The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Isgrimnur]

I find it hard to blame Comey for Trump's election and Clinton's defeat. I mean, seriously, her State Department emails were found on a laptop in Anthony Weiner's possession?! WTF?!?

Who was married to Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Clinton when she was head of the State Department. And he was a sitting Congressman at the time.

CNN

The FBI has previously said that a number of Abedin's documents were backed up on Weiner's laptop, and that some smaller number were manually forwarded. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee last May, the FBI said, "Although we do not know the exact numbers, based on its investigation, the FBI believes it is reasonable to conclude that most of the emails found on Mr. Weiner's laptop computer related to the Clinton investigation occurred as a result of a backup of personal electronic devices, with a small number a result of manual forwarding by Ms. Abedin to Mr. Weiner."
...
The emails weren't marked as classified, though the FBI later found classified information contained in some emails recovered from Weiner's laptop.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure this one out.

[El Guapo]

Also while the Comey Letter is probably the most significant, it's not the only questionable decision Comey made during the 2016 election. Aside from the press conference, there were at the time FBI investigations of both candidates, but Comey only felt a pressing public need to discuss the investigation against one of them.

James Comey can eat a bag of dicks, is really the main point here.

[Grifman]

I find it hard to blame Comey for Trump's election and Clinton's defeat. I mean, seriously, her State Department emails were found on a laptop in Anthony Weiner's possession?! WTF?!?

Who was married to Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Clinton when she was head of the State Department. And he was a sitting Congressman at the time.

Duh, I knew that. But still, WTF?! There's no excuse for Clinton's emails being on Wiener's laptop, none whatsoever. If her own people are that incompetent, then that's on her, as everything else related to her emails. None of the facts above excuse or mitigate what happened.

[Isgrimnur]

I find it hard to blame Comey for Trump's election and Clinton's defeat. I mean, seriously, her State Department emails were found on a laptop in Anthony Weiner's possession?! WTF?!?

Who was married to Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Clinton when she was head of the State Department. And he was a sitting Congressman at the time.

Duh, I knew that. But still, WTF?! There's no excuse for Clinton's emails being on Wiener's laptop, none whatsoever. If her own people are that incompetent, then that's on her, as everything else related to her emails. None of the facts above excuse or mitigate what happened.

Then there's no point discussing it with you. I have a different opinion.

[Fitzy]

I'm out of basketball analogies.

Oh! At a high school basketball game my high school lost when the scoreboard operator (at the other team's home), failed to start the time and the other team was able to get the winning shot off. I remember my dad, who was athletic director at the time, had to literally restrain the head coach(but that guy had the most amazingly volatile temper).

Was it the scoreboard operators fault? Sure, from a certain point of view. Had he not failed to press the button, time would have run out, we win! That ignores the two missed free throws the replacement player the coach sent in missed just seconds before. It ignores poor play by the core of the team. It ignores the coach's responsibility for failing to recognize when things went bad and make necessary changes. At the time, my dad tried to explain to me why the coach was wrong and it wasn't the operators fault, but my own anger and the fact that I liked the coach as a person kept me from understanding for years. It was simple logic, too much time, other team wins. Operators fault.

Now let's switch to a nerd analogy, that triggered due to my use of a Star War quote.

From a certain point of view. Darth Vader did not kill Anakin Skywalker from any point of view. Obi Wan needed the point of view to help assuage his guilt. I suspect deep down Obi Wan knew better. He knew he'd failed in his training and admits as much. Much like Clinton admits some fault, but has to reduce that fault by blaming others too.

For fans of Clinton (or haters of Trump) it makes sense to zero in on Comey. It's an easy single event to place the blame on, while reducing guilt associated with wondering if they backed the wrong candidate. If maybe they should have paid more attention, given more money, knocked on more doors, called more relatives, challenged people's views instead of backing away smug in the knowledge of that Clinton was going to win anyway.

Not that I'm blaming anyone here of that, I don't know your internal thought processes.

Ultimately, I see it as scapegoating. Obi Wan took considerable responsibility, but he needed to place some on Darth Vader in order to carry on with his mission. The coach dumped it on the operator because otherwise he'd have to look at his own behavior. I initially blamed Comey along with a lot of others.

I just can't keep seeing it that way. The blame falls on Clinton's choices. And even mine. I thought Clinton was going to win. I laughed at Trump. I didn't confront my relatives who were Trump supporters. I didn't knock on doors. I gave to smaller campaigns, thinking the national one was a cakewalk.

Finally, I suspect LordMortis is correct. At the moment, under the circumstances that existed, sure Comey influenced the election. He should never have been there and I can no longer place any blame on him. He did what he thought was best. It didn't cost her the election except by a very narrow definition of "cost".

[El Guapo]

I'm out of basketball analogies.

Oh! At a high school basketball game my high school lost when the scoreboard operator (at the other team's home), failed to start the time and the other team was able to get the winning shot off. I remember my dad, who was athletic director at the time, had to literally restrain the head coach(but that guy had the most amazingly volatile temper).

Was it the scoreboard operators fault? Sure, from a certain point of view. Had he not failed to press the button, time would have run out, we win! That ignores the two missed free throws the replacement player the coach sent in missed just seconds before. It ignores poor play by the core of the team. It ignores the coach's responsibility for failing to recognize when things went bad and make necessary changes. At the time, my dad tried to explain to me why the coach was wrong and it wasn't the operators fault, but my own anger and the fact that I liked the coach as a person kept me from understanding for years. It was simple logic, too much time, other team wins. Operators fault.

Now let's switch to a nerd analogy, that triggered due to my use of a Star War quote.

From a certain point of view. Darth Vader did not kill Anakin Skywalker from any point of view. Obi Wan needed the point of view to help assuage his guilt. I suspect deep down Obi Wan knew better. He knew he'd failed in his training and admits as much. Much like Clinton admits some fault, but has to reduce that fault by blaming others too.

For fans of Clinton (or haters of Trump) it makes sense to zero in on Comey. It's an easy single event to place the blame on, while reducing guilt associated with wondering if they backed the wrong candidate. If maybe they should have paid more attention, given more money, knocked on more doors, called more relatives, challenged people's views instead of backing away smug in the knowledge of that Clinton was going to win anyway.

Not that I'm blaming anyone here of that, I don't know your internal thought processes.

Ultimately, I see it as scapegoating. Obi Wan took considerable responsibility, but he needed to place some on Darth Vader in order to carry on with his mission. The coach dumped it on the operator because otherwise he'd have to look at his own behavior. I initially blamed Comey along with a lot of others.

I just can't keep seeing it that way. The blame falls on Clinton's choices. And even mine. I thought Clinton was going to win. I laughed at Trump. I didn't confront my relatives who were Trump supporters. I didn't knock on doors. I gave to smaller campaigns, thinking the national one was a cakewalk.

Finally, I suspect LordMortis is correct. At the moment, under the circumstances that existed, sure Comey influenced the election. He should never have been there and I can no longer place any blame on him. He did what he thought was best. It didn't cost her the election except by a very narrow definition of "cost".

I mean, he only "cost" her the election in that he did something that, had he not done, would have resulted in her winning the election instead of losing it.

And yes, that scoreboard operator also cost your high school the game. But you seem to be talking from a perspective that saying that only one person can ultimately be responsible. Comey's not the only one who caused the election to turn out the way it did, but it is nonetheless true that he singlehandedly changed the election outcome.

[Fitzy]

I mean, he only "cost" her the election in that he did something that, had he not done, would have resulted in her winning the election instead of losing it.

And yes, that scoreboard operator also cost your high school the game. But you seem to be talking from a perspective that saying that only one person can ultimately be responsible. Comey's not the only one who caused the election to turn out the way it did, but it is nonetheless true that he singlehandedly changed the election outcome.

I’m sort of saying one person is ultimately responsible but also, most issues are too complex to come down to a single moment. The email situation and Comey’s response is a great example. Ultimately, Clinton should never have used a non-government account for official emails. It was wrong due to the regulations around preserving official government communication. I don’t believe her story about this being caused by tech naïveté. I think it was an attempt to route around FOIA. I could be wrong, but either way it shouldn’t have happened.

She shouldn’t have delayed explanations. She shouldn’t have minimized the issue. She should have pushed for a speedy investigation to get the truth out. The tech who set it up shouldn’t have. Clinton should have listened when they first said no. And so on.

To look at this massive chain of events and point to Comey as at fault, I can’t agree.

Cutting the link out of the chain where Comey spoke publicly and then Clinton lost the election, and examining the one link, sure it’s easy to put a ton of blame on him.

Even then, the emails where a single link in the chain of events that was the campaign, so ultimately I cannot support putting much any really, blame on Comey. But I do understand the underlying need to blame him. So I’m not upset people don’t agree. I shouldn’t have implied that El Guapo didn’t also blame Clinton. I apologize for that.

I just noticed the chain metaphor falling apart using the weakest link theory, but meh, I like the visual either way.

[Rip]

It is obvious all of these people were in the bag for wanting Clinton to win.

The only reason she didn't was her own blunders and Trump's deftness at maneuvering around efforts to thwart him.

[geezer]

I mean, he only "cost" her the election in that he did something that, had he not done, would have resulted in her winning the election instead of losing it.

And yes, that scoreboard operator also cost your high school the game. But you seem to be talking from a perspective that saying that only one person can ultimately be responsible. Comey's not the only one who caused the election to turn out the way it did, but it is nonetheless true that he singlehandedly changed the election outcome.

I’m sort of saying one person is ultimately responsible but also, most issues are too complex to come down to a single moment. The email situation and Comey’s response is a great example. Ultimately, Clinton should never have used a non-government account for official emails. It was wrong due to the regulations around preserving official government communication. I don’t believe her story about this being caused by tech naïveté. I think it was an attempt to route around FOIA. I could be wrong, but either way it shouldn’t have happened.

She shouldn’t have delayed explanations. She shouldn’t have minimized the issue. She should have pushed for a speedy investigation to get the truth out. The tech who set it up shouldn’t have. Clinton should have listened when they first said no. And so on.

To look at this massive chain of events and point to Comey as at fault, I can’t agree.

Cutting the link out of the chain where Comey spoke publicly and then Clinton lost the election, and examining the one link, sure it’s easy to put a ton of blame on him.

Even then, the emails where a single link in the chain of events that was the campaign, so ultimately I cannot support putting much any really, blame on Comey. But I do understand the underlying need to blame him. So I’m not upset people don’t agree. I shouldn’t have implied that El Guapo didn’t also blame Clinton. I apologize for that.

I just noticed the chain metaphor falling apart using the weakest link theory, but meh, I like the visual either way.

If I read this right, the argument you're making is that everything up to the point of the election is "the reason" why Clinton lost, and I guess it's obvious that, yes, everything that effects and outcome is a proximate "cause."

But like a stock price where lots of things are already baked in on any given day, the vast majority of Clinton's flaws and mistakes were already "priced in" prior to the Comey letter and announcement. Someone already referenced the 538 analysis, but to reiterate, it's pretty clear that Comey's actions moved the needle and changed the outcome from what it likely would have been on the day PRIOR to his actions.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with that.

[Fitzy]

If I read this right, the argument you're making is that everything up to the point of the election is "the reason" why Clinton lost, and I guess it's obvious that, yes, everything that effects and outcome is a proximate "cause."

But like a stock price where lots of things are already baked in on any given day, the vast majority of Clinton's flaws and mistakes were already "priced in" prior to the Comey letter and announcement. Someone already referenced the 538 analysis, but to reiterate, it's pretty clear that Comey's actions moved the needle and changed the outcome from what it likely would have been on the day PRIOR to his actions.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with that.

I don't have trouble with the idea that, given a limited time frame, Comey cost Clinton the election and made Trump the president. I think the evidence supports the idea, though I wouldn't say it's conclusive.

I suppose it was a pointless argument, but the original BB analogy was too fun to pass up. Then I dug in further, trying to explain my position. Mostly I don't see the point in blaming Comey, when the reasons were far more complex. Nor do I see the point in blaming: the healer, refs, the poor guy who misses a free throw during the last seconds, Scott Norwood, or any single individual in what is a team sport/competition/raid. Certainly look at individual performances and look to improve or replace them. However saying the healer caused the raid to fail is just wrong.

Leadership (politics) is a little more complex in that the leader does need to accept a high level of responsibility. Ultimately, they made the choices either directly or by picking the people they did. They can reevaluate and reconsider individuals within the team to build a better team, but a leader shouldn't punch down. To return to a sports analogy briefly, how would you feel about a coach blaming a single player for a loss? I'd be disgusted with the coach.

I guess I don't see why placing the majority of the blame on Clinton for the email scandal is such a bad thing.

[tjg_marantz]

Something's going down.

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/stat ... 96608?s=09

[El Guapo]

Syrian military strikes.

[GreenGoo]

It is obvious all of these people were in the bag for wanting Clinton to win.

The only reason she didn't was her own blunders and Trump's deftness at maneuvering around efforts to thwart him.

As we've witnessed from a year's worth of deftness, he's about as deft as ab eight year old. A slow eight year old. The problem is that about 30% of voters think Biff Howard Tannen had the right idea.

[hepcat]

The only reason she didn't was her own blunders and Trump's deftness at maneuvering around efforts to thwart him.

"deftness"?

[Chaz]

Guys, lay off, everyone has a "wtf autocorrect" moment from time to time. He obviously meant "daftness".

[Rip]

You guys laugh but finding and tossing dead dogs on the table is more difficult than it sounds.

[hepcat]

When did Trump kill and display canines on his table?

Now I dislike him even more. He's like a less humane version of Romney if this is true.

[Max Peck]

When did Trump kill and display canines on his table?

Now I dislike him even more. He's like a less humane version of Romney if this is true.

It's a metaphor for a negotiating tactic. You offer up a deal that the other side will never accept (the "dead dog"), fight as hard as you can for it, and then eventually give it up to get concessions from the other side for something that you do actually want, and which will look better to the other side relative to how horrible the dead dog was. The idea is that you haven't really given up anything, since you never wanted the dead dog in the first place, while the other side feels that they gained something from you.

[Rip]

Actually it is my touch on "the dead cat".

There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.

Credit Boris Johnson or Lynton Crosby.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... dead%20cat

[Holman]

The dead dog < Wag the dog < When your war-risking air strikes can't distract from your crimes for even 24 hours.

[Max Peck]

Actually it is my touch on "the dead cat".

There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.

Credit Boris Johnson or Lynton Crosby.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... dead%20cat

Ah, OK. I thought you were making some sort of point about Trump the dealmaker.

[hepcat]

Would the corpses of any animal work? Or just those of domesticated species?

[Holman]

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/ ... 8075794438

SCOOP: Trump erupted at staffers after the US announced the expulsion of 60 Russian officials. He said they misled him about the size of the purge. The moment follows a pattern of his staff pushing tough Russia policies on him that he later fumes over ]SCOOP: Trump erupted at staffers after the US announced the expulsion of 60 Russian officials. He said they misled him about the size of the purge. The moment follows a pattern of his staff pushing tough Russia policies on him that he later fumes over

Link to article: Trump, a reluctant hawk, has battled his top aides on Russia and lost.

“We’ll match their numbers,” Trump instructed, according to a senior administration official. “We’re not taking the lead. We’re matching.”

The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian officials — far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.

The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.

His briefers tried to reassure him that the sum total of European expulsions was roughly the same as the U.S. number.

“I don’t care about the total!” the administration official recalled Trump screaming. The official, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the expulsions. “There were curse words,” the official said, “a lot of curse words.”

[GreenGoo]

He is just guilty as hell.

I hope hell has enough room for everyone who ever uttered a word in his defense.

[Blackhawk]

Would the corpses of any animal work? Or just those of domesticated species?

Ozzy says yes.

[em2nought]

Comey says Trump lies all the time, and it makes him morally unfit to be a politician. LMFAO

[GreenGoo]

Wait, Drumpf's a politician? I thought one of his appealing traits was that he wasn't a politician.

If he's just another politician, maybe a competent politician would have been a better choice.

[hepcat]

Trump supporters have gone from denying Trump has racked up more frequent liar miles than any other politician, to simply accepting it. It’s like watching the stages of grief at this point.

[YellowKing]

Yeah to equate Trump's level of lying to typical political spin is complete nonsense.

Trump is the textbook definition of a pathological liar. It's just one of many mental disorders Trump exhibits.

It boggles the mind that every time Hillary coughed, she was unfit to be President, but you elected and supported someone with clear symptoms of various real mental disorders.

[Grifman]

I find it hard to blame Comey for Trump's election and Clinton's defeat. I mean, seriously, her State Department emails were found on a laptop in Anthony Weiner's possession?! WTF?!?

Who was married to Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Clinton when she was head of the State Department. And he was a sitting Congressman at the time.

Duh, I knew that. But still, WTF?! There's no excuse for Clinton's emails being on Wiener's laptop, none whatsoever. If her own people are that incompetent, then that's on her, as everything else related to her emails. None of the facts above excuse or mitigate what happened.

Then there's no point discussing it with you. I have a different opinion.

Sure, whatever floats your boat. You are free to discuss or not discuss with anyone you wish or do not wish to. But I never realized that people of differing opinions can’t have discussions. Kind of defeats the purpose.

[malchior]

Trump stomps on sanctions Haley announced at UN

[LawBeefaroni]

Trump stomps on sanctions Haley announced at UN

Good dog.

[Holman]

https://twitter.com/StephenEspinoza/sta ... 4452846592

Trump crowd in Florida boos at the mere mention of "Hispanics."

link

[malchior]

Was that booing? Almost sounded like cheering to me. That tweet smells a tad deceptive but the comment still strikes me as inappropriate even if the audience was Hispanic and receptive.

[hepcat]

What the fudge was the contex of that statement?

[Max Peck]

Was that booing? Almost sounded like cheering to me. That tweet smells a tad deceptive but the comment still strikes me as inappropriate even if the audience was Hispanic and receptive.

I dunno, it sounded to me like someone barked something when Trump said "Hispanics!" and then a bunch of people cheered/whistled after he said "Are there any hispanics in the room? No, I doubt it." Cheering the lack of hispanics conveys much the same sentiment as booing the mention of hispanics.

[malchior]

What the fudge was the contex of that statement?

I just read the WaPo story about this. He was sitting on stage with hispanic business leaders and politicians. It seems like one of his dopey jokes. The story characterized it as cheering. It was a friendly mostly hispanic crowd in Florida. Tweet above = deceptive. He is shitty enough without fueling "fake news" cries. Totally unnecessary.

President Trump grinned. “No, I doubt it,” he said with a chuckle, but he knew there were. His was a rhetorical question. On stage with him here at Bucky Dent Park were Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, the only Latino member of the Cabinet, and several local Hispanic business leaders.

[Max Peck]

What the fudge was the contex of that statement?

I just read the WaPo story about this. He was sitting on stage with hispanic business leaders and politicians. It seems like one of his dopey jokes. The story characterized it as cheering. It was a friendly mostly hispanic crowd in Florida. Tweet above = deceptive.

President Trump grinned. “No, I doubt it,” he said with a chuckle, but he knew there were. His was a rhetorical question. On stage with him here at Bucky Dent Park were Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, the only Latino member of the Cabinet, and several local Hispanic business leaders.

Ah, OK. That explains why the video clip was so short, they had to snip off all the context.

[hepcat]

Yeah, as mentioned, no need to create controversy out of fairly innocent things. That just plays into Trump’s narrative.

[GreenGoo]

I have no idea who that tweeter is. Am I supposed to care what he says?