Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 27, 2019 4:05:48 GMT
because his testimony was shit and going through due process after a 30 year old crime without any forensic evidence is difficult lmao, not my fault he lied repeatedly and used bad defenses Is that your defense? Your inability to tell if someone is lying or not and frustration that there's no evidence of the crime? Just admit you're a hypocrite. lots of sex crimes like that have little or no evidence, which doesn't mean we can just say they didn't happen
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 27, 2019 13:41:52 GMT
Is that your defense? Your inability to tell if someone is lying or not and frustration that there's no evidence of the crime? Just admit you're a hypocrite. lots of sex crimes like that have little or no evidence, which doesn't mean we can just say they didn't happen Which is why there's due process but you were more than willing to throw that out simply because he was a Trump appointee.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 27, 2019 22:12:29 GMT
lots of sex crimes like that have little or no evidence, which doesn't mean we can just say they didn't happen Which is why there's due process but you were more than willing to throw that out simply because he was a Trump appointee. to be fair, i don't think he should have been nominated by virtue of being a shitty individual in his ruling, the whole rapist bit was just an add on
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 27, 2019 22:58:16 GMT
Which is why there's due process but you were more than willing to throw that out simply because he was a Trump appointee. to be fair, i don't think he should have been nominated by virtue of being a shitty individual in his ruling, the whole rapist bit was just an add on I'll never understand lefties when it comes to the constitution. His job is to interpret what's on page, not on what he wants to be there.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Mar 28, 2019 1:51:11 GMT
to be fair, i don't think he should have been nominated by virtue of being a shitty individual in his ruling, the whole rapist bit was just an add on I'll never understand lefties when it comes to the constitution. His job is to interpret what's on page, not on what he wants to be there. Doesn't stop justices from deciding cases based on their personal policy beliefs rather than a legit interpretation of the document whether it's a liberal or conservative justice.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 28, 2019 2:07:26 GMT
I'll never understand lefties when it comes to the constitution. His job is to interpret what's on page, not on what he wants to be there. Doesn't stop justices from deciding cases based on their personal policy beliefs rather than a legit interpretation of the document whether it's a liberal or conservative justice. Yeah maybe the lefty ones. The old Dago one that died a few years ago what's his name, he presided over cases objectively.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 28, 2019 4:33:46 GMT
I'll never understand lefties when it comes to the constitution. His job is to interpret what's on page, not on what he wants to be there. Doesn't stop justices from deciding cases based on their personal policy beliefs rather than a legit interpretation of the document whether it's a liberal or conservative justice. yeah i mean for me personally i'm not really a constitution guy, but perhaps more importantly it's not like anyone can do that stuff without bias. obviously, i prefer when that bias is something that is agreeable to my beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 18, 2019 21:54:08 GMT
Given that the report is out for the public to read I think this is worth a bump.
I'm sure Republicans/Fox et al are trying, but it's impossible to spin this as being positive for the President. It says the only reason he didn't commit obstruction of justice in certain instances is because his underlings disobeyed his orders. And ultimately it still says it is up to Congress to decide. Which is NOT exoneration in any way, shape, or form. I think intelligent people/people who were paying attention already knew this, but it's not debatable now that he was lying to the public when he denied that Russia was involved, and when he said his campaign didn't have anything to do with the misinformation effort. Not illegal, but I don't see how anyone can trust him ever again, if you even did to start with.
I'm not sure about the legal precedent here, but his orders not being followed shouldn't shield him from obstruction of justice. He gave the order, he's guilty, the person who didn't follow the order isn't. That seems like a pretty simple standard.
In hindsight, Barr's summary was a complete disgrace in light of what's coming out as actually being in the report. This is third world banana republic "El Presidente" BS. The report says Trump engaged in "corrupt exercise of the powers of office". Gee, I wonder why Barr didn't feel the need to mention that in his summary? "Corrupt exercise of the powers of office" sounds an awful lot like the definition of obstruction of justice.
Also, we don't have precedent here because the Nixon impeachment didn't actually happen, but that also sounds like the general "abuse of power" charge that was levied against him in the articles of impeachment.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 18, 2019 22:32:46 GMT
I dunno, lately I feel all I do is post "pro-Republican" stuff and I'm about to do it again. Not "pro-Republican" but rather "Republicans winning" stuff They are just on an uncanny win streak as far as I see it, they won that election improbably, appointed 2 justices, Trump has more or less not fncked up anything "that" badly, full employment and 0 legitimate presidential candidates to compete with him as far as I see (Biden maybe and even him I'm not sure about). Why does all that matter? Because not only do I think he can spin this as a positive, I think the Democrats are going to spin it for him. There was an interview with Kellyanne Conway on Fox - that was literally shoving it in the face of the American public and Democrats and particularly Adam Schiff. I won't link to it but you can find it on Youtube - and that interview is where we are at now - one side wins and celebrates, one side loses and then structures the argument that stresses that all they do is lose. I really wouldn't pursue impeachment - I'd start building a coherent challenge to him to prevent another term and right now, I see another term - and just take the L here sadly. Nixon was a case of lying about a criminal act........Clinton lied to Ken Starr .........Trump's problems here are far grayer and harder to delineate than either of those. I wish I felt better about this report but what this report really says is he's exactly who we thought he was and we elected him anyway. Have to keep the eye on the bigger prize...........the Democrats seem incapable of this to me. It's a losing, nuanced battle to impeach here - and I'm saying they can't and shouldn't do it and..............they'll probably try to do it. Somebody's got to take hold of the party and steer it in a clear, focused way. I'm not saying "just forget this" but don't get stuck in a dead-end quagmire either
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 18, 2019 23:35:39 GMT
I dunno, lately I feel all I do is post "pro-Republican" stuff and I'm about to do it again. Not "pro-Republican" but rather "Republicans winning" stuff They are just on an uncanny win streak as far as I see it, they won that election improbably, appointed 2 justices, Trump has more or less not fncked up anything "that" badly, full employment and 0 legitimate presidential candidates to compete with him as far as I see (Biden maybe and even him I'm not sure about). Why does all that matter? Because not only do I think he can spin this as a positive, I think the Democrats are going to spin it for him. There was an interview with Kellyanne Conway on Fox - that was literally shoving it in the face of the American public and Democrats and particularly Adam Schiff. I won't link to it but you can find it on Youtube - and that interview is where we are at now - one side wins and celebrates, one side loses and then structures the argument that stresses that all they do is lose. I really wouldn't pursue impeachment - I'd start building a coherent challenge to him to prevent another term and right now, I see another term - and just take the L here sadly. Nixon was a case of lying about a criminal act........Clinton lied to Ken Starr .........Trump's problems here are far grayer and harder to delineate than either of those. I wish I felt better about this report but what this report really says is he's exactly who we thought he was and we elected him anyway. Have to keep the eye on the bigger prize...........the Democrats seem incapable of this to me. It's a losing, nuanced battle to impeach here - and I'm saying they can't and shouldn't do it and..............they'll probably try to do it. Somebody's got to take hold of the party and steer it in a clear, focused way. I'm not saying "just forget this" but don't get stuck in a dead-end quagmire either bernie's leading the polls lol
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,594
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 19, 2019 6:18:57 GMT
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 19, 2019 12:23:09 GMT
yes, polls can be wrong, but they are generally reliable to a degree and, by all observable standards, bernie is leading them in the dem side rn
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Apr 19, 2019 16:28:27 GMT
Yea those were general election polls. They were accurate during the primaries when they favored Trump and Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 20, 2019 0:28:27 GMT
Since we're talking about polling it should be noted that the 2016 election polls were really only wrong in three states. The national polls were pretty much spot on giving Clinton a narrow lead, her narrow leads in Florida were within the margin of error so Trump winning was a possible outcome, and she won states where she had smaller leads than Penn/Mich/Wisconsin. It looks like they had some kind of sampling issues in the Rust Belt, although I've yet to see any scholarly writing trying to figure out why it happened which is a bit troubling.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 20, 2019 0:55:48 GMT
Since we're talking about polling it should be noted that the 2016 election polls were really only wrong in three states. The national polls were pretty much spot on giving Clinton a narrow lead, her narrow leads in Florida were within the margin of error so Trump winning was a possible outcome, and she won states where she had smaller leads than Penn/Mich/Wisconsin. It looks like they had some kind of sampling issues in the Rust Belt, although I've yet to see any scholarly writing trying to figure out why it happened which is a bit troubling. Yes and it actually comes into play next year too - Trump can not win the Presidency and lose Florida period.........and then he must win 2 of those 3 also Wisconsin/Penn/Mich. I know Trump knows that ...........I hope the Democrats do........that of course assumes things fallout the same way and you get an incumbent advantage but I feel pretty safe saying that's how narrow things will shape up as..........scary stuff really.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,594
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 20, 2019 4:48:14 GMT
I don't know if the US are being affected by the same issues with polls that destroyed their credibility in Europe in the last decade.
See what happened with Brexit.
In Italy, nobody pays for them anymore because in the last 15 or even 20 years we noticed that people lie plain and simple. Besides, leftists answer the polls more easily than center right electorate, so polls are rarely accurate. Let alone Internet polls.
I remember on IMDb people declaring "I'm leaving the US if Trump is winning, but luckily it won't happen because Hillary will win by double digits".
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 20, 2019 5:23:55 GMT
I don't know if the US are being affected by the same issues with polls that destroyed their credibility in Europe in the last decade. See what happened with Brexit. In Italy, nobody pays for them anymore because in the last 15 or even 20 years we noticed that people lie plain and simple. Besides, leftists answer the polls more easily than center right electorate, so polls are rarely accurate. Let alone Internet polls. I remember on IMDb people declaring "I'm leaving the US if Trump is winning, but luckily it won't happen because Hillary will win by double digits". The trouble with Europe is that you usually have more than two parties winning seats and getting significant chunks of the vote, so it's a lot more complicated to predict the outcome. It's easy when it's essentially just a yes or no vote for the incumbent. Generally speaking the Presidential election polls have turned out right. There hasn't been a polling failure like in 2016 since Truman/Dewey in 48, although that was much worse. The media dramatically overstated Clinton's chances of winning. The national polls were pretty close once the campaigns actually started and Trump winning was always a possibility although Clinton was the clear favorite.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,594
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 20, 2019 7:58:02 GMT
I don't know if the US are being affected by the same issues with polls that destroyed their credibility in Europe in the last decade. See what happened with Brexit. In Italy, nobody pays for them anymore because in the last 15 or even 20 years we noticed that people lie plain and simple. Besides, leftists answer the polls more easily than center right electorate, so polls are rarely accurate. Let alone Internet polls. I remember on IMDb people declaring "I'm leaving the US if Trump is winning, but luckily it won't happen because Hillary will win by double digits". The trouble with Europe is that you usually have more than two parties winning seats and getting significant chunks of the vote, so it's a lot more complicated to predict the outcome. It's easy when it's essentially just a yes or no vote for the incumbent. Generally speaking the Presidential election polls have turned out right. There hasn't been a polling failure like in 2016 since Truman/Dewey in 48, although that was much worse. The media dramatically overstated Clinton's chances of winning. The national polls were pretty close once the campaigns actually started and Trump winning was always a possibility although Clinton was the clear favorite. But polls were quite accurate in Europe before the new Millennium, even if we had multiple parties. And I specifically mentioned Brexit, where the votes were simply YES or NO. I'm not saying the US will suffer the same effect, I'm just saying I wouldn't be that confident in polls.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 20, 2019 15:44:29 GMT
cherry68 - I can't speak for Italy but polls in Europe are not generally crazy inaccurate. Especially YuGovs polls tend to be really spot on. Here are the polls before the german federal election for instance. If you go by the mean (Mittelwert), only the CDU/CSU was off and 3 % is usually just within the MoE: www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/archiv/2017.htmAs for Brexit 2 weeks before the vote almost all polls had Leave in the lead. The week before the vote it was reversed with the majority favouring remain. I wouldn't say the polling was particularly accurate but it was never like Britain remaining in the EU was a sure thing. Might have had something to do with the murder of Joe Cox impacting polling but not so much the final vote: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016Film Socialism - Biden is leading the polls. I don't think he's gonna be the next president, I don't even know if he's going to try and I have no clue why he polls so well despite in no way speaking to any of the USAs current problems but he is still leading the polls. Sanders leads among declared candidates though, maybe you meant that. My gut feeling was that it would come down to Sanders against Harris (which would be a lot like 2016) but she doesn't seem to take off so maybe it will actually be a bit more interesting. Can anyone explain what is going on with Buttigieg? In a recent Change Research Poll he shot up to 3rd place only 3 % from Sanders and 4 % from Biden.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,594
Likes: 2,069
|
Post by cherry68 on Apr 20, 2019 16:12:03 GMT
tobias I'm curious about the next UE Parliament elections. For Brexit, people were convinced that the murder favored the remain vote. I remember many British tourists in Italy interviewed by journalists the day after the vote who were like, we didn't go to vote because we thought remain would have won easily so we went on vacation. 🙄
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Apr 20, 2019 16:49:58 GMT
Trump can not win the Presidency and lose Florida period.........and then he must win 2 of those 3 also Wisconsin/Penn/Mich. I know Trump knows that ...........I hope the Democrats do........that of course assumes things fallout the same way and you get an incumbent advantage but I feel pretty safe saying that's how narrow things will shape up as..........scary stuff really. Indeed. It's almost as if the electoral college is a senseless, outdated system that does great harm to the US's democracy and ought to be abolished as soon as possible.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,553
Likes: 1,386
|
Post by Film Socialism on Apr 20, 2019 17:10:08 GMT
cherry68 - I can't speak for Italy but polls in Europe are not generally crazy inaccurate. Especially YuGovs polls tend to be really spot on. Here are the polls before the german federal election for instance. If you go by the mean (Mittelwert), only the CDU/CSU was off and 3 % is usually just within the MoE: www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/archiv/2017.htmAs for Brexit 2 weeks before the vote almost all polls had Leave in the lead. The week before the vote it was reversed with the majority favouring remain. I wouldn't say the polling was particularly accurate but it was never like Britain remaining in the EU was a sure thing. Might have had something to do with the murder of Joe Cox impacting polling but not so much the final vote: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016Film Socialism - Biden is leading the polls. I don't think he's gonna be the next president, I don't even know if he's going to try and I have no clue why he polls so well despite in no way speaking to any of the USAs current problems but he is still leading the polls. Sanders leads among declared candidates though, maybe you meant that. My gut feeling was that it would come down to Sanders against Harris (which would be a lot like 2016) but she doesn't seem to take off so maybe it will actually be a bit more interesting. Can anyone explain what is going on with Buttigieg? In a recent Change Research Poll he shot up to 3rd place only 3 % from Sanders and 4 % from Biden. the most recent one i had seen at the time had shown bernie being ahead by a few percents; but the ones i'm seeing now have the leads swapped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2019 17:18:40 GMT
Biden is leading the polls. I don't think he's gonna be the next president, I don't even know if he's going to try and I have no clue why he polls so well despite in no way speaking to any of the USAs current problems but he is still leading the polls. A lot of people just want something familiar (and "safe", I guess) and either don't see those problems as being all that dire or just don't care enough. Biden winning would suck.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Apr 20, 2019 18:09:21 GMT
In hindsight, Barr's summary was a complete disgrace in light of what's coming out as actually being in the report. This is third world banana republic "El Presidente" BS. The report says Trump engaged in "corrupt exercise of the powers of office". Gee, I wonder why Barr didn't feel the need to mention that in his summary? "Corrupt exercise of the powers of office" sounds an awful lot like the definition of obstruction of justice. This much was evident from the start, though. The only people who bought into the spin that Trump was cleared by the report were the ones who wanted it to be true. Even Barr's summary expressly stated that Trump wasn't exonerated, and the GOP's repeated refusals to make the whole unredacted document available in the weeks that followed that initial drop made that obvious to anyone who was paying the slightest bit of attention. At least now we can do away with the absurd notion that anyone who expected the report not to fully exonerate Trump and the GOP (even though this very probe had at that point already led to over 30 indictments and half a dozen guilty pleas from people directly involved with him) are "anti-American" and "just sad that the President isn't corrupt". Sure, Jan. That certainly gave me something to think about, well done. Aged well. What impact this will have on Trump and the 2020 race I really can't say. I'm not in the US, so I don't know what the general mood is like right now, nor whether this has impacted the conversation in any significant fashion. We already know that Trump is panicking and threatening to persecute his enemies like the totally exonerated proto-dictator that he is (and he'll have Barr to help him do that), but what the Democrats do from here is the bigger question mark. After the past couple years, I've become wearier of expecting facts and reality to play much of a role in politics and elections, so I really don't know whether this report sways the narrative too drastically either way. Logic (as opposed to emotion and fear) isn't nearly important enough for that to be the case. By now it's become clear that anyone who's still actively supporting Trump after everything that he and his administration have pulled so far is absolutely not going to let anything Mueller says change their minds. The party of "better a known pedophile than a Democrat" and "better little kids in cages and getting raped under US government custody than a Democrat" won't care about one of their own obstructing justice, and Fox News is already doing enough to gaslight the audience and divert the conversation so that their viewers never have to directly square off with the Special Counsel's findings and take them into consideration the next time they find themselves in a polling booth. At first I entertained the narrative that pursuing impeachment would be close to a death knell for Democrats because it'd give Trump and the GOP ammo to proclaim themselves victims of persecution (and even if the charges did get past the House, a Republican-controlled Senate would never move to convict Trump anyway). To the opposite side, impeachment proceedings would look like an dirty move, and empty power play, and a complete waste of everyone's time. But again, if logic doesn't matter, then it stands to reason that Trump and the GOP will obfuscate and play victims regardless. They already are, and their base will buy/is buying it even if it has no basis in reality. So I really don't know if that's a good enough reason not to talk about impeachment, even if (again) I don't see any scenario where Trump gets removed from office in the next year and a half. At the end of the day, one also has to consider that (whether they're Democrats or Republicans), representatives are supposed to uphold the rule of law whenever necessary, not whenever advantageous. The notion that the House and the Senate shouldn't do their jobs because it's not interesting as a political maneuver goes against the entire purpose of having democratically-elected representatives in the first place, and that's something that everyone should factor in before they arrive at the conclusion that the Dems should carry on merrily with their usual business because shutting up might mean they have a better shot in 2020. Plus, even if you do want to talk about strategical maneuvering, there's also the fact that the people who already are on the Democrats' side won't be happy if the party capitulates to the GOP and plays nice when that's never been reciprocated. All the Dems have ever done is show weakness, and that doesn't get them anywhere. The reason why 2018 saw such a strong turnout and therefore such consistent victories for Democratic candidates is that their base was incensed and motivated to drag their asses to the polls and vote, and the left will absolutely need that passion next year (and in 2022, and in 2024, and in every election to come). Keeping quiet about the Mueller report won't help with that; doing away with the backbone that they've suddenly grown since winning back the House won't either. The way to beat Trump isn't by relying on the institutions that the GOP has devoted decades upon decades to undermining at every chance they get; it's by voting him and the Republicans the fuck out of office. Rampant election fraud, gerrymandering and the electoral college will all get in the way of that and ensure that it isn't an even battle ground, but voting is the only way to make real change. What the Democrats need to do is get people motivated. For their base, that means never letting the Mueller report get buried or forgotten; for independents and undecided voters, as well as the unknown contingent of people who picked Trump in 2016 but are having second thoughts about supporting him again, that means complementing that outrage with solid policy talk that shows the electorate what the Republicans aren't doing for them and what the Democrats will. Hillary had trouble doing that (though winning the popular vote by a margin of 3 million shows that she wasn't the worst-of-all-time-level candidate that she's often painted as), but many of the current frontrunners for the Democratic nomination are proving much better at it, which is encouraging. Bernie is very good at mobilizing crowds by talking policy, and going on Fox News proved to be a smart move for him; from what little I've seen from him, Pete Buttigieg is also good at speaking passionately in clear, concrete terms in a way that attacks the GOP without boiling down to merely "Trump bad". I'm sure there are other solid examples out of the 79 Demoratic pre-candidates as well. Focusing on true left-wing policies that speak to what the electorate craves is the blueprint to follow. I don't know if the Democrats will actually be able to do that, but "we need to be careful and meet everybody halfway so as not to piss off Trump and his voters" hasn't really worked out in the past.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 20, 2019 19:52:10 GMT
I'm becoming pretty confident that it's going to end up being essentially a Biden vs Bernie race with much the same dynamics as last time, except Bernie probably has a bit better chance of winning than last time. The other candidates are complete lightweights, pretty much the Dem versions of the candidates Trump beat in the Republican primary.
Biden is perceived as the safe bet because.....well.......he's the safest choice out of a very weak field of candidates (there are no Barack Obama's or Bill Clinton's here). He would have beaten Trump in 2016 and would be a big favorite over him here (famous last words). I think Dems are so traumatized by losing last time they're taking this "OH no, no one will ever vote for an establishment liberal again" attitude ignoring the fact that Clinton had very specific personal baggage. She was under FBI investigation during the campaign and has been a lightning rod since she came onto the national scene in the 92 campaign. Her personal favorability ratings were down in the 30's, as opposed to Biden's which are well over 50 percent.He could at the very least flip those rust belt states and probably pick up Florida and Arizona too for a solid win with over 300 EV's. He is well liked by the public and has the personal forcefulness to deal with Trump.
Those things are probably true of Sanders too, his favorables are over 50 percent but not as high as Biden, and he isn't a lightweight, so everyone's not going to turn the channel whenever he comes on. But he's just a gamble. Increasingly high percentages of the public sy they're willing to vote for socialist, but those people are likely in deep blue states that aren't going to decide the election. The Castro stuff isn't that big of a deal nationally since the Cold War is over, but if the state GOP started running constant ads about it (which they would) it would be a huge deal regionally in Florida and make it very difficult for him to win the state. Add to that, despite the talk of how "woke" he is, he didn't do very well with the black vote last time and there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of enthusiasm for him the way there is with the cosmopolitan white wing of the party. If the Dems want to flip Penn and Michigan they need big black turnout in Philly and Detroit. The point being, there are very possible scenarios where Trump beats Sanders, less so for Biden. The big fear I have about Biden is him getting metoo'd in the middle of the campaign once he already has the nomination.
Historically speaking, if an incumbent has approvals of over 45 percent he wins reelection. Trump hasn't been that high since his first couple weeks in office, he's just been hovering in the high 30's/low 40's. That's probably not going to get it done.
Since this discussion has nothing to do with Russia anymore we might want to start a new thread.
|
|