US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[aygart]

[good sam]

Interesting thread

https://twitter.com/willcollier/status/877500277649285120

How did he know in advance there were 40 posts? Is there software for that?

[Yehuda57]

How did he know in advance there were 40 posts? Is there software for that?

Not everyone is like the president. Some think before they tweet and even edit before clicking send.

[aygart]

How did he know in advance there were 40 posts? Is there software for that?

he answers that question right below the thread

[yuneeq]

Interesting thread

https://twitter.com/willcollier/status/877500277649285120

You'd think there might be a better platform for 5,000+ character posts.

[Yehuda57]

You'd think there might be a better platform for 5,000+ character posts.

The worst thing to come out of the 2016 election cycle was the proliferation of the Twitter thread.

Otoh, had that been a link to a blog post, I likely would not have seen it

[yuneeq]

The worst thing to come out of the 2016 election cycle was the proliferation of the Twitter thread.

Otoh, had that been a link to a blog post, I likely would not have seen it

If it was on joeshmoesblog.com you'd be right, but on Facebook, Medium, or a similar site it probably would reach a larger audience.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Wow there are no tapes. This dumbass now has the special counsel looking at his whole family because of that stupid tweet.

[aygart]

Wow there are no tapes. This dumbass now has the special counsel looking at his whole family because of that stupid tweet.

You really think there wouldn't be special counsel without that tweet?

[Yehuda57]

You really think there wouldn't be special counsel without that tweet?

It's not a stretch. Comey said specifically he leaked to the press because of the tweet. Without the Comey leak, if there was a special counsel it would have taken much longer to get there.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You really think there wouldn't be special counsel without that tweet?

No. You needed the match to light to fire and that DACOTYA provided the match.

[aygart]

Some real intelligent conversation by some supposed journalists.

[aygart]

Watch the tapes suddenly appear now from other sources.

Anyone think this tweet has something to do with the senate healthcare bill released today?

[aygart]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/21/seriously-nancy-pelosi.html

If Ryan had defeated Pelosi for the minority leader slot in December, what would Republicans have had to run on? Heck, Ryan even has the same last name as the Republican speaker of the House. What were they going to say? “Don’t give Ryan a rubber stamp.”

The thing is that it would go the other way too that the Dems can't say don't give Ryan a rubber stamp either. Wow would that be confusing. Help Ryan pass ____________. Which Ryan? Paul. Isn't Paul a senator?

[aygart]

[aygart]

Wow there are no tapes. This dumbass now has the special counsel looking at his whole family because of that stupid tweet.

He Persisted Are Trump’s tweets a solution rather than a problem for his administration?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/he-persisted-1498254173

If anywhere close to 64% of U.S. voters believe that Russia investigations are hurting the country, this suggests that not only is the Russia story not a liability for the President—it’s an issue on which he enjoys one of his greatest advantages over Democrats. Perhaps Mr. Trump should consider ordering Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint more special counsels.
On a more serious note, if all the Russia talk turns out to benefit the President, it also raises the question of whether most of us media folk have blown yet another big call on Donald Trump. The conventional view among people who work in large news organizations—and even it seems among many people who work for the President—is that Mr. Trump’s use of Twitter is a liability. Many view the Trump feed as a series of ill-advised outbursts resulting from a lack of self-control and political discipline. This column has urged Mr. Trump to especially avoid tweeting about matters under investigation. But if he’s actually winning the Russia argument, the conventional media view will need to be reappraised.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/339146-poll-voters-grow-weary-of-russia-probes
A majority of voters believe the Russia investigations are damaging to the country and are eager to see Congress shift its focus to healthcare, terrorism, national security, the economy and jobs.
Those are the findings of the latest Harvard-Harris Poll survey, provided exclusively to The Hill, which paints a complicated picture of voters’ opinions about the numerous probes that have engulfed the White House.
Sixty-four percent of voters said the investigations into President Trump and Russia are hurting the country. Fifty-six percent of voters said it’s time for Congress and the media to move on to other issues, compared to 44 percent who said the focus should stay on Russia.
But other surveys have found strong support for the special counsel investigating the Russia probe. A Harvard-Harris survey released last month found 75 percent support for former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s investigation.
There is evidence in the Harvard-Harris survey that voters are taking the investigations seriously: Fifty-eight percent say they’re concerned by allegations of obstruction of justice against Trump, with the same number worried about possible dealings between Trump and the Russian government.
But far more — 73 percent — say they’re concerned that the Russia probes have caused Congress to lose focus on the issues important to them. That figure encompasses 81 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents and 68 percent of Democrats.“While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn. “Most voters believe that the president's actions don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses, even if some of them were inappropriate.”
The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,237 registered voters was conducted between June 19 and June 21. The partisan breakdown is 35 percent Democrat, 29 percent Republican, 30 percent independent and 6 percent other.
The public largely found former FBI Director James Comey to be a credible witness in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Sixty-eight percent believe Comey’s claims that the president asked him to bury an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Trump has disputed Comey’s testimony.
Sixty-seven percent believe that Trump asked Comey for loyalty. Fifty-eight percent said Comey’s private memos about his private conversations with Trump are accurate.
While voters largely believe it was inappropriate of Trump to lean on Comey, most say his actions don’t rise to the level of obstruction. Forty-two percent said Trump’s actions constitute obstruction of justice, 37 percent said his remarks were inappropriate but not obstruction, and 21 percent said the president was within his rights to pressure Comey.
Fifty-six percent disapprove of Trump firing Comey. Sixty percent said Comey should have announced that Trump was not the target of an investigation.
On the question of collusion, 52 percent said they don’t believe Trump coordinated with Moscow to influence the 2016 presidential election. But 54 percent said they believe Trump’s associates may have been involved.
Either way, 62 percent of voters say there is currently no hard evidence to support the collusion claims.
Sixty-two percent said they expect that the investigations will not end in impeachment.
Forty-five percent said the investigations into Trump’s actions should end with no action, 41 percent said they should end in impeachment and 14 percent said Trump should be censured by Congress.
“Most voters believe that the president's actions don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses even if some of them were inappropriate,” said Penn. “There does seem to be about 40 percent very dissatisfied with the president and looking to remove him from office if possible, but the majority of voters think that all of this is going nowhere.”
In addition, 62 percent said there exists a campaign to delegitimize the president. This includes 87 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats.
The Harvard–Harris Poll is a collaboration of the Harvard Center for American Political Studies and The Harris Poll. The Hill will be working with Harvard-Harris throughout 2017. Full poll results will be posted online later this week.
The poll uses a methodology that doesn't produce a traditional margin of error.

[Yammer]

gotta say I love the headline

Donald Skunks the Democrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-jon-ossoff-democrats.html

[aygart]

Looks like we are headed nuclear on Gorsuch. My feeling is that the Dems are overplaying their hand over here. They have not been making the case to the public as to why Gorsuch should not be confirmed. Most of what we have been hearing is that the nominee should be blocked no matter who it is in revenge for Garland. Under those circumstances the Rs have a much easier case to nuke since it is not specific to this nominee and they certainly have a right to confirm someone. This would then ensure that future nominees would be confirmed as well even if they will reallly change the ideology of the court and would be an easier case for the fillibuster.

From the rumors this is coming to bite them pretty quickly.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

From the rumors this is coming to bite them pretty quickly.

...and the nuclear option will bite the R's in the future. The problem is in the end it is not a wash as the R's lose bigtime.

[aygart]

...and the nuclear option will bite the R's in the future. The problem is in the end it is not a wash as the R's lose bigtime.

That is only if you assume that the Dems would not have done it themselves if it tables had been turned. If they would do it themselves anyhow then they lost nothing by doing it already now and getting their choice of justices potentially flipping the court for a very long time based on the ages of the current bench.