I completely disagree with your assessment of who the Democrats should nominate, and I also think Chris Murphy would be a terrible choice because it would make gun rights the dominant issue of the campaign. That drives Republican voter turnout through the roof and the NRA would go crazy to keep him from winning.

The Democrats need to nominate someone who can connect with the lower and middle class voters- Biden and Sanders can do that, but both will be too old IMO. Warren could be an option, but I wish she was a more charismatic speaker. It doesn't matter where they fall between far-left and moderate, especially given that they'll be running against Trump or Pence in all likelihood.

I have a relative who votes Republican probably 70-80% of the time who loved Sanders. The populist message for the lower and middle class, when done right (social democracy, not fascism/nationalism obviously) is a winner for the Democrats.

Conspiracy Theory

In a scenario reminiscent of the Watergate scandal, I've noticed that both The New York Times and The Washington Post are locked in a pitched battle to see which paper scoops the other with blockbuster revelations about [alleged] Trump administration malfeasance. The latest blockbuster "Page One" scoop is that Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had secret discussions with Russia's ambassador about setting up a direct back channel between the Trump administration and Putin. (The reporting, if true, alleges that this back channel was intended to be a secret arrangement designed specifically to circumvent routine monitoring by U.S. intelligence agencies.) Whether or not setting up such a secret "back channel" between the POTUS and Vladimir Putin is illegal (or an impeachable offense) is anybody's guess. I certainly have no idea if this is a set-the-house-on-fire "high crime and misdemeanor" - as the folks at MSNBC are insisting - or another "Ho hum, who cares?" type thing as portrayed over on the Fox News Channel. The thing though is that both the New York Times and the Washington Post are aggressively trying to outdo each other in pursuing the Trump-Russia story line. (Other "liberal" web sites - including Vox, Daily Kos, and Salon are covering the story too, but the NYT and the Washington Post are the ones leading the pack with [near daily] scoops.)

This is reminiscent of what happened back during Watergate. Early on in the scandal, (i.e. prior to the televised Senate hearings and the infamous Saturday Night Massacre), broadcast media was generally reluctant to devote coverage to Watergate. Most of the executives at the major television networks simply could not believe that Nixon would have been so stupid as to get himself involved in a "third rate burglary" - it just didn't make sense. Nixon was so far ahead in the polls that getting involved in a caper like Watergate just seemed incomprehensible. So the inclination was to give Nixon the benefit of the doubt. It was basically the Post and the New York Times that kept the story alive, especially the Post. Back then there was no internet and no social media, so the story unfolded at a much slower pace. Today things are different ...

The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon.com. When it was announced several years ago that Mr. Bezos was acquiring the Post, there was hand wringing by some Post staffers, as well as various media commentators, wondering if Mr. Bezos would continue the Washington Post's mission of aggressive reporting and holding politicians feet to the fire? Or, would the Post turn into another cheerleader for the privileged class? Specifically, would Jeff Bezos crack down on "investigative reporting" and turn the Washington Post into a lap dog for the Republican party - kind of like the newspaper equivalent of the Fox News Channel - or would the Post continue in the Woodward-Bernstein tradition of tough investigative journalism?

It's clear now that Jeff Bezos is not putting the muzzle on the editors and reporters at the Washington Post. If anything, he appears to be encouraging his journalists to be even more aggressive in their reporting. I suppose it's possible that Bezos is monitoring what his paper is up to with a benign sense of detachment as he is "too busy" running the rest of his empire to keep up with what is going on in the day-to-day world of politics. That's one theory, (i.e. that Bezos is a benign owner), but, if you're a conspiracy theorist, there's another possibility ...

Donald Trump has made no secret of his hostility toward illegal immigrants - he wants them "out of the country" as he views many of them as rapists and undesirable folks who are taking American jobs. As part of this crackdown on illegal immigration, Mr. Trump is also attempting to tighten up on H-1B visa permits. Arguably, cracking down on illegal immigration was one of the key issues that helped get Trump elected. It just so happens that companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, (i.e. the Silicon Valley crowd), depend - to a large extent - on hiring H-1B workers. So, given these facts, could it be that Jeff Bezos quickly realized that having Trump as President is "bad for business" and seeing Trump impeached (and removed from office) would be a good thing?

If such a theory is true, it suddenly makes sense as to why the Washington Post is going after Trump like stink on s**t.

Nope.

How about the ACTUAL conspiracies going on in the White House? You know, the ones that the President and others around him ADMIT TO being true. The ones that are happening whether those newspapers from your conspiracy exist or not.

Why is it that otherwise smart and attentive people all of a sudden become dumb and forgetful around topics like Trump or religion?

The media is going after Trump because he's an idiot. They see him saying stupid things, lie after lie, and have no accountability for his ignorance and ugliness. Trump is inarticulate and a con man. Mitt Romney summarized Trump's career and policies perfectly; there is no "conspiracy" necessary to explain why Romney did it: he saw a dangerous fraud taking over his party and was afraid of the consequences of him taking over the country.

I'm not sure why you'd need to come up with a conspiracy theory to explain it in the first place. The explanation is simple.

The Washington Post is in the business of reporting the D.C. political goings-on to the rest of us - it's not a coincidence that they're about 2 blocks away from the White House. When the President does or says something newsworthy, it's their function to cover it, and that extends out to any personnel or relationships in his sphere (which is a lot of people). It's a big part of why the Post exists.

I'm a long-time reader and I think the coverage has been excellent. They've broken a number of important stories so far this year too.

What specifically do you think they're doing that justifies your saying that they're "going after" Trump? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't report on Trump's actions if they reflect poorly on him? Or that they shouldn't be critical of policy or positions? If so, keep wishing.

I'd instead suggest that the Trump administration has generated a very high volume of relatively unusual events, and is unlike any that have come before. Some of the unflattering coverage has included these very-reportable things:

*Factually incorrect information being repeatedly provided by POTUS himself and those that are authorized to speak on his behalf - often conflicting with one another

*Some of the most questionable cabinet an advisor appointments ever, to include people who have openly championed shutting down the agency they're now in charge of

*Examples of position-shifting on many topics and political issues in very short time periods
*Lack-of-transparency on the President's financial holdings

*Personal scandals, some pre-dating the election (his Trump U scam, the Access Hollywood tape)

*The travel ban and subsequent litigation

*The efforts to destroy a major piece of health care law

*The efforts to implement a major piece of health care law

*The wall/fence bit

*Denial of intelligence agency reports based on gut feelings

*His budget

*Accusations leveled by POTUS at former POTUS over phone tapping, without any support, which was later debunked

*The idealogical backgrounds of some of his inner circle - notably Bannon, Miller, Gorka

*A steady stream of Tweets from POTUS

*Investigations in the House, in the Senate, and now a special investigator with regards to the Russian election interference

*Allegations of carelessness with sensitive information

*The POTUS alleged attempt to stop an investigation

.....

Need I go on?

Obviously all of those things are of interest to the public, so I don't see why they wouldn't cover them.

Anyone who actually believes Trump is getting picked on must not have noticed that Trump is never accountable for his actions. When the buck stops somewhere else 100% of the time, the narrative of the person passing the buck cannot be trusted.

Alan (and anyone else like him reading this thread), nobody is "out to get" Trump unprompted. It's well deserved. Trump just wants people to think otherwise, and he's using the blame game to con his supporters into believing that. Don't fall for this nonsense.

It's the one thing that he's truly good at: minimizing damage to himself by finding somebody else to push the blame. You would think with all of his bankruptcies that he still wouldn't be a (supposed) billionaire. But he always finds a way out.

He'll be shamed by the majority of the population if/when he's forced out of office. But there'll be a substantial amount of the country who will worship him out of office and even after death despite how horrible of a human being he is.

Mr. House:

The impression that you and Minirra might have that I'm a Trump "apologist" is inaccurate. I am (definitely!) not a member of Donald Trump's fan club. In fact, I'm fully supportive of Trump being held accountable for both his words and his actions. I wouldn't mind (in the least) if he is impeached and removed from office. In fact, the sooner Trump is out of the oval office the better as it will lessen the possibility (or likelihood) of Trump doing something really stupid - like starting a nuclear war and getting millions of people killed. When Trump reportedly asked, three times, in a meeting with military leaders why we have nuclear weapons if we don't intend to use them - or whatever it was that he said - that alone convinced me that this man is a danger to all of us. Nuclear deterrence is based on the assumption that the people who control these weapons are rational. With Trump as President, that assumption may no longer be valid.

If I'm guilty of anything, it might be that I am also inarticulate. I shouldn't have used the [bolded] words "Conspiracy Theory" in the title of my posting. Instead of coming across as a Trump apologist, (which was not my intention), I was merely trying to give both sides of the argument - the "liberal view" as well as the "conservative view" of how Trump is perceived. I suppose I should have dropped the first 4-5 paragraphs and immediately got to my main point - which is that Jeff Bezos (and the entire Silicon Valley crowd) may be especially motivated to make sure that Trump is held accountable. I specifically mentioned Mr. Bezos as he is the owner of one of the primary media organizations that is breaking stories "The Donald" doesn't appreciate - stories which may (very possibly) lead to his impeachment and removal from office. To put it bluntly, the New York Times and the Washington Post are playing hardball with Donald Trump - and vice versa.

Trump is said to be the type of person who nurses grudges and doesn't forget slights - real or imagined. Silicon Valley CEOs (and Mark Cuban) made no secret of their support for Hillary Clinton - a fact Trump surely stored in his long term memory. By cutting back and severely limiting H-1B visas, Trump has found a way of "getting even" with his detractors - and especially Jeff Bezos. That's the point I was trying to make - that Mr. Bezos (and the other Silicon Valley CEOs) may have a strong motivation for wanting to see Donald Trump out of the White House. So, maybe the word "conspiracy" was a poor choice ... Maybe what I should have said is that Jeff Bezos prefers a President who doesn't impede business as usual.

Or maybe Bezos is just a good American and the WaPo would be doing exactly the same thing it's done for 50 years whether or not he owned it. Also, Bezos is like in the top 5 richest Americans. He prob spends more on his rocket project than WaPo. Hell, WaPo is likely profitable, but not nearly to the level of say toothbrushes on amazon.

"If I'm guilty, it is of being inarticulate" surrounded by three paragraphs of restating the obvious and pushing an extreme interpretation of whatever is basically the new cable news format. You should get into tv reporting.

Will Trump Try To "Pardon" His Way Out of This Mess?

As provided for in our Constitution, the President's pardon power is absolute - he has the power to grant a pardon to whoever he pleases. Virtually every President has used this power. Some of these pardons have been very controversial - such as President Ford pardoning Nixon as well as Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich, the fugitive financier.

After James Comey was fired and Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel, it was quickly announced that the FBI's investigation had now shifted from a counterintelligence probe to a "criminal" investigation. So Trump is now faced with the possibility that some of his associates may wind up being indicted, (possibly) convicted, and sent off to jail. Trump says this investigation is a "witch hunt" and a major distraction from the nation's business. Trump (clearly) wants this investigation to go away.

By firing Comey, Trump has already demonstrated that he is not afraid to resort to extreme measures. So, the question naturally arises ... If folks like General Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, Jared Kushner, et al. start getting indicted; will Trump decide "That's it! I've had enough!" and issue blanket pardons for all of them?

Such a move would almost certainly result in articles of impeachment against Trump, but he might prefer that outcome to having all these folks cutting plea deals with Mueller that wind up exposing any [possible] crimes he may have committed. (Here's an interesting "legal" question I've got: Could the President pardon himself?)

I think the only one who knows how this is going to turn out is Trump, and also anyone that refuses to watch cable news.

I only have a minor in Poly Sci, but the odds of him getting impeached, tried and convicted are about as good as the Jacksonville Jaguars winning the Superbowl.

What are your qualifications to opine on the Superbowl chances of the jags?

I assume anyone who owns a google machine can look up the line.

Personally, I'm hoping for another of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...lections,_2006

People are already incredibly sick of Trump, after only 5 months in office. He never shuts up, he never goes away, with all the scandals people will be sick and tired of him a lot quicker than any other politician. The seats might require more fights, but hopefully the DNC actually spends some money to take some seats back.

Personally you're just upset that America is becoming so great again, aren't you? Admit it, I dare you!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...b98_story.html

https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/875159704191815680