Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 622215 times)

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6600 on: March 25, 2019, 08:46:07 PM »
At what point do we allow people who refuse to listen to logic keep trolling under the idea of allowing diverse viewpoints, and how much do we let them ruin forum threads?

Asking for a friend.

If it doesn't go I would suggest it be at least contained to one thread.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/liberals-vs-conservatives-why-does-it-have-to-be-this-way/950/

ETA: Hope this helps your friend
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 08:49:42 PM by Dabnasty »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6601 on: March 25, 2019, 08:47:01 PM »
Sol, both parties are racists, just different targets.

Maybe?  Everyone's a little bit racist, right?  The difference is that the democratic party doesn't enshrine racism as a positive trait.  Their elected leaders do not have the public support of openly racist people and groups.  Democratic presidents do not hire people who founded hate groups to work in the white house.  I happily conceded that democrats can be racist too, but they are at least trying to fight racism while the republicans are trying to spread it.  Your efforts to conflate the two sides as equally culpable is laughably misguided.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6602 on: March 25, 2019, 08:52:15 PM »
At what point do we allow people who refuse to listen to logic keep trolling under the idea of allowing diverse viewpoints, and how much do we let them ruin forum threads?

I would support a more judicious use of the ban hammer in this and related cases, on the condition that warnings are issued first.  This is a thread about one topic, and it has been shanghaied by derivative nonsensical bullshit that is totally unrelated to the topic at hand for everyone except crazy conspiracy theorists. 

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6603 on: March 25, 2019, 08:53:02 PM »
Sol, both parties are racists, just different targets.

Maybe?  Everyone's a little bit racist, right?  The difference is that the democratic party doesn't enshrine racism as a positive trait.  Their elected leaders do not have the public support of openly racist people and groups.  Democratic presidents do not hire people who founded hate groups to work in the white house.  I happily conceded that democrats can be racist too, but they are at least trying to fight racism while the republicans are trying to spread it.  Your efforts to conflate the two sides as equally culpable is laughably misguided.

I will believe you the day Omar (along with other women's march leaders) is brought down by the Ds. Until then, they are both racists, just different targets.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6604 on: March 25, 2019, 08:55:35 PM »
He didn't call corruption decency, he said the difference of hiding it away or showing it has some sort fo deccency in it.

It's not decency to be openly corrupt.

It's also not true that "all politicians" are corrupt.  Obama was not a perfect president, but he's not in the same ballpark for corruption as Trump.  Has it even occurred to EnjoyIt that some politicians might honestly want to make the country better, instead of just personally enriching themselves and their families?

to get back on topic about Trump,

@sol,
I never said "all politicians" are corrupt.  Stop putting words in my mouth.  You are really starting to piss me off.  Nah, I'm just repeating the same nonsense you wrote to me. I'm not pissed.  I am amused that you did that.  I purposefully did not use the word "all" because I do not believe that "all" politicians are corrupt.  And, I used the word scumbags because I think most high level politicians are scumbags.

You are so engulfed in your little world of what you believe is right and wrong that you do not see anything else around you.  You seem to actually believe that Trump's presidency is about race which is rather silly.  The way you speak makes me think that you really believe that a Trump presidency means we will have lynch mobs forming in the streets. You are so blinded by your beliefs that you are unwilling to see all the positive going on in the US. 

You actually believe and this is your quote:

Quote
. . . but I do think there is definitely a large contingent of American voters who are very racist, and very misogynist, and not very bright.  Maybe 25%, all-inclusive with imperfect overlap? . . .

It is a shame because despite your intelligence and desire for good in the world, your narrow mindedness ostracizes everyone that doesn't jive with you 100%.  Your rhetoric can be bringing people together but you instead alienate and ridicule.  It is like minded people like you who gave Trump his victory and you are going to do it again.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6605 on: March 25, 2019, 09:05:13 PM »
I will believe you the day Omar (along with other women's march leaders) is brought down by the Ds. Until then, they are both racists, just different targets.

Omar is not half as racist as Steve King.  Or Donald Trump.  Or even John McCain, who was many things to many people but never tried to hide his hatred of Vietnamese people.

I mean c'mon man, Steve King literally retweets neo-Nazis with his official congressional twitter account, and you have the balls to say it's the democrats who are racist?  That's not even playing the same game that Omar is.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 10:42:39 PM by sol »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6606 on: March 25, 2019, 09:07:44 PM »
@sol,

You can stop mentioning my name, please.  I'm done with you.

Quote
It is like minded people like you who gave Trump his victory and you are going to do it again.

You're the one who voted for him.  You can blame me for that all day, and I won't be bothered.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 10:41:48 PM by sol »

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6607 on: March 25, 2019, 10:12:35 PM »
Anyone else want to pitch in some money and fly a few people in this thread to a meeting place so they can have a face to face discussion?

I am thinking sumo suits in a park and we can get someone to live stream it for our entertainment.

Subject 1 dressed as Hillary
Subject 2 wearing orange face and a sweet blonde comb around AKA Trump
Subject 3 dressed as Nancy Pelosi
Subject 4 dressed as Mitch McConnell

Or better yet we can all pitch in some of our points from travel hacking since we are frugal


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6608 on: March 26, 2019, 01:53:04 AM »
Meanwhile in France, China is placing a giant order with Airbus.   


Quote
There was no evidence of any direct connection between the Airbus deal and Sino-U.S. tensions or Boeing fleet problems, but China watchers say Beijing has a history of sending diplomatic signals or playing off suppliers through state aircraft deals.

The conclusion of a big (aviation) contract ... is an important step forward and an excellent signal in the current context, French President Emmanuel Macron said in a joint address with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.

The United States and China are edging towards a possible deal to ease a months-long tariff row and a deal involving as many as 200 to 300 Boeing jets had until recently been expected as part of the possible rapprochement.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 02:12:27 AM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6609 on: March 26, 2019, 01:53:40 AM »
Quote
Everyone's a little bit racist, right?
Yes, everyone is. I am too. We all have our prejudices about a lot of things, and that includes peoples. We all know the "millionaire next door" who most people would think is poor but is richer than his clown car driving neighbor who has negative net worth.

When I walk at night in a dark street I feel more insecure if I encounter a big black male (we don't have many here btw.) than a small vietnamese girl. That is just 2 million years of evolution working in the old parts of the brain.
The difference is I know that, am not proud of it, and try to be just to both.
This is not being racist.

Calling the police if the boy on your lawn is black, but not if he is white, that is racist. Talking about how we will all die if let $groupofpeople in is racist. Being proud of preferring whites is racist. And so on.

I am not trying to troll you as I subscribed to this theory too (and consider myself quite liberal, at least socially). But how do you explain that Asian Americans earn more than Whites on average? (source is US census: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf

That is actually very easy: They work harder.
Most Asiens are 2nd or 3rd generation. (Who are generally more productive than "old" inhabitants to start with).
Their (grandparents) have told them again and again to work hard. They also told their children to be more conformative than the average "individuality, yeah!!!" American. Corporations love conformity and good grades. In some universities you are hard pressed to find a white (or black) in the top 100. Asiens study more and get out to parties less.
Yes, the average 2nd generation Asien American is so much more introvert that coming from an "Asien" school to a "normal" one is often described as a culture shock by the Asiens.
And talking about introverts: One job consists mainly of introverts: Programmers. Programmers generally get paid a lot.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10052
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6610 on: March 26, 2019, 05:24:32 AM »
We can argue and accuse each other of inherent racism until we die, and few opinions will be changed

Regarding the topic thread and things that are verifiable, DJT had historically low support among minority groups, winning 8%/29%/29% of the Black, Latino and Asian vote. Since 2016 national demographics have shifted; both Asian and Latino eligible voters have increased in proportion (Blacks are largely unchanged).

This presents an acute challenge DJT's election in 2020, as he strongest demographic (older, white) will have decreased in proportion relative to the overall voting block, and the groups where he did most poorly will have increased.  Given his razor-thin margin of victory in 2016 even an identical showing in 2020 will be insufficient with this demographic shift.

fixed: typo
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 06:58:43 AM by nereo »

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6611 on: March 26, 2019, 06:19:26 AM »
@sol,

You can stop mentioning my name, please.  I'm done with you.

Quote
It is like minded people like you who gave Trump his victory and you are going to do it again.

You're the one who voted for him.  You can blame me for that all day, and I won't be bothered.

There you go again, assuming things about people.  What makes you think I voted for Trump?  What makes you think Gary Johnson wasn't who I thought would do a better job?  I have told you many times I am not a Republican.  I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  Hmmmm.

Sol, both parties are racists, just different targets.

Maybe?  Everyone's a little bit racist, right?  The difference is that the democratic party doesn't enshrine racism as a positive trait.  Their elected leaders do not have the public support of openly racist people and groups.  Democratic presidents do not hire people who founded hate groups to work in the white house.  I happily conceded that democrats can be racist too, but they are at least trying to fight racism while the republicans are trying to spread it.  Your efforts to conflate the two sides as equally culpable is laughably misguided.

Bolded above:
Just because someone votes Republican does not mean they are racist.  It does not mean they want to spread racism and you write as if they are inherently evil people who want to spread harm across the globe.  No wonder you think the world is falling apart.

You are done with me? you don't like it when you are called out for your shenanigans. Stop posting hateful divisive comments and I will stop calling you out for it.  Deal?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 06:35:12 AM by EnjoyIt »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6612 on: March 26, 2019, 06:27:05 AM »
@sol,

You can stop mentioning my name, please.  I'm done with you.

Quote
It is like minded people like you who gave Trump his victory and you are going to do it again.

You're the one who voted for him.  You can blame me for that all day, and I won't be bothered.

There you go again, assuming things about people.  What makes you think I voted for Trump?  What makes you think Gary Johnson wasn't who I thought would do a better job?  I have told you many times I am not a Republican.  I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  Hmmmm.

Sol, both parties are racists, just different targets.

Maybe?  Everyone's a little bit racist, right?  The difference is that the democratic party doesn't enshrine racism as a positive trait.  Their elected leaders do not have the public support of openly racist people and groups.  Democratic presidents do not hire people who founded hate groups to work in the white house.  I happily conceded that democrats can be racist too, but they are at least trying to fight racism while the republicans are trying to spread it.  Your efforts to conflate the two sides as equally culpable is laughably misguided.

Bolded above:
Just because someone votes Republican does not mean they are racist.  It does not mean they want to spread racism and you write as if they are inherently evil people who want to spread harm across the globe.  No wonder you think the world is falling apart.

@sol,
You are done with me? you don't like it when you are called out for your shenanigans. Stop posting hateful divisive comments and I will stop calling you out for it.  Deal?

Seriously @EnjoyIt , Sol specifically asked for you to stop tagging him.  This is yet another off topic post beleaguering a pointless tangent.  As has been suggested, there are other Off Topic threads for this topic and you are also free to start your own thread.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6613 on: March 26, 2019, 06:33:56 AM »
We can argue and accuse each other of inherent racism until we die, and few opinions will be changed

Regarding the topic thread and things that are verifiable, DJT had historically low support among minority groups, winning 8%/29%/29% of the Black, Latino and Asian vote. Since 2016 national demographics have shifted; both Asian and Latino eligible voters have increased in proportion (Blacks are largely unchained).

This presents an acute challenge DJT's election in 2020, as he strongest demographic (older, white) will have decreased in proportion relative to the overall voting block, and the groups where he did most poorly will have increased.  Given his razor-thin margin of victory in 2016 even an identical showing in 2020 will be insufficient with this demographic shift.

Great, back on topic.
I will challenge your assertion with the following:
1) Are these polls any better than the polls of 2016? 

For this point, let us take climate and race off the table for just a moment.  I think there are still lots of closet Trump supporters.  They are happy what is going on in the country but hate how the president handles himself and are embarrassed to say they are supporters.  You see the ridicule people get here for it.

2) Will the democrats have enough persuasion to get those minorities out to vote and vote against Trump?

This is all about perception and not reality.  We will see what happens.  I think the democrats are too divided between socialists and real democrats to pull anything off worthwhile, but they have a little over one more years to get their act together.

3) Will all the commentary by the far left ostracize middle of the road people over to the Republican side by not voting at all or voting Republican.  Will it get Republicans that don't normally vote to go out and vote?

This is one of the reasons why Trump won in 2016 and I see the democrats still making the same mistake.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6614 on: March 26, 2019, 06:38:39 AM »
@sol,

You can stop mentioning my name, please.  I'm done with you.

Quote
It is like minded people like you who gave Trump his victory and you are going to do it again.

You're the one who voted for him.  You can blame me for that all day, and I won't be bothered.

There you go again, assuming things about people.  What makes you think I voted for Trump?  What makes you think Gary Johnson wasn't who I thought would do a better job?  I have told you many times I am not a Republican.  I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  Hmmmm.

Sol, both parties are racists, just different targets.

Maybe?  Everyone's a little bit racist, right?  The difference is that the democratic party doesn't enshrine racism as a positive trait.  Their elected leaders do not have the public support of openly racist people and groups.  Democratic presidents do not hire people who founded hate groups to work in the white house.  I happily conceded that democrats can be racist too, but they are at least trying to fight racism while the republicans are trying to spread it.  Your efforts to conflate the two sides as equally culpable is laughably misguided.

Bolded above:
Just because someone votes Republican does not mean they are racist.  It does not mean they want to spread racism and you write as if they are inherently evil people who want to spread harm across the globe.  No wonder you think the world is falling apart.

@sol,
You are done with me? you don't like it when you are called out for your shenanigans. Stop posting hateful divisive comments and I will stop calling you out for it.  Deal?

Seriously @EnjoyIt , Sol specifically asked for you to stop tagging him.  This is yet another off topic post beleaguering a pointless tangent.  As has been suggested, there are other Off Topic threads for this topic and you are also free to start your own thread.

You are right....edited @ comment.

This thread is about trump and I am pointing out why he will win, again.  I was attacked about my comments and defended myself.  Even his last comment threw a jab at me while at the same time asking to stop.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10052
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6615 on: March 26, 2019, 07:00:07 AM »

Here we go again  :)

an embarrassing mistake caused by relying too heavily on 'autocorrect' - since changed.  Thanks for catching it.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6616 on: March 26, 2019, 07:01:57 AM »
Just to set the record straight, this was attributed to me accidentally (I would not have typed this):

Quote from: Zamboni on March 25, 2019, 07:53:41 PM
    I am not trying to troll you as I subscribed to this theory too (and consider myself quite liberal, at least socially). But how do you explain that Asian Americans earn more than Whites on average? (source is US census: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf


Back on topic:
This morning our President is back to calling the mainstream media "the Enemy of the People and the Real Opposition Party!"

How is this helpful? As an average American citizen, what does this type of daily rhetoric do to improve your life?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13082
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6617 on: March 26, 2019, 07:15:06 AM »
I will believe you the day Omar (along with other women's march leaders) is brought down by the Ds. Until then, they are both racists, just different targets.

I don't know who Omar is, or what he said that you consider racist.  Could you quote him please?

Why do you believe that "bringing down" the women's march (an organization completely unrelated to the Democrats) is the responsibility of the Democrats?  That's kinda like telling Republicans that they're responsible for bringing down white supremacy isn't it?

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6618 on: March 26, 2019, 08:33:56 AM »


Oh there are plenty of impeachable offenses.  Remember that Clinton was impeached for having an affair, and Trump has had at least five that we know of. 

That's not what Clinton was impeached for.  Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Obama owes the country an explanation.  With zero evidence he turned the surveillance powers of the federal government against the presidential campaign of the party out of power. That's an abuse of executive authority.  Obama either approved it or he did not.  Its time for him to explain himself.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6619 on: March 26, 2019, 08:35:44 AM »
You are right....edited @ comment.

This thread is about trump and I am pointing out why he will win, again.  I was attacked about my comments and defended myself.  Even his last comment threw a jab at me while at the same time asking to stop.

It's always someone else's fault with you, isn't it... "The Democrats made them do it! I was attacked! You made me do this!"

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6620 on: March 26, 2019, 08:36:39 AM »


Oh there are plenty of impeachable offenses.  Remember that Clinton was impeached for having an affair, and Trump has had at least five that we know of. 

That's not what Clinton was impeached for.  Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Obama owes the country an explanation.  With zero evidence he turned the surveillance powers of the federal government against the presidential campaign of the party out of power. That's an abuse of executive authority.  Obama either approved it or he did not.  Its time for him to explain himself.

He said, with zero evidence

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6621 on: March 26, 2019, 08:58:32 AM »
You are right....edited @ comment.

This thread is about trump and I am pointing out why he will win, again.  I was attacked about my comments and defended myself.  Even his last comment threw a jab at me while at the same time asking to stop.

It's always someone else's fault with you, isn't it... "The Democrats made them do it! I was attacked! You made me do this!"

Huh? What's your point?

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6622 on: March 26, 2019, 09:55:13 AM »


Oh there are plenty of impeachable offenses.  Remember that Clinton was impeached for having an affair, and Trump has had at least five that we know of. 

That's not what Clinton was impeached for.  Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Obama owes the country an explanation.  With zero evidence he turned the surveillance powers of the federal government against the presidential campaign of the party out of power. That's an abuse of executive authority.  Obama either approved it or he did not.  Its time for him to explain himself.

He said, with zero evidence

I've really dreaded dipping my toe into this thread, but I'll bite. I voted for both Obama and Hillary. That said, it is pretty clear to me that the origins of this entire debacle emanate from Obama and Hillary. 

The Democratic National Committee/Clinton Campaign retained Steele, a former agent of a foreign government (sound familiar?) to come up with dirt on Trump. This led to the dossier, which was then leaked and leaked and leaked and leaked until the Intelligence Community had it. The Obama administration and the FBI then used this dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign (https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1110357418179989509).

This whole thing continued to leak, and eventually Comey had his meeting with Trump. A couple days later the dossier was entirely out in the public -- even though 99% of it was untrue. Trump then fired Comey, which triggered the special counsel.

I grew up during the Iraq debacle, and this reverence for the IC came out of nowhere. It has become laughably clear over the past two years that Jim Clapper (NSA), James Comey (FBI), and John Brennan (CIA) were political hacks who loathed Trump.

Hell, the reverence and respect for Comey is laughable considering that he, arguably more than anyone else, is responsible for Trump getting elected with his attention whoring press conference.

I'm not going to vote for Trump in 2020, but if liberals can't get their head out of their ass and see how big of a farce this whole Russia thing was, and if they keep talking down to people (as is happening repeatedly in this thread), I'm pretty darn confident Trump is going to get re-elected by a wide margin.

You're the one who voted for him.  You can blame me for that all day, and I won't be bothered.

As a fellow liberal, the way you talk down to people does have a negative effect on those you are trying to persuade. I'm sure you're frustrated, but goddamn you come off as unlikable, and you make even me contemplate voting for Trump.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 09:57:17 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6623 on: March 26, 2019, 10:14:00 AM »
As a fellow liberal, the way you talk down to people does have a negative effect on those you are trying to persuade. I'm sure you're frustrated, but goddamn you come off as unlikable, and you make even me contemplate voting for Trump.

If your vote is potentially influenced by one person you dislike on the internet, that's damning evidence of how effective Russia's troll farming has been overall.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6624 on: March 26, 2019, 10:19:42 AM »
^Yes, I agree with JLee.

I'm not a Comey fan. I wasn't a Hillary fan either, but I voted for her because she had actual policies laid out that made sense for good of most of the people in this country.

I'm even less of a Trump fan . . . by a large margin. As far as I am concerned, he has not shown any admirable qualities. He lies consistently and without hesitation. He has a long history of not paying the people who work for him. He cheats on his wives, harasses young ladies, makes racist comments routinely . . . I could go on an on. Any ideas he has seem only to relate to how he can get more money for himself or his family. The man doesn't even like having a pet, for crying out loud, probably because a cute dog or cat might distract attention from him for a second! Most of his adult children are obnoxious. Bottom line: he's not very smart, he appears to have no moral compass, and he's quite insecure. This is not what I'm looking for in a leader.

In terms of Trump's policies, those are even worse. He favors the ultra-wealthy or the sycophants at the expense of the hard working and well qualified in terms of cabinet, diplomatic, and judicial nominations. He doesn't believe in any kind of business regulation, which means no protection for the environment or consumers . . . go to China if you want to see where that leads in terms of pollution and unethical products. He panders to the ultra-Christian on social issues while not being a religious man himself. It's not that he cares about these things, it's just that he's the ultimate hypocrite. He alienates our strongest allies while cozying up to violent dictators.

My guess is that Sol and many others find it incredibly frustrating that people love Trump unconditionally while he does everything he can to undermine their best interests . . .

Edited because typos.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 10:31:52 AM by Zamboni »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2110
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6625 on: March 26, 2019, 10:22:06 AM »
... Stepping away from the name calling...

one of Trump's campaign promises [sic], was that people with pre-existing conditions could keep their coverage. Trump is (again) doubling down on not only getting rid of that, but also the whole ACA. What is in the wings to replace it? Exactly nothing. One continued speculation is that Trump will continue to dismantle regulations, programs, and relationships without building anything substantive.

On keeping pre-existing protections:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaszewski2/2016/11/12/it-isnt-news-that-trump-wants-to-keep-the-pre-existing-condition-reforms-he-said-so-in-february/#4d983c981d48

On taking them away:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/us/politics/obamacare-unconstitutional-trump-aca.html

If you do a Google search on "Republican plan to replace ACA", you effectively get crickets. Most recent date citation on first page of results was November 2018. Remember the "Repeal and Replace" debacle? If anyone knows of anything the GOP has waiting in the wings, I'd like to see it.

To be fair, the GOP has been working hard to get rid of the ACA since before Trump. The tricky part is that the electorate likes the provisions when explained to them without labels, but hates it if it is called "Obamacare."

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6626 on: March 26, 2019, 10:25:44 AM »
As a fellow liberal, the way you talk down to people does have a negative effect on those you are trying to persuade. I'm sure you're frustrated, but goddamn you come off as unlikable, and you make even me contemplate voting for Trump.

If your vote is potentially influenced by one person you dislike on the internet, that's damning evidence of how effective Russia's troll farming has been overall.

I'm not saying I'm going to change my vote because of one person, and perhaps my post was poorly worded. I'm saying the overall liberal smugness just has to stop if they actually want to change people's votes, which is what has to happen in 2020 if Democrats are going to win. Sol is talking down to people left and right, and if you think his speech is isolated and not representative of liberals in general, then I have a tough pill for you to swallow.

And re Russia troll farming, you are out of your mind if you think Russian troll farms substantially influenced the election. Yes, they happened, yes Russia tried to sew disinformation, yes it reached a lot of Facebook users. But Russian agents spent $46k on Facebook ads. Clinton and Trump spent $81M, or almost 1,800 times as much as a Russian agency. The "likes" and "shares" of these posts were in the thousands of one percent as overall Facebook content.

Of course, if you disagree with me, it's because I'M DUMB or I'm just NOT INFORMED. Being a liberal that leans towards the center (I guess), it's all so frustrating to see liberals with tinfoil hats screaming RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA and/or YOU'RE DUMB YOU'RE DUMB YOU'RE DUMB.

Again, as someone who voted for Hillary, and will almost certainly vote for whoever Dems run in 2020, I'd seriously ask that you back up, stop drinking the MSNBC/HuffPo/Mother Jones/WaPo kool-aid and articulate what Zamboni said above. Socratic method is preferred rather than talking down to people like they are incompetent morons.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 10:27:32 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13082
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6627 on: March 26, 2019, 10:37:27 AM »
To be fair, it wasn't liberals screaming RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.  That was the FBI . . . typically a fairly conservative organization.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6628 on: March 26, 2019, 10:41:21 AM »
The Democratic National Committee/Clinton Campaign retained Steele, a former agent of a foreign government (sound familiar?) to come up with dirt on Trump.

Not really. There is a hell of a difference between hiring a Private Investigations company founded by an ex-agent to do some opposition research and directly meeting with a hostile foreign government that's attempting to interfere in our election (Trump Tower meeting at the very least). I mean, I know conservatives are trying to make them sound similar, but they're really not.

This led to the dossier, which was then leaked and leaked and leaked and leaked until the Intelligence Community had it. The Obama administration and the FBI then used this dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign (https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1110357418179989509).

Which is what any sane patriot would do if there was evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to undermine our elections. Obama notably was *extremely* hands-off and didn't do much about the known Russian interference (I'm not talking about the potential Trump collusion here, but the actual known real Russian interference) because he didn't want to look like he was pulling a Nixon.

This whole thing continued to leak, and eventually Comey had his meeting with Trump. A couple days later the dossier was entirely out in the public -- even though 99% of it was untrue.

Citation please. As far as I know there isn't a single thing in the Steele Dossier that has been proven false. A lot that hasn't been proven true, sure, but I don't know how anyone can claim "99% of it was untrue."

Trump then fired Comey, which triggered the special counsel.

Yes, Trump fired the Republican head of the FBI for investigating him which outraged the Republican House and the Republican Senate and cause the Republican Deputy AG to order a Republican special counsel to investigate. A "Democratic witch hunt" this ain't.

I grew up during the Iraq debacle, and this reverence for the IC came out of nowhere. It has become laughably clear over the past two years that Jim Clapper (NSA), James Comey (FBI), and John Brennan (CIA) were political hacks who loathed Trump.

Hell, the reverence and respect for Comey is laughable considering that he, arguably more than anyone else, is responsible for Trump getting elected with his attention whoring press conference.

Arn't you contradicting yourself? How can Comey be a political hack who gave Trump the election with his attention-whoring "Hillary's emails" press conference (which I agree with) while simultaneously hating Trump and was engaged in a conspiracy to undermine him?

Look, I agree this whole thing has been a shit-show. But what was the alternative? Not investigating the Steele Dossier? Not investigate the Russian interference in our elections / hacking of the DNC? Not investigating Trump for Obstruction of Justice after he went on TV and clearly said that he fired Comey because he was investigating him?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 10:45:03 AM by sherr »

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6629 on: March 26, 2019, 10:41:29 AM »

He said, with zero evidence

And so I did.  If there is credible evidence, bring it forward.  ReadySetMillionaire is spot on.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6630 on: March 26, 2019, 10:46:07 AM »
As a fellow liberal, the way you talk down to people does have a negative effect on those you are trying to persuade. I'm sure you're frustrated, but goddamn you come off as unlikable, and you make even me contemplate voting for Trump.

If your vote is potentially influenced by one person you dislike on the internet, that's damning evidence of how effective Russia's troll farming has been overall.

I'm not saying I'm going to change my vote because of one person, and perhaps my post was poorly worded. I'm saying the overall liberal smugness just has to stop if they actually want to change people's votes, which is what has to happen in 2020 if Democrats are going to win. Sol is talking down to people left and right, and if you think his speech is isolated and not representative of liberals in general, then I have a tough pill for you to swallow.

And re Russia troll farming, you are out of your mind if you think Russian troll farms substantially influenced the election. Yes, they happened, yes Russia tried to sew disinformation, yes it reached a lot of Facebook users. But Russian agents spent $46k on Facebook ads. Clinton and Trump spent $81M, or almost 1,800 times as much as a Russian agency. The "likes" and "shares" of these posts were in the thousands of one percent as overall Facebook content.

I'm not talking about Facebook ads. I am talking about the buildings full of people who were actively trolling on social media.

Quote
Reporters and editors for global news outlets also embedded the Russian propaganda tweets from Jan. 1, 2016, to Sept. 30, 2017, according to social media analysis by Meltwater, a San Francisco-based media intelligence company, which shared its findings with NBC News.

The list of media organizations duped into rebroadcasting the tweets includes the Washington Post, Breitbart, Buzzfeed, the Daily Mail, HuffPo Canada, NBC News and thousands of other online U.S., Russian and other outlets, large and small.

The result was a list of high-influence individuals and accounts that inadvertently promoted or engaged with Russian state-sponsored propaganda, previously unreported in its entirety. Most of them retweeted. Some replied to or commented on the accounts.


The handles flagged in the database, along with less than half-a-dozen from previous reports, contains these political figures: President of the United States, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer (@RichardBSpencer), Trump associate and political consultant Roger J. Stone Jr. (@RogerJStoneJr), Former US UN Ambassador Samantha Power (@AmbPower44), the president's son Donald J. Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr), former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke (@DrDavidDuke), nationalist Dutch politician Geert Wilders (@gertwilderspvv), Sen. John Coryn, (R-TX) (@JohnCornyn), presidential advisor and spokeswoman Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls), Women's March national co-chair Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour), son of fired Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn Jr. (@mflynnJR), Sen. Nina Turner (D-OH) (@ninaturner), Trump's digital media advisor Brad Parscale (@parscale), Senior Advisor of Executive Deputy Director, UN Women, Ravi Karkara (@ravikarkara), former Trump White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci), former White House press secretary Sean Spicer (@seanspicer), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (@tedcruz).

The list also includes media personalities and commentators like FOX News host Sean Hannity (@seanhannity), conservative author Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter), MSNBC host Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes), conservative author Eric Bolling (@ericbolling), NYU political scientist Ian Bremmer (@ianbremmer), conservative TV and radio host Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle), CNN anchor Jake Tapper (@JAKetapper), Slate Chief Political Correspondent Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie), Editor of CounterPunch, a left-leaning political investigative magazine Jeffrey St. Clair, (@JSCCounterPunch), Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs), journalist Micah Lee (@micahflee), upstart online radio host of YourVoice America Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii), popular right wing video blogger Paul Ramsey (@ramzpaul), conspiracy theorist and InfoWars host Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones), popular "alt-right" video blogger Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux), and @whpresscorps, whose Twitter bio says, "Daily adventures with the White House Press Corps in their own words"...

And pop culture icons singer Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ), comedian Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman), Daily Show host Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah), James Woods (@realjameswoods), and even the CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey (@jack) have also been flagged.

This part stands out even more:

Quote
One of the most actively retweeted an re-embedded accounts by celebrities and online news outlets was @TEN_GOP, which amassed over 130 million followers while masquerading as the official Twitter account of the Tennessee Republican Party before it was suspended. Its self-described "backup" account, @10_GOP, collected over 40 million followers.

Trump himself tweeted back "So nice, thank you!" to the @10_GOP when the account tweeted at him, "We love you, Mr. President!" in September. Like all of those who retweeted the troll accounts, there is no indication that the president knew the tweet had been sent by Russian state-sponsored operatives.

Quote from: ReadySetMillionare
Of course, if you disagree with me, it's because I'M DUMB or I'm just NOT INFORMED. Being a liberal that leans towards the center (I guess), it's all so frustrating to see liberals with tinfoil hats screaming RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA and/or YOU'RE DUMB YOU'RE DUMB YOU'RE DUMB.

Again, as someone who voted for Hillary, and will almost certainly vote for whoever Dems run in 2020, I'd seriously ask that you back up, stop drinking the MSNBC/HuffPo/Mother Jones/WaPo kool-aid and articulate what Zamboni said above. Socratic method is preferred rather than talking down to people like they are incompetent morons.

I have over 5,000 posts here - if what you say is true, there should be ample evidence for you to prove your assertion.  I really do hope you see the irony in your post.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 11:01:36 AM by JLee »

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6631 on: March 26, 2019, 11:01:54 AM »
5000 posts is a lot indeed . . . and most were actually about financial stuff and efforts towards FI. I've noticed a few people in this thread only post on the off topic forums, so I'm not engaging with those folks at all. Try it! It's liberating.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 558
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6632 on: March 26, 2019, 11:18:34 AM »
The Democratic National Committee/Clinton Campaign retained Steele, a former agent of a foreign government (sound familiar?) to come up with dirt on Trump. This led to the dossier, which was then leaked and leaked and leaked and leaked until the Intelligence Community had it. The Obama administration and the FBI then used this dossier to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign (https://twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/1110357418179989509).

This whole thing continued to leak, and eventually Comey had his meeting with Trump. A couple days later the dossier was entirely out in the public -- even though 99% of it was untrue. Trump then fired Comey, which triggered the special counsel.

You are virtually quoting the talking points of Trump's biggest supporters. The Congressional investigations eviscerated the idea that the counterintelligence operation started because of the dossier, it actually started in the summer of 2016 in regards to the campaign, and Carter Page had already been investigated several years before that. If anything, it looks like the intelligence community went out of its way to warn him and give him the benefit of the doubt.

In regards to the dossier, there are a few specifics that have been refuted (it details that Michael Cohen was in Prague, but it appears this was based on cellphone intelligence, so the current understand is that probably a cellphone in his name traveled with someone else to Prague), but the vast predominance of its assertions have either been corroborated publicly or are still uncorroborated but also not refuted. Your comment about 99% of it being untrue is totally unsubstantiated, pure and simple.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6633 on: March 26, 2019, 11:34:51 AM »
it is pretty clear to me that the origins of this entire debacle emanate from Obama and Hillary. 

The Democratic National Committee/Clinton Campaign retained Steele, a former agent of a foreign government (sound familiar?) to come up with dirt on Trump.

I'm sure you're aware that it was republicans, not democrats who initiated the Steele dossier, who hired him and who funded him.  Clinton's people then contributed too, after Trump became the GOP nominee, but it's not like Steele was hired by democrats.

Also, Britain is an ally.  Working with the foreign intelligence services of our allies is not the same as working with the foreign intelligence agencies of our adversaries.  Did you really mean to suggest that these two things are equivalent?

Quote
even though 99% of it was untrue. Trump then fired Comey, which triggered the special counsel.

Which 99% do you think is untrue?  It never purported to be a judgement of facts, only a collection of raw an uninterpreted intelligence reports.  Even accepting that, a surprising amount of it turned out to be accurate.  For example, the Steele dossier was where we first heard about Russian election interference, and that it was Russian intelligence that hacked the DNC and then used wikileaks to maintain plausible deniabilty.  It was there that we learned that Roger Stone was communicating with fictitious person called Guccifer2.0, who turned out to be the Russian Intelligence service posing as an anonymous internet hacker.  It was there that we learned that Aras Agalarov, a Russian real estate tycoon, contacted the Trump campaign promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, which led to a secretive Trump Tower meeting.   It was there that we first learned of Trump repeated efforts to close real estate deals in Russia, including discreetly paying bribes (in the form of "broker fees") through intermediary companies.  It was there that we first read the emails from a handful of Russian nationals promising Trump's campaign "political synergy" if they agreed to meet in person.  It was there that we first learned about the secret meetings that Paul Manafort and Carter Page had with Russians, including sanctioned individuals.  It was there that we first learned that Mike Flynn was lying about his illegal contacts with Russian officials regarding easing sanctions during the campaign if Trump were to win.  All of that turned out to be true, though it was only reported in the Steele Dossier as raw intelligence and not final findings of fact.

Then there were a bunch of other parts that have not been corroborated by further evidence, but not disproven either, like the peepee tape business.  And there are at least a few things that have been proven false, like Michael Cohen's reported trip to Prague.  On balance, though, it seems inaccurate to assert tha "99% of it was untrue."  I'm open to having my mind changed on this point, if you disagree with any of the above and have evidence to support your position.

Quote
if liberals can't get their head out of their ass and see how big of a farce this whole Russia thing was

Why do you think it's a farce?  Do you think the Trump campaign didn't have any secret dealings with Russia?  Because there are a handful of indictments that suggest that they did.

I'm hoping you're not taking Barr's summary of the Mueller report as an exoneration of the Trump campaign.  It is very specifically and explicitly not that.

Quote
As a fellow liberal, the way you talk down to people does have a negative effect on those you are trying to persuade. I'm sure you're frustrated, but goddamn you come off as unlikable, and you make even me contemplate voting for Trump.

I can't make you vote for anyone. 

I do acknowledge that this topic brings out the absolute worst in me, because it's a topic I actually care about and there is a lot of misinformation being spread about it that I feel someone needs to correct.  I would love to step back from this thread, if you'd like to step up and fight against it in my place. 

In the interest of helping me be a better person, you could provide me with specific examples of how I "talk down to people" in this or related threads.  I'm usually pretty careful about attacking arguments rather than individuals, but I make no bones about ridiculing stupid arguments.  For example (and here you're going to hate me even more) the assertion that 99% of the Steele dossier has been proven false sure looks like a stupidly misinformed thing to say.

But hey, we all make mistakes!  Maybe you just got some bad intel from an unreliable news source?  Maybe you didn't actually read any of the dossier yourself, or follow up on any of the reports in it, before wantonly trying to discredit the entire document on the internet?  You will be granted 100% absolution and unconditional forgiveness for your mistake if you just report back in and say "Oops, I was wrong about the Steele dossier."  It's easy.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 11:39:59 AM by sol »

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6634 on: March 26, 2019, 02:41:39 PM »
As a fellow liberal, the way you talk down to people does have a negative effect on those you are trying to persuade. I'm sure you're frustrated, but goddamn you come off as unlikable, and you make even me contemplate voting for Trump.

If your vote is potentially influenced by one person you dislike on the internet, that's damning evidence of how effective Russia's troll farming has been overall.

I'm not saying I'm going to change my vote because of one person, and perhaps my post was poorly worded. I'm saying the overall liberal smugness just has to stop if they actually want to change people's votes, which is what has to happen in 2020 if Democrats are going to win. Sol is talking down to people left and right, and if you think his speech is isolated and not representative of liberals in general, then I have a tough pill for you to swallow.

And re Russia troll farming, you are out of your mind if you think Russian troll farms substantially influenced the election. Yes, they happened, yes Russia tried to sew disinformation, yes it reached a lot of Facebook users. But Russian agents spent $46k on Facebook ads. Clinton and Trump spent $81M, or almost 1,800 times as much as a Russian agency. The "likes" and "shares" of these posts were in the thousands of one percent as overall Facebook content.

Of course, if you disagree with me, it's because I'M DUMB or I'm just NOT INFORMED. Being a liberal that leans towards the center (I guess), it's all so frustrating to see liberals with tinfoil hats screaming RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA and/or YOU'RE DUMB YOU'RE DUMB YOU'RE DUMB.

Again, as someone who voted for Hillary, and will almost certainly vote for whoever Dems run in 2020, I'd seriously ask that you back up, stop drinking the MSNBC/HuffPo/Mother Jones/WaPo kool-aid and articulate what Zamboni said above. Socratic method is preferred rather than talking down to people like they are incompetent morons.

Tell me about it. I've been saying the same things to them for over a year and it's only gotten worse. Trump has likely doubled his black supports per CNN (op piece) and 538 last year, and no I am not talking about the lame/flawed 36% poll.

With the latest development on the Smollett case and how so many on the left are calling foul (ie Emanuel et al)..... this is not looking good at all for us center/left who supported Clinton in 2016.

Quote
Hell, the reverence and respect for Comey is laughable considering that he, arguably more than anyone else, is responsible for Trump getting elected with his attention whoring press conference.

I still respect Comey for his services, but this brings back memories. I remember my wife sitting across from me in the living room when I read how he's reopened the case days before the election. I looked at my wife and said "It's over. Trump just won."
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 02:56:49 PM by anisotropy »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6635 on: March 26, 2019, 03:09:22 PM »
Tell me about it. I've been saying the same things to them for over a year and it's only gotten worse. Trump has likely doubled his black supports per CNN (op piece) and 538 last year, and no I am not talking about the lame/flawed 36% poll.

With the latest development on the Smollett case and how so many on the left are calling foul (ie Emanuel et al)..... this is not looking good at all for us center/left who supported Clinton in 2016.
Quote
Hell, the reverence and respect for Comey is laughable considering that he, arguably more than anyone else, is responsible for Trump getting elected with his attention whoring press conference.
I still respect Comey for his services, but this brings back memories. I remember my wife sitting across from me in the living room when I read how he's reopened the case days before the election. I looked at my wife and said "It's over. Trump just won."

It's like Troll Inception.  A troll within a troll.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6636 on: March 26, 2019, 03:28:16 PM »
A huge problem here, that I think we can all agree on, is that there is no set of established facts as to what happened.  I am not getting my information from goofy sites. I am getting it from the NYT, WSJ, Politico, etc. 

I simply do not have enough time to follow every single thing about this, in and out, over and over. But my understanding is that the dossier was used as grounds to obtain a FISA warrant, which led to the surveillance on Trump's campaign. Yes, there may have been some investigating before that, but the FISA warrant was the fuse that lit the bomb of this whole thing (from my perspective).

And yes, my statement about the dossier is poorly worded -- what I meant was that 99% of the salacious allegations are completely unverifiable. As an attorney, to use a largely unverifiable dossier as grounds to obtain a search warrant (in whole or in part) just blows my mind. That's abuse of power against ANYONE. To be specific, go ahead and get a FISA warrant, that's fine; but this dossier CANNOT be used as grounds.

Back to my point, the FISA process is largely secret. Exactly how this all got started is largely secret. Mueller's report is still secret. So we are all left in the dark and attempting to connect dots. And man, there are a lot of dots out there, so a lot of well-meaning and decently well-informed people can have different sets of opinions. I wish everything from start to finish was out there, and wouldn't mind a 9/11 Commission or Warren Report.

Regarding specific questions:

1. No, I do not think the Mueller report exonerated Trump. But that campaign had the biggest collection of idiots of all time, and to think that they could conspire with a foreign government and not have it blow up in their face is beyond my imagination.

2. Regarding obstruction of justice, that's an incredibly murky constitutional question that could be taught in a law school class. Trump certainly breached protocol, norms, and traditions; whether that rises to the level of obstruction is a different question.

3. Regarding @sol, yes, you may not call people names. But just because you are attacking ideas and not people does not absolve you. I encourage you to listen to this episode of NPR's Hidden Brain podcast :https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=654127241

***

On that note, I'll bow out. I'm being perceived as a troll because I don't post in this thread or the off topic forum regularly. Whatever. I came over here because the biggest news since Trump got elected dropped this weekend.

But my brief hours in this thread confirmed why I don't post about politics -- it just gets ugly, nobody is going to change their mind, so what's the point.

You may disagree with me about things I've posted. Just know that I am posting in good faith, and that maybe I can look at largely the same set of facts as you and come to a different conclusion. And there are millions of well-meaning people like me.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6637 on: March 26, 2019, 03:46:46 PM »
But my brief hours in this thread confirmed why I don't post about politics -- it just gets ugly, nobody is going to change their mind, so what's the point.

You may disagree with me about things I've posted. Just know that I am posting in good faith, and that maybe I can look at largely the same set of facts as you and come to a different conclusion. And there are millions of well-meaning people like me.

I don't think you are looking at largely the same set of facts, as evidenced by my above post (which you ignored):

Quote
One of the most actively retweeted an re-embedded accounts by celebrities and online news outlets was @TEN_GOP, which amassed over 130 million followers while masquerading as the official Twitter account of the Tennessee Republican Party before it was suspended. Its self-described "backup" account, @10_GOP, collected over 40 million followers.

Trump himself tweeted back "So nice, thank you!" to the @10_GOP when the account tweeted at him, "We love you, Mr. President!" in September. Like all of those who retweeted the troll accounts, there is no indication that the president knew the tweet had been sent by Russian state-sponsored operatives.

Quote from: ReadySetMillionaire
And re Russia troll farming, you are out of your mind if you think Russian troll farms substantially influenced the election.

Twitter claims to have 321 million active monthly users.  130 million Twitter accounts were following one of these Russian troll farm accounts, yet I am out of my mind to think there was a substantial influence when you yourself said (poorly phrased or not) that your political opinions were potentially being swayed by a single forum poster?

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6638 on: March 26, 2019, 04:35:52 PM »
What has proven to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how toxic the internet has become now that social media (and maybe forums) has weaponized it, is that my kids have both confronted me on what are conspiracy theories.  My young daughter asked if Hillary killed babies (I explained that she would be in jail if there were proof that she did, but it is more likely that someone was lying to her).  My son, a bit older, asked why Trump was being treated so unfairly.  My son is somewhat religious and has good Baptist friends, so I asked why he thought that way.  Eventually, we got around to talking about how Trump has been with porn stars (not to mention the recording of what he thinks of women) and divorced several times...  I said that I didn't think Trump has been treated unfairly, no matter what Trumps has said.

In fact, if you ignore what Trump says, then it is pretty clear where we stand.  Although it is problematic to ignore the President, in this case, it will leave you more clear to think for yourself.

nick663

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
  • Location: midwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6639 on: March 26, 2019, 04:56:18 PM »
Great, back on topic.
I will challenge your assertion with the following:
1) Are these polls any better than the polls of 2016? 
The polls in 2016 were not that far off.  They predicted a tight race was leaning one direction and the race narrowly went the other.  Polls were further off in 2012 but no one cared because they were off in the direction of the victor.

How people reacted to or interpreted the polls... now you can make an argument about that being off base.  But at the end of the day the data wasn't significantly off base.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6640 on: March 26, 2019, 05:13:06 PM »
On my phone (domestic internet), I hear  that the border wall veto could not be overridden.  So I guess Trump has won by ultimately steamrolling Congress and screwing over taxpayers.  How can that leave a good taste in anyone's mouth?  This is exactly what he wanted and only gets him more fired up to continue to use his powers 'liberally'.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Climate Change' becomes a larger problem.  Fortunately, we have a feel good article to read https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/politics/mike-lee-green-new-deal/index.html

Quote
Utah Sen. Mike Lee on Tuesday called babies and families the solution to climate change in response to a Democratic plan to overhaul the economy through the Green New Deal proposal.

The Republican made the suggestion while blasting the Green New Deal on the Senate floor. Lee employed poster-board sized pictures of the superhero Aquaman and former President Ronald Reagan riding a velociraptor so he could "consider the Green New Deal with the seriousness it deserves."

These are our Congress!
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 05:18:27 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10052
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6641 on: March 26, 2019, 05:55:57 PM »
Great, back on topic.
I will challenge your assertion with the following:
1) Are these polls any better than the polls of 2016? 
The polls in 2016 were not that far off.  They predicted a tight race was leaning one direction and the race narrowly went the other.  Polls were further off in 2012 but no one cared because they were off in the direction of the victor.

It's a bit unclear which "polls" EnjoyIt is referring to as I was citing both voter turnout and demographic data (and not political prediction polls).
You raise a good point that the oft-repeated mantra that the "political polls of 2016 were wrong" is both lazy and untrue.  The polls released in the month before the election were notably correct - but our understanding of them is what's lacking.  Thankfully, you don't even have to take my word for it - you can go back and read the actual polls yourself - sites like www.270towin.com have dutifully archived them for us, and if for some reason you don't trust THEM you can always go back to the source poll. 

In short, what the common refrain gets wrong is how almost all races were within the margin of error, and the predicted path for a DJT victory required him to win Florida plus at least 3/4 of the following 'battleground states: Penn, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, all of which were within the margin of polling data (which for most was ~=/-2%). Which is exactly what happened: DJT won each of those by less than 1% (save Florida, which he won by 1.2%) - again all within the polling margins.  Polls also showed a HRC popular vote margin of ~3%, which was pretty darn close to her 2.5% margin (and again within the polling margins).

But the predictive polling was immaterial to my broader point, which was that minority groups voted for DJT in historically low percentages, and the 2020 demographics will feature an electorate less which and considerably more Asian and Latino than the previous cycle.  The latter is based largely on census data, which is among the best demographic data available anywhere, and for any country.  The former is from polling of people after the fact - i.e. asking them how they voted.  Generally this data is considered far more accurate, as there are no "undecided" nor can a person change their mind.  It's possible that a whole bunch of people have lied, but that typically doesn't happen in anonymous polling.

Going into the electoral college, a few of the states which will have fewer white voters in 2020 compared with 2016 include Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan (along with non-battleground states like California, NJ). Trump won Florida by 1.2%; Pennsylvania by 0.6% and Michigan by 0.2%.  Barring a complete and unexpected re-organization of the electoral map he'll need to carry at least two of those, and given demographic shifts he'll either need to improve his standing with minorities or increase his percentage of a smaller white electorate.  Florida is particularly interesting, as an estimated 130k people have resettled on the mainland from Puerto Rico sine the hurricane, most of them in Florida. Trump's margin of victory there in 2016 was just 110k. Certainly not all will vote nor will they all vote for his opponent, but if voter turnout and preference is similar that will cut considerably cut into DJT's 2016 margin

I'm not saying he won't be re-elected in 2020, and one should not discount the power of the incumbency.  Merely I'm pointing out how narrow his victory was in 2016, and how demographics are shifting against his base of support from 2016

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6642 on: March 26, 2019, 06:12:08 PM »
But my brief hours in this thread confirmed why I don't post about politics -- it just gets ugly, nobody is going to change their mind, so what's the point.

You may disagree with me about things I've posted. Just know that I am posting in good faith, and that maybe I can look at largely the same set of facts as you and come to a different conclusion. And there are millions of well-meaning people like me.

I don't think you are looking at largely the same set of facts, as evidenced by my above post (which you ignored):

Quote
One of the most actively retweeted an re-embedded accounts by celebrities and online news outlets was @TEN_GOP, which amassed over 130 million followers while masquerading as the official Twitter account of the Tennessee Republican Party before it was suspended. Its self-described "backup" account, @10_GOP, collected over 40 million followers.

Trump himself tweeted back "So nice, thank you!" to the @10_GOP when the account tweeted at him, "We love you, Mr. President!" in September. Like all of those who retweeted the troll accounts, there is no indication that the president knew the tweet had been sent by Russian state-sponsored operatives.

Quote from: ReadySetMillionaire
And re Russia troll farming, you are out of your mind if you think Russian troll farms substantially influenced the election.

Twitter claims to have 321 million active monthly users.  130 million Twitter accounts were following one of these Russian troll farm accounts, yet I am out of my mind to think there was a substantial influence when you yourself said (poorly phrased or not) that your political opinions were potentially being swayed by a single forum poster?

There is absolutely zero percent chance the TENGOP account had 130 million followers. Barack Obama has 105 million.

Id bet my newborns life TENGOP had closer to 130,000 followers, many of them spambots, and many of them who knew it was a troll account (maybe not a Russian troll account, but certainly a troll account).

So no, Im not going to respond to the rest of your facts.

ETA: TENGOP had 136,000 followers https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/19/16504510/ten-gop-twitter-russia
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 06:14:12 PM by ReadySetMillionaire »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10052
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6643 on: March 26, 2019, 06:21:26 PM »

Quote from: ReadySetMillionaire
And re Russia troll farming, you are out of your mind if you think Russian troll farms substantially influenced the election.

People are influenced by marketing and by propaganda - that's well established. 
Four states had vote margins of less than 1%. 
Is it really so far fetched to believe that 1% of voters might have been influenced by such targeted propaganda?
It doesn't even require changing voter's mind: sowing enough disgust among a small subset of voters to get them to not vote could also have influenced the election.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2936
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6644 on: March 26, 2019, 06:56:51 PM »
humans do have a herd mentality. If you are reading and reposting from sources you trust or reflect your peer group, I can can see people accepting that information. I work with veterans and as a rule I do not talk politics. But over the past 10 years I have had elderly white vets tell me how Obama is from Africa and is a muslim, and are scared of sharia law being enacted. That Hillary ran a child prostitution ring. That Trump is of course is not intending to privatize the VA because he loves and supports vets. Some other whoppers as well. These people sincerely believe these statements. They are not coming out of thin air. They are coming from somewhere.


accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6646 on: March 26, 2019, 08:36:56 PM »
I will believe you the day Omar (along with other women's march leaders) is brought down by the Ds. Until then, they are both racists, just different targets.
I don't know who Omar is, or what he said that you consider racist.  Could you quote him please?


Ilhan Omar is the representative for Minnesota's 5th District. My representative. I voted for her. I certainly don't think she is anti-semetic. And I think any interpretation otherwise is just trying to stir up the shit. And I like how her hijab makes conservative heads explode.

She could be more diplomatic with her words, but considering all the hot garbage that comes out of Our Dear Leader's mouth, I could really give a fuck.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6647 on: March 26, 2019, 09:28:57 PM »
What has proven to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how toxic the internet has become now that social media (and maybe forums) has weaponized it, is that my kids have both confronted me on what are conspiracy theories.  My young daughter asked if Hillary killed babies (I explained that she would be in jail if there were proof that she did, but it is more likely that someone was lying to her).  My son, a bit older, asked why Trump was being treated so unfairly.  My son is somewhat religious and has good Baptist friends, so I asked why he thought that way.  Eventually, we got around to talking about how Trump has been with porn stars (not to mention the recording of what he thinks of women) and divorced several times...  I said that I didn't think Trump has been treated unfairly, no matter what Trumps has said.

In fact, if you ignore what Trump says, then it is pretty clear where we stand.  Although it is problematic to ignore the President, in this case, it will leave you more clear to think for yourself.

Yes, I've experienced the same thing. We can't control what they read, see, and hear online or from their friends, but we can keep having conversations with them about what it all really means. My children also have trouble distinguishing actual news from entertainment shows. I had to explain to my daughter that Hannity is not the news, for example, because she got really upset at something she had heard on "the news" and as we talked more it turned out it was Hannity. Just my simple, calm counterpoint seems to be all that they need . . . I had to have the same "no, Hillary doesn't kill babies who are born alive" discussion with my daughter recently. Deep down it seemed like she knew that couldn't be true, but she was so bothered by the very idea that she wanted to discuss it.

I do wish the media would stop making a new headline out of every outrageous line of garbage spewed from the whitehouse. It was news for awhile, I guess, but now it's just yawnville that there is no bottom to the outrageous lies. How about some actual investigative reporting instead?

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6648 on: March 26, 2019, 10:07:11 PM »
But my brief hours in this thread confirmed why I don't post about politics -- it just gets ugly, nobody is going to change their mind, so what's the point.

You may disagree with me about things I've posted. Just know that I am posting in good faith, and that maybe I can look at largely the same set of facts as you and come to a different conclusion. And there are millions of well-meaning people like me.

I don't think you are looking at largely the same set of facts, as evidenced by my above post (which you ignored):

Quote
One of the most actively retweeted an re-embedded accounts by celebrities and online news outlets was @TEN_GOP, which amassed over 130 million followers while masquerading as the official Twitter account of the Tennessee Republican Party before it was suspended. Its self-described "backup" account, @10_GOP, collected over 40 million followers.

Trump himself tweeted back "So nice, thank you!" to the @10_GOP when the account tweeted at him, "We love you, Mr. President!" in September. Like all of those who retweeted the troll accounts, there is no indication that the president knew the tweet had been sent by Russian state-sponsored operatives.

Quote from: ReadySetMillionaire
And re Russia troll farming, you are out of your mind if you think Russian troll farms substantially influenced the election.

Twitter claims to have 321 million active monthly users.  130 million Twitter accounts were following one of these Russian troll farm accounts, yet I am out of my mind to think there was a substantial influence when you yourself said (poorly phrased or not) that your political opinions were potentially being swayed by a single forum poster?

There is absolutely zero percent chance the TENGOP account had 130 million followers. Barack Obama has 105 million.

Id bet my newborns life TENGOP had closer to 130,000 followers, many of them spambots, and many of them who knew it was a troll account (maybe not a Russian troll account, but certainly a troll account).

So no, Im not going to respond to the rest of your facts.

ETA: TENGOP had 136,000 followers https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/19/16504510/ten-gop-twitter-russia

And here I was thinking you weren't going to respond at all. Oh how the winds shift!

Good catch on that, no idea how that site was so far off. 136k makes a lot more sense. That said, given the high profile people who retweeted them (including the president and multiple news organizations), they still had an absolutely massive audience.