What if it was not the Russians?

[djimaplon]

Exactly. We aren't going to see changes that make government more responsive or accountable to the general public. What we are likely to get are major policy changes, but also expansion of government power. Now, the expansion of government power was going to happen no matter who took office.

Indeed people complain about the expansion of power of the executive branch under Obama, but show me a President of this or last century that didn't expand the power of the exectuive branch. Do you really think Trump is going break that trend? But maybe the Republican controlled legislature is onto something in NC.

 

[djimaplon]

Yeah. I will leave that to you to figure out.

Not for me, but the incoming administration. They are the ones we have entrusted the task. I can only hope we didnt buy the bridge.

 

[Joe Fan]

Indeed people complain about the expansion of power of the executive branch under Obama, but show me a President of this or last century that didn't.

Obama expanded the use of EOs beyond any predecessor "this or last century" or any century. He did this to skirt Congress and the Constitution (SOP). But, in the end, he was not able to skirt the SCOTUS. Lastly, more decisions may come down still in this area, after BHO's exit. Or, I hope they come out still and the Court doesnt take the easy way out (they will avoid hearing poltiical issues whenever possible)

Do you really think Trump is going break that trend?

He has already said he will rollback as many Obama EOs as he can day one

 

[NJlonghorn]

Moon of Alabama wrote a speculative analytical piece yesterday (The elite coup of 2016). Basically, there are three possibilities to thwart Trump's inauguration:

1. Changing votes within the electoral college on December 19th. Probably close to zero chance of this happening.

2. Bringing an objection to the vote signed by at least one House member and one Senate member on the January 6th joint meeting of Congress. Theoretically, this would open up a debate and if enough support swung against Trump we have a Constitutional crises and legal issues that then go to the Supreme Court

3. Obama's call for an intelligence review (He gives a speech later today). The idea being that until there is resolution, the vice-President elect would take office on January 20th until a "qualified" person (Clinton? Pence? Trump?) can take office.

The sum probability of these events is pretty much zero. The crazies can scream, cry, and protest all they want -- it isn't gonna change anything.

 

[NJlonghorn]

He has already said he will rollback as many Obama EOs as he can day one

Of course Trump will roll back much of Obama did. That doesn't mean he is any better that Obama in terms of willingness to overreach with executive authority. It just means that he disagrees with what Obama did.

The real test of Trump's authoritarian leanings will come if Congress doesn't give him what he wants. Will he go the Obama route and bend/break the rules? Or will he accept defeat and continue trying to convince Congress to go his way?

 

[Joe Fan]

Of course Trump will roll back much of Obama did. That doesn't mean he is any better that Obama in terms of willingness to overreach with executive authority. It just means that he disagrees with what Obama did.....

The interesting thing is how much more discussion there is of something Trump might do versus what Obama actually did. But it appears I am the only one here who find these sort of things interesting

 

[djimaplon]

The interesting thing is how much more discussion there is of something Trump might do versus what Obama actually did. But it appears I am the only one here who find these sort of things interesting

Err....President Elect..... until Jan 20, the discussion can be but theoretical. I didnt deny that BO expanded the power of the Presidency. I am arguing that the power of the Presidency has been ever increasing. EO's are just one expression and exertion of the power of the Presidency. But you have somehow convinced yourself that someone with autocratic tendencies (unless you wish to debate that point) is somehow going to be less autocratic.

 

[Joe Fan]

Err....President Elect..... until Jan 20, the discussion can be but theoretical. I didnt deny that BO expanded the power of the Presidency. I am arguing that the power of the Presidency has been ever increasing. EO's are just one expression and exertion of the power of the Presidency. ....

The better theoretical discussion would be what HRC would have done. She had a plan for this, for increasing what you are calling "autocratic tendencies." We know this. How? Because some bits and pieces of that plan same out via leaks, and a choice few public/private comments. Put those cookie crumbs together and we can see she planned to do alot acting through the EPA and the FCC. She also had a plan for the 2nd Amendment. I disclosed much of this already on previous pages. Some of it is pretty chilling. And none of which was going to help businesses or help create jobs.

How was she going to do this? Assuming she could not control both Houses, she had a path through regulation, agency control, the DC Court System (the one which hears agency appeals) and of course packing the SCOTUS itself. All this on top of expanding EOs.

Trump, as far as we know, is doing the opposite. How do we know this? For starters, we have what he has said. As a businessperson, he had a perspective neither Obama nor Hillary ever had. He knows first hand the negative effect of too much government on the economy and jobs.

For support of this idea, look at how he is approaching the EPA right now. They are quaking in their boots over there at the moment. If there is one US agency that has gone beyond the pale, this is it. They have more power than the IRS. The EPA can and does do basically do whatever it wants. They are a danger to democracy itself. They are a scary Soviet-style operation as of this moment. Trump is going to cut them off (I hope and expect ). He is going to clean house at the EPA (I hope and expect).

So, I see Trump doing the opposite of what you suggest, as least with regard to federal agencies. He is going to reduce, not expand.

 

[Brad Austin]

The irony of all this is downright pathetic.

The collusion by the U.S. media, Hollywood, and financial power players to hand HRC the Presidency dwarfs all email leaks by outside players (which is still unproven).

Not only was the colluding group much more powerful, numerous, and consistent in their propaganda efforts...they were also fabricating lies and twisting DT's every word to paint a narrative of evil.

The leaks had no narrative, just publicized actual correspondence from the horse's mouth and let the reader's form conclusions.

I guess it's okay to try to steal an election from within with droves of false information, yet releasing true emails proving this corruption and collusion is election fraud.

Constitutional crisis is the least of their concerns if DT is prevented the Presidency he rightfully won.

 

[djimaplon]

The better theoretical discussion would be what HRC would have done.

No it isnt the "better" discussion. Though I suppose that is a matter of opinion. I dont really care. HRC isnt going to be President. Trump is. You seem to have some fascination with her; no one wants to talk about her. She's done. Her policies have no relevance because they have have no chance being enacted. It's time to talk about the substance of Trump.

There is a distinction between the size of government and power and exercising power. The reduction of one does not necessary mean diminishing the other. All we can do is look at the foundation that is being built and extrapolate from there. I think there are some fine people in the cabinet and i think there are some headscratchers.

 

[Joe Fan]

No it isnt the "better" discussion. HRC isnt going to be President. Trump is. You seem to have some fascination with her, no one wants to talk about her. She's done.

She was almost the next president. And what you are warning of here, would have been much worse with her

It's time to talk about the substance of Trump.

But you are not actually discussing substance, at least not yet. You are discussing hypotheticals, based on your own assumptions.

 

[Musburger1]

We can only speculate on what Trump will do based on what he's said and who he's named.

The selection of Perry to the department of energy is consistent with Trump's goal of America becoming energy independent and ratcheting down regulations on energy. Here you have a guy that is pro industry and even wanted to dismantle the very agency he will be in charge of. In the short run, this should be beneficial for the economy and for the oil industry, nuclear industry and possibly coal and other areas. In the long-term, depending on whether environmental controls are enforced or not, there may or may not be hidden costs with respect to pollution, water quality, etc. See also picks for EPA and Dept of Interior.

The pick for the Department of Education is similar. The woman chosen to head this agency is an advocate for private education. Trump has stated he'd want to see more local control of schools and less national control. I like that. What I'm concerned with is the possibility that education may be privatized for profit where cronies cut costs in order to make money.

It's clear that the State Department is in for changes with the appointment of Exxon's CEO. This indicates Trump will work to establish better relationships with Russia and hopefully work jointly to fight against radical Islam and do away with clandestine programs to train and arm the very same groups we ostensibly oppose. The selections of Bolton as the Deputy Secretary of State is a head scratcher to me. Please read this refresher on Bolton's history. Bolton has all but called for open war on Iran, and its hard to square how American can move forward in dealings with Russia while simultaneously ratcheting up pressure on Iran (and China).

 

[iatrogenic]

Nice rant Mr genic.

 

[djimaplon]

She was almost the next president. And what you are warning of here, would have been much worse with her

If you want to have a "why I hate HRC thread" thats fine by me, there's plenty to criticize, I agree. I just dont see the point. but hey, go right ahead and talk about hypotheticals of what will never be.

But you are not actually discussing substance, at least not yet. You are discussing hypotheticals, based on your own assumptions.

Kind of hard to discuss Trump when most of the response is HRC would be worse, followed by fearmongering of the EPA.

I give Musburger credit for moving the discussion forward. I get the privitization theme as someone who received a Finance degree I support it. But I am also cognizant that government has a role that should be limited. I know this sounds crazy to many of you, but posting people to head organizations they have actively sought to eliminate completely may be problematic.

Maybe that's why he forgot, perhaps some strange time warp occurred and he had already eliminated it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Kind of hard to discuss Trump when most of the response is HRC would be worse,

Ain't that the truth? Many Trump supporters have a hard time exiting campaign mode. The response to any criticism or even mild scepticism of Trump is that HRC is or would have been worse or that Obama did X or failed to do Y - as if that has relevance to the merits if what Trump is planning to do.

 

[mchammer]

Ain't that the truth? Many Trump supporters have a hard time exiting campaign mode. The response to any criticism or even mild scepticism of Trump is that HRC is or would have been worse or that Obama did X or failed to do Y - as if that has relevance to the merits if what Trump is planning to do.

Dems are still in campaign mode. Until they stop, no reason for Trump to stop.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Dems are still in campaign mode. Until they stop, no reason for Trump to stop.

I'm not talking about Trump. I'm talking about Trump supporters who are private citizens.

 

[UTChE96]

Unless the Russians changed actual voting results then color me unimpressed. So much sour grapes from the left.

 

[Brad Austin]

The argument is that the Russians interfered in the election to sway public opinion to favor Trump. However the discussion ignores the entire (much larger in scale) collaboration to hand the Presidency to HRC.

If the media and ill-intended financiers had played this straight up and let the election run it's course through traditional campaign methods like 2012 and before, then outside forces attempting to influence only one direction would be concerning.

Since it was nothing more than a smaller scale counter to the massive collusion in favor of HRC from inside this country, doesn't bother me a bit.

In an election full of corrupt practices, all I wished for was fairness. It was completely unfair the way HRC was protected while riddled full of serious criminal actions and DT was painted by every slander in the book. The leaks unveiled this corruption and evened the playing field. If that's the only way to get some semblance of fairness, I'll take it.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

If the media and ill-intended financiers had played this straight up and let the election run it's course through traditional campaign methods like 2012 and before, then outside forces attempting to influence only one direction would be concerning.

Hell, if they had done that Hilly would have gotten her saggy old *** kicked in the primaries by Bernie. And Bernie probably would have beaten Trump too.

 

[mchammer]

Hell, if they had done that Hilly would have gotten her saggy old *** kicked in the primaries by Bernie. And Bernie probably would have beaten Trump too.

Read an article that said the oppo research the RNC had collected on Bernie was really bad. He basically lived in a commune for years without paying taxes or paying parking tickets.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Unless the Russians changed actual voting results then color me unimpressed. So much sour grapes from the left.

To those who are dismissing the issue without meaningful inquiry, changing the actual voting results wouldn't matter. They'd say, "until we start doing singing about voter fraud, I don't care."

 

[Mr. Deez]

The argument is that the Russians interfered in the election to sway public opinion to favor Trump. However the discussion ignores the entire (much larger in scale) collaboration to hand the Presidency to HRC.

If the media and ill-intended financiers had played this straight up and let the election run it's course through traditional campaign methods like 2012 and before, then outside forces attempting to influence only one direction would be concerning.

Since it was nothing more than a smaller scale counter to the massive collusion in favor of HRC from inside this country, doesn't bother me a bit.

In an election full of corrupt practices, all I wished for was fairness. It was completely unfair the way HRC was protected while riddled full of serious criminal actions and DT was painted by every slander in the book. The leaks unveiled this corruption and evened the playing field. If that's the only way to get some semblance of fairness, I'll take it.

The problem with this mindset (that the opposition's corruption is so bad that we shouldn't even be looking into possible corrupt influences that may have benefited your side) is that it leads to no ethics at all. Basically if it benefits your preferred politicians, then you'll find a reason to divert your attention away from it. When the other side has its own crookedness to which you can always direct your attention, then you'll reach a point at which it truly doesn't matter what your side does. The Democrats are already at this point. It's dangerous and depraved.

 

[Brad Austin]

Basically if it benefits your preferred politicians, then you'll find a reason to divert your attention away from it. When the other side has its own crookedness to which you can always direct your attention, then you'll reach a point at which it truly doesn't matter what your side does.

False. A true desire for fairness does not include ignoring cheating when favored towards my side on a level playing field. I can take losing fairly (just like 2008 and 2012), but cannot stand being cheated...plain and simple.

A perfect example is football, I'm the first guy to call out my own team when clearly committing a penalty, even if it wipes out a big score.

However if earlier in the game the opponent scored and a penalty was grossly committed and ignored, I will excuse my team's later infraction as evening up the score.

I'm all about fairness in football and in life.

I was strongly opposed to Obama in 2012, but if Russia had clearly pulled out similar tactics only favoring Romney I'd have considered it an unfair meddling that deserved investigation and dealing with.

My only justification for writing off this cycle (and I still haven't seen proof Russia was responsible for Wikileaks) is the gross cheating by the other side with zero penalties or repercussions even after the massive attempt to steal the election was revealed.

People who cheat have no right to throw temper tantrums when losing from similar tactics. Which weren't even similar because HRC's team had a hand in her cheating, while DT didn't work with Russia or whoever on anything that helped his side.

Any sane, honest person knows HRC would've been toast if the media would've covered the emails and Clinton Foundation like any small scandal they could drum up on DT. If DT had a Clinton Foundation scale and type charity he'd be under the jail.

What's funny is the thought "we better address this outside election meddling now" so it won't happen again. They knew of this since 2015 so BO says. But now it's suddenly a monumental problem. If HRC would've won like the thieves were so certain of, we wouldn't have heard a peep after election night about Russia meddling.

I get ignoring Russia's potential role now is a risk with a 'lead from behind', all talk, reactive Prez like Obama. But come Jan a proactive leader takes over who'll actually attack a future similar problem when symptoms arise.

If only we can just stomach BO's sudden 'I'm serious about taking action' bs for another month or so, then we can get on with finally having real leadership that thankfully someone helped prevent getting cheated out of the office.

 

[Joe Fan]

Ain't that the truth? Many Trump supporters have a hard time exiting campaign mode. .....

Good lord. TV News and newspapers are all still running against Trump daily
You guys need to leave the cave

 

[Horn6721]

If there has ever been such vitriol hatred and condemnation of a POTUSE I can' not find it. You even have idiots like Bill Moyers calling for his impeachment.
Do people even stop to think what they are spouting?

 

[Joe Fan]

Here is a good "what if its not the Russians" theory for all you sphincter aficionados out there

 

[Mr. Deez]

False. A true desire for fairness does not include ignoring cheating when favored towards my side on a level playing field. I can take losing fairly (just like 2008 and 2012), but cannot stand being cheated...plain and simple.

A perfect example is football, I'm the first guy to call out my own team when clearly committing a penalty, even if it wipes out a big score.

However if earlier in the game the opponent scored and a penalty was grossly committed and ignored, I will excuse my team's later infraction as evening up the score.

I'm all about fairness in football and in life.

I was strongly opposed to Obama in 2012, but if Russia had clearly pulled out similar tactics only favoring Romney I'd have considered it an unfair meddling that deserved investigation and dealing with.

My only justification for writing off this cycle (and I still haven't seen proof Russia was responsible for Wikileaks) is the gross cheating by the other side with zero penalties or repercussions even after the massive attempt to steal the election was revealed.

You're playing the game just as I described. Rather than looking at objective facts, you're making your judgments based on the conduct of somebody else. Football is a game, and its outcome is relatively inconsequential. Criminal acts are real life, and the enforcement of criminal laws determine whether you live in an orderly society or not. That is consequential.

Furthermore, though the media was especially unfair to Trump, they were also unfair to Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and every Republican nominee since probably the 1920s (with perhaps the exception of Dwight Eisenhower). The degree of the unfairness was higher in 2016, but the presence of it was nothing new.

People who cheat have no right to throw temper tantrums when losing from similar tactics. Which weren't even similar because HRC's team had a hand in her cheating, while DT didn't work with Russia or whoever on anything that helped his side.

Here's the problem. The media doesn't have to be fair to Donald Trump. They should be, but the First Amendment allows them not to be if they so choose. It's sleazy, but it's not illegal. The remedy for it is the marketplace of ideas, not the jailhouse. Hacking people's email accounts and then publicizing their contents is illegal.

Furthermore, this isn't about who's throwing temper tantrums. Again, this is you diverting your attention away from possible wrongdoing based on your opponent rather than facts and evidence. We don't investigate possible wrongdoing based on temper tantrums. We investigate it based on whether there's reason to believe a crime was committed.

Finally, you don't know if DT worked with the Russians. I'm not saying that he did, but you can't say that he didn't. That's pure speculation. The matter should be investigated. Will it lead to Trump? It might, and it might not. There's no way to know unless we look.

Any sane, honest person knows HRC would've been toast if the media would've covered the emails and Clinton Foundation like any small scandal they could drum up on DT. If DT had a Clinton Foundation scale and type charity he'd be under the jail.

You are correct, but again, HRC's possible wrongdoing doesn't excuse someone else's wrongdoing. The wise thing to do is investigate both possible acts of wrongdoing, not to ignore one or both.

What's funny is the thought "we better address this outside election meddling now" so it won't happen again. They knew of this since 2015 so BO says. But now it's suddenly a monumental problem. If HRC would've won like the thieves were so certain of, we wouldn't have heard a peep after election night about Russia meddling.

Another diversion. So what if Obama says he knew about this in 2015? That's of political relevance, but it's not of legal relevance.

I get ignoring Russia's potential role now is a risk with a 'lead from behind', all talk, reactive Prez like Obama. But come Jan a proactive leader takes over who'll actually attack a future similar problem when symptoms arise.

Lol. You're making this too easy. You'd fear Russian interference if the winning candidate was someone you think (and I generally think) was a bad President. But because the alleged interference likely benefited a guy in whom you have confidence, you're cool with it. You don't see a problem with this mentality???

Honestly, I'm not here to pick on you. Most Americans who follow politics think like you do. And HRC supporters bent over backwards to ignore her ethical problems based on the same rationales you're applying here and did so repeatedly. However, conservatives are supposed to be better than this. They're supposed to believe in the supremacy of the rule of law and the enforcement of the laws without regard to politics. It's sad and dangerous to be losing that moral authority.

 

[NJlonghorn]

HRC supporters bent over backwards to ignore her ethical problems based on the same rationales you're applying here and did so repeatedly. However, conservatives are supposed to be better than this. They're supposed to believe in the supremacy of the rule of law and the enforcement of the laws without regard to politics. It's sad and dangerous to be losing that moral authority.

This +100. For me, the only consolation that Trump won is that Clinton lost. This is an opportunity to distance ourselves from her sleaze, not to embrace it.

 

[theiioftx]

The acrimony on the left is hilarious. They refuse to deny that all of it was true and want to focus on the fact that nothing was revealed about the RNC. Then Obama lets his press secretary throw out unsubstantiated allegations about the incoming POTUS. Hey Obama, we are still paying you. Why not let the golf go in your remaining 30 days and do something about the political 9-11 your party is whining about? Anyone thinking this has not been a problem for a while is naive at best. And please don't argue that the CIA does not do the same.