The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Uncle Ted]

I can get behind the Democrats selecting Nancy Pelosi for President. Maybe she can select Bernie Sanders for VP?

That would be the democratic party dream team!

[Moliere]

I liked Maher's line that he feels like he's binge-watching The Fall of the Roman Empire with the soundtrack from Benny Hill.

You watch that racist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueK]

Frank, I don't think anyone questions that the Ruskies meddled in the last presidential election... even Drumpf seems to admit to that:

Embedded Tweet

The question everyone is asking now is why Obama didn't do anything about it under his watch. My guess is that Obama didn't like Hillary either.

Trump has been denying Russian meddling in the election for months. But this news comes out and he temporarily changes tunes. Next week he can go back to saying it never happened. His third grade level mind only lets him think of what to say to get him through the next five minutes.

[Crockett]

Trump has been denying Russian meddling in the election for months. But this news comes out and he temporarily changes tunes. Next week he can go back to saying it never happened. His third grade level mind only lets him think of what to say to get him through the next five minutes.

Collusion or meddling? Big difference.

[Crockett]

I can get behind the Democrats selecting Nancy Pelosi for President. Maybe she can select Bernie Sanders for VP?

:crazy:

Oh. My. Heck. That combo would be a million times worse for the US than Trump.

[frank ryan]

Frank, I don't think anyone questions that the Ruskies meddled in the last presidential election... even Drumpf seems to admit to that:

Embedded Tweet

The question everyone is asking now is why Obama didn't do anything about it under his watch. My guess is that Obama didn't like Hillary either.

Come on Ted, you had your share of posts extolling the virtues of Assange, and supporting the idea that Gucifer 2.0 is a regular old hacker., and trying to spread the Seth Rich/leaker narrative. Crocket has refused to accept that Russia worked to get Trump elected.

[Crockett]

Come on Ted, you had your share of posts extolling the virtues of Assange, and supporting the idea that Gucifer 2.0 is a regular old hacker., and trying to spread the Seth Rich/leaker narrative. Crocket has refused to accept that Russia worked to get Trump elected.

"At this point what difference does it make?"

Frank, you haven't read my posts very closely. I have said there is no evidence of COLLUSION, but let's go ahead and let Mueller and his team of Democrat donors dig. If it existed we probably would would have heard it by now. If Trump knowingly colluded with the Russians to get elected, then that changes everything and I can admit that.

Even still, what did Russia actually do? Possibly hacked and revealed ACTUAL EMAILS from the DNC and Podesta about how corrupt and dishonest they are. (They did not change vote totals.) The real collusion was between the DNC and Hillary to keep Bernie down.

Russia didn't cause Hillary to ignore Wisconsin. Russia didn't cause Hillary to break the law with a private email server and the mishandling of our nation's secrets. How many sources were killed or compromised because of Hillary's carelessness (her poorly managed server was hacked)? Russia didn't cause Hillary to lie to the faces of the families of the fallen at Benghazi and then call them liars (the chutzpah!) later when they called her out. The Russians didn't cause Hillary to destroy and threaten the lives of the women that Bill sexually abused all for the sake of retaining power. The Russians didn't make her a lifeless, uninspiring, fake-as-hell, cackling candidate.

The Russians didn't make her campaign strategy and messaging (vote for me just because I'm female). Also, NAME ONE F-ING ACCOMPLISHMENT of Hillary while she was a Senator or Sec of State? Her record was crap and she lost because she was a horrible candidate that made horrible choices during her political life and campaign.

Democrats will keep losing elections if all they are are sore losers and Trump haters. If this wasn't bad for the country I'd say keep it up.

[BlueK]

Collusion or meddling? Big difference.

Who cares. It will be explained away/excused/supported by his fans somehow even if/when a collusion is proven. Let's at least be honest about that. Clinton lost and that's all that matters.

[Uncle Ted]

"At this point what difference does it make?"

Frank, you haven't read my posts very closely. I have said there is no evidence of COLLUSION, but let's go ahead and let Mueller and his team of Democrat donors dig. If it existed we probably would would have heard it by now. If Trump knowingly colluded with the Russians to get elected, then that changes everything and I can admit that.

Even still, what did Russia actually do? Possibly hacked and revealed ACTUAL EMAILS from the DNC and Podesta about how corrupt and dishonest they are. (They did not change vote totals.) The real collusion was between the DNC and Hillary to keep Bernie down.

Russia didn't cause Hillary to ignore Wisconsin. Russia didn't cause Hillary to break the law with a private email server and the mishandling of our nation's secrets. How many sources were killed or compromised because of Hillary's carelessness (her poorly managed server was hacked)? Russia didn't cause Hillary to lie to the faces of the families of the fallen at Benghazi and then call them liars (the chutzpah!) later when they called her out. The Russians didn't cause Hillary to destroy and threaten the lives of the women that Bill sexually abused all for the sake of retaining power. The Russians didn't make her a lifeless, uninspiring, fake-as-hell, cackling candidate.

The Russians didn't make her campaign strategy and messaging (vote for me just because I'm female). Also, NAME ONE F-ING ACCOMPLISHMENT of Hillary while she was a Senator or Sec of State? Her record was crap and she lost because she was a horrible candidate that made horrible choices during her political life and campaign.

Democrats will keep losing elections if all they are are sore losers and Trump haters. If this wasn't bad for the country I'd say keep it up.

The thing you are missing, Crock, is the Ruskies are experts in mind control. Where do you think the CIA got it from? So all those mistakes the Clinton campaign made may not be their fault. The Russians may have been living in the Dems' brains rent free.

[Eddie]

Who cares. It will be explained away/excused/supported by his fans somehow even if/when a collusion is proven. Let's at least be honest about that. Clinton lost and that's all that matters.

The problem with moving the target is that you start to look like Trump yourself.

Collusion or meddling, who cares?

Next it's wiretapping versus surveillance. There's no real difference, right?

I've said all along that I'd be shocked and surprised if the Russians didn't attempt to interfere, and that I'd be shocked if this were the first time, too.

But there is a huge difference between saying that they tried to interfere, and saying that Trump's campaign worked with them to try to influence the election.

I also think that there is a problem with the Democrat's current approach of using the possible Russian collusion angle to delegitimize the presidency. Just like doing away with the filibuster - this is the kind of thing that comes back to bite you in the ass. Because I guarantee you that other countries have tried to influence our elections in the past, and will in the future. And the candidate that they find to be most friendly is going to swing from one party to the next.

Should Russian (and any other country's involvement in US elections) be investigated? Hell yes! Do we respond when we find out they're doing it? Hell yes! Are there consequences if a campaign actually DOES collude? Hell yes!

But the rabid response to Trump right now isn't doing us any favors as a country. Ya'll are starting to look as irrational as he is.

Go ahead and call me a Trump apologist. I've never voted for the man and I won't in the future. But I'm not going to start drinking the anti kool aid either. I've got no problem criticizing him. I do have a problem with the ridiculousness of some of this.

[frank ryan]

The problem with moving the target is that you start to look like Trump yourself.

Collusion or meddling, who cares?

Next it's wiretapping versus surveillance. There's no real difference, right?

I've said all along that I'd be shocked and surprised if the Russians didn't attempt to interfere, and that I'd be shocked if this were the first time, too.

But there is a huge difference between saying that they tried to interfere, and saying that Trump's campaign worked with them to try to influence the election.

Should Russian (and any other country's involvement in US elections) be investigated? Hell yes! Do we respond when we find out they're doing it? Hell yes! Are there consequences if a campaign actually DOES collude? Hell yes!
But the rabid response to Trump right now isn't doing us any favors as a country. Ya'll are starting to look as irrational as he is.

Yes, let's investigate! Hopefully Trump doesn't fire Mueller, but it wouldn't shock me, to try and stymie the investigation.
The "rabid" response is partially explained by extreme complacency and cuddling of Trump by the GOP. He has been an unfettered disaster.
I don't know that I'd call you a Trump apologist but it does seem that you rarely criticize him and only post negatively about Democrats.

[Topper]

Yes, let's investigate! Hopefully Trump doesn't fire Mueller, but it wouldn't shock me, to try and stymie the investigation.
The "rabid" response is partially explained by extreme complacency and cuddling of Trump by the GOP. He has been an unfettered disaster.
I don't know that I'd call you a Trump apologist but it does seem that you rarely criticize him and only post negatively about Democrats.

What do you expect a party to do in an era of partisanship?

In an era of partisanship, you don't merge with the enemy, you close ranks and keep the tribe together no matter how ugly the titular head is. The idea of consensus and working together is an idea from the past. It is not likely to re-emerge until a crisis arises that requires bi-partisanship. I am unable to imagine what that might be, because I see no end to the rabid partisanship, especially of the Democratic party, with a very aged leadership. The younger leadership of the GOP means there is wiggle room supposedly but they won't negotiate with the aged Dems. But nobody closes ranks like the Dems.

Right now, the sole message of the Democratic Party is: "We hate Trump", and "We hate Republicans." You might retort "the GOP started it." Which is no retort at all.

The voters are left with searching for a message, which the GOP sometimes meekly gets out, and two partisan groups declaring their hate and disrespect for the other group. I recommend that Pelosi be the Democrats' nominee for 2020 with John Conyers as her running mate. A Pelosi-Conyers is a winning ticket! Come on Dems, you can do it!

[Walter Sobchak]

Go ahead and call me a Trump apologist. I've never voted for the man and I won't in the future. But I'm not going to start drinking the anti kool aid either. I've got no problem criticizing him. I do have a problem with the ridiculousness of some of this.

Sounds like you won't be attending the SLC Summer Resistance Potluck. Sad!

[Eddie]

...I don't know that I'd call you a Trump apologist but it does seem that you rarely criticize him and only post negatively about Democrats.

Kind of like how you rarely criticize the Democrats and only post negatively about Republicans. Hmmm. Yeah - there's probably a pattern there for both of us.

What do you expect a party to do in an era of partisanship?

In an era of partisanship, you don't merge with the enemy, you close ranks and keep the tribe together no matter how ugly the titular head is. The idea of consensus and working together is an idea from the past. It is not likely to re-emerge until a crisis arises that requires bi-partisanship. I am unable to imagine what that might be, because I see no end to the rabid partisanship, especially of the Democratic party, with a very aged leadership. The younger leadership of the GOP means there is wiggle room supposedly but they won't negotiate with the aged Dems. But nobody closes ranks like the Dems.

Right now, the sole message of the Democratic Party is: "We hate Trump", and "We hate Republicans." You might retort "the GOP started it." Which is no retort at all.

The voters are left with searching for a message, which the GOP sometimes meekly gets out, and two partisan groups declaring their hate and disrespect for the other group. I recommend that Pelosi be the Democrats' nominee for 2020 with John Conyers as her running mate. A Pelosi-Conyers is a winning ticket! Come on Dems, you can do it!

Yeah - I agree on the partisanship issue. As long as both sides are more interested in pointing fingers and "horriblizing" the other side (that's a clinical term I learned in school), we're stuck with what we've got. Both sides worried about making sure everyone knows how bad the other guy is instead of what anyone is going to do about it.

Interestingly enough - I have a coworker who is a delegate for the Democrats. He was complaining about how he felt like their convention a couple of Saturdays ago was going to be focused on the "imaginary schism" between Dems - which he says doesn't really exist. Then he lamented on how the Republicans are so good at closing ranks and protecting themselves (Reagan's 11th commandment), and how he wished the Democrats would do better at it.

In a world where the populous wanted Bernie (and this guy is a Bernie guy) and the party pushed Hillary - I don't know how you say there is no schism in the party. They've got issues, for sure. I haven't had a chance to talk to him since the convention - but I'm curious how it went.

Sounds like you won't be attending the SLC Summer Resistance Potluck. Sad!

Yeah. Super sad. I'm not getting invited to any potlucks from EITHER side.

[snowcat]

Yeah. Super sad. I'm not getting invited to any potlucks from EITHER side.

Maybe the Libertarians will invite you for some summer potluck.