Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

drummerboy said:

Paul, they're not close to being the same thing. The directions are all wrong. In Trump's case, we have instances where a Trumpian was contacted by Russians. Which, if the charge that the Russians were the active party in trying to influence the campaign surreptitiously , is kind of important.

The professor is not Russian and he did not "contact" Papadapoulos.

drummerboy said:

Also, hacking into an email system so that you can then slowly leak them out to disrupt an election is not oppo research. Semantically or any which way.

The Trump campaign has not been accused of "hacking into an email system.

drummerboy said:

In Hillary's case, you have a standard oppo project being started by Repubs, and then picked up the Dems, who hire a law firm, which hires Fusion,  who farms out the work to Steele, who, independent of everyone else so far named, talks to some Russians, because you know, Trump has connections to Russia.

No one denies that the Hillary campaign and DNC funded Steele who worked with Russian officials for 5 months on compiling the dossier of unconfirmed dirt on Trump.

The law firm Perkins Coie, that hired Steele through GPS Fusion, was paid $12.4 million to represent the Hillary campaign.  Marc Elias, partner at Perkins Coie, who lied about the Hillary campaign's involvement with the dossier, was General Counsel of Hillary for America, the Clinton presidential campaign.

South_Mountaineer said:

Number 1) is not true, it's a deceptive description of what really happened.  The campaign paid a lawyer who paid a firm which was doing research already, and that firm paid Steele, who dealt with who-knows-who in Russia.  Just saying that the campaign colluded with people in the Kremlin is not an honest description.

Steele's dossier cites numerous unnamed Russian officials as his sources for dirt on Trump.

South_Mountaineer said:

Number 2) isn't true.  The story didn't change, the GOP mealy-mouthed excuses have changed.  You're also conflating different things.

As for this Kiriakou, the only thing about his background that matters is that he's been out of the CIA since 2004, and his expertise there was not Russia.  That's in the article cited by paulsurovell below.  He has an opinion, but I don't think it has any extra weight.

The story changed when it was confirmed that the Hillary campaign and DNC paid for the Steele dossier compiled from Russian officials.

Kiriakou has expertise on how the CIA lies. He documented at least three instances of it. But you really don't need any expertise to understand that Hillary did exactly what Dems have been accusing Trump of doing (without any evidence) for months. You just need common sense and intellectual honesty.

South_Mountaineer said:

It's proof that people defending Trump against the investigation are willing to believe anything detracting from that investigation.  There's a good article in today's New York Times with lots of details about the Professor, including his relationship with Russia.

[ . . . ]

Post edited to add - I had read the New York Times story this morning, which I mentioned in my post.  After posting, I clicked on and read the article mentioned by paulsurovell.  It does not match his description, or at least it has more details which are against the Professor's claims now.  Example: "But in private exchanges, Joseph Mifsud was proud of his alleged high-level Moscow contacts, reporting that they had extended all the way to the top: He’d had, he told a former assistant late last year, a private meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin."

So I'll amend my post to say that the "some important points about the professor" post doesn't prove anything about him, and is misleading.

Post the link and I'll comment this evening.

paulsurovell said:

But you really don't need any expertise to understand that Hillary did exactly what Dems have been accusing Trump of doing (without any evidence) for months. You just need common sense and intellectual honesty.

For the record — at least in the beginning of that video clip — Kiriakou disagreed, though maybe not in the most intellectually honest way. (Dissembling. I’ve decided to call the nodding and smiling and “Right”s dissembling.)

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

But you really don't need any expertise to understand that Hillary did exactly what Dems have been accusing Trump of doing (without any evidence) for months. You just need common sense and intellectual honesty.

For the record — at least in the beginning of that video clip — Kiriakou disagreed, though maybe not in the most intellectually honest way. (Dissembling. I’ve decided to call the nodding and smiling and “Right”s dissembling.)

Are you saying that Kiriakou disagreed with your quote of me here?

paulsurovell said:

But you really don't need any expertise to understand that Hillary did exactly what Dems have been accusing Trump of doing (without any evidence) for months. You just need common sense and intellectual honesty.

Are you saying that Kiriakou disagreed with your quote of me here?

“First of all, it’s called opposition research, and this is what campaigns do. Collusion is an entirely different thing.”

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

But you really don't need any expertise to understand that Hillary did exactly what Dems have been accusing Trump of doing (without any evidence) for months. You just need common sense and intellectual honesty.

Are you saying that Kiriakou disagreed with your quote of me here?

“First of all, it’s called opposition research, and this is what campaigns do. Collusion is an entirely different thing.”

But when the Trump campaign did opposition research (which never happened) at Trump Tower and now allegedly thru Pappadapolous (which never happened) the Democrats are calling it "collusion." That's Kiriakou's point -- the allegations against Trump for intended "collusion" are allegations about intended oppo research with Russians -- exactly what Hillary actually did.

Edited to add: And as the OP notes, we can add Hillary's oppo research / collusion with Ukraine to the hypocrisy.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Number 1) is not true, it's a deceptive description of what really happened.  The campaign paid a lawyer who paid a firm which was doing research already, and that firm paid Steele, who dealt with who-knows-who in Russia.  Just saying that the campaign colluded with people in the Kremlin is not an honest description.

Steele's dossier cites numerous unnamed Russian officials as his sources for dirt on Trump.

I wrote that Steele "dealt with who-knows-who in Russia".  What you wrote in response doesn't contradict me.  That's another one of those attempts to try to detract from someone else's post without actually making a point.  Either that or a reading comprehension problem.  It doesn't contradict the main point that what you said was true is NOT true.

this is like arguing with an eggplant.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Number 2) isn't true.  The story didn't change, the GOP mealy-mouthed excuses have changed.  You're also conflating different things.

As for this Kiriakou, the only thing about his background that matters is that he's been out of the CIA since 2004, and his expertise there was not Russia.  That's in the article cited by paulsurovell below.  He has an opinion, but I don't think it has any extra weight.

The story changed when it was confirmed that the Hillary campaign and DNC paid for the Steele dossier compiled from Russian officials.

Kiriakou has expertise on how the CIA lies. He documented at least three instances of it. But you really don't need any expertise to understand that Hillary did exactly what Dems have been accusing Trump of doing (without any evidence) for months. You just need common sense and intellectual honesty.

They're two different stories.  One is about the dossier, and the other is about what the Trump campaign did (or alleged, if that makes you happy).  There aren't changing stories.  And the fact that money from the campaign found its way to Steele isn't the same as what's alleged about Trump.  Unless you're going to say that someone at the Clinton campaign said, "If we give this guy Steele money, he'll get us Russian government info", you should stop saying that it's the same as what Trump's people did.  That would be intellectually honest.

The general "expertise" you're mentioning has nothing to do with the specific topic, and people with more expertise about Russia have a different view.  And I already pointed out that the Clinton campaign did not do "exactly what the Dems have been accusing Trump of doing".  I'm not dishonest for pointing out known facts that show the difference.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

It's proof that people defending Trump against the investigation are willing to believe anything detracting from that investigation.  There's a good article in today's New York Times with lots of details about the Professor, including his relationship with Russia.

[ . . . ]

Post edited to add - I had read the New York Times story this morning, which I mentioned in my post.  After posting, I clicked on and read the article mentioned by paulsurovell.  It does not match his description, or at least it has more details which are against the Professor's claims now.  Example: "But in private exchanges, Joseph Mifsud was proud of his alleged high-level Moscow contacts, reporting that they had extended all the way to the top: He’d had, he told a former assistant late last year, a private meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin."

So I'll amend my post to say that the "some important points about the professor" post doesn't prove anything about him, and is misleading.

Post the link and I'll comment this evening.

It's the article you linked.  I quoted from it, as in the quoted words that contradict you are in the article that you described.  I read the New York Times story in the paper this morning, not online.

Great article on Pappadapoulos in the New Yorker.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-papadopoulos-plea-deal-and-the-great-blowhard-convergence-of-the-2016-election

The Papadapoulos Plea Deal and the Great Blowhard Convergence of the 2016 Election

by Masha Gessen

Among Monday’s many revelations,
the most interesting reading came in the form of George Papadopoulos’s
plea deal. Papadopoulos is the former Trump-campaign adviser who, we
found out, has for months been coöperating with the special counsel
Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russian government. The text laying out Papadopoulos’s
guilty plea, in which he admitted to making false statements to the
F.B.I., introduced new characters into the Trump-Russia story: the
Professor and the Female Russian National. It revealed that Papadopoulos
had worked with the Professor and the Female Russian National to try to
arrange meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. The
new members of the cast appear to be every bit as incompetent and
mendacious as the ones we already know. This text thus moves us one step
closer to understanding the scale of the great blowhard convergence that
was the 2016 campaign.

Take the Female Russian National. Papadopoulos, according to the plea agreement, believed her to be Vladimir Putin’s niece. To have a niece, however, the Russian President would have had to have a sibling. All of the available biographies of Putin, both official and unauthorized, agree: the Russian President had two older brothers who died as children, before Vladimir was born. He was an only child. He doesn’t have a niece.

Then there is the London-based Professor. E-mail messages cited in the plea agreement provided enough clues to his likely identity: Joseph Mifsud of the London Academy of Diplomacy, an institution that seems to have been started as a for-profit venture by the University of East Anglia and then transferred to the University of Stirling. Stirling’s Web site lists Mifsud as a teaching fellow, with no additional details. Until about the middle of the day on Monday, Mifsud had a profile page on the site of a London law firm; he was also identified here as a “professor,” until the page was taken down. Mifsud’s presence on the Russian Web barely predates his acquaintance with Papadopoulos: starting in November, 2015, three articles with Mifsud’s byline appeared on the site of the Valdai, Putin’s personal club for Kremlin-friendly Western academics. Mifsud’s pieces, written in heavily accented English, are disjointed compilations of Euroskeptic grumblings. By Tuesday, Mifsud had confirmed, to the Daily Telegraph, that he was the professor in question and acknowledged that he had met with Papadopoulos, but he denied that he had introduced him to the Female Russian National.

According to the plea agreement, the Professor and the Female Russian National (who was not Putin’s niece) promised Papadopoulos that they would introduce him to the Russian ambassador in London. They were lying. But that’s O.K., because Papadopoulos lied, too: he reported back to the campaign that his “good friend” the Professor and “Putin’s niece” had introduced him to the Russian ambassador. A campaign supervisor praised his effort: “Great work.”

Reading the plea deal is a bit like reading the minutes of a Politburo meeting, in which every speaker rises to report a triumph and receive a round of applause and everyone is lying. Bonuses and medals are dispensed for roads constructed or steel produced in the imagination—and the ritual is the sole point of the exercise.

Or maybe it’s like watching a Donald Trump rally, or reading Trump tweets claiming that he has accomplished more than any President in history. Or like watching the June Cabinet meeting during which members of the Administration took turns lauding Trump and thanking him for the honor of serving in his great Administration. In all of these cases, people with imaginary expertise boast of phantom accomplishments and receive praise for them.

Back in April, 2016, the Professor told Papadopoulos, over breakfast at a London hotel, that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton to the tune of “thousands of emails.” (Mifsud has now told the Telegraph that he never said that.) At the same time, a (presumed) Russian Foreign Ministry functionary, with whom the Professor and the Female Russian National had connected Papadopoulos by e-mail and Skype, was asking Papadopoulos to arrange a visit to Moscow for Trump. Papadopoulos bombarded the campaign with requests and promises. The campaign seemed to have no interest in arranging a visit, and strung Papadopoulos along for months before finally encouraging him to go on his own. He didn’t.

Earlier, the Trump associate Felix Sater had been sending e-mails promising to use his Kremlin connections to arrange a real-estate deal in Moscow so impressive that, as Sater wrote to Trump’s lawyer, it would “get Donald elected.” (In the same e-mail, Sater claimed that he had “arranged for Ivanka to sit in Putins private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin.”) Sater appears to have been lying about the connections. The deal never materialized, even if the Presidency did.

At around the same time that the Professor was dangling the “dirt” carrot in front of Papadopoulos, the British music producer Rob Goldstone used the same bait to get Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign manager, and members of the Trump family to sit down with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. But Goldstone (or Veselnitskaya) appears to have lied about having the dirt—unless, of course, it’s the Trump clan that lied about the contents of the meeting. A few months later, following the election, a new round of boasting commenced. Just as the President-elect was starting to trumpet his extraordinary accomplishments, an unknown number of Internet-ad-buying and troll-deploying executives back in Russia reported that they had succeeded in influencing the American election. Putin took a victory lap as the most powerful man in the world.

The peculiar problem of the Mueller investigation shows up in the footnotes of the Papadopoulos plea deal. “Defendant Papadopoulos later learned that the Female Russian National was not in fact a relative of President Putin,” one footnote says. “In addition, while defendant Papadopoulos expected that the Professor and the Female Russian National would introduce him to the Russian Ambassador in London, they never did.” The next one notes that the Trump campaign never had any intention of arranging a trip to Moscow for the candidate.

How do investigators decipher a story in which just about every
participant was lying to just about every other participant just about
all the time, usually for the sole purpose of exaggerating his own
significance and power? And how do the rest of us connect it to reality?

paulsurovell said:

Great article on Pappadapoulos in the New Yorker.

A good and funny perspective. I'm not the first to observe that Trump seems to be trying to mimic Putin in his perpetual effort to distort reality and enrich himself and his friends. He's just not nearly as clever.

Note that one not be successful in order to be guilty of attempting to undermine a US election by collaborating with a foreign national. (Collaborating not being synonymous with colluding.)

Hillary's supposed collusion seems to be your new chew toy since the email leak theory hasn't played out too well.

Some of the ads created and bought by Russia have been released.

paulsurovell said:
 

nan said:

Here is an interview with an ex-CIA agent weighing in on Trump/Russia:

Thanks for this, Nan, great interview. John Kiriakou is an American hero and Jimmy Dore is a brilliant political comedian.

He might be a comedian, but far from brilliant.  He's one of those people who argued that we shouldn't vote for Clinton, because we shouldn't care if Trump was elected.  Actually, he was saying that Trump's election would help wreck the GOP.  He didn't care that other people's lives would be damaged if not wrecked in the meantime.  I'm not a fan of that type of thinking, since it borders on being a sociopath.  He's a white, heterosexual male, so he'll be fine (speaking as one also).  As far as he's concerned, what happens to racial or religious minorities, LGBTQ people, the environment, civil and voting rights, people who need the ACA, etc. doesn't matter.  Here's some videos for those who like them -

dave23 said:

Some of the ads created and bought by Russia have been released.

My favorite:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
 
Thanks for this, Nan, great interview. John Kiriakou is an American hero and Jimmy Dore is a brilliant political comedian.

He might be a comedian, but far from brilliant.  He's one of those people who argued that we shouldn't vote for Clinton, because we shouldn't care if Trump was elected.  Actually, he was saying that Trump's election would help wreck the GOP.  He didn't care that other people's lives would be damaged if not wrecked in the meantime.  I'm not a fan of that type of thinking, since it borders on being a sociopath.  He's a white, heterosexual male, so he'll be fine (speaking as one also).  As far as he's concerned, what happens to racial or religious minorities, LGBTQ people, the environment, civil and voting rights, people who need the ACA, etc. doesn't matter.  Here's some videos for those who like them -

Well to some degree he's right that Trump is wrecking the GOP.  But fortunately for Republicans, dumb Democrats thought the bogus Russia story would get Trump impeached and they concentrated on it at the expense of real issues. But the story is backfiring and fueling new energy among Republicans:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/10/31/sean-hannity-topples-rachel-maddow-as-fox-news-dominates-october-ratings/#29fa6ec672ab

South_Mountaineer said:

They're two different stories.  One is about the dossier, and the other is about what the Trump campaign did (or alleged, if that makes you happy).  There aren't changing stories.  And the fact that money from the campaign found its way to Steele isn't the same as what's alleged about Trump.  Unless you're going to say that someone at the Clinton campaign said, "If we give this guy Steele money, he'll get us Russian government info", you should stop saying that it's the same as what Trump's people did.  That would be intellectually honest.

The general "expertise" you're mentioning has nothing to do with the specific topic, and people with more expertise about Russia have a different view.  And I already pointed out that the Clinton campaign did not do "exactly what the Dems have been accusing Trump of doing".  I'm not dishonest for pointing out known facts that show the difference.

GPS Fusion hired Steele in June 2016 to get dirt on Trump from Russians:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzgzy2KXyxqtVUxEb2pwRmphOXM/view

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Number 1) is not true, it's a deceptive description of what really happened.  The campaign paid a lawyer who paid a firm which was doing research already, and that firm paid Steele, who dealt with who-knows-who in Russia.  Just saying that the campaign colluded with people in the Kremlin is not an honest description.

Steele's dossier cites numerous unnamed Russian officials as his sources for dirt on Trump.

I wrote that Steele "dealt with who-knows-who in Russia".  What you wrote in response doesn't contradict me.  That's another one of those attempts to try to detract from someone else's post without actually making a point.  Either that or a reading comprehension problem.  It doesn't contradict the main point that what you said was true is NOT true.

You wrote "who-knows-who in Russia" when in fact, some of the individuals Steele claimed to deal with were Russian officials. I wanted to make sure that you and others were aware of that.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Number 1) is not true, it's a deceptive description of what really happened.  The campaign paid a lawyer who paid a firm which was doing research already, and that firm paid Steele, who dealt with who-knows-who in Russia.  Just saying that the campaign colluded with people in the Kremlin is not an honest description.

Steele's dossier cites numerous unnamed Russian officials as his sources for dirt on Trump.

I wrote that Steele "dealt with who-knows-who in Russia".  What you wrote in response doesn't contradict me.  That's another one of those attempts to try to detract from someone else's post without actually making a point.  Either that or a reading comprehension problem.  It doesn't contradict the main point that what you said was true is NOT true.

You wrote "who-knows-who in Russia" when in fact, some of the individuals Steele claimed to deal with were Russian officials. I wanted to make sure that you and others were aware of that.

And, you did it again.  Thanks for telling me what I may or may not have meant by the phrase "who-know-who in Russia", especially since YOU don't know who, either, even if they were in the government.

I love how everything Steele claimed is gospel truth, while you nitpick any claim that makes Trump look bad.  

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Unless you're going to say that someone at the Clinton campaign said, "If we give this guy Steele money, he'll get us Russian government info", you should stop saying that it's the same as what Trump's people did.  That would be intellectually honest.

The general "expertise" you're mentioning has nothing to do with the specific topic, and people with more expertise about Russia have a different view.  And I already pointed out that the Clinton campaign did not do "exactly what the Dems have been accusing Trump of doing".  I'm not dishonest for pointing out known facts that show the difference.

GPS Fusion hired Steele in June 2016 to get dirt on Trump from Russians:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzgzy2KXyxqtVUxEb2pwRmphOXM/view

Like I said.  Nothing about the campaign (or its attorney, for that matter) asking for someone to get information from the Russian government.  Thanks for confirming my point.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Some of the ads created and bought by Russia have been released.

My favorite:

Yeah, that's a good one. They are real after all!

paulsurovell said:

That's Kiriakou's point -- the allegations against Trump for intended "collusion" are allegations about intended oppo research with Russians -- exactly what Hillary actually did.

I see. What threw me is that not all of the “collusion” allegations (e.g., Flynn) fit so neatly into the category of oppo research.

#hillarycolludedmore

#riggedfromthestart

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

mapso_dino said:

#hillarycolludedmore

#riggedfromthestart




https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

I've no doubt the DNC tilted the field to give Hillary an advantage. But that excerpt smells of sour grapes and spreading the blame. And the quotes are pure hackery.

ridski said:

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/just-to-be-clear-the-witch-king-of-angmar-was-an-insignificant-volunteer-in-the-great-army-of-the-dark-lord-sauron

I'd like to note that Gandalf got a lot of his information from Gollum, and Gollum spent a lot of time in Sauron's employ. This is basically the same thing as Saruman's partnering up with Sauron.

Who colluded more with Mordor -- Gandalf or Saruman?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Number 1) is not true, it's a deceptive description of what really happened.  The campaign paid a lawyer who paid a firm which was doing research already, and that firm paid Steele, who dealt with who-knows-who in Russia.  Just saying that the campaign colluded with people in the Kremlin is not an honest description.

Steele's dossier cites numerous unnamed Russian officials as his sources for dirt on Trump.

I wrote that Steele "dealt with who-knows-who in Russia".  What you wrote in response doesn't contradict me.  That's another one of those attempts to try to detract from someone else's post without actually making a point.  Either that or a reading comprehension problem.  It doesn't contradict the main point that what you said was true is NOT true.

You wrote "who-knows-who in Russia" when in fact, some of the individuals Steele claimed to deal with were Russian officials. I wanted to make sure that you and others were aware of that.

And, you did it again.  Thanks for telling me what I may or may not have meant by the phrase "who-know-who in Russia", especially since YOU don't know who, either, even if they were in the government.

I love how everything Steele claimed is gospel truth, while you nitpick any claim that makes Trump look bad.  

I used the word "claimed."

Steele's dossier is unconfirmed has zero credibility, which makes its use by the FBI and Russiagate promoters to mislead "people like you" even more reprehensible than typical oppo research.

paulsurovell said:

Steele's dossier is unconfirmed has zero credibility, which makes its use by the FBI and Russiagate promoters to mislead "people like you" even more reprehensible than typical oppo research.

So your position is that the entire Russia story is a Clinton campaign fraud and the entire FBI investigation is because of the dossier which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and DNC.

paulsurovell said:

I used the word "claimed."

Steele's dossier is unconfirmed has zero credibility, which makes its use by the FBI and Russiagate promoters to mislead "people like you" even more reprehensible than typical oppo research.

Because you know as much as the FBI on this issue. It's reminiscent of when you tried to convince everyone that Russia didn't try to influence the election because the investigators hadn't released of their info.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

He might be a comedian, but far from brilliant.  He's one of those people who argued that we shouldn't vote for Clinton, because we shouldn't care if Trump was elected.  Actually, he was saying that Trump's election would help wreck the GOP.  He didn't care that other people's lives would be damaged if not wrecked in the meantime.  I'm not a fan of that type of thinking, since it borders on being a sociopath.  He's a white, heterosexual male, so he'll be fine (speaking as one also).  As far as he's concerned, what happens to racial or religious minorities, LGBTQ people, the environment, civil and voting rights, people who need the ACA, etc. doesn't matter.  Here's some videos for those who like them -

Well to some degree he's right that Trump is wrecking the GOP.  But fortunately for Republicans, dumb Democrats thought the bogus Russia story would get Trump impeached and they concentrated on it at the expense of real issues. But the story is backfiring and fueling new energy among Republicans:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/10/31/sean-hannity-topples-rachel-maddow-as-fox-news-dominates-october-ratings/#29fa6ec672ab

"New energy among Republicans" just means that they are coming to the defense of Trump.  As you know, they would do that no matter what, regardless of what the allegations against him are.  So that doesn't prove anything about whether there should be an investigation.  By the way, according to your article and one mentioned in it, Maddow had about the same number of viewers, but Hannity increased viewership when he changed time slots.  Since it's axiomatic that if someone is relying on Hannity for information, that person isn't interested in or getting the real facts, you're not proving a point.

As for defending Jimmy Dore and his stupid argument that it doesn't matter, or would be better if Trump won, you haven't addressed the collateral damage that he is so uncaring about.  I could give you an example.  My spouse teaches in a NJ urban school district.  Last night she was telling me at dinner about her current assignment to her AP English students: write their college essays.  One student, a good student, told her that she's not going to be able to go to a four-year college.  Her family can't afford it.  She can't file a FAFSA, can't get a loan or financial aid, and is closed out of scholarships - because she's undocumented, was brought here as a small child.  Since DACA's been cancelled, because Trump is President, her life has been changed for the worse.

So that's one example of a real person suffering real consequences.  You could pick lots of issues, to find people hurt in a similar fashion.  I recall your support for the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump is trying to screw up (he probably won't succeed, but the mere fact that he has the power to try is worrying).  It's not "fun and games", and any jackhole like Jimmy Dore who tries to argue that Trump as President has some great benefit, is someone I can't stomach.