US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

Cuttooth wrote:The White House has said the cheque is on its way. The President of the United States is good for it, he swears.

Donald Jr posted it earlier:

Memento Mori wrote:

Cuttooth wrote:The White House has said the cheque is on its way. The President of the United States is good for it, he swears.

Donald Jr posted it earlier:

The White House press secretary has said they don't have a recording of Trump's call with the wife of Sgt. La David Johnson...so, I guess he recorded it IN SECRET.

Lol, predictable!

Probably do have a recording but it didn't match what the orange buffoon claimed.

Garth wrote:WTF, looks like Melania to me

They've got to you.

The 2018 Senate map is starting to look far less awful for Democrats
Chris Cillizza
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 4:39 PM ET, Wed October 18, 2017

(CNN) - Ever since the 2012 elections, Democrats had looked to the 2018 Senate map with a sense of dread.

The numbers are singularly daunting: 25 Democratic seats up as compared to just nine Republican seats. Of those 25 Democratic seats, 10 are in states that President Donald Trump won in 2016. Half of those are in states Trump won by 10 points or more.

The 2018 election, in short, should be a disaster for Senate Democrats. Things looked so bad for Democrats at the end of 2016 that Republicans were beginning to whisper about the real possibility of winning 60 seats -- a filibuster-proof majority -- going into 2019.

And yet, just more than a year removed from the 2018 election, it is Democrats who appear to be on the march -- fueled by a base super-charged by its distaste for Trump and a political environment that suggests the possibility of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

"If the national political environment further deteriorates for Republicans to the point that a wave along the lines of 2014 begins to develop, or they nominate a train wreck or two, Democrats could have a shot at winning the narrowest of majorities," wrote Cook Political Report Senate editor Jennifer Duffy earlier this week.

Consider:

• Former White House political strategist Steve Bannon has declared "war" on the Senate GOP establishment -- announcing plans to target eight of the nine incumbents up in 2018. Bannon was in attendance at a fundraiser Tuesday night to support Kelli Ward, the main challenger to Sen. Jeff Flake (R) in Arizona. He is also actively recruiting challengers to Sen. Roger Wicker in Mississippi, John Barrasso in Wyoming and Deb Fischer in Nebraska. If any or all of those challenges materialize, it could well make it harder for Republicans to hold the seat next November.
• In Alabama, a new Fox News poll shows former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (R), a candidate backed by Bannon, and former prosecutor Doug Jones (D) tied at 42% in advance of the December 12 special election. That's a stunning result -- particularly given that Trump carried the Yellowhammer State by 28 points in 2016. Democrats have NO business being within shouting distance of winning in Alabama. That they are is almost entirely attributable to Moore, a very controversial figure in both Alabama and nationally. Regardless of the reasons, however, the Fox News poll suggests Democrats have a pulse in Alabama.
• Former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) released a statement Monday reversing his previous "no" on whether he might run for the seat of retiring Sen. Bob Corker (R). "In the days ahead, I'm going to do some research, talk with people and carefully think this through," Bredesen said. That's a BIG deal. Bredesen is a two-term governor in Tennessee and, without question, the strongest possible Democratic nominee. And, there's no doubt that his decision to reconsider the race is based on looking at the political landscape and believing that a win in Republican friendly Tennessee is actually possible. If Bredesen runs, this will be a real race where there was no hope of one just two weeks ago.
• Recruiting in Montana and North Dakota -- states that Trump won by 20 and 36 points, respectively, in 2016 -- isn't going as quickly or as well as Republicans might have hoped. There's still time for solid candidates to emerge -- or for the candidates that have announced to show their mettle -- but that they haven't done so yet is somewhat surprising given the heavily GOP nature of those states.

The math is still very much in Republicans' favor. Despite everything I wrote above, you'd still rather be the side defending nine seats rather than the side defending 25 seats. And you'd still rather have a two-seat majority than be in the minority by two seats.

But, what's clear is that the dream scenarios being cooked up by Republicans when they first saw the 2018 map are simply not coming to fruition. That's a big deal because opportunities like the 2018 Senate map very rarely come around for either party -- and when they do, you have to take full advantage of them.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/ ... index.html

'Mon Democrats, you can do it!

BID0 wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hexx wrote:But that's a significant element of what happened. They (Not CRD here) couldn't "hold their nose" an vote for Clinton.

And now try to maintain the moral high ground that Trump isn't (partly) their fault - it's the system which put Clinton forward. I mean what did it expect people to do? Compromise? What a bunch of self important pricks

Well yeah, that's what I said.

Bernie supporters that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton are just as much to blame as the redneck dickheads that voted for Trump.

Hillary wasn't offering anything different to The Republicans though, so why would Bernie voters (who want things like free education, free healthcare, equality) vote for candidate a (trump) or candidate b (clinton) neither who offer anything they want?!

Do you really need to ask that? Because Clinton is many orders of magnitude a better choice than Trump, and is closer to Bernie on all of those issues.

That's like blaming me for something like a UKIP win because I didn't vote Conservative instead. People vote for who they want to vote for, if Clinton is that gooseberry fool she couldn't beat Trump then that's hers, her campaigns fault and the system for not being appealing to people, not the people who were offered the choice.

That is a ludicrous post.

You could write thousands of pages on the emergence of the current American political situation and the problems therein, including the factors that brought it about, but at a basic level it is absolutely the American people's fault that Trump is in power.

Forbes did the yearly Richest people list and knocked 600 mill from Trump valuation which made him drop 92 places then....

twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/920660104508268544

I'd like to believe that Trump himself left that voice message.

Rocsteady wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hexx wrote:But that's a significant element of what happened. They (Not CRD here) couldn't "hold their nose" an vote for Clinton.

And now try to maintain the moral high ground that Trump isn't (partly) their fault - it's the system which put Clinton forward. I mean what did it expect people to do? Compromise? What a bunch of self important pricks

Well yeah, that's what I said.

Bernie supporters that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton are just as much to blame as the redneck dickheads that voted for Trump.

Hillary wasn't offering anything different to The Republicans though, so why would Bernie voters (who want things like free education, free healthcare, equality) vote for candidate a (trump) or candidate b (clinton) neither who offer anything they want?!

Do you really need to ask that? Because Clinton is many orders of magnitude a better choice than Trump, and is closer to Bernie on all of those issues.

That's like blaming me for something like a UKIP win because I didn't vote Conservative instead. People vote for who they want to vote for, if Clinton is that gooseberry fool she couldn't beat Trump then that's hers, her campaigns fault and the system for not being appealing to people, not the people who were offered the choice.

That is a ludicrous post.

You could write thousands of pages on the emergence of the current American political situation and the problems therein, including the factors that brought it about, but at a basic level it is absolutely the American people's fault that Trump is in power.

Strategic voting is bullshit, you should vote for who you believe is the best candidate not for who is most likely to be able to stop the other guy.

Saying voting for an independent is just throwing your vote away, or that those who didn't vote for Clinton are responsible for Trump is also bullshit because that argument works the other way as well. What about all the people that voted for Trump when they didn't really like him? If all the people who actually wanted to vote for Ted Cruz, or Rick Santorum or even Jeb "please clap" Bush had actually voted for who they thought was best we probably wouldn't have ended up with Trump.

If you don't vote for candidate X then candidate Y will win and destroy the country is as old a line as they come, and all it helps to do is stifle real democracy and help lobbyists by ensuring there's only two groups whose pockets they need to stuff. The US had other political parties before, and there is no reason why it can't have others now. If people hadn't been fooled by this only a vote for X can stop Y tactic in the 90's than maybe by now there would be a viable 3rd party. Yes a 3rd party is not going to win any elections now, but if people see others voting for who they think is good than over a few election cycles one could appear.

Mafro wrote:

twitter.com/JoeVargas/status/920507354403233793

twitter.com/JoeVargas/status/920510364273520646

What?

The hell

Alvin Flummux wrote:I'd like to believe that Trump himself left that voice message.

He has form for doing that.

Rightey wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hexx wrote:But that's a significant element of what happened. They (Not CRD here) couldn't "hold their nose" an vote for Clinton.

And now try to maintain the moral high ground that Trump isn't (partly) their fault - it's the system which put Clinton forward. I mean what did it expect people to do? Compromise? What a bunch of self important pricks

Well yeah, that's what I said.

Bernie supporters that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton are just as much to blame as the redneck dickheads that voted for Trump.

Hillary wasn't offering anything different to The Republicans though, so why would Bernie voters (who want things like free education, free healthcare, equality) vote for candidate a (trump) or candidate b (clinton) neither who offer anything they want?!

Do you really need to ask that? Because Clinton is many orders of magnitude a better choice than Trump, and is closer to Bernie on all of those issues.

That's like blaming me for something like a UKIP win because I didn't vote Conservative instead. People vote for who they want to vote for, if Clinton is that gooseberry fool she couldn't beat Trump then that's hers, her campaigns fault and the system for not being appealing to people, not the people who were offered the choice.

That is a ludicrous post.

You could write thousands of pages on the emergence of the current American political situation and the problems therein, including the factors that brought it about, but at a basic level it is absolutely the American people's fault that Trump is in power.

Strategic voting is bullshit, you should vote for who you believe is the best candidate not for who is most likely to be able to stop the other guy.

Saying voting for an independent is just throwing your vote away, or that those who didn't vote for Clinton are responsible for Trump is also bullshit because that argument works the other way as well. What about all the people that voted for Trump when they didn't really like him? If all the people who actually wanted to vote for Ted Cruz, or Rick Santorum or even Jeb "please clap" Bush had actually voted for who they thought was best we probably wouldn't have ended up with Trump.

If you don't vote for candidate X then candidate Y will win and destroy the country is as old a line as they come, and all it helps to do is stifle real democracy and help lobbyists by ensuring there's only two groups whose pockets they need to stuff. The US had other political parties before, and there is no reason why it can't have others now. If people hadn't been fooled by this only a vote for X can stop Y tactic in the 90's than maybe by now there would be a viable 3rd party. Yes a 3rd party is not going to win any elections now, but if people see others voting for who they think is good than over a few election cycles one could appear.

Usually I’d agree with you.

But 2016 wasn’t a usual election. And not voting (or voting for a hopeless third party) was as bad as voting for Trump.

Clinton was offering more Obama but with zero charisma.

Trump was offering something "different" (even if it was obviously bullshit to us).

As brexit showed though, when people are in tough living situations (it's probably even worse in the US with so many homeless, no healthcare etc) they vote for extreme options, of which brexit and trump were two of. When people have severely ill people in their family, facing being put out on the street, going hungry, stuck on zero hour contracts, why on earth would they vote for even more of that from the same party?!

And from what I've read about the Dems since being wiped out is not much is different still, they want more of the same. They haven't changed their policies from what I've read and it's all been about Trump, Russia and blaming people who didn't get behind and vote for Hillary (I mean right now she is touring the country promoting a book she's just put out Bernie on the other hand is touring the country and winning voters from Trump and pushing healthcare for all).

BID0 wrote:Clinton was offering more Obama but with zero charisma.

Trump was offering something "different" (even if it was obviously bullshit to us).

As brexit showed though, when people are in tough living situations (it's probably even worse in the US with so many homeless, no healthcare etc) they vote for extreme options, of which brexit and trump were two of. When people have severely ill people in their family, facing being put out on the street, going hungry, stuck on zero hour contracts, why on earth would they vote for even more of that from the same party?!.

Well both groups are about to find out why it is a bad idea to vote to make yourself worse off. Sure Clinton would have been no better than Obama. But Trump was much much worse.

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:Clinton was offering more Obama but with zero charisma.

Trump was offering something "different" (even if it was obviously bullshit to us).

As brexit showed though, when people are in tough living situations (it's probably even worse in the US with so many homeless, no healthcare etc) they vote for extreme options, of which brexit and trump were two of. When people have severely ill people in their family, facing being put out on the street, going hungry, stuck on zero hour contracts, why on earth would they vote for even more of that from the same party?!.

Well both groups are about to find out why it is a bad idea to vote to make yourself worse off. Sure Clinton would have been no better than Obama. But Trump was much much worse.

But in America they can vote him out in just over another 3 years. I can’t see us I guess able to vote ourselves back into the eu anytime soon.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Moggy wrote:

BID0 wrote:Clinton was offering more Obama but with zero charisma.

Trump was offering something "different" (even if it was obviously bullshit to us).

As brexit showed though, when people are in tough living situations (it's probably even worse in the US with so many homeless, no healthcare etc) they vote for extreme options, of which brexit and trump were two of. When people have severely ill people in their family, facing being put out on the street, going hungry, stuck on zero hour contracts, why on earth would they vote for even more of that from the same party?!.

Well both groups are about to find out why it is a bad idea to vote to make yourself worse off. Sure Clinton would have been no better than Obama. But Trump was much much worse.

But in America they can vote him out in just over another 3 years. I can’t see us I guess able to vote ourselves back into the eu anytime soon.

True, that doesn’t change the fact that voting for Trump was strawberry floating stupid and so was not voting against him.

Clinton was a significant shift to the right from Obama. It wouldn't have been more of the same at all. That's partly why she wasn't so popular with the Dems base support.

EDIT: Just waiting for Trump to stir up another storm today to divert attention from the widow phonecalls.

captain red dog wrote:Clinton was a significant shift to the right from Obama. It wouldn't have been more of the same at all. That's partly why she wasn't so popular with the Dems base support.

That's just false in every way. What policy proposal or campaign rhetoric was to the right of the Obama administration?

lol the DNC just purged most of the more leftwing delegates and appointed Donna Brazile of primary cheating and 'don't campaign in swing states' fame to the strawberry floating rules committee

They aren't gonna do gooseberry fool in the next elections, they're too busy fighting off having to adapt their platform in any way to challenge Trump

Clinton wasn't to the right of Obama at all, what nonsense, Bernie was just so far to the left that he made Obama and Clinton seem to the right. I also blame Bernie fans for this debacle, he also should have dropped out of the race and endorsed Clinton sooner like Clinton did for Obama.