Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

So how did they know what was on there before this afternoon then? Am I misunderstanding something about how the US legal system is supposed to work?

The way I understand it is, the FBI had a warrant for information on Weiner's computer pertaining to interstate/internet messages dealing with solicitation of a minor or child pornography.

In the course of the investigation they found emails leading to evidence of another crime, so they have to stop and obtain another search warrant or get permission of the computer owner.

It would be like conducting a search warrant on a house for drugs and finding a currency counterfeiting operation next to a pile of cocaine.

That's the way I understand it at least, but I'm not lawyer.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

Absolutely not



Was he truly unexpected? Trump looked strong from the getgo. He led the polls from the getgo too, despite the whining and protestation of the pundits. Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

Trump was couth enough to play golf with and go to weddings with and invite to Whitehouse dinners nary a year or two ago.

Now one side would have me believe he's such an unexpected, unplanned outsider that he'd rock the whole system, while the other side would have me believe he's an uncultured lowbrow swine, who just happens to own tailored white tie tuxedos and be invited to all the most exclusive events in the world.

Too much cognitive dissonance for me. Neither narrative adds up.

My guess is Trump is exactly what he appears to be. Maybe the 50th richest guy in America who makes most of his money off real estate, and who grew up with a silver spoon, became a socialite, and who is friendly and comfortable hanging out with all the inner-circles of media and political power and always has been. My guess is Hillary is exactly what she appears to be. One half of a team that has used the Whitehouse to achieve unprecedented personal wealth for themselves, and who cares very little about anyone but her and hers.

The best pro-Trump argument going is the foreign policy one. But even there, as I don't like the idea of Clinton taunting Russia into a fight, and the media dutifully following as they have been, I also worry about Trump's more boots on the ground, double budgets strategy for the middle east.

This is really a gross understatement when you consider the damage that she has done. She has burned the bridge with Russia entirely , now so much so that even Trump might have to engage in theater to distance himself. She has used a nuclear power as a scape goat for political purposes in the most reckless way.
Its also not as if Russia does not pull on a larger thread. Iran is now diplomatically compromised without Russia. Another diplomatic hot spot is Israel and Palestine. I don't think talking about rigging election is going to do mcuh for her possible role there.
Add to the ring around China in the midst of the Philippine revolt , its getting difficult for me to wonder what diplomatic problem is she equipped to solve. Working with the Saudis has the opposite problem. The first thing we have to wonder is if its the result of a bribe.

I think Trump easily wins this with his clean slate. i suppose there is some risk of economic or trade disputes , but I think this just pales in comparison to HRC.

As far a civil rights are concerned , its really all about the 1st and 2nd amendment. There is just no comparison here. HRC seems to think many of our problems are the direct result of the 1st and 2nd amendment. For all of these years the United States has been suffering under them apparently.

She is simply an impossible vote for the freedom of anything.

The way I see it, we're stuck with a choice between two candidates, each of which wants the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, each of which wants more soldiers and more war, each of which wants a larger debt and greater deficits, and both of which feel more at home in a penthouse in downtown Manhattan than anywhere else in the world.

It's another choice between rule by Brookings or rule by Heritage.

The veneers and the narratives we have over the meat this time are particularly juicy and egregious.

But I really don't sense anything too original, or too outrageous, for that matter.

Here is where I do not see a lot of hope with Trump. He operates in the same economic mythologies as usual. What we need to real infrastructure to help productivity while keeping real estate prices down. I have no seen anything that will get us there from anyone. The only one working to balance this out are rentiers in China and India.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

No, at least I've tried not to do that. He seems to be treading water for dear life amid a perfect storm and I empathize.

And it's just getting worse for him today. Dems are turning up the heat and talking about the possibility that he violated the Hatch Act. Since he works for Lynch it wouldn't surprise me if he "resigns" soon after the election.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

And it's just getting worse for him today. Dems are turning up the heat and talking about the possibility that he violated the Hatch Act. Since he works for Lynch it wouldn't surprise me if he "resigns" soon after the election.

given all the heat and the no-win position he's been put in, it wouldn't surprise me if he'd be happy and eager to resign as soon as it's not going to create a storm of its own. he'll do just fine back in the private sector.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

quote of the day, from charles blow [sic] in the ny times:

Who would have thought that the final leg of this election cycle would be dominated by crowing about violating vaginas and by probes into penis pictures?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

The conspiracy nutcases are coming out this Halloween!

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/c...p-kgb-cahoots/

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

And it's just getting worse for him today. Dems are turning up the heat and talking about the possibility that he violated the Hatch Act. Since he works for Lynch it wouldn't surprise me if he "resigns" soon after the election.

Comey is not what's at issue here. What's at issue is the many infirmities of the Democratic nominee. The fact that she and her enterprise are under multiple criminal investigations by the FBI. That these investigations are being stymied by political appointees compromised by the Clintons.

What's at issue is that the Democratic candidate is under threat of indictment and if elected, impeachment. No wonder they want to change the subject and demonize Comey.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?


We may get a partial answer before the election:

LA TIMES TUESDAY: FBI Investigators had planned to conduct new email review over several weeks. It now hopes to complete 'preliminary assessment' in coming days, but agency officials have not decided how, or whether, they will disclose results publicly... Developing...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...re-just-one-pr

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

The conspiracy nutcases are coming out this Halloween!

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/c...p-kgb-cahoots/

Jim Carville, the Clinton camp narrative hitman.

He's gone full retard.

Which is a shame.....because a reasonable and realistic conversation about foreign influence over the US election, particularly cyber information operations and to a lesser extent the potential/risk of foreign involvement in hacking emails and/or shifting the narrative with real/false content....now becomes absolutely impossible to have.

Turning real risk and a new cyber slice of very old dirty political influence tactics into the "boogey man" is reprehensible.

I wonder what his wife Mary Matalin has to say about it?

I have no idea if she's an active talking had in this cycle, but I think I'd rather hear from Carville's wife.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Lynch is the one culpable here:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...andal-n2238152

Isn't it ironic that conservatives hated Comey in July while liberals loved him. Now its the opposite. Comey is trying to do his job between two idiot parties. We need a new independent majority party to replace the two corrupt parties.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Comey is not what's at issue here. What's at issue is the many infirmities of the Democratic nominee. The fact that she and her enterprise are under multiple criminal investigations by the FBI. That these investigations are being stymied by political appointees compromised by the Clintons.

What's at issue is that the Democratic candidate is under threat of indictment and if elected, impeachment. No wonder they want to change the subject and demonize Comey.

That has always been the Clintons' wild ride. From Red Bone to Ken Bone, the game's the same. Only the blindest half of Democrats are unaware of what they are getting. I live in blue country. I could vote for Mickey Mouse, and she's still gonna win, and big.

I really think the radical change at this point would simply be doing things the right way and strengthening institutions. Not even big legislative change. Just radical change in executive enforcement and a radical introduction of basic ethics in the parties and the 4 or 5 companies that run the media.

I'm doubtful this can get done so long as billionaires use these things to wage their own little petty wars on Olympus regardless of the pain, death, destruction, and fallout upon us mere mortals on the Earth. But maybe it could.

My God, how much would change if, without passing a single law through Congress, a president simply made a couple strong ethics and revolving door executive orders, used existing law to end tax shelters and avoidance schemes, actually jailed and criminally charged millionaires on up, actually enforced the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and busted up these massive monopolies we have now, actually punished Silicon Valley companies for violating laws, and just generally leveled the playing field.

Hell, we could probably drop the prison population in half, make everyone safer, and keep the same number of cops on the job if we just switched half of them from issuing petty speeding and drug fines and arrests to investigating white collar crime and throwing rich people in jail for a change instead of letting them out on account of 'affluenza.' And they'd be doing the world some good. Hell, even enforce existing immigration law and other laws. You've got to at some point. Can't just be totally selective about it, regardless of how inept Congress is.

But we're not going to get this from pampered socialites who think the rules and laws don't apply to them. And I'm afraid those are our only choices.

So what do you like better? More estate tax cuts, or more taxes on soda? More corporate tax cuts, or more taxes on cigarettes. More top-bracket income tax cuts, or more tax penalties for not spending 'enough' on insurance? More toll roads or more toll roads?

It doesn't matter if these are all bad ideas. One side wants to squeeze the middle from the top, the other from the bottom. Nobody gives a crap about the working schlub. I'm guessing that Bill and Hillary got their Rhodes Scholar tickets, and figure anyone who didn't is a dumbass who deserves destitution and poverty. I'm also guessing Trump actually believes he built a real estate empire by himself like a hero from an Ayn Rand novel, despite having a daddy who was a NYC real estate millionaire who was wealthy, powerful, and mean enough that another Woody wrote an old tune about him way back in the day.

These are not nice people we're talking about here.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Obama won't criticize Comey:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...tion/93064856/


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/white-house-james-comey-clinton-fbi-230540

Democrats have used fake Russian connection before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/...history-in-us/


"Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" New York Times

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

Chris Matthews ?!

Edit: This was edited to leave off beginning and ending.

Begins:

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, I mean, whatever you think of Donald Trump, you have to wonder, why isnt he doing it? Why isnt he running for president? Why isnt he spending every hour asking the voters again and again,

Continues:

So, why doesnt he say now what would win him the election? Why doesnt he fight and create stupid headlines with his battles with Megyn Kelly and Dana Bash? He seems to devote day after day to fighting fights that make people forget the reasons he started running for president, reasons that continue to carry the shrinking chance he has to win this thing.
I say this not because I want Trump to win, but because I cant stand politics being practiced so pathetically

Here's the longer version. He raises a good question though. Why isn't Trump leading with this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...te_for_me.html

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Have you listened to any of his (Trump's) speeches? That's exactly what he's doing.