HawkShack.com

Here we go, dominoes are going to fall.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/paul-manafort ... ories.html

Ha! What makes you think that dominos are going to fall?

The charges are from 2006 to 2015 which is before he was involved with the Trump campaign. It was during the time he worked for the Podesta's which are Dems. So, maybe they will fall but they are falling in a direction no one thought they would.

This is going to be a good ride...

Wow, after a year of investigation, they find that from 2006 to 2015 Manafort failed to disclose he was working for Ukrainian interests and laundered money off shore to live a lavish lifestyle. His bail is set for $10M and the other guy is at $5M and both agreeed to house arrest after pleading not guilty.

So this is what we have? Stuff he did while working for the Podestas?

Also, a volunteer for the Trump campaign pleads guilty to lieing to investigators about when he contacted some Russians? So lets clear up what happened.

1. He volunteered to work on the Trump Campaign in March.
2. He contacted Russians who claimed to have 1,000s of emails from Clinton and other documents.
3. Trump campaigns to the guy, thanks but Trump won't be meeting with the Russians
4. No Kremlins contacts were ever contacted or responded to by the Trump campaign
5. the Volunteer lied that he contacted the Kremlin contacts who claimed they had dirt on Clinton

So someone who volunteered on the campaign tried to setup a meeting with Kremlin contacts to get dirt on Hilliary and the Trump campaign said no thanks. We are not doing those meetings. Then the volunteer lied to the FBI about the timing of the contacts and plead guilty to lying to the FBI.

Does this make you sick yet that it took this long to find out the Trump campaign didn't bite on the bait? LOL

Uh Oh. Tony Podesta just stepped down from his own lobbying firm on K street today. Is that the next domino you thought would fall?

More stuff is coming.

If Trump lets this run its course and he gets cleared even after a few years, his ego will grow even larger than it is now. Can you imagine if they let this run until the next election, then clear or charge Trump right before the elections? It would be huge one way or the other. If they charge some Clinton people in this, it will further hurt the Dems.

We really need an independent to gain some prominence and run. Strike while the iron is hot and both parties are looking pathetic.

Now they are talking about opening up the flood gates looking into all foreign lobbyists in DC. "IF" (and that is a BIG "IF") they actually get to the bottom of who is lobbying for foreign govts and not disclosing it all, this will turn into one big sucking sound as the swamp goes down the drain.

I know I'm being a little optimistic in this but I sure hope they take them all down. Democrat, Republican doesn't matter. Get them all out and string them up by the short hairs. If we are going to take back our nation, we need to do it across the board. Get them all out.

Yes, dominoes will fall. People are going to sing like birds, just watch it all unfold.

It's a thing of beauty.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If Trump lets this run its course and he gets cleared even after a few years, his ego will grow even larger than it is now. Can you imagine if they let this run until the next election, then clear or charge Trump right before the elections? It would be huge one way or the other. If they charge some Clinton people in this, it will further hurt the Dems.

We really need an independent to gain some prominence and run. Strike while the iron is hot and both parties are looking pathetic.

I was hoping that would be the case in the 2016 election, but I was wrong. I had hoped that the obvious dissatisfaction with the two major party nominees would drive others to a third party like it did me, but it didn't happen. The iron was hotter in November than it is now. We're going to have to wait until next year at this time when the mid term elections are held to "strike while the iron is hot."

The only thing an independent does is guarantee a win for the side that is less like the independent. Bernie declared he is an Independant again a couple weeks ago. Maybe that is a good thing for the Republicans.

IDH; You really should try watching a variety of news sources instead of being glued to FOX. Their sports division is awesome but their so-called "news' is the very definition of propaganda.

FOX & ABC both went to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue that they could LIE on their "news" broadcasts because they are actually in the entertainment business. I don't know why a once respected outfit like ABC joined in that argument but I have never watched them again, at least FOX doesn't try to hide their blatant bias. Oh, and to what should be a lasting shame the SCOTUS agreed, and that was truly SAD.

The news about the investigation yesterday was hardly ALL that the Special Council has and that what came out is only the tip of the iceberg and you would KNOW that if you bothered to watch more than just FOX. But, being a low information voter is YOUR choice.

I do have to admit, you have Sarah Huckster Sander's talking points right down to a "T".

What is it like to be a puppet? Are their strings attached to make you do what your master wants or is their a hand up where the sun doesn't shine that makes you talk?? Because that's just what you sound like when you "parrot" Trump's talking points.

BTW, please don't label yourself a "conservative" there is nothing conservative about Donald J. Trump and the many lackeys in congress who shamelessly continue to support him. In case you haven't noticed the last few real conservatives have either retired or are retiring driven out of the Republican Party by a radical cabal that seems to have more love for Russia than the United States of America. First they drove out all of the moderates and now the radicals are driving out the conservatives. I mean, Gov. John Kasich (MY 2016 candidate) is NO MODERATE but compared to Trump he is NOW!

One more thing, what is up with labeling everyone who opposes Trump as a HRC supporter?? That is yet one more lie that Trump supporters (such as yourself) can't seem to stop claiming.

idhawkman wrote:The only thing an independent does is guarantee a win for the side that is less like the independent. Bernie declared he is an Independant again a couple weeks ago. Maybe that is a good thing for the Republicans.

We'll see. People will at some point get fed up with all this bullcrap.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
We'll see. People will at some point get fed up with all this bullcrap.

You could say, they just did and elected Trump because of it.

idhawkman wrote:The only thing an independent does is guarantee a win for the side that is less like the independent. Bernie declared he is an Independant again a couple weeks ago. Maybe that is a good thing for the Republicans.

Not from my perspective. Clinton was going to win my state by a huge margin, so I felt that my voting for the Libertarian not only eased my conscience by not having to choose between the lesser of two evils, my decision wasn't going to have any effect on the outcome of the election. Had WA been a battleground state, I might have felt differently.

RiverDog wrote:Not from my perspective. Clinton was going to win my state by a huge margin, so I felt that my voting for the Libertarian not only eased my conscience by not having to choose between the lesser of two evils, my decision wasn't going to have any effect on the outcome of the election. Had WA been a battleground state, I might have felt differently.

Ahh, but it isn't about just your state and your consience, is it? It is about those 9 or 10 states that are close and can be swayed by splitting one of the party's votes by just a fraction. California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Massachussettes, Connecticut will never vote Republican and will never worry about an independent closely tied to the Democrats. But Iowa, Wisconsin, Michiagan, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, etc are quite a different animal.

So even though your vote in your state doesn't matter, the same vote in another state matters quite a bit even in a Presidential election. Ask any Floridian that ...

"Had WA been a battleground state, I might have felt differently"

Pretty sure RiverDog is in tune with which states would swing based on voting independent.

idhawkman wrote:You could say, they just did and elected Trump because of it.

Doesn't seem to have worked then. Maybe any real change is beyond working given the state of Washington. Congress is very powerful as well. It would take a real upheaval of Congress to make any real change for the nation happen. The President is a very limited figure. A disliked president even more limited.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
Doesn't seem to have worked then. Maybe any real change is beyond working given the state of Washington. Congress is very powerful as well. It would take a real upheaval of Congress to make any real change for the nation happen. The President is a very limited figure. A disliked president even more limited.

Respectively disagree with you on this one Asea. The president through reduction in regulation, executive orders, initiative and direction has done a whole lot already - without congress' involvement.

E.g. Coal industry, keystone pipeline, (energy independence), reduced regulation to spur the stock market to new highs ($5T in gains since his election), dessimating ISIS overseas and has crumbled the Califate, 1.5M Americans off of Food stamps, lowest unemployment in over 20 years and rising real wages for the first time in over 20 years. That's just a few of the things that have happened in the last 9 months but you won't hear about these things if you don't dig for the story and only listen to Main Stream Media (I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm just saying they never cover anything positive that he's done).

idhawkman wrote:Respectively disagree with you on this one Asea. The president through reduction in regulation, executive orders, initiative and direction has done a whole lot already - without congress' involvement.

E.g. Coal industry, keystone pipeline, (energy independence), reduced regulation to spur the stock market to new highs ($5T in gains since his election), dessimating ISIS overseas and has crumbled the Califate, 1.5M Americans off of Food stamps, lowest unemployment in over 20 years and rising real wages for the first time in over 20 years. That's just a few of the things that have happened in the last 9 months but you won't hear about these things if you don't dig for the story and only listen to Main Stream Media (I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm just saying they never cover anything positive that he's done).

The coal industry is doing better, but not fully revived and likely won't be. Pipeline is going through. At least it's not being held up by Native burial grounds and other superstitious nonsense when it comes to construction.

The president and his effect on the stock market and unemployment rate is not correlative. What we have is a bubble in the stock market again, not real gains. That is going to pop at some point and we'll go through the entire rigamarole of wealth loss again with the middle class complaining as they lose a ton of wealth because the big players pulled out without telling them. The rise will continue if the tax plan is passed, but if it is not that will slow things. Then it will pop when companies can't sustain the growth. Stock market is not a good indicator of successful economic policies.

The unemployment rate greatly improved under Obama and continued under Trump. It was a slow rebuild process over multiple administrations.

Decimating ISIS has been a slow process over Obama and Trump if you've been following that story. I know the right wing news likes to paint Obama as soft on pursuit of ISIS, but he followed his military advisers and they worked to dismantle ISIS. We'll see if that movement is exhausted or just changes.

I don't listen to the mainstream media left or right. I'm well aware of the constant bias against Trump making him seem insane or incompetent. He isn't. He's doing what a president should do: letting his advisers and cabinet members do their job. They are doing as efficient a job as is usual. The left wing media hates Trump. They ignore all the positives of his presidency. I've never seen so much focus on Russian investigations, his tweets, and a constant tirade of smarmy left-wing articles attacking Trump, his children, and anyone associated with him. We've seen on this forum how irrational people are concerning Trump. It's amazing how much how the President causes such angst for people. It's been tiresome. Now I've had to watch this garbage through three administrations. The Bush Jr. hate wagon. The Obama hate wagon. And now the Trump hate wagon. It's very annoying. Fortunately our nation runs well even when nearly half the people hate the president because he's mostly handcuffed.

I agree with some of what you stated. I too am amazed at how much focus has been put on the Russian influence. Supposedly, the Russians put up $100k of social media ads (which I believe is more than just Russian ads so lets just say foreign ads) and the DNC/RNC and their candidates spent over $85M in ads. So realisticly speaking, I wonder how much influence did the Russians buy? Also, the three big social companies told congress this week that the ads were on both sides and really just tried to drive a wedge between the two sides that commented on the ads.

To think that we as America and all other countries don't try and influence the elections in other nations to benefit us is niave on the media's part. Actually I think they know we try to indluence other countries elections but if they told that story it wouldn't generate clicks. The only thing the Main Stream Media is interested in is generating clicks so they can pay their bills. That's their only real source of income now since print, TV and other traditional outlets are no longer generating enough revenue to keep them afloat.

idhawkman wrote:Ahh, but it isn't about just your state and your consience, is it? It is about those 9 or 10 states that are close and can be swayed by splitting one of the party's votes by just a fraction. California, New York, Washington, Oregon, Massachussettes, Connecticut will never vote Republican and will never worry about an independent closely tied to the Democrats. But Iowa, Wisconsin, Michiagan, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, etc are quite a different animal.

So even though your vote in your state doesn't matter, the same vote in another state matters quite a bit even in a Presidential election. Ask any Floridian that ...

That's why I've advocated that we modify the electoral college and do away with winner-take-all. It would force campaigns to canvas the country, and craft their message to appeal nation wide, rather than simply staying within one state or region.

RiverDog wrote:
That's why I've advocated that we modify the electoral college and do away with winner-take-all. It would force campaigns to canvas the country, and craft their message to appeal nation wide, rather than simply staying within one state or region.

Dems would never win again since they only control the big city votes. Too many other delegates would go to the Repubs.

idhawkman wrote:Dems would never win again since they only control the big city votes. Too many other delegates would go to the Repubs.

Not really. Texas's big cities suddenly become Dem votes, as would places like New Orleans and Atlanta. Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, etc are all big cities in red states.

It would be interesting to see how the electoral college would have gone in past elections had it not been winner-take-all.

RiverDog wrote:Not really. Texas's big cities suddenly become Dem votes, as would places like New Orleans and Atlanta. Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, etc are all big cities in red states.

It would be interesting to see how the electoral college would have gone in past elections had it not been winner-take-all.

Ahhh, but remember grasshopper, that Donald Trump won 26 of the 58 counties in California and got 33% of the popular vote in California. Check out this link if you want proof. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/california/


You can look at any of the states here: https://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2016-election/results/map/president/

This one will be the best one to figure out by congressional district: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/30/1627319/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presents-the-2016-presidential-election-results-by-congressional-district

idhawkman wrote:Ahhh, but remember grasshopper, that Donald Trump won 26 of the 58 counties in California and got 33% of the popular vote in California. Check out this link if you want proof. https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/california/


You can look at any of the states here: https://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2016-election/results/map/president/

This one will be the best one to figure out by congressional district: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/30/1627319/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presents-the-2016-presidential-election-results-by-congressional-district

Yes, Trump still would have won in 2016 under the scenario I proposed, but not by as wide of a margin that he won in the electoral college. The score would have been Trump 290, Clinton 248 vs. 306 to 232. But the votes almost certainly wouldn't have fallen the way they did had the candidates been aware that it was not winner take all. Both candidates would have ran a much different campaign.

The point of my argument wasn't to try to change the results of the 2016 election by finding a scenario in which Clinton would have won, it was to reshape the campaign and reduce the impact that battleground states have on it. Trump might not have done so well in the electoral college had he been forced to move away from the rust belt and campaign to a nation wide audience. It would also help a 3rd party get some traction should a viable one ever take root.

The other change I'd make in the current electoral college would do would be to get rid of faithless electors and require by law that the vote go as determined by the ballot box result.

RiverDog wrote:
Yes, Trump still would have won in 2016 under the scenario I proposed, but not by as wide of a margin that he won in the electoral college. The score would have been Trump 290, Clinton 248 vs. 306 to 232. But the votes almost certainly wouldn't have fallen the way they did had the candidates been aware that it was not winner take all. Both candidates would have ran a much different campaign.

The point of my argument wasn't to try to change the results of the 2016 election by finding a scenario in which Clinton would have won, it was to reshape the campaign and reduce the impact that battleground states have on it. Trump might not have done so well in the electoral college had he been forced to move away from the rust belt and campaign to a nation wide audience. It would also help a 3rd party get some traction should a viable one ever take root.

The other change I'd make in the current electoral college would do would be to get rid of faithless electors and require by law that the vote go as determined by the ballot box result.

Respectfully, I disagree. Take for instance, my district in Idaho will never go Democrat. I should qualify that statement with - it hasn't in my lifetime and won't in my lifetime going forward. So no matter what, the candidates are never going to come here. Most of the districts are that way throughout the U.S.

So it would boil down to the states again and the senators. E.g. there are 435 congressional districts and 100 senate seats. So the electoral college reflects these 535 seats. So the Senate seats are what would sway the vote in my opinion and that would depend on who is on the ballot that election year (1/3 of the senate is on the ballot every election year). So the campaigning would heavily favor those races and a few swing congressional districts. Therefore, I just don't see the selective campaigning changing based on your method. It would only focus the campaigning in a much condensed manner. E.g. instead of campaigning all over ohio, they would focus on a few swing districts within Ohio neglecting the rest of it.

idhawkman wrote:Respectfully, I disagree. Take for instance, my district in Idaho will never go Democrat. I should qualify that statement with - it hasn't in my lifetime and won't in my lifetime going forward. So no matter what, the candidates are never going to come here. Most of the districts are that way throughout the U.S.

So it would boil down to the states again and the senators. E.g. there are 435 congressional districts and 100 senate seats. So the electoral college reflects these 535 seats. So the Senate seats are what would sway the vote in my opinion and that would depend on who is on the ballot that election year (1/3 of the senate is on the ballot every election year). So the campaigning would heavily favor those races and a few swing congressional districts. Therefore, I just don't see the selective campaigning changing based on your method. It would only focus the campaigning in a much condensed manner. E.g. instead of campaigning all over ohio, they would focus on a few swing districts within Ohio neglecting the rest of it.

Of course, candidates would concentrate on swing districts in a modified electoral college system as I proposed, but instead of the campaigns being limited to Ohio and the other 4-6 battleground states like they are now, they would have to concentrate on swing districts across the nation in California, Texas, Florida, the northeast, upper Midwest, and so on. Those swing districts are going to have a much wider range of issues that the candidates are going to have to address, and since the issues will be far more diverse, they have a better chance of coinciding issues of concern to people in little ole Idaho than does the current battleground campaign. So even though the candidate might not be physically campaigning in your state, he or she is going to have to come out and advocate a position that might be of great interest in your neck of the woods.

No system is going to be perfect. Personally, I do not want to see us go to strictly a popular vote as the candidates would craft their messages to appeal to the largest concentrations of population, ie urban and suburban issues, and not pay any heed to the rest of the country that encompasses far more physical area yet still involves issues of nationwide importance, like agriculture and land use. And who knows: If they do see a competitive race in Idaho..or Wyoming, Montana, or North Dakota, they might just poke their heads in there as there's the two electoral votes (represented by the state's two Senators) that would be awarded to the state wide popular vote winner that could make the difference in a close election.

The other part of my proposed change is something that we should all agree on, and that is eliminating the faithless electors.