McConnell, in Private, Doubts if Trump Can Save Presidency

[AYSM]

I already made my $25 donation to the website. And how would we verify it anyway?

Just yesterday, Tucker Carlson posted a spoof of President Trump looking up with the caption that the President looks directly at the solar eclipse without protective glasses. An amazing amount of mainstream media picked it up and reported it as fact. There was no truth in it. He was having a really good time with that on his show tonight. Tucker said not a single one of them called him to verify the story. It was a way to show the President as an idiot and they grabbed it and ran with it.

That is the quality of journalism these days, and the NYT is one of the worst to run with fake news stories. So I don't have a high level of confidence that they got this story right either.

Jeez...he was seen on live TV doing just that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Jeez...he was seen on live TV doing just that.

Only if you interpret it that way.

 

[Grand Mal]

Only if you interpret it that way.

Interpret? It was live. He looked at the sun. Not for long, mind, but it's not a matter of interpretation.

 

[AYSM]

Only if you interpret it that way.

He turned his head up in the same direction as others with glasses on when he wasn't wearing any about three or four different times that both me and my sister each saw with our own two eyes and I shall choose to believe my own eyes instead of alternative facts to make my interpretation.

 

[Praxas]

Only if you interpret it that way.

Give it up, is there some genetic defect with trump supporters that they can't admit when he does something stupid?

 

[yankintx]

Im hoping Trump gets to fill 3 or 4 more seats before his term is done.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

What? I dont believe Trump will get that chance. Mueller will slap Trump with obstruction, that much is a given as he admitted it to Lester Holt. So no, Donny will not be replacing 4 more SC justices.

 

[JANFU]

Why are you bringing up your delusions of saboteurs in a thread about the relationship between the leader of the Republican Senate, Mitch McConnel and the Republican President? The left? It's the left's fault? That's what you're goin with?

Well their Godhead trump in their minds is being nailed to a cross- completely innocent of any claim made, any negative fact proven.

 

[JANFU]

Well, that's not easy. Gradual decline means every step down is normalized. A precipitous fall can mean outrage and a demand to return to the former status quo. I would argue that what we are experiencing right now is the former, due only to the fact that a Republican Congress is demanding we live with what's happening. What is happening has already begun to be normalized, as people are now claiming that what Trump does is, in fact, entirely normal. This is actually something of a new development.

Trumps base is still steady, those Rs that are standing by him, or silent, I would hazard a guess they are looking at their Districts support of Trump, and their upcoming elections.
As time passes and we see more of the same from Trump, perhaps that base will shrink as reality settles in??
And as we have seen trump go from 1 outrageous thing to the next, history has shown he will go one to far.
And that is what I see happening, 1 outrage to far, and the base starts turning on him with more Rs standing up and distancing themselves from Trump.
And we still have approx 14 months till the 18 elections

 

[haymarket]

I told everyone who would listen that nothing good would ever come out of last years election. Regardless of who won. I think as time goes by I am being proved right.

Reality, being what it is, can only prove you half right at best since we will never really know about what a Clinton term in office held for the nation.

 

[American]

Trump has **** on so many would be allies in the beltway. It's his first year politicking and boy does it show.

There are no allies in the Beltway. That's pure fantasy.

 

[Kobie]

Why are you bringing up your delusions of saboteurs in a thread about the relationship between the leader of the Republican Senate, Mitch McConnel and the Republican President? The left? It's the left's fault? That's what you're goin with?

Isn't everything?

 

[Perotista]

Goebbels said: A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth

but ironically he also said:

There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph.

I think people are seeing Trump for what he is: A big fat liar.

I have yet to run across a politician or candidate that has told the truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, from down right lies to exaggerated truths, half truths, out of context statements and on and on. I think I have come to expect lies, if not lies deceit and deflection of the truth.

Trump's problem is that he is a blow heart. He suffers from foot in mouth disease and that can turn out to be deadly. Sure he lies, maybe he doesn't think they are lies, perhaps he is living in his fantasy world of reality TV. But I think most Americans have realized that politicians and elected officials lies. The degree of lies vary from the innocent to down right deceit.

Trump's problem is his persona and his way too thin skin for politics. He has to attack anyone and everyone who has uttered a bad word about or challenged one of his policies. He creates feuds where none is needed. He grates on people. I think we all know Democrats weren't about to give Trump a chance to govern. Independents were, at the end of January independents gave Trump a 48% approval rating with an additional 25% undecided, willing to wait to make up their mind..

Today that approval rating among independents is down to 34%, undecided down to 18%. That 21 point difference moved into the disapprove column. Independents have basically abandoned Trump. Why, due to his character and persona. Not so much for his policies. On those independents approve of some and disapprove of some. More or less normal. What is worse for Trump is Republicans, they have dropped from a 90% approval at the end of January down to 75% today. I think most of that is the feuds Trump starts and again his persona, character, his need to constantly attack everyone and everything. He is also very unpresidential. Most Americans think their president should at least act a bit presidential, Trump doesn't. He is losing.

First post this fine AM and I had to get my thoughts in first thing.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Seems that WashPo and the Grey lady have broke a number of stories that were later found to be well grounded in fact.

Seems they have printed many that were false. The NYT pushed a fake narrative about the Russian story.
The NYT and the Washington and many others have one goal and that is damage the Trump administration
anyway they can.

The New York Times published a story about alleged contacts between Team Trump and Russian officials that turned out to be a sham, ex-FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.
“In the main, it was not true,” Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it,” he said during questioning from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho).

“And we don’t call the press and say, ‘Hey, you got that thing wrong.’ ”
Comey says Times story about Team Trump-Russia ties was false | New York Post

 

[Perotista]

Reality, being what it is, can only prove you half right at best since we will never really know about what a Clinton term in office held for the nation.

True. But what would have changed? Instead of Democrats trying to destroy Trump from day one, it would have been the Republicans trying to destroy Clinton. Instead of the Russia investigations among other things, it would have been reopening the E-Mail investigations, the Clinton Foundation quid pro quo, probably the IRS targeting and a bunch more. No Mueller for sure, but the Republicans would still control congress, both chambers and they would be using congress to investigate and investigate more and more. No cooperation between Clinton and the GOP congress.

Clinton would be much more tactful, at least on the surface. But she was a known commodity. Trump was the new guy, a businessman. Last years election was more of let's give the devil we don't know a chance over the devil we know. Both Trump and Clinton had 60% of all Americans disliking them. Only their hard core supporters did or at least avid supporters. So even if Clinton won, she would have started with basically 60% of the country against her. She might have been able to win over independents which Trump has lost due to his antics and constant attacks, name calling etc. That I don't know. But no doubt, she would have had a terrible time governing.

Only 38% of all Americans saw Clinton in a positive light, Trump 36%. The record for a presidential candidate for the lowest favorable or positive view was held by Barry Goldwater back in 1964 at 43%. Both candidates blew that record away. Fact is 25% of all Americans didn't want either Trump or Clinton to become our next president. They disliked both candidates.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polli...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

Throw into the mix the one's who wanted Trump, add them to the ones who didn't want neither and you have your 60% of Americans who didn't want Clinton. That is a lot to overcome. Could she have? We will never know because she lost. I've said this more times than I can remember, the reason we have a president Trump is because of decisions and choice made by the two major parties last year. I am of the opinion that almost any other Democrat, one who wasn't so disliked and one who didn't have all the Clinton baggage and the sense of a Clinton family domination of the presidency would have beaten Trump easily. Remember all the talk, no Bush dynasty, no Clinton dynasty? That talk has got lost.

I can't speak for all the 8 million voters who voted third party last year. But against Trump, I would have voted for a Biden, Sanders, O'Malley or Webb instead of third party. On the reverse side of the coin, I would have voted for almost any other Republican against Clinton.

 

[Conservative]

Typical... you can't refute the argument so you change the argument. We are not discussing the role of the federal government nor personal responsibility nor are we discussing what Trump* has specifically done to hurt me or my family (also another discussion), we are discussing the fact that most of America disapproves of Trump* and Trump* is so inept at leadership he does things every day to dig his own grave (more of America disapproves)...and this is before the revelations of the Mueller investigation, which is also not on topic, except that its likely to drive Trump*s disapproval numbers even higher.

So, you can agree or disagree with that premise or not do the wise thing and simply not respond. I would appreciate it if you chose to respond that you address the topic, if you can.

You cannot discuss Trump without discussing the role of the Federal Govt. which is what Trump is trying to do with his agenda, he is returning power to the states, proposing less of a budget than his predecessor, and spending less than his predecessor. His EO's reversed Obama's and allow businesses not to be penalized for growth and success. You don't like it, got it, doesn't matter but results do

 

[Conservative]

Dude I'd laugh if your post wasn't so pathetic. I feel sorry for you. I really do.

I feel sorry for anyone with such hatred for a President because he has the gall to speak his mind and try to change the role of the Federal Govt. back to where it belongs and what the founders created, certainly not the 4+ trillion one we have now and returning most personal responsibility issues to the states. big govt. liberals promoting power for the central govt. by creating dependence is why we are in this mess today. Living in Indiana I would have thought you understood that concept

 

[JANFU]

Fake News. trump says so

Then we have this little tidbit. If true, would that not be an attempt to obstruct investigations? It sure as hell would blow away his reasoning for firing Comey.
Dollars to doughnuts, Mueller has or will be asking Senator McConnell some questions regarding this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/...-column-region%AEion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

During the call, which Mr. Trump initiated on Aug. 9 from his New Jersey golf club, the president accused Mr. McConnell of bungling the health care issue. He was even more animated about what he intimated was the Senate leader’s refusal to protect him from investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to Republicans briefed on the conversation.

 

[Conservative]

He's taking the country down the sh**ter for one thing. And we are the laughing stock of the world.

And how is he doing that, stock market almost 23000, record employment, record labor force, pre recession U-6, lower debt? Post the data that proves your claim?

 

[Conservative]

I appreciate the effort but seriously, is that the best you can do?

You provide links to home pages but not direct to data to make your case. It's a start, for instance, I found this:

View attachment 67221764

At the following link:

https://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Please explain why 2017 is so much more impressive than previous years...please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the taller bars better than the shorter ones?

Seems to me that Obama had better and worse quarters we can cherry pick from.

Quarterly GDP means absolutely nothing as our GDP, debt and other financial results are yearly and that is what matters including debt service. I gave you the location of all the data you need to educate your self, teach yourself so you don't continue to show how you have been duped by the media.

2017 isn't over but off to a much better start than anything Obama had, check out U-6 rate, Discouraged workers, part time for economic reasons, then go to Treasury and find out what the debt is today?

 

[Conservative]

The economy improved due to nothing of the current President and very little of his predecessor. The President's policies would dramatically explode the debt while doing very little positive for the country in any sector. I am thankful every day that insiders are still at the helm of the military and have some semblance of control over this neophyte's erratic temperament and hostile notions toward America's foreign policy. At this point, I don't want more of the same--I want a return to stability created by previous Republican and Democratic administrations. I don't want any part of your revolution. I want statesmen. I want my America back.

That is your opinion however right now the debt is down as Trump is spending less than Obama's budget authorized and generating more revenue through job creation. You can claim that Trump hasn't generated any results but the actual data and responsibilities of leadership tell a different story. What stability did we have under previous politicians in office, they told you what you wanted to hear but the results never supported that rhetoric

 

[Fenton Lum]

How about something specific for a reason why you hate Trump for his personality doesn't matter as much as the results generated which you're ignoring.

You and far too many put way too much emphasis on perception while ignoring reality. Trump took an economy that was generating growth at 1.5%, a U6 rate of 9.4% and a 19.9 trillion-dollar debt. We have in a world on fire with terrorist attacks, Washington politicians running our military, no respect by our allies and what do you want more of the same.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Yeah, Wall Street's kicking it while half of working americans earn $30K/year or less.

'Course, he did drain the swamp.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...rules-let-lobbyist-help-run-agency-he-lobbied

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/...s-now-theyre-on-his-transition-team.html?_r=0

Donald Trump Cabinet: Is He Really Draining the Swamp?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7d93165c6d4_story.html?utm_term=.c6f6ade76246

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...ry-lobbyist-to-hud-transition-team-1480453288

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/27/coal-doj-trump/

http://fortune.com/2016/11/16/trump-lobbyists-dc-establishment/






Another of Don’s Swamp Rats Bails …

... just before publication of this New Yorker article. Must be "fake" n ****.

Icahn’s role was novel. He would be an adviser with a formal title, but he would not receive a salary, and he would not be required to divest himself of any of his holdings, or to make any disclosures about potential conflicts of interest. “Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity,” Trump’s transition team asserted.

In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner, nearly doubled—a surge that is difficult to explain without acknowledging the appointment of the company’s lead shareholder to a White House position. The rally meant a personal benefit for Icahn, at least on paper, of half a billion dollars. There was an expectation in the market—an expectation created, in part, by Icahn’s own remarks—that, with Trump in the White House and Icahn playing consigliere, the rules were about to change, and not just at the E.P.A. Icahn’s empire ranges across many economic sectors, from energy to pharmaceuticals to auto supplies to mining, and all of them are governed by the types of regulations about which he would now potentially be advising Trump.

Janet McCabe, who left the E.P.A. in January, and now works at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, told me, “I’m not naïve. People in business try to influence the government. But the job of the government is to serve the American people, not the specific business interests of the President’s friends. To think that you have somebody with that kind of agenda bending the President’s ear is troubling.”

Conflicts of interest have been a defining trait of the Trump Administration. The President has not only refused to release his tax returns; he has declined to divest from his companies, instead putting them in a trust managed by his children. Questions have emerged about the ongoing business ties of his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, who, since Trump took office, have reaped nearly two hundred million dollars from the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C., and from other investments. Although Trump promised to “drain the swamp,” he has assembled a Cabinet of ultra-rich Americans, including two billionaires: Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, and Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce.

But Icahn is worth more than the Trump family and all the members of the Cabinet combined—and, with no constraint on his license to counsel the President on regulations that might help his businesses, he was poised to become much richer. Robert Weissman, who runs the watchdog group Public Citizen, told me, “This kind of self-enrichment and influence over decision-making by an individual mogul who is simultaneously inside and outside the Administration is unprecedented. In terms of corruption, there’s nothing like it. Maybe ever.” In conversations with me, financiers who have worked with Icahn described his appointment as a kind of corporate raid on Washington. One said, “It’s the cheapest takeover Carl’s ever done.”

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/carl-icahns-failed-raid-on-washington

 

[Conservative]

I offered $800 to $500 he wouldn't make it 4 years as prez the day after the election to most of my Trump supporter friends and got no takers...



Will Trump Resign? Odds of Trump Quitting Before Impeachment Reach New High

Got it, you hate Trump but the question is why? What has he done to hurt you and your family which is the most important thing that should matter to you?

 

[haymarket]

True. But what would have changed? Instead of Democrats trying to destroy Trump from day one, it would have been the Republicans trying to destroy Clinton. Instead of the Russia investigations among other things, it would have been reopening the E-Mail investigations, the Clinton Foundation quid pro quo, probably the IRS targeting and a bunch more. No Mueller for sure, but the Republicans would still control congress, both chambers and they would be using congress to investigate and investigate more and more. No cooperation between Clinton and the GOP congress.

Clinton would be much more tactful, at least on the surface. But she was a known commodity. Trump was the new guy, a businessman. Last years election was more of let's give the devil we don't know a chance over the devil we know. Both Trump and Clinton had 60% of all Americans disliking them. Only their hard core supporters did or at least avid supporters. So even if Clinton won, she would have started with basically 60% of the country against her. She might have been able to win over independents which Trump has lost due to his antics and constant attacks, name calling etc. That I don't know. But no doubt, she would have had a terrible time governing.

Only 38% of all Americans saw Clinton in a positive light, Trump 36%. The record for a presidential candidate for the lowest favorable or positive view was held by Barry Goldwater back in 1964 at 43%. Both candidates blew that record away. Fact is 25% of all Americans didn't want either Trump or Clinton to become our next president. They disliked both candidates.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates | Gallup

Throw into the mix the one's who wanted Trump, add them to the ones who didn't want neither and you have your 60% of Americans who didn't want Clinton. That is a lot to overcome. Could she have? We will never know because she lost. I've said this more times than I can remember, the reason we have a president Trump is because of decisions and choice made by the two major parties last year. I am of the opinion that almost any other Democrat, one who wasn't so disliked and one who didn't have all the Clinton baggage and the sense of a Clinton family domination of the presidency would have beaten Trump easily. Remember all the talk, no Bush dynasty, no Clinton dynasty? That talk has got lost.

I can't speak for all the 8 million voters who voted third party last year. But against Trump, I would have voted for a Biden, Sanders, O'Malley or Webb instead of third party. On the reverse side of the coin, I would have voted for almost any other Republican against Clinton.

Much of what you say is relevant. I feel that the number one difference would be that with Clinton - at least the White House would be in the hands of a sane, capable and experienced person who respects government and their role in it.

And right now I would settle for that.

One other thing....... its not talked about much, but the front loading of Dem primaries in areas with disproportionate numbers of African American voters really gave Clinton a significant advantage over Sanders. And then in the general I see no evidence that this loyalty translated into Obama like turnout for Clinton. So Dem insiders do not want to talk about it - but the racial angle played a big role in the handicapping of the ticket.

 

[RAMOSS]

And how is he doing that, stock market almost 23000, record employment, record labor force, pre recession U-6, lower debt? Post the data that proves your claim?

And look at the fine eclipse he made happen. It was the very best eclipse.

 

[TheGoverness]

Why are you bringing up your delusions of saboteurs in a thread about the relationship between the leader of the Republican Senate, Mitch McConnel and the Republican President? The left? It's the left's fault? That's what you're goin with?

Yup! It's all da Left's fault! Trump totally didn't do this to himself by starting **** with all his allies!