O-Trap;1879781 wrote:And how will we know/find those people?

People will run....interview them, vet them, research them.....like we should be doing now.

My hope is that voters will vote for the person and what they stand for...not for the 'R' or 'D' behind their name.

Yea, naive, I know.

wkfan;1879809 wrote:People will run....interview them, vet them, research them.....like we should be doing now.

My hope is that voters will vote for the person and what they stand for...not for the 'R' or 'D' behind their name.

Yea, naive, I know.

Yeah, functionally I don't think that works.

Moreover, I think the power currently granted to the positions of highest office would make the result of such elections less about who is the best for the job and more about who can best hide how they want to use the job toward their own ends.

Positions of power are like big, fat, fresh steaks, and self-interested aspiring politicians are like hungry wolves.

BoatShoes;1879746 wrote: My thinking is that they have a theory of the case but that they probably wouldn't be able to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt that could get past a jury unless a guy like Manafort spilled all of the beans and described in detail how any theorized conspiracy would have worked.

LOL, classic. The idiot Trump - almost no one can talk about him without a story demonstrating how stupid and incompetent he is - masterminded a grand conspiracy with Russia to steal an election, and no one can prove it.

Russia didn't need the Trump campaign's help to interfere in the election. What they did do was leave plenty of bread crumbs behind on both Trump and Clinton to cast suspicion on WHOMEVER won the election. Russia didn't care who won, they cared about undermining the process and raising questions about the legitimacy of the winner.

gut;1879831 wrote:LOL, classic. The idiot Trump - almost no one can talk about him without a story demonstrating how stupid and incompetent he is - masterminded a grand conspiracy with Russia to steal an election, and no one can prove it.

Russia didn't need the Trump campaign's help to interfere in the election. What they did do was leave plenty of bread crumbs behind on both Trump and Clinton to cast suspicion on WHOMEVER won the election. Russia didn't care who won, they cared about undermining the process and raising questions about the legitimacy of the winner.

Don't really have a horse in this race and don't disagree with what you're saying. Just pontificating on what may be going on with the Manafort charge. I do, however, continue to be impressed with your completely opposite reasoning, standards of proof, and reluctance to make inferences when it comes to Trump's conspiracy theories vs. conspiracy theories against the Obummer, Hillary and the Dems.

For example, in this case we at least have a charging document that lays out factual allegations that must be supported by evidentiary exhibits or testimony if this charade is not a complete farce. What's your response? "No way! Herp!"

Nothing even remotely as probative when it comes to various Obama and Hillary schemes you've imitated that you believe took place and yet in those instances you say things like...what was it? "Yeah I'm sure the Clintons did that all for charitable purposes!!!"

This stuff doesn't come anywhere close to proving what the Dems believe happened with Trump/Russia etc. but we can bet 100% that Gut would be singing the complete opposite tune he is now if these were people that worked on a Democrat's campaign.

gut;1879831 wrote:The idiot Trump - almost no one can talk about him without a story demonstrating how stupid and incompetent he is - masterminded a grand conspiracy with Russia to steal an election, and no one can prove it.

This is actually a recurring theme, it seems. The opposition of a given politician always seems to paint that politician as both intellectually compromised AND unethical.

Thing is, if someone was both, wouldn't that make them pretty vulnerable? If you're unethical, but you're also not generally competent, aren't pretty much a guarantee to get caught given enough time?

Generally speaking, I kind of put Trump in the former category. I think he's an asshole, but I don't think he's been explicitly corrupt. I just think he's sort of a savant. He does a few things well, but in regard to most things, I think he's a bungler.

As generally speaking, I think Clinton is on the opposite end of this paradigm. I think she's made some obvious lapses in judgment, but I don't think she's an idiot. I just think she's too self-involved and corrupt to be trusted with most things (though I'm sure there are indeed roles that she would play fairly).

BoatShoes;1879848 wrote:Don't really have a horse in this race and don't disagree with what you're saying. Just pontificating on what may be going on with the Manafort charge. I do, however, continue to be impressed with your completely opposite reasoning, standards of proof, and reluctance to make inferences when it comes to Trump's conspiracy theories vs. conspiracy theories against the Obummer, Hillary and the Dems. .

The only questionable standards of proof here are yours. We have actual facts and evidence with Hillary and the Obama scandals.....mostly fake news with Trump, outside the Don Jr. email and unrelated charges to Manafort and Gates.

But go ahead and keep pretending like the "scandals" and the evidence are equivalent. I mean, when it comes to the IRS, Hillary, Benghazi we have GIANT chains of emails and other, tangible, evidence. What you have with Trump so far is a process crime (lying) on a low-level employee. Yeah, the stories are like TOTALLY equivalent and only Boatshoes can see this is far worse than anything with Obama or Hillary.

gut;1879831 wrote:LOL, classic. The idiot Trump - almost no one can talk about him without a story demonstrating how stupid and incompetent he is - masterminded a grand conspiracy with Russia to steal an election, and no one can prove it.

he probably didn't directly orchestrate it, but he certainly surrounded himself with people who couldve.

MontyBrunswick;1879863 wrote:he probably didn't directly orchestrate it, but he certainly surrounded himself with people who couldve.

That's usually how it's done. But you can make that argument about anyone associated with a campaign or Administration - connections with Russia are pretty extensive around Hillary, as well. The only person, so far, who looks like they may have committed a crime with respect to conspriacy is Papadopolous...and the only thing he got was a process crime for lying. The way he was running around trying to sell this access isn't very convincing if we're to believe he had real influence - plus, you don't do that stuff with email, and if you do you DEFINITELY don't keep the emails.

Apparently, 56% of fake Russian ads on Facebook were read AFTER the election, and most were targeted to undermine Trump's election. Thought that was an interesting tidbit (USA Today). Russia wasn't picking a horse in this race - they were just planting dirt on both to seed discontent regardless who won.

gut;1879831 wrote:LOL, classic. The idiot Trump - almost no one can talk about him without a story demonstrating how stupid and incompetent he is - masterminded a grand conspiracy with Russia to steal an election, and no one can prove it.

Russia didn't need the Trump campaign's help to interfere in the election. What they did do was leave plenty of bread crumbs behind on both Trump and Clinton to cast suspicion on WHOMEVER won the election. Russia didn't care who won, they cared about undermining the process and raising questions about the legitimacy of the winner.

This is a good theory

O-Trap;1879853 wrote:T
Generally speaking, I kind of put Trump in the former category. I think he's an asshole, but I don't think he's been explicitly corrupt. I just think he's sort of a savant. He does a few things well, but in regard to most things, I think he's a bungler.

I've said similar....But is he actually a savant, or just full of such obnoxious, lying braggadicio that he's a natural at marketing/branding?

gut;1879866 wrote: Russia wasn't picking a horse in this race - they were just planting dirt on both to seed discontent regardless who won.

this was wholly unnecessary, as the discontent would've been blatant either way. both candidates were that bad.

gut;1879875 wrote:I've said similar....But is he actually a savant, or just full of such obnoxious, lying braggadicio that he's a natural at marketing/branding?

Oh, that's entirely plausible. I just didn't want to assume it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pee-tape-allegations-true-170603043.html

Inquiring minds want to know!

ppaw1999;1880703 wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pee-tape-allegations-true-170603043.html

Inquiring minds want to know!

No. No we don't! :RpS_blink:

CenterBHSFan;1880737 wrote:No. No we don't! :RpS_blink:

In some respects, it would be disappointing if this were actually true and Trump tried to hide it :laugh:

Just hard for me to believe he actually did that and didn't tweet about it!

I noticed last night Trump was compelled to let everyone know Gillespi lost because he didn't accept Trump.
When your ego is that fragile that you take personal offense to other peoples losses, that's a genuine disorder. That's a level of narcissism you rarely see. That goes beyond your typical bouts of arrogance. That's a fragile fragile ego.

kizer permanente;1880749 wrote:I noticed last night Trump was compelled to let everyone know Gillespi lost because he didn't accept Trump.
When your ego is that fragile that you take personal offense to other peoples losses, that's a genuine disorder. That's a level of narcissism you rarely see. That goes beyond your typical bouts of arrogance. That's a fragile fragile ego.

I agree, Trump has an ego and it's hugely oversized. It reminds me of this spot on Kimmel:

[video][/video]

CenterBHSFan;1880737 wrote:No. No we don't! :RpS_blink:

Sorry. Just having some fun. I keep saying that I am seeing things in this presidency that I have never seen before. I know most of it is bs but it is still funny the things that are being reported.

every president and every politician and every celebrity has a monster ego. Its part that keeps them driving for more success. Lets not martar the guy for having it. Obama ego might have been worse

Spock;1880775 wrote:every president and every politician and every celebrity has a monster ego. Its part that keeps them driving for more success. Lets not martar the guy for having it. Obama ego might have been worse

You really dotted your i’s and crossed your t’s with this post.
1. Defends Trump because everyone else has a monster ego.
2. Defends Trump because a monster ego is what keeps him successful.
3. Somehow still criticizes Obama.
4. Misspelled and misused martyr.

friendfromlowry;1880779 wrote:You really dotted your i’s and crossed your t’s with this post.
1. Defends Trump because everyone else has a monster ego.
2. Defends Trump because a monster ego is what keeps him successful.
3. Somehow still criticizes Obama.
4. Misspelled and misused martyr.

So amirite? Yes I am.

While it may certainly be true that most presidents have a huge ego, I can’t ever remember one going to the masses and saying so and so lost because they didn’t embrace me, and make it entirely about themselves. That’s beyond having an ego. That’s certifiably narcissistic.

kizer permanente;1880786 wrote:While it may certainly be true that most presidents have a huge ego, I can’t ever remember one going to the masses and saying so and so lost because they didn’t embrace me, and make it entirely about themselves. That’s beyond having an ego. That’s certifiably narcissistic.

Obama ego was just as big or bigger. The whole beer summit was all about Obama and his ego. "I can fix everything" actions are egotistical

ppaw1999;1880769 wrote:Sorry. Just having some fun. I keep saying that I am seeing things in this presidency that I have never seen before. I know most of it is bs but it is still funny the things that are being reported.

Nah, don't apologize! I knew you were having fun

CenterBHSFan;1880811 wrote:Nah, don't apologize! I knew you were having fun

Besides, if Clinton could bring the use of cigars as sex toys to the forefront of our news cycle, why shouldn't Trump do the same with golden showers?