[Oldmanmatt]

A "think piece" here suggests that there is every chance that this yet another egregious abuse of power that results in a 2-3 day shit-storm, which all but the most politically aware members of the public rapidly lose interest in (and the House Republicans allow to die, as whilst they might not like Trump, they are sufficient loyal not to throw him under a bus).  Still, be interesting to see if the approval / disapproval ratings diverge any more.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-know-if-the-trump-russia-story-has-momentum/

Possibly not...

This might have legs.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-comeys-firing-accelerates-the-russia-investigations?mbid=social_facebook

[moose]

Here's hoping, although, I would be more optimistic if your link was to a similar piece in the Oklahoma Pro-life Gazette or the Wyoming Gun  Lover's Almanac, rather than the New Yorker (preaching to the converted?).

After years of public figures in the UK and USA being hauled over the coals for comparatively petty transgressions: inappropriate expenses claims for swan shelters, possibly calling some-one a pleb, even Hilary's server issues, which seemed more a case of being crap at IT rather than corruption, it seems bizarre that Trump is currently getting away with the highly visible abuse of emoluents, inappropriate relations with an aggressive foreign power, and bombing foregn nations seemingly to impress a dinner guest.  It's like an experiment to prove the saying that "the best place to hide is in plain sight".

[lagerstarfish]

bombing foregn nations seemingly to impress a dinner guest.

if he goes to dinner with Putin, I'm hiding in my cellar for a few weeks

[dave]

In a nation full of guns you'd thing at least one enterprising soul would take one for the team and do a john wilkes booth on this motherfucker. Come on america, prove me wrong about gun laws.

[Wood FT]

In a nation full of guns you'd thing at least one enterprising soul would take one for the team and do a john wilkes booth on this motherfucker. Come on america, prove me wrong about gun laws

They're all on the other side, I truly believe Hillary would have been at risk had she won

[moose]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

[Iesu]

In a nation full of guns you'd thing at least one enterprising soul would take one for the team and do a john wilkes booth on this motherfucker. Come on america, prove me wrong about gun laws.

Inciting gun violence seems a little bit extreme Dave, even in these "extreme" times! Luckily I doubt there are too many potential presidential assassins reading these boards.

Here's an interesting link on the Comey "termination": http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-trump-russia-238192

[dave]

I think it would be justified to avoid nuclear apocalypse. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[Oldmanmatt]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html?referer=http://m.facebook.com

I think the leaks are about to turn into a flood. I get the impression that Trump is unable to distinguish between his role as company CEO and Public servant; and frankly too dim to listen to advisors or even his own common sense...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SA Chris]

Must be a very quiet voice.

[Teaboy]

In a nation full of guns you'd thing at least one enterprising soul would take one for the team and do a john wilkes booth on this motherfucker. Come on america, prove me wrong about gun laws.

Inciting gun violence seems a little bit extreme Dave, even in these "extreme" times! Luckily I doubt there are too many potential presidential assassins reading these boards.

The irony of this is that this is very close to the reason the second amendment exists but the most vociferous second ammendmenters come from the same constituency as those who still support Trump. I mean 34% approval rating may be low but that's still 34% of the population THINK HE IS DOING A GOOD JOB!

[duncan]

So let's just put it like this, people are going absolutely apeshit over here. If this was an attempt to put a lid on the Russia questions, it didn't work.

Thanks for this. With the atomisation of media it's much harder to gauge which way the wind is blowing from this side of the Atlantic. Following Helen Richardson (etc.) is fascinating but she is not trying to be representative.

I was an avid follower of politics in the 70s. You could smell the blood when the hunt was on for Nixon - thrilling stuff for a nerdy youth - and this is starting to feel similar.

In a nation full of guns you'd thing at least one enterprising soul would take one for the team and do a john wilkes booth on this motherfucker.

A forthcoming alternative history, if we're still around to tell it, like Rogue Male (Really good, not just for Wintour's Leap standing in for Bavaria).

I get the impression that Trump is unable to distinguish between his role as company CEO and Public servant; and frankly too dim to listen to advisors or even his own common sense...

You mean being POTUS benefits from a more nuanced approach than fronting The Apprentice?!

[Oldmanmatt]

Who'd thunk'it Eh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[andy popp]

So let's just put it like this, people are going absolutely apeshit over here. If this was an attempt to put a lid on the Russia questions, it didn't work.

Thanks for this. With the atomisation of media it's much harder to gauge which way the wind is blowing from this side of the Atlantic.

*Amongst the people I know, I should add. This is a reasonably diverse bunch: many professors but also school teachers; small business owners, supermarket cashiers; union officials; unemployed due to disability etc. ... but they are almost without exception die hard liberals. Sasquatch's post yesterday is important. There is a core of base that is simply immune to all of this. I guess the difficult thing is estimate just how big that unreachable core is.

I think sometimes I forget that core exists.

[Teaboy]

*Amongst the people I know, I should add. This is a reasonably diverse bunch: many professors but also school teachers; small business owners, supermarket cashiers; union officials; unemployed due to disability etc. ... but they are almost without exception die hard liberals. Sasquatch's post yesterday is important. There is a core of base that is simply immune to all of this. I guess the difficult thing is estimate just how big that unreachable core is.

I think sometimes I forget that core exists.

This is my concern, if you look on Twitter (not exactly scientific I know but...) Tweets in favour of Trump in regard to this issue are still a very significant proportion.

[andy popp]

In case anyone missed it, Senate Intelligence committee subpoenaed Michael Flynn yesterday, and the FBI is refusing a freedom of information request to release documents relating to Trump's public calls last summer for Russia to hack Clinton's emails, which suggests it views those documents as part of an ongoing investigation.

In some ways, one of my biggest worries is that if a way is found to remove Trump, now matter how legitimate that mechanism is, then it will be viewed as some kind of liberal coup by the base.

The Twitter thing is probably largely down to bots.

[Teaboy]

I was an avid follower of politics in the 70s. You could smell the blood when the hunt was on for Nixon - thrilling stuff for a nerdy youth - and this is starting to feel similar.

I know little about Watergate but isn't there a difference in that when the truth emerged about what Nixon had been doing it was easy for the GOP to disavow him as they knew nothing of what he'd been up to. The difference now is that it'll be impossible for those who have supported Trump to claim ignorance of what he is like, even if they can claim they were unaware of links to Russia (if any are found), they can't claim to not know he was trying to obstruct the investigation. Anyone who is still supporting him now will have to support him to the bitter end, and that's most of the GOP, they missed the bus to throw him under.

[Teaboy]

Sorry, double post

[Teaboy]

In some ways, one of my biggest worries is that if a way is found to remove Trump, now matter how legitimate that mechanism is, then it will be viewed as some kind of liberal coup by the base.

Agreed, the problem won't got way even if Trump does, if half the country were prepared to vote for someone that unsuitable last time around there's no reason they won't do the same again.  In fact the GOP might be as well to double down and go for and even more polarising character as by predictions of a few years ago, Dems should have won this election easily due to changing demographs, they probably would not have on with a different character.

[Will Hunt]

For anyone who is interested in the phenomenon of Trump's core of supporters, this book would be worth a read. There is a way to turn them away from Trump's isolationist worldview, but it involves giving them opportunities, which is easier said than done.

In some ways, one of my biggest worries is that if a way is found to remove Trump, now matter how legitimate that mechanism is, then it will be viewed as some kind of liberal coup by the base.

Agreed, the problem won't got way even if Trump does, if half the country were prepared to vote for someone that unsuitable last time around there's no reason they won't do the same again.  In fact the GOP might be as well to double down and go for and even more polarising character as by predictions of a few years ago, Dems should have won this election easily due to changing demographs, they probably would not have on with a different character.

I share this concern. However even if a Trump-a-like was to run in his place, all the Democrats need to do is front a candidate that people can bear to vote for. I think Clinton lost in part because she didn't mobilise a lot of the traditional Democrat voters.

[dave]

Yep, Trump got fewer voted than Mitt Romney the previous election. The democrat vote just collapsed as thousands didn't vote. The GOP could have tied a bowtie around a dogturd and put that forward as their candidate and won.

[Will Hunt]

Yep, Trump got fewer voted than Mitt Romney the previous election. The democrat vote just collapsed as thousands didn't vote. The GOP could have tied a bowtie around a dogturd and put that forward as their candidate and won.

Ironically Dave, I think we're about to witness the same thing happening in our own country...
But that's a different thread 

[dave]

You're probably right, especially with such nutjob policies such as adequate funding for schools and hospitals, and no tuition fees. UNELECTABLE.

[andy popp]

For anyone who is interested in the phenomenon of Trump's core of supporters, this book would be worth a read. There is a way to turn them away from Trump's isolationist worldview, but it involves giving them opportunities, which is easier said than done.

Don't get my wife started on that book, which has been all the rage here amongst liberals trying to "understand," which was part of this weird moment after the election when many liberals indulged in this bizarre fit of self-loathing/mea culpa/we're the reason this all happened. I think a lot of people actually now think: "Fuck it, I'm not going to go round beating myself up. I didn't do this. The people who voted for him did it." This book wants to induce that guilt.

So to Vance, the critique is that this is essentially one long bout of special pleading on behalf of a culture that likes to see it as a victim and to blame everyone else (black and brown people especially) for the plight it finds itself in. OK, that's a bit crude but it needs to be read with a very critical mind and a close eye on Vance's motives. Vance himself got out and is now as elite as they come and closely associated with figures on the right such Peter Thiel. Much of this is glossed in the book.

Its sat on the bookshelf next to me but I've been pretty much banned from reading it.

As an aside we came close to moving to the exact part of the world the book is set in late last year.

[tomtom]

You're probably right, especially with such nutjob policies such as adequate funding for schools and hospitals, and no tuition fees. UNELECTABLE.

about half way down the page
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/11/leaked-labour-manifesto-policies-clause-v

All the evidence suggests voters choose the party they see as a credible government, capable of putting its plans into practice. More specifically, what tends to determine a voter’s choice is not a party’s policies, but its leader and its perceived ability to run the economy.

Labour’s wishlist might put it in front on policy. But on the two measures that matter to voters most, Labour lags far behind – and a manifesto packed full of admirable hopes and laudable plans won’t change that.