President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

MightyMandarin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm sure a lot of people are happy to see Trump have a go at Lewis and his district and his legacy. not everyone thinks civil rights movements are a good thing and trump will only gain support from those people.

Mighty mandarin, the facts about the district aren't very important. Most people won't have heard about Lewis's district until yesterday. They heard from Trump that it's in a horrible state, full of blacks signified by "(crime ridden)" and represented by a civil rights campaigner.

The socially constructed reality is what matters here, not the dry facts. Dry facts are for pointy headed elites and can't really be used in a tweet. In short, Lewis's district is whatever Trump said it was yesterday

He already has support from them for God's sake. They're the people who think 'whites are under attack'.

They're not important because his supporters and he can't understand them.

Nobody who doesn't already support Trump liked what he said. Even Republicans are condemning his lashing out.

John Lewis knew what he was doing and baited that eejit into another twitter rant. Hopefully others will follow suit and bait this clown whose ego steps in the door long before his body does.

El_Duderino 09

MightyMandarin wrote:

He already has support from them for God's sake. They're the people who think 'whites are under attack'.

MightyMandarin wrote:

Nobody who doesn't already support Trump liked what he said. Even Republicans are condemning his lashing out.

I'd say you're right on both counts. This is what 'throwing red meat to the base' looks like right now.

Imagine if Obama reacted like this to every insulting thing said about him. You and me would call it ego and this might it as a bad thing. Trump supporters are looking at it on a visceral level and see it as a strength.

Bush had Carl Rove to pick 'wedge issues', but trump can turn the simplest thing into a wedge issue. This didn't hurt Trump amongst his supporters, just like the press conference the other day didn't hurt him with his supporters. They're enjoying watching a politician behave like one of them, rather than behaving with restraint like a typical 'Elite'.

InTheTrees

It's also the Martin Luthur King holiday here in the US so the whole incident gets much more publicity as trump insults an active civil rights campaigner from the MLk era for being "all talk" and no action.

Next year trump will have to attend official functions making the holiday.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Now Trump has apparently "insulted"" Lewis for not bending over and taking this crap meekly.

He didn't 'apparently "insult"' him, he insulted him, and continued his unbroken streak of making himself look like a thin-skinned petulant teenager in the process.

It's utterly bizarre how Trump fans are unable to comprehend the idea that there are other ways of "not taking crap meekly" than to lash out like a spoiled six-year-old. It's also bizarre how there's apparently nothing he can do that will diminish his standing in their eyes.

Trump insults a man that everyone who isn't either a narcissist idiot or a narcissist idiot worshipper acknowledges is objectively an actual civil rights hero, and his supporters immediately begin their Pavlovian parroting of his bullshít. It's ridiculous.

ligerdub

He can be a civil rights hero who says stupid comments in politics.

Using his history as a shield or questioning his actions are both wrong.

I think they both come off as very petty and worse off from this.

oscarBravo

ligerdub wrote: »

He can be a civil rights hero who says stupid comments in politics.

Yes, he can. And that's the difference between mature criticism of something you disagree with, and the utterly predictable rantings of the idiot man-child that will occupy the White House in less than a week.

MightyMandarin

ligerdub wrote: »

He can be a civil rights hero who says stupid comments in politics.

Using his history as a shield or questioning his actions are both wrong.

I think they both come off as very petty and worse off from this.

If anything John Lewis has benefited from this. He's added more fuel to Trump's fire, his book sold out on Amazon and he's had people on the other side react badly to Trump's reaction.

I'm convinced he knew what he was doing, and baited Trump into a stupid response. This won't be the last time somebody powerful says something slightly OTT just to get a reaction out of Trump.

Count Dooku

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I don't know those areas, but I found some figures about the district.
In short, it's not a 'struggling' community like Trump claims.

Yep - just use an averages to hide inconvenient truth
Forest Park is number one and East Point is number seven in Detailed List Of The Worst Places To Live Around Atlanta

ligerdub

MightyMandarin wrote: »

If anything John Lewis has benefited from this. He's added more fuel to Trump's fire, his book sold out on Amazon and he's had people on the other side react badly to Trump's reaction.

I'm convinced he knew what he was doing, and baited Trump into a stupid response. This won't be the last time somebody powerful says something slightly OTT just to get a reaction out of Trump.

Fair point.....it has enhanced his profile.

Inquitus

Latest from the desk of the PEOTUS, clearly the right man to bridge the divide.......

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/820707210565132288

MightyMandarin

Count Dooku wrote: »

Yep - just use an averages to hide inconvenient truth
Forest Park is number one and East Point is number seven in Detailed List Of The Worst Places To Live Around Atlanta

First off, figures such as the ones I posted don't tend to based off of congressional districts. Presumably statisticians didn't think congressmen would be attacked for the demographics and state of the areas they represent.

Secondly, I don't know Atlanta well, I was presuming since the only time I've been there I stayed in a neighbourhood in this particular district, and it was very nice, but districts don't always just have 'nice' neighbourhoods eithe.

Thirdly, even if those particular areas such as East Point and Forest Park aren't great areas to live in, it doesn't mean it's all because John Lewis is a lousy congressman. Plenty of **** politicians represent good areas and vice versa.

Lastly, I'd rather not take that 'Buzzfeed-esque' article you posted as gospel. I'd rather go by actual statistics rather than the garbage journalism you like to rely on.

MightyMandarin

Inquitus wrote: »

Latest from the desk of the PEOTUS, clearly the right man to bridge the divide.......

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/820707210565132288

I can just picture him and his staff laughing as he wrote that tweet, thinking of all the gob****es who actually believe him.

Valord

MightyMandarin wrote: »

He already has support from them for God's sake. They're the people who think 'whites are under attack'.

They're not important because his supporters and he can't understand them.

Nobody who doesn't already support Trump liked what he said.

It seems to me that that is all Trump needs, though. Trump already is the president (or rather, will be this week). The only way for him to stop being president at this point would be if the Republican-controlled Congress impeaches him.

The only way Congress could ever have the courage to impeach him (assuming he does something impeachable in the near future) would be if the Republican-leaning voters who elect them stop liking Trump so much, as if they were to impeach them now, it would mean big trouble for the party (no doubt it would be spun by Trump and perceived by voters as "elites overriding the will of the people").

So for Trump to stay safe in his job and to keep the rest of the party in line, he just needs to maintain his position as a hero amongst the section of voters who already supported him. Democrats and liberals hating him even more won't matter, and you can also be sure that by 2020 when he's up for re-election, this will have rolled off his back and been long-forgotten, just like most of his early campaign scandals were by the time the 2016 election came up.

El_Duderino 09

Valord wrote:

So for Trump to stay safe in his job and to keep the rest of the party in line, he just needs to maintain his position as a hero amongst the section of voters who already supported him. Democrats and liberals hating him even more won't matter, and you can also be sure that by 2020 when he's up for re-election, this will have rolled off his back and been long-forgotten, just like most of his early campaign scandals were by the time the 2016 election came up.

This is exactly the point. He identified his voters with pinpoint accuracy before the election. That vote block is not 50%of the country. It's more that 50% in key states. Of those states you need >50% of the people who are eligible to vote, have registered, don't have any impediment (ID, time off work, transport to and from voting station) and will actually vote. That's a very small proportion of the nation.

He could win an election with 20% approval rating as long as they're the same 20% who will actually vote for him and are spread out throughout the nation.

So saying things that make 80% shudder is fine as long as his 20% liked it.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He identified his voters with pinpoint accuracy before the election. That vote block is not 50%of the country. It's more that 50% in key states.

This is why he can do stuff like appoint a brain surgeon and a comedian to tackle "urban issues" simply because they are both black - it looks reasonable to his voters, because they are rural and suburban white racists.

Rightwing

Inquitus wrote: »

Latest from the desk of the PEOTUS, clearly the right man to bridge the divide.......

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/820707210565132288

Clearly Obama failed. It's more divided now that for many a long year.

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is exactly the point. He identified his voters with pinpoint accuracy before the election. That vote block is not 50%of the country. It's more that 50% in key states. Of those states you need >50% of the people who are eligible to vote, have registered, don't have any impediment (ID, time off work, transport to and from voting station) and will actually vote. That's a very small proportion of the nation.

He could win an election with 20% approval rating as long as they're the same 20% who will actually vote for him and are spread out throughout the nation.

So saying things that make 80% shudder is fine as long as his 20% liked it.

And even worse than that, the primaries are the real election, and then you're down to about 15% of the population who vote in each primary. (30% of eligible voters vote, and are split between dem and republican primaries, so 15%ish for each race)

Trump won the primaries by appealing to about half of 15% of Americans

American democracy is a disgrace.

Mr.Micro

Akrasia wrote: »

And even worse than that, the primaries are the real election, and then you're down to about 15% of the population who vote in each primary. (30% of eligible voters vote, and are split between dem and republican primaries, so 15%ish for each race)

Trump won the primaries by appealing to about half of 15% of Americans

American democracy is a disgrace.

The probability of Trump winning the election at the start of the campaign were so long, Trump probably even bet against himself as a sure bet.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So saying things that make 80% shudder is fine as long as his 20% liked it.

Akrasia wrote: »

And even worse than that, the primaries are the real election, and then you're down to about 15% of the population who vote in each primary. (30% of eligible voters vote, and are split between dem and republican primaries, so 15%ish for each race)

Trump won the primaries by appealing to about half of 15% of Americans
American democracy is a disgrace.

This is like a reverse auction. Anyone got anything lower than 15%? :pac:

And where are people getting these figures and statistics again?
That's right, they're pulling random numbers out of their asses.

recedite

Count Dooku wrote: »

Yep - just use an averages to hide inconvenient truth
Forest Park is number one and East Point is number seven in Detailed List Of The Worst Places To Live Around Atlanta

It is an inconvenient truth that many US towns, especially in the southern states, have a black/colored part of town where for historical reasons black families have tended to congregate.
And people like Lewis will hoover up votes in those areas. His latest rant against Trump's legitimacy as president will help to keep him in office, even in the absence of any actual policies.

That is Trump's point; identity politics are not a good substitute for actual policies and ideas.
Anyone who thinks political criticism of Lewis equals criticism of all black people is guilty of a puerile form of racism.

InTheTrees

recedite wrote: »

And people like Lewis will hoover up votes in those areas. His latest rant against Trump's legitimacy as president will help to keep him in office, even in the absence of any actual policies.

Representing the views of his constituents and opposing the divisive policies of trump is his job.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

This is like a reverse auction. Anyone got anything lower than 15%? :pac:

And where are people getting these figures and statistics again?
That's right, they're pulling random numbers out of their asses.

Well here is the 15% number from the primaries which didn't take a whole lot of effort to find:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-the-2016-primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

And where are people getting these figures and statistics again? That's right, they're pulling random numbers out of their asses.

It was an illustrative example.

Quick Google shows trump got 25% of the eligible voters. You can untwist your knickers if you like.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

So saying things that make 80% shudder is fine as long as his 20% liked it.

I should have said he can make 75% of eligible voters shudder as long as 25% of them like what he's saying.

Does that really change anything?

Rightwing

Akrasia wrote: »

And even worse than that, the primaries are the real election, and then you're down to about 15% of the population who vote in each primary. (30% of eligible voters vote, and are split between dem and republican primaries, so 15%ish for each race)

Trump won the primaries by appealing to about half of 15% of Americans

American democracy is a disgrace.

Especially when you lose.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I should have said he can make 75% of eligible voters shudder as long as 25% of them like what he's saying. Does that really change anything?

Its not a fair representation.
A quick google indicates that in our own last election, voter turnout was 65% and of that, Fine Gael got only 25% of the vote.
So Enda Kenny's party only got 16% of the eligible vote. Does that mean he is not the legitimate head of govt. and the other 84% of the population are "shuddering" at the farce that passes for Irish democracy?
No, its a nonsense argument.
There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics.

Harika

recedite wrote: »

This is like a reverse auction. Anyone got anything lower than 15%? :pac:

And where are people getting these figures and statistics again?
That's right, they're pulling random numbers out of their asses.

What is the minimum amount of votes someone needs to win the election? Basically if Hillary would have found it is hilarious to vote for Trump and no one else in the whole America votes, would he then have won?
Anyway, the election process in the US is known for quite some time, a lot of people are paid a lot of money to understand and exploit it, on both sides. So Trump won fair, the democrats didn't even bother trying to change the system in the last eight years, so nothing to complain about.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

Its not a fair representation. A quick google

I thought you were going to link to something relevant there.

recedite wrote:

that in our own last election, voter turnout was 65% and of that, Fine Gael got only 25% of the vote. So Enda Kenny's party only got 16% of the eligible vote. Does that mean he is not the legitimate head of govt. and the other 84% of the population are "shuddering" at the farce that passes for Irish democracy? No, its a nonsense argument. There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics.

I never questioned the legitimately of anything. Where did you get that from my post?

I made a different argument all together. I said

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

This is exactly the point. He identified his voters with pinpoint accuracy before the election. That vote block is not 50%of the country. It's more that 50% in key states. Of those states you need >50% of the people who are eligible to vote, have registered, don't have any impediment (ID, time off work, transport to and from voting station) and will actually vote. That's a very small proportion of the nation.

He could win an election with 20% approval rating as long as they're the same 20% who will actually vote for him and are spread out throughout the nation.

So saying things that make 80% shudder is fine as long as his 20% liked it.

You whinged about my use of 80% which I corrected to 75% and you changed the subject, remember?

As long as he keeps feeding red meat to the same 25% who want to hear about what a horrible state (and crime infested) Lewis's district is, he can still maintain enough popularity.

Amerika

Harika wrote: »

What is the minimum amount of votes someone needs to win the election? Basically if Hillary would have found it is hilarious to vote for Trump and no one else in the whole America votes, would he then have won?
Anyway, the election process in the US is known for quite some time, a lot of people are paid a lot of money to understand and exploit it, on both sides. So Trump won fair, the democrats didn't even bother trying to change the system in the last eight years, so nothing to complain about.

270 electoral votes.

The popular vote is a meaningless and irrelevant statistic, unless you're a sore loser, that is. And we don't know who would have won an actual popular vote if it was the criteria needed to win the election. Because if we selected our president based on a popular vote, politicians would campaign for it an would probably neglect the majority of states. Therefore there's no guarantee that Clinton would have won a popular vote if that were the means to victory.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I never questioned the legitimately of anything. Where did you get that from my post?

Why assume the majority are "shuddering" at the thought of a Trump presidency then?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As long as he keeps feeding red meat to the same 25% who want to hear about what a horrible state (and crime infested) Lewis's district is, he can still maintain enough popularity.

I think your problem is with democracy itself, and the whole concept of "majority rule". Which is fair enough.
But fortunately the USA is not just a democracy, it is a republic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

Why assume the majority are "shuddering" at the thought of a Trump presidency then?

You didn't read what I said at all did you?

I was saying that he doesn't need to keep half the country happy as long as he keeps his key voters happy. He pinpointed the voters he needed with a very narrow focus. He could afford to sacrifice the Blacks, and Hispanics for example, as long as he reinforced his core demographic.

For the third time:

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

He could win an election with 20% approval rating as long as they're the same 20% who will actually vote for him and are spread out throughout the nation.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

So saying things that make 80% shudder is fine as long as his 20% liked it.

He can keep saying things that make 75% shudder (the way he handled himself at that press conference the other day, saying Mexico is sending their rapists etc, )