Trump

[RedPhoenix]

If you want to change things, start working for a viable candidate to beat him in 2020. I wish I could tell you who that is.

CNN would sure like you to know: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/2020-democrats-rankings/index.html

Unfortunately it seems like they don't have any new ideas either, nor do I think they even found 10 actual candidates. Just running down their list.

1) Joe Biden - well the major strike against him in the past was what a maverick he was but compared to Trump he's downright ordinary so that may no longer be a problem. He never entered the 2016 race because of the death of his son, I don't know if he's recovered from that enough to make a serious run. He's probably a decent candidate if he wants the job. He sort of luke-warm endorsed Clinton and isn't so tied to her to acquire her stain with the general public, and he may be able to distinguish himself from Obama enough to get crossover appeal. His voting record is consistently enough an actual liberal record that he wouldn't be a wolf in sheep's clothing in the White House. The main problem? He's only a year younger than Bernie. Does he still have enough left to be what would be by far the oldest elected president in history?

2) Elizabeth Warren - not gonna lie, I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren in the white house. She's the closest thing to a progressive with establishment credentials we have. She's gotten into it with Trump a lot lately, I honestly don't know if that helps or hurts her on the national stage. I worry about her credibility with swing voters. She's an icon, sure, but can she turn that into a legitimate threat for the office? I'd love if she could. Age is less of a concern here, but still worth noting she would be the oldest elected president in history if she won in 202 (71). Seems to be a consistent problem with democrats.

3) Kamala Harris - I think there are questions about whether she can get sufficient appeal outside of liberal strongholds. She can answer those questions with time, but I'd rather find out before I put her in the Oval Office or make her our only shot at avoiding 4 more years of Trump. I like some of what she did with California's drug courts, but she did nothing to dismantle the school to prison pipeline. Also seeing that her main appeal is in Cali, a state that Trump didn't even both trying to swing, she may be of limited national appeal.

4) Kirsten Gillibrand - Is on my list of people who can go fuck themselves. She's supposed to be the Democrat's person in charge of promoting women running for office but she doesn't support the woman in the election way too often when the male candidate is the more DNC friendly drone. When even CNN acknowledges that a liberal candidate has an "authenticity problem" that's going to be trouble.

5) Bernie Sanders - He'll be 79 in 2020. Trump, the oldest person ever elected president, was 70 when he took office (Hilary incidentally would have been second-oldest, 69 but a few months younger than Reagan). Still, age is a concern, and being backstabbed by the DNC again is a concern. What his supporters do with their votes still matters though, there are a lot of us. CNN saying he's rated lower because he's a "white male" is just head shaking. He's more progressive than most females and minorities in government. Also, white male votes are some of the ones you needed last time around. 

6) Eric Holder. Yeah, I live too close to where this guy thought it would be a good idea to hand out guns to Mexican cartels. Over 2,000 guns ended up in the cartels's hands and this guy wouldn't answer questions about it. Then he was extremely mild going after white collar criminals and left the banks entirely alone. No fucking thanks.

7) Steve Bullock. I don't think I'd ever heard this guy's name before this article. No opinions. He's the Montana governor so maybe we're on the hunt for the next bill clinton here? No idea if he fits that mold.

8) Cory Booker. I have only seen him a few times and he's never done anything to make me have a positive opinion of him. I think he's on this list because he provides 'liberal outrage' soundbites to CNN a lot, but that makes me dislike the guy for his dumb theatrics. Maybe they just need to justify how often they air this guy so they're pumping up his credibility here? Wouldn't put it past them.

9) Mitch Landrieu. Ooof. A New Orleans politician? They make Chicago look clean in comparison. I can't see this going anywhere.

10) Sherrod Brown. Another guy I've never heard of and who has apparently said he isn't interested in running. I think CNN couldn't find 10 actual candidates.

So uh, yeah, even CNN is stretching to find a list of liberals to get excited about. This is not a good thing. I suppose we are still more than 2 years away though. Just gotta be patient I guess.

[Oniya]

Sherrod is one of the legislators from Ohio.  If he ran, he'd be one I'd consider.  His wife (Connie Schultz) is a Pulitzer-winning columnist, formerly of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and I followed her columns for a while (when I could still stomach Facebook.)

[Lustful Bride]

Honestly I think I'd be happy with Bernie :/ Even if age takes him in office he might do some good, besides the Age just means experience.

[TheGlyphstone]

Honestly I think I'd be happy with Bernie :/ Even if age takes him in office he might do some good, besides the Age just means experience.

That makes his VP candidate the one you're actually voting for, though, since they have excellent odds of taking over the position. So you end up back on the list.

[Vekseid]

I strongly suspect that the most serious candidates are laying low until the primaries need to begin, to minimize the smear campaigns they are going to inevitably suffer.

Of those mentioned, Gillibrand is the most obvious person angling for it after throwing Franken under the bus. It would be poetic if Franken runs in 2020 anyway and beats her.

[Muddy Waters]

I'd love to see Joe Kennedy on the ticket as a VP, either with Bernie or Biden. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Short of her dropping dead, we know the DNC will back Hillary again. NO one on that list is someone that the DNC will want on stage, except maybe Biden

[Lustful Bride]

Short of her dropping dead, we know the DNC will back Hillary again. NO one on that list is someone that the DNC will want on stage, except maybe Biden

I guess they never heard the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. :P

[Callie Del Noire]

What I’d do is get her to start up... then let Trump blast her for a long while till you unveil your real candidate steps up and she steps down.. because anyone that starts up early (like the last election) will get shit on by the tweet house straight on.

[Lustful Bride]

What I’d do is get her to start up... then let Trump blast her for a long while till you unveil your real candidate steps up and she steps down.. because anyone that starts up early (like the last election) will get shit on by the tweet house straight on.

[Lustful Bride]

What I’d do is get her to start up... then let Trump blast her for a long while till you unveil your real candidate steps up and she steps down.. because anyone that starts up early (like the last election) will get shit on by the tweet house straight on.

Sorry for double post, clicked on post by accident. I was going to say that that's actually not a bad idea.

[Muddy Waters]

It makes perfect sense....

A democratic stalking horse vs. a Russian stalking horse.  :P

[Callie Del Noire]

It makes perfect sense....

A democratic stalking horse vs. a Russian stalking horse.  :P

I’m of the opinion that only two things are going to fix the legislative branch. Eliminate all donations beyond private citizens (special interests can provide information but that’s it)

And term limits.

Without consequences to your inaction and no reason to not handle issues. Neither party will step away from their refusal to sit down and engage in discourse with one another honestly

[ReijiTabibito]

Unfortunately it seems like they don't have any new ideas either, nor do I think they even found 10 actual candidates. Just running down their list.

So uh, yeah, even CNN is stretching to find a list of liberals to get excited about. This is not a good thing. I suppose we are still more than 2 years away though. Just gotta be patient I guess.

That's what happens when you clean out the backbench so the Queen candidate can have her turn to run for President.  The Democrats could have spent the Obama administration doing just this, finding new blood to fill in for when the old guard is gone.  But they wasted eight whole years with their buffoonery, while the adrift GOP took its time in the desert to find...at least younger candidates, if not newer ones.  Cruz.  Rubio.  Paul the Younger.  Guys who are going to be around for the next 20-30 years.

Short of her dropping dead, we know the DNC will back Hillary again. NO one on that list is someone that the DNC will want on stage, except maybe Biden

The DNC needs to get its head out of its leadership's ass and start thinking of things other than itself.  Part of me WANTS so badly for the DNC to implode because they keep trying to pick people who will serve their agenda rather than the people's agenda.  But then that would leave us with a single party state, and history tells us that that is never a good thing.

IF somehow Hillary does manage to make a second run at the Office, then all those things people have been saying about Trump having Putin's c*ck in his mouth?  Those now apply to the Democrats and the Clintons.  Frankly, she should get laughed offstage - when Rick Perry tried a second run in 2012, he got mocked for it, and he didn't even make it past the primaries!

The Clintons have done...whatever it is they're going to do, for the Democrats.  And it needs to stay that way.

[gaggedLouise]

What I’d do is get her to start up... then let Trump blast her for a long while till you unveil your real candidate steps up and she steps down.. because anyone that starts up early (like the last election) will get shit on by the tweet house straight on.

Use Hllary as a stooge? Sounds like a risky tactic to me, and how many other experienced democrats would get dragged down and sort of compromised (in social media, anyway!) for having worked with her?  ::)

[Vekseid]

What I’d do is get her to start up... then let Trump blast her for a long while till you unveil your real candidate steps up and she steps down.. because anyone that starts up early (like the last election) will get shit on by the tweet house straight on.

I fully expect that during the 2020 Presidential debates, one of the Democratic candidate's responses is going to end up being "Hillary isn't on this stage, Donald."

Calling it now.

[gaggedLouise]

Anyone want to imagine the amount of security forces they'll need for a de facto state visit by Putin to Washington DC this autumn? I don't think there's been any time in Trump's political career when so many people have dubbed him a traitor as now, and bringing Putin to Washington in the aftermath of Helsinki (and close in time to the midterms) is likely to act as some kind of flashpoint...

[avarus]

Hrmmm, if you haven't seen it yet, this might be amusing: Trump meeting a "normal" leader. Watch how Trump is trying to talk over our Prime Minister Rutte going "No!" and "No it's not!" and then when he realises he cannot engage with this person because that would mean stooping down to the level of rationality Trump then goes on a domestic tangent to not address the subject. (This was pre-Helsinki btw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuC7R9WXNWM

[Oniya]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/new-york-state-opens-tax-probe-into-trump-foundation.html

Taxes.  That's how they finally got Capone. 

(This is part of an investigation of whether the Trump Foundation violated campaign finance laws by funneling money into Trump's presidential campaign.)

[Blythe]

This popped up on one of my feeds today.



...okay, I laughed really hard, too. The irony was too good not to.

On a more serious note, I've noticed more about Manafort specifically popping up in the news again, but I haven't had time to read about him in more detail. Have there been changes or significant updates in that investigation?

[Oniya]

On a more serious note, I've noticed more about Manafort specifically popping up in the news again, but I haven't had time to read about him in more detail. Have there been changes or significant updates in that investigation?

Don't know about the investigation, per se, but they're starting jury selection.  The lawyers have been given lists of potential jurors, which usually means that they're going to do their 'peremptory challenges' - this is when the lawyers are allowed to dismiss a set number of jurors without stating a reason.  (However, if there's a distinct trend in one side or the other to exclude a recognizable group, then the other side can issue a 'Batson challenge'.)

[Blythe]

Don't know about the investigation, per se, but they're starting jury selection.  The lawyers have been given lists of potential jurors, which usually means that they're going to do their 'peremptory challenges' - this is when the lawyers are allowed to dismiss a set number of jurors without stating a reason.  (However, if there's a distinct trend in one side or the other to exclude a recognizable group, then the other side can issue a 'Batson challenge'.)

Oh man, I'm more behind on this than I thought. Thank you for this. I really need to dedicate some serious time to catching up on my info about Manafort. :/

[gaggedLouise]

Trump tries to crank up the heat on Iran with a thundering twitter challenge, in typical "Fire and Fury" style.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/trump-iran-intl/index.html

The aim seems to be double - both to cement the idea of a looming Iranian threat to the free world and to portray European countries who want to keep the Iran Nuclear deal going and continue trading with Iran as cowardly appeasers. The latter is hardly a surprise after Trump's conflicted Nato/Helsinki tour.

[Callie Del Noire]

Trump tries to crank up the heat on Iran with a thundering twitter challenge, in typical "Fire and Fury" style.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/trump-iran-intl/index.html

The aim seems to be double - both to cement the idea of a looming Iranian threat to the free world and to portray European countries who want to keep the Iran Nuclear deal going and continue trading with Iran as cowardly appeasers. The latter is hardly a surprise after Trump's conflicted Nato/Helsinki tour.

Wanna bet if Iran did attack, he’d expect NATO to comply with the metal defense clause?

[Deamonbane]

Trump tries to crank up the heat on Iran with a thundering twitter challenge, in typical "Fire and Fury" style.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/trump-iran-intl/index.html

The aim seems to be double - both to cement the idea of a looming Iranian threat to the free world and to portray European countries who want to keep the Iran Nuclear deal going and continue trading with Iran as cowardly appeasers. The latter is hardly a surprise after Trump's conflicted Nato/Helsinki tour.

Usually, when Trump pulls a stunt like this, he's probably trying to make news to cover for something else.