Election 2020

[David Horn]

(03-06-2020, 05:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-05-2020, 11:04 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- l don't get these older folx. Y would anybody vote 4 somebody who wants 2 mess w/their $? They're more senile than Groper Joe

Much of it is the language.  Sanders seems to prefer west European definitions of what is going on, especially in terms of socialism.  If you accept his definitions, he is speaking truly.  Many in the US use the communist definitions, so they misunderstand and react very poorly.  The insistence on using the west European language and grasp on events thus remains a problem.  But his insistence that his plans are not radical, that they have been implemented and work well in many parts of the world, is correct.

What may be different here?  We spend a lot on the ability to use force abroad.  This is expensive.  This also leaves less dollars available to use on the people.  If we want to meddle in international affairs, fight wars in the Middle East, guarantee the independence of Taiwan, play Domino Effect games against autocratic governments world wide, the dollars have to be allocated differently.  One has to harden one’s heart.

We also spend a lot on the elite, directing a lot of wealth there.  This is not unique.  The autocratic countries too have the oligarchs and inefficiency.

Even China recently decided not to build its 5th and 6th carrier.

I have a different spin on this.  Yes, the fear factor is still the strongest, but why is that nearly 100% for Biden?  Simple, really.  Most people are not active in politics, but are actively engaged in their own lives.  If they receive messaging that's scary, they react, so Bernie speaking well of Castro, no matter how obliquely, is scary to the over 50 crowd.  The same is true in spades for stances on issues that worry people, like Medicare for All.  People feel threatened by a potential loss, without giving the potential gain a second's thought.

Then you have the Squad, who are monumentally pushy, and, frankly, piss off more people than they convert.  This has been played in the past.  The Vietnam War protestors ended that war, and handed the government to Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes and Bill Clinton.   That isn't even a Pyrrhic victory.  It's a slaughter.

[David Horn]

(03-09-2020, 02:06 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-05-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats may well have made the wrong choice Tuesday. Boomers came out in unprecedented droves, while many millennials stayed home. Boomers lost their nerve and voted out of fear for the safe candidate. Only he may not be so safe. Democrats know how to pick losers who are the safe choice. Have they done it again? Biden has a chance-- better than those other losers according to my horoscope method-- but not if he's senile...

I bet you'll wish everyone forgets that crack if Plagiarism Joe becomes the nominee. I also bet you'll vote for him, too, as will tens of millions. In my prediction thread, I already pointed out that it probably doesn't matter whether Sanders or Joe wins the nomination.

Considering how monumentally dishonest and just plain incompetent Trump is, picking nits about any of the Dems is totally disingenuous.

[Eric the Green]

President Trump Job Approval
Approve44.1
Disapprove53.0
Disapprove +8.9

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden51.3
Sanders35.3
Gabbard1.7
Biden +16.0

[Eric the Green]

(03-09-2020, 02:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-06-2020, 05:26 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-05-2020, 11:04 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- l don't get these older folx. Y would anybody vote 4 somebody who wants 2 mess w/their $? They're more senile than Groper Joe

Much of it is the language.  Sanders seems to prefer west European definitions of what is going on, especially in terms of socialism.  If you accept his definitions, he is speaking truly.  Many in the US use the communist definitions, so they misunderstand and react very poorly.  The insistence on using the west European language and grasp on events thus remains a problem.  But his insistence that his plans are not radical, that they have been implemented and work well in many parts of the world, is correct.

What may be different here?  We spend a lot on the ability to use force abroad.  This is expensive.  This also leaves less dollars available to use on the people.  If we want to meddle in international affairs, fight wars in the Middle East, guarantee the independence of Taiwan, play Domino Effect games against autocratic governments world wide, the dollars have to be allocated differently.  One has to harden one’s heart.

We also spend a lot on the elite, directing a lot of wealth there.  This is not unique.  The autocratic countries too have the oligarchs and inefficiency.

Even China recently decided not to build its 5th and 6th carrier.

I have a different spin on this.  Yes, the fear factor is still the strongest, but why is that nearly 100% for Biden?  Simple, really.  Most people are not active in politics, but are actively engaged in their own lives.  If they receive messaging that's scary, they react, so Bernie speaking well of Castro, no matter how obliquely, is scary to the over 50 crowd.  The same is true in spades for stances on issues that worry people, like Medicare for All.  People feel threatened by a potential loss, without giving the potential gain a second's thought.

Then you have the Squad, who are monumentally pushy, and, frankly, piss off more people than they convert.  This has been played in the past.  The Vietnam War protestors ended that war, and handed the government to Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes and Bill Clinton.   That isn't even a Pyrrhic victory.  It's a slaughter.

All of which says more about Americans and their inability to respond to reality than about any of the politicians.

I am more upset about Sanders' loss (and about older Americans) than I thought I would be. I suppose I will hold my nose and vote for Biden in November. But I still have major doubts about him both as a candidate and as a potential president.

I note though, that I was correct about his chances as a candidate, given his horoscope score, more so than many others were as his campaign went downhill in the first 3 primary states and during the debates.

All 3 surviving candidates have the best scores of any Democrats who ran. Only Trump has a marginally higher score, and he has a marginal advantage.

But Biden has all but sown up the nomination now, barring a severe attack of dementia on Joe's part in the next few weeks.

[David Horn]

(03-09-2020, 05:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: … I am more upset about Sanders' loss (and about older Americans) than I thought I would be. I suppose I will hold my nose and vote for Biden in November. But I still have major doubts about him both as a candidate and as a potential president.

I note though, that I was correct about his chances as a candidate, given his horoscope score, more so than many others were as his campaign went downhill in the first 3 primary states and during the debates.

All 3 surviving candidates have the best scores of any Democrats who ran. Only Trump has a marginally higher score, and he has a marginal advantage.

But Biden has all but sown up the nomination now, barring a severe attack of dementia on Joe's part in the next few weeks.

Joe is the choice of the scared-to-death crowd, who fully dominate the electorate this year. I doubt that he'll be a great President, and will not enjoy the benefit of a compliant Congress for longer than his first two years -- assuming the panic to get rid of the Donald carries over to the lower tier races.

He's a decent guy who should have won the job 30 years ago, when his philosophical bent fit the times better than today. Assuming he decides to hand the torch to his VP, rather than run again, that choice will decide whether there will be a Progressive end to the 4T or not. My guess is not. He'll need to find a woman or a man of color to take the job. His oil-on-troubled-waters style says it will be Stacey Abrams -- not a paragon of Progressivism, but a symbolic best-choice.

[pbrower2a]

(03-09-2020, 02:06 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-05-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats may well have made the wrong choice Tuesday. Boomers came out in unprecedented droves, while many millennials stayed home. Boomers lost their nerve and voted out of fear for the safe candidate. Only he may not be so safe. Democrats know how to pick losers who are the safe choice. Have they done it again? Biden has a chance-- better than those other losers according to my horoscope method-- but not if he's senile...

I bet you'll wish everyone forgets that crack if Plagiarism Joe becomes the nominee. I also bet you'll vote for him, too, as will tens of millions. In my prediction thread, I already pointed out that it probably doesn't matter whether Sanders or Joe wins the nomination.

In contrast to Donald J. Treachery... 

if you can make up names , so can I.

[Eric the Green]

(03-10-2020, 12:26 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-09-2020, 05:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: … I am more upset about Sanders' loss (and about older Americans) than I thought I would be. I suppose I will hold my nose and vote for Biden in November. But I still have major doubts about him both as a candidate and as a potential president.

I note though, that I was correct about his chances as a candidate, given his horoscope score, more so than many others were as his campaign went downhill in the first 3 primary states and during the debates.

All 3 surviving candidates have the best scores of any Democrats who ran. Only Trump has a marginally higher score, and he has a marginal advantage.

But Biden has all but sown up the nomination now, barring a severe attack of dementia on Joe's part in the next few weeks.

Joe is the choice of the scared-to-death crowd, who fully dominate the electorate this year.  I doubt that he'll be a great President, and will not enjoy the benefit of a compliant Congress for longer than his first two years -- assuming the panic to get rid of the Donald carries over to the lower tier races.  

He's a decent guy who should have won the job 30 years ago, when his philosophical bent fit the times better than today.  Assuming he decides to hand the torch to his VP, rather than run again, that choice will decide whether there will be a Progressive end to the 4T or not.  My guess is not.  He'll need to find a woman or a man of color to take the job.  His oil-on-troubled-waters style says it will be Stacey Abrams -- not a paragon of Progressivism, but a symbolic best-choice.

Yes, that would be a good one, with some chance of actually being elected, assuming the Republicans pick a weak candidate such as Mike Pence. As of now, the Republicans only have weak candidates to offer after Trump is deposed or retires. Her national status and profile is somewhat low though, so that might lead Joe to pick someone else. Tammy Baldwin is one possibility.

But his choice will not decide the nominee of the Party in 2024, necessarily, although (s)he may be a strong favorite. I don't see any true progressives on the scene for the Democrats who can likely win, now that Sanders seems likely to be defeated by Joe. If the Democrats think their candidate must be someone of color or a woman, that narrows the field so that a defeat is more likely.

[JDG 66]

(03-09-2020, 02:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-09-2020, 02:06 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-05-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats may well have made the wrong choice Tuesday. Boomers came out in unprecedented droves, while many millennials stayed home. Boomers lost their nerve and voted out of fear for the safe candidate. Only he may not be so safe. Democrats know how to pick losers who are the safe choice. Have they done it again? Biden has a chance-- better than those other losers according to my horoscope method-- but not if he's senile...

I bet you'll wish everyone forgets that crack if Plagiarism Joe becomes the nominee. I also bet you'll vote for him, too, as will tens of millions. In my prediction thread, I already pointed out that it probably doesn't matter whether Sanders or Joe wins the nomination.

Considering how monumentally dishonest and just plain incompetent Trump is, picking nits about any of the Dems is totally disingenuous.

After 8 years of Obama, if you think this is incompetent dishonesty, you must have an odd definition of both words, or you're guzzling a a good dose of hypocrisy.

[David Horn]

(03-10-2020, 01:45 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-09-2020, 02:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-09-2020, 02:06 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-05-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats may well have made the wrong choice Tuesday. Boomers came out in unprecedented droves, while many millennials stayed home. Boomers lost their nerve and voted out of fear for the safe candidate. Only he may not be so safe. Democrats know how to pick losers who are the safe choice. Have they done it again? Biden has a chance-- better than those other losers according to my horoscope method-- but not if he's senile...

I bet you'll wish everyone forgets that crack if Plagiarism Joe becomes the nominee. I also bet you'll vote for him, too, as will tens of millions. In my prediction thread, I already pointed out that it probably doesn't matter whether Sanders or Joe wins the nomination.

Considering how monumentally dishonest and just plain incompetent Trump is, picking nits about any of the Dems is totally disingenuous.

After 8 years of Obama, if you think this is incompetent dishonesty, you must have an odd definition of both words, or you're guzzling a a good dose of hypocrisy.

Yah gotta give the Kool-Aid some rest!  Even a cursory look at the two makes BHO look like a saint and a consummate genius.  Trump is literally ignorant and too narcissistic to be aware of how stupid he is.  Obama's biggest failing was his reluctance to act.  Trump just goes off like a hand grenade, and does it all the time.  He's only survived on instilling fear.  There are more than few autocrats out there operating on that model.  He got impeached; the evidence was overwhelming -- even without the witnesses the R's were too afraid to allow.  On the other hand, BHO was whisper clean, all RW ranting to the contrary.  Unless Uncle Joe is unwilling, Trump will be prosecuted after he leaves office.  I hope he escapes jail, but gets fined into poverty.  I would be a fitting end to the jerk. 

… and btw, I'm not a great fan of BHO, but I know a honest person when I see one.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-10-2020, 02:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: Yah gotta give the Kool-Aid some rest!

But he has been away for a while. He must have lots of Kool-Aid saved up! Be ready to believe that black is white, or at least run into the claim. It's what he does.

[pbrower2a]

I would say that Presidents who win the same states except in extreme landslides (FDR is unlike Nixon and Reagan) have similarities of regional appeal, which includes temperament and the nature of their demographic appeal and their agendas. I can think of two Presidents who had similarity of temperament (both are -- perhaps this partially reflects the generational theory itself -- Reactive Presidents. I love to refresh people on this comparison. The similarities are remarkable when one consider that the two Presidents were in opposing Parties.

.........

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red. [/quote]

The electric eel is loose! What?  Republican Eisenhower and Democrat Obama? They did win much the same states in their elections (Obama not getting the High Plains states or the Intermountain West aside from Colorado and New Mexico). OK, the political culture of America in 2008 and 2012 is far closer to that of the 1950s than partisan identity would indicate -- it is just that the partisan match to the political cultures of the states are mostly opposite in partisan identity.

So what changed in in American politics between 1952 and 2012? Let's start by saying what did not change. Eisenhower cultivated the Mormon vote for the GOP to get it to start identifying with conservative politics. Trump has some chance of blowing that. Ranch country is as strongly R now as it was in 1952, I do not want to go into the details on how ranch-area and farm-area politics differ; Iowa has voted D in all but two Presidential elections beginning in 1988, and Kansas has voted R in every Presidential election since 1968. Demographic realities have given California, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico large Hispanic minorities, and such now favors Democrats in statewide elections.

But note well: Eisenhower and Obama did very well with well-educated people, winning decisive majorities among both. Stevenson, McCain, and Romney did well with not-so-well-educated people -- and such makes a big difference. People with much trust in formal education as a necessity for the Good Life voted for Ike -- and Obama -- at least as the states suggest. The states with the lowest standards of formal education went for Stevenson (D) but against Obama (D). Ike won three states usually tough for Republicans even in good or great years, winning the states (Massachusetts and Minnesota) that were the sole states that hapless McGovern and Mondale won during 49-state landslides for a Republican, and Rhode Island, the only Northern state other than Massachusetts to vote against Herbert Hoover in 1928. Ike won all three twice, and no Republican has won all three once in any other election since 1924.    

OK, what about the Hispanics? Sure, many are poor, and recent immigrants might be ill-educated people who hold onto cr@ppy jobs. They insist that their kids do well in school so that they don't become a permanent under-class in America. In the 1950's such people would have gone for Ike. Today they hold Trump in contempt for an anti-intellectualism that reaches far beyond the usual wayward professor to the K-12 teacher. Note well that the Catholic Church has no use for the young-earth creationism that so many Protestant fundamentalists endorse. "Believe it or burn!"

.....

The ideal antithesis of Trump is an Eisenhower (if one is a conservative Never-Trumper) or Obama (if one is a moderate liberal) The two are more similar than one might expect. Obama elections are closer to those of Eisenhower than to anyone else -- even other Democrats. The political cultures of the states are essentially as they were in the 1950's, with biggest changes in demographics (the biggest one: the rapid growth of the Hispanic populations as shares of the electorate). Blacks have not gained as a share of the electorate, and Asians are heavily concentrated in states that are 'sure things' in recent years. Technology has changed, but that has more effect upon journalism than upon economic reality aside from the disappearance of many industrial jobs. (But industrial workers of an earlier era are getting warehouse and delivery jobs instead. If they are not involved in pressing records or assembling televisions they are handling them in a warehouse or delivering them to customers.   

The main change between the 1950's and now is that the Democratic and Republican Parties have largely switched constituencies. Eisenhower won the college-educated vote -- big -- and so did Obama. The constituencies for "Eisenhower" and "Rockefeller" Republicans, conservatives in style and personal life but progressive on civil liberties and the environment, have gone Democratic. Meanwhile the whites of the Mountain and Deep South have gone largely Republican. Asian-Americans have gone from Republican (concern about Communism) to Democratic (concern about the anti-intellectualism within the Republican Party).

OK, Republicans still have the plutocrats and executives and still have a hold over ranchers and Mormons as did Eisenhower. Democrats still have a strong hold over Jews, Mexican-Americans, and blacks.

MY OPINION:

I see Donald Trump as a political failure at the least, unable to add fresh support to the votes from  the constituencies that he needed for a bare election. Generational change in the electorate as younger votes who are much more Democratic than Republican supplant older voters who are slightly more Republican than Democratic die off. President Trump will need new support to win re-election in 2020 just to offset an electorate becoming more Democratic. Most people already recognize that Trump's economic agenda demands great suffering on behalf of existing elites of ownership and management. The Trump economy is a raw deal -- prosperity only for a few for which we are all expected to be grateful.

It's hard to measure political failure at this stage, as we have never had a President with such pervasive corruption as this one. Americans have shown tolerance of political corruption only in local machine politics, but not at the state level and not even at the level of the congressional district. Scandal is political ruin, but it is hard to measure it against an economic collapse that Trump has not yet inflicted upon us (and might not).

It will all be clear in mid-November of this year, and everything will seem inevitable. 

......

Even if Eisenhower and Obama had very different curricula vitae  they had similar Presidencies, if in much-different parts of a generational cycle. Obama would have made a fine military officer, quite possibly reaching senior rank -- and Eisenhower looks like someone who could have been a fine attorney. To be sure, Obama did not win in Mormon Country or the High Plains, but otherwise Obama and Eisenhower won essentially the same states.

I can say this after three years of the Presidency of Donald Trump:

(a spoof of the introductory music to All in the Family):

Mister, we could use a man like Eisenhower again!

[JDG 66]

(03-10-2020, 02:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: ...He got impeached; the evidence was overwhelming -- even without the witnesses the R's were too afraid to allow.  On the other hand, BHO was whisper clean, all RW ranting to the contrary.  Unless Uncle Joe is unwilling, Trump will be prosecuted after he leaves office.  I hope he escapes jail, but gets fined into poverty.  I would be a fitting end to the jerk. 

… and btw, I'm not a great fan of BHO, but I know a honest person when I see one.

-Sifting thru' "ORANGE MAN BAD", evidence of what? Even the witnesses admitted that all they had was their opinion that they didn't like Trump.

Maybe Uncle Joe can prosecute himself and his crack addict son.

We can add Hillary and her aides, as well.

As for Russia election collusion, here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8

[David Horn]

(03-11-2020, 01:54 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-10-2020, 02:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: ...He got impeached; the evidence was overwhelming -- even without the witnesses the R's were too afraid to allow.  On the other hand, BHO was whisper clean, all RW ranting to the contrary.  Unless Uncle Joe is unwilling, Trump will be prosecuted after he leaves office.  I hope he escapes jail, but gets fined into poverty.  I would be a fitting end to the jerk. 

… and btw, I'm not a great fan of BHO, but I know a honest person when I see one.

-Sifting thru' "ORANGE MAN BAD", evidence of what? Even the witnesses admitted that all they had was their opinion that they didn't like Trump.

Maybe Uncle Joe can prosecute himself and his crack addict son.

We can add Hillary and her aides, as well.

As for Russia election collusion, here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8

I may not be a lawyer, but I can tell when someone is stupidly confessing to criminal activity on live TV.  This is not opinion.  It's documented fact.  Trump asked Russia to intervene in 2016, and has asked Ukraine and the Chinese to intervene in this election.  If that resulted in actions by either party, and it certainly did with the Russians, then conspiracy is already proven.  I could go on at length about obstruction of Congress and justice in general, but why bother?

And showing a video of two leaders talking about state business proves nothing.  If you have a case that this was done by Obama for his personal benefit, then show it.  It's been alleged by others, and no one found it credible who was credible him or herself.

[beechnut79]

(03-10-2020, 02:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-10-2020, 01:45 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-09-2020, 02:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-09-2020, 02:06 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-05-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Democrats may well have made the wrong choice Tuesday. Boomers came out in unprecedented droves, while many millennials stayed home. Boomers lost their nerve and voted out of fear for the safe candidate. Only he may not be so safe. Democrats know how to pick losers who are the safe choice. Have they done it again? Biden has a chance-- better than those other losers according to my horoscope method-- but not if he's senile...

I bet you'll wish everyone forgets that crack if Plagiarism Joe becomes the nominee. I also bet you'll vote for him, too, as will tens of millions. In my prediction thread, I already pointed out that it probably doesn't matter whether Sanders or Joe wins the nomination.

Considering how monumentally dishonest and just plain incompetent Trump is, picking nits about any of the Dems is totally disingenuous.

After 8 years of Obama, if you think this is incompetent dishonesty, you must have an odd definition of both words, or you're guzzling a a good dose of hypocrisy.

Yah gotta give the Kool-Aid some rest!  Even a cursory look at the two makes BHO look like a saint and a consummate genius.  Trump is literally ignorant and too narcissistic to be aware of how stupid he is.  Obama's biggest failing was his reluctance to act.  Trump just goes off like a hand grenade, and does it all the time.  He's only survived on instilling fear.  There are more than few autocrats out there operating on that model.  He got impeached; the evidence was overwhelming -- even without the witnesses the R's were too afraid to allow.  On the other hand, BHO was whisper clean, all RW ranting to the contrary.  Unless Uncle Joe is unwilling, Trump will be prosecuted after he leaves office.  I hope he escapes jail, but gets fined into poverty.  I would be a fitting end to the jerk. 

… and btw, I'm not a great fan of BHO, but I know a honest person when I see one.

Do you feel that he may have been too honest and laid back for the office, perhaps drawing comparison to Jimmy Carter? Both of them eaerr followed by a go-getter, even though not in the right way,

[pbrower2a]

(03-11-2020, 01:54 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-10-2020, 02:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: ...He got impeached; the evidence was overwhelming -- even without the witnesses the R's were too afraid to allow.  On the other hand, BHO was whisper clean, all RW ranting to the contrary.  Unless Uncle Joe is unwilling, Trump will be prosecuted after he leaves office.  I hope he escapes jail, but gets fined into poverty.  I would be a fitting end to the jerk. 

… and btw, I'm not a great fan of BHO, but I know a honest person when I see one.

-Sifting thru' "ORANGE MAN BAD", evidence of what? Even the witnesses admitted that all they had was their opinion that they didn't like Trump.

As if such visceral contempt is undeserved and wrong -- evidence of liberal iniquity? No. President Trump made a phone call to the President of Ukraine and tried to get him to initiate a highly-publicized prosecution of an opponent's son. For that, Democrats had to impeach the President even if such would have no positive result. National security is a legitimate concern for us all, and Trump compromised it for political advantage.

Do you think that the cops who testify against offenders like the people against whom they testify?

[David Horn]

(03-11-2020, 04:58 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(03-10-2020, 02:43 PM)David Horn Wrote: … and btw, I'm not a great fan of BHO, but I know a honest person when I see one.

Do you feel that he may have been too honest and laid back for the office, perhaps drawing comparison to Jimmy Carter? Both of them eaerr followed by a go-getter, even though not in the right way,

No, I just think he was the wrong person for the times. In a 1T, he would have been excellent. As is was, he was more than admirable, if less than effective.

[JDG 66]

(03-11-2020, 02:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: I may not be a lawyer, but I can tell when someone is stupidly confessing to criminal activity on live TV...  Trump asked Russia to intervene in 2016, and has asked Ukraine and the Chinese to intervene in this election.  If that resulted in actions by either party, and it certainly did with the Russians, then conspiracy is already proven.  I could go on at length about obstruction of Congress and justice in general, but why bother?

And showing a video of two leaders talking about state business proves nothing.  If you have a case that this was done by Obama for his personal benefit, then show it.  It's been alleged by others, and no one found it credible who was credible him or herself.

-Obstruction of Congress is not a crime. Using that standard, Obama and Holder should have been impeached fro withholding the Fast & Furious docs.

Now, let's compare Trump's public joke to Obama's plot...

Trump quote:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press"


...because everyone in the audience knew that the last thing that the mainstream media wanted to do at that time was do anything that would hurt Clinton.


BTW, your lack of concern that Clinton's personal server allowed the Russian's and Chinese to hack here emails is telling. Funny, I remember back in 2008 when you pointed out what a shady thing the Clinton Foundation was. I guess you got over it.

Obama sotto voce quote, accidentally caught on tape:

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

...so, Obama asked Medvedev to help him on his election in return for giving the Russians what they wanted. Mr. Horn, why it would be that Obama would be able to give the Russian's exactly what they want (which he did, constantly) only when he is no longer electorally responsible to the American people? That's actual quid pro quo.

Meanwhile, there is ZERO evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Mueller's partisan political hacks were desperate to find anything, but there was no there there. Meanwhile, Obama's DOJ swallowed whole Russian disinformation, paid by the Clinton machine.

Sheesh.

[JDG 66]

(03-11-2020, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...President Trump made a phone call to the President of Ukraine and tried to get him to initiate a highly-publicized prosecution of an opponent's son...

No, Trump asked Zelensky to initiate a highly an investigation on the son of a former US government official*, after said former government official is on tape bragging that he had a prosecutor fired who was investigating his son's company. Very different. I think Plagiarism Joe's crack addict son should be investigated. Why don't you?

*and the stepson of another former US government official (Senator and Secretary of State), and the friend of a current Senator, but that's another story.

[David Horn]

(03-12-2020, 12:31 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-11-2020, 02:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: I may not be a lawyer, but I can tell when someone is stupidly confessing to criminal activity on live TV...  Trump asked Russia to intervene in 2016, and has asked Ukraine and the Chinese to intervene in this election.  If that resulted in actions by either party, and it certainly did with the Russians, then conspiracy is already proven.  I could go on at length about obstruction of Congress and justice in general, but why bother?

And showing a video of two leaders talking about state business proves nothing.  If you have a case that this was done by Obama for his personal benefit, then show it.  It's been alleged by others, and no one found it credible who was credible him or herself.

-Obstruction of Congress is not a crime. Using that standard, Obama and Holder should have been impeached fro withholding the Fast & Furious docs.

Wrong. In fact, there are numerous actions that qualify

JDG 66 Wrote:Now, let's compare Trump's public joke to Obama's plot...

Trump quote:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press"

...because everyone in the audience knew that the last thing that the mainstream media wanted to do at that time was do anything that would hurt Clinton.

This is how conspiracy works. Some form of collaboration occurs that is followed by a definite action in response. In the case of Hillary's emails, Trump asked his buddy Vlad, and the results were delivered in near real time. That's pretty cut-and-dry.

JDG 66 Wrote:BTW, your lack of concern that Clinton's personal server allowed the Russian's and Chinese to hack here emails is telling. Funny, I remember back in 2008 when you pointed out what a shady thing the Clinton Foundation was. I guess you got over it.

And those bits of classified information consisted of what exactly? On yeah: nothing! Was this a smart move on her part? Absolutely not -- but it wasn't criminal in any way. She deserved the public spanking, but the "lock her up" nonsense was just bad theater.

JDG 66 Wrote:Obama sotto voce quote, accidentally caught on tape:

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

...so, Obama asked Medvedev to help him on his election in return for giving the Russians what they wanted. Mr. Horn, why it would be that Obama would be able to give the Russian's exactly what they want (which he did, constantly) only when he is no longer electorally responsible to the American people? That's actual quid pro quo.

You extracted this bit of data from what source? I gave a source, and the consensus of everyone involved in the incident had to do with sensitive negotiations over defensive missiles in eastern Europe … not Obama's slam-dunk election.

JDG 66 Wrote:Meanwhile, there is ZERO evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Mueller's partisan political hacks were desperate to find anything, but there was no there there. Meanwhile, Obama's DOJ swallowed whole Russian disinformation, paid by the Clinton machine.

Sheesh.

And again, how can you even draw these conclusions? The Mueller report, contrary to the disinformation from Trump's consiglieri, got several convictions and indictments of foreign agents outside the US (and untouchable for that reason). Never mind that Trump and Putin had private talks that excluded a US interpreter (but not one from Russia) except the one time the interpreter's notes were immediately seized.

Conspiracy theories aren't proof … just so you know. I don't cite the private Putin talks as anything but suspicious. The stuff I did cite was crystal clear.

[pbrower2a]

(03-12-2020, 12:39 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-11-2020, 06:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...President Trump made a phone call to the President of Ukraine and tried to get him to initiate a highly-publicized prosecution of an opponent's son...

No, Trump asked Zelensky to initiate a highly an investigation on the son of a former US government official*, after said former government official is on tape bragging that he had a prosecutor fired who was investigating his son's company. Very different. I think Plagiarism Joe's crack addict son should be investigated. Why don't you?

*and the stepson of another former US government official (Senator and Secretary of State), and the friend of a current Senator, but that's another story.

I can assure you that effective prosecutions have secretive investigations that leave the suspect in the dark and let the suspect act as if he is getting away with deeds that ultimately incriminate him.  Besides, a good prosecutor does whatever is necessary to avoid prejudicing a jury in a way that might set up an appeal. The defendant is usually arrested when he tries to escape prosecution (typically flight), when caught in flagrante delicto, or when his behavior becomes too dangerous to tolerate. 

Announcing an investigation to the media before the investigation has begun is inept prosecution unless one has an "enemies of the people" campaign as in the Third Reich or the old Soviet Union, in which case the defendant is doomed from the start in a political entity in which nobody is safe.

Well, Ukraine has made huge breaks from the old Soviet Union and its practices (much in contrast to Belarus!) because, in part, the FBI is more effective in nailing mobsters (Ukraine has a big problem with the Russian Mafia) than was the KGB. It is a choice between finesse and brutality in law enforcement.