Stormy, not Russia, will take Trump down

Stormy, not Russia, will take Trump down

Click to expand...

doubt it. it's usually stuff like tax evasion / money laundering.

OscarLevant said:

I beg to differ. She received 67 million voters, almost 3 million more than Trump, and in any other year, she would have won.

No one predicted that she wouldn't be president due to a fluke of the electoral college.

Sure, she could have done better, still, one doesn't get 67 million votes for being lazy.

Click to expand...

Here's what I mean by lazy. Campaign visits/stops between 1 sep to 8 nov 2017. Trump 116, Hillary 71 and some of those 71 were nothing more than fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. Do you know of any other candidate that would let their opponent out work and out campaign them by that glaring margin? Hillary also took several days off the campaign trail to Trump's none.

Either Hillary thought she had the election in the bag by letting Trump outwork and out campaign her by that margin or she may not have been in that good of health and needed those days off. I never expected Trump to win. I went to bed early election eve fully expecting to wake up to a president Hillary Clinton. I was shocked the next day to learn that Trump won. I never seen it coming.

what if and I hate what what if's. But what if Hillary had hit the campaign trail close to what Trump did? Spent more time in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. I think even if Hillary narrowed the campaign work to 116-100 instead of 71 she would have won the popular vote by 5 or 6 million and trounced Trump in the electoral college. She certainly would have won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, in my mind anyway. Hillary let Trump out campaign and out work her in Wisconsin 5 visits/stops for Trump, none for Hillary. In Michigan it was six for Trump, one for Hillary and in Pennsylvania it was 8-5 Trump. Did she take those states for granted? How about the election in general?

Perotista said:

Hillary's problem was she let her opponent out campaign and out work her...........

Click to expand...

I am NOT disputing many of the things you listed in your post. Yes, Clinton ran a bad campaign and made many bad decisions. And if we did not have the chains of an undemocratic system which failed to work as promised thwarting the will of the people in 2016, nobody would be having this discussion as she would be President of the USA having earned more than 2.8 million votes over her opponent who may have outworked her.

What I am saying is that in addition to those things you point out we have the illegal Russian interference in the election quite possibly with the conspiracy of Trump and his top people to assist them. We also have the illegal Comey interference in the last ten days of the campaign at a time when ten to fifteen million people voted.

Failure to accept ALL of those factors is simply denial of reality.

haymarket said:

I am NOT disputing many of the things you listed in your post. Yes, Clinton ran a bad campaign and made many bad decisions. And if we did not have the chains of an undemocratic system which failed to work as promised thwarting the will of the people in 2016, nobody would be having this discussion as she would be President of the USA having earned more than 2.8 million votes over her opponent who may have outworked her.

What I am saying is that in addition to those things you point out we have the illegal Russian interference in the election quite possibly with the conspiracy of Trump and his top people to assist them. We also have the illegal Comey interference in the last ten days of the campaign at a time when ten to fifteen million people voted.

Failure to accept ALL of those factors is simply denial of reality.

Click to expand...

I'm not denying any of them. I told I view Comey and the e-mails as having already been baked in. I highly doubt it had any significant effect. Most Americans had already made up their mind about the classified e-mails. There were very little left to change. Russia, I'm not sure exactly what they did. I heard they posted some ads on facebook. Is that all? I don't know, Mueller will answer that question.

If Trump and company did conspire with the Russians, then he deserves to be hanged. But we don't know that. What we have in my view is political propaganda coming from both sides on this issue which I tend to ignore the best I can. Trump could have been easily avoided, all the Democrats needed to do was nominate someone not as disliked by America as a whole a Hillary was. Heck, even with 60% of all America having a negative or unfavorable view of he, she did win the popular vote. What does that say about Trump? It seemed to me both major political parties went out of their way to find two candidates that were the most disliked in this country and pit them against each other because they knew one or the other had to win.

I'm not going to wade through all this stinking swamp water infested with tons of manure to try to separate fact from fiction. That is what I have Mueller for. As for Hillary, she caused her own defeat as far as I'm concerned.

Perotista said:

I'm not denying any of them. I told I view Comey and the e-mails as having already been baked in. I highly doubt it had any significant effect. Most Americans had already made up their mind about the classified e-mails. There were very little left to change. Russia, I'm not sure exactly what they did. I heard they posted some ads on facebook. Is that all? I don't know, Mueller will answer that question.

Click to expand...

I must again strongly and emphatically disagree. Nothing was "baked in" as the nation was in a very volatile period with minds being changed and undecideds making their decision. And in the midst of that was Comey and his ugly taint on Clinton at a time when ten to fifteen million early votes were being cast. When we see the reality that less than 100,000 votes in just three states decided the Electoral College, nobody can dismiss this or make light of it as not possibly having a great impact on the election results.

If Trump and company did conspire with the Russians, then he deserves to be hanged. But we don't know that. What we have in my view is political propaganda coming from both sides on this issue which I tend to ignore the best I can. Trump could have been easily avoided, all the Democrats needed to do was nominate someone not as disliked by America as a whole a Hillary was. Heck, even with 60% of all America having a negative or unfavorable view of he, she did win the popular vote. What does that say about Trump? It seemed to me both major political parties went out of their way to find two candidates that were the most disliked in this country and pit them against each other because they knew one or the other had to win.

Click to expand...

He did and he will if the Republicans in the Senate have any sense of Constitutional obligation and duty to uphold their oaths of office.

I'm not going to wade through all this stinking swamp water infested with tons of manure to try to separate fact from fiction. That is what I have Mueller for. As for Hillary, she caused her own defeat as far as I'm concerned

Click to expand...

She no doubt contributed.... but so did both Trumps Russian conspiracy to break the law to benefit himself and the illegal Comey interference.

bearpoker said:

Say Hello to President Pense!

Click to expand...

Obviously... but what about the effect on the government during the process and what would all the after effects be? Realize this would not sit well with a great number of Americans. Also, what do you think a Pense presidency would be like, seeing as how it would be a very short run what gets accomplished if anything?

haymarket said:

I must again strongly and emphatically disagree. Nothing was "baked in" as the nation was in a very volatile period with minds being changed and undecideds making their decision. And in the midst of that was Comey and his ugly taint on Clinton at a time when ten to fifteen million early votes were being cast. When we see the reality that less than 100,000 votes in just three states decided the Electoral College, nobody can dismiss this or make light of it as not possibly having a great impact on the election results.





He did and he will if the Republicans in the Senate have any sense of Constitutional obligation and duty to uphold their oaths of office.



She no doubt contributed.... but so did both Trumps Russian conspiracy to break the law to benefit himself and the illegal Comey interference.

Click to expand...

I think neither side understands someone like me who didn't give a hoot who won between Clinton and Trump. I get it from both sides because of that. I voted against both as did 8 million others. It's hard for me to take this seriously, the Russians I mean. Especially when I saw the democrats trying to destroy Trump from the day after the election. The election was a good news bad news situation. The good news, Clinton lost, the bad news, Trump won.

Clinton controlled her own destiny. Someone who isn't willing to put everything they have into the election, energy wise, time wise, effort. Effort especially, doesn't deserve to win Russians or no Russians. If she wasn't willing to put in the effort to win, then she shouldn't have run. It's almost like she expected the election to be handed to her on a silver platter. Well, there weren't any super electors like there were super delegates. If Hillary had been willing to put the time and effort in, she could have won by 10 million votes. Like I said, there were 8 million of us just wanting a decent candidate from the Democrats in order to vote against Trump. That didn't happen. So we live with it.

The rest, if there is a there, there. Mueller will take care of it. Hillary and her supporters have placed the blame on everyone and every thing except where the blame lies. It very well might be the Russians held one or two percent of the blame for Hillary's loss. But she was responsible for the other 98 or 99%.

Perotista said:

I think neither side understands someone like me who didn't give a hoot who won between Clinton and Trump. I get it from both sides because of that. I voted against both as did 8 million others. It's hard for me to take this seriously, the Russians I mean. Especially when I saw the democrats trying to destroy Trump from the day after the election. The election was a good news bad news situation. The good news, Clinton lost, the bad news, Trump won.

Clinton controlled her own destiny. Someone who isn't willing to put everything they have into the election, energy wise, time wise, effort. Effort especially, doesn't deserve to win Russians or no Russians. If she wasn't willing to put in the effort to win, then she shouldn't have run. It's almost like she expected the election to be handed to her on a silver platter. Well, there weren't any super electors like there were super delegates. If Hillary had been willing to put the time and effort in, she could have won by 10 million votes. Like I said, there were 8 million of us just wanting a decent candidate from the Democrats in order to vote against Trump. That didn't happen. So we live with it.

The rest, if there is a there, there. Mueller will take care of it. Hillary and her supporters have placed the blame on everyone and every thing except where the blame lies. It very well might be the Russians held one or two percent of the blame for Hillary's loss. But she was responsible for the other 98 or 99%.

Click to expand...

Pretending that not making a choice is an option when we are faced with a binary choice is silly. There are no virgins in this whore house.

And you are now simply repeating what has already been gone over by me.

haymarket said:

Pretending that not making a choice is an option when we are faced with a binary choice is silly. There are no virgins in this whore house.

And you are now simply repeating what has already been gone over by me.

Click to expand...

Okay, not a problem. It wasn't a binary choice for me, there were other names on the ballot in Georgia. One is free to choice or vote for any name on the ballot or even write one in if one is dissatisfied with the names on the ballot. I figured or came to the conclusion that regardless of who won, that the winner would leave this country in much worst shape than when either first entered the office of the presidency. I wasn't about to vote for that even in the lesser of two evils or the least worst, horrible candidate situation.

I voted against both hoping that there were more sane people out there than just me. Now I know of 8 million of them. I'm one of those who think a candidate must earn my vote, it isn't given on a whim. If you thought Hillary Clinton was the best candidate available, the best the democratic Party had to offer and the best one to lead this country for the next four years. That is fine with me, I would never knock your vote. Each individual has their own reasons why they vote the way they do. That reason is important to them. We may think the reason someone votes for candidate A or B or C is insane, but for that voter it makes perfect sense.

It's been nice. Take care my friend

Perotista said:

Okay, not a problem. It wasn't a binary choice for me, there were other names on the ballot in Georgia. One is free to choice or vote for any name on the ballot or even write one in if one is dissatisfied with the names on the ballot. I figured or came to the conclusion that regardless of who won, that the winner would leave this country in much worst shape than when either first entered the office of the presidency. I wasn't about to vote for that even in the lesser of two evils or the least worst, horrible candidate situation.

I voted against both hoping that there were more sane people out there than just me. Now I know of 8 million of them. I'm one of those who think a candidate must earn my vote, it isn't given on a whim. If you thought Hillary Clinton was the best candidate available, the best the democratic Party had to offer and the best one to lead this country for the next four years. That is fine with me, I would never knock your vote. Each individual has their own reasons why they vote the way they do. That reason is important to them. We may think the reason someone votes for candidate A or B or C is insane, but for that voter it makes perfect sense.

It's been nice. Take care my friend

Click to expand...

While I respect your reasoning and your answer, sadly , its still a two party game no matter how much we do not like it.

haymarket said:

in the end it will be Russia that takes Trump down.... perhaps not with his base , many of whom are simply too stupid to understand the security implications of a president in the back pocket of our main foreign adversary - but even most Republicans in Congress will not be able to deny the obvious threat to our nation when Mueller lays out his completed case clearly showing the deep and long ties between him and Russia and the collusion to break the law with Russia to get him elected. That cannot be ignored by Congress.

Click to expand...

Seems just about everything can in fact be ignored by this congress as long as it concerns only republicans.

Under Obama.....

Stormy Daniels, Sec EPA Sec State, every accounting of money taken in by [Obama's companies] would be in front of countless repub

committees.

The only solution is to remove repubs from the house.

haymarket said:

While I respect your reasoning and your answer, sadly , its still a two party game no matter how much we do not like it.

Click to expand...

It is because we the people let it be. We have become accustom to voting for the lesser of two evils, the candidate we want to lose less. It's been pounded into our brains ever since I can remember. I think working for Perot made me a lot less adverse to voting third party than most. Although one can't sneeze at 8 million voters who did in 2016. Both candidates were really that disliked and unwanted by most Americans.

Is voting third party a wasted vote? The two major parties want us to think so because it is stated no third party candidate can win. Okay, is voting for Trump in California also a wasted vote as he doesn't stand a snowball's chance of winning in California. Or how about the Clinton voter in Alabama, a wasted vote as she didn't stand a chance of winning there either. Something to think about.

But in choosing the two major party candidates, most Americans don't count. Only those who are members or registered Republican and Democratic do. But the rest of us can decide the winner between the two or in my case, not. Still, if the election were held today
knowing everything I do now, I still would vote third party. So too would most of those 8 million who did so back in 2016.

Pedestrian said:

Seems just about everything can in fact be ignored by this congress as long as it concerns only republicans.

Under Obama.....

Stormy Daniels, Sec EPA Sec State, every accounting of money taken in by [Obama's companies] would be in front of countless repub

committees.

The only solution is to remove repubs from the house.

Click to expand...

Can you speak plainly so that your words have clear meaning?

I absolutely agree. Ironic that a man who as been as successful as he has been trolling and bullying people is going to be taken down by a porn star and a playmate!

Perotista said:

It is because we the people let it be. We have become accustom to voting for the lesser of two evils, the candidate we want to lose less. It's been pounded into our brains ever since I can remember. I think working for Perot made me a lot less adverse to voting third party than most. Although one can't sneeze at 8 million voters who did in 2016. Both candidates were really that disliked and unwanted by most Americans.

Is voting third party a wasted vote?

Click to expand...

A wonderful question for the right libertarians here who rant and rave and scream and yell and wail and gnash their teeth about the phony choice.... and then every four years vote Republican despite claiming otherwise in their self declared leans.

haymarket said:

A wonderful question for the right libertarians here who rant and rave and scream and yell and wail and gnash their teeth about the phony choice.... and then every four years vote Republican despite claiming otherwise in their self declared leans.

Click to expand...

I'm not a Libertarian, not a Republican or Democrat either. The party I claim isn't even active in Georgia. It has no presence here either. Just me. The lone Reform Party Member in the whole state. But it is hard to understand their complaining about phony choices when they end up voting for one over their own real choice. Now thinking about it, are they real Liberalizations to begin with? I mean they talk the talk and then take a walk on election day. Maybe they just want folks to think their Libertarians when in reality they are Republicans who don't want to admit their Republicans.

I don't know, that's a question they would have to answer. I really don't have much use for political parties, at least the two major parties that is. I like voting for whom I think is the best candidate regardless of party for whatever office. Most Republicans vote for their candidates, most democrats for their regardless of whom is the better or best candidate. That means they are voting for the best candidate half the time and the worst candidate half the time if the law of averages, the odds hold true.

There are times when the best candidate isn't a member or candidate from the two major parties. I personally think the Gary Johnson/William Weld ticket was the best one on the Georgia ballot and voted accordingly. I hate having a political party tell me how I am suppose to view this issue or that issue, be for this and oppose to that. How about taking each issue and or proposal on its merits regardless of whom proposes it. Make up one's own mind, don't let a political party make your mind up for you.

Perotista said:

Here's what I mean by lazy. Campaign visits/stops between 1 sep to 8 nov 2017. Trump 116, Hillary 71 and some of those 71 were nothing more than fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. Do you know of any other candidate that would let their opponent out work and out campaign them by that glaring margin? Hillary also took several days off the campaign trail to Trump's none.

Either Hillary thought she had the election in the bag by letting Trump outwork and out campaign her by that margin or she may not have been in that good of health and needed those days off. I never expected Trump to win. I went to bed early election eve fully expecting to wake up to a president Hillary Clinton. I was shocked the next day to learn that Trump won. I never seen it coming.

what if and I hate what what if's. But what if Hillary had hit the campaign trail close to what Trump did? Spent more time in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. I think even if Hillary narrowed the campaign work to 116-100 instead of 71 she would have won the popular vote by 5 or 6 million and trounced Trump in the electoral college. She certainly would have won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, in my mind anyway. Hillary let Trump out campaign and out work her in Wisconsin 5 visits/stops for Trump, none for Hillary. In Michigan it was six for Trump, one for Hillary and in Pennsylvania it was 8-5 Trump. Did she take those states for granted? How about the election in general?

Click to expand...

She lost due to a fluke of the electoral college, that's the one thing one can say "but for...." all others are, As they say, well, hindsight is 20/20.

OscarLevant said:

She lost due to a fluke of the electoral college, that's the one thing one can say "but for...." all others are, As they say, well, hindsight is 20/20.

Click to expand...

The point is she shouldn't have and didn't need to. A little oomph, perhaps dedication along with a couple of visits to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. She would be sitting in the Oval office today. Sure it is 20/20 hindsight. But lack of campaigning or letting one's opponent out campaign you by that much is unheard of. I'm sure a Sanders, Biden, O'Malley et al would have been hitting the campaign trail everyday. They wouldn't have lost. They had the fire to be there day in and day out and to energize their base, to bring enthusiasm to the campaign instead of a ho hum one.

I suppose one can just write it off as a fluke in the electoral college. Easy enough done. But why and how did this race become close enough to allow that fluke to happen? A fluke that never should have and could have been easily prevented. There's many reasons why Hillary lost, from the rigged Democratic Primaries which angered Sanders voters at both Hillary and the Democratic Party, to her strategy of exceeding Obama's electoral vote total when all she had to do was just get the voters who voted for Obama to vote for her in order to win. To her laziness in campaigning and many more.

The bottom line is Hillary controlled her down destiny, Trump couldn't win it without Hillary losing it herself if you get my meaning. Only Hillary's decisions and inactions, her own doings could let Trump get close enough for a fluke to happen.

Sabre said:

Obviously... but what about the effect on the government during the process and what would all the after effects be? Realize this would not sit well with a great number of Americans. Also, what do you think a Pense presidency would be like, seeing as how it would be a very short run what gets accomplished if anything?

Click to expand...

This is all theoretical since I don't think the Senate would convict Trump. It's highly unlikely that the Democrats will win a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. If, by some miracle, they did it would mean that a lot of that great number of Americans you mentioned had either changed their minds or weren't enthusiastic enough in their support of Trump to vote. Impeachment is a political process and can't succeed without broad political support. Republicans found that out when they went after Bill Clinton, and it's no less true today.