Although according to this the FBI made an image of the server, so that's good.

Real issue with Trump is the advent of a moral relativism in his supporters, and his continual assault of the truth.

Just yesterday at a the VFW convention Trump said. "Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening." - I find that an amazing quote. almost equal to just 3 weeks into the administration when he tweeted "any negative polls are fake news"

The continual barrage of lies are now routinely excused along the lines that Americans shouldn't worry about what Trump says but instead watch what he does. This requires buying into the moral relativism at the heart of Trump's deny, distract, deflect and divide rhetorical strategy.

The last and laziest defense is the whatabout-ism, Or an argument that says a fact-based debate itself is divisive.

In other words, the test of loyalty is not only to lie for the regime but to convince oneself to believe the lies, or at least to dismiss any meaningful difference between truth and lies. And that's where the real danger with the hyper-partisan defense of Trump is emerging. It ends up endorsing the idea that truth doesn't matter and that a president's litany of lies should not be over-indexed or seen as destructive to our democracy. In sum, "get over it -- our guy won." In this world view, power and nationalism provide their own imperatives.

When will his supporters awake to the fact that truth does matter, it is not relative. Democracy depends on facts made available to citizens in a self-governing society.

His supporters are the only ones who can stop this slide into an Orwellian acceptance of the party. It will be up to the core of the republican party to begin holding Trump accountable for his lies and actions. Cries from the opposition or MSM will just continue to be discounted and dismissed until the core Republicans awake to the idea they are making a deal with the devil - that can endanger the very core of our american democracy.

Maybe it is too much to ask for, but we need a moral leader to emerge in the GOP, someone who has a deep concern for our democratic process, and will take on the task of holding Trump accountable.

In sum, "get over it -- our guy won". — Rank Amateur

Ah hem... @Hanover. :smirk:

Maybe it is too much to ask for, but we need a moral leader to emerge in the GOP, someone who has a deep concern for our democratic process, and will take on the task of holding Trump accountable. — Rank Amateur

You mean an actual Conservative that holds truth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in high regard? Not a chance.

It's tribalism. Kind of like looking at a meeting between Afghan warlords.

You mean an actual Conservative that holds truth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in high regard? Not a chance. — Benkei

Condoleezza Rice ??

Condoleezza Rice ?? — Rank Amateur

Great pianist. Uncritically supported the Iraqi war?

Devon Nunez is the chair of the House oversight committee. He took evidence from the campaign investigation to the candidate whose campaign was being investigated during the investigation. His committee didn't ask any relevant questions into the investigation, and/ refused to allow others(lower ranking members) to ask such questions and/or follow-ups. The witnesses were permitted to not answer questions without subsequent action.

What counts as obstruction? Has he been interviewed by the Mueller team?

There's something to be gleaned, I think, by looking at the list of top Trump folk who have not been interviewed. Trump, Jr, Erik, Bianca, Kushner, etc. The lack of interview could indicate being targeted.

How Trump Won Re-election in 2020

I can believe it.

If Elizabeth Warren runs, every exchange is likely to be "Trump: Pocahontas! Warren: Idiot!" and nobody will hear anything else.

If 'Pocahontas' is the only thing the GOP can sling around then I'm not worried.

Thanks for the link - the analysis is very plausible. It is also disheartening because it has the corrollary "lies don't matter" to the public, and probably also that the public is short-sighted. There are consequences to unsustainable budget deficits, protectionism, and ambiguous relations with other countries where the distinction between ally and enemy are blurred.

IMO, the Democrats best hope is to nominate a moderate. Left-wingers certainly feel energized, but their favorite candidates (Sanders and Warren) have lower chances of getting elected than does a real moderate. They can only win if something pretty bad happens during the next 2 years. The best counter to an a-hole like Trump is an even tempered, well-spoken person. e.g. if Mitt Romney became a Democrat, I think he could be Trump.

Brett Stephens is probably the most vacuous of the NYT op-ed crowd, which is quite the distinction given the competition. Warren has long excelled at being able to articulate growing inequality despite an expanding economy, so this idea that she would not be able to "find a compelling answer" is ludicrous, as is the idea that a sound economy alone is enough to compel Trump supporters to the voting booth.

IMO, the Democrats best hope is to nominate a moderate. Left-wingers certainly feel energized, but their favorite candidates (Sanders and Warren) have lower chances of getting elected than does a real moderate. They can only win if something pretty bad happens during the next 2 years. — Relativist

The Dems nominated Clinton, a moderate, who lost. The Dems need to push the overton window towards the left, because the right-ward shift is leading this country down a dark path.

I think a Flight 93 editorial is more relevant now than it was in 2016

So you are completely incapable of seeing any faults in the President.

Also, Brett assumes in this piece that Trump will win every state he won in 2016. However, recent polling in three key states that Trump narrowly won in 2016 (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan) currently, by a wide-margin, do not think he deserves reelection.

The Dems nominated Clinton, a moderate, who lost. The Dems need to push the overton window towards the left, because the right-ward shift is leading this country down a dark path. — Maw

Agreed. For comparison, Labour might not be doing great or as well as people might think they should be doing right now, under Jeremy Corbyn, but they're doing much better than they were under the more moderate Ed Milibland, despite all the naysayers. And the Blairites on the right of the party are even more unpopular - some of them having an effect like kryptonite. Just ask Liz Kendall about her 4%.

Left-wingers certainly feel energized, but their favorite candidates (Sanders and Warren) have lower chances of getting elected than does a real moderate. They can only win if something pretty bad happens during the next 2 years. — Relativist

The same kind of thing was said about Jeremy Corbyn. And Donald Trump. The former started out with odds of 200/1.

I admit it is very unlikely, but I think a conservative could challenge for the nomination, with a story that goes something like - I can provide results based on republican principals, but do it with character.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, establishing a conservative court. That will remove the main issue from the religious right to support Trump. The right candidate could attract this group playing to Trumps lack of morals. If you can combine that with losing some conservative women for the same reason. Could be a base there to build on if you can make enough Trump supporters believe you can get some or the same results without the lack of character.

Right now Trump is selling hope and fear. I think it is possible for another Republican to challenge him effectively on the hope, and just leave him with the fear.

IMO, the Democrats best hope is to nominate a moderate. — Relativist

I agree. But there's a surprising reason. Starting with Nixon's resignation and increasingly since, I think real Republicans have been moving to and finding a home in the Democrat party. I argue that Eisenhower was the last real Republican, and that the Republican party c. 2016 and since contains no Republicans, but only opportunists of greater or lesser ethical constraint. I say "greater," perhaps I should have said, "lesser or no" ethical constraint.

So, yes, a moderate. The Republicans in the Democrat party are not marginal participants; they are by now full-fledged Democrats whose substance has moved and redefined the center of the Democrat party. In a sense, then, it is useless and misleading to think of Trump or any of his supporters as Republicans. It is a violence to the meaning the term.

I'm getting first hand information as to what is meant by "Trump Derangement Syndrome" on this thread. — raza

:lol: Trump has you deranged, buddy. All I'm doing is demonstrating your own bad judgment by posting a couple times in this thread and living my life, you're posting dozens of times a day about your obsession with Trump, so it's not surprising you project your derangement onto others. Also, way to skip straight to ad hominem in order to skip any meaningful reflection on how thoroughly whipped your logic is. :lol:

I don't think Clinton lost because she was a moderate, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think so.

The only people that I can imagine that were put of by her being a moderate were Bernie supporters. I doubt many of them voted for Trump, although I'm sure some of them just stayed home (I know some who did this). I bet the vast majority of them now regret their decision, so I don't see this as a factor in the next election.

Elections are usually won by getting the votes of those in the middle. Trump is certainly an anomoly, but it would be good to consider why so many found him appealing. Fewer will find him appealing this time, and I'm confident that his opposition will be extremely energized.

BTW, there's one progressive that I think could beat Trump in a landslide, but there's zero chance she will run: Michelle Obama. Nevertheless, she's my dream candidate.

That's an interesting observation. There was definitely been a realignment of the parties in the 60s. There used to be "liberal Republicans" (remember Rockefeller? for that matter, Nixon was a liberal in many respects). And consider what happened to the segregationist Democrats- they left because of the Civil Rights legislation under LBJ. I will forever remember my red-neck cousins, former Democrats, saying they would no longer vote Democrat because they said the "Democrats did too much for the ni___rs".

BTW, there's one progressive that I think could beat Trump in a landslide, but there's zero chance she will run: Michelle Obama. Nevertheless, she's my dream candidate. — Relativist

While I really like her, as a European I'm baffled at these political family dynasties. The Kennedys, clintons, bushes, Obamas (if Michelle would run) and then possibly the Trumps. Smells too much like aristocracy.

I don't think Clinton lost because she was a moderate, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think so. — Relativist

Clinton lost for many reasons, one of which was that she was a moderate in a time when being a moderate, run-of-the-mill politician has become a liability when it comes to presidential aspirations. A lot of people are looking for alternatives to our current system. That's in part how Obama was able to beat out Clinton and eventually win the presidency. He was, at the time, somewhat of an outsider and a novel voice within the political landscape.

That is an interesting observation, but it not quite the same thing. To get elected, one needs to be well known. It can be very expensive to become well known. Michelle (as well as Bushes, Kennedy's, and Clintons) get notoriety for free. Trump also got it for free. There's been controversy about Hillary since Bill's presidency (I remember Rush Limbaugh accuse her of orchestrating Vince Fosters killing). There's no controversy about Michelle, and - given her impressive speech about "going high" - she would be the perfect person to go against him.

I'm with you on the insider/outsider thing being a detriment for Clinton vs Trump, but that was irrespective of being a moderate or progressive. Perhaps Bernie would have beaten Trump had he been nominated, but we'll never know. Regardless, we've now seen what being an outsider gets you, so I don't think that can work again.

Right, but I'm inclined to go with more of a sure thing than to hope for another anomaly.

I greatly admire Barrack Obama as a person, and for what he tried to do. But his progressive agenda resulted in the conservative backlash that led to Trump getting elected. A moderate Democrat has a better chance of having a lasting, positive, and beneficial legacy.

Michelle — Relativist

While I really like her, as a European I'm baffled at these political family dynasties. The Kennedys, clintons, bushes, Obamas (if Michelle would run) and then possibly the Trumps. Smells too much like aristocracy. — Benkei

I remember an interview from a Law School teacher of both Michelle and Barrack, who basically said he couldn't believe it wasn't Michelle on the ticket. From the impression I got, she was the one who had political ambitions from the start.

But his progressive agenda resulted in the conservative backlash that led to Trump getting elected. A moderate Democrat has a better chance of having a lasting, positive, and beneficial legacy. — Relativist

I think this is crap, to be honest. As long as a politician is of the Democratic Party, conservatives have demonstrated that they will label them a socialist, anti-American, etc., regardless of their actual policies. The GOP have made it clear that they will not work with the Democrats, who should, for the sake of the nation, embrace more radical leftist positions, including a livable wage, public healthcare, affordable/free education, and a more equitable economy. The rising Democratic star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated in an interview that there is "nothing radical about moral clarity", and I think that's a vital stance the Dems need to take, in particular, to contrast themselves with Trumpist Republicans and their enablers.