No Trump defenders left ...?

[_honorentheos]

He gave confidence to the job market.

You are conflating the stock market with the job market. His election had an immediate impact on stocks with investors not wanting to miss the increased profits that could come from relaxed regulations, corporate tax cuts, and yet-to-occur infrastructure investment. But the job market was steadily improving through the Obama years.

See here for example. There's nothing magic about Trump's election when it comes to job numbers:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192 ... ince-1990/

[_subgenius]

geez your posts are increasingly ignorant, desperate, and bloated with a comical arrogance.

That is yet another example of the type of reply flat earthers give to those who disagree with them and present conclusive evidence of the falsity and irrationality of the flat earth hypothesis. Your inability or stubborn refusal to see or acknowledge the huge and still growing pile of evidence of Trump's willful mendacity, corruption and pathological dishonesty is very telling.

Allegations arent evidence and innuendo isn't evidence. You guys have relied on rumor, pressuposition, and condemnation for "evidence" and proclaim guilty based solely on that. Yet time and time again we see your accusations fall short of reality. Stormy, election collusion, nuclear war, impossible job gains, death to gays, nazis, white power hand signals, dark ages, etc. all have been hyperbolic fund raising slogans that have just basically been stacked in an unproven pile of desperation.
EA's posts are more hack like as theybecome more entrenched with the only principle the DNC currently has...bad orange man is mean.
So spare me your desperation and try stuffing some facts up next to where your brain easily resides.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think the Russia collusion allegations are pretty weak at this point. I don't think $4,700.00 in google ads or $100,000.00 in Facebook ads by the Russians lost Clinton the election. She was a bad candidate that the donor class put up. Enough of the people in key states didn't want her and now we have another hated candidate as president. He won because he had enough populist rhetoric to fool enough to win the electoral college. How about we talk about the issues? The people want higher wages and lower expenses and less war. Where do the Democrats stand on these issues? Pay go is now a rule, so the donors can breath a little easier. But surely they don't want the yellow vests coming here, so what will the donor class do to satiate the masses that are frustrated by the slow, incremental takeover by the 1%?

[_EAllusion]

I think the Russia collusion allegations are pretty weak at this point. I don't think $4,700.00 in google ads or $100,000.00 in Facebook ads by the Russians lost Clinton the election. She was a bad candidate that the donor class put up. Enough of the people in key states didn't want her and now we have another hated candidate as president. He won because he had enough populist rhetoric to fool enough to win the electoral college. How about we talk about the issues? The people want higher wages and lower expenses and less war. Where do the Democrats stand on these issues? Pay go is now a rule, so the donors can breath a little easier. But surely they don't want the yellow vests coming here, so what will the donor class do to satiate the masses that are frustrated by the slow, incremental takeover by the 1%?

You exist in an alternate universe in which Russia did not engage in espionage against the DNC and Podesta for purposes of influencing the election, though. It's hard to interact with you as a result of that level of gainsaying reality.

I'm here to point out that whether or not the attempts at influencing the election were successful is irrelevant to legality or propriety of the actions involved. The Watergate break-in did not cost McGovern the election. I do think that "Wikileaks! Emails!" coverage was probably sufficient to tip a razor thin election, but it's really neither here nor there.

[_canpakes]

I have watched a two party system fight over policies, like immigration, as if they cared, and not do a thing about it, nor really intend to anything about it. Washington politicians just go back and forth for votes, in that votes mean party power.

So you elected a man with no new ideas or approach to immigration issues except to propose that we build a ‘big, beautiful wall’ and have Mexico pay for it. Other than that, has he worked towards meaningful change to the system of application, or put more resources towards getting more judges in place or processing the current backlog any more efficiently? No, Trump took the laziest approach while appealing to the most emotional amongst the voting crowd, who were either dim enough to believe that Mexico would pony up any money, or perhaps didn’t care at all that their candidate was lying to their face. Not that this wasn’t a harbinger of the man’s character, right? Which one of those two groups did you find yourself in?

So now this is his ‘solution’ to everything. How effective do you think that’ll be? How much do you want to be fleeced on this boondoggle which just represents a shiny object to folks who can’t be bothered to think through their rage over brown folks supposedly taking away all of the jobs that White America wants in the agriculture fields, the restaurant back rooms and the service industry jobs paying minimum wage or less?

Trump whether you will admit it of not gave confidence to the economy the moment he was elected. He gave confidence to the job market. ... That is just the bottom line.

Past the initial reinforcement of the prevailing near-decade-long trend in the stock market (not the same as the economy), Trump then ended up introducing uncertainty more than anything. All that he really needed to do was not screw anything up, but he seems pretty bent on doing just that at this point.

As far as Trump changing it, at least in the long term, I don't see it. He is fighting two spoiled rotten brats that have had their way for far to long.

You’ve voted for the most spoiled brat that Washington has ever seen. His actions and tantrums prove this every day. There is simply no one you can point to in recent memory or beyond that does a better job of meeting your description. Feel free to offer up an alternative example, if you’d like.

[_Bret Ripley]

I'm here to point out that whether or not the attempts at influencing the election were successful is irrelevant to legality or propriety of the actions involved.

This really ought to go without saying; it's depressing as all get out that we live in a world where it bears repeating.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm here to point out that whether or not the attempts at influencing the election were successful is irrelevant to legality or propriety of the actions involved.

This really ought to go without saying; it's depressing as all get out that we live in a world where it bears repeating.

That's because "Conservatives" don't read.

- Doc

[_Dr Exiled]

I think the Russia collusion allegations are pretty weak at this point. I don't think $4,700.00 in google ads or $100,000.00 in Facebook ads by the Russians lost Clinton the election. She was a bad candidate that the donor class put up. Enough of the people in key states didn't want her and now we have another hated candidate as president. He won because he had enough populist rhetoric to fool enough to win the electoral college. How about we talk about the issues? The people want higher wages and lower expenses and less war. Where do the Democrats stand on these issues? Pay go is now a rule, so the donors can breath a little easier. But surely they don't want the yellow vests coming here, so what will the donor class do to satiate the masses that are frustrated by the slow, incremental takeover by the 1%?

You exist in an alternate universe in which Russia did not engage in espionage against the DNC and Podesta for purposes of influencing the election, though. It's hard to interact with you as a result of that level of gainsaying reality.

I'm here to point out that whether or not the attempts at influencing the election were successful is irrelevant to legality or propriety of the actions involved. The Watergate break-in did not cost McGovern the election. I do think that "Wikileaks! Emails!" coverage was probably sufficient to tip a razor thin election, but it's really neither here nor there.

Comey's late antics regarding the email investigation didn't help regardless of what Russia did. Why on earth did he do that? Maybe the Russians got to him? Anyway, I've stayed away from this thread because I think we do live in alternative universes. Russia and every other state probably are involved in our politics (AIPAC continues to push you can't complain about Israel legislation). We are too. How many bases does the American empire have around the world? How many governments have we overthrown?

[_Morley]

How many bases does the American empire have around the world? How many governments have we overthrown?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, Exiled.

Because the US has behaved reprehensibly (and indeed, it has) has nothing to do with the question of whether or not US elections were tampered with. Or whether or not the interference with these elections should be investigated and stopped.

[_Dr Exiled]

How many bases does the American empire have around the world? How many governments have we overthrown?

Because the US has behaved reprehensibly (and indeed, it has) has nothing to do with the question of whether or not US elections were tampered with. Or whether or not the interference with these elections should be investigated and stopped.

Sure, investigate and I will believe when there is more evidence other than allegations. In courts of law, in my experience as a lawyer, when a prosecutor indicts or threatens indictment, that is just the beginning. Grand jury indictments are one sided by design because the other side isn't allowed to present their case. Even so, indictments can and do result in convictions. At this point, we are just in the indictment stage and there is a lot of conclusory coverage by the mainstream media and attempts to counter by the idiot's at FOX. We have seen some convictions on satellite issues, but is there more or is this a nothing burger? Meanwhile the Democrats are trying to squash left wing populism with the pay go vote, just like the Repos did in their own way, back when Ron Paul was pushing libertarian populism from the right. I think the real action is with the yellow vests and the economic issues they espouse. We've all suffered through wealth being transferred up through corporate welfare and military spending that is out of control.

However, Trump is a narcissist and a jackass, so let's focus on him.

Although, a candidate that actually captured what the people wanted would defeat Trump in a landslide. Maybe we are seeing some theater for other reasons?