Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

derb12

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

If CNN are centrist why did they have eight panelists on all day Thursday agreeing with each other and not one Republican allowed on to offer a dissenting opinion? MSNBC hosts like Rachel Maddow won't even allow mainstream Democrats on let alone Republican. Fox which is obviously biased regularly have Democrats on. It sounds to me like you suffer from confirmation bias.

Most people in America have very little interest in politics except during the election cycle. Most people in America regard politicians of both parties as corrupt and are not surprised in the least regarding corruption or immorality by their leaders. Why are these two concepts so difficult to understand?

CNN have a good few regular conservative panelists like Ana Navarro, David Urban, Scott Jennings, Amanda Carpenter but the problem is that many of them (eg ana and Amanda from the list above) are solid never trumpers. Unlike at fox, where there is very little dissent from the company line, trump supporters on cnn come up against cogent arguments and facts which is a difficult environment in which to defend the frequently indefensible. That’s probably part of the reason that they have so few.

rossie1977

derb12 wrote: »

CNN have a good few regular conservative panelists like Ana Navarro, David Urban, Scott Jennings, Amanda Carpenter but the problem is that many of them (eg ana and Amanda from the list above) are solid never trumpers. Unlike at fox, where there is very little dissent from the company line, trump supporters on cnn come up against cogent arguments and facts which is a difficult environment in which to defend the frequently indefensible. That’s probably part of the reason that they have so few.

Sarah Isgur Flores was recently hired as political editor at CNN.

Jason Miller, Rick Santorum, Margaret Hoover are other examples of Republicans who work for CNN or in Miller's case recently worked for.

I find it hard to define a channel "left" if it never has anyone from the left on unless they win an election like Sanders and then question them over and over how they are going to pay for healthcare.

oscarBravo

KyussB wrote: »

The Vox article actually refutes that there was any collusion - and instead says that both sides were open to and reaching out to each other, but never actually did collude in the end.

[...]

It's a rather desperate article saying that because they both wanted to collude, then lets redefine the definition of 'collusion' so that we include wanting to collude as well.

I'm curious: what legal definition of "collusion" are you operating from?

KyussB

The Mueller report is careful to note the lack of legal definition.

DreamsBurnDown

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious: what legal definition of "collusion" are you operating from?

There is no legal term "collusion" in US law, the appropriate legal term is "the crime of conspiracy" (Victoria Nourse, Georgetown). Mueller states this in the report "collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the US code". Mueller investigated whether the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election and his finding was the investigation did not establish conspiracy or coordination.

A huge unanswered question is why were no efforts made to stop Russian meddling, which was known about since 2012. It seems a massive oversight given there were members of the administration from 2012-2016 that wanted to aggressively pursue it. The working theory seems to be that keeping Russia onside on the Iran nuclear deal was more important, which sounds credible.

oscarBravo

KyussB wrote: »

The Mueller report is careful to note the lack of legal definition.

...and yet you're criticising others for "redefining" the term.

Mueller appears to have applied the criminal justice standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you'd be happy for your head of state to have not quite reached that degree of proof of collaboration with a hostile foreign power in the process of seeking election, that's fair enough, I guess.

derb12

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

There is no legal term "collusion" in US law, the appropriate legal term is "the crime of conspiracy" (Victoria Nourse, Georgetown). Mueller states this in the report "collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the US code". Mueller investigated whether the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election and his finding was the investigation did not establish conspiracy or coordination.

A huge unanswered question is why were no efforts made to stop Russian meddling, which was known about since 2012. It seems a massive oversight given there were members of the administration from 2012-2016 that wanted to aggressively pursue it. The working theory seems to be that keeping Russia onside on the Iran nuclear deal was more important, which sounds credible.

Also this https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference didn’t help.
Obama’s logic seems to have been:
- Iran deal etc means we want to be officially on good terms with Russia
- Unless we can get a bipartisan statement against Russian influence operations, trump will just use anything I say as evidence of a corrupt deep-state trying to delegitimise trump supporters
- while it’s a nuisance, it’ll be Hillary’s problem to fix when she takes over!

I guess it looks like a miscalculation in hindsight, but at the time trump’s bevaviour was totally off the wall.

KyussB

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and yet you're criticising others for "redefining" the term.

So?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Mueller appears to have applied the criminal justice standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you'd be happy for your head of state to have not quite reached that degree of proof of collaboration with a hostile foreign power in the process of seeking election, that's fair enough, I guess.

I've been discussing media coverage/claims, I haven't said anything about what I think of Trump.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

If CNN are centrist why did they have eight panelists on all day Thursday agreeing with each other and not one Republican allowed on to offer a dissenting opinion?

A dissenting opinion to reality?

Do you ask that dissenting opinions to whether the earth is flat be aired on CNN?

Did you watch Hogan Gidley's disgraceful performance on Anderson Cooper on Thursday night?

There's your dissenting voice. Funny how these so called "dissenting voices" pretty much alwways turn out to be full blown propagandists.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

MSNBC hosts like Rachel Maddow won't even allow mainstream Democrats on let alone Republican.

Do you watch Rachel Maddow? If you did, you'd know that's nonsense.

And what is a "mainstream Democrat" anyway? Somebody who agrees with you, no doubt. Hvaing read your posts I doubt there are very many in the Democratic party who agree with you on pretty much anything.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Most people in America have very little interest in politics except during the election cycle.

And yet you say they are informed.

While also consuming no media, again according to you.

How do they inform themselves? Osmosis?

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Most people in America regard politicians of both parties as corrupt and are not surprised in the least regarding corruption or immorality by their leaders. Why are these two concepts so difficult to understand?

A statement like this certainly doesn't smack of somebody who believes the American public are informed, it smacks of the complete opposite.

And what exactly does a broad brush, yet completely bland and empty statement like this add to any debate?

In what universe is Donald Trump's corruption remotely comparable to any political leader that has gone before him?

DreamsBurnDown

derb12 wrote: »

Also this https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference didn’t help.
Obama’s logic seems to have been:
- Iran deal etc means we want to be officially on good terms with Russia
- Unless we can get a bipartisan statement against Russian influence operations, trump will just use anything I say as evidence of a corrupt deep-state trying to delegitimise trump supporters
- while it’s a nuisance, it’ll be Hillary’s problem to fix when she takes over!

I guess it looks like a miscalculation in hindsight, but at the time trump’s bevaviour was totally off the wall.

1 is likely
2 is likely
3 isn't likely, Obama is smart and wouldn't just assume Hillary would win.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

You have twice stated that you do not believe I am a Democrat, and furthermore have taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of every other poster on boards. You were asked by a fellow poster if you believed I was a liar and have refused to answer.

So, out with it. Do you believe I am a liar? Unless you can answer that I won't engage with you further.

Purely from reading your posts, one would never suspect you are a Democrat, even a middle of the road one. You sound like a Republican who doesn't particularly like Trump but is prepared to put up with them because he is a Republican.

That's my honest assessment, from reading your posts.

If you want to get into angry, irrational debates about whether somebody a poster a liar or not, which seems t be the case, perhaps you should try another forum like After Hours.

Whre have I 2spoken on behalf of every poster on boards"?

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I accept your statement that you have visited the US. It doesn't sound like you learned a whole lot, as my views are typical of mainstream Democrats. I fully accept they are not the views of the newer progressive left within the Democratic party, who believe unless you agree with everything they believe you are not a proper Democrat. It is very dangerous rhetoric that threatens to split the party.

Is there really any need for such ad hominems?

In terms of divisive rhetoric, you've just come out with some yourself here, with some strawmanning into the bargain.

Calling those you disagree with "dangerous" is not helpful at all.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Bernie Sanders is not a member of the DSA. The goals of the DSA I quoted were from a DSA leader, I have never said AOC agrees with those goals although she is as member.

"A DSA leader".

So the most visible face of the DSA doesn't advocate the nationalisation of industry, yet it's suddenly now a DSA policy because you say so?

As regards your earlier point about "socialism", was Obama a socialist, given that he nationalised GM?

Is Jeremy Corbyn a socialist, given that he doesn't, as far as I'm aware, advocate the transfer of the means of production of industry to workers?

As regards an earlier question I put to you on what "hard left" means which you still haven't answered, is a 91% tax rate "hard left"?

And if so, was Eisenhower "hard left"?

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A dissenting opinion to reality?
Do you ask that dissenting opinions to whether the earth is flat be aired on CNN?
Did you watch Hogan Gidley's disgraceful performance on Anderson Cooper on Thursday night?
There's your dissenting voice. Funny how these so called "dissenting voices" pretty much alwways turn out to be full blown propagandists.
Do you watch Rachel Maddow? If you did, you'd know that's nonsense.
And what is a "mainstream Democrat" anyway? Somebody who agrees with you, no doubt. Hvaing read your posts I doubt there are very many in the Democratic party who agree with you on pretty much anything.
And yet you say they are informed.
While also consuming no media, again according to you.
How do they inform themselves? Osmosis?
A statement like this certainly doesn't smack of somebody who believes the American public are informed, it smacks of the complete opposite.
And what exactly does a broad brush, yet completely bland and empty statement like this add to any debate?
In what universe is Donald Trump's corruption remotely comparable to any political leader that has gone before him?

A very angry and aggressive post. Edit: two now.

A mainstream Democrat is someone who has balanced views on most issues, is liberal on social issues and conservative on most economic issues. Pretty much 70% of the country if you include Independents who normally lean Democrat. Which begs the question, htf did we manage to lose in 2016. If you are trying to argue that hatred for your fellow citizens, as in calling them racists, sexists, and members of a terrorist organization is a mainstream Democratic trait, then you are sadly mistaken. Did it even occur to you how people that voted for Obama switched to voting for Trump as many did in swing states?

The country is obviously deeply divided on many issues, but it's a deep divide that actually affects so far a small minority. Most normal people care about their standard of living, their freedom to pursue their goals, their families and loved ones, etc. Most Americans regard politicians as corrupt and immoral, and it's hardly confined to Republicans or Trump. Trump is the result of decades of corruption and immorality in Washington, I am simply astounded that people still don't realize the cause and effect.

As I say to my (few, as most of the people I know are average Americans who are not consumed with hatred for their fellow citizens) Democratic friends who hold the same views as you, keep hating on Trump's potential voters and see what happens in 2020. It lost the election in 2016, and the same arrogance and hatred could well lose the election next year.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

A very angry and aggressive post. Edit: two now.

A mainstream Democrat is someone who has balanced views on most issues, is liberal on social issues and conservative on most economic issues. Pretty much 70% of the country if you include Independents who normally lean Democrat. Which begs the question, htf did we manage to lose in 2016. If you are trying to argue that hatred for your fellow citizens, as in calling them racists, sexists, and members of a terrorist organization is a mainstream Democratic trait, then you are sadly mistaken. Did it even occur to you how people that voted for Obama switched to voting for Trump as many did in swing states?

The country is obviously deeply divided on many issues, but it's a deep divide that actually affects so far a small minority. Most normal people care about their standard of living, their freedom to pursue their goals, their families and loved ones, etc. Most Americans regard politicians as corrupt and immoral, and it's hardly confined to Republicans or Trump. Trump is the result of decades of corruption and immorality in Washington, I am simply astounded that people still don't realize the cause and effect.

As I say to my (few, as most of the people I know are average Americans who are not consumed with hatred for their fellow citizens) Democratic friends who hold the same views as you, keep hating on Trump's potential voters and see what happens in 2020. It lost the election in 2016, and the same arrogance and hatred could well lose the election next year.

Do you have anything except insults and strawmen?

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Do you have anything except insults and strawmen?

Yes, lots of common sense and reason.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Yes, lots of common sense and reason.

That's good to hear, maybe you might start putting a bit into your posts from now on.

Leroy42

You keep talking about average Americans, but who do you think is voting for all these corrupt politicians? You seem to be of the belief that voters have no voice, no say and simply forced to take part in the system.

Trump ran ona ticket which included, along with other issues, a rallying cry to "Drain the Swamp". If you theory about the average American is true the one can accept that many average Americans held their nose at the clearly corrupt practises of Trump both in the past and during the campaign (refusing to release his taxes) and voted for this.

But since becoming POTUS has has done nothing to deliver on that and is arguable that he has actually enabled the swamp to becoming swampier. Certainly he has used his office for personal gain, to promote his childrens business, to hire his family into key positions so no clear experience, refused to decouple himself from his business and promoted those that agree and defend him rather than who would be best for the voters.

Yet despite all of that his ratings remain pretty fixed. So either the average American doesn't really care or as you say are not engaged. Either one is not a good look. Of course the politicians are corrupt is the voters simply allow them away with it. And Trump has proven, if there was any need for proof, that voters simply don't care and once they feel they are better off they are happy to be lied to and cheated.

So is it the fault of the politicians for taking advantage or the voters for not caring? It is the voters who are at fault in the end. So the only thing that one can take from the Trump presidency is that the average American is a ok with racism, corruption and foreign electoral interference as long as they are better off.

Wanderer78

Leroy42 wrote:

So is it the fault of the politicians for taking advantage or the voters for not caring? It is the voters who are at fault in the end. So the only thing that one can take from the Trump presidency is that the average American is a ok with racism, corruption and foreign electoral interference as long as they are better off.

Voters are partially to blame for such outcomes, people have become disillusioned by the political system, resulting in radical decision making and voting, hence outcomes such as trump, Brexit, rise of the right etc. You d be surprised how humans behave when they are scared, angry and frightened, it generally leads to radical and somewhat dangerous outcomes.

Leroy42

Yes I totally agree but voters, not just in the US as you pointed out, need to start to take responsibility. There are many that are prepared to give Trump multiple passes simply because it suits their position. They are essentially lower their standards for personal gain (and sometimes not even gain, sometimes it seems that seeing others lose is all they really want).

It is claimed that we get the politicians we deserve, and whilst I think this is trite and ignores the complex issues within voting systems and party systems, it does carry a great deal of truth.

Trump, whether people like to admit it or not, represents the America of today. And in truth he is the summation of capitalism. Narcissism, me first, only care about those that you like and agree with, anybody not 'winning' is a loser by definition, winning is all that matters - the how is not important. Arrogance, expectation of what they deserve, anybody that disagrees is mocked and derided as either a liar, a fraud, or out to get you.

If that isn't what the average American is, then where is the backlash against it all? Where is the tanking in the polls that would force the GOP to make a move on Trump? It isn't there. So, if you are a politician what can you gleam from that? It would appear that the average American is indeed pretty content overall. Yes it will swing a few % points from side to side, but overall the GOP are doing what the average American wants.

Unless of course one believes that somehow those voters are not average Americans.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I totally agree but voters, not just in the US as you pointed out, need to start to take responsibility. There are many that are prepared to give Trump multiple passes simply because it suits their position. They are essentially lower their standards for personal gain (and sometimes not even gain, sometimes it seems that seeing others lose is all they really want).

It is claimed that we get the politicians we deserve, and whilst I think this is trite and ignores the complex issues within voting systems and party systems, it does carry a great deal of truth.

Trump, whether people like to admit it or not, represents the America of today. And in truth he is the summation of capitalism. Narcissism, me first, only care about those that you like and agree with, anybody not 'winning' is a loser by definition, winning is all that matters - the how is not important. Arrogance, expectation of what they deserve, anybody that disagrees is mocked and derided as either a liar, a fraud, or out to get you.

If that isn't what the average American is, then where is the backlash against it all? Where is the tanking in the polls that would force the GOP to make a move on Trump? It isn't there. So, if you are a politician what can you gleam from that? It would appear that the average American is indeed pretty content overall. Yes it will swing a few % points from side to side, but overall the GOP are doing what the average American wants.

Unless of course one believes that somehow those voters are not average Americans.

Trump supporters are roughly 40% I think.

40% are Democrat. It's the 20 in the middle as someone pointed out above is what will make the difference.

So to your point, if Trump makes it to 2020, we will see how many endorse his behaviour and policies enacted. I would like to think that the average american is repulsed by them.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/Mimirocah1/status/1119722692473696259?s=19

A very good point made here.

Another action which should be investigated by Congress. If found to be the case, it would constitute another item to be added to the impeachment list of offences.

jochenstacker

Leroy42 wrote: »

.

So is it the fault of the politicians for taking advantage or the voters for not caring? It is the voters who are at fault in the end. So the only thing that one can take from the Trump presidency is that the average American is a ok with racism, corruption and foreign electoral interference as long as they are better off.

I have sometimes stated that I believe people vote for Trump precisely because he is hateful and divisive. He appeals to the middle American, corn fed good ole boys.
Even people who don't like politics or the republicans are turned on by his stance which is blatantly anti women (he changed the definition of abuse to mean only physical violence), anti LGBT (ban on transgender troops), anti Muslim, immigrant and Mexican.
But I'd say they're not the majority.
The majority of Americans just want to work, earn money, pay little to no taxes and all the bad stuff about Trump simply doesn't interest then.
So there's the people who enjoy the sh*tshow that is Trump and others who only care about making a few bucks. And nothing matters, even the selling out of your own country, because what does trillions of dollars in debt mean? It's just numbers on a page, has no effect on me, is not my problem as long as I have a house, a car and the latest iPhone.
This to me sums up the attitude of the world today. Think of your own little slice of the pie and if a few people you don't like (because they think broader than their own plate) get thrown under the bus, then you take some grim satisfaction from that.
It's not Trump's fault, it's just that humans are a horrible, nasty, selfish species and we hide all that nastiness under a thin veneer of polite civilisation.
And if you toadie to those base instincts, you're on to a winner any time.

DreamsBurnDown

Leroy42 wrote: »

You keep talking about average Americans, but who do you think is voting for all these corrupt politicians? You seem to be of the belief that voters have no voice, no say and simply forced to take part in the system.

Not really what I'm saying. Most Americans are independent when it comes to politics, 42% of the eligible electorate identify as Independent, 31% as Democrat and 24% as Republican. 40% didn't vote at all in the last election, which is fairly typical, so I would say apathy towards politics is the first word I would use to describe the average American, followed by politically independent.

Given the above statistics Democrats should win every presidential election, as a majority of independents lean Democrat. The reality of the 2016 election is that Trump won with 25% of the eligible vote. Essentially you had two unpopular candidates, so unpopular that 8 million voted for third party candidates, compared to 2 million in 2012. At the end of the day HRC lost because she did not get out the vote in key swing states, she got over 400K fewer votes than Obama (2012) in Ohio alone, and did worse than Obama in 33 states. Even with that she narrowly lost PA, MI and WI, win those three and she wins, so fine margins.

Fundamentally if the DNC had ran a more popular candidate in 2016, like Joe Biden for example, we wouldn't be talking about Trump.

Imagine a world without Trump or Brexit.. Jesus, what would we be talking about I wonder.

I'm really hoping for a quiet decade in politics soon.

DreamsBurnDown

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump supporters are roughly 40% I think.

40% are Democrat. It's the 20 in the middle as someone pointed out above is what will make the difference.

So to your point, if Trump makes it to 2020, we will see how many endorse his behaviour and policies enacted. I would like to think that the average american is repulsed by them.

If you combine party affiliation and how independents tend to lean, it's 48% Democrat versus 39% Republican. Getting the Independent vote out is the key to all US presidential elections, as they tend to not be as motivated as registered party members.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

I'm really hoping for a quiet decade in politics soon.

You may need to move planets, there's never a dull moment in politics

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You may need to move planets, there's never a dull moment in politics

Well I guess I mean that Ireland's closest neighbors culturally and everything -ally are both going through major political upheaval, one with major effects on us.

I prefer dull.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

Well I guess I mean that Ireland's closest neighbors culturally and everything -ally are both going through major political upheaval, one with major effects on us.

I can't see the world of politics settling down anytime soon, wouldn't surprise me if it continues to become more unstable

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I can't see the world of politics settling down anytime soon, wouldn't surprise me if it continues to become more unstable

Well if that happens, I'll sign out of politics and get back into science-fiction and history.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

Well if that happens, I'll sign out of politics and get back into science-fiction and history.

No harm in maintaining an interest in all of them

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well if that happens, I'll sign out of politics and get back into science-fiction and history.

I think if more people paid attention to the latter, we wouldn't be in the sh1t we are in presently.