President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

Not that I think HRC will run but why did that change? Ike beat the same guy twice, Nixon lost and then won, but after that you don't see the same guy (or girl) running after losing anymore. Maybe a product of the television age where everyone sees you and if you lost once you are a loser and will probably lose again?

Unfortunately, as bad as Trump is, I still couldn’t vote for her. That’s just me, but a large % of the 50% of the voters that didn’t “I’m with her” still wouldn’t.

[chancellor]

Unlikely. I just don't think she would win the Democratic nomination again.

I agree. I don’t think it’s quite as unlikely as Sour Masher noted, but she’s no longer the anointed one, and in a real primary race with multiple candidates, I don’t see her winning.

[Hornsby]

I agree. I don’t think it’s quite as unlikely as Sour Masher noted, but she’s no longer the anointed one, and in a real primary race with multiple candidates, I don’t see her winning.

I'm with SM on this one, she won't run again. I think that she's making her peace with what happened, and her VERY large part in losing the election. It's time for new blood and for the Dems to rally the troops. It'll be interesting, since the largest block of eligible voters in 2016 didn't vote for the Democrats, not the Republicans, they didn't vote at all. So there are HUGE numbers of voters out there for both parties to court, and running HRC isn't going to sway those folks into voting, IMO.

[onejayhawk]

What are we all smoking because I agree with Hornsby. In 2012 national convention, her machine rigged the 2016 election by rewriting the rules to handicap all her opponents. 90% could read the handwriting on the wall, leaving only Bernie Sanders to test the waters. So far so good. Everyone knew Bernie was a bit crazy, so he would not put up much opposition--except that he did. Still, during the 2016 convention, there was no need, they thought, to stack the deck. In 2020 HRC would run as incumbent. So, we have what ought to be a fairly level field. HRC has never done anything where the outcome is not predetermined. In spite of that, she still managed to lose--twice.

J

[Teenwolf]

Not one mention of the Trump international clown car ongoing at NATO meetings right now? You've all stopped caring about how the POTUS likes to wipe his ass with the flag, just like Ben Shapiro recently on Bill Maher saying that Trump has already done the awful social policy that he promised, and isnt it worth the tax cuts! US reputation is deservedly in the toilet. Watch any non-US based news and you'd see it.

You think his continued attack that Germany is being controlled by Russia has nothing to do with his own Russian deal, that seems soon to come to light? (You know the deal between Erik Prince, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the US convened in the Seychelles probably the heart of the deal, it's well documented) It's just coincidence that he continually says Germany is being controlled by Russia? Its coincidence that he attacks every ally and embraces every dictatorship? Okay, you all get back to the important stuff, like HRC's electability...

[TranaGreg]

Not one mention of the Trump international clown car ongoing at NATO meetings right now?

The collapse of NATO will be one of the most notable events of the 21st century.

[onejayhawk]

the collapse of nato will be one of the most un-notable events of the 21st century.

ftfy

j

[B-Fly]

Not one mention of the Trump international clown car ongoing at NATO meetings right now? You've all stopped caring about how the POTUS likes to wipe his ass with the flag, just like Ben Shapiro recently on Bill Maher saying that Trump has already done the awful social policy that he promised, and isnt it worth the tax cuts! US reputation is deservedly in the toilet. Watch any non-US based news and you'd see it.

You think his continued attack that Germany is being controlled by Russia has nothing to do with his own Russian deal, that seems soon to come to light? (You know the deal between Erik Prince, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the US convened in the Seychelles probably the heart of the deal, it's well documented) It's just coincidence that he continually says Germany is being controlled by Russia? Its coincidence that he attacks every ally and embraces every dictatorship? Okay, you all get back to the important stuff, like HRC's electability...

I don't think we all stopped caring. I just think that with something like the NATO meetings, everyone's take on it will be so predictable given their responses to so many similar things over Trump's year and a half of "diplomacy" that there's not much left to say. Either you think that Trump is being strong and putting America first and that his "strength" is forcing our NATO allies to actually commit to paying more of their fair share for the mutual benefits of the alliance, or you think that Trump is a puppet of Russia, alienating our friends while embracing dictators, and embarrassing America internationally and thereby diminishing our standing in the world.

So yes, since Trump is gonna Trump and those who like it are gonna like it, and those who hate it are gonna hate it, the "important stuff" comes down to:

(1) Will the GOP lose the House and/or Senate in November, thereby presumably crippling Trump and the GOP's ability to effectively dictate the terms of policy and expenditures?
(2) Will Trump stand for re-election in 2020 and will he win again or will he be defeated either in a primary or general election and by whom?
(3) Will anything come out of the Mueller investigation that could potentially drive Trump out of office other than electorally?
(4) Will Trump (continue to) attempt to undermine our democratic institutions and checks and balances and will anyone stop him?

On (3) and (4), the latest open questions for me are (A) whether the Kavanaugh nomination demonstrates Trump's prime motivation is setting up a Supreme Court that will defer to Presidential power and discretion, shield him against potential prosecution, and broadly affirm his pardon powers including close family and clear conflicts of interest. And (B) will there be any pushback against Trump's latest Executive Order completely undermining the objectivity of Administrative Law Judge selection and thereby materially increasing the ability of Trump and his Cabinet members to apply political litmus tests for those ALJ's and thereby dramatically impact outcomes?

[Teenwolf]

B-Fly nails it as usual.

I simply find it alarming that these weekly absolute disasters are now being ignored. I just need to hammer it home to all of you guys in the center of the hurricane... the rest of the world is watching, and you guys look like the dog in the corner eating it's own vomit. That's the level of disgust the world has for the US at this point. When he speaks at NATO about Germany being captive to Russia, the reactions of the 3 US diplomats surrounding him look like he just ripped the biggest fart.

I think it's important to keep all this in mind, and not lose focus on real world damage being done.

[swampdragon]

I would also add to b-fly's thoughts

Will the current US leaders do anything impactful to stop or denounce Trump's actions?

[Hornsby]

B-Fly nails it as usual.

I simply find it alarming that these weekly absolute disasters are now being ignored. I just need to hammer it home to all of you guys in the center of the hurricane... the rest of the world is watching, and you guys look like the dog in the corner eating it's own vomit. That's the level of disgust the world has for the US at this point. When he speaks at NATO about Germany being captive to Russia, the reactions of the 3 US diplomats surrounding him look like he just ripped the biggest fart.

I think it's important to keep all this in mind, and not lose focus on real world damage being done.

It's over saturation, he and this administration end up doing so may things that I consider outrageous, egregious, or both, that it's simply exhausting to keep up with it all, let alone post about it. In the beginning of his term I think that we all had a reaction on his XO's and other activities on almost a daily basis, at this point, it's not being overlooked, but to comment on every instance from Trump and company is damn near impossible to do.

We're all well aware of the damage being done to both our country, and the world...and the focus now has to on future elections that limit his power.

[chancellor]

Not one mention of the Trump international clown car ongoing at NATO meetings right now?

Which part? The part where Trump is castigating the Europeans for not living up to their agreed treaty obligations relative to defense spending? And for the record, the last year I can find data for, only four countries lived up to their 2% of GDP defense spending commitment - the Greeks, Polish, and Estonians. That's three of the poorer countries out of the 18. The only "rich" European country that met their commitment was the UK, at 2.2%. Perhaps you can enlighten me how Trump's position varies from Robert Gates position in 2011, found here: http://archive.defense.gov/Transcrip...nscriptID=4839

The part where he castigates the Europeans for their lack of military readiness? Der Spiegel - hardly a pro-US production - admitted that the Luftwaffe only has ten of their 128 fighter jets combat worthy and less than half are even flight worthy. And that's an improvement from the 2011 situation Gates spoke on, where the Luftwaffe had only FOUR combat-ready jets.

The part where he slams EU trade imbalances and EU tariffs? Well, you might just have something there. Tell me how CETA has benefitted the Canadian economy. Or how the Harper and Trudeau administrations chose to negotiate rather than fight. Or how Canadian farmers had more EU markets opened to them via TIEA or CETA?

You think his continued attack that Germany is being controlled by Russia has nothing to do with his own Russian deal, that seems soon to come to light?

LOL, dude, put the bong down and step away from the keyboard. Trump isn't the first US president to warn Germany about energy dependence on Russia, nor is the US hardly the only opponent to Nord Stream 2. The Obama administration opposed Nord Stream 2, and the Bush administration opposed Nord Stream 1. Their concern is well founded, as Putin's Russia has hardly been reticent about threatening Europe's natural gas supply - see: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/w...07gazprom.html, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-supplies.html to mention merely two of any number of references.

Moreover, Germany has shuttered numerous nuclear and coal fired power facilities and further increased their reliance on Russian natural gas in the last ten years. While I can understand the risk/reward tradeoff of domestic coal versus Russian natural gas, the abject stupidity of shuttering zero greenhouse gas emitting nuclear power facilities with spotless safety records and replacing it with greenhouse gas emitting Russian natural gas astounds me. And that doesn't even include the astounding increase in electrical costs the German citizenry has had to absorb - over a ten year period from 2006 - 2016, German electrical costs have gone from about 0.195 Euro/kWh to about 0.288 Euro/kWh.

So, Germany increases reliance on Russian natural gas while also increasing their electrical costs by something approaching 50% over ten years.

Hmmm...now who were you saying was the Putin stooge again?

[Sour Masher]

While I can understand the risk/reward tradeoff of domestic coal versus Russian natural gas, the abject stupidity of shuttering zero greenhouse gas emitting nuclear power facilities with spotless safety records and replacing it with greenhouse gas emitting Russian natural gas astounds me.

My main take away from this quote is that you believe that greenhouse gases are a thing and that they negatively impact our environment, which makes me feel warm and fuzzy . OneJay must be disappointed in you.

I wish your boy Trump felt the same way. I doubt very much that his rebukes of Germany were actually motivated by his concern for Germany, or the environmental impact their reliance on Russian fossil fuels has on the environment. He believes global climate change was invented by the Chinese, after all. But he is a freakin genius, right ?

I am continually impressed and amazed by your ability to attribute reasonable motivations to Trump's words and actions, as if they are well-thought out, nuanced, and reasoned. Yet I have never seen him articulate these things himself. You do an excellent job of it--really, you'd make for an excellent surrogate for his admin--but reading your interpretations of his words and actions reminds me of people who develop profound interpretations of mundane texts. You would make an excellent literary critic, as you are able to attribute thoughtful commentary on what amounts, to me, to the stream of conscious ramblings of a buffoon.

I continue to maintain you are smarter, or at the very least far more informed and self-reflective than he is (I admit he is shrewd, and knows how to survive and thrive in politics), and it has been enlightening to see an illustration of how a smart, conservative can be a Trump supporter. It is possible, in part, by said smart people continuing to assign meaning to Trump's words and actions that create an image of him as a savvy leader with the stones to do what must be done to advance American interests, not a misogynistic, racist narcissist with little forethought or care for the long term ramifications of his words and deeds. Or perhaps you see both images of Trump, but think the first description of him makes up for the second one?

[Teenwolf]

Which part? The part where Trump is castigating the Europeans for not living up to their agreed treaty obligations relative to defense spending? And for the record, the last year I can find data for, only four countries lived up to their 2% of GDP defense spending commitment - the Greeks, Polish, and Estonians. That's three of the poorer countries out of the 18. The only "rich" European country that met their commitment was the UK, at 2.2%. Perhaps you can enlighten me how Trump's position varies from Robert Gates position in 2011, found here: http://archive.defense.gov/Transcrip...nscriptID=4839

The part where he castigates the Europeans for their lack of military readiness? Der Spiegel - hardly a pro-US production - admitted that the Luftwaffe only has ten of their 128 fighter jets combat worthy and less than half are even flight worthy. And that's an improvement from the 2011 situation Gates spoke on, where the Luftwaffe had only FOUR combat-ready jets.

The part where he slams EU trade imbalances and EU tariffs? Well, you might just have something there. Tell me how CETA has benefitted the Canadian economy. Or how the Harper and Trudeau administrations chose to negotiate rather than fight. Or how Canadian farmers had more EU markets opened to them via TIEA or CETA?



LOL, dude, put the bong down and step away from the keyboard. Trump isn't the first US president to warn Germany about energy dependence on Russia, nor is the US hardly the only opponent to Nord Stream 2. The Obama administration opposed Nord Stream 2, and the Bush administration opposed Nord Stream 1. Their concern is well founded, as Putin's Russia has hardly been reticent about threatening Europe's natural gas supply - see: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/w...07gazprom.html, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-supplies.html to mention merely two of any number of references.

Moreover, Germany has shuttered numerous nuclear and coal fired power facilities and further increased their reliance on Russian natural gas in the last ten years. While I can understand the risk/reward tradeoff of domestic coal versus Russian natural gas, the abject stupidity of shuttering zero greenhouse gas emitting nuclear power facilities with spotless safety records and replacing it with greenhouse gas emitting Russian natural gas astounds me. And that doesn't even include the astounding increase in electrical costs the German citizenry has had to absorb - over a ten year period from 2006 - 2016, German electrical costs have gone from about 0.195 Euro/kWh to about 0.288 Euro/kWh.

So, Germany increases reliance on Russian natural gas while also increasing their electrical costs by something approaching 50% over ten years.

Hmmm...now who were you saying was the Putin stooge again?

I don't have time to research all of these points (though I thank you for providing supporting links). One question from what I've bolded. Isn't there already an agreement in place to raise to commitments of all countries to 2% GDP by 2024? Why are you saying that these countries aren't meeting the standards which don't go into place for 6 more years? Thanks.

[onejayhawk]

My main take away from this quote is that you believe that greenhouse gases are a thing and that they negatively impact our environment, which makes me feel warm and fuzzy . OneJay must be disappointed in you.

I wish your boy Trump felt the same way. I doubt very much that his rebukes of Germany were actually motivated by his concern for Germany, or the environmental impact their reliance on Russian fossil fuels has on the environment. He believes global climate change was invented by the Chinese, after all. But he is a freakin genius, right ?

I am continually impressed and amazed by your ability to attribute reasonable motivations to Trump's words and actions, as if they are well-thought out, nuanced, and reasoned. Yet I have never seen him articulate these things himself. You do an excellent job of it--really, you'd make for an excellent surrogate for his admin--but reading your interpretations of his words and actions reminds me of people who develop profound interpretations of mundane texts. You would make an excellent literary critic, as you are able to attribute thoughtful commentary on what amounts, to me, to the stream of conscious ramblings of a buffoon.

I continue to maintain you are smarter, or at the very least far more informed and self-reflective than he is (I admit he is shrewd, and knows how to survive and thrive in politics), and it has been enlightening to see an illustration of how a smart, conservative can be a Trump supporter. It is possible, in part, by said smart people continuing to assign meaning to Trump's words and actions that create an image of him as a savvy leader with the stones to do what must be done to advance American interests, not a misogynistic, racist narcissist with little forethought or care for the long term ramifications of his words and deeds. Or perhaps you see both images of Trump, but think the first description of him makes up for the second one?

What you talk. Nuclear is greenhouse clean. If anyone actually believes in human driven climate change, converting to combustion power is self contradictory.

Why sshouldn't Trump have reasonable motivations? He only plays the crazy guy on TV.

J