Trump outrage of the day

[darkadams00]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.amp.html%3f0p19G=0232

From NY Times 3/14/2017 article (Peter Baker and Jesse Drucker)—
“Mr. Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on reported income of $150 million, an effective tax rate of 25 percent, according to forms disclosed on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show. By claiming losses, Mr. Trump apparently saved millions of dollars in taxes that he would otherwise have owed.“

Still doing a bit of Google, but this article seems to be relying on a different set of information than the recent story. Haven’t reconciled the two articles yet.

[Davnasty]

The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

What are you even arguing against?

Poster said that winning the electoral college ≠ winning in the court of public opinion. Do you disagree?

[John Galt incarnate!]

3) Tax avoidance is not illegal because the taxpayer is operating within the confines of existing tax law (regardless of one’s opinion of the fairness of specific policies). Tax evasion is illegal because taxpayers operate outside of tax policy. Most folks on this board practice tax avoidance to every extent possible, most often through pre-tax deductions. And folks who have income sources beyond W2s often have ways to use their enterprises legally to minimize their tax liability.

Hear, hear!

I am a scrupulous practitioner of tax avoidance.


"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Judge Learned Hand

[MDM]

The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

What are you even arguing against?

Poster said that winning the electoral college ≠ winning in the court of public opinion. Do you disagree?

I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

[PKFFW]

I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

Agree with 1.  The artifact of your wacky electoral system which is in complete opposition of the fundamental principle of 1 person = 1 vote ensures "winning in the court of public opinion" is irrelevant.

2 is blatantly incorrect.  It is quite easy to tell who "won in the court of popular opinion" based on vote totals whether there is any reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals or not.  The totals are the totals and those totals are the sum total of "public opinion".  Anyone who did not vote, did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

[MDM]

...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?

[Freedom2016]

The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

What are you even arguing against?

Poster said that winning the electoral college ≠ winning in the court of public opinion. Do you disagree?

I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

MDM you missed the point of the whole exchange. The original quote that rocketpj was responding to was:

And the court of public opinion voted [access to Trump's taxes] as less important than other factors in the last election.

And rocketpj was saying no, not true, since millions more ppl voted for Clinton than Trump. Now you've gone off on this whole other tangent about the EC when that wasn't the point. Sheesh.

[MDM]

The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

What are you even arguing against?

Poster said that winning the electoral college ≠ winning in the court of public opinion. Do you disagree?

I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

MDM you missed the point of the whole exchange. The original quote that rocketpj was responding to was:

And the court of public opinion voted [access to Trump's taxes] as less important than other factors in the last election.

And rocketpj was saying no, not true, since millions more ppl voted for Clinton than Trump. Now you've gone off on this whole other tangent about the EC when that wasn't the point. Sheesh.

The point is that the vote totals aren't dispositive regarding the opinion of all Americans because presidential campaigns don't care about popular vote totals, they care about electoral college vote totals. 

If you want to say "of the people who voted, Clinton got more total votes, but Trump still won where it counted" then go ahead - that is factual. 

[PKFFW]

...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?

No, it is a private opinion.

[MDM]

...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?

No, it is a private opinion.

That's your opinion. :)

[PKFFW]

...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?

No, it is a private opinion.

That's your opinion. :)

No, it's a fact as per the way you chose to word your question.

"not counted by an elections tally"

Ergo, not public.

Therefore, private.

[MDM]

...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?

No, it is a private opinion.

That's your opinion. :)

No, it's a fact as per the way you chose to word your question.

"not counted by an elections tally"

Ergo, not public.

Therefore, private.

The semantics here are between "public" as in "publicized" (your take) vs. "of or relating to people in general" (my take).  One can make the case that an opinion isn't public unless it is publicized, or one can make the case that the collective opinion of the general public is the public opinion.

Take your pick.

In any case, of the people who voted, Clinton got more total votes, but Trump still won where it counted.

[Roadrunner53]

From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

[LennStar]

Both sides (Trump/NYT) have a vested interest in their side of the story.

In a way. The NYT has a vested interest in doing it's job so they get paid for doing it.
Trump has vested interests in not doing his job (which might well be helped by keeping his taxes secret in opposition of custom) and getting paid for not doing it.

btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.

And public interest doesn’t make an action or decision legal or ethical.

Actually it does in many cases. Take photos. If you are Dishwasher A, people are not allowed to make photos of you and distribute them. If you are President B (or actor C), they are. Because of public interest.

What is ethic or legal can change dramatically even in a matter of decades - or places in the world, see Sweden.
In the middle ages it was blasphemy (official church position) to not share knowledge. 1710 saw the invention of the word "copyright" as a censoring tool after the death penalites the church had pressured upon France were not effective enough to prevent idea sharing.

Which btw. led to a very heated debate amongst the founders if a copyright or patents should be allowed at all in the new United States, which led to the "only for advancement of science" clause in the constitution, which got so heavily violated with all the term extensions...

I don't see any moral reason for holding anyones taxes secret beside maybe a very low key "it's private". I mean, most people even love to show their finances (or lack thereof) to the public by driving big trucks and living in an oversized mansion!!

Can anybody explain a reasonable argument for why taxes should be secret?

[talltexan]

Congress can subpoena the tax records of any tax-paying unit.

It just seems to happen--as luck would have it--that they only want the tax records of one particular individual, against whom they also voted to begin an impeachment trial.

[talltexan]

wrt Sweden, I have to say that I like it, but I also know there are a lot of incompetent people who probably can't believe how much they're earning who don't want to make a big deal out of that.

The number of mooching relatives that I have is probably also lower than average. If i was trying to avoid them, I might have a different opinion.

[Plina]

Both sides (Trump/NYT) have a vested interest in their side of the story.

In a way. The NYT has a vested interest in doing it's job so they get paid for doing it.
Trump has vested interests in not doing his job (which might well be helped by keeping his taxes secret in opposition of custom) and getting paid for not doing it.

btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.

Actually most of the people don’t care about the tax part as Sweden don’t have a wealth tax. You can of course see the capital income but that makes it difficult to count the wealth of a person. The interesting part is the income. When I change jobs I usually call the tax authority to check the income of the person that previously had the position as well as future colleagues in same position. It helps in the salary negotiations.

If you are curious you can also buy the info on internet or in a catalogue so you can check the income of your neighbours or acquitances.

If you want to know the salaries in a public office you can email HR and ask salary info of their employees.

[GuitarStv]

Hear, hear!

I am a scrupulous practitioner of tax avoidance.


"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Judge Learned Hand

There's nothing in that quote indicating that one must follow the law.  It actually appears to be advocating for illegal means to avoid taxes as long as it's possible to avoid being caught.

[nereo]

Hear, hear!

I am a scrupulous practitioner of tax avoidance.


"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Judge Learned Hand

There's nothing in that quote indicating that one must follow the law.  It actually appears to be advocating for illegal means to avoid taxes as long as it's possible to avoid being caught.

One person's loop hole is another person's qualified deduction.  in general I agree that one should take all deductions that are legally afforded to them.  I also agree with @LennStar that transparency in tax payments is a healthy practice we should adopt.  However, the fact that there is so much commentary and a very lengthy audit about whether certain accounting practices were in fact legal seems evidence enough that our tax laws are not as clear-cut as they ought to be.

If there is a question about the legality of an action, a citizen should err on the side of caution and firm legal footing.  It seems here Trump has repeatedly defied this common-sense practice.

[Just Joe]

Congress can subpoena the tax records of any tax-paying unit.

It just seems to happen--as luck would have it--that they only want the tax records of one particular individual, against whom they also voted to begin an impeachment trial.

But there has to be political will to enforce the subpoena when the president refuses. I don't think the GOP would allow the president to be summoned nor enforce it if he refused. Had this been Obama refusing, the GOP would have sent the police because the GOP has a strong double standard.

[Just Joe]

Both sides (Trump/NYT) have a vested interest in their side of the story.

In a way. The NYT has a vested interest in doing it's job so they get paid for doing it.
Trump has vested interests in not doing his job (which might well be helped by keeping his taxes secret in opposition of custom) and getting paid for not doing it.

btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.

Actually most of the people don’t care about the tax part as Sweden don’t have a wealth tax. You can of course see the capital income but that makes it difficult to count the wealth of a person. The interesting part is the income. When I change jobs I usually call the tax authority to check the income of the person that previously had the position as well as future colleagues in same position. It helps in the salary negotiations.

If you are curious you can also buy the info on internet or in a catalogue so you can check the income of your neighbours or acquitances.

If you want to know the salaries in a public office you can email HR and ask salary info of their employees.

Ignorance is an important tool in the United States. Helps the ruling class and corporate leadership in many ways. Thank goodness for the internet and websites that pull back the curtain a little.   

[lemanfan]

btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.

For being a small-ish country at the northern tip of the civilized world, every discussion seems to involve Sweden now.  If it's not Greta or our pandemic response, it's our tax system.  I think even Trump have mentioned us a few times starting even back in 2017.

I'm not used to this.  Can't everyone just forget about us and talk about other countries?  What about Belgium?  Vietnam? The Gambia? :)

/the shy swede

[JLee]

From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

He couldn't get hired as a bank teller or police officer with that much debt -- he'd be too much of a risk.

[Davnasty]

From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

He couldn't get hired as a bank teller or police officer with that much debt -- he'd be too much of a risk.

He couldn't get hired for those jobs regardless. Could you imagine interviewing this guy?

[GuitarStv]

From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

He couldn't get hired as a bank teller or police officer with that much debt -- he'd be too much of a risk.

He couldn't get hired for those jobs regardless. Could you imagine interviewing this guy?

"Don't worry if I lose some of the bank's money.  Mexico will pay for it!"

[Samuel]

I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

Agree with 1.  The artifact of your wacky electoral system which is in complete opposition of the fundamental principle of 1 person = 1 vote ensures "winning in the court of public opinion" is irrelevant.

2 is blatantly incorrect.  It is quite easy to tell who "won in the court of popular opinion" based on vote totals whether there is any reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals or not.  The totals are the totals and those totals are the sum total of "public opinion".  Anyone who did not vote, did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

I'm with MDM on this one. I think my fellow Democrats (I still can say that, although it's getting more difficult) would do well to retire the "Hillary won the popular vote so Trump is less legitimate" or "Hillary won the popular vote so she won the court of public opinion" arguments. Hillary won a game they weren't playing. Trump won the game they were playing 304 to 227 and did so by appealing to the right number of potential voters in the right places. If he was playing the popular vote game he would have had a different game plan and a different popular vote total.

The 58% of eligible voters who chose to vote in 2016 are not at all a representative sample reflecting national public opinion even without considering the impact of the electoral college system. A responsibly done representative sampling of 2000 eligible voters would be a much better gauge of actual public opinion than an election with 138 million votes cast in essentially 50 individual elections where the overall popular vote margin was only 2.1%. 

[JLee]

I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

Agree with 1.  The artifact of your wacky electoral system which is in complete opposition of the fundamental principle of 1 person = 1 vote ensures "winning in the court of public opinion" is irrelevant.

2 is blatantly incorrect.  It is quite easy to tell who "won in the court of popular opinion" based on vote totals whether there is any reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals or not.  The totals are the totals and those totals are the sum total of "public opinion".  Anyone who did not vote, did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

I'm with MDM on this one. I think my fellow Democrats (I still can say that, although it's getting more difficult) would do well to retire the "Hillary won the popular vote so Trump is less legitimate" or "Hillary won the popular vote so she won the court of public opinion" arguments. Hillary won a game they weren't playing. Trump won the game they were playing 304 to 227 and did so by appealing to the right number of potential voters in the right places. If he was playing the popular vote game he would have had a different game plan and a different popular vote total.

The 58% of eligible voters who chose to vote in 2016 are not at all a representative sample reflecting national public opinion even without considering the impact of the electoral college system. A responsibly done representative sampling of 2000 eligible voters would be a much better gauge of actual public opinion than an election with 138 million votes cast in essentially 50 individual elections where the overall popular vote margin was only 2.1%.

For what it's worth, the only time I see that brought up (within the last couple of years anyway) is when Trump supporters accuse Democrats of making that argument...I don't actually see Democrats making it.

Republicans have lost the popular vote in what, seven of the eight last presidential elections? This is nothing new.

[Glenstache]

From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

He couldn't get hired as a bank teller or police officer with that much debt -- he'd be too much of a risk.

He couldn't get hired for those jobs regardless. Could you imagine interviewing this guy?

Maybe Wall Street. He is the king of debt, after all. And he has a certain moral, shall we  call it flexibility, when it comes to pursuing profit.

[Glenstache]

RE Trump's taxes, the real jeopardy seems to come in if he has been showing a different set of books and results to, say, Deutche Bank or others. Some flavor of this is probably a big part of the potential fraud case. The part where his kids were effectively working for themselves both as members of Trump Co. and as TTT/TTTT consultants for those same projects with high salaries is also a bit of a red flag, as noted in the article.

The follow up should be interesting. And if Trump really wants to show the NYT is fake news, seems all he has to do is release his version of the tax forms. But, at the end of the day, there is nothing at all surprising in any of this. It is just a significant increase in level of detail to what has been pretty obvious for years. As fucked up as it is, I do not see the NYT article really moving the needle that much.

[LennStar]

btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.

For being a small-ish country at the northern tip of the civilized world, every discussion seems to involve Sweden now.  If it's not Greta or our pandemic response, it's our tax system.  I think even Trump have mentioned us a few times starting even back in 2017.

I'm not used to this.  Can't everyone just forget about us and talk about other countries?  What about Belgium?  Vietnam? The Gambia? :)

/the shy swede

In Germany your income is more secret than who was the woman you betrayed your wife with.
There, was not that hard :D

[Samuel]

If anyone needs some somewhat dark humor... whenever I hear about Trump's taxes I think of this clip:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc

David Mitchell on tax avoidance vs. evasion. The examples are from the UK but it's perfectly relatable to US.
(Volume warning: it starts off with loud applause)
(Language warning: there are a couple salty phrases used)

[bacchi]

If anyone needs some somewhat dark humor... whenever I hear about Trump's taxes I think of this clip:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc

David Mitchell on tax avoidance vs. evasion. The examples are from the UK but it's perfectly relatable to US.
(Volume warning: it starts off with loud applause)
(Language warning: there are a couple salty phrases used)

Trump is still under audit for his $73M 2010 refund based on obviously questionable credits and deductions.

It's also not strictly about tax avoidance, even if the deductions are legitimate. It's about "draining the swamp." The credits/deductions that Trump and other uber-rich people use don't exist for the merely $60k income people. To put it another way, a $60k employee pays more in income taxes than Trump does, both in raw number and in percentage.

[lemanfan]

I'm not used to this.  Can't everyone just forget about us and talk about other countries?  What about Belgium?  Vietnam? The Gambia? :)

In Germany your income is more secret than who was the woman you betrayed your wife with.
There, was not that hard :D

Thank you. :)

[OzzieandHarriet]

This seems to be a good breakdown of the issues raised in the NYT story:

https://www.justsecurity.org/72604/ten-quick-takeaways-from-the-new-york-times-bombshell-article-on-trumps-tax-returns/

[Just Joe]

Can we chant "lock him up! lock him up!" yet?

Turnaround is still fair play -right? ;)

[PDXTabs]

Turnaround is still fair play -right? ;)

yup

[HPstache]

This seems to be a good breakdown of the issues raised in the NYT story:

https://www.justsecurity.org/72604/ten-quick-takeaways-from-the-new-york-times-bombshell-article-on-trumps-tax-returns/

Counter points to almost all of that (and some really interesting nuggets of advice for business owners):

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3IQF9OjMPyfdvvncjWD8AH

[scottish]

This seems to be a good breakdown of the issues raised in the NYT story:

https://www.justsecurity.org/72604/ten-quick-takeaways-from-the-new-york-times-bombshell-article-on-trumps-tax-returns/

Counter points to almost all of that (and some really interesting nuggets of advice for business owners):

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3IQF9OjMPyfdvvncjWD8AH

Did you have time to listen to the whole 2 hours and 10 minutes?   I listened to about 10 minutes where he was talking about Trump's "Apprentice" income and licensing.    The NYTimes said that Trump was a more successful actor than a businessman.    The radical finance guy claimed that this was not true because "perception is reality".     And he would also really like to make 400M USD.     

My 10 minutes was not very impressive.

[HPstache]

This seems to be a good breakdown of the issues raised in the NYT story:

https://www.justsecurity.org/72604/ten-quick-takeaways-from-the-new-york-times-bombshell-article-on-trumps-tax-returns/

Counter points to almost all of that (and some really interesting nuggets of advice for business owners):

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3IQF9OjMPyfdvvncjWD8AH

Did you have time to listen to the whole 2 hours and 10 minutes?   I listened to about 10 minutes where he was talking about Trump's "Apprentice" income and licensing.    The NYTimes said that Trump was a more successful actor than a businessman.    The radical finance guy claimed that this was not true because "perception is reality".     And he would also really like to make 400M USD.     

My 10 minutes was not very impressive.

Yeah, I did... he is one of my favorite FI podcasters .  I'd encourage you to get past the first 10 minutes.

[PKFFW]

...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?

No, it is a private opinion.

That's your opinion. :)

No, it's a fact as per the way you chose to word your question.

"not counted by an elections tally"

Ergo, not public.

Therefore, private.

The semantics here are between "public" as in "publicized" (your take) vs. "of or relating to people in general" (my take).  One can make the case that an opinion isn't public unless it is publicized, or one can make the case that the collective opinion of the general public is the public opinion.

Take your pick.

In any case, of the people who voted, Clinton got more total votes, but Trump still won where it counted.

They are not mutually exclusive.

There is no way to tell what someone's opinion is unless they express it.  There is no way to tell what the collective public opinion is unless all private opinions are expressed and noted.

So an opinion that is not expressed is neither publicized nor part of the collective public opinion.

I do agree with your second point.  Trump was smart in that he played to the minority that your Constitution gives more influence and power to.  That was kind of the entire point that started this little side topic.

[MDM]

...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?

No, it is a private opinion.

That's your opinion. :)

No, it's a fact as per the way you chose to word your question.

"not counted by an elections tally"

Ergo, not public.

Therefore, private.

The semantics here are between "public" as in "publicized" (your take) vs. "of or relating to people in general" (my take).  One can make the case that an opinion isn't public unless it is publicized, or one can make the case that the collective opinion of the general public is the public opinion.

Take your pick.

In any case, of the people who voted, Clinton got more total votes, but Trump still won where it counted.

They are not mutually exclusive.

There is no way to tell what someone's opinion is unless they express it.  There is no way to tell what the collective public opinion is unless all private opinions are expressed and noted.

So an opinion that is not expressed is neither publicized nor part of the collective public opinion.

I do agree with your second point.  Trump was smart in that he played to the minority that your Constitution gives more influence and power to.  That was kind of the entire point that started this little side topic.

Seems a good place to end this tangent. Cheers!

[PKFFW]

I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

Agree with 1.  The artifact of your wacky electoral system which is in complete opposition of the fundamental principle of 1 person = 1 vote ensures "winning in the court of public opinion" is irrelevant.

2 is blatantly incorrect.  It is quite easy to tell who "won in the court of popular opinion" based on vote totals whether there is any reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals or not.  The totals are the totals and those totals are the sum total of "public opinion".  Anyone who did not vote, did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

I'm with MDM on this one. I think my fellow Democrats (I still can say that, although it's getting more difficult) would do well to retire the "Hillary won the popular vote so Trump is less legitimate" or "Hillary won the popular vote so she won the court of public opinion" arguments. Hillary won a game they weren't playing. Trump won the game they were playing 304 to 227 and did so by appealing to the right number of potential voters in the right places. If he was playing the popular vote game he would have had a different game plan and a different popular vote total.

The 58% of eligible voters who chose to vote in 2016 are not at all a representative sample reflecting national public opinion even without considering the impact of the electoral college system. A responsibly done representative sampling of 2000 eligible voters would be a much better gauge of actual public opinion than an election with 138 million votes cast in essentially 50 individual elections where the overall popular vote margin was only 2.1%.

I completely agree that Trump won the game that was being played.  Never said anything different and never claimed he was less legitimate as President because of that.

[OzzieandHarriet]

More fucking sickness.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-ice-raids-sanctuary-cities/2020/09/29/99aa17f0-0274-11eb-8879-7663b816bfa5_story.html

[Bloop Bloop]

The fact that Trump is still in the running as a lying fascist says something about the sheer stupidity of the American people, does it not?

Here in Australia almost everyone, left wing or right wing, can denounce Trump's tactics and his rhetoric.

[nereo]

The fact that Trump is still in the running as a lying fascist says something about the sheer stupidity of the American people, does it not?
.

Let’s stick to the forum rules and avoid blanket insults.  The majority of Americans do not approve of Trump, and some of those who have voted for him do so for policy reasons but dislike his actions.

[alsoknownasDean]

Here in Australia almost everyone, left wing or right wing, can denounce Trump's tactics and his rhetoric.

I hear Pauline Hanson is a fan. I know a bunch of people here who do support him.

That said, many people I talk to, including those who are politically right of centre here, have said to me they think Trump is a dickhead.

He's displayed just that at the debate. Could he go 30 seconds without interrupting anyone? Next time I hope they mute the microphone when the other candidate is speaking! It seems that Trump's tactic was to constantly interrupt and break the rules of the debate, only to claim bias when he's called out.

[rantk81]

There've been so many outrageous moments over the past 4 years... but I don't think anything can top the moment when a sitting president basically told a right wing racist group to "Stand By" -- apparently advocating for the group to disrupt the election process or prevent a peaceful transition to a new president?  Wow.

[talltexan]

Here in Australia almost everyone, left wing or right wing, can denounce Trump's tactics and his rhetoric.

It seems that Trump's tactic was to constantly interrupt and break the rules of the debate, only to claim bias when he's called out.

Strange, that sounds like his approach to elections in general.

[dignam]

The fact that Trump is still in the running as a lying fascist says something about the sheer stupidity of the American people, does it not?

Here in Australia almost everyone, left wing or right wing, can denounce Trump's tactics and his rhetoric.

Well this is just a little insulting. 

In my world travels, I've learned one thing:  There are idiots in every country.

Last night's debate made me feel physically sick.  That poor moderator...

[OtherJen]

The fact that Trump is still in the running as a lying fascist says something about the sheer stupidity of the American people, does it not?

Here in Australia almost everyone, left wing or right wing, can denounce Trump's tactics and his rhetoric.

Well this is just a little insulting. 

In my world travels, I've learned one thing:  There are idiots in every country.

Last night's debate made me feel physically sick.  That poor moderator...

I gave up after the first 5 minutes. Apparently I missed the direct command from the current president to our modern brownshirts (aka, the far-right-wing Proud Boys) to "stand by."

I'm trying to steel myself for the likelihood that Trump will win in November. It seems probable. He's given his base exactly what they want. Expect a lot more unchecked violence from the right-wing, especially as the Fraternal Order of Police is in Trump's back pocket.

I also don't feel too sorry for Chris Wallace. He chooses to work at Fox News, has interviewed Trump several times (including this summer), and should have known what to expect. His apparent refusal to moderate effectively was not surprising, given that I'm sure he is beholden to his employer.