Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I live in the UK where we have single-payer health cover, but don't know if this is the right model for the US. I see the problem being huge -a Federal Tax for a Federal Service to replace most of what exists in States, that is a big admin project, but must surely collide with States Rights on taxation and even the definition of health care.

---

The US spends almost twice of its GDP on health care as other developed counties for worse health outcomes, so I always find the argument that it can't afford to change a bit strange. Given the rapid rise in health care costs it would be truer to say that it can't afford not to change.

Health is also a state government responsibility in Australia, but we've had a single-payer system since the 1970s. The federal government pays most of the the bills (using its financing powers), but public hospitals are run by state governments and doctors still have private practices. There are also private hospitals and private insurance for things the government does not cover. That seems similar to how it could work in the US. I think the UK system is more like nationalised health care.

One of the best arguments for single payer is that it's a simpler and more robust way to ensure most people get health cover than Obamacare, which relied on a complicated mix of tax penalties, subsidies and regulations. That has made it vulnerable to undermining by changing the components, even though Republicans have not been able to abolish it entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

….The one thing history does suggest is that a 3rd party......has no chance of winning....

---

https://i.ibb.co/202VGgc/putin.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

---

Doesn't that point to the conundrum? If they haven't affected the outcome it's because they haven't attracted many votes and/or they affected both sides similarly. But that also means they have little influence on the political system. Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, but I can't see that he had any lasting impact on US politics. They would probably need to get 25-30% of the vote to have a real impact.

Minor parties can have an influence in other countries because they can hold the balance of power in parliament, but the US political system does not seem to give them much of a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The US spends almost twice of its GDP on health care as other developed counties for worse health outcomes, so I always find the argument that it can't afford to change a bit strange. Given the rapid rise in health care costs it would be truer to say that it can't afford not to change.

---

My view is that in the US health care is a business, where in the UK it is a service. Clearly many businesses have made handsom profits from health care, from dental products to all of the machinery used in hospitals, and the prices pharmacological companies charge is an issue in both the UK and the UK, but the moral, guiding principle of health care free at the time of need from cradle to grave is superior to an insurance based system, because insurance companies are relucant to offer health care to people with chronic illnesses and conditions. There is also the link in the UK which I assume applies in Australia between health care and education in the link between Medical Schools and General Hospitals, so that our NHS unifies training and research with health care under one system, though pressure from the doctors associations in 1947-48 meant that private health care has never been abolished in the UK.

You are also right to describe it as a 'Nationalized' health care system, the Attlee Government in 1945 used 'the Nation' many more times than it did 'Socialism' when describing its programmes (National Coal Board is a good example). And, of course, if there was a more effective health education programme in schools and after, many people might live healthier lives and not need to see a doctor at all excepting accidents and infirmities caused by old age. But yes, too, maybe the US is reaching a point where it can no longer afford to have such a mosaic of health care provision, but it needs to be clearly explained what this means in terms of costs and the structural changes to the health care that exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

I'll give you the impact that Teddy Roosevelt had on the 1912 election. But in recent memory, Perot wasn't the reason why Bush lost in 1992, Nader wasn't the reason why Gore lost in 2000, and for sure Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't the reason why Hillary lost.

I think there are enough people who are fed up with both parties, that you can start to see more people clamoring for a third party candidate to run. It has to be the right person though.

---

If a third party candidate is to have a real chance, I think it needs to be someone who has defected from the Democrats or Republicans, who has name recognition and local support. A popular Senator from a large state with enough electoral college votes could do real damage, though having said that, if it were Kentucky Senator Rand Paul would he take the State, or is he aleady seen as too eccentric to make a difference? The more intriguing split could occur if the Republicans allowed someone to challenge the President who went on to defeat him, on the basis that the incumbent had become a liability - but that the President would stand as an independent regardless of that decision. This would surely hand the Presidency on a gold plate to the Democrats as the South would probably vote for the President...but right now the RNC is doing all it can to prevent anyone challenging the Dear Leader.

The problem with the third party candidates is that they tend to be weird people from the fringe of politics, and indeed, society, lacking money, organization, and enough popular appeal. Just as we have seen defections from the two main parties in the UK in the 1980s and again this year, I think the key lies in defections in the two main parties in the US, but they have to be well known and well financed if they are to make a difference. That said, Bernie Sanders is going in the opposite direction, an Independent seeking the Democrat nomination, I don't know how they can allow it. At least he may shape the agenda in policy terms.

Remember this?

• "When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win," Trump tweets.
  
• Trump announced Thursday that he will impose 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum as early as next week.

Turns out it was bullshit from the start, but I guess you cannot expect anything less from the Republicans as their record shows. May be best to slap another $ trillion dollars on the debt, and anyway, Jared is raking in the lovely dollars for the family, and that s what matters most.

https://www.theatlas.com/i/atlas_H1uvjIp84.png

That's some swamp you got there Mr Dennison! Nazdroviye, ma'salamah...

Donald Trump ally Erik Prince may have committed perjury, a congressman has said, after the former Navy Seal said for the first time he held a meeting with one of the US president’s sons to discuss “Iran policy”.
Mr Prince, founder of controversial military contractor Blackwater USA, admitted he met Donald Trump Jr and an emissary for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Trump Tower ahead of the presidential election.
The admission comes more than a year after the 49-year-old, brother of US education secretary Betsy DeVos, failed to disclose the meeting under oath to the House intelligence committee, according to a public transcript.
According to The New York Times, Mr Prince organised the August 2016 meeting with Mr Trump’s eldest son and Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, who reportedly revealed Saudi Arabia and the UAE wanted to help Mr Trump in his bid for the presidency.
The meeting also reportedly included Stephen Miller, now Mr Trump’s senior policy adviser, and an Israeli social media expert called Joel Zamel.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8815446.html

Yawn, I missed Nancy Pelosi's 420-0 vote on releasing the Mueller Report NOW!!!!

Maybe it's the way Tubby Barr has been seen schmoozing it up with Trump. He's probably told Trump everything that's in it.

I'm waiting for a Democrat who admits the National Debt is the worst problem we have, after Baby Donald gets thrown out. Live by CASH, die by CASH.
https://i.ibb.co/Y2Bs08j/us-federal-...ical-party.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I'm waiting for a Democrat who admits the National Debt is the worst problem we have, after Baby Donald gets thrown out.

---

Really? Worse than the threat of nuclear war? Worse than climate change? Worse than the decline of democracy around the world? Worse than the rise of right-wing nationalism? Worse than rising inequality and concentration of wealth?

You can bet that when the next Democrat president is elected Republicans will suddenly discover that the national debt is the greatest problem and use it as another excuse to block their policy agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

…. Worse than the threat of nuclear war? Worse than climate change? Worse than the decline of democracy around the world? Worse than the rise of right-wing nationalism? Worse than rising inequality and concentration of wealth?......

---

YES. We owe all that money to the rich people, and you can bet they get paid with interest. They own us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

YES. We owe all that money to the rich people, and you can bet they get paid with interest. They own us.

---

No. most of it's owned by Social Security and other government Trust Funds, foreign governments and investors and the Federal Reserve. Apart from the bit that's owed to foreigners you mostly owe it to yourself (indirectly). https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-...l-debt-3306124

Whether the debt is a problem depends on what it is used for. Obviously it was a bad idea to blow out the debt for tax cuts to the rich, but borrowing for something with future benefits (like infrastructure and education) might be no bad thing. If the next Democrat administration decided that it couldn't afford to spend on things like that because of the debt it would be doing exactly what the Republicans wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

No.....

---

Let's borrow 22 trillion more from ourselves and everyone will be a millionaire!

But if we are all millionaires then the bracket will be moved and we would all be back to were we are now :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevie.Thomas

But if we are all millionaires then the bracket will be moved and we would all be back to were we are now :)

---

True. Let's kill all the millionaires and take their stuff. Trump can declare another Emergency Action.
Jeez, this waiting around for Mueller is gnawing at my sense of humor. Would it be too much to ask to slap the cuffs on Don Jr or Ivanka???? The Kellyanne Conway marriage is at stake!!!
I want to hear the sound of laughter again. From John McCain's coffin. Too soon?

I've got a bad feeling Trump already knows what's in the report and he cheated the hangman, again. I hope I'm wrong, again.

According to recent poll, 78% of Republican Fox News viewers believe that Trump has achieved more than any other president in US history. A country is in serious trouble when a large chunk of the population is this deluded.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/poll-7...-ever?ref=home

Deluded is only part of the problem--

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said it is "possible" that President Donald Trump was sent by God to save Israel from Iran.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47670717

Well, gee whiz Mr President, it looks like I was all wrong about you.....
HA HA HA HA HA!!
I ain't over just because the fat boy Barr sings, he's practically one of Trump's legal team. Four pages???
Let's go, release the Mueller Report and lets find out the facts.

If Trump was sent by God then maybe God reached down and hid critical evidence from Mueller.

We can't know whether Barr is telling the full story unless the full report is released, but we shouldn't be entirely surprised by the reported conclusions. Mueller is a very 'by the book' guy so he always going to be careful about what he said and not make recommendations unless he was sure the evidence could support them beyond reasonable doubt.

One obvious question is what was the campaign of vilification against Mueller all about if there was nothing to it? If the "witch-hunt" has now delivered a "total and complete exoneration" then they must be very incompetent witch-hunters.

What do we know so far? Not a lot.

1) The Muelller Report may be judged by what it does not say rather than what it does, by the issues that it did not investigate if they were deemed to be outside the scope of the enquiry.

2) From the start, I believe there was a belief that the Office of the Presidency should be protected, in the sense that it was not just about the candidate who became President, but the potential damage that could be caused to pubic confidence in the Presidency if one man and his team were found to have acted against the law. It would also have challenged the Justice Department to either confirm the convention that sitting Presidents cannot be prosecuted, or overturn that convention to do just that - but with the same standard as applied to other cases: will this one stand up in court and secure a conviction? There may be a lot of evidence that the campaign appeared to cross the line of legality, but is that enough?

3) From the above: when the FBI reaised the Russians were hacking the US and that there were 'links' between the Republican campaign and the Russians, a public investigation with arrests would been presented as an interference in the election, so the investigation continued without publicity. When Barack Obama met his successor in the Oval Office in November 2016 he told him that the evidence the FBI had suggested Michael Flynn should not be given a job in the government, alerting BS45 to the existence of a substantial enquiry, and out of spite, because he hates Obama, BS45 did the opposite even if Flynn was the first high profile casualty of his grubby administration.

4) Again, from the start, BS45 has been able to present this as a campaign against him and the people who voted for him, and he will exact his revenge because he knows no other way of living, other than to humiliate, insult and abuse Americans who don't like him, but it remains to be seen if he can actually have any of 'them' arrested, tried and convicted, though he will maintain his campaign of hate to the end of his life.

5) If it is the case that Bs45 has 'got away with it', this is another tremendous victory for the Russians and their campaigns of interference. We may now never know what role Cambridge Analytica played in the 2016 campaign, if Aaron Banks was given a USB stick in one of his many meetings with the Russian Ambassador to the UK, a stick he gave to Nigel Farage that was given by him to Wikileaks commisar in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London -or maybe there is something in the Report that has yet to see the light of day.

6) Most serious of all, this is not just a triumph for Russia and cybercrime, this President is now emboldened to do things he was shy about before. Having already indicated his desire to smash to pieces the international order that was created in 1945, this man sees no limits to American power, and must now want to be the second American President to use nuclear weapons, in his case, to prove that it can be done again, regardless of the loss of life and long term damage caused.
He loves to destroy, it is his revenge on all those who said he was a shmuck from Queens who could never be President.
The only question is, who will be the victim of this semi-literate lunatic? Iran is in the frame right now, hated by his lovely dollar friends in the 9/11 Kingdom, the 'in-our-pocket' Gulf Sultans, and Israel, though so far Israel's intelligent Generals have succeeded in preventing Netanyahu from attacking Iran -and we won't know for a while if this corrupt little creep will be re-elected Prime Minister. One can only hope for the sake of those not yet dead it doesn't happen.

it is now time for the Democrats to take control of the process, or lose everything. Are they up to it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Mueller is a very 'by the book' guy so he always going to be careful about what he said and not make recommendations unless he was sure the evidence could support them beyond reasonable doubt.

One obvious question is what was the campaign of vilification against Mueller all about if there was nothing to it? If the "witch-hunt" has now delivered a "total and complete exoneration" then they must be very incompetent witch-hunters.

---

I agree with you completely. The answer to your question goes to the heart of why Trump is unfit for office. He wasn't sure whether the investigation would reveal minor improprieties on his part or whether it would incriminate his family members so he felt he had to call it a witch-hunt. When the investigation didn't reveal anything too damaging for him to accept, he can say it exonerates him and Mueller's word is good.

But he did obstruct justice. What were all of his fulminations on twitter and behind the scenes about if not to corrupt the process? Why did he fire Comey and threaten to fire Sessions and Rosenstein if not because they would not serve his own personal interests? The problem is that Democrats set the bar so high by insisting he must be a traitor or an agent of Russia, that simply having no respect for the rule of law seems trivial. At the beginning of this, I said I wasn't sure whether his behavior was consistent with someone who is guilty of something or simply of someone who cannot accept scrutiny. If it turns out it's the latter, that's no less damning.

Now we sit and wait to see if Mueller has handed off crimes that are outside his mandate to state prosecutors. Either way, it is time for Democrats to mostly move on. Impeachment is a political process anyway. There was an investigation conducted by an honest man who has indicted those he saw fit to indict and there may be investigations that branch off of this one, but 2020 approaches.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1R50S3

This is a decent summary of some of the other legal issues, both civil and criminal at the state level that might be on the horizon for Trump. It's probably not comprehensive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/o...rr-letter.html

This is also a good article by Bob Bauer about how Trump's conduct often skirted the lines of illegality. He argues that an important consideration for Mueller was that many of Trump's acts of obstruction took place in public view.

It's sort of ironic that the more flagrant his conduct is the less it shows consciousness of guilt which may be a saving grace. But then wouldn't the fact that he asked Kushner and Sessions to leave the room before he asked Comey to go easy on Flynn be even more damning? This is a man who is not conscientious enough to avoid witness tampering in public view but asked close associates to leave him alone for his most flagrant attempt to interfere with law enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

[URL]This is also a good article by Bob Bauer about how Trump's conduct often skirted the lines of illegality. He argues that an important consideration for Mueller was that many of Trump's acts of obstruction took place in public view.

It's sort of ironic that the more flagrant his conduct is the less it shows consciousness of guilt which may be a saving grace.

---

One of life's great mysteries is how Trump has generally been able to live such a charmed life with the legal and regulatory authorities. For instance, he was able to retain a New Jersey gaming licence despite clear evidence that he had links to organised crime - the regulatory authority simply chose not to investigate. No wonder he thinks normal rules don't apply to him, given he's rarely had to face the full legal or financial consequences of his actions.

There's a theory that Trump has been the ultimate beneficiary of the too big to fail syndrome. First he was too big to fail financially. The regulatory authorities didn't want to shut him down because the consequences would have been too big to handle. His creditors were fairly easy on him in bankruptcy proceeding because the consequences of his failure would have been too big. Now he's too big to fail politically. The Republican party feels it must protect him because his failure would bring them down as well.

Trump is clearly a sociopath who doesn't care about others and doesn't think there should be constraints on him. I'm sure he was getting plenty of legal advice about what might constitute obstruction of justice. But I think he just can't help himself when he feels that something is unfair to him - which is basically any constraint or scrutiny of his behaviour. Also he probably calculated that he could get away with it, given he has mostly gotten away with things in the past.

filghy2, I regret to say your post is a near perfect summary of a man's career. The only thing we can hope for is that in his zeal to be himself, he will trip up, and not on a banana skin. He may now, as Steve Bannon has put it, go full animal on those who dared to challenge him, calling them 'evil' and 'treasonous' though I assume his definition of treason doesn't get the accused into a courtroom. Sad!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree with you completely. The answer to your question goes to the heart of why Trump is unfit for office. He wasn't sure whether the investigation would reveal minor improprieties on his part or whether it would incriminate his family members so he felt he had to call it a witch-hunt. When the investigation didn't reveal anything too damaging for him to accept, he can say it exonerates him and Mueller's word is good.

But he did obstruct justice. What were all of his fulminations on twitter and behind the scenes about if not to corrupt the process? Why did he fire Comey and threaten to fire Sessions and Rosenstein if not because they would not serve his own personal interests? The problem is that Democrats set the bar so high by insisting he must be a traitor or an agent of Russia, that simply having no respect for the rule of law seems trivial. At the beginning of this, I said I wasn't sure whether his behavior was consistent with someone who is guilty of something or simply of someone who cannot accept scrutiny. If it turns out it's the latter, that's no less damning.

Now we sit and wait to see if Mueller has handed off crimes that are outside his mandate to state prosecutors. Either way, it is time for Democrats to mostly move on. Impeachment is a political process anyway. There was an investigation conducted by an honest man who has indicted those he saw fit to indict and there may be investigations that branch off of this one, but 2020 approaches.

---

Well, I agree with you. He did obstruct justice, by attacking the rule of law, with his words. And he continues to do so. While this might not rise to the level of an crime, it means he is not performing his duties, as outlined in the Constitution. He was/is not protecting The Constitution, with his words. And he has done this for a prolonged time. So the length of time, is a factor, I'm talking deep-state stuff, here. I know that removal of a president, may have higher standards, than firing someone from other jobs. However consider this analogy; You do not have t0 be accused of a crime, to be let go from a job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree with you completely. The answer to your question goes to the heart of why Trump is unfit for office. He wasn't sure whether the investigation would reveal minor improprieties on his part or whether it would incriminate his family members so he felt he had to call it a witch-hunt. When the investigation didn't reveal anything too damaging for him to accept, he can say it exonerates him and Mueller's word is good.

But he did obstruct justice. What were all of his fulminations on twitter and behind the scenes about if not to corrupt the process? Why did he fire Comey and threaten to fire Sessions and Rosenstein if not because they would not serve his own personal interests? The problem is that Democrats set the bar so high by insisting he must be a traitor or an agent of Russia, that simply having no respect for the rule of law seems trivial. At the beginning of this, I said I wasn't sure whether his behavior was consistent with someone who is guilty of something or simply of someone who cannot accept scrutiny. If it turns out it's the latter, that's no less damning.

Now we sit and wait to see if Mueller has handed off crimes that are outside his mandate to state prosecutors. Either way, it is time for Democrats to mostly move on. Impeachment is a political process anyway. There was an investigation conducted by an honest man who has indicted those he saw fit to indict and there may be investigations that branch off of this one, but 2020 approaches.

---

Well, I agree with you. He did obstruct justice, by attacking the rule of law, with his words. And he continues to do so. While this might not rise to the level of an crime, it means he is not performing his duties, as outlined in the Constitution. He was/is not protecting The Constitution, with his words. And he has done this for a prolonged time. So the length of time, is a factor, I'm talking deep-state stuff, here. I know that removal of a president, may have higher standards, than firing someone from other jobs. However consider this analogy; You do not have t be accused of a crime, to be let go from a job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

filghy2, I regret to say your post is a near perfect summary of a man's career. The only thing we can hope for is that in his zeal to be himself, he will trip up, and not on a banana skin. He may now, as Steve Bannon has put it, go full animal on those who dared to challenge him, calling them 'evil' and 'treasonous' though I assume his definition of treason doesn't get the accused into a courtroom. Sad!

---

It looks like he'll be getting plenty of encouragement to pursue payback. It may never amount to anything more than another "lock em up" chant, but the scary thing is that 80-90% of Republicans would probably cheer him on even more.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ection-1235224
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/25/182786...tives-reaction

Unfortunately the US seems to be heading toward a situation where the law is seen as just another instrument of partisanship.

If this:

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) The Mainstream Media is under fire and being scorned all over the World as being corrupt and FAKE. For two years they pushed the Russian Collusion Delusion when they always knew there was No Collusion. They truly are the Enemy of the People and the Real Opposition Party!

Then shut down the 'Enemy of the people' arrest them, charge them in a court of law, and if convicted, send them to prison.

Or was that just bullshit 'Mr President'?

Another argument I agree with that emphasises how the Mueller Enquiry was biased to protect the President and his family -

That Russia undertook a massive and sophisticated cyberattack on America’s free elections is incontrovertible. That they did it to elect Donald Trump and were successful in helping him is also clear as day. That Trump has shown nothing but subservience to Russian president Vladimir Putin is undeniable. But those disturbing facts are now being obscured by the GOP’s victory lap over the Mueller report (or, more precisely, AG Barr’s spin on it).

The gloating “patriots” on the right are conveniently forgetting what the intelligence community and law enforcement concluded: that America was subjected to a massive cyberattack by the Kremlin intended to tilt a US election to the Republican candidate. And Trump and his GOP apologists like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are giving the attackers a pass. Unfortunately, by hyping the Mueller report, Democratic lawmakers and strategists have given the GOP fodder to obfuscate and spin.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8840861.html

Unfortunately I fear that the average disengaged voter who doesn't read much beyond the headlines has now formed the impression that Mueller has exonerated Trump and there was no basis to the collusion allegations. Which is exactly the result that Trump and his enablers wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Another argument I agree with that emphasises how the Mueller Enquiry was biased to protect the President and his family -

That Russia undertook a massive and sophisticated cyberattack on America’s free elections is incontrovertible. That they did it to elect Donald Trump and were successful in helping him is also clear as day. That Trump has shown nothing but subservience to Russian president Vladimir Putin is undeniable. But those disturbing facts are now being obscured by the GOP’s victory lap over the Mueller report (or, more precisely, AG Barr’s spin on it).

The gloating “patriots” on the right are conveniently forgetting what the intelligence community and law enforcement concluded: that America was subjected to a massive cyberattack by the Kremlin intended to tilt a US election to the Republican candidate. And Trump and his GOP apologists like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham are giving the attackers a pass. Unfortunately, by hyping the Mueller report, Democratic lawmakers and strategists have given the GOP fodder to obfuscate and spin.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8840861.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Unfortunately I fear that the average disengaged voter who doesn't read much beyond the headlines has now formed the impression that Mueller has exonerated Trump and there was no basis to the collusion allegations. Which is exactly the result that Trump and his enablers wanted.

---

One thing that I think particularly dangerous, and insidious, is Trump's use of the word "witch hunt". He implies that there was no factual basis, for the investigation. The narrative also implies that everything was made up, by a 'deep state' just to attack him. In various discussions in comments sections, I have asked, 'What about Facebook, and Twitter. Are they part of the deep state?' I have gotten little response, except that, 'it didn't make any difference'. Yet it was still a crime, an attack against the US election. So an investigation of the Trump campaign, for possible conspiracy, was warranted. I believe the release of the Mueller Report, will support the idea, that the investigation was a about a real threat vs, Trump's position. Does anyone, have an idea of Trump's latest position, or if he has acknowledged, that there was a real attack?

I understand that low information don't realize that internet users location is identified in their IP address. to this point; I ran into an article today, about Reddit releasing the content of posting by russian users. They trace some of it directly to the infamous, Internet Research Agency. You can examine the content yourself, in this extensive article.
Russian Propaganda On Reddit – Arc Digital

The area around St Petersburg is responsible for a huge slice of the World's Cybercrime woes as well as child pornography. They got my Mom's IRS refund a few years ago, ended up in the Brighton Beach section of New York. They have been fucking with our elections for years but we've been fucking with them as well.

As much as it seems that Trump is winning, he is on defense now. AG Barr is going to promise ice cream, cake, and a full reveal of the Mueller Report, but we've already seen Mitch McConnel block it's release in the Senate, and Barr announcing the White House has to edit the 900 page document before we see it.

It's good the Republicans are clinging to their religion, guns, and Trump. They can go down with the ship. The Russians have an economy about as big as New Jersey, and the Republicans have a President with SAT scores less than the pages of the report that will eventually do him in. Give Trump all the rope he wants, we'll use it for the hanging. When the sugar high Trump's base is feeling wears off, they're going to find out Trump wasn't lying to Democrats all this time, he was lying to them. For thirty years conservative media has been chanting "Democrats bad, Republicans good, Democrats bad, Republicans good, Democrats bad, Republicans good", that's why things are so fucked up now.

Before Trump came along the Republican party was on the ropes, all they had was obstruction. I hope Obstruction does them in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

One thing that I think particularly dangerous, and insidious, is Trump's use of the word "witch hunt". He implies that there was no factual basis, for the investigation. The narrative also implies that everything was made up, by a 'deep state' just to attack him. In various discussions in comments sections, I have asked, 'What about Facebook, and Twitter. Are they part of the deep state?' I have gotten little response, except that, 'it didn't make any difference'. Yet it was still a crime, an attack against the US election. So an investigation of the Trump campaign, for possible conspiracy, was warranted. I believe the release of the Mueller Report, will support the idea, that the investigation was a about a real threat vs, Trump's position. Does anyone, have an idea of Trump's latest position, or if he has acknowledged, that there was a real attack?

---

I'm not aware that he has changed his position. Unfortunately, the Republican party is now so subservient to Trump that I think they will back pedal on any real action to address the problem of interference because that would not suit the narrative that it was all a witch hunt initiated by Democrats. This is asking us to ignore a number of things:
- that Mueller spent nearly 2 years looking into it before concluding that there has not enough evidence
- that people around the Trump campaign consistently lied about contacts with the Russians
- that Trump and his associates have an unusual number of financial links and dealings with Russians
- that Trump was clearly very anxious about the investigation
- that Trump has been so unaccountably subservient towards Putin, including backing his denials
- that a number of Trump associates have been charged with crimes or convicted

I suspect it will be some time before we see the Mueller report and it will be heavily redacted. I know there may be reasons why some things can't be made public, but I can't see why Democrats on the relevant committees can't see the whole thing. If nobody outside the Administration ever gets to see the full report that will be highly suspicious.

I've heard a few journalists of late ask Trump spokespeople if Trump believes Russia attacked us, and they say of course he has, Trump has been the toughest President against Russia that ever existed. When asked how that squares with the facts, they veer off into some Junior High mumbo jumbo shit. When Adam Schiff schooled his accusers yesterday in The House, the three Republicans were obviously perplexed.
There is a reason Trump didn't testify in person to Mueller, and there is a reason Trump doesn't go on any network besides FOX anymore. Lying on Fox News has no consequences.
I hope everybody sees that shadow boxing with Trump on the issues is a waste of time, you have to punch him in the gut with your left, and knock him out with your right. And you can only do that on Election Day. The Republicans are better than Democrats about getting their flock to the polls, and having their vote count more because of gerrymandering and dirty tricks. Many of the Laws of Junior High School still ring true: you gotta put up or shut up. It's the Democrat's fault Trump is in the White House now, not Republicans.

Puppet? No puppet. You're the puppet!

I wonder what Trump's funeral will be like? Solid Gold coffin? Will all his ex-trophy wives be there? Will Obama say a few kind words? Will Sean Hannity be weeping like a little girl in the front row?
How about his Presidential Library? A copy of The Art of the Deal, a Bible, and a thousand magazines with Trump's picture on the cover?
I wonder if Bill Barr and Betsy DeVoss signed NDAs?
I wonder what kind of Health Plan Trump offers all the illegals that work at his Resorts, Hotels, and Golf Courses?
Most of all I wonder what Trump and Putin talk about when no one else is there......

It has been said of the Casino business, 'the house never loses', until a man entered the business who not only lost, but lost so bigly it took the rest of the town with it to the knacker's yard. 'Make Atlantic City Great Again!' Yeah, right. And what happened to Atlantic City will happen to the US by the time this crook is done with it.
Fascinating article, here are some extracts-

When Donald Trump opened the towering Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City in March 1990, he declared it “the eighth wonder of the world” and joined in the celebrations at a launch ceremony filled with portly actors dressed as genies brandishing tacky golden lamps. Even though it was purchased with almost $700m worth of junk bonds – which meant the Taj had to come up with $94m a year just to pay off its debts, and $1m a day to be profitable – Trump insisted the casino would make Atlantic City great again, returning the area to its prohibition-era glory days.

At one point, Trump had three casinos in Atlantic City, employing 8,000 people and accounting for nearly a third of the area’s gambling revenues. But they eventually became unsustainable thanks to a mixture of enormous debts, rival venues, weak local demand and negative press, which suggested Trump’s businesses were facilitating money laundering – something later given credence when the Taj was fined $10m for failing to report suspicious transactions. Two, the Trump Castle and the Taj, now have new owners, but the famous Trump Plaza, which once hosted Wrestlemania and Mike Tyson fights, stands derelict and is set to be demolished.

The failure of the now president’s five Atlantic City businesses resulted in thousands of job losses and put dozens of local contractors out of business because they were, much like the elephant sculptor, unpaid. Yet, during his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump boasted of how he took “incredible” amounts of money out of Atlantic City, borrowing cash from third parties so his own wealth wasn’t affected by his various businesses going under. According to Rose, his legacy is best reflected by Atlantic City’s 7.4% unemployment rate – nearly double the national average. “When Trump failed with his casinos,” says Rose, “he turned Atlantic City into a ghost town. His legacy still haunts the boardwalk.”
https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...e-photographer

Man! If anybody had doubts where Bill Barr is at, there's no doubt anymore! It's a cartoon White House! What a cast of characters!
I hope the Dems get vindictive enough to take advantage of this opportunity and ice the 2020 election. One big win solves everything.

Angry Democratic Traitor Coupsters who worked on Mueller Report:
If you're listening, please leak the juicy parts of what you found.....

Here is a take on the collusion case, against trump that i have not heard any commentators discuss. The key way that Trump was able to beat the case, was that Manafort was his back channel, to the line of inquiry, on conspiracy questions. he had a joint defense agreement with Trump, meaning he could legally share any information from Mueller's operation. So all Trump had to do was to make sure, everyone told similar stories. Thus he could not get evidence, about the June '016, Trump Tower meeting, etc. Mark my words. It will be revealed in the report release.

The President's relentless and merciless attack on the Congresswoman Ilhan Omar reveals a key component of the election strategy he intends to use from now until polling day in November 2020: the Democrats are anti-Jewish and anti-American and cannot be trusted.

To achieve this, the President has been advised to take ownership of 9/11 so that it is no longer a National Tragedy, but one whose memory is cherished and preserved by the Republican Party, shit on and insulted by Democrats. Whoever advised him -Stephen Miller, John Bolton, Mitchell McConnell or even Junior- Ilhan Omar, regardless of the death threats she has received- will be the poster girl of the campaign: the hijab-wearing anti-American who merely by existing confirms the Democrats are an existential threat to the USA. He even gives Omar powers she does not possess, such as this garbage-

Before Nancy, who has lost all control of Congress and is getting nothing done, decides to defend her leader, Rep. Omar, she should look at the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and ungrateful U.S. HATE statements Omar has made. She is out of control, except for her control of Nancy!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...es-latest-news

Yes, it is sick, and yes, it is dangerous. And yes, it is a brazen act that reverses the truth, that it was the Republican Party that sowed the seeds of al-Qaeda in the 1980s, that it was the President himself who used 9/11 to line his pockets with $150,000 of compensation he did not need, and who openly boasted that with the twin towers gone, he owned the tallest building in Manhattan.

None of that matters, for just as the long term aim is to undermine the public's faith in the Presidency and Congress, so Congresswoman Omar, inexperienced and new to the snake pit, is the 'star' of the campaign -everything she says, everything she does will prove how lost the USA has become, that only one man can save it -a liar, a con-man and a traitor being of better caibre than anyone wearing a hijab.

He likes it dirty, he will play dirty, but will Americans hand owership of 9/11 to the man least qualified to use it? Just when you thought American politics could not get lower, the spiral turned, and lower it goes.

Yes Starvos, I agree with everything. But I want to ask you to step back, from some details, and look at the use of energy forces, and take the issue from there. That is, the use of negative emotional energy, and what energy they are getting their power from. Ilhan Omar is now, the highest ranking Muslim in America. So attacking her, is focusing the energy of those who, hate/feed negativity already, and many be create a few new ones. Fear/hate a primal, or closer connected feelings, related to physical survival. DT has throughout the political phase of his career being a focus chanel for negative emotions. Coming out the gate, in his presidential run, he spoke about "mexican rapists", for example.

I am saying all this to say, we could be more effective, attacking the energy force of hate/negative emotions, rather than persons. Call it what is is, even outside of facts. However facts are the major in defending Truth. But as for energy forces, let's address 'nationalism'. Nationalism can mean pride, and honor of ones ancestors. However, look a 'white nationalism'. It seems to cycle a lot of hateful energy, such as racial superiority, violence, and other negative things. White nationalist often use nazi related symbols. Nazi Germany was a center starting force, the world war, which killed 50 million people. Think of it as the biggest recorded event of human negative energy activity/energy. Anyway, taking this case, if you killed the spirit of hate, and other in white nationalism, you would have ,a movement, based upon pride and ancestor honoring. At least that would be your goal. Any reduction, in the energy of hate is a partial victory.

I am writing this, probably more for myself that you. But I challenge you to bring up any issue, and I/we could address the underlying spiritual issue, and that would point to a path for a more positive solution. I could lay out the issue of congress woman Omar. But for now, I want to see, what you think of my central idea, of spiritual/philosophical warfare?

Yes Starvos, I agree with everything. But I want to ask you to step back, from some details, and look at the use of energy forces, and take the issue from there. That is, the use of negative emotional energy, and what energy they are getting their power from. Ilhan Omar is now, the highest ranking Muslim in America. So attacking her, is focusing the energy of those who, hate/feed negativity already, and many be create a few new ones. Fear/hate a primal, or closer connected feelings, related to physical survival. DT has throughout the political phase of his career being a focus chanel for negative emotions. Coming out the gate, in his presidential run, he spoke about "mexican rapists", for example.<br>

I am saying all this to say, we could be more effective, attacking the energy force of hate/negative emotions, rather than persons. Call it what is is, even outside of facts. However facts are the major in defending Truth. But as for energy forces, let's address 'nationalism'. Nationalism can mean pride, and honor of ones ancestors. However, look a 'white nationalism'. It seems to cycle a lot of hateful energy, such as racial superiority, violence, and other negative things. White nationalist often use nazi related symbols. Nazi Germany was a center starting force, the world war, which killed 50 million people. Think of it as the biggest recorded event of human negative energy activity/energy. Anyway, taking this case, if you killed the spirit of hate, and other related energies in white nationalism, you would have ,a movement, based upon pride and ancestor honoring. At least that would be your goal. Any reduction, in the energy of hate is a partial victory.

I am writing this, probably more for myself that you. But I challenge you to bring up any issue, and I/we could address the underlying spiritual issue, and that would point to a path for a more positive solution. I could lay out the issue of congress woman Omar. But for now, I want to see, what you think of my central idea, of spiritual/philosophical warfare?