The Trump Presidency – 2016

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Crazy how 50.1-49.9 Lamb will mean Trump and the GOP are toast and 50.1-49.9 Saccone will mean a resurgent Trump and GOP.

Political media gotta spin that narrative somehow.

Because nobody has the attention span to grasp that a 50.1-49.9 race in EITHER direction in a district that's been anywhere from double-digit Republican to "strongman plebescite" territory since the turn of the millennium might be another canary in the coal mine.

Nope. It's gotta get painted as a Significant Victory for whoever wins despite the context.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by henry296

Not sure exactly the new lines but Lamb lives in the more republican county and saccone lives in the democratic county.

This district was Trump +19.5. Lamb will be running in November in a Trump +2.6 district.

[Thomkal]

Family of slain Democratic staffer Seth Rich sues Fox News - Mar. 14, 2018

Hope they get a big settlement/award from the judge for this

[larrymcg421]

Let us all mourn for the thousands of "Lamb wasn't progressive enough" hot taeks from deluded Berniebros and Stein idiots that will now never see the light of day.

[NobodyHere]

Well Rand Paul is squeaking again about the CIA nominee and her connection to torture. Just be quiet and he'll fall in line.

[RainMaker]

The new top economic adviser wrote this. Look at the date.

https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/...-larry-kudlow/

[PilotMan]

You should find some of the shit he was peddling during The Obama years.

[Thomkal]

In fundraising speech, Trump says he made up trade claim in meeting with Justin Trudeau - The Washington Post

[Edward64]

Trump has certainly changed the US Presidency for the foreseeable future.

[bronconick]

Mueller subpoenas the Trump Organization.

About Russia.

[digamma]

This seems like a waste of time. I mean, no one up to collusion or other shenanigans would actually use their Trump.org e-mail address for anything.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Mueller subpoenas the Trump Organization.

About Russia.

You do this on the first day of the NCAA's Mueller? How are we supposed to keep up with this news?

[bronconick]

There's a level of poetry of Ides of March and this leaking today that's probably lost on everyone in the Trump administration but Kelly.

[stevew]

Vanessa Trump becomes the next member of the Trump administration to quit

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by digamma

This seems like a waste of time. I mean, no one up to collusion or other shenanigans would actually use their Trump.org e-mail address for anything.

I get the joke, but this is about more than the election. This will open up all the financial connections between Trump and Russians.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by digamma

This seems like a waste of time. I mean, no one up to collusion or other shenanigans would actually use their Trump.org e-mail address for anything.

You give them too much credit.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by stevew

Vanessa Trump becomes the next member of the Trump administration to quit

wonder how much the "white powder scare" and being married to a Trump with all the scandals and turmoil played a part in this? Just hope there's not a "Stormy Daniels" involved.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

wonder how much the "white powder scare" and being married to a Trump with all the scandals and turmoil played a part in this? Just hope there's not a "Stormy Daniels" involved.

I'd watch a Vanessa Trump/Stormy Daniels video.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by stevew

Vanessa Trump becomes the next member of the Trump administration to quit

Going to beat McMaster by a nose, it seems.

[Jas_lov]

I really hope John Bolton isn't McMaster's replacement. I think Sessions and McMaster are the next to go.

[BBT]

Bolton would be an interesting choice considering that Trump was looking to talk with the North Koreans. Bolton’s persona non grata over there due to insulting the last Kim.

Guy is scum all around so it would be no surprise if he ended up in Trump’s cabinet. Supposedly, the only reason he isn’t already is that Trump doesn’t like his mustache.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

wonder how much the "white powder scare" and being married to a Trump with all the scandals and turmoil played a part in this? Just hope there's not a "Stormy Daniels" involved.

I'm sure there's a Donald jr. Pee tape somewhere.

[Edward64]

I'm sure Trump was briefed on this prior to its release. Cyber-warfare seems like a logical extension of the information age. If real, its so hard to understand Trump's affinity for Putin.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/polit...rid/index.html

The US government has accused Russia of remotely targeting the US power grid, as part of its newly unveiled sanctions on the country.

The Department of Homeland Security released details Thursday of what it called a multi-stage effort by Russia to target specific government entities and critical infrastructure.

The Trump administration announced extensive sanctions against Russia on Thursday morning, which included sanctions on the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm that produced divisive political posts on American social media platforms during the 2016 presidential election.

According to the DHS, Russia accessed US government networks by initially targeting with malware small commercial third-party networks that were less secure.

Russia has attempted to attack targets that include "energy, nuclear, commercial facilities, water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors" since March 2016, DHS said.

[Kodos]

I'm starting to get the feeling that Russia is not our friend...

[panerd]

So I never really pay attention to the incumbent party during the primaries but can people run against the sitting president for the nomination? This has to happen in 2020 right?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

So I never really pay attention to the incumbent party during the primaries but can people run against the sitting president for the nomination? This has to happen in 2020 right?

Yes, it can happen. In both 1980, when Kennedy challenged Carter, and 1992, when Buchanan challenged Bush1, the split in the party from the primary contributed to their losses.

I don't know if there's been a credible primary opponent for an incumbent that won the general election.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sure Trump was briefed on this prior to its release. Cyber-warfare seems like a logical extension of the information age. If real, its so hard to understand Trump's affinity for Putin.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/polit...rid/index.html

This is no shock at all.

From June 2017. Great article by the way. Straight up Russian blueprint.

"How an Entire Nation Became Russia's Test Lab For Cyberwar"

https://www.wired.com/story/russian-...ttack-ukraine/

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by panerd

So I never really pay attention to the incumbent party during the primaries but can people run against the sitting president for the nomination? This has to happen in 2020 right?

IMO, Kasich has been planning to primary Trump since the end of the 2016 primary. He never bowed, never backed down, has been exceptionally vocal as the anti-Trump Republican voice. I guarantee he will be one of them.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by panerd

So I never really pay attention to the incumbent party during the primaries but can people run against the sitting president for the nomination? This has to happen in 2020 right?

Jeff Flake (from Arizona) was in New Hampshire yesterday "for the weather." So he's probably going to have some challengers for the nomination. He beat them all for it last time though, so remains to be seen if there are enough Republican/independent voters out there fed up enough with Trump to push him out the door.

[albionmoonlight]

Here's my Trump 2020 scenario (that does not involve voter suppression or Russian hacking):

Dems nominate a moderate candidate
Flake or Kasich run as a 3rd party
Trump runs

The Flake/Kasich candidate siphons off the anti-Trump Republicans. Trump's base stays with him. Trump ends up winning a lot of states with, like, a 45% GOP / 43% DEM / 12% THIRD PARTY split.

[JPhillips]

Trump consistently polls at @80% GOP approval. That can change between now and the primary, but I'd expect Trump to win the nomination easily. A third party run is a much bigger threat.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Here's my Trump 2020 scenario (that does not involve voter suppression or Russian hacking):

Dems nominate a moderate candidate
Flake or Kasich run as a 3rd party
Trump runs

The Flake/Kasich candidate siphons off the anti-Trump Republicans. Trump's base stays with him. Trump ends up winning a lot of states with, like, a 45% GOP / 43% DEM / 12% THIRD PARTY split.

It would be really interesting to see what happens, but I don't see 57% of states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida voting for Trump and a "true conservative."

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by digamma

It would be really interesting to see what happens, but I don't see 57% of states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida voting for Trump and a "true conservative."

Fair point. Those numbers are probably pretty far off.

But I do think that the general approach holds.

President Trump's floor and ceiling are very close. His base will vote for him; no one else will.If you were a 2016 Trump voter, you have to be excited about what he's done. But I don't see much reaching out beyond that.

So, for a Dem to win, they have to get above that baseline. And a 3rd party running as an anti-Trump seems likely to cut into the vote needed to do that.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Here's my Trump 2020 scenario (that does not involve voter suppression or Russian hacking):

Dems nominate a moderate candidate
Flake or Kasich run as a 3rd party
Trump runs

The Flake/Kasich candidate siphons off the anti-Trump Republicans. Trump's base stays with him. Trump ends up winning a lot of states with, like, a 45% GOP / 43% DEM / 12% THIRD PARTY split.

Like digamma, I think your scenario has a lot of merit up until the end. If there is a credible "Moderate" (Kasich) or Conservative (Flake) R that runs as a 3rd party, which could realistically happen, any decent Democratic candidate gets >400 electoral votes.

[JPhillips]

The difference is a reelect is a referendum on the incumbent and the opposition candidate doesn't matter as much. If Trump is still around 40% approval it's very unlikely he can win.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Here's my Trump 2020 scenario (that does not involve voter suppression or Russian hacking):

Dems nominate a moderate candidate
Bernie Sanders run as a 3rd party
Trump runs

fixed

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This is no shock at all.

From June 2017. Great article by the way. Straight up Russian blueprint.

"How an Entire Nation Became Russia's Test Lab For Cyberwar"

https://www.wired.com/story/russian-...ttack-ukraine/

And a large reason why the remain the biggest threat to us as a country. China may be 1a but no one else is in the conversation as far as threats go.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't know if there's been a credible primary opponent for an incumbent that won the general election.

Off the top of my head, and this going back a ways, Franklin Pierce lost the nomination to Buchanan who then won the election in 1856. There might have been 1 or 2 more in the 1800s, but not since.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Off the top of my head, and this going back a ways, Franklin Pierce lost the nomination to Buchanan who then won the election in 1856. There might have been 1 or 2 more in the 1800s, but not since.

Does Robert Kennedy count?

[cuervo72]

Ted Kennedy took a pretty good shot at Carter in 1980.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sure Trump was briefed on this prior to its release. Cyber-warfare seems like a logical extension of the information age. If real, its so hard to understand Trump's affinity for Putin.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/15/polit...rid/index.html

Why is stuff like power plants on the normal grid anyway, and not some hardened, no connections outside of the nation network anyway?

[RainMaker]

Someone might run but I don't think it matters. Trump is the Republican Party. If anything I think he made their goals more defined.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by bob

Why is stuff like power plants on the normal grid anyway, and not some hardened, no connections outside of the nation network anyway?

When they were built, that wasn't a worry. Now, it takes $$$ to upgrade/fix, and the folks in charge of the government right now don't exactly want to raise the taxes to undertake such a project.

There's a similar problem with our physical infrastructure, something I agree with Trump on, but that effort also seems dead in the weeds. Taxes are bad...especially so in an election year.

Plus, these are projects that are better suited, politically, when we are in a recession, where they can be used to stimulate job growth. Of course, that would require whoever's in charge at the time to push for it. It would also make sense to raise taxes now, while the economy is good, so that money is available later to be used on projects like this.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Off the top of my head, and this going back a ways, Franklin Pierce lost the nomination to Buchanan who then won the election in 1856. There might have been 1 or 2 more in the 1800s, but not since.

I was thinking about an incumbent that had a real challenge in the primary that then went on to win the general.

[NobodyHere]

Looks like Andrew McCabe won't be collecting his pension without a legal fight.

[JPhillips]

But he will be collecting a hell of a check for his tell all book.

[Scoobz0202]

Statement by Andrew McCabe
I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.

For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The President's tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about us.

No more.

The investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI's involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau, and to make clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.

The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week. In fact, it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request. The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth. During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.

But looking at that in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.

Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey's accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG's focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sense only when viewed through this lens. Thursday's comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.

This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to tain the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally. It is part of this Administration's ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel's work.

I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the midst of chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was privileged to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.

I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.

Source: ABC News on Twitter: "JUST IN: Statement from Andrew McCabe: "I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey.� https://t.co/t2XUf57p21… https://t.co/mbl45Lhiwh"

[bronconick]

Sessions firing someone for "lack of candor while under oath" is a pot and kettle situation.

[Julio Riddols]

This stuff is coming to a head, I think we will see some real action leading up to the 60 minutes interview. I hope everyone stays out of harms way until the dust settles but something tells me I shouldn't expect that. It's crazy that I think it is entirely feasible that people could die as a result of their involvement with this because I don't know how desperate Trump can get, but I do know how untouchable he thinks he is and how poorly guided he is.

[Flasch186]

wont matter, gop has no backbone. and ive been wrong about the bottom on this one too often to guess again.