Trump II

[Schewe]

So, this happened...while we were otherwise occupied.

NOT AT ALL QUIET FOR TRUMP ON THE RUSSIA FRONT

WASHINGTON — Just so there’s no confusion: Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer emailed Vladimir Putin’s personal spokesman? Seeking help from the Kremlin on a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow? During the presidential campaign?

Yes, this really happened. While most attention was rightly focused on the devastating flood in Houston, there was quite a bit of news on the Russia front — all of it, from Trump’s perspective, quite bad.

The revelations begin with a Trump business associate named Felix Sater. A Russian emigre who bragged about his Kremlin connections, Sater was a principal figure in development of the Trump Soho hotel and condominium project in lower Manhattan. Sater wrote a series of emails to Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, touting the Moscow Trump Tower project as a way to help Trump win the presidency.

In November 2015 — five months after Trump had entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination — Sater wrote to Cohen that he had “arranged” for Trump’s daughter Ivanka, during a 2006 visit to Moscow, “to sit in Putins private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin.”

The email went on, “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected. We both know no one else knows how to pull this off without stupidity or greed getting in the way. I know how to play it and we will get this done. Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this.”

--snip--

And there’s more: In January 2016, with the Moscow project apparently stalled, Cohen went straight to the top to get it back on track — or at least tried to. He sent an email to Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s longtime personal spokesman, “hereby requesting your assistance.”

Peskov confirmed that the email was received but said he did nothing about it and that it was not given to Putin.

So Trump was lying when he tweeted, shortly before his inauguration, that “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA — NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!” The truth is that in October 2015, on the same day he participated in a GOP candidates’ debate, he signed a letter of intent for the Moscow Trump Tower project.

That is a “deal,” and Trump’s hunger to keep it alive may explain his reluctance to say anything critical about Putin. Or it may tell just part of the story.

--snip--

The other part involves the whole question of collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign to meddle with the election and boost Trump’s chances. Sater’s boasts, by themselves, are hardly definitive. But of course there is the larger context, which includes the infamous meeting that Donald Trump Jr. convened in New York at which he hoped to receive dirt, courtesy of the Russian government, on Hillary Clinton.

Thus far we have the president’s son, his son-in-law Jared Kushner (who was at that meeting), his then-campaign manager Paul Manafort (also at the meeting), and now his personal lawyer all seemingly eager for Russian help in the election. Who in the campaign (BEG ITAL)wasn’t (END ITAL)willing to collude?

All of this is under scrutiny by special counsel Robert Mueller and the various congressional committees that are conducting investigations. Some have suggested that Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio, the unrepentant “birther” and racial profiler, might have been a message to Trump associates facing heat from prosecutors: Hang tough and don’t worry, you’ll get pardons.

But there was more bad news for the president: Politico reported that Mueller is now cooperating and sharing information with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Presidents can only issue pardons for federal offenses, not state crimes. Uh-oh.

Collusion? Business dealing in Russia? People trying to get the Russians to help get Trump elected?

[Alan Klein]

Last Week Was Trump's Worst Legislative Week Ever, And Congress Wasn't Even In Session



Heck, the Trumpster loses ground with congress even when they aren't in session...so much for his promise of repeal and replace on day one, huh?

The Republicans in the Senate could not repeal and replace Obamacare with 51 votes so it really doesn't matter if they'll need 61 votes in October.  Except that may hurt the Dems more in the Congressional elections in 2018.  Since almost all Republicans voted for repeal,  Democrat Senators up for re=election from states won by Trump may face the wrath of their voters for not voting for repeal and helping the Republicans get it done.  republicans will blame Democrats for not getting them to the 61 votes.   So Democrat Senators may take a bigger hit than the Republicans. 

[pegelli]

The Republicans in the Senate could not repeal and replace Obamacare with 51 votes so it really doesn't matter if they'll need 61 votes in October.  Except that may hurt the Dems more in the Congressional elections in 2018.  Since almost all Republicans voted for repeal,  Democrat Senators up for re=election from states won by Trump may face the wrath of their voters for not voting for repeal and helping the Republicans get it done.  republicans will blame Democrats for not getting them to the 61 votes.   So Democrat Senators may take a bigger hit than the Republicans.

Smells like wishful thinking to me, but we'll see. Another scenario might be that people are so fed up with Trump and the Republicans for not getting the stuff done that was promised that they will vote for the Democrats this time around. Only time will tell, all the rest is speculation.

[JoeKitchen]

Smells like wishful thinking to me, but we'll see. Another scenario might be that people are so fed up with Trump and the Republicans for not getting the stuff done that was promised that they will vote for the Democrats this time around. Only time will tell, all the rest is speculation.

I read a really great opinion piece by Chris Cillizza, editor-in-chief at CNN, who has been writing negative opinion pieces on Trump pretty much every day since the election, that said it is more then likely Dems will loose seats next year. 

His reasoning was that the numbers just don't fair well for the Dems.  You can read why below. 

Why 2018 might not be such an amazing election for Democrats

[Alan Goldhammer]

I read a really great opinion piece by Chris Cillizza, editor-in-chief at CNN, who has been writing negative opinion pieces on Trump pretty much every day since the election, that said it is more then likely Dems will loose seats next year. 

I wondered why I hadn't seen Cillizza in the Washington Post.  Did not know he left for CNN

[/quote]His reasoning was that the numbers just don't fair well for the Dems.  You can read why below. 

Why 2018 might not be such an amazing election for Democrats
[/quote]
None of this is news and those of us who work for the Democratic Party have known these difficulties for some time.  The Democrats need to stop whining and focus on getting voters registered (irrespective of any of the suppression laws that Republican state legislatures will try to implement) and get them to the polls in 2018.  If they cannot do those two simple things they deserve to be consigned to the trash bin of history.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... getting voters registered... and get them to the polls in 2018...

That is not your problem, since you won the popular vote. Your problem is that you forgot the U.S. is a federation and that you need to work each state, in particular those close to call. You tend to preach to the choir: out of the three million popular votes in Hillary's favor, four were generated in California. Take CA out of the equation, and Trump has one million votes in his favor in the other 49 states. So, get your a$$ out of California and work with the rest of the country, trying to persuade them that the fringe issues you champion, affecting 1-2% of the population at best, are the most important ones. Oh, wait, maybe that is your problem?

[Alan Klein]

The Democrats need a platform besides: "Trump is a Big Orange Dummy".  It didn't work in the 2016 Presidential election.  Hoping to win Senatorial and Congressional seats in 2018 with the same mantra will continue to be a loser.   Continuing with the race card, gender and identity politics, climate change, LGBT bathrooms, gays in the military, helping illegals, etc. will continue to turn average voters off.  People want solutions to putting food on the table for their families.  If Republicans pass economy issue legislation like tax reform, they'll be the party getting things done.  On the other hand, if they fail to get it done, and the Democrats can be blamed for blocking them due to the 60 vote requirements in the Senate, the GOP could still paint the Democrats as the party unconcerned about Americans.  Right now it seems the Dems are the party sitting on their hands and obstructing.  2018 is going to be an interesting year.

[Alan Goldhammer]

That is not your problem, since you won the popular vote. Your problem is that you forgot the U.S. is a federation and that you need to work each state, in particular those close to call. You tend to preach to the choir: out of the three million popular votes in Hillary's favor, four were generated in California. Take CA out of the equation, and Trump has one million votes in his favor in the other 49 states. So, get your a$$ out of California and work with the rest of the country, trying to persuade them that the fringe issues you champion, affecting 1-2% of the population at best, are the most important ones. Oh, wait, maybe that is your problem?

This is exactly the point (your final point is the same key one that I believe in).  They have to get good candidates in every single election in every state, get voters registered and get them to the polls.  I'm not a fringe issue champion (most of the big issues have already been resolved) and think the Democratic National Committee lost its way post 2008.  Part of it is Obama's fault as he really did not care for the nuts and bolts of politics (Rahm Emanuel did but he left to run Chicago). 

[Alan Klein]

It's not only nuts and bolts.  Obama was a divisive president who played identity Politics. The Democrats continue to do that. People are tired of it. They want the government to take action that helps their lives. Despite everything being said about Trump, he's a man of action and appears to be a guy who wants to help the average voter.

[Otto Phocus]

The Democrats need a platform besides: "Trump is a Big Orange Dummy".  It didn't work in the 2016 Presidential election.

I dunno, but the "not Hillary" seemed to work pretty well.

The Democrats need to nominate a candidate that appeals to and represents the voters.  Not a candidate that just appeals to the DNC.

Hillary lost the election because she did not appeal to the majority of the voters spread across the nation.  The purpose of the Electoral College is to choose the candidate that garners the majority of the votes in the majority of the states... not just the majority of the votes. Looking at the election maps, it is pretty clear that while Hillary was popular in some isolated high population areas, there were many larger areas spread across the nation where she was not popular.

The Democrats also need to run a campaign that mobilizes and excites the voters. I truly believe that many voters thought that neither choice was good and were not motivated.  Hillary probably has as large an ego as Trump does and she probably thought that people would naturally love her.  Well they didn't. For a multitude of reasons (some valid, some invalid) Hillary did not appeal to the people like she thought she would.  I feel that she truly thinks that she is better than she really is.

I also feel that Hillary felt that she was "owed" this nomination and unfortunately, the DNC agreed with her.  Well, the DNC, being a private corporation can make their decisions the way they like, but they also much accept the consequences of those decisions.  I think in 2016, the DNC choose unwisely.

Both parties need to work on their platform.. their identity.  Running on a platform of "don't choose that other idiot" can only carry you so far.  It will carry your base, but the independent moderate demography does not accept that. Often we are placed in a position of voting for the lessor of two evils, but this last election was truly a race to the bottom of the barrel.

Think about it for a moment.  Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton represented the best of the best of the best that their respective party could nominate.  These were the best?  Depressing ain't it?

I think that both the RNC and the DNC confused Cream with Scum.  Both rise to the top, but are not the same.

I think that is what the voters were sick of --  Don't tell me why I should not vote for the other idiot, please tell me why I should vote for this idiot. That's where both parties fail for me.

Personally, I can't remember the last time I voted FOR a candidate for president. It has always been voting against the other idiot. I so much want to vote for a candidate for a chance... just to see how it feels.

So I agree with the other poster in that the Democrats will have a hard time in 2018 and an even harder time in 2020 unless they get their act together.

How much you wanna bet that the 2020 Democratic platform will be 99% "I am not Trump".  That is not a way to elect our chief executive.

It did not work for Kerry nor for Romney.  The cogent question is whether the political parties have learned their lesson. Personally, I have little hope they did.

[Chris Kern]

The Democrats need a platform besides: "Trump is a Big Orange Dummy".

I couldn't agree more.  This kind of gross oversimplification insults the intelligence of the American voter.  At the very least the slogan ought to be: "Trump is a big orange, incompetent, uninformed pathological liar with a narcissistic personality and financial conflicts-of-interest."

[JoeKitchen]

The Democrats also need to run a campaign that mobilizes and excites the voters. I truly believe that many voters thought that neither choice was good and were not motivated.  Hillary probably has as large an ego as Trump does and she probably thought that people would naturally love her.  Well they didn't. For a multitude of reasons (some valid, some invalid) Hillary did not appeal to the people like she thought she would.  I feel that she truly thinks that she is better than she really is.

Saw this just now, and, well, yes, I would say her ego is pretty damn big!

New Clinton Book Blasts Sanders for 'Lasting Damage' in 2016 Race

I guess the Dems should rack up Sanders as another reason on the list of why HRC lost; list not including anything to do with her of course. 

[Otto Phocus]

New Clinton Book Blasts Sanders for 'Lasting Damage' in 2016 Race

From the excerpts that have been published, it is clear that Hillary not being elected is everyone else's fault but Hillary's.

My favourite was that Hillary was too powerful of a woman and that the US was not ready for a powerful woman.  Rule 1, It is never Hillary's fault.  Rule 2 Hillary is never wrong.

[Schewe]

I couldn't agree more.  This kind of gross oversimplification insults the intelligence of the American voter.  At the very least the slogan ought to be: "Trump is a big orange, incompetent, uninformed pathological liar with a narcissistic personality and financial conflicts-of-interest."

...and a dummy!!! (don't forget dummy)

[Alan Klein]

I dunno, but the "not Hillary" seemed to work pretty well.

The Democrats need to nominate a candidate that appeals to and represents the voters.  Not a candidate that just appeals to the DNC.

Hillary lost the election because she did not appeal to the majority of the voters spread across the nation.  The purpose of the Electoral College is to choose the candidate that garners the majority of the votes in the majority of the states... not just the majority of the votes. Looking at the election maps, it is pretty clear that while Hillary was popular in some isolated high population areas, there were many larger areas spread across the nation where she was not popular.

The Democrats also need to run a campaign that mobilizes and excites the voters. I truly believe that many voters thought that neither choice was good and were not motivated.  Hillary probably has as large an ego as Trump does and she probably thought that people would naturally love her.  Well they didn't. For a multitude of reasons (some valid, some invalid) Hillary did not appeal to the people like she thought she would.  I feel that she truly thinks that she is better than she really is.

I also feel that Hillary felt that she was "owed" this nomination and unfortunately, the DNC agreed with her.  Well, the DNC, being a private corporation can make their decisions the way they like, but they also much accept the consequences of those decisions.  I think in 2016, the DNC choose unwisely.

Both parties need to work on their platform.. their identity.  Running on a platform of "don't choose that other idiot" can only carry you so far.  It will carry your base, but the independent moderate demography does not accept that. Often we are placed in a position of voting for the lessor of two evils, but this last election was truly a race to the bottom of the barrel.

Think about it for a moment.  Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton represented the best of the best of the best that their respective party could nominate.  These were the best?  Depressing ain't it?

I think that both the RNC and the DNC confused Cream with Scum.  Both rise to the top, but are not the same.

I think that is what the voters were sick of --  Don't tell me why I should not vote for the other idiot, please tell me why I should vote for this idiot. That's where both parties fail for me.

Personally, I can't remember the last time I voted FOR a candidate for president. It has always been voting against the other idiot. I so much want to vote for a candidate for a chance... just to see how it feels.

So I agree with the other poster in that the Democrats will have a hard time in 2018 and an even harder time in 2020 unless they get their act together.

How much you wanna bet that the 2020 Democratic platform will be 99% "I am not Trump".  That is not a way to elect our chief executive.

It did not work for Kerry nor for Romney.  The cogent question is whether the political parties have learned their lesson. Personally, I have little hope they did.

I agree with many of your points.  But you're not giving credit where credit is due.

The Republicans did give us their best.  There were 16 candidates representing different philosophies, backgrounds and personalities.  Bush a former governor of Florida and a son and brother of past presidents got 5% of the vote despite spending over $100 million on his campaign.  5%! There were conservatives like Cruz, a woman, a black, libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul, a kind of liberal or middle of the roader Gov. Kasich of Ohio, and other types all people of stature and experience.  But they chose Trump because he was an outsider and populist, someone who was going to bring something different to the table.  They wanted to shake things up, not politics as usual. 

On the Democrat side, you had the Anointed One, Saint Hillary who had smoothe sailing to the White House until the Populist on the Left, Sen Sanders derailed her coronation.  Of course, in the end, he had no chance of winning.  Hillary had collected the super delegate's nomination votes before the first vote.  And as our friends, the Russians, kindly advised us, the fix was in against Bernie at the Democratic National Committee, DNC.  Hillary had a deal with the DNC chairwoman to marginalize Bernie.  No wonder the Democrats are so pissed at the Russians.  They told everyone how corrupt the Democrats are.  And their sycophants, the biased press, keeps telling us how bad the Russians are while ignoring the truth of how corrupt the Democrats are in fixing the nomination in Hillary's favor. 

But it was the electorate, so tired of business as usual from our politicians, that made the difference.  The political elites, the insiders, the crony capitalists, the corruption, the phony promises, the biased press, the "usual suspects", just didn't get the people's support this time around.  So we hired an outsider, a guy who never ran for political office before and made him President.  I'm sure he was as surprised as the rest of us.  Well, our founders did say that politicians should come from the regular common people, that we shouldn't have a professional political class.  Well Trump is no professional and many say he has no class.  So he seems to fit right in with what the people wanted.

[Schewe]

Maybe something was lost in translation?

Trump is 'not my bride,' Russian President Vladimir Putin says

Russian President Vladimir Putin today called it “naïve” to ask him whether he is disappointed with the presidency of Donald Trump, saying the relationship between the two leaders, often described as a so-called bromance, isn’t personal.

“He’s not my bride,” Putin told reporters at an economic summit in the Chinese city of Xiamen.

“I am also not his bride, nor his groom,” he went on, according to remarks carried by Russian news agencies.

Speaking to the reporter who asked, Putin said the question “sounds very naïve to me,” adding, “We are engaged in state activity.”

As relations between Russia and the United States have spiraled into a cycle of diplomatic tit-for-tat, with both countries recently closing embassy properties belonging to one another, there has been speculation that the Kremlin— which U.S. intelligence officials accuse of meddling in the 2016 presidential election— might be disillusioned with a president who, as a candidate, pledged to get along with Moscow.

--snip--

Putin was also asked to comment on discussions in the United States that Trump could face impeachment during his presidency as multiple investigations continue into alleged ties between members of his campaign team and Russian intelligence, and into whether he might have obstructed justice in firing former FBI Director James Comey.

Putin declined to comment, saying, “It’s not our business.”

I would have expect Putie to say "our work here is done..." He's got us on the rocks...just where he wants us :~( But I find the word "bride" an unusual word for Putie to claim he wasn't. I'm thinking there might have been something lost in translation...could what he said be better translated as He's not my bitch"?

[Alan Klein]

Trump Rescinds Obama's DACA Dreamer's Decision. 

Now it's up to Congress where it belonged in the first place.  Personally, we should work out some deal where illegals who were brought in as kids can find a path to legal citizenship.  America created this problem when we let them stay in the first place because we wanted their parents to mow our grass, pick our crops, and clean restaurant tables.  And we should resolve it in a fair way. 
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-daca-decision-puts-dreamers-future-in-the-hands-of-congress

[Raul_82]

Well, there goes the Dreamers program.
Link

The program is officially closed to new applications and 800,000 people will loose their current immigration status by 2020, which will allow the law enforcers to deport them.

These were the requirements that were in place to be able to apply to the Dreamers program:

1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

2. Came to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday;

3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;

5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or their lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and

7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.


Dark times ahead for a lot of people.

[Alan Klein]

...On the Democrat side, you had the Anointed One, Saint Hillary who had smoothe sailing to the White House until the Populist on the Left, Sen Sanders derailed her coronation.  Of course, in the end, he had no chance of winning.  Hillary had collected the super delegate's nomination votes before the first vote.  And as our friends, the Russians, kindly advised us, the fix was in against Bernie at the Democratic National Committee, DNC.  Hillary had a deal with the DNC chairwoman to marginalize Bernie.  No wonder the Democrats are so pissed at the Russians.  They told everyone how corrupt the Democrats are.  And their sycophants, the biased press, keeps telling us how bad the Russians are while ignoring the truth of how corrupt the Democrats are in fixing the nomination in Hillary's favor...

Oh, did I mention that now Hillary blames Sanders.  It's all his fault, apparently.  This will surely help the Democrat Party shore up support with those on the left who supported Bernie.
New Clinton book blasts Sanders for 'lasting damage' in 2016 race
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-what-happened/index.html

[Alan Klein]

Well, there goes the Dreamers program.
Link

The program is officially closed to new applications and 800,000 people will loose their current immigration status by 2020, which will allow the law enforcers to deport them.

These were the requirements that were in place to be able to apply to the Dreamers program:

1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

2. Came to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday;

3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;

5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or their lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and

7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.


Dark times ahead for a lot of people.

Obama's edict did nothing to protect them permanently as we now find out with Trump's decision reversing the 2015 rules.  Better that Congress enact legislation that can give permanent status at some point and allow them to become full citizens in the future.  Otherwise they'll be on tenterhooks the rest of their lives.  Trump is in favor of doing the right thing by them.  So he'll support legislation that will let them stay eventually.  It's actually a positive development for dreamers although there has to be fear as well.  Better to have fear and hope then having to look over your shoulder the rest of your life.