Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

ELM327

Cody montana wrote: »

It wasn’t a sham though.

Oh, ok, thats me convinced.

seamus wrote: »

Tbh, anyone who still supports Impeached President Trump in 2019 is a write-off anyway. If his behaviour so far hasn't been enough to turn them off, then they'd literally stick by him even if he ate babies on live TV.

The Democrats plan now appears to be to keep poking the bear so he makes himself look more and more ridiculous with more and more tantrums. They won't bring the articles of impeachment to the Senate. They'll deny him any chance to claim that he has been exonerated or vindicated. Instead they'll just leave the sword of damocles hanging.

The democrats aren't (and shouldn't) targetting Trump supporters to try and turn them, that's a waste of energy. The goal here is to keep the narrative simple - Trump has been impeached, he is a failure and criminal who cannot be left in the White House.

And if Trump does win in 2020, the articles of impeachment are still there and can be presented to a democract-heavy 2022 senate.

I'm sure the dems would love Mike Pence as their president.
Wonder if he'd nominate the Donald as VP :P

PropJoe10

ELM327 wrote: »

Oh, ok, thats me convinced.




I'm sure the dems would love Mike Pence as their president.
Wonder if he'd nominate the Donald as VP :P

I'd say he thinks Trump is even more of a moron than the rest of us sane people do.

pixelburp

ELM327 wrote: »

Oh, ok, thats me convinced.

The evidence is there in black and white, so you can choose to ignore it on the basis of your own admitted bias, or indeed as the GOP is doing with blatant partisanship, but it's there and the impeachment process has all been legal & valid. Every box is being ticket, so where is the sham?

Gbear

Sheeps wrote: »

You can blame Trump all you like for his crimes and you'll be right. My entire point is people who will vote for Trump don't see it the same way as you and I do.

They will be motivated and they will show up.

All of that is correct.

There is a proportion of Americans who are essentially beyond helping.

However, it's worth remembering that only something like 20% of the population actually voted for him, so it's important not to generalise his die hard fans across the whole population.

Obviously, in an election not everyone can, or will vote, but then the question is, what has Trump done to improve his voter share?

Last time he achieved a microscopically tiny advantage - 100,000 odd votes across 3 states. 100,000 votes out of some 130m. Less than 0.1% of the votes was the difference between victory and defeat.

That's a horribly precarious position to be in. And what has Trump done since to solidify his position? The economy isn't obviously terrible on first glance, so he has the sort of standard incumbency advantage for people who don't want to fix what they think isn't broken.

But in terms of policy? It's been entirely directed at his base.
I think it's a vanishingly small probability that he'll significantly increase his popular vote numbers.

The question is, IMO, mostly down to how energised the Democratic base will be to turn up, and how motivated the floating vote will be to turn up and choose them over Trump.

We really can't say at the moment, because while Trump's circus of an administration will have an effect, so too will the Democratic nominee.

Even then there are a lot of factors. Biden is popular, but I don't think he's energising. Warren and Sanders are extremely good at generating energy and have gained a lot of momentum, but they might be seen as too extreme for some suburban white middle class voters. Buttigieg is a bit more of an unknown quantity in how he'd likely get on in the general, but he's got limited reach with ethnic minority votes and that might pose a huge problem.

But all of that can change. If Buttigieg gets Obama leading the charge for him to gee up the African American base, maybe his support among them will skyrocket. If Biden picks a more energetic and progressive running mate, maybe that'll cover his bases, and vice versa with Biden and Warren.

But any notion that there can be clear pronouncements made about the effect of the impeachment process on the election at this stage are total and utter bull****.

ELM327

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I'd say he thinks Trump is even more of a moron than the rest of us sane people do.

I see no evidence to support that hypothesis

pixelburp wrote: »

The evidence is there in black and white, so you can choose to ignore it on the basis of your own admitted bias, or indeed as the GOP is doing with blatant partisanship, but it's there and the impeachment process has all been legal & valid. Every box is being ticket, so where is the sham?

The process as a whole is a sham. Impeachment is meant to be bipartisan, using it when it's obviously only supported by the democrats is nothing more than a political stunt especially this close to an election


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/trump-impeachment-partisan-like-johnson-clinton.html

StringerBell

There is no sham, obviously. There is actually a pretty conservative, narrow scope valid impeachment having been confirmed. If someone comes at you with a the it's a sham, or a witch hunt or whatever other nonsensical argument being amplified from the bubble you are best to just ignore that person. They are not worth the time to debate with as they have shown a very sign that rationale is not the driver of their reason.

pixelburp

ELM327 wrote: »

I see no evidence to support that hypothesis



The process as a whole is a sham. Impeachment is meant to be bipartisan, using it when it's obviously only supported by the democrats is nothing more than a political stunt especially this close to an election


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/trump-impeachment-partisan-like-johnson-clinton.html

You're right it should be bipartisan, so what do you do when the other side refuses to cooperate with the investigation as the GOP have done? It's clear as day the GOP won't oust their man, no more than the Democrats probably would if the roles were reversed, but that doesn't justify ignorance of the realities of what went down. Maybe the fundamental question is: do you believe there was a Quid Pro Quo? Cos if you don't believe Trump did anything wrong then ... 🤷 that's not down to Democrats or Republicans, that's on you & your judgement, or decision to back someone through & through.

Actually: what do you reckon about the toilet flushing obsession? Normal, rational behaviour do you suppose? Genuine question because if you're a supporter I'm curious how you square something so prominently bizarre with the expectations of a sober world leader.

seamus

Gbear wrote: »

Last time he achieved a microscopically tiny advantage - 100,000 odd votes across 3 states. 100,000 votes out of some 130m. Less than 0.1% of the votes was the difference between victory and defeat.

The raw statistics also show that Republican support has been consistently dropping since 2016. In 2018 though they gained two senate seats, their actual vote share dropped. Not a single off-year election has resulted in a Dem seat flipping to Rep, but plenty have gone the other way. In every other local or legislative election, Republican vote shares have dropped.

Like you say, Impeached President Trump has been appealing to his base and nobody else. The Republicans are constantly appealing to the wider support. But the soft voters and the middle ground are not being talked to at all. The only reason support is holding is because the economy has held steady. The American worker is not on average in a good place, but relatively speaking is in about the same place that they were in 2016.

The Republicans grip is incredibly tenuous and slipping constantly.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

I see no evidence to support that hypothesis



The process as a whole is a sham. Impeachment is meant to be bipartisan, using it when it's obviously only supported by the democrats is nothing more than a political stunt especially this close to an election


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/trump-impeachment-partisan-like-johnson-clinton.html

A sham indeed when you see the senate republicans like Graham and Mitch Mcconnell already saying they will disregard all evidence and vow total cooperation with the white house. That's a sham.
Everyone who has accused Trump of a crime in this impeachment has done so under oath. Not one of his defenders will do the same.

everlast75

ELM327 wrote: »

As a Trump supporter I can confirm this sham impeachment move by the democrats has done nothing but energize republicans to double down against this false campaign against the POTUS.

I wouldnt bet money against Trump being reelected

StringerBell wrote: »

There is no sham, obviously. There is actually a pretty conservative, narrow scope valid impeachment having been confirmed. If someone comes at you with a the it's a sham, or a witch hunt or whatever other nonsensical argument being amplified from the bubble you are best to just ignore that person. They are not worth the time to debate with as they have shown a very sign that rationale is not the driver of their reason.

The claim against Trump is not false.

His own memo of the call confirms that he asked a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival. It is clear from what he released that he asked them to do that conditional upon release of military aid, properly allocated by Congress.

Because that information is not false, the impeachment is not a sham. That's Article 1 explained.

Article 2 relates to obstruction of congress. Do you deny that the request for circa 8500 documents was blocked? Do you deny witnesses properly subpoenaed were told not to comply?

The above are facts.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

prawnsambo

JRant wrote: »

It is hard when he never actually said that, strange I know. What we did get were mostly second hand accounts of what others presumed or assumed was going on.

That's the definition of a witness. Are we in the upside down now that witnesses are called second-hand accounts?

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm sure the dems would love Mike Pence as their president.
Wonder if he'd nominate the Donald as VP :P

If the Dems had control over the house and senate, it would be largely inconsequential who was in the WH. Nevertheless, Pence might be a horror but he appears at least to be mentally stable.

If that eventuality were to come to pass, they could potentially drag out the sequence considerably longer, perhaps tag a few additional impeachments into the mix to reveal as many closet skeletons as possible coming up to 2024.

If Trump is up to his neck in criminal activity, then his whole team are at it too. Impeach Trump and Pence, and Pelosi becomes the President until 2024. Another possibility there.
I don't think Pelosi would actually do that though. The Republican base already cringe at the thought of any woman in the White House. Having a woman depose their cult leaders and take the WH without an election would send them into a proper violent frenzy. It would be a bad move for the safety of herself and the country.

20Cent

one armed dwarf wrote: »

I don't really get the whole tip-toeing around voters feelings WRT impeachment. I feel like the division on this issue will more or less basically map to voting intentions one way or the other anyway. His base might be more energised by it but it's been such a divisive 4 years that I'd be surprised if they didn't turn out anyway.

The toilet thing, he himself has admitted to being obsessive about germs I suppose.

Unfortunately divide and conquer seems to be a successful political strategy. Worked for Boris as well. Leaves the country in a bad way afterwards though.

serfboard

20Cent wrote: »

Unfortunately divide and conquer seems to be a successful political strategy. Worked for Boris as well.

Both Trump and Johnson have proved that telling the most outrageous lies is a successful strategy - ably aided by Facebook. And there is a big financial disincentive for Facebook in clamping down on false advertising since they make a ton of money from these ads, despite the lies that they contain. As Mark Zuckerberg pathetically told Congress:

Mark Zuckerberg wrote:

I think lying is bad, and I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie that would be bad

Gbear

seamus wrote: »

The raw statistics also show that Republican support has been consistently dropping since 2016. In 2018 though they gained two senate seats, their actual vote share dropped. Not a single off-year election has resulted in a Dem seat flipping to Rep, but plenty have gone the other way. In every other local or legislative election, Republican vote shares have dropped.

Like you say, Impeached President Trump has been appealing to his base and nobody else. The Republicans are constantly appealing to the wider support. But the soft voters and the middle ground are not being talked to at all. The only reason support is holding is because the economy has held steady. The American worker is not on average in a good place, but relatively speaking is in about the same place that they were in 2016.

The Republicans grip is incredibly tenuous and slipping constantly.

Another thing is the number of resignations and retirements.

You'd need to see the statistics to compare between parties and comparing with other years/campaigns, but intuitively it seems like there has been quite a large number of retiring Republicans in both houses. I just saw Mark Meadows has announced he's leaving the house as well.

All of those seats will be up for grabs in 2020, without incumbency advantage. Many are probably in districts the Republicans would be expected to hold, but it makes it harder for the Republicans as whole to maintain power.

Water John

Even looking at the ranks behind the speakers yesterday, the GOP were largely male and old.

everlast75

this is what Trump was up to whilst members of congress were doing their constitutional duty and in particular, the comment that prompted the tweet from his widow earlier.

what a class act this guy is..


https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1207485852013625345?s=20

Arghus

I just don't get how any one can look at that crass, classless stuff and think "He's my man."

Nody

Arghus wrote: »

I just don't get how any one can look at that crass, classless stuff and think "He's my man."

I don't think they are going "He's my man" as much as "But if it was a Democrat it would be worse because (insert usual spiel" or "but Hillary would..." etc. to sooth their minds over it).

pixelburp

Nody wrote: »

I don't think they are going "He's my man" as much as "But if it was a Democrat it would be worse because (insert usual spiel" or "but Hillary would..." etc. to sooth their minds over it.

He's the trolls choice; if reading the comments sections of newspapers, or indeed the less strict spaces on Boards has shown anything, it's that there are those who enjoy watching others get annoyed or upset by Trump's crudity & obnoxious manner. So long as it winds up 'dem libruhls, that's enough for them. It's just another flavour "my team beats your team" mentality mixed with blatant schadenfreude.

When you got supporters at his rallies wearing "I'd rather be Russian than Democrat" t-shirts, you know that there's an emotional, lizard brain component that's pushing this cult / herd mentality, not an intellectual one (and YES, of course there are those that do make these intellectual decisions over his social and economic policies, and that's fine, of course)

osarusan

Nody wrote: »

I don't think they are going "He's my man" as much as "But if it was a Democrat it would be worse because (insert usual spiel" or "but Hillary would..." etc. to sooth their minds over it.

I think Trump has scraped away all the veneer and revealed that for a certain kind of voter (Republicans and Democrats both, I'm sure) it really doesn't matter what their champ does or says, or how they do it or say it, all that matters is that they are a Republican or Democrat.

These are the kind of voters who won't be swayed by anybody or anything that Trump's opponents might say. I don't know if they are growing in number or not, but there are plenty of them and they'll be voting for him in 2020 no matter what.

But they're not the only kind of voter. Apart from appealing to that base, how does Trump fare with other voters?

How many people who didn't vote Trump in 2016 (voted for Clinton or didn't vote at all) have now decided he's the right man for the job?

How many floating voters who gave him a chance in 2016 will still do so in 2020? Has he done enough to earn that second vote?

And the candidate the Democrats produce, and their ability to energise their own base, has to be considered. If they cannot energise them after 4 years of Trump, they really are useless.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

this is what Trump was up to whilst members of congress were doing their constitutional duty and in particular, the comment that prompted the tweet from his widow earlier.

what a class act this guy is..


https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1207485852013625345?s=20

Don doesn't do forgiveness when it comes to what he sees as slights to himself. John McCain's funeral and Don's "permission" comment were a Republican Party issue.

marno21

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1207474157149212672

Are we not to leave minors out of the politics ?

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

So did he consider blocking the state funeral of an opponent out of spite? Or did he expect a quid pro quo? Because here he is saying she should be thankful he allowed it so it must have been a close run thing.

Disgusting piece of filth.

I think his view was "why didn't she vote for me, I mean I gave her husband a state funeral?"

So , yes he is angry that she voted for impeachment - because her husband got the state funeral he was entitled to , so in his world that means she now owes him one.

His entire world view is a zero sum game and every single act in his life is a quid pro quo - Either immediate or an expected favour to be done at a time of his choosing in the future.

aloyisious

marno21 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1207474157149212672

Are we not to leave minors out of the politics ?

Seriously, no. Don weaponises items and people in a non-thinking spur of the moment way. A reply he gave to Anderson Cooper is classical "they started it" in it's childlike simplicity.

Overheal

marno21 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1207474157149212672

Are we not to leave minors out of the politics ?

"leave the kids out of politics" they said

Thargor

The last 10 pages of this thread haven't had a single Trump supporter reply to the multiple rebuttals following their posts, they just run in, paste their easily disproven lie and disappear again.

Stacksofwacks

I don't think the Dems should send it to the senate. Judging by how republican lawmakers are conducting themselves it'll just be turned into a partisan clownshow which will likely benefit Trump. The house dems have done their bit but its probably gone as far as it will go.

osarusan

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

I don't think the Dems should send it to the senate. Judging by how republican lawmakers are conducting themselves it'll just be turned into a partisan clownshow which will likely benefit Trump. The house dems have done their bit but its probably gone as far as it will go.

They have to do it at some stage surely. Otherwise what was the whole point of it.

And if they don't, the Republicans will goad them into it by saying they are scared to do it and never had any evidence of guilt and it was all just cheap politicking.

EDIT: Unless it's a ploy to extract concessions from the Republicans about the trial conditions.

abff

Thargor wrote: »

The last 10 pages of this thread haven't had a single Trump supporter reply to the multiple rebuttals following their posts, they just run in, paste their easily disproven lie and disappear again.

And that surprises you because.......?