The Real Story: Donald Trump Was A Hillary Clinton Plant In The 2016 Presidential Election

[KD in CA]

On 3/16/2018 at 4:57 AM, PearlHowardman said:

Donald Trump was a Hillary Clinton plant in the 2016 Presidential election.  He did everything he could to lose like he was supposed to do.  But Wikileaks did more damage to Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump could do to himself.

 

I don't really get this -- what did he do specifically to lose?  He took a completely non-traditional path that he knew would attracts horde of people who are tired of the same b.s. double-talk from Washington and combined that with attacks on an already enormously unpopular opponent.

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by KD in CA

[/dev/null]

3 hours ago, PearlHowardman said:

DR, why did Donald Trump release a tweet at 8:44 AM on the same day that a close election was taking place in PA-18 that he fired SOS Rex Tillerson ?  Why couldn't Donald Trump wait one extra day to fire Tillerson?

 

Hint:  See above chart titled "When Polls Get Close, Trump Says The Craziest Things" (to help his fellow Democrats).

 

i know right.  

 

I bet Neil Gorsuch and all those conservative lower circuit Judges that Trump has been appointing are all secret Democrat plants too

[snafu]

Hillary Clinton didn't want to hear chants of "lock her up" and "crooked Hillary" of six straight months, and then watch Trump do the opposite of everything she stood for after he beat her. This theory is just about the stupidest thing ever said on this board. Ever. And that's an extremely high hurdle. 

 

Two o'clock theory. 

[Juror#8]

As many of you know, I started my career in legislative politics. I was a glorified mail reader and summarizer for a U.s. senator whose politics I mostly didn't agree with but strategic name-dropping was a snatch driver early on so it all evened out. 

 

Also, my brother was a speech writer for an administration that doesn't matter anymore. 

 

Politics can sucka dick. 

 

Ok anyway ... 

 

Through those contacts and some great conversations with people who have reason to know, while drunk at cap lounge and hawk n dove, I'm decidedly confident in the following:

 

1. Clinton thought trump was a cakewalk but feared kasich or a Romney intervention. 

 

2. The dems always thought Romney would enter the fray and prepared for it more than they ever took trump seriously.

 

3. Sanders shook up the establishment more than anyone realized. If not for Sanders' involvement late in the game, Clinton would have been tough to beat. 

 

4. The establishment vs. liberalism will fight it out again in 2020 because Sanders is leaning towards running again (I drink with one of his grunt Strategists), E. Warren will run, and on the establishment side, Gilibrand will likely run as well as O'Malley, Warner and McAuliffe.

 

And ... since the dems are allergic to the concept of coalescing philosophically, they'll !@#$ it up in '20 too.

 

5. Rs and Ds like each other behind the scenes a lot more than people realize. That they've created this weird macro-level struggle of existential politics that people debate about on sports messages boards, and that poor 9-5 bastards have defined themselves by political allegiances that no one in Washington actually cares about, is an interesting case study for which I'd pay to hear Milgram and Pavlov opine. 

 

Eh, whatever ... I'm just a humble bastard with a big dick so what the !@#$ do I know?

 

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Juror#8

[boyst]

2 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 humble bastard with a big dick so what the !@#$ do I know?

 

 

Proof or it's bull ****

[Azalin]

3 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 

5. Rs and Ds like each other behind the scenes a lot more than people realize. That they've created this weird macro-level struggle of existential politics that people debate about on sports messages boards, and that poor 9-5 bastards have defined themselves by political allegiances that no one in Washington actually cares about, is an interesting case study for which I'd pay to hear Milgram and Pavlov opine. 

 

 

Welcome back!

 

Everything you listed makes sense to me, especially when compared with some things others have had to say. The above stood out simply because I don't think I could agree with it more. Granted, I'm not connected to anything in Washington except for routine trips to the voting booth, but what you're describing defines both the deep state  and the swamp, at least as I understand them to be.

 

This is exactly the reason that I am free of any party affiliation, and it's also why L v R and R v D politics has been reduced to little more than a rivalry in team sports. 

 

This is also why I've been pleasantly surprised by 45, because he seems to genuinely be doing something about it.

[3rdnlng]

5 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

As many of you know, I started my career in legislative politics. I was a glorified mail reader and summarizer for a U.s. senator whose politics I mostly didn't agree with but strategic name-dropping was a snatch driver early on so it all evened out. 

 

Also, my brother was a speech writer for an administration that doesn't matter anymore. 

 

Politics can sucka dick. 

 

Ok anyway ... 

 

Through those contacts and some great conversations with people who have reason to know, while drunk at cap lounge and hawk n dove, I'm decidedly confident in the following:

 

1. Clinton thought trump was a cakewalk but feared kasich or a Romney intervention. 

 

2. The dems always thought Romney would enter the fray and prepared for it more than they ever took trump seriously.

 

3. Sanders shook up the establishment more than anyone realized. If not for Sanders' involvement late in the game, Clinton would have been tough to beat. 

 

4. The establishment vs. liberalism will fight it out again in 2020 because Sanders is leaning towards running again (I drink with one of his grunt Strategists), E. Warren will run, and on the establishment side, Gilibrand will likely run as well as O'Malley, Warner and McAuliffe.

 

And ... since the dems are allergic to the concept of coalescing philosophically, they'll !@#$ it up in '20 too.

 

5. Rs and Ds like each other behind the scenes a lot more than people realize. That they've created this weird macro-level struggle of existential politics that people debate about on sports messages boards, and that poor 9-5 bastards have defined themselves by political allegiances that no one in Washington actually cares about, is an interesting case study for which I'd pay to hear Milgram and Pavlov opine. 

 

Eh, whatever ... I'm just a humble bastard with a big dick so what the !@#$ do I know?

 

 

This statement sort of aligns itself with something along the lines of "we in Washington don't really care about what the rest of the country cares about". Those people voicing and acting out in that way are the very people who created Trump. Thank you.

[PearlHowardman]

This is what voters in PA-18 were reading at 8:51 AM on election day:

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2018/03/13/Trump-fires-Secretary-of-State-Rex-Tillerson/stories/201803130081

 

Trump axes Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and tabs the CIA’s Mike Pompeo as chief U.S. diplomat

 

JOSH LEDERMAN AND ZEKE MILLER
Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump unceremoniously dumped Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday — via Twitter — and picked CIA Director Mike Pompeo to shift from America’s spy chief to its top diplomat. The abrupt announcement ended the turbulent tenure of the man who reportedly called the president a “moron” but wanted to stay, and deepened the disarray in the Trump administration.

 

The plans to oust Tillerson had been drawn up months ago, but the timing caught even senior White House officials unawares. The firing was just the latest in an exodus of administration officials, including those in Trump’s inner circle, with the president already setting records for staff turnover and several other Cabinet secretaries facing ethics investigations.

 

However, Trump emphatically rejected talk of chaos in his year-old administration as he nears a pivotal moment on the international stage with his planned meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. He declared Tuesday, “I’m really at a point where we’re getting very close to having the Cabinet and other things that I want.”
 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by PearlHowardman

[Juror#8]

5 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Proof or it's bull ****

 

I would but it wouldn't fit on screen. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Juror#8

[Doc]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

This statement sort of aligns itself with something along the lines of "we in Washington don't really care about what the rest of the country cares about". Those people voicing and acting out in that way are the very people who created Trump. Thank you.

 

I've always suspected this.  It's like how the WWE wrestlers hate each other in the ring but fly back home on the same plane and are buddies.  Because they're trying to create a struggle on either side that ultimately puts good money in their pockets. 

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

I would but it wouldn't fit on screen. 

I suggest you upgrade to this:

[Wacka]

15 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said:

This is what voters in PA-18 were reading at 8:51 AM on election day:

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2018/03/13/Trump-fires-Secretary-of-State-Rex-Tillerson/stories/201803130081

 

Trump axes Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and tabs the CIA’s Mike Pompeo as chief U.S. diplomat

 

MAGA!

[PearlHowardman]

Still waiting for DR to chime in.  Especially after reading what appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on election day morning.  Trump could have waited a day to fire Tillerson.  But he didn't.

 

Key words from article:

 

Unceremoniously dumped

Abrupt

Turbulent

Moron

Disarray

Unawares

Exodus

Ethics investigations

Chaos

 

So if there's a close election in PA-18 why did Donald Trump want readers to focus on all of this?  I imagine the broadcast news was even worse.

 

Why didn't President Donald Trump wait at least one more day to fire Tillerson?

 

[Juror#8]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

This statement sort of aligns itself with something along the lines of "we in Washington don't really care about what the rest of the country cares about". Those people voicing and acting out in that way are the very people who created Trump. Thank you.

 

Yea I'm not sure that they do. I've had more than a few conversations with politicians and staffers and it's like they get off on contriving battle lines that they principally don't care about.

 

And they're all complicit in it. 

 

I don't mind Trump. To be fair, I'm more indifferent to him than anything. It is somewhat irksome that he gets a pass on things that Obama never could, and I think that Trump is napaleonic megalomaniac with a waffling personal constitution, but (and I mean this sincerely), that doesn't make him a bad or ineffective leader. 

 

People try to use his personal foibles to implicate his capacity for leadership and I fundamentally don't subscribe to that. 

 

Weird thing is that the same contingent used things that they didn't like about Obama politically to infer that he was a bad person which I think plays into the same political allegiance-based mind games which underscores the superficiality and single-serving nature of our political ethos. I truly think it's odd that people (some on the right) are giving trump that benefit of that doubt, but did the opposite for Obama. 

 

Obama would, and did, get castigated for some of the things that Trump does per course. 

 

If right and wrong stood on principle rather than politics, then we'd see a lot of Bman articles about how bad of a leader Trump is. 

 

And those same vicissitudes were true Bush to Obama. And Clinton to Bush. And Bush to Clinton ...

 

It'd be sweet if we could evaluate leaders apart from the "d" or "r" that follows their name.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Juror#8

[PearlHowardman]

4 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

People try to use his personal foibles to implicate his capacity for leadership and I fundamentally don't subscribe to that. 

Donald Trump doesn't have personal foibles.

 

Donald Trump is a fraud.

 

[Juror#8]

18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I suggest you upgrade to this:

 

[PearlHowardman]

2016 US Presidential election and PA-18:

[Juror#8]

39 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said:

Donald Trump doesn't have personal foibles.

 

Donald Trump is a fraud.

 

 

I don't think he"s a fraud. I think he is a brand selling a product to the American people. He's identified an unoccupied space in the market to whom he's marketing his wares. 

 

But the picture that you show above as evidence of fraudulence to my knowledge happens every Friday night between r and d at Ebbit and cap lounge and in town houses on Prospect street in Georgetown. If people knew how cool Obama and Boehner were and how much they would dine and drink with one another, they would probably lose their minds. Bush and Wesley Clark were also real cool. 

 

They're people at the end of the day, not the archetypes the media makes them out to be.

 

Most of all, in role, they're all just salesman looking for an audience. Trump is just doing it better than most. Not because he believes most of what he says, but because he knows that what he says needs to be said and most others are too chicken-**** to say a thing that moves the political needle in a direction off-center. 

 

Most people who have worked in politics know that politics is simply a back and forth of meaningless quibbling that's been structuralized and codified. There is an acceptable level of fluctuation that can happen in order to keep people bought in to the idea that "something is happening in Washington." 

 

Trump is trying to shift that decorum. 

 

If if you're a student of history, you'll no doubt recall the way that wars were once fought. They were an almost mechanical exchange of fire and movement that was cadence and turn based. It took a long time to do or win anything and the argument for it was "civility." 

 

Analogizing that to politics ... and as it relates to that traditional notion of decorum, Trump is the Boston Tea Party.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Juror#8

[PearlHowardman]

[Juror#8]

19 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said:

 

Maybe, maybe not. But I challenge you to tell me how that is an indictment upon Trump as a leader and a change agent. 

 

And I challenge others to list 10 leadership qualities about Obama, that they didn't like, that Trump doesn't exhibit. 

 

We we have to get out of d and r politics:

 

''When d does this it's pathetic; when r does this it's explainable." 

 

Obama was a good guy and a good American and a good president, He kept us safe, protected the brand, served with dignity, didn't mire us in anything we couldn't get out of, had a political plan and an agenda that he thought was in the best interest of the country and that he tried to advance that (whether you agree with him philosophically is another discussion), and he facilitated an effective transition to new leadership. 

 

He balanced that with being a good dad and husband. 

 

Trump is a good man trying to do a tough job and he deserves the flexibility to be able to do that. He may be a philanderer and he may not have wanted blacks to rent from him forty years ago, (his property, his choice), but he hasn't done anything to suggest that history won't see him as a decent, and perhaps a great, president. 

 

Dont let the media, on either side, talk you out of the obvious. 

 

You may be wondering "what side is this guy on?"

 

I don't have a "side." Right is right and wrong is wrong - sides notwithstanding. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Juror#8