The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

[Doubt]

No one has confessed to what the half baked hypothesis alleges. Flynn appears to have remained quiet about why he lied.

Flynn is a cooperating witness in the ongoing investigation and his sentencing has been delayed several times. You think they are keeping him out of prison now to talk about the weather?

 

[newyorkguy]

Trump makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.


True! Sad!

 

[BobTheCoward]

Flynn is a cooperating witness in the ongoing investigation and his sentencing has been delayed several times. You think they are keeping him out of prison now to talk about the weather?

I have no opinion on that. Nothing has leaked on the reason as far as I know.

 

[Armitage72]

Here's the thing: it won't be.

You know why? Because a sizeable portion of Americans wanted that nightmare; some even knew exactly what would happen, but voted that way anyway; some because they thought it was the right thing to do, others in order to spite you. Those people are still there, and they'll still vote come 2020 and beyond.

You just have to look at that woman in Florida during the shutdown, who was disappointed that Trump was hurting her and her neighbors instead of "the people he should be hurting."

And that somewhat famous quote:
“The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of whom will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn’t even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it.”

 

[Ladewig]

Someone on Quora asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response:

Thanks I may quote some of this in a thread on another board. I actually encountered someone who believes that virtually all of the Trump Hate out there today arises from people being told by newspapers that the right thing to do is to hate Trump, people who think it is fashionable, and blind, ignorant partisans who can’t see all the amazing things that President Trump has done.

Ugh. I just realized that if someone said that here in 2019, we have a perfect example of The Emperor’s New Clothes, then she would agree and claim that the liberals are saying, “only the most clever and insightful people can see the reasons to hate Trump.”

 

[Crossbow]

Trump makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.


True! Sad!

You are quite correct.

For some time now I have noticed that ever since Nixon the various in competences of the current Republican President has somehow managed to make the prior Republican President/Presidents look better in comparison.

 

[Stacko]

Trump’s DHS Guts Task Forces Protecting Elections From Foreign Meddling

Two teams of federal officials assembled to fight foreign election interference are being dramatically downsized, according to three current and former Department of Homeland Security officials. And now, those sources say they fear the department won’t prepare adequately for election threats in 2020.

“The clear assessment from the intelligence community is that 2020 is going to be the perfect storm,” said a DHS official familiar with the teams. “We know Russia is going to be engaged. Other state actors have seen the success of Russia and realize the value of disinformation operations. So it’s very curious why the task forces were demoted in the bureaucracy and the leadership has not committed resources to prepare for the 2020 election.”

The task forces, part of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), were assembled in response to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. One focuses in part on securing election infrastructure and the other focuses on foreign influence efforts, including social media disinformation campaigns.

 

[newyorkguy]

Consider this. A group of political scientists and a co-founder of Data for Progress, wrote in a joint op-ed piece:

Our analysis shows that while 9 percent of Obama 2012 voters went for Mr. Trump in 2016, 7 percent — that’s more than four million missing voters — stayed home. Link

That's close to 10 million votes and Trump lost the 2016 election by 2.9 million. This is something people tend to overlook, but 2.9 million is a lot of votes. There were two key states where Trump squeaked by with a majority which then rewarded him with all the state's electoral votes, it's a winner-take-all system. If Clinton had won Florida and Pennsylvania (two states Obama carried in 2012) then she'd be president. Trump won them by a 160,000 vote margin out of 15.0 million votes cast. Razor thin.

If half of the Obama voters who voted for Trump switch back to the Democratic candidate in 2020, and half of the voters who stayed home in 2016 come out and vote in 2020, Trump probably doesn't stand a chance of winning.

 

[quadraginta]

I know it is silly to try to fit their “reasoning” into a logical framework, but if they are convinced that it is a religion, then shouldn’t the government give it protection under the First Amendment? I know that they are making the argument so that Christian churches can kick gays out and otherwise treat them poorly, but surely the government has to protect them from discrimination in non-religious settings.

<snip>

Religious fundies have never quite gotten the hang of that "unintended consequences" thing.

 

[wareyin]

Consider this. A group of political scientists and a co-founder of Data for Progress, wrote in a joint op-ed piece:


That's close to 10 million votes and Trump lost the 2016 election by 2.9 million. This is something people tend to overlook, but 2.9 million is a lot of votes. There were two key states where Trump squeaked by with a majority which then rewarded him with all the state's electoral votes, it's a winner-take-all system. If Clinton had won Florida and Pennsylvania (two states Obama carried in 2012) then she'd be president. Trump won them by a 160,000 vote margin out of 15.0 million votes cast. Razor thin.

If half of the Obama voters who voted for Trump switch back to the Democratic candidate in 2020, and half of the voters who stayed home in 2016 come out and vote in 2020, Trump probably doesn't stand a chance of winning.

Which is why the GOP propaganda machine is working overtime to discredit any and all Democratic candidates already. If they can convince enough of the gullible that there's no difference so they stay home, Trump has a shot to drive the country further into the dirt.

 

[Belz...]

My position is the null hypothesis.

Well, it sure holds no value...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Trump makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.


True! Sad!

And Clinton look like a model of fidelity.

 

[varwoche]

Good point. Bad evidence is still evidence.

It's my distinct sense you are clue-challenged as to the meaning of the word evidence. The general public, educated by TV courtroom dramas, seems to think that circumstantial evidence is invalid. Especially Trump cultists. (Not to imply you're a Trump cultist. I don't think that at all.)

 

[CapelDodger]

An eminence grise can influence the head of a country from the shadows.

So are these folks eminences center stage? Or eminences bullhorn? Or eminences stand on the king’s throne shouting stuff?

I think eminence sleaze fits the bill.

 

[Armitage72]

Religious fundies have never quite gotten the hang of that "unintended consequences" thing.

Just look at what happened in several Southern states.

"We are making religious schools eligible for state vouchers."
Later ... "Muslim schools are eligible too?!? That's not what we meant!!"

 

[Dr. Keith]

The charts here are from September but he's already passed Reagan's total time in office and heading toward Nixon and that was almost six months ago.

Wow, clear evidence of the deep state hating the GOP!

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's my distinct sense you are clue-challenged as to the meaning of the word evidence. The general public, educated by TV courtroom dramas, seems to think that circumstantial evidence is invalid. Especially Trump cultists. (Not to imply you're a Trump cultist. I don't think that at all.)

The issue is that the total of circumstantial evidence does not minimize a non-collusion explanation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The issue is that the total of circumstantial evidence does not minimize a non-collusion explanation.

Literally every day I'm thankful that you are not in charge of actually having to make decisions that actually matter.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Literally every day I'm thankful that you are not in charge of actually having to make decisions that actually matter.

A lot of things you want to happen would be seriously in trouble if you had to rely on people like me that understand how evidence works.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The issue is that the total of circumstantial evidence does not minimize a non-collusion explanation.

The only way to counter strong circumstantial evidence is to offer a plausible alternative explanation. You seem to think that just assuming there is one is good enough.