Fixed. I Quick Replied to einbert assuming nothing would be between my post and his but then some new posts showed up. But then I went to go paste his quote in to make it clear I was replying to him, but inadvertently pasted my post. ****ing computers, how do they work?

Destroying Trump is good because he's an unhinged narcissistic idiot sitting on top of military strength capable of destroying the planet. That's a good long term reason.

I wasn't suggesting destroying Trump is a bad idea. That should be clear in the wordbomb if it's not already. I simply think it's a short-sighted strategy. The left can and should do more, and do it differently. Obviously if I could be assured of a higher likelihood of success this will work to fully dismantle Trump's political power, I'd more eagerly endorse it.

Contrast with a different strategy where the Democrats, their media allies, the commentariat continued full-throated focus on the GOP replacement for Obamacare. Now you're winning in multiple ways - you hurt Trump's political standing AND you erode the political consensus for the GOP AND you make an affirmative case for why you would be better in practical ways AND you really appeal to your whole base and all of this is done in ways that are low-cost and reinforce what remains of the Democratic Party's image as the party defensive about welfare state programs and economic security and the GOP as subserviant and slavish to rich elites.

Russia Russia Russia RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! is very personally focused on Trump, is practically distant for most Americans, awash in a bunch of formerly right-wing tropes about national security that don't reinforce preexisting public images (so the costs for telling the story are much higher), is hard to grasp intuitively even if ultimately valid ("why is a rich white billionaire subverting America for small change?") and really says nothing you can build on long term. It appeals to a limited niche of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and NeverTrumpers who don't want to confront anything systemic or pervasive in our political system and just wants to get Trump off the scene to return to the status quo of politics circa 2006 or 2014 or whatever, all of the conditions that built to Trump but just Not Trump.

It seems to me that a pretty simple narrative is that Trump is not only willing to put his interests ahead of the country's, but also Russia's. It's not like Russia is some benign foriegn actor. They are openly hostile to us and our influence. Now, yes there is much to be said about all the harm that our imperialist influence has done, but we also do a fair amount of good humanitarian work, and I'd say a world in which Putin's Russia has greater influence and the US lesser, is one in which there is more harmful meddling, corruption and much less humanitarian beneficial work. Plus there are direct, obvious societal harms, too.

Which Russian interests is he putting ahead of America's, though? Remember this is a Socratic exercise to some extent: I appreciate for instance that there's a consensus if not common-sense wisdom about American interests in a free Ukraine not unduly influenced by Russia, that climate change urgently needs attention and that Russia wants to disrupt anything that threatens global dependence on fossil fuels or wants to disrupt sanctions that might threaten their extraction interests.

I structured my last post in a way that sort of built to the political wisdom of this. In the end I suspect we're going to conclude that the Russian interests which are being cossetted here by Trump are stuff that remains practically esoteric and distant for a lot of Americans. Right? Things like political freedoms for eastern Europeans, rolling back climate change agreements, and the rights of religious minorities in Russian client states to practice without abuse.

Do I desperately wish the politics of high ideals and virtues were ascendant, that we could speak to this kind of stuff with confidence? Of course.

Is that really the political reality we operate in? In the end, then: is this REALLY a "pretty simple narrative?" It sure seems to me like the simple narrative involves trying to cajole a lot of Americans into giving a flying **** about religious rights, biodiversity and sea levels, and the political culture of a country they can't find on a map. I maintain the simpler narrative, by far, is that Trump is trying to take away their birthright access health care to make rich bozos richer.

This seems like a gargantuan hand wave.

Russia has upped its soft power projection by orders of magnitude in the last 6 or so years and has done so with great effectiveness, it is pulling the strings on numerous narratives that now infect the discourse in the West of which the election of Trump is the ultimate extension.

Even if they did nothing in terms of hacking Hillary or whatever they will still have extended a shadowy hand into the US and other recent elections e.g. Brexit. This is because Russia has pulled off a strategic coup.

Russia has won the internet. This is true, it is not Fake News.

The alleged interference does not come in a vacuum. Its not a coincidence that the narratives of the alt-right (led by confirmed world burner leninist Bannon) align with Russian interests, either directly or by muddying and confusing discourse so much that conversation about real actual issues becomes refracted and dispersed, confused. The whole debate about SJW's is a classic example of this, as is the alt-right narratives about Trump is the fault of libs calling everyone racist.

Do you think its a coincidence that the alt-right and conservatives have such a hard on for Putin, a new phenomenon for a Russian leader?

Russia has advanced propaganda well beyond tell a lie and go all in on it, to a point where perpetual second guessing is the order of the day. They really understand ****ing with and disseminating narrative.

We see a small example of this even in a remote outpost like this forum, I biographically claim to be Y but all my arguments support X. Some posters obviously do this consciously but many dont, because that is how effective Russia has been at corrupting narrative coherence. Many people cant correctly place themselves in the meta anymore.

A classic example of this in the UK is Jonathan Pie, who is hugely popular amongst all my lefty friends, but I strongly suspect of being a shill. He first gained exposure on RT, but then went independent because he claimed he wanted "editorial freedom."

He has a shctick about being a news presenter who then ad libs to camera, about 8 out 10 of his videos are hard left critiques about the establishment, but the other 2 will be him going all in on classic foundational alt-right positions e.g. Trump and Brexit are the fault of liberals calling everyone racist, political correctness is out of control etc.



Seems good,

But:

I mean I dunno. The counterpoint seems to be, look how powerful Russia is now, why, see HastenDan and this guy on Youtube. Truly a menace.

Uh, OK. I guess? Like I said, we're arguing Russian salami politics is just NOW starting to erode the liberal democratic order? Their 'soft power' project is just now starting to land all the blows?

I suppose I come to this with my own haughtiness of being in my mid 30s and I suppose that makes me like an old tymer but pretend-leftist schills who claimed X but consistently said Y, or various degrees of white dudes raging against capitalism but begging people never ever ever call the white man racist have been part of us forever. These aren't new Russian inventions. I swear. I have a vague recollection of bringing this up back during the 2015 primaries that one thing Bernie suffered from in southern minority communities was the image of the northeastern white liberal who brought class warfare but insisted racial social justice was a scam. Black Americans have seen Jonathan Pies come and go forever, it's why there remains a level of historical distrust between black Americans and white leftists -- because the left has a lot of Jonathan Pie types. These sort of underlying internecine leftist battles have been with us forever. If they're a Russian export, it's like vodka, it's been with us forever. You rouse the blood of 100 white guys and get 70 Trumpkins and 30 Sanders types and for every 30 Sanders types, you're going to get ~10 dudes who would be Trumpkins but for their genuine economic populism. And for your ~30% of white dude leftists, I agree, 80% of what they say makes them sound like an orthodox leftist out of central casting and the other 20% is pure right-wing bile about political correctness and the savages in BLM or whatever. They're around, always have been. I don't see Putin underlying these people, they're part of the political culture.

Related: good article in the Atlantic about the Democrats killing the political career of Wright Patman, a pretty racist segregationist whose mortal political enemy were large banks and the finance industry. It goes on with anecdotes about Felix Edwards and William Poage and the beginning of the end of white southern populist Democratic control of the party in the 1970s. I'm hardly convinced that battle is the product of Putin engineering, we have some arrow of time problems to reconcile there.

Older than you and think you are way off in your claims about how much these things have been around before or in what form they have been around in before.

You might have had Jonathan Pie types in USA before, but in the UK an actor who started his career on Russia Today, who then pivoted to making u-tubes the purpose of which seems to be to firstly engage lefty types and then shove classic nut shell alt-right arguments down their throats to the point where thousands of them will share said throat shoving videos on their facebook feeds is a new phenomenon, and colour me sceptical, but I am calling bull**** on the above being present in the US before FB was even a thing.

The Alt-right is a new phenomenon, Putin love is a new phenomenon, Alt-right u tubes getting million of views, lefty u tubes a ghost land is a new phenomenon.

The strategic position of Russia has improved with the election of Trump and Brexit and Putin is perhaps one of the richest men in the world.

Saying this is irrelevant because look Russia has not invaded Germany seems odd. It has managed some invasions recently though, but again guess this is moot, because look at how powerful Russia is?

What context are we using to gauge how powerful Russia is?

You really should not because I don't think you or most Americans understand how important this.

There's two reasons why Russia is a huge problem for the US:

1) The failure to protect Ukraine in spite of a treaty shows very explicitly that the US doesn't give a **** about its allies. That means no one is going to trust the US in future because it has shown so publicly that its promises are worthless. That affects everything: foreign trade deals, military alliances, global co-operation on terrorism etc etc. The US looks like a loser in a battle with an emerging China. No one wants a friend who is all hat and no cattle.

2) Nuclear proliferation will increase dramatically because of 1). No one is ever going to give up their nuclear weapons and Ukraine will become a by-word for what happens-your country gets invaded and occupied by a larger power.

At what point did I say Russia wasn't powerful? The point is they aren't a true existential threat to America. They're a threat to American interests that are distant and esoteric for most Americans, at least 2 or 3 steps away from things that effect their daily lives. Hence an argument that portends a Russian menace is probably bad politics and likely to fall flat.

Also.

Why if I turn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs&t

into [youtube]GLG9g7BcjKs&t[/you tube] (no space obviouly) will it not ****ing embed?

I think you can turn off the option to embed on Youtube.

As I said, the liberal's argument to America: you don't understand how important this is, but here's a complex geopolitical argument, vote for us!

So to that I say: WE SAW THIS ALREADY. It was 2016!

Trump will say he does great things, gets jobs, wins, and everyone will get rich.

Liberals will counter punch with, well you don't understand but the failure to honor our treaties will besmirch our good name and the risks of nuclear proliferation increase dramatically.

Can't liberals just ****ing middle it and say Trump will make people poor instead of talking about national sovereignty and nuclear arms control? I ain't asking for anyone to even lie here, Trump is probably going make so many people much poorer than they would have been with a standard President. Why are you so reflexively wedded to this stuff you acknowledge no one understands or gives a **** about?! You aren't a college professor, stop politicking like one imo. I get it, I loved the West Wing too, Bartlett was my Dream President. But just stop.

I don't think anyone will trust Trump anyway. The man lies constantly. As someone mentioned earlier, it seems bizarre that he's not getting in trouble for it, especially as he never apologises, or even admits he's wrong. Is this really a quality you Trumpets admire in a leader?

So needs to be an existential menace to be good politics?

If they can project influence to maintain American discourse at its current state, which I am sure is an objective for them, that might not be an existential threat, but still a big threat to Yanklandia in many ways.

You might not be able to win elections or many more votes running on a Stop Russia winning teh internets platform, but in real politik terms, its up there as a hooge issue that needs to be dealt with.

Discourse same as it evar was just does not cut for me, not with Trump and Bannon in the White House.

I think the whole discourse same as it evar was can be debunked fairly simply.

1: Is the internet and social media a new medium able to project information and narratives incredibly powerfully and greatly disrupting and undermining traditional forms of dissemination such as traditional media: YES

2: What happens when we look at the information and narratives that seem to be gaining most traction on this new disruptive media:OH ****

3: Above is not Fake News.

It isn't complex. I presented the actuality of the argument out of respect for your intellect.

You can Trumpify this argument if you want "RUSSIA IS BAD. THEY'RE BAD GUYS. RUSSIA BAD. "

It doesn't need to be existential threat but we need to be able to explain how our policies and our desires effect people, and how the other sides' behaviors harm them.

"America must project influence to defeat the influences that keep American discourse at its current state" sounds like a doctoral dissertation.

But that's the point. You can't Trumpify it; Democrats aren't the party of BAD GUYS GOOD GUYS foreign policy. That's not the image Democrats have created for themselves. The right are the Cold War warrior hotheads; the left is pluralism and compromise. Obama got re-elected and said he was going to thaw relations with Russia right after. As Trump moronically pointed out, Hillary Clinton said we were going to reset relations with Russia. What changed?

You mean you want to Trumpify it by just flat out lying to everyone in Orwellian fashion? The Democrats have always been at war with Russia?

Like I said, the right-wing lies through their teeth constantly but at least they have long-standing, persistent conclusions. When I talk about Democrats short-sighted strategy, portraying ourselves as consistent Russian hawks to dismantle Trump is like the ultimate of nonsensical reactive politics. I hold Americans writ large in very, very low esteem but no one is THAT dumb.

Instead of nonsensical lies, what about the honest to god truth? We think health care is a right, you should be able to go see a doctor and get medicine and treatments irrespective of how much money you have. The Republicans don't want to fund that, they want more money for themselves and their rich friends.

Like I said, NOW you get coherent politics that reinforces what everyone already sort of thinks, plus Trump can still be very bad. A win for everyone!

Ignore it then.

Just dont come crying to me when you cant create a discourse that on the one hand satisfies democratic narratives but can also satisfy the ****ed up narratives now influencing voters.

The important thing is trying to win the internet back, and trying to engender discourse that makes progressive politics possible again. Its nothing about running on a stop russia platform.
When you say this I think you are suffering from some serious WHOOOOSH.

Its obviously not true. The left does not have a lot of actors pretending to be newsreaders who then break to camera to give their "real opinion", who started their career on Russia Today, who then pivoted to You Tube for the sole reason of spreading narrative and messaging getting 3m+ views who gets shared by the ****ton on facebook and social medja. His whole reason for existence is to disseminate narrative. Someone who allegedly shares the same opinion as him is not remotely the same as him.

I've been trying to keep tabs on this administration's first 100 days. They move so quickly from one thing to the next that it's hard to remember what happened a few days ago.

A 10-day block is about all you can ask of anyone to take in one sitting, so here are days 51-60. You can find Days 1-50 up in the sticky http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...-days-1651105/


Trump's First 100: Days 51-60 - Wait Wait...Don't Cut Me!

Day 51

• Speaker Ryan, asked why congress will only be in session for 8 days in April, says congress members will want to talk to their constituents during that time.
• Ryan has refused multiple requests by his constituents to schedule a town hall-style meeting with them.
• Preet Bharara, one of the 46 US Attorneys asked to resign, refuses to and is fired.
• Bharara was a high-profile federal prosecutor who had earlier been asked by the president to stay on.
• House Intel committee investigating the president's wiretapping allegations asks the executive branch to pass along any evidence they may have.
• They would like the evidence be provided by Monday, i.e. Day 53.

Day 52

• American Medical Association says Trumpcare is critically flawed.
• Andrew Gurman, president of the AMA, says those of limited means will lose their insurance and "live sicker and die younger."
• Sec of Health and Human Services Price disagrees, saying, "Nobody will be worse off financially," from Trumpcare.
• Former Trump campaign official Roger Stone, after previously admitting contact with DNC hack publishers Wikileaks, admits additional contacts with Guccifer 2.0, the purported DNC hacker.
• WH Budget Director claims Obama-era Bureau of Labor Statistics manipulated data to make the unemployment rate look smaller.
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics has used the exact same method for calculating the unemployment rate since 1940.
• Spokesperson Conway, asked about the president's wiretapping accusations, mentions that surveillance can be made by "microwaves that turn into cameras."

Day 53

• Conway, asked today about the microwave business, said she wasn't specifically accusing Obama of spying on Trump through microwaves.
• Claims that she is "not Inspector Gadget," nor is she "in the job of having evidence."
• Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office figures are posted for Trumpcare.
• If Trumpcare is enacted 14 million will lose insurance by 2018, 24 million will lose it by 2026.
• The federal deficit will be reduced by $337 billion over the next decade.
• This savings will be driven by the reduction or elimination of health care subsidies for the poor, as well as $880 billion cut from Medicaid.
• The president had promised during his campaign to make no cuts to Medicaid.
• Average insurance pricing will spike in the short term, but will eventually drop to 10% lower than Obamacare's projected costs by 2026.
• Many GOP members of Congress and the WH began to criticize the CBO numbers well before the CBO numbers came out.
• This despite leaked WH figures projecting 26 million losing coverage, 2 million more than the CBO estimates.
• Prior to today, the president used CBO figures favorably, as support for his tweeted arguments, on 13 separate occasions.
• Health and Human Services Sec Price calls the CBO numbers "“virtually impossible.”
• Price chides the CBO for not taking into account a wholly speculative future phase of Trumpcare, which he claims will actually add people to the roll of insured Americans.
• Details of this nonexistent future phase have never been introduced in any sort of creditable fashion.
• At the deadline, neither the WH nor the DOJ has evidence to give to the Congressional panel investigating the president's wiretapping accusations.
• The DOJ asks the panel for more time to come up with something.
• Sec Spicer, asked about this, says "The president used the word wiretap in quotes to mean broad surveillance and other activities,"
• He also suggested that the president wasn't accusing Obama specifically of wiretapping.
• Direct quotes from the president's tweets:
• "Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory."
• "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire tapping' a race for president?"
• "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process."

Day 54

• Spicer changes course today and says the president is "extremely confident" the DOJ will find evidence that Obama wiretapped him.
• As the president makes plans to meet Chinese president Xi, Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Kushner also has plans to sell a $400 million stake in a Manhattan building to a Chinese insurance company.
• The Chinese company has close ties to leading Party figures in China.
• Real estate experts claim that $400 million seems to be far up on the high end given the known terms of the deal and the current real estate market in New York.
• Monica Crowley, once in line for a senior post on the National Security Council before plagiarism accusations brought her down, registers as a lobbyist for a pro-Russian Ukrainian billionaire oligarch.
• A portion of the president's 2005 tax returns are leaked on MSNBC. They comprise two plain pages of figures.
• The figures given do not indicate any wrongdoing on the president's part.

Day 55

• Hours after the WH confirms the authenticity of the leaked tax return, Trump tweets, "Does anybody really believe that a reporter, who nobody ever heard of, "went to his mailbox" and found my tax returns? @NBCNews FAKE NEWS!"
• The reporter, David Cay Johnston, won a Pulitzer prize for exposing tax loopholes.
• Sec of State Tillerson breaks precedent on his first overseas trip by traveling with only one reporter.
• That would be Erin McPike from the right wing Independent Journal Review (est. 2013).
• AG Sessions blasts legalized marijuana in a speech in Richmond, calls for a return to the 1980's Just Say No campaign.
• Also says he's dubious about medical marijuana.
• Federal judge in Hawaii issues nationwide order blocking the WH's revised travel ban, hours before it is due to begin.
• Judge Watson declares that “a reasonable, objective observer," when viewing the context of the ban, "would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”
• As context Watson points out a Trump campaign press release calling for the "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
• At a rally in Nashville, Trump threatens to revive the original order, saying, "“Let me tell you something, I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way.”
• After the rally, Trump announces to reporters, We're going to do these rallies every two weeks."
• Gives an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News.
• Carlson points out that an analysis of Trumpcare shows, "that counties that voted for you--middle-class and working-class counties--would do far less well under this bill.”
• The president answers, "“Oh, I know, I know. It’s very preliminary.”
• Asked about proof of wiretapping, says "I mean, let's see whether or not I prove it. I just don't choose to do it right now."
• Adds, "But I think we have some very good stuff. And we're in the process of putting it together, and I think it's going to be very demonstrative."
• House Intel Chairman Nunes, a frequent defender of the president, now tasked with finding evidence of wiretapping, says “We don’t have any evidence that it took place," and "I don’t think there was an actual tap of Trump Tower.”

Day 56

• House speaker Ryan confirms, "that no such wiretap existed,"
• Press Sec Spicer persists, citing claims that President Obama asked British intelligence agency GCHQ to wiretap Trump
• GCHQ responds that Spicer's allegations, "are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."
• Federal judge in Maryland suspends part of the new travel ban that stops visas from being issued to citizens of the six countries.
• President introduces his new proposed budget:
• Adds $54 billion per year to the military budget.
• Cuts significantly from the Departments of Labor and Agriculture and State, from the Environmental Protection Agency and from FEMA.
• Eliminates funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--i.e. PBS and NPR.
• Eliminates the National Endowment for the Arts.
• Eliminates Legal Services Corporation, which helps poor people find lawyers, and helps domestic violence victims get restraining orders.
• Eliminates funding that helps poor families pay their heating bills.
• Eliminates funding for a program that helps poor senior citizens find jobs.
• Eliminates the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant program.
• The block grant funds Meals on Wheels, which feeds low income and elderly shut-ins who have trouble getting out to buy food.
• Also funds after-school programs which help to feed low-income kids who may not get enough to eat at home.
• No part of the trillion dollar infrastructure improvement promised during the campaign remains; instead, 14% will be cut from the Transportation Dept.
• Meanwhile, several hundred million dollars per year will be spent on the following:
• Trips nearly every weekend to his private Florida golf resort.
• Rallies every few weeks in states that voted for him.
• Security entourage following his sons as they travel the world, expanding his business interests.
• Third wife and son staying in a gold-plated Manhattan penthouse.

Day 57

• Under the new budget, Israel will be the only country to escape review for proposed deep cuts in foreign aid.
• UK ambassador demands an explanation for the WH accusing them of involvement with wiretapping the president.
• Pres Sec Spicer answers that he was merely pointing out media reports about the supposed UK involvement, and not endorsing any specific story.
• WH revokes guidance protecting people in default of their student loans from being charged high penalty fees.
• At a meeting with German Chancellor Merkel, a German reporter asks the president, “Why do you keep saying things you know are not true?”
• President does not respond to the question.
• Asked about his wiretapping claims, Trump refers to revelations that the NSA wiretapped Merkel's office by joking that he and her at least have something in common.
• Merkel responds to the joke with a puzzled look.
• At a later photo op, the press prompts the two leaders to shake hands. Merkel turns to him and asks if he would like to shake hands. Trump hears her offer, but turns away and ignores her.
• Sec. of State Tillerson cuts his South Korea visit short due to fatigue.
• South Korea's press notes that Tillerson had not joined the country's acting president or prime minister for any meals or social events during the state visit.
• DOJ argues in court that they should be able to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
• By law, the head of the Bureau can only be fired for cause. The Trump administration would like to fire him for no cause.

Day 58

• Tweets, "Despite what you have heard from the FAKE NEWS, I had a GREAT meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel."
• Later in the same tweet, claims that Germany "owes vast sums of money to NATO."
• Germany owes no money to NATO.
• The president may be referring to a NATO guideline suggesting that each nation spend 2% of its GDP on its own military.
• But each nation following the guideline would spend the 2% on itself, and not give the money to NATO.
• Asked why he's not travelling with the customary press pool, Sec. of State Tillerson says, "“I’m not a big media press access person."
• WH is ignoring repeated requests from the Ukraine, who are seeking to question former Trump campaign head Manafort in an ongoing criminal corruption investigation.
• Larry C Johnson, the man responsible for spreading the Michelle Obama Whitey Tape lie, is traced as one of the original sources for spreading the Obama wiretapping lie.
• Deputy head of the NSA calls accusations that the UK was involved in wiretapping for Obama "arrant nonsense," and "just crazy."

Day 59

• Spends a quiet day at his Mar-A-Lago golf resort.
• He has changed his nickname for the private club from the Winter White House to the Southern White House.
• Currently, one does not have to pay a $200,000 membership fee to visit the actual White House.

Day 60

• WH announces it will boycott the United Nation's Human Rights Council over the council's critical stance on Israel's human rights violations in Palestine.
• Ahead of today's House Intel hearings looking into Russian meddling, sends series of tweets denouncing the Democrats, the media and leakers for promoting the story.
• Also characterizes his low poll numbers as fake news, and rehashes the 2016 Election once more.
• At the hearing, FBI chief Comey confirms the Justice Department is investigating potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
• Soon after this, the president tweets, "The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process."
• Director Comey and NSA chief Michael Rogers confirm that there is no evidence that Trump was wiretapped
• They also confirm there is no evidence that president Obama requested any wiretaps on Trump, or any surveillance on Trump.
• NSA head Rogers confirms there is no evidence that British intelligence was asked to spy on Trump.
• Asked by reporter David Corn about Carter Page and Roger Stone, Rep Devin Nunes claims to have never heard of either.
• Page and Stone are important and well-known Trump campaign officials, both of whom are possibly implicated in the Russian investigation.
• Rep Nunes is the head of that investigation.
• Press Sec Spicer, questioned about various Trump campaign members who are likely part of the DOJ investigation, characterizes Paul Manafort, for one, as playing "a very limited role for a very limited amount of time."
• Manafort was the head of the Trump campaign for nearly five months.
• President ends the day with another political rally in a state that supported him in 2016.

He can't possibly be enjoying his presidency, can he? Does he go to sleep smiling, or super stressed out? I wish we could know. Or does he barely even sleep?

Oh alright, totally makes sense to comment on it then

I don't think you need to get into some detailed Vox-style explaination about the sovereignty of Eastern European states or whatever. A simple, Russia is run by an evil authoritarian who wants to undermine our influence and power by, evidently undermining our democracy, not only does that make the world less safe, but it also makes us less safe and more dysfunctional here. Let them explain why it doesn't or why that is actual OK. From there you can easily pivot to stuff like if Trump had been less busy trying secure Russia's interests in between golf games and creeping on teen beauty pageant contestants, maybe he could have put together a healthcare bill that wasn't the worst piece of legislation proposed since the fugitive slave act and didn't strip millions of their insurance, raise premiums and destroy Medicaid. Btw, here's our plans for making things better for you. These things actually work because we care about American citizens and interests...

I do think that is a pretty simple narrative.