating Iran too, no matter whether technically their own European governments allow them to deal with them if they want to.

And ah, DJ, the ol' gerrymandering schtick. Fun! Also, "one of". *Giggles* Uh huh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,956
Members
45,876
Latest member
Pducklila
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"