President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Ok, agreed, but ballpark the major factors vs. lesser factors.

I'll start:

HRC deeply flawed candidate (treatment of women, looking the other way when the dog strayed from the porch, emails, Comey, etc.)

DJT campaigned his ass off all the way down to the wire, while HRC went to fewer campaign stops after the 9/11 fainting.

HRC didn't even go to WI.

DJT had a message that some people ate up - an outlook of greater prosperity for most Americans. A message that resonated with some of the voters.

All of those seem like bigger factors in the election.

The media and polling also didn't help. HRC didn't think she could lose. Bought another house ($1.6 million) for the Secret Service next to her NY house. Overconfidence based on the daily narrative that was mostly anti-DJT except for the email thing.

I think all of the above are the bigger picture on "what happened". Russian influence? Probably less than 0.01% of an effect.

 

What if Trump's "wealth" has come the last 25 years from Russian oligarchs?

What if his campaign was funded by them?

 

Trump owes the entire existence of his deplorables base to the Russian online troll army. Without them, the Pepe crowd doesn't give two shits about Donald Trump. That's what helped him get back to normal Republican numbers when the principled conservatives left him and either stayed home or didn't vote. That was easily the difference in every close state that he won.

He also doesn't come close to winning the primary without them, nor without the help of the campaign manager that the Russians literally gifted his campaign to work for free.

A Russia-less Trump campaign would be a 15th-place in the primary also-ran that only hardcore political nerds remember ran for office at all.

 

Long con!

 

An interesting point from human jellyfish David Brooks. If immigration is bad, why are places without many immigrants (the places that fear them the most) doing so poorly?

 

I've never seen so many references to percentages based 0n absolutely nothing.

Maybe a Bill Simmons column?

 

Pretty well defines Trump's public persona since 1975.

 

By definition, immigrants have moved in search of a better life.

Doesn't it make sense that they would to cities that are doing well, as opposed to cities/localities that are doing poorly?

Now, maybe they have contributed -- cheap, exploited labor does help -- but it's a little of a chicken and an egg thing, isn't it?

Now, maybe what it does reveal is that in Americans were willing to move for jobs, they would find success in other areas of the country that were thriving.

And, maybe this competition would incentivize the failing communities to make the changes necessary to retain and attract folks, and the good jobs that help communities to thrive.

Of course, limiting the number of immigrants, competing for these mostly low wage, low skill jobs would have to be a part of this.

 

I would take the Russia stuff more seriously if the people pushing it weren't petulant partisans acting just as silly and childish as the president.

There's a strong, reasonable argument to be made that our democratic institutions have turned a blind eye to the creeping influence of political interference in the information age in pursuit of victory. However, no one in positions of power and influence in D.C .or their dedicated followers is making that argument. Instead, we get fanciful theories and name-calling.

How concerned would The Resistance! be with the damage Russia is doing to our democracy (even though we don't live under one) if Clinton had won? Seems to me that the issue most have is not that the election may have been influenced but that the influence didn't work in their favor.

 

TL;DR - LOL libtards u mad snowflake?

 

What incentivizes companies to NOT LEAVE a community, which often results in a failing community? Remind me why the jobs go to Mexico again.