Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[toffy]

What a daft question... There were two real candidates - Trump and Clinton.

Then there was also 3 independents - Jill Stein, that other fruit loop and Evan whats his face the Utah guy all of whom were never going to get enough votes

So if people here didn't and wouldn't vote for Trump its pretty clear....

Unless you are talking hypothetical so then add

Bernie Sanders. Who some say should have beat Clinton and i'm sure has his support here also

Or if you want to go beyond that we can pick one of the 21 other Republican candidates who Trump beat.

The right can claim Clinton is a crook, or evil or whatever bs they come up with but the popular vote of the country which was 3m more than Trump spoke volumes. That and none of the claims against Clinton were found to be true.

It's clear Clinton didn't do enough to win. She essentially handed it to Trump. Please don't pretend he walked away with it. He didn't.

Still half of the country wanted the Democratic candidate although some like i said would have preferred Bernie who might have swayed as many as Clinton or more who knows.


Either way there are a few who ran who would be better than the 12 year old child who's there now.

Electoral vote system never seemed to be an issue before. I'm guessing Clinton got the extra votes in New York and California. So the two states with the largest populations should dictate for the rest of the country?

Trump won fair and square.

What did Clinton stand for that was so different to the past administrations? Because that is the difference.

People were fed up. Time will tell if they've made a mistake

 

[verreauxi]

It's all good and well being a critic of Trump but who would have all his critics in this thread have preferred?

Anyone but racist, sexist, sociopathic, thin-skinned, bullying, xenophobic, inept, confabulating, lazy, horrible golf-swing Trump.

 

[DanEFC92]

Electoral vote system never seemed to be an issue before. I'm guessing Clinton got the extra votes in New York and California. So the two states with the largest populations should dictate for the rest of the country?

Trump won fair and square.*

What did Clinton stand for that was so different to the past administrations? Because that is the difference.

People were fed up. Time will tell if they've made a mistake

See Gore v Bush in 2000.



*TBA based on ongoing investigation

Hmm, it's been 9 months. Think it's more than enough time to call it a mistake.

 

[SteveSC]

Electoral vote system never seemed to be an issue before(2). I'm guessing Clinton got the extra votes in New York and California. So the two states with the largest populations should dictate for the rest of the country?(2.5)

Trump won fair and square.(1)

What did Clinton stand for that was so different to the past administrations? (3)Because that is the difference.

People were fed up. Time will tell if they've made a mistake(4)

(1) I never said he didn't. If you weren't such a defensive Trump supporter you would have read were i said Clinton messed up her own campaign. Its true the current system dictates it is the fairest system but don't pretend this is the first time the elctoral college has been discussed.
(2) So that is a naive statement. First see @DanEFC92 post. Next go do some research. Even when the electoral college was introduced it was intended to be used in a slight different manner. There are several studies out there on how unfair it might be. How lob sided it could be and its been a bone of contention between many experts and historians. It has been debated many times well before this election. In fact your own hero Trump has been on record many times saying how unfair he thought it was so....
(2.5) If the majority of ones population lives in the biggest states and they are the richest states then it might be worth while looking at a fairer system. If New York and California were red states the Republican would have put changing it on the table a long time ago. times change so can laws.
(3) It doesn't matter whether she is different or not. She won more votes but ultimately screwed herself by ignoring states and not focusing on certain aspects of her campaign. Also the whole Bernie saga and his die hards might have derailed her but again no tangible proof just a believe. There are several factors. She derailed herself and yet still won more votes. Yes Trump won but that does not mean the opposition have to accept him especially if he only speaks to his base.
(4) If you feel he is doing well that is your opinion but i feel sorry for you and the other die hards. He has accomplished zero, he has not united the country, he cannot even unite the republican party with whom he fights with. He flip flops every day and hasn't an overall clue how politics works.
He is all bluster.

 

[mezzrow]

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.d9f5c4d3f485

 

[abelard]

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.d9f5c4d3f485

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research

 

[BlueTX]

Wonder when we'll stop going over the 2016 election tbh.

For the sake of the country and democracy, I hope we do not and one of the most infuriating issues still is not being addressed is the foolishness that is the Electoral College.

 

[BlueTX]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research

Exactly. The "revelations" by the Washington Post are laughable. Who the hell didn't know the Steele Dossier was originally funded by the GOP opponents of the Orange Tweeter and then later by Dem supporters aligned with the Clinton campaign? This is SOP in any big political campaign. The only remaining question to be answered is if the claims in the dossier are true.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Trump's so called populist agenda looks remarkably like the old one of Wall Street being able to screw over your average Joe without penalties.

 

[abelard]

@toffy is this ^ a good thing?

what do you think healthcare should be like after Obamacare is repealed?

 

[DanEFC92]

For the sake of the country and democracy, I hope we do not and one of the most infuriating issues still is not being addressed is the foolishness that is the Electoral College.

Aye, was a pithy comment aimed at Trump sympathisers still gloating at Hilary’s loss while Trump is out here shabiting over everything.

 

[abelard]

The Clinton Campaign Reportedly Funded the Salacious Trump Dossier. Does It Matter
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ortedly_paid_for_salacious_trump_dossier.html
The Washington Post nudged along the Trump dossier origin story Tuesday, reporting that the research company that commissioned the former British intelligence officer to do a deep dive into then-candidate Donald Trump’s foreign, particularly Russian, ties was funded, in part, by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. This is not altogether new news; as far back as January, the Trump opposition research collected by the research firm Fusion GPS, which ended up including numerous salacious details, was known to be funded by Democratic groups. Fusion GPS was initially the client of one of Trump’s Republican primary opponents (which one is still not known) and it was known that during the general election groups aligned with Hillary Clinton took over the funding of the opposition research.

“Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research,” according to the Washington Post. “After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.”

The DNC, all along, seemed like a pretty good bet to be involved, but what we did not know—or know for sure—was that the Clinton campaign itself helped pay for the Trump opposition research work to continue up until October 2016, days before the presidential election. By that point, the dossier included, among other things, claims that Russia had compromising information on Trump’s financial interests and sexual activity in the country.

How big a deal is this? Well, the motives of the investigation, which was—and is—transparently aimed at finding anti-Trump information, are important to factor into to any assessment of the dossier. To that end, ever since news of the dossier broke, it's been taken with sufficient grains of salt by just about everyone. It’s opposition research; it’s unverified. But it still made its way to the FBI and a two-page synopsis made it all the way to then-president-elect Trump’s eyes and ears. Trump Republicans see this, and the Clinton connection, as a clear indication that the Obama administration was out to get their guy for beating up on and defeating Clinton in November. The way it looks to them is that Clinton lost the election, handed over damaging information on Trump to the Obama administration, which then leaked it and sparked a witch hunt to wound the Trump presidency before it even got started.

Is this what happened? There appear to be far more plausible good faith answers, but given that a significant portion of Trump’s base essentially doesn’t believe anything, the Clinton funding link is going to be their new wild card talking point for dismissing anything that has to do with Russia. In fact, it’s already begun.

The reality is that the Russia investigation, despite the scintillating reading in the Trump dossier, has progressed far beyond the dossier and it’s not altogether clear what role it played in informing the investigation. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, for instance, is building a legal case against Trump and his associates and the dossier is surely not a foundational part of that effort that is looking for things that will hold up in court. That surely won’t matter on Fox News or to the White House, which has tried to use the existence of some of the more bonkers accusations in the dossier as evidence that everything Russia-related is equally off-the-wall Clinton propaganda fed to the deep state.

*BONUS*
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

I don't think I've hid my contempt for vapid "centrism" on here - which is why I find it so amusing (if vaguely disappointing) that the right in America remains incapable, despite ample possibilities, of criticizing the Clintons or the DNC without resorting to flights of paranoid fantasy.

Probably helps explain why so few educated people vote for them these days. You can maintain a sense of dignity, or you can watch Fox News. But not both.

 

[Harryflashman]

The Clinton Campaign Reportedly Funded the Salacious Trump Dossier. Does It Matter
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ortedly_paid_for_salacious_trump_dossier.html
The Washington Post nudged along the Trump dossier origin story Tuesday, reporting that the research company that commissioned the former British intelligence officer to do a deep dive into then-candidate Donald Trump’s foreign, particularly Russian, ties was funded, in part, by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. This is not altogether new news; as far back as January, the Trump opposition research collected by the research firm Fusion GPS, which ended up including numerous salacious details, was known to be funded by Democratic groups. Fusion GPS was initially the client of one of Trump’s Republican primary opponents (which one is still not known) and it was known that during the general election groups aligned with Hillary Clinton took over the funding of the opposition research.

“Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research,” according to the Washington Post. “After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.”

The DNC, all along, seemed like a pretty good bet to be involved, but what we did not know—or know for sure—was that the Clinton campaign itself helped pay for the Trump opposition research work to continue up until October 2016, days before the presidential election. By that point, the dossier included, among other things, claims that Russia had compromising information on Trump’s financial interests and sexual activity in the country.

How big a deal is this? Well, the motives of the investigation, which was—and is—transparently aimed at finding anti-Trump information, are important to factor into to any assessment of the dossier. To that end, ever since news of the dossier broke, it's been taken with sufficient grains of salt by just about everyone. It’s opposition research; it’s unverified. But it still made its way to the FBI and a two-page synopsis made it all the way to then-president-elect Trump’s eyes and ears. Trump Republicans see this, and the Clinton connection, as a clear indication that the Obama administration was out to get their guy for beating up on and defeating Clinton in November. The way it looks to them is that Clinton lost the election, handed over damaging information on Trump to the Obama administration, which then leaked it and sparked a witch hunt to wound the Trump presidency before it even got started.

Is this what happened? There appear to be far more plausible good faith answers, but given that a significant portion of Trump’s base essentially doesn’t believe anything, the Clinton funding link is going to be their new wild card talking point for dismissing anything that has to do with Russia. In fact, it’s already begun.

The reality is that the Russia investigation, despite the scintillating reading in the Trump dossier, has progressed far beyond the dossier and it’s not altogether clear what role it played in informing the investigation. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, for instance, is building a legal case against Trump and his associates and the dossier is surely not a foundational part of that effort that is looking for things that will hold up in court. That surely won’t matter on Fox News or to the White House, which has tried to use the existence of some of the more bonkers accusations in the dossier as evidence that everything Russia-related is equally off-the-wall Clinton propaganda fed to the deep state.

*BONUS*
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

I don't think I've hid my contempt for vapid "centrism" on here - which is why I find it so amusing (if vaguely disappointing) that the right in America remains incapable, despite ample possibilities, of criticizing the Clintons or the DNC without resorting to flights of paranoid fantasy.

Probably helps explain why so few educated people vote for them these days. You can maintain a sense of dignity, or you can watch Fox News. But not both.

It seems they paid for research into trump thinking or suspecting that he may have a close connection with Russia , opposition research . Do people not think Trump and GOP did any research into Hillary ? Well we do know that Trump Jnr, Jared et al set up a meeting when dirt was dangled don’t we ?

 

[mezzrow]

Exactly. The "revelations" by the Washington Post are laughable. Who the hell didn't know the Steele Dossier was originally funded by the GOP opponents of the Orange Tweeter and then later by Dem supporters aligned with the Clinton campaign? This is SOP in any big political campaign. The only remaining question to be answered is if the claims in the dossier are true.

Who indeed?

Two New York Times reporters are calling out people tied to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee for denying the Clinton campaign and DNC’s role in the making of the so-called “Trump dossier,” following a report Tuesday that found they funded the research for the dossier.

“When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying “You (or your sources) are wrong,” New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel tweeted of Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Marc Elias.

According to the Washington Post report published Tuesday evening, Elias’ law firm hired Fusion GPS, a Washington opposition research firm, to conduct research that resulted in the Trump dossier, which contained scandalous material tying President Trump to Russia.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...l-over-trump-dossier-pushback/article/2638531

But wait! There's more...

Sometime in October 2016 — that is, at the height of the presidential campaign — Christopher Steele, the foreign agent hired by Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier, approached the FBI with information he had gleaned during the project. According to a February report in the Washington Post, Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”

It was an astonishing turn: the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency agreeing to fund an ongoing opposition research project being conducted by one of the candidates in the midst of a presidential election.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...bi-is-next/article/2638540?platform=hootsuite

 

[abelard]

Who indeed?

Two New York Times reporters are calling out people tied to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee for denying the Clinton campaign and DNC’s role in the making of the so-called “Trump dossier,” following a report Tuesday that found they funded the research for the dossier.

“When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying “You (or your sources) are wrong,” New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel tweeted of Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Marc Elias.

According to the Washington Post report published Tuesday evening, Elias’ law firm hired Fusion GPS, a Washington opposition research firm, to conduct research that resulted in the Trump dossier, which contained scandalous material tying President Trump to Russia.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...l-over-trump-dossier-pushback/article/2638531

But wait! There's more...

Sometime in October 2016 — that is, at the height of the presidential campaign — Christopher Steele, the foreign agent hired by Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier, approached the FBI with information he had gleaned during the project. According to a February report in the Washington Post, Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”

It was an astonishing turn: the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency agreeing to fund an ongoing opposition research project being conducted by one of the candidates in the midst of a presidential election.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...bi-is-next/article/2638540?platform=hootsuite

So the smoking gun is that one of the Clintons' no doubt hundreds of lawyers didn't immediately disclose everything he knew to the New York Times about the oppo firm he'd hired?

Re the FBI, wouldn't the scandal have been them NOT looking into reports of collusion any further?