The Many Faces of US Politics...

[seafoid]

Clapper says US institutions are under assault
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GirDHUKWJJs

[whitey]

Talk about Obama and Brexit for 2 weeks. Don't mention Comey
Rinse and repeat

Kinda like Bill Clinton's treatment of women, Democrats have very selective memories when it comes to which "outrages" to set their hair on fire over.

Bottom line is the Democrats lost a very winnable election by annointing a crap candidate who was foisted onto the ticket by the party elites.  They need someone to blame and invented this whole Russian collusion red herring to deflect blame from where it truly lies.....on themselves and their butt budies in the main stream media.

There was contact between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the election in the same way there was contact between the Clinton campaign and the Russians.  The idea that there was some "collusion" is just fabricated nonsense. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#3eb9f83b3991

Of course Trumps mishandling of everything from Flynn to Sessions to the Comey firing is just throwing fuel on the fire

The GOP won the election but it looks like they may well lose the Presidency

From day 1 the Democrats sought to delegitimize his presidency aided and a beted by the main stream media.  They started out with the sexist card, then pivoted onto the rascist card when that didn't work. They're having a little more success with the Russia card, but my best educated guess is that there's nothing there. 

Hopefully Trump will get another Supreme Court Justice appointed before he gets drummed out of office.....that will be mission accomplished for me

[seafoid]

Talk about Obama and Brexit for 2 weeks. Don't mention Comey
Rinse and repeat

Kinda like Bill Clinton's treatment of women, Democrats have very selective memories when it comes to which "outrages" to set their hair on fire over.

Bottom line is the Democrats lost a very winnable election by annointing a crap candidate who was foisted onto the ticket by the party elites.  They need someone to blame and invented this whole Russian collusion red herring to deflect blame from where it truly lies.....on themselves and their butt budies in the main stream media.

There was contact between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the election in the same way there was contact between the Clinton campaign and the Russians.  The idea that there was some "collusion" is just fabricated nonsense. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#3eb9f83b3991

Of course Trumps mishandling of everything from Flynn to Sessions to the Comey firing is just throwing fuel on the fire

The GOP won the election but it looks like they may well lose the Presidency

From day 1 the Democrats sought to delegitimize his presidency aided and a beted by the main stream media.  They started out with the sexist card, then pivoted onto the rascist card when that didn't work. They're having a little more success with the Russia card, but my best educated guess is that there's nothing there. 

Hopefully Trump will get another Supreme Court Justice appointed before he gets drummed out of office.....that will be mission accomplished for me

Trump does most of the damage himself.

David Frum‏ says "It will never be normal" and he is no lefty

David Roberts at VOX says
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15621140/interpret-trump
"In short, what if Trump is exactly as he appears: a hopeless narcissist with the attention span of a fruit fly, unable to maintain consistent beliefs or commitments from moment to moment, acting on base instinct, entirely situationally, to bolster his terrifyingly fragile ego."

The US needs a functioning Republican Party that can uphold the Constitution and work for the benefit of everyone in the country.
It is a pity it doesn't have one

[omochain]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

Obama went over bang smack in the middle of the Brexit campaign and publicly stated that should the UK vote for Brexit, "they would go to the back of the line" in terms of a trade deal with the United States


Please explain how that is NOT an interference in the democratic process of a sovereign nation?

Why don't YOU explain how openly laying out a possible consequence of the vote is the same as secretly hacking and selectively leaking emails to sabotage one side?

Do I need to spell out the loaf of bread/murder analogy again?

He issued a direct threat that they would be punished if they didn't vote in the way he wanted.

You are intentionally obscuring the issue......no one is denying "interference" by Russia, but you (and most Democrats) I know, conveniently ignore the fact that Mr Obama also took it upon himself to "interfere" in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

What are you talking about. Obama was simply telling the Brits if they separated themselves from the European Union with whom the US was negotiating a Trade Deal that they would be choosing to be treated separately and put themselves at the back of the bus. You talk out of both sides of your mouth conveniently ignoring facts and context. I sometimes wonder if your teeth don't conveniently consider themselves seriously jeopardized as your random thoughts wander around your mouth on their mystery tour.

[whitey]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/obamas-charm-offensive-that-wasnt-224792

"This wasn't how aides on both sides of the Atlantic envisioned what would happen when Cameron called Obama last fall to personally ask him to come join the campaign. Obama immediately agreed — the European Union fits his political and economic worldview and the British prime minister has been an important partner. They've even developed a personal rapport."

It's actually very straightforward....Democrats up in arms about supposed interference in US election but completely ignore Obamas interference in the Brexit vote. 

Democrats lost probably the most winnable election in modern times and have invented this "interference" narrative

[screenexile]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/obamas-charm-offensive-that-wasnt-224792

"This wasn't how aides on both sides of the Atlantic envisioned what would happen when Cameron called Obama last fall to personally ask him to come join the campaign. Obama immediately agreed — the European Union fits his political and economic worldview and the British prime minister has been an important partner. They've even developed a personal rapport."

It's actually very straightforward....Democrats up in arms about supposed interference in US election but completely ignore Obamas interference in the Brexit vote. 

Democrats lost probably the most winnable election in modern times and have invented this "interference" narrative

A lot of people seem to have lost their job at this stage due to something that's been 'invented'!

[whitey]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/obamas-charm-offensive-that-wasnt-224792

"This wasn't how aides on both sides of the Atlantic envisioned what would happen when Cameron called Obama last fall to personally ask him to come join the campaign. Obama immediately agreed — the European Union fits his political and economic worldview and the British prime minister has been an important partner. They've even developed a personal rapport."

It's actually very straightforward....Democrats up in arms about supposed interference in US election but completely ignore Obamas interference in the Brexit vote. 

Democrats lost probably the most winnable election in modern times and have invented this "interference" narrative

A lot of people seem to have lost their job at this stage due to something that's been 'invented'!

Who has lost their job due to interference?

[J70]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

Obama went over bang smack in the middle of the Brexit campaign and publicly stated that should the UK vote for Brexit, "they would go to the back of the line" in terms of a trade deal with the United States


Please explain how that is NOT an interference in the democratic process of a sovereign nation?

Why don't YOU explain how openly laying out a possible consequence of the vote is the same as secretly hacking and selectively leaking emails to sabotage one side?

Do I need to spell out the loaf of bread/murder analogy again?

He issued a direct threat that they would be punished if they didn't vote in the way he wanted.

You are intentionally obscuring the issue......no one is denying "interference" by Russia, but you (and most Democrats) I know, conveniently ignore the fact that Mr Obama also took it upon himself to "interfere" in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

The US was in the middle of the controversy over TPP and trade deals were very much part of the political dialogue given Trump's positions. Given that trade deals that were absolutely an issue if the UK withdrew from the EU as well, why wouldn't Obama bring the issue up? Should the UK public NOT be aware of what might be at stake? At the same time, Trump was saying that British membership of the EU was a "disaster". Which is fine. He is entitled to weigh in with his opinion, which he owned. I'm sure the likes of Farage and his followers were delighted.

The only people obscuring the issue are those who are equating the secret targeting of emails to damage one side with open, public endorsements and engagement.

Horse manure....Obama was within 6 months of the end of his term and would have no input in deciding who was at the front and who was at the back of the line.  Some people think Obama's ill timed comments actually helped the Out campaign

Right, because Hillary, who was to continue his legacy, including sympathy to the EU, wasn't overwhelming favourite to win the election back then.

But, once again, it is all beside the point anyway. People were free to question Obama and his motives on the issue (and according to you, did just that), just as they were with Trump's comments, because both were OPEN about their statements.

That yourself and foxcommander insist on an like for like equivalency with the hacking is pure sophistry.

[whitey]

Democrats say Republicans don't "pay their fair share" of taxes, yet John Kerry registers his Mega yacht in RI rather than Nantucket to avoid $100ks in excise tax.

Democrats say Republicans have "waged a war on women" , yet completely look the other way at Bill Clintons disgraceful treatment of women.

Democrats say Republicans "are in the pocket of Wall Street", yet their candidate has gotten paid obscene amounts of money to give closed door speeches to o Wall Street Firms

Democrats say that Republicans perpetuate the "gender gap" in pay, yet both the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign pay their female staffers less likely Han their male staffers.

Democrats say the Republicans are not committed to clean energy, yet the Kennedys were major objectors to the Cape Wind project because it would interfere with their yachting activities

Pardon the skeptic in me, but whenever I hear Democrats getting their panties in a bunch about some outrage, I take it with a pinch of salt. 

I'm sure if the media did their fvcking job you'd find that both Podesta and the Clinton Foundation are balls deep with connections to Russia

[easytiger95]

Democrats say Republicans don't "pay their fair share" of taxes, yet John Kerry registers his Mega yacht in RI rather than Nantucket to avoid $100ks in excise tax.

Republicans have devoted their entire platform to tax cuts and their healthcare proposal cuts taxes to rich people of approx 800 billion...BUT... one Democrat avoided 100k tax

Democrats say Republicans have "waged a war on women" , yet completely look the other way at Bill Clintons disgraceful treatment of women.

Republicans throughout red states have closed or restricted access to reproductive services, and done it in a systemised way, using the same legislation, and on the national stage are set to defund Planned Parenthood, and on the international stage have removed funding from any overseas funding for projects which include access or information on abortion...BUT...Bill Clinton was accused (never convicted) of rape.


Democrats say Republicans "are in the pocket of Wall Street", yet their candidate has gotten paid obscene amounts of money to give closed door speeches to o Wall Street Firm

Goldman Sachs currently supply the Republican administration with a Treasury Sec and two senior advisors, while a billionaire investor in Labour, and another billionaire is at Education, they are also trying to avoid a confirmation hearing for the Comptroller of Currency position, as the present nominee has pledged to reduce the "burden on banks" and dismantle Dodd Frank... BUT...Hillary got paid for speeches she gave as a private citizen.


Democrats say that Republicans perpetuate the "gender gap" in pay, yet both the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign pay their female staffers less likely Han their male staffers.

Wha??? Numbers or links to numbers please

Democrats say the Republicans are not committed to clean energy, yet the Kennedys were major objectors to the Cape Wind project because it would interfere with their yachting activities

Republicans had a climate change denier as their transition to the EPA, have put in place a Director of the EPA who currently has 14 outstanding lawsuits against the EPA and who has stated his opposition to the Paris accords, and have pledged to bring back fossil fuel production such as coal, whilst removing drilling restrictions in national parks and the Arctic, and have also removed the regulations banning the dumping of mining run off in streams and rivers...BUT...the Kennedys are NIMBYS



Pardon the skeptic in me, but whenever I hear Democrats getting their panties in a bunch about some outrage, I take it with a pinch of salt. 

I'm sure if the media did their fvcking job you'd find that both Podesta and the Clinton Foundation are balls deep with connections to Russia

That's not being sceptical, it's being downright stupid, Captain Anecdote.

[J70]

Democrats say Republicans don't "pay their fair share" of taxes, yet John Kerry registers his Mega yacht in RI rather than Nantucket to avoid $100ks in excise tax.

Democrats say Republicans have "waged a war on women" , yet completely look the other way at Bill Clintons disgraceful treatment of women.

Democrats say Republicans "are in the pocket of Wall Street", yet their candidate has gotten paid obscene amounts of money to give closed door speeches to o Wall Street Firms

Democrats say that Republicans perpetuate the "gender gap" in pay, yet both the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign pay their female staffers less likely Han their male staffers.

Democrats say the Republicans are not committed to clean energy, yet the Kennedys were major objectors to the Cape Wind project because it would interfere with their yachting activities

Pardon the skeptic in me, but whenever I hear Democrats getting their panties in a bunch about some outrage, I take it with a pinch of salt. 

I'm sure if the media did their fvcking job you'd find that both Podesta and the Clinton Foundation are balls deep with connections to Russia

1. You're confusing (whether deliberately or not) policy and legislation and the personal conduct of Bill Clinton.
2. You're seem to be saying that "rich" = Republican and again confusing legislation and rules for everyone with John Kerry taking advantage of a legal tax loophole.
3. Once again, legislation and Hillary Clinton cleaning up on the speech circuit are separate issues. Only one side wants to loosen the modest constraints on Wall St abuse.
4. Yet again, the Kennedys and their sense of entitlement and alleged NIMBYism is a separate issue from policies and legislation. Which party wants to open up wildlands and seas to fossil fuel and mineral exploitation, wants to defund enticements for green energy development and is generally very hostile to environmental protection?
5. The Podestas and the Clintons must not have very influential connections with the Russians, given that the whole issue is over the hacking of John Podesta's emails and the use of them to damage Clinton's presidential campaign, with the possibility that Trump's crew were involved in coordinating their release.
6. I have no idea on the Obama and Clinton staffer gender pay gap. Perhaps you can provide some more info? Were these like-for-like positions?

Anyone can point to the personal conduct of individuals and shout "hypocrisy"! And that may well be true when it comes to those individuals. Whether you're talking about sanctimonious Republicans on about "family values" or Democrats on about "women's rights", the key is what the party is actually doing about those issues. Hillary Clinton may have been getting 250K for a speech to Goldman Sachs, but she and the Democrats are not the party trying to defang the consumer protection agency or get rid of rules requiring financial advisers to put their clients interests before their own. They are not the party who demonized Goldman Sachs all through the campaign before proceeding to fill the administration with former Goldman Sachs executives.

[whitey]

I see Democrats as similar to the Labour Party in England......they can give me 1,000,000 reasons to not vote for the other guy, but no reasons as to why I should vote for them

I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent whose views leans conservative. I have voted for Dems and Repubs, and have donated money to both. Having lived exclusively in blue states for the past 25 years, I have see first hand what one Party rule leads to and it's not pretty. 

Democrats pretend to be in the corner of the underdog, but really they are all about redistribution of wealth

[screenexile]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/obamas-charm-offensive-that-wasnt-224792

"This wasn't how aides on both sides of the Atlantic envisioned what would happen when Cameron called Obama last fall to personally ask him to come join the campaign. Obama immediately agreed — the European Union fits his political and economic worldview and the British prime minister has been an important partner. They've even developed a personal rapport."

It's actually very straightforward....Democrats up in arms about supposed interference in US election but completely ignore Obamas interference in the Brexit vote. 

Democrats lost probably the most winnable election in modern times and have invented this "interference" narrative

A lot of people seem to have lost their job at this stage due to something that's been 'invented'!

Who has lost their job due to interference?

Manafort/Comey/Flynn . . .  all fired due to the "Russian Interference" narrative that has supposedly been invented by the Dems.

Surely if there is nothing going on with the Russians there would be no reason for these men to have lost their jobs!

[J70]

I see Democrats as similar to the Labour Party in England......they can give me 1,000,000 reasons to not vote for the other guy, but no reasons as to why I should vote for them

I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent whose views leans conservative. I have voted for Dems and Repubs, and have donated money to both. Having lived exclusively in blue states for the past 25 years, I have see first hand what one Party rule leads to and it's not pretty. 

Democrats pretend to be in the corner of the underdog, but really they are all about redistribution of wealth

How is that contradictory (leaving aside the supposed "pretend" bit)?

Progressive taxation, robust social services and assistance... that's all about taking money from higher earners and using it combat poverty and the public good.

I agree with the one party rule issue, but that's hardly a Democrats-only problem.

And you don't see ANY reasons to vote FOR the Dems?? Not even one or two?

[heganboy]

Isn't redistribution of wealth the essence of being in the corner of the underdog. And literally every tax is redistribution of wealth. But carry on