Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[caze]

There was quite a lot of booing and noise during pro-Clinton talk at the DNC early on, that seems to have all but disappeared now bar a few tame shouts of 'bernie bernie'. Hopefully Sanders has managed to gain control of the rabble of morons that showed up, rather than them just getting bored for a bit, he had to reiterate to them in a personal message to show a united front after it kicked off.

[Alcofribas]

Hopefully Sanders has managed to gain control of the rabble of morons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

 

"There are plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters who are frustrated at Hillary Clinton, and some chunk of those voters will back Donald Trump in November. Most Democrats even those who consistently supported Bernie Sanders in the primary plan to back Hillary Clinton. Those Democrats are more likely to be moderate and, Pew's data suggests, more willing to accept compromise."

Edited July 25, 2016 by Alcofribas

[ignatius]

trump bounces into the lead

 

post convention bump.

 

we still have a few months of things bouncing around though. who the fuck knows at this point.

[LimpyLoo]

Obviously. She's better than Sanders as well. Still a pretty shit choice, but by far the least shit choice since this thing started last year.

What is your thing with Sanders?

You defend Clinton as far as you can

and you trash Sanders whenever possible

[may be rude]

bernie, who is not a democrat, called for obama to be primaried in 2012. maybe its not the bildebergers behind the dnc bias.

 

also, it's us intelligence that is saying the russians were behind the hack and leak. i read they can attribute it to russia beyond a reasonable doubt. quite interesting.

[ignatius]

gotta say... Michelle Obama laying down some fire w/this speech. no zingers waiting for laughs.. just laying it out like a person with an actual thing to say and some vision.

 

picked apart trump w/o even saying his name.

[kcinsu]

bernie, who is not a democrat, called for obama to be primaried in 2012. maybe its not the bildebergers behind the dnc bias.

 

also, it's us intelligence that is saying the russians were behind the hack and leak. i read they can attribute it to russia beyond a reasonable doubt. quite interesting.

Putin despises Hillary... Not surprised if he did it as a big middle finger to her.

[joshuatxuk]

 

 

 

also, it's us intelligence that is saying the russians were behind the hack and leak. i read they can attribute it to russia beyond a reasonable doubt. quite interesting.

Yeah this is getting insane. Signs are its a hacking group independent of the Kremlin but often used indirectly by them. Trump and other right wing hardliners cynically applaud Putin often and Trump has an unprecedented skepticism of NATO that Russia would welcome by the Russians. People forget state hacking is often not tactical but broader psyop efforts. It would be incredible if Trump was behind it but I dunno, Russia or anti-Clinton Americans could be it too. It will be tricky for the FBI to investigate without criticism of bias.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I picked a hell of a weekend to go offline, heh

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[LimpyLoo]

Wonder what the Greenwald camp have to say about the Putin angle..

[auxien]

I've seen a fair amount of speculation that Russia/Putin is pushing to help destabilize the alliances that are obviously already shaky; between America/Europe, Inter-Euro, etc., and this is just a part of that which is a good opportunity for them to cease onto that. But my problem is that it seems very much a caricature of Evil Russia; obviously there's some truths in there, but ultimately why would Russia be trying to destabilize Western relations so they can invade some ex-USSR countries? For a few resources they're missing out on, to start a war, to get everyone afraid of a nuclear holocaust again? It's just so often played up and I'm not well versed in the details to know what's truly motivating the players on all sides.

 

tl;dr Russians Are Evil? or naw I dunno me dumb 'Merican

[Alcofribas]

Wonder what the Greenwald camp have to say about the Putin angle..

lol

[may be rude]

I've seen a fair amount of speculation that Russia/Putin is pushing to help destabilize the alliances that are obviously already shaky; between America/Europe, Inter-Euro, etc., and this is just a part of that which is a good opportunity for them to cease onto that. But my problem is that it seems very much a caricature of Evil Russia; obviously there's some truths in there, but ultimately why would Russia be trying to destabilize Western relations so they can invade some ex-USSR countries? For a few resources they're missing out on, to start a war, to get everyone afraid of a nuclear holocaust again? It's just so often played up and I'm not well versed in the details to know what's truly motivating the players on all sides.

 

tl;dr Russians Are Evil? or naw I dunno me dumb 'Merican

 

there's a lot more to the trump-putin connection than people realize.

 

Is Trump Obsessed With Putin and Russia? (NYT)

 

 

But Rubio’s right: There are many odd and mysterious points of connection between Trump and Russia.

 

Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, has a history of representing heinous dictators, including Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, a Kremlin puppet who was deposed by revolution in 2014.

 

Ukrainians think it’s funny. “We joke in Ukraine that it is a bad sign for Trump that he hired Manafort,” Oleg Kravchenko, a Ukrainian political analyst, told PolitiFact in May. “Because his client, Yanukovych, was ousted and fled to Russia, to the city of Rostov. So Trump could also end up in Rostov.”

 

Manafort has ties to Oleg Deripaska, who made a shocking fortune in the aluminum business through his Kremlin connections and, as Michael Isikoff, chief investigative journalist for Yahoo News, reported in April, “for years was barred from entering the United States over allegations of ties to organized crime.”

 

from putin's point of view, hillary looks like a hard ass and trump looks like an easy adversary.

 

plus trump would weaken america somewhere from a lot to catastrophically a lot, and putin would see that as good for russia.

Edited July 26, 2016 by very honest

[may be rude]

and

 

 

Over the last year there has been a recurrent refrain about the seeming bromance between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. More seriously, but relatedly, many believe Trump is an admirer and would-be emulator of Putin's increasingly autocratic and illiberal rule. But there's quite a bit more to the story. At a minimum, Trump appears to have a deep financial dependence on Russian money from persons close to Putin. And this is matched to a conspicuous solicitousness to Russian foreign policy interests where they come into conflict with US policies which go back decades through administrations of both parties. There is also something between a non-trivial and a substantial amount of evidence suggesting Putin-backed financial support for Trump or a non-tacit alliance between the two men.

 

Trump & Putin. Yes, It's Really a Thing (Talking Points Memo)

[joshuatxuk]

^christ almighty. Big gamble for Trump to be behind this though but a reasonable one considering how much shit he has pulled off already.

 

RE: "evil Russia"

 

Russia's regime is aggresive in a cautious sense, they do what they can get away with: censor and suppress select dissenters, prop up allies in Chechnya and other Muslim CIS states, invade Georgia, arm East Ukraine rebels, support Assad directly with military assets, push for heavy sport event involvement via corruption and now state led doping, etc. They also leverage their oil exports as needex against the EU. Of course many Russians aren't evil and to play devils advocate there is a sense that they are demonized for things Western powers do all the time. There is a complicated sense of post Soviet damaged national pride being exploited, but that naturally attracts dangerous entities and sociopolitical rhetoric.

 

So the Kremlin being behind Trump would essentially help them push a bit more without a big response from NATO. It wouldn't be Red Dawn invasion or something that crazy. They just want to catch up with the US and China and get any allies they can in the process.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[DerWaschbar]

so the sly asshole or the puppet of another sly asshole the choice is yours america?

[ignatius]

so the sly asshole or the puppet of another sly asshole the choice is yours america?

 

the choice is more nuanced than that. but.. everything is really.

[DerWaschbar]

the west is falling apart and it is because status grants impunity

[ignatius]

the west is falling apart and it is because status grants impunity

 

how do i vote for that in november?

[caze]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

"There are plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters who are frustrated at Hillary Clinton, and some chunk of those voters will back Donald Trump in November. Most Democrats even those who consistently supported Bernie Sanders in the primary plan to back Hillary Clinton. Those Democrats are more likely to be moderate and, Pew's data suggests, more willing to accept compromise."

 

Well hopefully the Sanders delegates got the message last night, and are aware of the broader level of support for them shutting the fuck up. It was rather embarrassing watching them at the start of the convention yesterday, doing Trump's work for him, thankfully it wasn't as vocal after the first bunch of speakers, but it was still evident.

[caze]

What is your thing with Sanders?

You defend Clinton as far as you can

and you trash Sanders whenever possible

 

I only defend Clinton in the face of rampant unreasonable criticism, I'm not actually a massive fan of her or many of her policies (though she's better compared to Sanders).

 

If I had to pick a single policy of hers that would ultimately sway me it would be her stance on Nuclear power (Sanders vocally opposes it, she cautiously supports it - hopefully the only reason she's not more vocal about her support if for reasons of political expediency). They both put climate change as a big part of their platforms, but you can't have a serious platform on fixing climate change without support for nuclear.

 

Sander's had a lot of good policies, don't hate him, but there's a more than decent chance he'd tank the US economy, especially if he got that dumb universal 3rd level policy through (though he may have found it even harder than Obama to get anything past congress, Clinton - despite how much she's hated by certain republicans - is a far cannier political operator, is likely to be far more effective in terms of enacting legislation than Sanders would have been, or Obama has been).

 

Clinton's policy platforms were also a lot better thought out and more detailed, Sanders was very vague on loads of issues.

[auxien]

I'm mostly with you there caze, but on the slight opposite, I prefer Sanders to Clinton. Agreed on nuclear power comments and Clinton's overall better policy platforms, but I think Sanders would be more indicative of change, even if he wouldn't have been able to implement much if any of his pie in the sky ideas; I thought he could've at least pushed the tide in that direction. Clinton will be a capable president I'm sure.

[joshuatxuk]

 

the second line made me lol

[joshuatxuk]

Clinton's policy platforms were also a lot better thought out and more detailed, Sanders was very vague on loads of issues.

 

 

Clinton will be a capable president I'm sure.

 

It's the idealist versus the pragmatist. They actually are like bookends to Obama's presidency - which has waffled between lofty optimistic goals and realistic incremental policy. Sanders is honest and sincere but he's likely not going to be one to compromise much and a lot of his goals imo are way too idealistic - the free college, high minimum wage - those are issues that need action but implementing his goals would be overkill, even if they did hypothetically get implemented.

 

Clinton on the other hand is the ultimate insider - the thing is that itself is not the bad thing all the anti-establishment people claim - it makes consistency and transparency impossible and lobbying/corporate cooperation a must but it's the only way to actually get actual progressive legislation passed. It's a messy, frustrating and slow system that longtime senators and reps have to trudge through...and in some states they are still re-elected by people who understand that. Clinton is a good example and so are other long-serving but oft controversial Senators like say John McCain or the late Ted Kennedy. For all their pitfalls they help steer a lot of substantial Federal laws.

[Alcofribas]

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

"There are plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters who are frustrated at Hillary Clinton, and some chunk of those voters will back Donald Trump in November. Most Democrats even those who consistently supported Bernie Sanders in the primary plan to back Hillary Clinton. Those Democrats are more likely to be moderate and, Pew's data suggests, more willing to accept compromise."

Well hopefully the Sanders delegates got the message last night, and are aware of the broader level of support for them shutting the fuck up. It was rather embarrassing watching them at the start of the convention yesterday, doing Trump's work for him, thankfully it wasn't as vocal after the first bunch of speakers, but it was still evident.

working people have many legitimate reasons to protest the democrats. as with any protest the views will often be expressed in idiotic slogans (which is true of the candidates as well) but considering the data on voters in the poll i linked i think your insistence that protesters are all "morons" who should "shut the fuck up" and toe the party line is pretty repulsive.

[caze]

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

"There are plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters who are frustrated at Hillary Clinton, and some chunk of those voters will back Donald Trump in November. Most Democrats even those who consistently supported Bernie Sanders in the primary plan to back Hillary Clinton. Those Democrats are more likely to be moderate and, Pew's data suggests, more willing to accept compromise."

Well hopefully the Sanders delegates got the message last night, and are aware of the broader level of support for them shutting the fuck up. It was rather embarrassing watching them at the start of the convention yesterday, doing Trump's work for him, thankfully it wasn't as vocal after the first bunch of speakers, but it was still evident.

working people have many legitimate reasons to protest the democrats. as with any protest the views will often be expressed in idiotic slogans (which is true of the candidates as well) but considering the data on voters in the poll i linked i think your insistence that protesters are all "morons" who should "shut the fuck up" and toe the party line is pretty repulsive.

 

the people I was referring to are not the protestors outside (though they are dumb fucks too, the ones chanting Trump slogans), but the the democratic delegates inside, party insiders not random public protesters. and yes they should shut the fuck up, and yes they are morons because they are increasing the chances of Trump getting elected. whether they have legitimate gripes is neither here nor there, there are other ways to keep those messages current without booing their party's nominee and chanting for the guy who lost.

 

that poll may not be as reassuring as you might think though either, as the question only asked them what they would do in a two horse race 'if they had to vote for one or the other', doesn't account for voting for a 3rd party or not voting at all. presumably it will still be a high % who will vote for her, but maybe not as high as 90% of former Sanders supporters like that poll suggests. we'll see how things work themselves out in the coming days and weeks, hopefully the message from the likes of Sanders and Warren will sink in.