The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Serious Why Trump will win 2020 (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=420693)

CodeHelmet May 2nd, 2019 7:13 PM

Why Trump will win 2020
 
Title will be surely off-putting and even generate angry responses but before writing said responses, take a deep breath and read what I have to say. I’m relatively Libertarian leaning but I have no Party Affiliation and hence are independent when it comes to making up my mind. I find Trump’s personal qualities to be abhorrent but not disqualifying when it comes to holding Political Office. If they were, a lot of people in office would have to resign, including a lot of Democrats who never will(*cough* Virginia Lt. Governor for starters). I haven’t made up my mind yet, largely because it’s way too early. Yet there are two primary reasons as to why Trump will likely win:

1) His Policies are simply better than anything that the Democrats have on the table right now. If the Green New Deal, forgiving Student Loan Debt or “tearing down the Wall” are your best policy stances right now, you’re going to get crushed in 18 months. Add on the fact that the Economy is running strong with data pointing on it to last and he’s going to be incredibly tough to beat. As James Carville said, “The Economy, stupid”, implying that when the Economy is good, incumbents rarely, if ever lose.

2) Russian Collusion exposed as a lie. For the better part of two years, we were told that Trump was “Evil” and that he was a “Russian Agent”. Out comes the Mueller report and basically confirms the exact opposite that Democrats and the Media had been spewing since before Trump took office. That result should be a relief and celebrated by all. Yet Mueller pulled a Comey in basically laying the case to indict Trump on Obstruction but opted not to. Why write it in that manner and not indict? Democrats have been itching to impeach Trump since Day 1 so why didn’t Mueller and his crew of Donkey cohorts give the angry mob what they wanted? Well that left things up to Barr. As the AG, he made the call to not indict after conferring with Rosenstein or the Deputy AG who’s been there from wire to wire. Where’s the outrage at Rosenstein? Why is Barr the only one getting crushed, unfairly may I add, over this? The truth is that Democrats and the mainstream Media didn’t get the result they wanted. This meant they wasted two years of trying to undo 2016, misled their viewers(much of whom left the moment the report hit) and has led to them smearing the AG because he’s now investigating how this crap all started. Their treatment and hostility to Barr is derived out of fear that a lot of bad actors, all of whom are from the Obama Administration, are going to be exposed, indicted and, if justice is served, thrown in prison.

Barr’s investigations are going to be buoyed by the IG report due out in the coming weeks where it may have several criminal referrals. As I see it, following people will be going down:

Hillary Clinton: Espionage Act, Obstruction of Justice(irony), and Bribery(Uranium One)
Bill Clinton: Clinton Foundation <- May not happen but never know
Andrew McCabe: FISA warrants, Perjury*
James Comey: leaking classified material, Perjury* <- He or McCabe lied
Rod Rosenstein: FISA warrants <- surprised he hasn’t been fired
Bruce Ohr: Fusion GPS
Nellie Ohr: Fusion GPS
Peter Strzok: FISA warrants, obstruction of justice
Lisa Page:
John Brennan: CIA illegally spied, perjury
James Clapper: DNI spying/unmasking, perjury
Glenn Simpson: Fusion GPS
Loretta Lynch: some explaining to do... obstruction?
and more...

Oh and if Joe Biden is your best bet at defeating Trump, might want to avert your eyes. We have Ukrainian lobbying where he used his post to get his son out of being indicted. If you wouldn’t tolerate Trump doing this, how can you look the other way at Biden?! Source: NY Times, The Hill left and right sources

Lisa Page may join the list but I’m not sure what she’s guilty of. The real question is whether the unfolding scandal, largest in USA history that’s been inexplicably ignored, will ensnare Obama. He’s implicated in the Biden Ukrainian debacle(by Biden himself) and Strzok-Page texts concerning Russia Collusion. Considering he was a Control freak, I would not be shocked if this whole Collusion thing(or Hillary’s exoneration) came down from him. Anyways, Biden is probably going to be eliminated due to scandal, leaving Bernie Sanders or some radical upstart as the Democrats best bet. Now ask yourself, you think they, under the scandal that will be in the news for the next 18 months, are going to beat Trump? Yeah.. sorry to deliver some sobering news but perhaps it’s time to get your Beer kegs now because you’re going to need to get drunk as Trump cakewalks to 2020. Still waiting on those moving to Canada after 2016...

Oh and if anyone has any influence over at NBC, please tell them to fire Brian Williams already. He’s a disgrace...

Nah May 3rd, 2019 5:15 AM

I too get the feeling (or wouldn't be surprised at least) if Trump wins the 2020 election (although I'd really rather he doesn't), but it's certainly not going to be because "Trump is secretly a good President and did nothing wrong", nor will it be a cakewalk.

I wanna touch on this part for a bit:
Quote:

2) Russian Collusion exposed as a lie. For the better part of two years, we were told that Trump was “Evil” and that he was a “Russian Agent”. Out comes the Mueller report and basically confirms the exact opposite that Democrats and the Media had been spewing since before Trump took office. That result should be a relief and celebrated by all. Yet Mueller pulled a Comey in basically laying the case to indict Trump on Obstruction but opted not to. Why write it in that manner and not indict? Democrats have been itching to impeach Trump since Day 1 so why didn’t Mueller and his crew of Donkey cohorts give the angry mob what they wanted?
The reason as I understand it that Mueller didn't move to indict Trump had nothing to do with Trump's innocence/guilt, but other factors. The main one being that apparently Justice Department policy prohibits Justice Department personnel from indicting sitting Presidents--Mueller was simply not allowed to indict Trump because of his department's rules. The other is a technicality about obstruction of justice charges that shouldn't really matter.

I haven't read the actual report myself (and I doubt anyone here has bothered to read even a significant portion of a 400-something page report), but it seems that, contrary to Barr's letter, Trump did attempt to obstruct the investigation. If Trump really didn't attempt to obstruct justice, Mueller would have plainly written so in his report. But he didn't, and so with the above knowledge, it implies that Mueller believes that Trump did in fact commit the crime of obstruction of justice but had to pass on the burden of the indictment to someone else...which is Barr and Congress in this case.

EnglishALT May 3rd, 2019 5:59 AM

The obstruction part is something Congress can look at, although I think largely the public was waiting for some evidence of Russian collusion, as that is what had been talked up for the past two years. Lacking the evidence of that, obstruction of justice is something the public does not seem to really care about.

Predicting if Trump will or won't win however is so hard, Trump is unlike any other politician and his own unique style can help or hurt him. It's important not to forget that the last month leading up to the election, Trump was very disciplined on twitter and on the campaign trail, and that certainly helped him while the Clinton campaign struggled with the email investigation.

I think honestly its going to come down to the economy, a good majority of the country likes how Trump is handling the economy at this moment, and the economic news sure is good. If things take a turn for the worse and Biden is the nominee, then the public could turn to Biden. If things get really bad, like in 2008, the public could take a more radical economic change in Sanders.

If the economy goes as it is currently, a moderate like Biden would pose a challenge to Trump, while a radical like Sanders would be a much easier win.

Granted there are other wild cards as well, the Democrat nominee giving serious consideration to reparations to court the African American voting bloc would help Trump significantly.

CodeHelmet May 4th, 2019 8:06 AM

It's DOJ Doctrine that a sitting President can not be indicted due to inhibiting his ability to exercise his Executive Branch powers. In a way they have a point but on the other hand, I find that to be complete hogwash. If you got evidence that you think is enough to convict on, no sitting officer of the United States Government is above reproach. Mueller had a team of Democrats with considerable Anti-Trump bias, one of whom in Andrew Weissmann, has a horrid legal record where the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to overturn his convictions over the Enron scandal. Speculation is that it was he, not Mueller, who wrote the 2nd volume on Obstruction and if he didn't indict, the question is why? It may very well be that DOJ Doctrine but if Democrats feel its enough to impeach, do so already. Put up or shut up as someone would say. What I don't like is the complete hypocrisy on Nadler's part when it comes to the Mueller Report. Back during 98, he fought tooth and nail to prevent certain things from that report from coming out and established guidelines for future Special Counsels to follow. Now he wants those to essentially be ignored because its "politically" convenient? Not going to fly in my book.

Biden is unlikely to make it to be the nominee. He started too late, has one too many skeletons and he may be snagged in the Trump spying operation which even the NYT's admits happened. As for Bernie, we shall see if he's able to out-radical the other contenders for the nomination. Right now the platform for Democrats is not very promising but their tactics at rigging it have already begun by denying Trump appearing on State ballots unless he releases his Tax Returns. Unless they can point explicitly in the Constitution as to where he's required to do so, those laws/attempts at preventing him from appearing on the ballot should be struck down.

TailsMK4 May 4th, 2019 1:48 PM

Honestly, stuff like this is why I've probably completely shut myself off of listening to Democrats. All the ones that did care about progress or at least following their own agendas instead of the soon-to-be-ruinous democratic socialist agenda are either being forced to follow the freshmen or have already turned independent (or started following the GOP instead). There are STILL many out there that are crying fowl despite there being overwhelming evidence to their contrary. Did Trump obstruct? That's still being debated, but if there was any, it was to obstruct the falsely-generated dossier as opposed to prohibiting government employees from doing their jobs. The new investigations should bring some more light to what REALLY happened, but I think people are going to be very oblivious to the facts since they were raised to follow an agenda that will spell doom to the US (to those that object, sorry, but there's overwhelming proof that socialism doesn't work, just read up on other countries, and to be fair, let's not discuss Venezuela in this context since there are all kinds of things going on with that country).

I think the country would be much better off if these people were impeached or resigned:

-Ilhan Omar
-Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
-Rashida Tlaib
-Elizabeth Warren
-Jerry Nadler
-Adam Schiff

I'm willing to give Pelosi and Schumer the benefit of the doubt as they have to deal with new freshmen of the party that know absolutely nothing about how to manage a country. The Democrat party has recently become the party of impediment, and that's not even counting a handful of Republicans that also don't seem to have the country's interests at heart. We have a lot of issues plaguing our country and they want to play their own agenda instead of trying to fix problems. I am disgusted with this party.

As far as my voting, I'm again voting for whoever opposes the Democratic nominee. I would vote again for Ted Cruz if he were to go against Trump in 2020, but anything the Republican party offers is better than the alternative.

CodeHelmet May 4th, 2019 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailsMK4 (Post 10014082)
Honestly, stuff like this is why I've probably completely shut myself off of listening to Democrats. All the ones that did care about progress or at least following their own agendas instead of the soon-to-be-ruinous democratic socialist agenda are either being forced to follow the freshmen or have already turned independent (or started following the GOP instead). There are STILL many out there that are crying fowl despite there being overwhelming evidence to their contrary. Did Trump obstruct? That's still being debated, but if there was any, it was to obstruct the falsely-generated dossier as opposed to prohibiting government employees from doing their jobs. The new investigations should bring some more light to what REALLY happened, but I think people are going to be very oblivious to the facts since they were raised to follow an agenda that will spell doom to the US (to those that object, sorry, but there's overwhelming proof that socialism doesn't work, just read up on other countries, and to be fair, let's not discuss Venezuela in this context since there are all kinds of things going on with that country).

I think the country would be much better off if these people were impeached or resigned:

-Ilhan Omar
-Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
-Rashida Tlaib
-Elizabeth Warren
-Jerry Nadler
-Adam Schiff

I'm willing to give Pelosi and Schumer the benefit of the doubt as they have to deal with new freshmen of the party that know absolutely nothing about how to manage a country. The Democrat party has recently become the party of impediment, and that's not even counting a handful of Republicans that also don't seem to have the country's interests at heart. We have a lot of issues plaguing our country and they want to play their own agenda instead of trying to fix problems. I am disgusted with this party.

As far as my voting, I'm again voting for whoever opposes the Democratic nominee. I would vote again for Ted Cruz if he were to go against Trump in 2020, but anything the Republican party offers is better than the alternative.

To be fair, GOP did the exact same thing during the Obama years with respect to impediment. It's always been that way that whenever one party is running things, the other party finds reason to not willingly participate. What I haven't brought up is that they want to expand the Courts(FDR tried doing that back in the 30's/40's and his own party was like... yeah that's over the line. Left's saving grace is the courts and when you can't win legislatively, pack the Courts with Activist Judges who legislate from the bench), eliminate the Electoral College(which would require Amending the Constitution. Was set-up to give small states at least a chance at giving a say in the Election like New Hampshire nearly did back in 2016. You do it based on Popular Vote, no one will give a damn about the smaller states). and rampant hypocrisy on a number of issues(I've only brought up Nadler's double standard regarding the Mueller report. #MeToo is the biggest glaring example of a double standard).

Her May 4th, 2019 9:59 PM

I never felt like the Mueller report was going to be the smoking gun that liberals were relying on - both because you can't hope to trip up oligarchical admirers of fascism on legal technicalities, and because the Mueller report would have only emboldened the Trump fanbase into unifying around his replacement (assuming it felled his administration) with vengeance, as it would have (and has been seen by some... delightful people) as a witch hunt come to fruition. Besides, a cleaning of house would have had to happen for the report to have been treated as the exposure of corruption it was, instead of Barr's actions of diluting the report into a non-story in order to protect the GOP.

EnglishALT May 4th, 2019 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Her (Post 10014202)
I never felt like the Mueller report was going to be the smoking gun that liberals were relying on - both because you can't hope to trip up oligarchical admirers of fascism on legal technicalities, and because the Mueller report would have only emboldened the Trump fanbase into unifying around his replacement (assuming it felled his administration) with vengeance, as it would have (and has been seen by some... delightful people) as a witch hunt come to fruition. Besides, a cleaning of house would have had to happen for the report to have been treated as the exposure of corruption it was, instead of Barr's actions of diluting the report into a non-story in order to protect the GOP.

Anything less than proof of collusion was going to be shown as a nothingburger which is what ultimately happened. You can blame Hillary and the DNC for pushing the Russia narrative so heavily after the loss in 2016, however that is the only thing the public really cared about from the report and could have destroyed Trump. Now as turn about is fair play, it may be time for investigations into the Democrats possibly attempting to collude with Ukraine to win the 2016 election, and possible CIA/FBI spying on Trump's campaign.

Ivysaur May 5th, 2019 12:08 AM

Counterpoint.

Reasons why Trump can lose the 2020 election:

- Despite the economy being tremendously good, he's mind-blowingly unpopular. His approval rating has a reinforced-concrete ceiling at 43%, which suggests that there's something wrong about him that overrides concerns about the economy for most people. So far, Trump has the doubtful achievement of being the only president in modern history to never have been approved by a majority of the population. He's also not particularly popular in the states he won by a whisker in 2016 which he needs to hold the electoral college (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, all of them states the democrats swept in the midterms). The thing of winning an election by 70k votes is that you're constantly teetering on the edge of losing.

- Despite what Fox News keeps obsessing about, most people either don't give a shit about the Russian scandal or the deranged conspiracies peddled by Fox hosts. Actually, the top of voters' concerns in the last election were things like healthcare or gun safety, and the democrats won those categories by a landslide. The wall and keeping children in cages weren't a deciding factor for most voters, either. The result is that there are large swathes of the electorate claiming for a certain set of policies and all the Republicans seem able to do is talk immigration or "Obama conspiracies". Hell, even Trump's tax cut law failed miserably, which is quite an achievement. As long as the Republicans keep ignoring the policy demands of a potentially majoritarian share of the population, they're going to struggle to win undecideds.

- One of the reasons why Trump won 2016 was that he carried the group of voters who disliked both Trump and Clinton. And one of the reasons was that Fox News and the conservative echo chamber had spent decades throwing mud at Clinton, to turn her into some monster. That persecution went gloriously into Congress -Benghazi- and the FBI, and the sensation that there was something wrong about her made many people -coupled with the last-minute email investigation announcement- think that they'd rather try the evil they don't know than the one they've heard about for so long. This time, most democrats are untainted, and the mud that they've tried to pin on Biden is very obscure, to the point you've probably never heard about it and/or doesn't make any rational sense if you've never watched the many earlier seasons of Fox Conspiracies: Why Every Single Democrat Is Evil (and a large majority of the population never do).

- Trump's best age group is +65, and a bunch of them have died since the last election. The Democrats sweep the under-45, and a good number have become of age or got into the hang of voting ever since. That matters when you won the electoral college by a combined 70k votes.

This said, a couple of questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailsMK4 (Post 10014082)
I think the country would be much better off if these people were impeached or resigned:

-Ilhan Omar
-Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
-Rashida Tlaib
-Elizabeth Warren
-Jerry Nadler
-Adam Schiff

Can you elaborate on why, other than "they're democrats and Fox News told me they're evil"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeHelmet (Post 10014193)
eliminate the Electoral College(which would require Amending the Constitution. Was set-up to give small states at least a chance at giving a say in the Election like New Hampshire nearly did back in 2016. You do it based on Popular Vote, no one will give a damn about the smaller states)

Uhh... New Hampshire did have a say in 2016: it voted straight-ticket Democrat. What do you mean with "almost"?

Also, being historically accurate, the electoral college was set up to allow for slave states to get extra voting power accounting for their slaves as "population" without having to give them the vote. In a national vote, slaves wouldn't have counted since they wouldn't have been able to vote. With the electoral college, the white slaveholders could get EC representation amounting to 3/5ths of their slaves without having to give them the vote! Sweet.

This said, when was the last time you saw a presidential candidate campaigning in Vermont or Wyoming or Montana or South Dakota? Never? Never sounds alright. What a weird system "so that small states matter" that causes politicians to spend months in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, tiny states nobody would otherwise care about, as we all know. At least under a popular vote system, republicans in California (there are more of them than in Ohio) would actually become relevant, as well as black democrats in Mississippi (no, seriously, when was the last time anyone cared about them? 1890?).

PD: There was no "collusion" because "collusion" is not a legal term, so the word is meaningless in an investigation and therefore Mueller didn't set out to investigate that, as he spells out in his report. He did find a ton of collaboration between Trump and the Russians though. You should look at the report instead of letting Tucker Carlson summarise it for you. This said, polls show that the report didn't change anybody's opinion of Trump either way, so it's not like it matters in the slightest. There are dozens of pages of mud and possible crimes committed by Trump so people who think he's a crook are reinforced in their beliefs and there's no "collusion" because that concept doesn't exist in a legal sense so Trump fans can point at the cleverly-moved goalposts and say the report is a nothingburger. Everybody wins! Except Barr, he looks in for a bad time.

PD2: https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1118228314257350657

EnglishALT May 5th, 2019 1:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 10014227)
Counterpoint.

Counter, Counter Point

"It's the economy stupid" as the old Clintonian saying goes ( note I am not calling you stupid, that is just a famous saying in American politics for those unfamiliar ), the public wanted a balance in 2018 and voted Democrats into Congress as tends to happen to the losing party of Presidential Elections. That being said, health care concerns do not beat an economy that is perceived as good or improving, if it did we would have had President Mitt Romney.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 10014227)
PD: There was no "collusion" because "collusion" is not a legal term, so the word is meaningless in an investigation and therefore Mueller didn't set out to investigate that, as he spells out in his report. He did find a ton of collaboration between Trump and the Russians though. You should look at the report instead of letting Tucker Carlson summarise it for you. This said, polls show that the report didn't change anybody's opinion of Trump either way, so it's not like it matters in the slightest. There are dozens of pages of mud and possible crimes committed by Trump so people who think he's a crook are reinforced in their beliefs and there's no "collusion" because that concept doesn't exist in a legal sense so Trump fans can point at the cleverly-moved goalposts and say the report is a nothingburger. Everybody wins! Except Barr, he looks in for a bad time.

First: Don't watch Tucker Carlson, as it is kind of hard to get any American news stations when you are living overseas.

Second it was not Trump fans who were moving the goal posts on Russia and collusion, the entire narrative was started by Democrats, specifically Hillary's people the day after the election as shown in the book Shattered, in an attempt to deligitimize Trump's victory. However if you want to read the report, we can as always start with Page 2: The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Ivysaur May 5th, 2019 7:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10014234)
Second it was not Trump fans who were moving the goal posts on Russia and collusion, the entire narrative was started by Democrats, specifically Hillary's people the day after the election as shown in the book Shattered, in an attempt to deligitimize Trump's victory. However if you want to read the report, we can as always start with Page 2: The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Before that, it says "First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts".

This is effectively what the democrats argued. And now it's black on white: Trump was the official candidate of a foreign enemy that broke US law in order to favour his campaign. The fact that Trump did not set up a joint comittee with representatives of the Russian Government within the Trump Campaign to coordinate with them (and did not openly talk to him other than the time Trump asked Russia on public TV for more leaked emails) is a legal matter but won't make a single person who was predisposed to thinking of Trump as Putin's puppet and his victory as the result of a foreign attack on the US change their mind.

Also, bonus:

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." [...] Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.".

Quote:

"It's the economy stupid" as the old Clintonian saying goes ( note I am not calling you stupid, that is just a famous saying in American politics for those unfamiliar ), the public wanted a balance in 2018 and voted Democrats into Congress as tends to happen to the losing party of Presidential Elections. That being said, health care concerns do not beat an economy that is perceived as good or improving, if it did we would have had President Mitt Romney.
Again, it's not only the economy. There's a fantastic economy right now and yet Trump's approval is awful, and has never, not for a single day, got close to being 50%, the first time it has ever happened. Why? Read this article, for instance: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/03/politics/trump-economy-approval-rating-2020/index.html

But some key paragraphs:

"The funny thing is the same thing [approval ratings being completely disconnected from economic sentiment] happened under President Barack Obama. According to political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck, changes in consumer sentiment also failed to predict changes in Obama's approval rating. In fact, if anything, Obama's approval rating was lower when consumer sentiment was higher. This is a complete reversal of the trend dating back to the John Kennedy administration. From Kennedy to George W. Bush, you could count on consumer sentiment changes to drive changes in overall approval ratings. Not surprisingly, therefore, the perceptions of a good economy lifted Ronald Reagan to re-election in 1984 and sunk George H.W. Bush in 1992. "

"It's one thing to think the economy is working. It's another thing to believe the economy and the head of the government is working on behalf of you. Americans don't believe that Trump cares about the average American. The percentage who do has hovered around 40%, which is right around where Trump's approval rating has been. That's about the same percentage of voters who believe the administration has done enough to help the middle class.
Indeed, changes in the percentage of Americans who think Trump cares about the average American have been correlated with changes in the his overall approval rating.
Instead, a majority of Americans think that the Trump administration has focused its efforts on helping wealthy Americans. "

"Voters think the economy is good and have thought that for a while. Trump is still struggling, even though we're well into year three of his presidency. If the economy hasn't already translated for Trump, when will it?
Overall approval ratings probably matter a lot more than economic approval ratings when it comes to a president's re-election hopes. Remember, voters disapproved of Obama on the economy and thought Republican Mitt Romney would be better on it. It didn't matter. Obama won. "

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10014234)
Health care concerns do not beat an economy that is perceived as good or improving, if it did we would have had President Mitt Romney.

"In the new poll, 43% of likely voters surveyed said that the nation's economy would only get better if Romney was elected. Only 34% said the same would happen if Obama is re-elected, a significant change from August, when the president had a slim lead on the issue."

Business Insider, just a couple of days before the 2012 election.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-poll-romney-obama-economy-question-2012-11?IR=T

EnglishALT May 5th, 2019 8:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 10014341)
Before that, it says "First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts".

This is effectively what the democrats argued. And now it's black on white: Trump was the official candidate of a foreign enemy that broke US law in order to favour his campaign. The fact that Trump did not set up a joint comittee with representatives of the Russian Government within the Trump Campaign to coordinate with them (and did not openly talk to him other than the time Trump asked Russia on public TV for more leaked emails) is a legal matter but won't make a single person who was predisposed to thinking of Trump as Putin's puppet and his victory as the result of a foreign attack on the US change their mind.

Also, bonus:

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." [...] Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons , the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.".

In no way was that the Democratic argument, the Democratic argument was that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy of collusion to win the Presidential election. This is parroted by Representative Schiff who is one of the most public figures of the Democratic Party when it comes to this whole mess.

“REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Look, you can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. Now, there's a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/17/adam_schiff_there_is_compelling_evidence_in_plain_sight_of_trump-russia_collusion.html

Also

Richard Blumenthal

"The evidence is pretty clear that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians," Sen. Richard Blumenthal told MSNBC host Chris Hayes Nov. 17, 2018.

Jerry Nadler

CNN interviewed Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., House Judiciary Committee chairman, on Nov. 30, 2018. Nadler said he definitely saw collusion.

"The fact that Manafort and Trump Jr. met with Russian agents who told them they wanted to give them dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help them, and that they said fine," Nadler said. "I mean, it’s clear that the campaign colluded, and there’s a lot of evidence of that. The question is, was the president involved?"

Ron Wyden

"When you look at Donald Trump Jr., and what is on the record, there was clearly an intent to collude," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Dec. 14, 2017.

Tom Perez

"Over the course of the last year we have seen, I think, a mountain of evidence of collusion between the campaign and the Russians to basically affect our democracy," Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said after the DNC filed a civil suit against the Trump campaign, the Russian government and Wikileaks in April 2018.

Maxine Waters

One of the strongest voices for impeachment has been that of Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

At a town hall meeting of the Black Congressional Caucus Foundation in Washington, Waters urged activists to press for impeachment.

"Here you have a president who I can tell you, I guarantee you, is in collusion with the Russians to undermine our democracy," Waters said Sept. 21, 2017. "Here you have a president who has obstructed justice and here you have a president that lies every day."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/what-democrats-said-about-trump-collusion-mueller-/

Remember what the definition of collusion is: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

The Democrats have been very clear in their message that they believe that Trump was engaging in a secret conspiracy with Russia to win the election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 10014341)
Again, it's not only the economy. There's a fantastic economy right now and yet Trump's approval is awful, and has never, not for a single day, got close to being 50%, the first time it has ever happened. Why? Read this article https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/03/politics/trump-economy-approval-rating-2020/index.html

But some key paragraphs:

"The funny thing is the same thing [approval ratings being completely disconnected from economic sentiment] happened under President Barack Obama. According to political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck, changes in consumer sentiment also failed to predict changes in Obama's approval rating. In fact, if anything, Obama's approval rating was lower when consumer sentiment was higher. This is a complete reversal of the trend dating back to the John Kennedy administration. From Kennedy to George W. Bush, you could count on consumer sentiment changes to drive changes in overall approval ratings. Not surprisingly, therefore, the perceptions of a good economy lifted Ronald Reagan to re-election in 1984 and sunk George H.W. Bush in 1992. "

"It's one thing to think the economy is working. It's another thing to believe the economy and the head of the government is working on behalf of you. Americans don't believe that Trump cares about the average American. The percentage who do has hovered around 40%, which is right around where Trump's approval rating has been. That's about the same percentage of voters who believe the administration has done enough to help the middle class.
Indeed, changes in the percentage of Americans who think Trump cares about the average American have been correlated with changes in the his overall approval rating.
Instead, a majority of Americans think that the Trump administration has focused its efforts on helping wealthy Americans. "

"Voters think the economy is good and have thought that for a while. Trump is still struggling, even though we're well into year three of his presidency. If the economy hasn't already translated for Trump, when will it?

Overall approval ratings probably matter a lot more than economic approval ratings when it comes to a president's re-election hopes. Remember, voters disapproved of Obama on the economy and thought Republican Mitt Romney would be better on it. It didn't matter. Obama won. "

Trump has always struggled due to the toxicity of his name, which is why the hidden Trump voter was such a mystery in 2016 and what ultimately helped him win. The thing is that the public does approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, as per the latest poll and when it comes to voting next year the question will arise, do you want to continue with a President that you may not like personally, but has economically benefited you, or change and risk a President that may not economically benefit you. Even more so if a more socialist candidate like Bernie Sanders wins the nomination.

“President Donald Trump hits a new high on his economic approval ratings in a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS, reaching 56% of Americans saying he's doing a good job on the economy.”

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/02/politics/cnn-poll-trump-economy-2020/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Famp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org%2F

Quote:

Also, being historically accurate, the electoral college was set up to allow for slave states to get extra voting power accounting for their slaves as "population" without having to give them the vote. In a national vote, slaves wouldn't have counted since they wouldn't have been able to vote. With the electoral college, the white slaveholders could get EC representation amounting to 3/5ths of their slaves without having to give them the vote! Sweet.
To be historically accurate that is incorrect. The framers worried about corruption of the electors, and did not want to engage in direct democracy, so they found a compromise. The electoral college in it's creation would not have given slave states more voting power, in fact in 1791 it was only a minuscule difference.

"When it first took shape at the convention, the Electoral College would not have significantly helped the slaveowning states. Under the initial apportionment of the House approved by the framers, the slaveholding states would have held 39 out of 92 electoral votes, or about 42 percent. Based on the 1790 census, about 41 percent of the nation’s total white population lived in those same states, a minuscule difference. Moreover, the convention did not arrive at the formula of combining each state’s House and Senate numbers until very late in its proceedings, and there is no evidence to suggest that slavery had anything to do with it."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html

CodeHelmet May 5th, 2019 8:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 10014227)
Uhh... New Hampshire did have a say in 2016: it voted straight-ticket Democrat. What do you mean with "almost"?

In 2016, in one particular scenario the outcome of the election would have come down to whomever won New Hampshire. It was that razor thin margin that a small state could have had an impact in determining who won. Also for the record, New Hampshire was won by Clinton by .4%. I hardly call that a straight up win by Democrats in that state unless you're implying they won every contest there.

The rhetoric by the left on CNN and MSNBC is what I mean by calling Trump evil(which they've called him every "evil" adjective in the book you can think of).

EnglishALT May 6th, 2019 2:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XIII (Post 10014725)
The amount of lalalala I can't hear you in this thread is astounding. I'm just going to throw this out: The *majority* of the voting class are now millennials. Assuming people actually get out and vote, which I'm assuming they will, since younger folks really do want to see change, there's a VERY good chance he won't win. The older folks are, to put it simply, dying off, and they make (made?) up a large section of the republican-favoring population.

Reasons Trump will win:

Money, corruption, whatever.

Reasons Dems will win:

Money, corruption, whatever.

To hell with it all, I think

Alot of people say "Well the older population is dying off, Republicans are doomed" pretty much every election cycle, similar to the argument of "Demographics are changing, Republicans are never going to win" that we hear every election cycle. Well lets look at past elections.

2016:
45 - 64: Trump wins by 8 percent
65+: Trump wins by 7 percent

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016

2012
45 - 64: Romney wins by 4 percent
65+: Romney wins by 12 percent

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2012

2008
45 - 64: Obama wins by 1 percent
65+: McCain wins by 8 percent

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008

2004
50 - 64: Bush wins by 5 percent
65+: Bush wins by 5 percent

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2004


2000 ( This election heavily focused on the future of Social Security )
50 - 64: Gore wins by 2 percent
65+: Gore wins by 4 percent

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2000

In other words, outside of the outlier of 2000, and one time in 2008, the 45/50+ group uniformly votes Republican, maybe it has something to do with age, changing political preferences, etc, but I don't think it's going to go away any time soon.

Maedar May 6th, 2019 1:25 PM

Trump is a failure.

Now, before you call me out for such a bold term, let me tell you I have quite a few reasons for this statement, and they all can be traced to the fact that he is not the genius deal-maker he claims to be.

(I'll try here to leave my personal opinion to a minimum.)

1. His Wall: Let's address the Elephant in the Room first. His biggest campaign promise in 2016 was that he would build a border wall and that Mexico would pay for it. Not only has Mexico consistently refused to pay for it, but Congress also has as well.

Trump has tried to use the power of his office to take the money from the military by declaring a national emergency. Lawsuits have put everything on pause. Still, Trump tells his supporters it’s already being built, while in truth, he hasn't even started to dig the foundation. He’s also attempted to take credit for the fence repairs that were funded more than 10 years ago.

2. North Korea: One of the biggest promises Trump has failed at is getting a denuclearization deal with North Korea. Not only has he failed to get an agreement, North Korea shot off another short-range missile just last weekend. To make matters worse, it wasn’t a military test outside of Kim Jong Un’s purview. He was actually present and gave the order.

So far, Trump has met with Kim twice and has had two embarrassing failures. In the second meeting, Trump staff was forced to cancel a huge ceremony that was to take place when Kim signed the deal.

3. Obamacare: After spending nearly a decade complaining about the Affordable Care Act and doing everything they could to undermine, defund, gut, and/or repeal the landmark law, Republicans failed so many times it was almost comical.

Trump was elected with a Republican House and Senate and the majority of those members campaigned on the “repeal and replace” rhetoric. Despite complaining about the law for 10 years, Republicans never thought it was important to craft their own alternative. When Trump tried to pass a slap-dash repeal with no replacement, he couldn’t get his own party to agree.

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (possibly Trump's biggest ally in Congress) ultimately told Trump that he should give up on the Obamacare repeal because it will never happen.

4. Infrastructure: The White House has struggled to have an “infrastructure week” over the past two years, but no law has ever been crafted with legislators. One Trump official did create the administration’s version of the bill, but the president hated it because it involves a public-private partnership and he wants a larger plan akin to The New Deal.

Trump might have a deal that will pass Congress and get Democratic votes in the Senate. However, McConnell and the GOP are putting the hammer down on the $2 trillion price-tag. So again, Trump is being faced with a big showdown with his own party. Either he must convince his own party into supporting the bill or convince McConnell to bring it to the floor regardless of the votes.

So far they haven’t been able to come to a deal, but there will likely be a conflict over whether Trump or McConnell is truly the one in charge. (Fun fact: In the Senate, it's McConnell.)

5. Trade war deals: Trump promised to have a grand deal with North American countries and with China, but the reality has been a joke. The “new” NAFTA is basically the same as the old NAFTA, Trump simply changed the name of it.

China has already decided everything Trump is threatening is a bluff, giving him zero leverage over the manufacturing giant. The best thing that could happen to Trump at this point is he walks away slowly and hopes no one brings it up ever again. I personally doubt he has the willpower to do so.

6. Jobs: Trump proclaimed he would personally be involved in negotiating deals with corporations who would ensure jobs stayed in the United States. He promised supporters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania he would bring back manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the decades.

The reality is another matter. After holding huge press events with Carrier and FoxConn, both of those companies have pulled out of the so-called “deal” they made with Trump.

The same can be said for Trump’s promise to revive the entire coal industry. The problem Trump never understood is that even if he was able to give tax cuts to coal companies and remove regulations, it’s still cheaper to use other forms of energy. Coal is never coming back and Trump’s lies to his supporters have left them with nothing but false hopes as unemployment runs out.

7. Shutdown flop: Perhaps the best example of Trump’s bad deal-making skills is the huge flop over the funding of his wall that shutdown the federal government.

His first mistake was claiming, on live television , that he would take full responsibility. I remember many news outlets saying, that very day, that it was the worst mistake any politician could have made.

“We have reached a deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government,” Trump said Jan. 2019. “After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside — I think — and put the security of the American people first.”

The so-called “deal,” was really Trump caving on his demands and trying to find other ways to get what he wanted. It was a costly miscalculation, both politically for Trump and financially for the government.


I'll make a small opinion here: When Bush Sr. said, "read my lips, no new taxes", the big problem for him wasn't that he broke the promise later, but that he made it in the first place without doing the research. If he had, he'd have known it was a promise that was impossible to keep. Trump has, in effect, made this same mistake multiple times.

In the end, Trump’s deal-making skills certainly lack what was promised. Perhaps if he had actually read The Art of the Deal he could figure out how to perfect his proficiency.

gimmepie May 6th, 2019 7:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015018)
Trump is a failure.

Now, before you call me out for such a bold term, let me tell you I have quite a few reasons for this statement, and they all can be traced to the fact that he is not the genius deal-maker he claims to be.

(I'll try here to leave my personal opinion to a minimum.)

1. His Wall: Let's address the Elephant in the Room first. His biggest campaign promise in 2016 was that he would build a border wall and that Mexico would pay for it. Not only has Mexico consistently refused to pay for it, but Congress also has as well.

Trump has tried to use the power of his office to take the money from the military by declaring a national emergency. Lawsuits have put everything on pause. Still, Trump tells his supporters it’s already being built, while in truth, he hasn't even started to dig the foundation. He’s also attempted to take credit for the fence repairs that were funded more than 10 years ago.

2. North Korea: One of the biggest promises Trump has failed at is getting a denuclearization deal with North Korea. Not only has he failed to get an agreement, North Korea shot off another short-range missile just last weekend. To make matters worse, it wasn’t a military test outside of Kim Jong Un’s purview. He was actually present and gave the order.

So far, Trump has met with Kim twice and has had two embarrassing failures. In the second meeting, Trump staff was forced to cancel a huge ceremony that was to take place when Kim signed the deal.

3. Obamacare: After spending nearly a decade complaining about the Affordable Care Act and doing everything they could to undermine, defund, gut, and/or repeal the landmark law, Republicans failed so many times it was almost comical.

Trump was elected with a Republican House and Senate and the majority of those members campaigned on the “repeal and replace” rhetoric. Despite complaining about the law for 10 years, Republicans never thought it was important to craft their own alternative. When Trump tried to pass a slap-dash repeal with no replacement, he couldn’t get his own party to agree.

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (possibly Trump's biggest ally in Congress) ultimately told Trump that he should give up on the Obamacare repeal because it will never happen.

4. Infrastructure: The White House has struggled to have an “infrastructure week” over the past two years, but no law has ever been crafted with legislators. One Trump official did create the administration’s version of the bill, but the president hated it because it involves a public-private partnership and he wants a larger plan akin to The New Deal.

Trump might have a deal that will pass Congress and get Democratic votes in the Senate. However, McConnell and the GOP are putting the hammer down on the $2 trillion price-tag. So again, Trump is being faced with a big showdown with his own party. Either he must convince his own party into supporting the bill or convince McConnell to bring it to the floor regardless of the votes.

So far they haven’t been able to come to a deal, but there will likely be a conflict over whether Trump or McConnell is truly the one in charge. (Fun fact: In the Senate, it's McConnell.)

5. Trade war deals: Trump promised to have a grand deal with North American countries and with China, but the reality has been a joke. The “new” NAFTA is basically the same as the old NAFTA, Trump simply changed the name of it.

China has already decided everything Trump is threatening is a bluff, giving him zero leverage over the manufacturing giant. The best thing that could happen to Trump at this point is he walks away slowly and hopes no one brings it up ever again. I personally doubt he has the willpower to do so.

6. Jobs Trump proclaimed he would personally be involved in negotiating deals with corporations who would ensure jobs stayed in the United States. He promised supporters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania he would bring back manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the decades.

The reality is another matter. After holding huge press events with Carrier and FoxConn, both of those companies have pulled out of the so-called “deal” they made with Trump.

The same can be said for Trump’s promise to revive the entire coal industry. The problem Trump never understood is that even if he was able to give tax cuts to coal companies and remove regulations, it’s still cheaper to use other forms of energy. Coal is never coming back and Trump’s lies to his supporters have left them with nothing but false hopes as unemployment runs out.

7. Shutdown flop: Perhaps the best example of Trump’s bad deal-making skills is the huge flop over the funding of his wall that shutdown the federal government.

His first mistake was claiming, on live television , that he would take full responsibility. I remember many news outlets saying, that very day, that it was the worst mistake any politician could have made.

“We have reached a deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government,” Trump said Jan. 2019. “After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside — I think — and put the security of the American people first.”

The so-called “deal,” was really Trump caving on his demands and trying to find other ways to get what he wanted. It was a costly miscalculation, both politically for Trump and financially for the government.


I'll make a small opinion here: When Bush Sr. said, "read my lips, no new taxes", the big problem for him wasn't that he broke the promise later, but that he made it in the first place without doing the research. If he had, he'd have known it was a promise that was impossible to keep. Trump has, in effect, made this same mistake multiple times.

In the end, Trump’s deal-making skills certainly lack what was promised. Perhaps if he had actually read The Art of the Deal he could figure out how to perfect his proficiency.

I agree with everything you have said here, but the question really is, do American voters care? Trumps base of support has long been willing to look over not only his ineptitude and lies, but admissions of literal crimes and evidence of more.

Whether we like it or not, I think we have to acknowledge that, at this point, Trump has such a dedicated fanbase that he could reduce the population of the US by half Thanos-style and still get all their votes. He's a terrible president and a worse person, but the potential for him to come out on top is still there.

EnglishALT May 6th, 2019 8:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10015150)
I agree with everything you have said here, but the question really is, do American voters care? Trumps base of support has long been willing to look over not only his ineptitude and lies, but admissions of literal crimes and evidence of more.

Whether we like it or not, I think we have to acknowledge that, at this point, Trump has such a dedicated fanbase that he could reduce the population of the US by half Thanos-style and still get all their votes. He's a terrible president and a worse person, but the potential for him to come out on top is still there.

That’s pretty much how Republicans felt around the cult of personality that was Obama ( One that still exists in many ways with Democrats insisting on saying the administration was scandal free ). I honestly think George W Bush will be the last President that did not have a rabid fan base willing to overlook everything based on hero worship.

gimmepie May 6th, 2019 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10015164)
That’s pretty much how Republicans felt around the cult of personality that was Obama ( One that still exists in many ways with Democrats insisting on saying the administration was scandal free ). I honestly think George W Bush will be the last President that did not have a rabid fan base willing to overlook everything based on hero worship.

It's probably a symptom of the ever widening divide between the major parties and the consistent rise of populism.

Maedar May 7th, 2019 1:26 AM

I'm an American voter.

I care.

gimmepie May 7th, 2019 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015202)
I'm an American voter.

I care.

That's great, but you're one of many.
I don't think 2020 is looking great for Trump, but people shouldn't write him off again because that helped him win last time. You can't blame it all on Russian interference.

EnglishALT May 8th, 2019 1:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015018)
2. North Korea: One of the biggest promises Trump has failed at is getting a denuclearization deal with North Korea. Not only has he failed to get an agreement, North Korea shot off another short-range missile just last weekend. To make matters worse, it wasn’t a military test outside of Kim Jong Un’s purview. He was actually present and gave the order.

So far, Trump has met with Kim twice and has had two embarrassing failures. In the second meeting, Trump staff was forced to cancel a huge ceremony that was to take place when Kim signed the deal.

So we have gone from North Korea testing nukes and shooting off missiles that can reach the US, to North Korea sitting down at the table, having better relations with South Korea, having better relations with Japan, and potentially denuclearizing and what? It's not happening fast enough? Trump very well could have sold the farm on the second set of negotiations, he could have lifted the sanctions with out verification of full denuclearize but instead choose to walk and work on a better deal. This is the best chance in decades for the US and its allies to change North Korea, it is not going to happen overnight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015018)
5. Trade war deals: Trump promised to have a grand deal with North American countries and with China, but the reality has been a joke. The “new” NAFTA is basically the same as the old NAFTA, Trump simply changed the name of it.

China has already decided everything Trump is threatening is a bluff, giving him zero leverage over the manufacturing giant. The best thing that could happen to Trump at this point is he walks away slowly and hopes no one brings it up ever again. I personally doubt he has the willpower to do so.

Don't look now but China just sent it's top trade envoy to Washington to resume negotiation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-agrees-to-resume-u-s-trade-negotiations-11557236170

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015018)
6. Jobs: Trump proclaimed he would personally be involved in negotiating deals with corporations who would ensure jobs stayed in the United States. He promised supporters in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania he would bring back manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the decades.

The reality is another matter. After holding huge press events with Carrier and FoxConn, both of those companies have pulled out of the so-called “deal” they made with Trump.

The same can be said for Trump’s promise to revive the entire coal industry. The problem Trump never understood is that even if he was able to give tax cuts to coal companies and remove regulations, it’s still cheaper to use other forms of energy. Coal is never coming back and Trump’s lies to his supporters have left them with nothing but false hopes as unemployment runs out.

He is also presiding over one of the best economies in US history, due in no small part because of cutting regulations and the tax cuts. We are seeing unemployment at historic or near historic levels, and job creation and wages are rising.

Maedar May 8th, 2019 4:39 AM

Quote:

He is also presiding over one of the best economies in US history, due in no small part because of cutting regulations and the tax cuts. We are seeing unemployment at historic or near historic levels, and job creation and wages are rising.
Trump's way of strengthening the economy is getting more underhanded by the day:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/big-attack-on-working-people-trump-moves-to-redefine-poverty-in-order-to-slash-social-programs-and-services-for-millions/

EnglishALT May 8th, 2019 4:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015705)
O have heard this so many times, and IMOHO, it is an argument made by shallow, greedy, selfish people (mostly trolls) who value money over human rights and civil rights.

Furthermore, Trump's way of strengthening the economy is getting more underhanded by the day:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/big-attack-on-working-people-trump-moves-to-redefine-poverty-in-order-to-slash-social-programs-and-services-for-millions/

So are you denying the economic numbers?

Unemployment is at the lowest since 1969
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/nonfarm-payrolls-april-2019.html

Hispanic American Unemployment is at a record low.

African American Unemployment is at a near record low

Female Unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1953
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hispanic-unemployment-rate-drops-to-all-time-low

Wage Growth has topped 3 percent growth for the 9th straight month, with low wage workers experiencing the fastest pay gains.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-growth-economy.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
One could make the argument that the reinstatement of slavery would improve the economy by 1000%, and would bring unemployment down much, much further.

No one is suggesting such a thing.

Maedar May 8th, 2019 4:51 AM

No, Alt, I am saying that all you guys ever do is give us a bunch of numbers. The truth is more complicated when you actually realize how we're achieving these great statistics:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/the-untold-story-of-trumps-booming-economy/

Quote:

No one is suggesting such a thing.
I know, I was using it as a comparison, because YOU are suggesting the ends justify the means, no matter WHAT is done to achieve those ends.

Nah May 8th, 2019 4:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10015714)
So are you denying the economic numbers?

Unemployment is at the lowest since 1969
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/03/nonfarm-payrolls-april-2019.html

Hispanic American Unemployment is at a record low.

African American Unemployment is at a near record low

Female Unemployment is at the lowest levels since 1953
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hispanic-unemployment-rate-drops-to-all-time-low

Wage Growth has topped 3 percent growth for the 9th straight month, with low wage workers experiencing the fastest pay gains.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-growth-economy.html

Are these things a direct result of decisions made by Trump, or a result of something/someone else?

I personally never cared for pointing to wage increases and jobs created numbers though. If wages aren't increasing to liveable levels, and the jobs people are getting hired to aren't ones that pay a liveable income, they're pretty meaningless statistics.

EnglishALT May 8th, 2019 4:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10015716)
Are these things a direct result of decisions made by Trump, or a result of something/someone else?

I personally never cared for pointing to wage increases and jobs created numbers though. If wages aren't increasing to liveable levels, and the jobs people are getting hired to aren't ones that pay a liveable income, they're pretty meaningless statistics.

Considering a lot of this boom has been attributed to the tax cuts and regulation cutting, I would place it as a direct result of Trump’s policies.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-economy-deficits/

Also I would suggest looking at the last statistic of my previous post, the people who need the wage growth the most are getting it right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
No, Alt, I am saying that all you guys ever do is give us a bunch of numbers. The truth is more complicated when you actually realize how we're achieving these great statistics:

Not very complicated at all, the statistics show a booming and healthy economy that is helping all Americans at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
I know, I was using it as a comparison, because YOU are suggesting the ends justify the means, no matter WHAT is done to achieve those ends.

But I have not suggested any policy even close to such a horrible act, this seems like a bad faith argument.

Maedar May 8th, 2019 5:01 AM

You know, the funny thing is, I remember how, during the Obama administration, the economy was improving too. Thing is, whenever unemployment went down under Obama, Republicans screamed, "it doesn't count the folks who stopped looking!" and "it's all temp and minimum wage jobs!"

And when the Market went up under Obama, the Republicans bellowed, "the Treasury is printing more money to prop it up!" and "the correction is coming, the House of Cards is gonna fall!"

Trump himself once claimed, with no proof whatsoever, that "the real unemployment numbers" were around 40%. Of course, he expects us to believe his mere presence as President magically caused that to plummet overnight.

Btw, Alt, I find it hard to believe you actually read that article and made your last post in 8 minutes.

EnglishALT May 8th, 2019 5:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015725)
You know, the funny thing is, I remember how, during the Obama administration, the economy was improving too. Thing is, whenever unemployment went down under Obama, Republicans screamed, "it doesn't count the folks who stopped looking!" and "it's all temp and minimum wage jobs!"

You can usually find that out through the U6 numbers which show discouraged workers

https://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
And when the Market went up under Obama, the Republicans bellowed, "the Treasury is printing more money to prop it up!" and "the correction is coming, the House of Cards is gonna fall.

Quanatative Easing is what drove a lot of market growth in the Obama years, it may have been why wages were so flat and the economy was so poor during that time.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4045339-monetary-policy-drove-stock-market-obama-years-will-fiscal-policy-trumps-time

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
Btw, Alt, I find it hard to believe you actually read that article and made your last post in 8 minutes.

I skimmed it, the article discussed the happiness index comparing it to the one from the UN, taken two years ago which was more reflective of the economy of the last administration. It also mentioned stagnant wages which as posted above is something that hasn’t been true for 9 months.

Maedar May 8th, 2019 5:13 AM

There's also the matter of tax returns not being what everyone expected:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-returns-2019-tax-refunds-so-far-this-year-are-down-by-6-billion/

juliorain May 8th, 2019 6:13 AM

Fairly certain that the economy's growth rate is the same as a result of the Obama era stimulus packages and economic policy.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/12/646708799/fact-check-who-gets-credit-for-the-booming-u-s-economy

We'll see in the coming election cycle whether or not people have the ability to attribute it to Trump or Obama. It would be unfair to take all the credit like he is now and will certainly use that on his campaign trail. Who knows what the effect will be.

Maedar May 8th, 2019 12:27 PM

I might as well post this too:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/trumps-electoral-map-has-shifted-dramatically-and-it-doesnt-bode-well-for-his-2020-chances/

EnglishALT May 8th, 2019 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juliorain (Post 10015756)
Fairly certain that the economy's growth rate is the same as a result of the Obama era stimulus packages and economic policy.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/12/646708799/fact-check-who-gets-credit-for-the-booming-u-s-economy

We'll see in the coming election cycle whether or not people have the ability to attribute it to Trump or Obama. It would be unfair to take all the credit like he is now and will certainly use that on his campaign trail. Who knows what the effect will be.

Not really, as we see in the article while unemployment has continued a climb, things like small business growth, investment, etc etc started during the Trump administration which is attributed directly to his policies and why we are seeing so much growth in wages while they were stagnant under Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10015731)
There's also the matter of tax returns not being what everyone expected:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-returns-2019-tax-refunds-so-far-this-year-are-down-by-6-billion/

From your own article...

“Lower refunds don't mean Americans paid more taxes—quite the opposite. Most workers paid less in taxes last year and saw higher take-home pay week in and week out. But for many Americans, a slightly higher paycheck doesn't quite have the same visibility as a single $3,000 check in March or April.”

The tax cuts, cut taxes for everyone and while it sucks to get a smaller refund, it is only because people are paying less taxes for the rest of the year.

Noblejanobii May 9th, 2019 2:25 AM

I will stick my head in here to say that having had to study this campaign and presidency since before Trump was president, I have to agree that it's likely he's going to win, as much as I really don't want him too. Granted, he is horridly unpopular, which is a huge strike against him, but there's a couple big logistical factors that I personally think based on my studies would at least give him an edge.

And I'm also putting a disclaimer. I'm not here to debate. This is just my observations. Quite candidly, if you disagree with me, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinions as I am mine. I won't be responding to anyone else here, just putting down the thoughts and opinions of someone who has been forced to study the statistics, logistics, and policies of this administration since high school.

The first thing is the "law of incumbency". It's not actually a law in the legal or scientific sense, but it's what we jokingly refer to in my political science department when addressing why it's just harder to topple incumbents. Now, the "law" applies a little differently in regards to presidents and typically is used in reference to Congressional elections, but it does still have some application to the presidential offices. So, to explain as best I can, the "law of incumbency" essentially means that it is always just inherently harder to topple someone who is already in office. It's not impossible, obviously, I've done political work with enough campaigns that were both for and against the incumbent at more local levels to be aware of this. But it is just inherently more difficult. At the congressional and local levels, it has more to do with resources such as franking and name recognition, etc. which is still somewhat true with the president. But since most of the candidates in the running are currently members of Congress, they have access to the same resources and name recognition to some degree. Some, like say Elizabeth Warren, are a bit more well known than your Amy Klobuchars of the world, but as they all are serving in office, they've got some standing for them. Heck, even on the Republican side, Bill Weld has pull not only as the former governor and senator of Massachusetts, but also as the VP candidate for the Libertarians back in 2016 with Gary Johnson. BUT, with that said, unfortunately, the president just has more. Not just Trump, but all the presidents always have more. I won't lie, when I looked at the list of candidates on the democrat side, I maybe new of 1/3rd of them prior to seeing their names on this list. I know I know, shameful for someone who studies politics, but as someone who grew up in a conservative state, unless they were making headlines or were friends with my bosses like Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker, they just never popped up on my radar. And that is going to be a HUGE strike against the democrats unless they do pick someone with enough name recognition to counter the president's notoriety. Because even if you don't like him, bad press is still press, and it's reaching people who do support him. And because they've seen his name soooo many times since he got elected and even before, that name recognition outweighs most of the democrat candidates.

The second strike against the democrats at the moment also kinda falls into the law of incumbency, but is also separate. And it's partly to blame for the 2016 election's fallout from what I've studied. This factor is split parties. Split parties are essentially when there's too many popular candidates running for one party and can cause major problems when it comes to voting. While it's not a one to one comparison, the very best example I can give of this happening is the 1912 election with Theodore Roosevelt. Again, not a one to one, but for those unfamiliar, Teddy was dissatisfied with Taft and tried to win the Republican nomination. When he failed, he went and founded his own party, and because he was so popular, a lot of Republicans had a hard time to choosing between him and Taft. In the end, because of this, incumbent President Taft was unseated because of the split, and President Woodrow Wilson was able to take over. Overall, since this incident, parties have gotten smarter and have tried to prevent this from happening again. It still obviously happens, as Bernie Sanders' popularity with young people cause them to seek out the independents instead of backing Hillary which is part of the reason she lost (and yes there's sooo many other factors I am breezing over here but for the sake of relevance just stay with me). So when it comes to this election, I am a bit worried. There are a lot of strong candidates on the democrat side, which is good for the party, but if say, John Delaney wins the nomination, well if the people who supported Andrew Yang don't find his policies appealing enough, they either won't vote or they'll vote third party, creating a split. Quite candidly I thought this was going to happen in 2016 with the Republicans too but that's neither here nor there and since I was surprised then because of the split in the Democratic party then, who knows, a candidate might step forward in the Republican party that creates an effective enough split for Trump to be unseated. But that brings me to my third point.

The Republicans aren't stupid. Trust me, whether you agree with their policies or not, they are actually very smart people. Well... most of them anyway. I've worked enough campaigns to know there's a few idiots in every batch. But the point is, while you may only see the faces of the people running, there is a team of very brilliant people working behind them to make things happen. If you're ever interested in seeing how a staff can make or break a politician's career, just look at Ronald Reagan or Strom Thurmond. Whether you agree with their policies or not, their staffs are excellent examples of a well oiled machine able to keep a facade going for years. And I believe, since Trump does have experience as a businessman, he is aware of this. It's why he's fired so many people. Reports have come out detailing how his staff would defy him in his earlier days, but now most of them are gone, which whether you agree with Trump or not, it makes sense. If you disobedied your boss repeatedly you'd probably be fired too. And so now his staff is largely subservient to him, and while it may not seem like it, they know what their doing. Sure, there's several things I'd be doing differently, but they're making good use of Trump unpopularity to motivate his followers. And trust me, as someone who lives in a conservative state, I can confirm that they are responding like dogs to a treat. Their use of outrage marketing is very impressive. But it only really works if there's no one to compare him to. Which is why I think other than Bill Weld and a few others, there aren't going to be a lot of nominees on the Republican side. And there's many reasons for this. For one, a lot of members of Congress that I've worked with don't want to deal with the stress that being the president comes with, and their staff doesn't either. I remember one senator I worked for said that even if he did manage to get elected, he gets so many crap already that coupled with the bad publicity Trump has given the Republican party, he could probably never be able to pull his weight as the proper check and balance against Congress. In his words, he'd "be trampled like a welcome mat". And, unfortunately, I think that is the mentality a lot of Republicans have right now. They do not want the negative stigma Trump has given the nomination to impact them and their ability to do their jobs. And while they're certainly feeling it in their offices, the phone calls I can repeat from memory are overwhelming evidence of that, they're feeling it less than if they were to take the seat right after Trump. And sure, Bill Weld has stepped up, but I'm sorry, I don't think he's a strong enough candidate. Other than the 2016 election, he hasn't been in politics recently enough to draw on his support base as much as I think would be needed. But, he might surprise me.

There's several other things I think will impact this election and make it a bit of a wild ride for sure. For one, polling will still probably be off. The way polling typically works is that they poll people who have voted in the past three of the last four or five elections, and while there's been several since Trump was elected, in my area at least, most people only voted in the 2016 election, and a few did vote in the midterms. So they don't meet that minimum. The majority of Trump's supporters are also older, which means polling by phone will be difficult for a number of reasons, and internet polling is definitely shot. So at least on the Republican side, I don't think the polls will give an accurate representation of popularity unless the formula gets changed up.

In addition, while Trump's lack of popularity is a huge strike against him, there's no denying that his staff has done a beautiful job of framing a lot of his efforts as successes. His foreign relations, for example, have really focused on his efforts to mend things with Russia and North Korea lately and have tried to ignore some of his more controversial actions. Even Pence's threats to Venezuela for action have been framed to look like valiant efforts to save a dying people much in the same manner Vietnam was framed. And if it worked then, who's to say it won't work now. And whether you believe the economy is the result of his efforts or the result of the groundwork laid by Obama, it doesn't really matter. President Trump has the platform, not Obama. So guess who gets to claim credit? President Trump. It doesn't matter if he did or didn't cause it, former president Obama doesn't have the same soap box and while some people in higher positions are calling BS, they just don't have the same weight to their names as the current president.

I think unless the Democrat party can all unite behind a single candidate and there's an effective enough split in the Republican party, President Trump will win. Unfortunately for them, the odds are stacked against the Democrats, just as they are always stacked against the party not holding the incumbency. We haven't had a single term presidency since HW Bush lost in 1992. Just shy of three decades later, it's possible history will repeat itself. Taking a quick glance over the list of single term presidents (not counting partial presidencies just for comparison's sake), most of the presidents who only held one term where Republican. So who knows. Literally anything can happen. Personally, I'm not a fan of Trump. I'll spare you why but I'm optimistic that he'll get taken down. But, the reality is my studies and research just have the odds stacked in his favor for a re-election. So we'll see.

EnglishALT May 9th, 2019 3:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noblejanobii (Post 10016226)
Snip

I wanted to say thank you for your insightful rundown and if you do not mind I would love to pick your brain for a moment. Specifically I was curious as to when do you think a President can truly claim credit or take blame for an economy? I seem to remember there is a bit of a 6 month leeway after entering office, in which the previous President can get credit for an economy, as the current one has to install his own staff and begin to craft regulations. However I was wondering when you think an economy is truly credited toward the current administration?

Maedar May 9th, 2019 3:48 AM

I have no idea, ALT, economics isn't my specialty. However, I will note that Obama was never given any credit at all for eight years of economic recovery by his detractors. In their eyes, the economy never truly started to recover until Trump's inauguration.

Here, from 2015. This kinda illustrates my point:

https://www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2015/08/25

And while Trump has indeed "installed his own staff", his administration has had FAR more layovers than any other administration. One has to wonder how he gets anything done at all, and the truth is, he hasn't.

Noblejanobii May 9th, 2019 5:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10016235)
I wanted to say thank you for your insightful rundown and if you do not mind I would love to pick your brain for a moment. Specifically I was curious as to when do you think a President can truly claim credit or take blame for an economy? I seem to remember there is a bit of a 6 month leeway after entering office, in which the previous President can get credit for an economy, as the current one has to install his own staff and begin to craft regulations. However I was wondering when you think an economy is truly credited toward the current administration?

The President will take credit for the economy if it is good and will pass blame on someone else if it is bad. But in reality the economy typically has very little with what policies they introduce. Yes, it can help, but in reality most of the work is actually done by Congress, the FED, state and local governments, and other such organizations. The economy is a constantly shifting organism with too many factors impacting it at once for any one thing or program to be the sole creditor or originator for the change in the economy. So personally, no, I don't think it should be credited to the current administration, but nor should it be credited to the previous one. Have both administrations made impacts on it? Yes. But so has Senator Tim Scott with his initiatives for opportunity zones in South Carolina. So has the FED with its yearly interest rate alterations. So have Amazon and other big names through their productivity and impact on the stock markets. There are too many moving parts in the economy. No one should be solely credited for "saving" it. FDR's programs alone didn't pull the United States out of the Great Depression, and neither did President Obama's programs alone pull us out of the Recession of 2008. Were they large factors? Of course. And credit should be given to them for the role they played, just as certain economic policies implemented by the current administration be acknowledged for their effects as well. But, in my opinion, no one program or administration is the originator of this change, and thus I think the credit should be given to no single person or administration, but rather everyone as a whole. Because everyone, even people outside the United States, impacts our economy.

EnglishALT May 10th, 2019 4:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XIII (Post 10017007)
So the rest of it is due to money?

If your talking campaign spending Hillary actually out raised Trump in terms of money. I think a lot of people dismiss Trump’s speech style, it may seem simple but it resonates with people and helped him in many ways win the debates.

Maedar May 11th, 2019 4:22 AM

Trump's "speech style" is modern day rabble-rousing, and are full of half-truths and outright lies. I've seen the typical rally. They remind me of the studio audience of the old Morton Downy Jr. show.

EnglishALT May 11th, 2019 4:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017206)
Trump's "speech style" is modern day rabble-rousing, and are full of half-truths and outright lies. I've seen the typical rally. They remind me of the studio audience of the old Morton Downy Jr. show.

You essentially just described every single politician. Considering this topic is about 2020, I would suggest reading this experiment that New York University undertook in which they swamped the genders of Trump and Hillary and hired actors to portray them. Trump's female actor won over a very partisan audience because of his speech style, while Hillary's male actor came across as freaky and unsettling.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

S-MAN May 11th, 2019 5:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10017211)
You essentially just described every single politician. Considering this topic is about 2020, I would suggest reading this experiment that New York University undertook in which they swamped the genders of Trump and Hillary and hired actors to portray them. Trump's female actor won over a very partisan audience because of his speech style, while Hillary's male actor came across as freaky and unsettling.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

Sort of goes to show the people who claim "sexism" and all these other wild accusations for supporting the real Hillary reveals the reverse sexism these people have. The media, owned by very specific groups of people programming the public to hate certain people like Trump who don't bend over to political correctness. There can be legitimate reasons to not like him, but overall people are just getting PTSD over his remarks that he isn't afraid to hold back especially when they're true.. Like they're still bringing up the collusion after the fact he was already determined not to be indicted.. Or the case of public slander on Trump supporter Sandman who is now suing people like Washington Compost and NBC.. not to mention celebrities who all went out of their way to spread lies and dox him and his family.. and now how some people are suggesting the Democrats have to break the rules because they're dealing with Trump.. Most of the hate is misplaced and getting people who are generally good-hearted to turn against him too because they keep repeating the same lies/slander to the point it is accepted as fact. Any supporter of Trump or any of his policies are smeared as "alt-right" and that for the most part portrayed by the media is seen as negative when it really isn't.

Just listen to the directive of the communist party back in 1943: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgjUnl4Bluk
Sounds familiar? Who is the most notorious for practicing these sorts of things?

And who is trying to push for REMOVING him out of the ballots. Now, why do you think they would want to do that if they don't want him to win? Only if it's popular vote? So only the heavily condensed cities in the US found in places like California and Chicago can have the final say on who is elected? There is a reason why we have electoral college. This should be ringing alarms for everyone. Who really is acting like criminals? It ain't him that's for sure.

Like I said a lot of good people out there who mean good have many misunderstandings of how things work and it's not entirely their fault, but many aren't willing to really pull themselves out of the box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-7CiljQ_LI KGB defector explains how current situation came to be- this video also provides context to current events and is not boring

gimmepie May 11th, 2019 5:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017206)
Trump's "speech style" is modern day rabble-rousing, and are full of half-truths and outright lies. I've seen the typical rally. They remind me of the studio audience of the old Morton Downy Jr. show.

But it doesn't matter. It has not mattered to the majority of his supporters that almost everything he says is an outright lie before, it's not about to start mattering now. We're not discussing whether Trump is a good president, or even a good person. The question is, is he going to win?

Preferably, no. But the preferable outcome isn't the only one and I think we need to acknowledge that a Trump victory is a distinct possibility no matter how much of an asshole he is. My question to you is, if none of these things have mattered in relation to Trump before, why should we expect them to be a deciding factor now?

Maedar May 11th, 2019 4:19 PM

ALT, why are you still bringing up Hillary? I certainly didn't, and I can tell you with near-certainty that the only reason she is ever mentioned is because Republicans keep bringing her up. It's 2016. She is retired. Let it go.

Quote:

And who is trying to push for REMOVING him out of the ballots. Now, why do you think they would want to do that if they don't want him to win? Only if it's popular vote? So only the heavily condensed cities in the US found in places like California and Chicago can have the final say on who is elected? There is a reason why we have electoral college. This should be ringing alarms for everyone. Who really is acting like criminals? It ain't him that's for sure.
Orly Taitz tried many times to remove Obama from state ballots. I didn't see any outrage then. As for respect for the electoral college, remember this?

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/11/08/see-donald-trumps-rant-from-2012s-election-night/21601285/

As for "who is really acting like criminals"? Trump and his administration, no doubt.

EnglishALT May 11th, 2019 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017548)
ALT, why are you still bringing up Hillary? I certainly didn't, and I can tell you with near-certainty that the only reason she is ever mentioned is because Republicans keep bringing her up. It's 2016. She is retired. Let it go.

As I said in the post, it is not about Hillary but Trump's speaking style and how it resonates with voters. Here are a few quotes for example:

There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, "I kind of want to have a beer with her!"


If Democrats hope to beat Trump in 2020 they are going to need someone with the more relaxed and off to cuff speaking style that Trump utilizes so well, Biden for example is a good person I believe that can do this, as well as Beto. People like Elizabeth Warren, and some extent Bernie Sanders, not so much.

Maedar May 11th, 2019 4:46 PM

ALT, what I meant was, Trump's "speaking style" is full of insults, threats, and obscenities. He turns the crowd into something that threatens to cross the line into a becoming a lynch mob.

As if the chants of "LOCK HER UP" aren't enough, have you forgotten how he promised to pay legal fees of people who assaulted hecklers?

Here, Trump inciting violence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIs2L2nUL-0

EnglishALT May 11th, 2019 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017562)
ALT, what I meant was, Trump's "speaking style" is full of insults, threats, and obscenities. He turns the crowd into something that threatens to cross the line into a becoming a lynch mob.

As if the chants of "LOCK HER UP" aren't enough, have you forgotten how he promised to pay legal fees of people who assaulted hecklers?

Here, Trump inciting violence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIs2L2nUL-0

And? As gimmepie stated, people do not seem to care. If anything the insults and threats endear him to his supporters who have seen soft politicians like George W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney run for President and refuse to punch back at their opponents. So to reiterate gimmiepie's question: if none of these things have mattered in relation to Trump before, why should we expect them to be a deciding factor now?

Maedar May 11th, 2019 4:59 PM

Wait, wait, hold on.

First, you said I "just described every politician".

Now, you're saying Trump's "style" is unique and is what makes him different?

EnglishALT May 11th, 2019 5:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10017572)
Wait, wait, hold on.

First, you said I "just described every politician".

Now, you're saying Trump's "style" is unique and is what makes him different?

You describe pretty much every politician as engaging in "full of half-truths and outright lies" so again I ask gimmiepie's question. Why does his combative style, matter if the base, and independents seem to like it?

Maedar May 11th, 2019 5:11 PM

Because maybe the blatant lies (not half-truths), threats, name calling, bigotry, and calls for violence will matter now that everyone knows he's also an incompetent President.

And I posted my reasons for his incompetence on my first post of this thread.

Sirfetch’d May 11th, 2019 7:19 PM

This is a final warning for both of you to get back on the topic of 'Why Trump will win' and stop derailing the thread. Any more instances of this will result in infractions.

S-MAN May 12th, 2019 4:17 AM

https://youtu.be/VmAkq-AajFU
Trump is a successful business man. He is a symbol for prosperity and as this guy puts it: An American Success Story.
So with how they're trying to paint him as a loser with his tax returns, it only proves how he really knows a thing or two.
Quite an inspiration. I honestly hated him before because of all his wealth (jealousy) but that is no longer the case I can see how his comeback is significant and isn't a simple feat.
He wasn't just handed money and became rich- you also have to be smart with it. If it were so simple there wouldn't be as many financial failures who win the lotto.
He's going to win because there are many things us Americans can learn from him as well as hopefully undo all the marxist-like policies that are hurting us.
He is reviving the confidence in Americans in America despite all the insanity going on. This is reflective on his current popularity with everybody.
Of course there's going to be people hating him or some of his opinions but you can't please everybody.
He is absolutely smashing and even just got the 1.5B for the wall. He is getting some things done that previous presidents only talked the talk on before. He walks, struts, and is a boss.
You really have to look at WHY he is wealthy- why he is famous- WHY he is currently the president. That will ultimately reveal why he will win again.
People might have to let go of any jealousy/resentment residing inside to see the truth.
Plus he isn't afraid to make a moral argument against abortion. Believe it or not people really care about this.
Unemployment rates are being reported very low now and you can't just hit around the bush and give credit to something else.
The top comment there made me burst out laughing

EnglishALT May 12th, 2019 5:46 PM

So it looks like from the early polls that Biden will run away with the Democratic nomination. While this is no sure thing, it reminds me in many ways of 2008 with Republicans when the party elected the “next man up” in John McCain who did little to inspire Republicans to vote.

The reason I am referencing this is that I think it works in Trump’s favor in 2020. Having an aging candidate that does not inspire GOTV and connect with the base is a recipe for disaster.

Biden can connect with midwestern voters and middle class voters no doubt, but I don’t think he can inspire the so called Obama coalition in 2020 that did not appear for Hillary in 2016.

That alone will help Trump win.

Miss Wendighost May 14th, 2019 1:20 PM

Addressing the topic of the post, the one thing that would guarantee the reelection of Trump in 2020 is primarily his base. From what I would know, his base is incredibly loyal to him, regardless of scandals. Even if there was something that would've destroyed the chances of any other candidate of being elected, it is likely that Trump's base would still vote for him.

The one thing I can see defeating Trump in 2020 is the increase of political participation by young people in recent times. Do I have any certainties about 2020? No, I don't since things are still getting ironed out. All in all, the one thing that would allow Trump to serve four more years is his incredibly loyal base.

Sothis May 15th, 2019 12:46 AM

None of the left seem to want to vote anymore, so we'll likely see more republicans even after him.
It's sad, like yes the democrats are shitty too but in this situation I'd take the less shitty option.

Hermione Granger May 16th, 2019 6:44 PM

Since there will be independent people on the ballot for the presidency I will probably vote one of them as I don't support Trump or any of the democrats candidates. I do have views of both parties, which could lend to why I don't trust either party 100%.

Though I do see a possibility of trump winning again, but if we have a split congress or democrat controlled congress we would have another 4 year term of literally nothing getting done as I don't see a veto proof majority either.

twocows May 17th, 2019 6:03 PM

With respect to the original topic, Trump won in 2016 because of the convergence of a variety of factors, including but not limited to:
  • Sanders supporters who perceived the actions of the DNC in the primaries as conspiring to push him out either voting for Trump, voting third party, or opting not to vote
  • Clinton becoming the eventual candidate despite her overwhelming unpopularity
  • Clinton's focus on providing policy positions rather than an actual message, let alone a message that actually resonated with anyone
  • The DNC's attempt to appeal to both extreme leftists and moderates ended with their failure to really win with either group (extremists felt they didn't go far enough, moderates felt they weren't being listened to)
  • The existing Republican install base which, aside from a few outliers (never-Trumpers, but there were far more politicians who took this position than actual voters), largely got in line behind Trump
  • The large number of people who normally weren't motivated by politics who Trump was able to mobilize
  • Trump's success in making his opponents look clumsy while simultaneously energizing his support base
  • The media's severe underestimation of Trump's popularity with people who actually turned up to vote and the subsequent lack of participation this caused among his detractors (many didn't bother to vote because they believed that he didn't have a chance)
  • The impact of the internet and social media further energizing his base and helping to coordinate their messaging and efforts
  • Trump's personal intuition about which states would be electorally relevant in the final days leading up to the election ended up being spot-on
I'm sure I could come up with plenty more things if I spent some time on it.

I don't know if Trump can win in 2020. I know that there are some factors in favor and there are some against, but I'm not going to make an ultimate prediction either way.
  • +The DNC is still failing to appeal to either moderates or extremists
  • +While a lot of candidates have come forth, none are particularly popular. The leading candidate is probably Joe Biden and let's be honest, Trump's followers would have a field day with him.
  • +Trump's support base hasn't really diminished in any relevant capacity; he's still largely motivating the same people he did in 2016
  • -On the other hand, people outside his core support base have had time to get over some of the issues they've had in 2016 that may have caused them to flip, go third party, or not vote, and may be more motivated to vote against him
  • -The media isn't underestimating him anymore
  • +The media and his strongest detractors can't stop screeching about him; from the perspective of an outsider, it comes across as rabid and cult-like
  • +The Republican base, including many politicians who initially were against him, have largely united behind him
  • -While Trump claims a lot of accomplishments, there aren't a whole lot of blatant things he can point to and clearly establish as being responsible for. The big wins he'll point to are unemployment and ISIS and it's hard to really establish that he's solely responsible for either. His base might believe it, but past that, I don't know. I think people will be more likely to buy the latter than the former, though.
  • -He's going to have to field questions about why he hasn't followed through on some of his big promises. He'll shift blame, but it'll be hard to make that look good.

Again, I'm sure I could come up with others, but you get the picture. Trump had a lot go his way in 2016; it seems a bit more even here, and considering how the popular vote in 2016 was almost dead even with way more in his favor, I think it'll be a tougher sell in 2020. But then given the information we had in 2016, he pulled off an upset there; I can't rule it out in 2020.

Bidoof FTW May 17th, 2019 6:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10018138)
So it looks like from the early polls that Biden will run away with the Democratic nomination. While this is no sure thing, it reminds me in many ways of 2008 with Republicans when the party elected the “next man up” in John McCain who did little to inspire Republicans to vote.

The reason I am referencing this is that I think it works in Trump’s favor in 2020. Having an aging candidate that does not inspire GOTV and connect with the base is a recipe for disaster.

Biden can connect with midwestern voters and middle class voters no doubt, but I don’t think he can inspire the so called Obama coalition in 2020 that did not appear for Hillary in 2016.

That alone will help Trump win.

If Biden wins the nomination its a win for Trump secured.

I have zero doubt in my mind that the videos of Joe Biden being creepy around young females as well as stories from parents will begin to surface as soon as he has grabbed any sort of hold in the election. The Democrats choosing him as their primary candidate is suicide. I think Left news outlets want to support Biden because they think it will allow them to draw supporters of the Obama presidency, and it may. But I have a strong feeling that he's not going to inspire anyone, because personally as a democrat I want something different. Biden is not different.

Emilia May 17th, 2019 7:01 PM

I don't know nor care much about U.S. politics (I'm more interested in International politics anyway) but I mean..
If Trump is gonna win, is it probs because theres so many Democrats running, Democrat votes will just be scattered around compared to the majority of Republicans who will probs vote Trump soo Trump will win?
idk politics so im probs making no sense lol

twocows May 18th, 2019 2:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meyling (Post 10020542)
I don't know nor care much about U.S. politics (I'm more interested in International politics anyway) but I mean..
If Trump is gonna win, is it probs because theres so many Democrats running, Democrat votes will just be scattered around compared to the majority of Republicans who will probs vote Trump soo Trump will win?
idk politics so im probs making no sense lol

Only one candidate from each party runs in the general election. Party primary elections typically determine which candidate will run in the general election. All the Democrat potentials face each other, all the Republican potentials face each other, and whoever wins in each party goes to face the other party's candidate in the general election.

EnglishALT May 22nd, 2019 4:47 AM

Pelosi is calling a meeting for impeachment this morning with her caucus, considering the drum beat of the radical Democrats to impeach, and her shaky grip on her caucus, this may be a do or die for Pelosi's speakership.

However, as seen in the past with Republicans, the public does not reward a partisan impeachment they do not believe is deserving as Republicans lost significant seats in the 98 election. The last poll I saw also showed the public does not support impeachment here and are tired with the Mueller mess.

This very well could end up significantly boosting Trump's re election chances, while at the same time the chance of him actually being removed from office remains around 0.

Maedar May 22nd, 2019 1:11 PM

ALT you are assuming that impeaching Trump will have the same aftermath as Clinton’s impeachment, that it would cause Trump to be viewed as a victim of circumstance and a scapegoat. Maybe that would indeed be the case, and I have no doubt that is why Pelosi and Schumer have delayed it for so long. Although, one could argue that Trump IS being impeached right now in all but name.

Still, there are many flaws in this idea, notably, the differences in the comparison and the fact you only use one other comparison. .

First, Clinton was, despite demonization by his detractors, a very popular President. He was impeached for lying about a consensual act of sex, a type of lie that I am sure every American male has told more than once. His detractors will try to counter that and say it was perjury, but let’s be honest, this was a deliberate political move to get rid of him.

Trump is very different. Again, while some will deny this, he is NOT as popular as he claims. Even the Rasmussen Reports (known for a clear Republican bias) give him a current Approval Rating of 46%, nearly 20 points lower than Clinton’s was a month before he was impeached. While Trump and his supporters insist that there is political bias due to “sore losers” upset over the 2016 election, there are actual many impeachable offenses Trump could be charged with, including refusing to comply with court ordered subpoenas, witness tampering, witness intimidation, bank fraud, wire fraud, tax fraud, conspiracy, accepting illegal campaign contributions, embezzling money intended for charity, nepotism, perjury, money laundering, and falsifying documents.

There’s also the case that Trump, unlike Clinton, is starting to lose what support he has in the media (insulting Fox News for their coverage of Mayor Pete was unwise) and Justin Amash’s very public condemnation is only getting him renewed support from his own state.

And to top it off, Trump’s speech today in the Rose Garden was, IMOHO, rather... undignified.

There’s also one thing most everyone forgets, and that is Clinton was not the first time a President was impeached. The first time was in a case where the President was unpopular, unethical, and a blatant bigot.

Yes, I'm calling Johnson a bigot, cause he WAS one. He was a bigot even by the standards of the time. He had plans for ethnic cleansing of non-whites, which fortunately, he never had a chance to enact.

Even though Congress impeached him on a technicality, and it was clear they had political motives (meaning, everyone despised him) nobody cared. The unsuccessful push to impeach him didn't help his career at all. Much the opposite, it resulted in him losing what little influence he had as President, and the Republicans who voted for acquittal also lost reelection.

So, what does all this mean? Personally, I do not think impeachment will gain Trump sympathizers or supporters among the voting public, although I do think he’s likely to lose some positive media support.

EnglishALT May 22nd, 2019 2:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10022761)
First, Clinton was, despite demonization by his detractors, a very popular President. He was impeached for lying about a consensual act of sex, a type of lie that I am sure every American male has told more than once. His detractors will try to counter that and say it was perjury, but let’s be honest, this was a deliberate political move to get rid of him.

Trump is very different. Again, while some will deny this, he is NOT as popular as he claims. Even the Rasmussen Reports (known for a clear Republican bias) give him a current Approval Rating of 46%, nearly 20 points lower than Clinton’s was a month before he was impeached. While Trump and his supporters insist that there is political bias due to “sore losers” upset over the 2016 election, there are actual many impeachable offenses Trump could be charged with, including refusing to comply with court ordered subpoenas, witness tampering, witness intimidation, bank fraud, wire fraud, tax fraud, conspiracy, accepting illegal campaign contributions, embezzling money intended for charity, nepotism, perjury, money laundering, and falsifying documents.

Just to point out Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a sexual assault investigation, I doubt "every American male" has tried to get out of a sexual assault investigation. He also was engaged in witness tampering and witness intimidation via Article 3, something that you agree is an impeachable offense.

However not to re litigate the Clinton mess and focus on the actual topic, its worth looking at the actual polling of impeachment to get an idea of how the public would react.

40 percent of registered voters say Democrats should begin Impeachment, with Independents making up a plurality of 8 percent against impeachment, according to The Hill poll.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/415760-voters-split-on-if-house-dems-should-begin-impeachment

37 percent support Impeachment against 56 percent against, with Independents only supporting it by 36 percent in an ABC poll.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/31-trump-exonerated-mueller-report-56-oppose-impeachment/story?id=62659425

7 National Pollsters also polled on Impeachment, all of them have a strong plurality or majority against Impeachment.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/polls-show-democrats-should-not-impeach-trump.html

The case is clear the public does not want Impeachment, and if Democrats pursue this course of action, it will suck up all the air in the 2020 news cycle. It will place Democratic candidates for the President in the unenviable position of either supporting the radicals in the House or the public.

Let's also not forget that even impeached there is no way he would be removed by the Senate!

Impeachment only helps Trump in 2020.

gimmepie May 22nd, 2019 4:01 PM

In fairness, a lot of the people who are against impeachment are likely taking that stance out of not wanting Pence to take over for Trump. Which is an understandable position to take, but also makes it hard to gauge exactly how the anti-impeachment side of things really feel about Trump as president. I'm sure we've all heard plenty of people say something along the lines of "I hate Trump, but if he gets the boot, we get Pence and he's even worse."

If Trump is impeached and makes it through it, it might renew some fervour within his already rather dedicated base but I'm not sure I see it causing his supportership to grow significantly. Granted, I don't think it will cause his support to shrink either.

Trump is honestly a bizarre figure politically. Everyone has their minds made up one way or the other and I think it'd be very hard to dramatically shake up the way either side feels about him at this point.

Maedar May 22nd, 2019 4:12 PM

ALT, please read my post thoroughly. I stated my opinion that the lying under oath was the "excuse reason", much like how Johnson was impeached after he was pretty much manipulated into breaking the law. They actually sold tickets to the impeachment hearings, making it more like some carnival than an inquiry.

I see you did not address nor deny the impeachable offenses that I listed which could be brought against Trump.

As for those polls you stated, I know about those; I voted in them, for "Against". I do not want him impeached personally, but I do not think doing so would make him surge in popularity.

I personally do not think Pence is worse. While I despise him, I believe he is at least competent and has some understanding of how government works. More than Trump, anyway. I do not see Pence being ostracized by world leaders or sending out tweetstorms that serve no purpose but to annoy.

I remember when concerns (and quite a few dumb jokes) were raised over Dan Quayle, and to be honest. I'd personally even prefer Quayle to Trump right now. Not knowing how to spell "potato" isn't nearly as bad as not knowing why we can't nuke a country into submission.

EnglishALT May 22nd, 2019 4:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10022831)

If Trump is impeached and makes it through it, it might renew some fervour within his already rather dedicated base but I'm not sure I see it causing his supportership to grow significantly. Granted, I don't think it will cause his support to shrink either.

No doubt impeachment would galvanize his supporters and probably make Republicans very eager to vote in 2020. However I think you may be wrong on his support not growing, as you mention a lot of people have made up their minds about Trump. He tends to get high marks on the economy which effect Americans the most but low marks on personality. If he is seen as a victim of a witch hunt that the public is already tired of, that may smooth over some of the rough edges people see with his personality. That will lead a lot of people to have to decide if they want to change Presidents during a time of peace and economic prosperity or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10022837)

I see you did not address nor deny the impeachable offenses that I listed which could be brought against Trump.

What constitutes an impeachable offense is honestly what ever the House deems it to be, what matters is if the public believes he should be impeached or not.

colours May 22nd, 2019 4:41 PM

Not going to comment a whole lot on the whole "is Trump likely to win 2020" thing because I personally think people are more talking at each other rather than to each other in this thread, but one thing that should be noteworthy is that while there a lot of lessons to learn (and continue to learn) from 2016, I feel like people are overestimating Trump's chances a bit and treating him pretty much like the exception of politics when that doesn't entirely hold true for him. There are a lot of nuances that people either ignore or flat out don't know as to why 2016 happened when it happened, and this doesn't mean Trump is somehow going to be this highly favoured person going into the general from the get-go. I want to make one thing clear: this isn't to say that Trump is an underdog by any means, but going into your third term being underwater by double-digits can't bode well for re-election chances. That said, it's still rather rather early, so we'll see what happens in the coming months.

In regards to impeachment, I would also avoid reaching the absolute conclusion that it would 100% help Trump. It's possible that it would, but one possibility being glazed over here is that impeachment probably wouldn't change anyone's mind that wasn't already made up to begin with. You're not going to convince someone strongly for Trump no matter the evidence. The thing with the public being for or against impeachment also has to do with the evidence presented to them so far. In theory, allowing impeachment hearings would allow Democrats to pretty much gather all the evidence that they possibly can and hold endless public hearings and force the GOP to defend Trump and at worst, make them look bad, which will maybe change some minds (swing voters/reluctant Trump voters, probably). It'll be a purely symbolic form of impeachment, which of course means no removal from office, but that's a pill that those who aren't a big fan of Trump would have to swallow.

Also, in regards to impeachment being framed as some sort of witch hunt to galvanize the republican base, I don't personally think that's the best way to view it, largely because his base is already behind him and mobilized; have we forgotten how often Trump holds his rallies and paints himself as the victim in every single one of them? I don't think impeachment would move the needle much in his favour at all, really. I suppose if you're a right-leaning independent but still on the fence, but in that case, were you ever going to vote D to begin with?

The bigger question that needs to be pondered about is whether or not inaction rather than action would come to bite Democrats hard in 2020 as it can also be argued that it's giving Trump just as much ammo, as it places Trump in a position where he can say he can successfully do whatever he wants and get away with it without impeachment. Being painted as weak and cowardly in the 2020 elections isn't exactly going to be a good image for the Democrats as even if they try their best to focus more on kitchen table issues and things that matter more individually to voters (like healthcare and education, for example). At the end of the day, Trump is still likely going to be the GOP nominee and Democratic voter turnout is going to depend heavily on what kind of actions the Democratic house are going to take moving forward because they're going to have a lot to answer for if, as some say, they ignore their constitutional duty to do whats right for country.

Needless to say, it's a tough position to be in. Going for impeachment and then failing it however, can at least be signaled as an attempt to hold Trump more accountable for his actions than investigations alone have done, and Democrats would, at the very least, have some useful attack ads to pressure vulnerable Republican senators that defend Trump should that be the case.

Something to think about.

twocows May 22nd, 2019 4:46 PM

I don't entirely agree with ALT, but I agree that most people probably won't buy it. I don't think they'll think any better of him as a result, it's just the Dems haven't really sold impeachment outside of their existing support base. There doesn't seem to be any really solid to charge him with, or if there is, it's drowned out by the hundreds of inane or unsubstantiated charges the media pelts him with on a day-to-day basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10022761)
ALT you are assuming that impeaching Trump will have the same aftermath as Clinton’s impeachment, that it would cause Trump to be viewed as a victim of circumstance and a scapegoat.

First, as someone who actually lived through it, your telling of the story differs vastly from my actual experience. I don't remember him ever being portrayed as a victim or scapegoat. The most common portrayal of him during that time was as a pervert and a liar.

Second, I think the public's reaction is probably more tied to the DNC and their media partners' inability to sell a plausible reason for charging him.

See, with Clinton, there was something really obvious they could point to: he lied under oath during the course of an investigation. More than that, he admitted to it. As a result of both lying under oath and admitting that he lied under oath, he was charged with perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice (purposely doing things that interfere with an investigation). He was acquitted (on paper, at least) because all 45 Senate Democrats and a smattering of Senate Republicans bought the argument that lying under oath didn't constitute the sort of high crimes that would justify an actual impeachment conviction. In reality, that was about 10% of it; the other 90% was that he was a Democrat and all the Democrats and a couple Republicans voted for him. If he was a Republican, all the Republicans and a couple of Democrats would have voted for him. I think the courts should handle impeachment proceedings.

Anyway, with Trump, there's no admission of guilt, so that's a harder fight from the start. As far as what to charge him with, that's also going to be harder to sell to the public because the most popular media organizations have successfully deafened a lot of people to any potentially credible claims against Trump by constantly blowing out of proportion everything he does. There's a lot of people, both in the media and out, just latching onto whatever negative stuff they can find about him and going "SEE!? SEE!?" without really looking into it any further than that. They already have a conclusion and they're just looking for evidence to suit it rather than doing it the other way around. It's like how people who didn't like Obama latched onto the birth certificate thing because the situation was complex enough that if you looked at it at a glance, you couldn't immediately dismiss it, even if in reality it was just a bunch of nothing. Again, maybe there is something concrete, but with the media in the state it is, it's hard to reach that conclusion; they're doing a bad job of presenting their case to the public. The reason Trump's been successful deflecting criticism by saying "witch hunt" is because the media hunts him as though he were a witch. They need a better strategy.

Quote:

First, Clinton was, despite demonization by his detractors, a very popular President.
He was very popular, at least until he had an affair and lied about it. If there was a saving grace for him, I think it's that most people didn't really see it as that big of a deal. He lied, but all politicians lie. He had an affair with an intern, but where today people would see that as a powerful man taking advantage of a woman, the overwhelming sentiment at the time was that Clinton was just a pervert. If it had happened now, I think it would play out a lot differently.

Quote:

lying about a consensual act of sex, a type of lie that I am sure every American male has told more than once.
No? Why are you stereotyping American men (or men generally) as being pathological liars or sex-obsessed animals? Do you not realize how awful what you just suggested is? Please don't stereotype people like that.

Quote:

His detractors will try to counter that and say it was perjury, but let’s be honest, this was a deliberate political move to get rid of him.
The two are not mutually exclusive. He was not acquitted because he didn't commit perjury; in fact, by his own admission, he did exactly that. Perjury literally means lying under oath. He admitted he lied under oath. He was acquitted, at least on paper, not because he didn't do it, but because that perjury did not rise to the level of high crimes of the sort that would justify impeachment. In other words, he broke the law, just not bad enough to be kicked out of office in an impeachment hearing.

That does not exclude a political motivation, though. Of course the impeachment was politically motivated. That goes without saying. If it had been a Republican President doing the same thing, the vote would have been the exact reverse, even if the circumstances were identical. However, political motivation or not, he did commit a crime, even if that crime did not rise to the level of impeachment, and bringing charges against someone who commits a crime is a valid thing to do.

Quote:

Trump is very different. Again, while some will deny this, he is NOT as popular as he claims. Even the Rasmussen Reports (known for a clear Republican bias) give him a current Approval Rating of 46%, nearly 20 points lower than Clinton’s was a month before he was impeached.
Clinton was at the end of his presidency and his impeachment happened in a very different political atmosphere to what we have today. And it's not like he was completely unfazed by it, it's just that most people didn't really think too much of it. It didn't lose him much popularity, it just kind of made him into a pathetic national joke. That's a completely different situation to what we have going on here, so I don't think that situation is relevant. That said, I also don't think impeachment would make Trump any more popular, but I do think a lot of people would buy his inevitable argument that it's a partisan witch hunt. Again, you have the media (and possibly DNC strategists) to thank for that; Trump's just doing a good job of capitalizing on their utterly stupid behavior.

Quote:

While Trump and his supporters insist that there is political bias due to “sore losers” upset over the 2016 election, there are actual many impeachable offenses Trump could be charged with, including refusing to comply with court ordered subpoenas, witness tampering, witness intimidation, bank fraud, wire fraud, tax fraud, conspiracy, accepting illegal campaign contributions, embezzling money intended for charity, nepotism, perjury, money laundering, and falsifying documents.
You didn't substantiate any of those claims, so they hold no weight. Even if you did, I suspect they'd be references to some biased media source editorializing a report that doesn't say what they're suggesting it says. It'd take too much time and effort to actually research each and every one of those (to the tune of hours and hours of my week that is already shortened by 40 hours of work, which is probably what the media's banking on when they raise the points to begin with), so I'm just not going to bother.

For argument's sake, though, let's assume they're all true (and that's quite the assumption). I'm relatively certain none of these can be directly tied to Trump himself (or the Democrats wouldn't be so wishy-washy about impeachment to begin with), and even if they could, you'd have to tackle the same arguments Clinton's prosecution faced: what constitutes "high crimes?"

Quote:

There’s also the case that Trump, unlike Clinton, is starting to lose what support he has in the media (insulting Fox News for their coverage of Mayor Pete was unwise) and Justin Amash’s very public condemnation is only getting him renewed support from his own state.
Clinton didn't exactly have the media on his side during his impeachment hearings, but again, I don't really think that's particularly relevant. As far as Trump's current popularity or lack thereof, I don't really have any strong opinions, but I don't think impeachment proceedings would make him look any worse. Nobody's going to change their mind over this. The people who hate Trump will still hate Trump, the people who love Trump will still love Trump, and the rest of us will realize it's just more political theater.

Quote:

And to top it off, Trump’s speech today in the Rose Garden was, IMOHO, rather... undignified.
I don't think that's really relevant; we're talking about the general public's perception, you'd need to show how that affected his polling numbers.

Quote:

There’s also one thing most everyone forgets, and that is Clinton was not the first time a President was impeached. The first time was in a case where the President was unpopular, unethical, and a blatant bigot.
Again, I don't really see the relevance. Nixon was also impeached, I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Quote:

Yes, I'm calling Johnson a bigot, cause he WAS one. He was a bigot even by the standards of the time. He had plans for ethnic cleansing of non-whites, which fortunately, he never had a chance to enact.

Even though Congress impeached him on a technicality, and it was clear they had political motives (meaning, everyone despised him) nobody cared. The unsuccessful push to impeach him didn't help his career at all. Much the opposite, it resulted in him losing what little influence he had as President, and the Republicans who voted for acquittal also lost reelection.
Woah, strong words for our 17th President; be careful or you'll get hate mail from all of his fan.

I don't really think there are any raging fires about Andrew Johnson, the guy's been dead for 144 years. If you want to call him a bigot, I don't think anyone really cares enough to challenge it.

Quote:

So, what does all this mean? Personally, I do not think impeachment will gain Trump sympathizers or supporters among the voting public, although I do think he’s likely to lose some positive media support.
I don't think it's really going to make much of a difference regardless of what happens. If they go through with it, it'll look like a witch hunt, he'll call it a witch hunt, and no one's going to change their mind because that doesn't make him any better, either. If they don't go through with it, no one's going to change their mind then, either.

Maedar May 22nd, 2019 5:47 PM

Uh, Twocows, you really just proved my point, which was that the situations for Clinton and Trump are as different as night and day.

Before I sign off for tonight, I'll put this link from The Hill:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/444972-poll-60-percent-say-trump-should-not-be-reelected?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

Controversial? May 23rd, 2019 3:56 AM

We needed a shakeup of the system, a lot of people were campaigning for that.

The problem was, it's not coming from the left or from any aspect of economic reform.

It's coming from fascism and the far right.

Trump is a sign of how dark the world is going to become.

EnglishALT May 23rd, 2019 5:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Controversial?
We needed a shakeup of the system, a lot of people were campaigning for that.

The problem was, it's not coming from the left or from any aspect of economic reform.

It's coming from fascism and the far right.

Trump is a sign of how dark the world is going to become.

Considering how well the economy is doing right now, I would say the system and it’s changes have been rather shaken up, and are performing in a way that is benefiting the public. The wage growth alone that has come from the current economy are a clear benefit to the people who need it the most.

Nah May 23rd, 2019 1:57 PM

Economics is merely one lens to view things through,and viewing things only through that lens kind of misses the point.

EnglishALT May 23rd, 2019 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10023162)
Economics is merely one lens to view things through,and viewing things only through that lens kind of misses the point.

It is also the issue that many politicians tend to miss when it comes to challenging an incumbent. Most Americans tend to tune out of politics until the last month or two before an election, and as we saw with Reagan in 1980, Clinton in 1991, and even Trump in 2016 in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan, how people feel they are doing personally, the so called kitchen table issues fuel enthusiasm to vote.

Taemin May 24th, 2019 10:54 AM

It terrifies me that he could win, but also if we impeach him now it will help him in some ways. Plus, he could easily win just because he won last time despite the fact that he didn't even win popular vote from the people. So it's not what we want, anyway, and it might not be next time. The whole thing is a very unfortunate joke at the moment, in my opinion, and I just want to move past the Trump era as smoothly as possible right now. If he wins again, hopefully we'll survive whatever wars and hate will come out of it. oof.

Alexander Nicholi May 24th, 2019 3:48 PM

My unaffiliated analysis is that unless the DNC puts Sanders up for the nomination, they’re handing Trump another four years.

Why?

Media trust is shot. Even if other candidates appear to be genuine, their media backup is going to put into question everything they ever say. People have a reason to believe Sanders regardless precisely because they canned him last time around to everyone’s dismay. And besides, it’s not like the media tends to care about him anyway… not that it matters to his supporters. The old paradigm of Default Democratic Victory depends on people being compelled to some extent to vote, and most of the country (ergo, the moderates) are gravely uncompelled to do so.

I think it’s pretty important to be looking ahead if there’s to be any real hope of stopping his reelection, but unfortunately that seems to be the last thing going on in party hands, and in the minds of those invariably on the left. The fact that so many people are still looking backward at impeachment is a sad cry to the state of affairs for this, and if it isn’t changed it may cost them another reelection.

EnglishALT May 24th, 2019 6:01 PM

Two interesting polls out that could very well impact 2020 and how the public will view an impeachment inquiry or further investigations by Democrats.

“While a clear majority of the public supports getting more details about the Mueller report, just over half (52%) say that Congress should move on to other issues now that the investigation has concluded. Just 41% say that Congress should continue to look into concerns related to the inquiry. These results are similar to the public’s opinion last month just before the report was released...The poll finds that 39% of Americans feel that Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the presidency while 56% disagree with this course of action.”

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_052219/

CBS news also found similar numbers among the public with only Democrats wishing to continue to investigate.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-americans-say-trump-administration-should-cooperate-with-congressional-investigations/

LDSman May 24th, 2019 6:23 PM

I think the biggest problem facing Dems is that they just spent two years vilifying and irritating Trump and/or "not Hillary voters" by calling them racist or whatever. I know quite a few people who intend to vote for him again just because they are really pissed at the Dems. It also doesn't help that the Dems don't seem to have any good choices at the moment.

twocows May 25th, 2019 4:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10022860)
Uh, Twocows, you really just proved my point, which was that the situations for Clinton and Trump are as different as night and day.

If that's your point, then I agree with that. They're entirely different situations and it doesn't make sense to compare them. You said some other things I disagree with, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDSman (Post 10023577)
I think the biggest problem facing Dems is that they just spent two years vilifying and irritating Trump and/or "not Hillary voters" by calling them racist or whatever. I know quite a few people who intend to vote for him again just because they are really pissed at the Dems. It also doesn't help that the Dems don't seem to have any good choices at the moment.

If you couldn't tell from my earlier post, I'm also extremely pissed at the DNC, and I can understand why the DNC's actions over the past several years would lead people to vote Trump; I also felt the urge several times to vote for him in 2016 just because of how pissed I was at the DNC. I didn't, though, because he wasn't the best choice. And I'm not going to in 2020, because letting emotions guide your decisions does not usually lead to good decisions. I'll probably vote third party like I did in 2016.

Voting is your only observable way of showing politicians what your beliefs are. If you're not happy with the DNC and if you're not happy with the GOP, voting for a third party produces a permanent public record that someone, somewhere was fed up with both of them. It probably won't change the ultimate result of the election, but if enough people vote third party, that shows up in records that your representatives look at. These numbers can change how your representative conceives his district's politics, and they use that to determine how to vote on various issues. You know how occasionally you see politicians in the news who vote against their party on particular things? Justin Amash is a big one here right now. They wouldn't do that if it didn't make sense to do in their district. The reason politicians do things like this is because they look at the voting numbers in their district and think this behavior will play well with the people voting for them.

CodeHelmet May 25th, 2019 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 10023672)
If that's your point, then I agree with that. They're entirely different situations and it doesn't make sense to compare them. You said some other things I disagree with, though.



If you couldn't tell from my earlier post, I'm also extremely pissed at the DNC, and I can understand why the DNC's actions over the past several years would lead people to vote Trump; I also felt the urge several times to vote for him in 2016 just because of how pissed I was at the DNC. I didn't, though, because he wasn't the best choice. And I'm not going to in 2020, because letting emotions guide your decisions does not usually lead to good decisions. I'll probably vote third party like I did in 2016.

Voting is your only observable way of showing politicians what your beliefs are. If you're not happy with the DNC and if you're not happy with the GOP, voting for a third party produces a permanent public record that someone, somewhere was fed up with both of them. It probably won't change the ultimate result of the election, but if enough people vote third party, that shows up in records that your representatives look at. These numbers can change how your representative conceives his district's politics, and they use that to determine how to vote on various issues. You know how occasionally you see politicians in the news who vote against their party on particular things? Justin Amash is a big one here right now. They wouldn't do that if it didn't make sense to do in their district. The reason politicians do things like this is because they look at the voting numbers in their district and think this behavior will play well with the people voting for them.

Well said and I'm basically pissed at both parties right now. As I said in my OP, I haven't made up my mind on whom I'm voting for but what I have decided on is to never vote for another Democrat ever again. The party has lost their collective minds and no longer represent US citizens. They care more about foreigners than those they swore an oath to represent and more about usurping the results of 2016 than actually legislating and fixing glaring problems facing the country. Why people would blindly vote for them because they have a "D" next to their name(same deal for those on opposite side) is something I struggle to understand every day. I'm not asking people to vote GOP(they have their own skeletons/problems) but to strongly consider 3rd party as opposed to Democrats.

Maedar June 8th, 2019 4:40 AM

I just had to post this. Seems some polls lately are being less than honest:

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b76653_dca30f22bfd9461baf54b49ef32555ff.pdf

This poll taken in North Carolina seems to favor Trump, both on the election and the issues. But then it shows some bizarre data that seem to suggest an intentional skew.

It first claims that only 12% of respondents have school-age children. Then 80% claim to be Caucasian (North Carolina's actually demographics are much different) and then, a whopping 91% claim to be over 55.

While I admit that senior citizens, who in recent years have skewed conservative, vote more reliably than younger people, THIS is ridiculous.

Clearly, this poll was rather selective in its respondents. I have to wonder, how many other Conservative-leaning pundits (like this one) are doing this?

TailsMK4 June 10th, 2019 8:59 AM

That is pretty much all polls in general, as they do not get the whole picture. We really only ever find out how a presidential election goes when the votes actually get cast, and even then, there are people that decide not to vote. That's a freedom that this country offers...there are some countries where you MUST vote. So I pay very little attention to polls since they have their own slants. From a statistics-viewpoint, polls are always biased, even if not explicitly said. Instead, I pay attention to what politicians do for me to form my opinion.

Staying on topic, I have let off on caring much about politics since really nothing much has changed. Lots of people still cannot put the Mueller report behind them (the claim of obstruction is still debatable, but the primary objective of trying to prove Trump colluded was proven to be completely false). I think insisting on continuing to dwell over this is going to help Trump in the long term, but the economy is still the biggest reason for why he would get reelected. I think it doesn't help that the Democrat challengers cannot seem to agree on important issues regarding their own platform (the recent attacks on Joe Biden come to mind). It's really hard to say who would be the primary challenger to Trump, but I am beginning to wonder if there is again some favoritism in the party that brought down Bernie Sanders in favor of Hilary Clinton last election. No basis on that thought, just wondering based on the current state of actions for the Democratic party to choose someone to challenge Trump.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.