Matt Taibbi sees the light?

Jack Hays said:

It is easier to hide surreptitious theft than a large operation.

Click to expand...

Why would the proposed hacks require a large operation? So heavily compartmentalized and specialized as to require many people to cover all the needed skills?

eohrnberger said:

Why would the proposed hacks require a large operation? So heavily compartmentalized and specialized as to require many people to cover all the needed skills?

Click to expand...

These are complicated undertakings.

Jack Hays said:

These are complicated undertakings.

Click to expand...

Hmm. With all the data breeches the script kiddies are doing, yeah, there are some more professional criminal elements that are more skilled, I wonder if it's really all that complicated, or if that's only what the public is allowed to believe, that it's as easy as reporting on it makes it sounds like. From the reporting there seems to be are any number of proven threat vector code available for purchase on various 'dark net' sites and IRCs.

eohrnberger said:

Hmm. With all the data breeches the script kiddies are doing, yeah, there are some more professional criminal elements that are more skilled, I wonder if it's really all that complicated, or if that's only what the public is allowed to believe, that it's as easy as reporting on it makes it sounds like. From the reporting there seems to be are any number of proven threat vector code available for purchase on various 'dark net' sites and IRCs.

Click to expand...

All of which would be destroyed in milliseconds by first quality capabilities. It is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

Jack Hays said:

All of which would be destroyed in milliseconds by first quality capabilities. It is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

Click to expand...

"first quality capabilities" Reference? I'd like to read up on that.

FieldTheorist said:

That push won't exist inside the DNC proper, but there certainly is an effort on the Left to do this. (Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, etc, and individual advocacy groups like Social Security Works, Fight for 15, Color of Change/BLM, etc.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, but a unified and appealing party isn't coming from the fringe either. The change has to come from the old core of Democrat politics like the unions or it doesn't happen at all.

jmotivator said:

Yeah, but a unified and appealing party isn't coming from the fringe either. The change has to come from the old core of Democrat politics like the unions or it doesn't happen at all.

Click to expand...

I don't agree, although only in an attenuated sense.

Firstly, if we're so "fringe," you'll have to explain why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, according to opinion polls.

Secondly, and more importantly, I agree that the Democratic party needs to go back to unions as a portion of their base. But that doesn't mean appeasing union bosses who don't care what their members want, it means going and finding the issues that unions are excited about. The number one issue that unions across the board seem to care about is The Fight For 15 and the next on the rung is probably universal healthcare/medicare-for-all. The Democratic party, of course, spent the last two years trying to piss that fire out, but the union bosses seem largely unphased by any of this and the DNC is utterly unrepentant on these issues.

Thirdly, the modern Democratic party has to be made up a new coalition, and that's already starting to happen. In a real sense, that means turning back to the days of fighting for the New Deal, and expanding the New Deal but in a way that doesn't neglect minorities and the disenfranchised (which is what I would argue destroyed the New Deal). In a more urgent, less partisan sense, there's some real problems that face the US, and so far it seems like no one, not the Trump administration, not the RNC corporate establishment, and definitely not the Democratic corporate establishment seems willing to address. The leaders of this country seem to have their fingers poking in their ears, loudly humming "LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you!" It's our job to make them hear us.

Jack Hays said:

There would be no "rogue" activity directed against the DNC, the RNC or either major party candidate.

Click to expand...

Would that also apply for GCHQ?

FieldTheorist said:

I don't agree, although only in an attenuated sense.

Firstly, if we're so "fringe," you'll have to explain why Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, according to opinion polls.

Click to expand...

People like Bernie because Bernie doesn't appear to be very good at explaining what he supports. It's like the polls about Single Payer. Many are quick to point out that Gallop shows 58% support Single Payer... and yet when you break down what Single payer would mean to the individual, they don't like it very much.

It's a difficult prospect to run on a platform that is only supported so long as it isn't understood.

Secondly, and more importantly, I agree that the Democratic party needs to go back to unions as a portion of their base. But that doesn't mean appeasing union bosses who don't care what their members want, it means going and finding the issues that unions are excited about. The number one issue that unions across the board seem to care about is The Fight For 15 and the next on the rung is probably universal healthcare/medicare-for-all. The Democratic party, of course, spent the last two years trying to piss that fire out, but the union bosses seem largely unphased by any of this and the DNC is utterly unrepentant on these issues.

Click to expand...

But there is in the central problem facing the DNC: What if the average blue collar union member isn't excited about the DNC platform anymore? What if they care more about losing factories and good paying jobs than they do "bathroom justice"? The DNC lost the election, and all of the key swing states because the blue collar rust belt turned away from the DNC. Do you really think that "Justice Democrats" and BLM will bring them back? I don't think they will. The DNC platform seems to be increasingly anathema to the needs of the working class.

Thirdly, the modern Democratic party has to be made up a new coalition, and that's already starting to happen. In a real sense, that means turning back to the days of fighting for the New Deal, and expanding the New Deal but in a way that doesn't neglect minorities and the disenfranchised (which is what I would argue destroyed the New Deal). In a more urgent, less partisan sense, there's some real problems that face the US, and so far it seems like no one, not the Trump administration, not the RNC corporate establishment, and definitely not the Democratic corporate establishment seems willing to address. The leaders of this country seem to have their fingers poking in their ears, loudly humming "LA-LA-LA! I can't hear you!" It's our job to make them hear us.

Click to expand...

Again, I think you over estimate the popularity of the platforms of this coalition and the American electorate's patience for constant agitation. Like the late 1960s, I think the left has overplayed its hand again and will spend the next few decades trying to erase the memories of their recent excesses in the same way the left was destroyed by the "baby killer" persona of the late 60s.

Jack Hays said:

You are underestimating the number of lawyers employed in the Intelligence Community.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Apologies for the late reply. I doubt lawyers are going to approve certain things as it may land back upon them. That said, intelligence gathered by an Int Partner, shall we say innocently, as in the case where the NSA gathers information on a US Citizen. That information if important would be shared 1 way or other.
It is not lawyers that are the problem.

eohrnberger said:

"first quality capabilities" Reference? I'd like to read up on that.

Click to expand...

Not in a public forum.

JANFU said:

Apologies for the late reply. I doubt lawyers are going to approve certain things as it may land back upon them. That said, intelligence gathered by an Int Partner, shall we say innocently, as in the case where the NSA gathers information on a US Citizen. That information if important would be shared 1 way or other.
It is not lawyers that are the problem.

Click to expand...

Au contraire. The lawyers are the visible markers of the very serious legal guidelines and constraints in force.

eohrnberger said:

Would that also apply for GCHQ?

Click to expand...

Absolutely yes.

We're moving off-topic, but my two cents are:

jmotivator said:

People like Bernie because Bernie doesn't appear to be very good at explaining what he supports. It's like the polls about Single Payer. Many are quick to point out that Gallop shows 58% support Single Payer... and yet when you break down what Single payer would mean to the individual, they don't like it very much.

Click to expand...

Yes, the biggest issue here is that people don't understand healthcare, but that cuts both ways. As it continues to grow more and more unsustainable, the people will learn, and it won't turn out well for Republicans and corporate Democrats after inspecting the failures of both ideological approaches to healthcare. Thus, I think the biggest problems in "Obamacare"/"Romneycare," and even worse in "Trumpcare"/Ryancare," will render this conversation pretty moot.

Look, in the short term, Trumpcare is probably going to pass, unless the Koch Bro's efforts work. Then 14 million people are going to lose their healthcare, some voluntarily taken (healthy young people), some ripped away (anyone who's sick or old and poor); or else they keep with Obamacare and take the political push back from not being able to come up with a better system. Every Republican knows this issue is:


Republicans don't have answer to the healthcare problem. Trumpcare's response is "**** it, whatever let's just choose (B) and not do anything."

What if the average blue collar union member isn't excited about the DNC platform anymore? What if they care more about losing factories and good paying jobs than they do "bathroom justice"? The DNC lost the election, and all of the key swing states because the blue collar rust belt turned away from the DNC. Do you really think that "Justice Democrats" and BLM will bring them back?

Click to expand...

1.) Justice Democrats can't do worse than the DNC; and if you look at the Blue places that were hollowed out by Trump, with minor exceptions, they were places where Bernie beat Hillary in the primaries, and generally significantly so. Will this model for Left-wing politics be successful? This is something where only time will tell, but I've always been of the opinion that you make the actual case for your ideas at the grassroots and let the chips fall where they may.

2.) It's about a coalition that can agree to a platform. We don't have to agree with each other on everything, we just have to come up with a compromise that works. Some unions may not love BLM or care about transgender rights, but I'm willing to bet that union workers deeply care, with near uniformity, about the issues Bernie has championed his entire political career (minimum wage, worker protections, income inequality, healthcare, etc), and would be willing to work with and promote similarly-minded politicians even if they don't care about the rest of the platform.

Again, I think you over estimate the popularity of the platforms of this coalition and the American electorate's patience for constant agitation. Like the late 1960s, I think the left has overplayed its hand again and will spend the next few decades trying to erase the memories of their recent excesses in the same way the left was destroyed by the "baby killer" persona of the late 60s.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. The reality is that all of these issues will eventually topple the apple cart. Our political system is already unstable. Can you honestly imagine in what will happen when effectively no one can afford health insurance, when the 1% control 99% of the wealth, and when the plurality of people are working multiple minimum wage jobs? There will be an actual revolution in the US if we let it come to that. And it's worth reiterating: There are no "free market" solutions to these problems. These results aren't a bug, they're a feature of neoliberal capitalism.

FieldTheorist said:

We're moving off-topic, but my two cents are:



Yes, the biggest issue here is that people don't understand healthcare, but that cuts both ways. As it continues to grow more and more unsustainable, the people will learn, and it won't turn out well for Republicans and corporate Democrats after inspecting the failures of both ideological approaches to healthcare. Thus, I think the biggest problems in "Obamacare"/"Romneycare," and even worse in "Trumpcare"/Ryancare," will render this conversation pretty moot.

Look, in the short term, Trumpcare is probably going to pass, unless the Koch Bro's efforts work. Then 14 million people are going to lose their healthcare, some voluntarily taken (healthy young people), some ripped away (anyone who's sick or old and poor); or else they keep with Obamacare and take the political push back from not being able to come up with a better system. Every Republican knows this issue is:

a.) A political disaster for anyone who isn't willing to overhaul the entire system.
b.) A pressing problem that will be addressed, because sooner or later the apple cart's course is either corrected or the apple cart topples over.
c.) There is no "conservative"/"free market" answer to this problem. There's not even a "third-way" one like Obamacare/Romney implemented. You really either (A) bite the bullet and accept medicare-for-all with higher taxes, (B) accept that personal bankruptcy is eventually going to bankrupt the government, or (C) accept nobody but the rich will have healthcare, which will lead to working-class people rioting and political instability.​

Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that the majority of Americans had health insurance before Obamacare, so all they experienced from the fiasco is skyrocketing costs, and what they will not tolerate is the service level of a socialized medical system. There will never be a time when the majority of Americans will be happy giving up the American healthcare system in favor of more expensive, less responsive government controlled health care.

Republicans don't have answer to the healthcare problem. Trumpcare's response is "**** it, whatever let's just choose (B) and not do anything."

Click to expand...

The Democrats have no answer either. The American culture is different than Western Europe, and is populated by a people whose history is individualist revolution. I don't think this culture will ever support a top down government monopoly on anything, but that is all the Democrats have to offer on anything these days.

1.) Justice Democrats can't do worse than the DNC; and if you look at the Blue places that were hollowed out by Trump, with minor exceptions, they were places where Bernie beat Hillary in the primaries, and generally significantly so. Will this model for Left-wing politics be successful? This is something where only time will tell, but I've always been of the opinion that you make the actual case for your ideas at the grassroots and let the chips fall where they may.

Click to expand...

That may be a valid argument if Bernie had won, and the blue collar exodus hadn't happened, but it did. Trump's brand of Republicanism is favorable to the blue collar, and he has stolen much of Sander's thunder. I think what Trump has going for him now is that, unlike pretty much every other politician, he show actual intent to follow through on everything he said. I'm not so sure that the string of small, symbolic wins on manufacturing jobs staying in the US would have happened under a Sanders presidency because his economic policy is just a more exaggerated version of Obama's anti-industrial policies.

It would be hard for Sanders to save the middle class when he supports huge, top down government control and all of the job killing taxes that go with it.

(cont'd)

2.) It's about a coalition that can agree to a platform. We don't have to agree with each other on everything, we just have to come up with a compromise that works. Some unions may not love BLM or care about transgender rights, but I'm willing to bet that union workers deeply care, with near uniformity, about the issues Bernie has championed his entire political career (minimum wage, worker protections, income inequality, healthcare, etc), and would be willing to work with and promote similarly-minded politicians even if they don't care about the rest of the platform.

Click to expand...

Easier said than done. The issue facing the Democrats is that their reliance in the last 30 years on identity politics has created a weak, fractured coalition of single issue groups. Look at any given Democrat protest and see their problem. They all become 20 ring circuses with all the coalition members trying to shoehorn themselves into whatever the grievance of the day is. I don't think it is possible any more for the Democrats to have a unified positive message. I think the only thing they can unify on is anti-Trump.

Clinton definitely stacked the deck against Sanders, but the majority of Democrats still favored Hillary. She still got the most regular votes in the Democratic Primary. What Sanders lacked as a politician Trump apparently had in is great supply because he was able to stomp on the Republican establishment in ways Sanders couldn't with the Democrats. The game is over now though, in my opinion, because Trump is actually proving to be good for the blue collar rust belt in ways the Democrats haven't in decades.

I doubt it. The reality is that all of these issues will eventually topple the apple cart. Our political system is already unstable. Can you honestly imagine in what will happen when effectively no one can afford health insurance, when the 1% control 99% of the wealth, and when the plurality of people are working multiple minimum wage jobs? There will be an actual revolution in the US if we let it come to that. And it's worth reiterating: There are no "free market" solutions to these problems. These results aren't a bug, they're a feature of neoliberal capitalism.

Click to expand...

The notion that there will ever come a time when nobody can afford health insurance is an economic non-starter. The only way that happens if by government interference that makes it illegal to sell affordable health insurance. Left to itself the market will always provide a commodity that the consumer can afford.

jmotivator said:

Easier said than done. The issue facing the Democrats is that their reliance in the last 30 years on identity politics has created a weak, fractured coalition of single issue groups. Look at any given Democrat protest and see their problem. They all become 20 ring circuses with all the coalition members trying to shoehorn themselves into whatever the grievance of the day is. I don't think it is possible any more for the Democrats to have a unified positive message. I think the only thing they can unify on is anti-Trump.

Click to expand...

That's enough to beat Trump, handily, if they can include unify Millennials and Latinos. Also, it's in principle no different than the fake white-grievance, fake religious-grievance folks that Trump tickled and stroked for a year and a half (except that you can at least make a case for some of the SJW's grievances). Having a group of twenty single-issue groups isn't a problem, that's called a coalition.

Clinton definitely stacked the deck against Sanders, but the majority of Democrats still favored Hillary. She still got the most regular votes in the Democratic Primary. What Sanders lacked as a politician Trump apparently had in is great supply because he was able to stomp on the Republican establishment in ways Sanders couldn't with the Democrats.

Click to expand...

1.) Yeah, Donald Trump had the ability to get 3 billion dollars worth of free on air time because he was willing to say hideous things that don't threaten the class-privilege of people on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. The Republican establishment pulled back in March, in a way the DNC never was going to do for Sanders.

2.) The same media that hounded and excluded Sanders is the same one that's doing a number of Trump. To paraphrase you, that's a powerful institution that the Democratic party is currently wielding. (Of course, it's not as simple as Democrat; it's really about the corporate establishment.)

The game is over now though, in my opinion, because Trump is actually proving to be good for the blue collar rust belt in ways the Democrats haven't in decades.

Click to expand...

I would love to see anyone defend that claim.

The notion that there will ever come a time when nobody can afford health insurance is an economic non-starter. The only way that happens if by government interference that makes it illegal to sell affordable health insurance. Left to itself the market will always provide a commodity that the consumer can afford.

Click to expand...

This is a really naive picture of healthcare and capitalism, but that's a long discussion I'm not up for.

FieldTheorist said:

That's enough to beat Trump, handily, if they can include unify Millennials and Latinos. Also, it's in principle no different than the fake white-grievance, fake religious-grievance folks that Trump tickled and stroked for a year and a half (except that you can at least make a case for some of the SJW's grievances). Having a group of twenty single-issue groups isn't a problem, that's called a coalition.

Click to expand...

But it WASN'T enough to beat Trump. And I think the biggest blinder you have is the "fake grievances" you assume whites and religious people have. It is like the ill conceived pro-Obamacare propaganda heading into the election: No propaganda will change what the average person actually sees first hand. All propaganda does for people who see the opposite first hand is teach them to not trust the propaganda source.

1.) Yeah, Donald Trump had the ability to get 3 billion dollars worth of free on air time because he was willing to say hideous things that don't threaten the class-privilege of people on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. The Republican establishment pulled back in March, in a way the DNC never was going to do for Sanders.

Click to expand...

Well, again no. While he did get a lot of free air time it was mostly from media outlets voluntarily going a bridge to far on every potential anti-Trump story.

2.) The same media that hounded and excluded Sanders is the same one that's doing a number of Trump. To paraphrase you, that's a powerful institution that the Democratic party is currently wielding. (Of course, it's not as simple as Democrat; it's really about the corporate establishment.)

Click to expand...

The same media that excluded Kasich, Cruz and Rubio. The media didn't exclude people because they are "corporatist", necessarily. They did so because the News agencies see political theater as adversarial and seek over-simplified binary conflicts that they think we rubes can understand. They latched on to Clinton because they wanted her story over an old white guy on the DNC side, and Trump over Kasich, Cruz and Rubio because they supported Clinton. As we saw in the Sanders/Cruz debate a few weeks ago, Sanders is simply not cut out for in-depth debate. After his few populist rallying points he is empty.

I would love to see anyone defend that claim.

Click to expand...

You don't think relaxing regulations on manufacturing is helping the rust belt? I think it is.

This is a really naive picture of healthcare and capitalism, but that's a long discussion I'm not up for.

Click to expand...

It's accurate. The only time that the market will price a commodity out of everyone's hands is when they are forced by law. Left to their own they will price insurance to what people are willing to pay.

jmotivator said:

The problem with your argument is that the majority of Americans had health insurance before Obamacare, so all they experienced from the fiasco is skyrocketing costs, and what they will not tolerate is the service level of a socialized medical system. There will never be a time when the majority of Americans will be happy giving up the American healthcare system in favor of more expensive, less responsive government controlled health care.

Click to expand...

A.) That's total speculation. You're just taking what you want to be true and stating it like it's a fact.

B.) Crucially, the costs have risen over time, independent of president or policy. The only reason Americans didn't realize it was because a majority of Americans get their insurance policies from their employers. One reason why reform was necessary in 2008 was because pretty soon employers were going to refuse to pay the full costs, and people were about to realize just how absurd the increases in healthcare were, are, and will continue to be.

The Democrats have no answer either. The American culture is different than Western Europe, and is populated by a people whose history is individualist revolution. I don't think this culture will ever support a top down government monopoly on anything, but that is all the Democrats have to offer on anything these days.

Click to expand...

A.) Again, you're speculating.

B.) It doesn't matter what Americans are comfortable with. The system is going to implode if left how it is. That's just a simple fact. I think it's more important to see how Americans will respond given those circumstances.

C.) Also historically false. You could (and people did) make this claim about the New Deal in the 30's. Americans adapt when we need to. We already accept top-down "monopolies" (this is the wrong term) on retirement insurance, the military, road construction, and loads of infrastructure. It's just people forget that, as a society, we all rubber-stamped these some time ago, and before that we didn't. Cultures change.

That may be a valid argument if Bernie had won, and the blue collar exodus hadn't happened, but it did. Trump's brand of Republicanism is favorable to the blue collar, and he has stolen much of Sander's thunder.

Click to expand...

This is clearly false, given their relative favorability ratings. Also, there wasn't a mass exodus to Trump, there was a mass exodus from the DNC and Hillary. Trump did about the same as Romney, who did rather poorly. Hillary lost because of how badly she did in rural areas (again, the same rural areas that Bernie had no problems getting, even in Ohio and Illinois where he lost. Remember, that's why "Bernie bros" were racist. Because he could only win those obviously-racist blue collar workers!). If you have a candidate on the Left that blue collar workers approve of, and they still lose to Trump, then I'll concede you this point.

Donald Trump won against, relative to their times, the second worst presidential candidate in US history. I'm sorry, I'm not giving him credit for anything more than breaking the RNC. He gets complete credit for that, but let's not mince words about his favorables. And let's see how those change as we get closer into the midterms.

I think what Trump has going for him now is that, unlike pretty much every other politician, he show actual intent to follow through on everything he said.

Click to expand...

How? By deregulating everything so people in the Rust Belt can die of environmental poisoning, taking away working families healthcare, giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy, and by anointing Goldman-Sachs to make up his cabinet?

Yeah, maybe you have a different memory of Trump's campaign promises. To be fair, he did literally promise everything, including totally contradictory things. In that sense, it's trivial keep your promises.

It would be hard for Sanders to save the middle class when he supports huge, top down government control and all of the job killing taxes that go with it.

Click to expand...

More speculation without substantiation. Look, these are Right-wing talking points that just don't match reality. There's no serious argument that says Sanders-style taxes on the wealthy have any correlation to job-killing. This was extensively discussed by economists during the primary, and no shortage of economists were willing to stamp their seal of approval on Sanders' recovery plan.

(some quotes truncated for space)

FieldTheorist said:

A.) That's total speculation. You're just taking what you want to be true and stating it like it's a fact.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you have noticed, but we are both speculating. But what exactly do you take umbrage with in my statement? Did prices and deductibles not skyrocket? Did the majority of Americans not have health insurance before Obamacare?

B.) Crucially, the costs have risen over time, independent of president or policy. The only reason Americans didn't realize it was because a majority of Americans get their insurance policies from their employers. One reason why reform was necessary in 2008 was because pretty soon employers were going to refuse to pay the full costs, and people were about to realize just how absurd the increases in healthcare were, are, and will continue to be.

Click to expand...

Not really.

A.) Again, you're speculating.

Click to expand...

Again, so are you.

B.) It doesn't matter what Americans are comfortable with. The system is going to implode if left how it is. That's just a simple fact. I think it's more important to see how Americans will respond given those circumstances.

Click to expand...

You're speculating.

C.) Also historically false. You could (and people did) make this claim about the New Deal in the 30's. Americans adapt when we need to. We already accept top-down "monopolies" (this is the wrong term) on retirement insurance, the military, road construction, and loads of infrastructure. It's just people forget that, as a society, we all rubber-stamped these some time ago, and before that we didn't. Cultures change.

Click to expand...

False, false and false. The private sector passed the public sector in infrastructure spending a while ago. Also, state and local infrastructure spending surpasses federal spending .. so where you get that infrastructure is a top-down monopoly is beyond me. The Federal government doesn't even lead over state, local and private spending, let alone control all of it.

This is clearly false...Trump, then I'll concede you this point.

Click to expand...

Well, your speculation is clearly false given the outcome of the primaries. The Democrats were willing to ignore all of Hillary's laundry list of red flags because they favored "experience" (as they saw it) over likeability. You see how far favorability got Bernie. That isn't to say he didn't get a raw deal from the Democrats, he did, but that doesn't mean he would have won had the media given him more time, the Democrats accepted Hillary's unelectibility, and the planets aligned. It very well could be, given the results of the Cruz/Sander debate, that Bernie's favorability is the result of his relative lack of spotlight and the freedom to speak in generalities that brings him.

Donald Trump won against, relative to their times, the second worst presidential candidate in US history. I'm sorry... And let's see how those change as we get closer into the midterms.

Click to expand...

And Bernie Sanders lost to the second worst presidential candidate of all time. You may need to rethink how you weigh likability polls based on that truth alone.

How? By deregulating everything so people in the Rust Belt can die of environmental poisoning, taking away working families healthcare, giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy, and by anointing Goldman-Sachs to make up his cabinet?

Click to expand...

Well, no. Speculative fear mongering on your part. The people in the Rust Belt have lived through times without Obama's stifling regulations and they appear to like those days more. Some people like having jobs, it turns out, it just might be that those people are a dwindling minority among Democrat voters.

Yeah, maybe you have a different memory of Trump's campaign promises. To be fair, he did literally promise everything, including totally contradictory things. In that sense, it's trivial keep your promises.

Click to expand...

And they were yuge and beautiful and people won't believe how much they love them.

Accepting your argument as true would only show that Trump is a more able statesman than we might have given him credit for. Had Obama promised that everyone could keep their doctor AND that everyone would lose their doctor then his signature policy might have survived! And if he had only said that his stimulous was going to shovel-ready jobs.. or not then the Democrats might not have done so poorly on the state and local level where such things really matter.

More speculation without substantiation. Look... willing to stamp their seal of approval on Sanders' recovery plan.

Click to expand...

Again, you have provided nothing but speculation without substantiation so that is the only level of evidence I need to rise to in my counter argument.