Trump outrage of the day

[bacchi]

As far as I can tell, the improvement in the economy that happened in Nov. 2016 was basically 35% of our country decided that we were suddenly and unexpectedly going to have a Republican, business-friendly administration, so things were going to be good.

35%?  How did you arrive at that?

I see 25% based on 62M/247M adults. 26% of adults wanted to continue the commie, anti-business, policies of the Democrats.

[PathtoFIRE]

Wikipedia tells me that there were an estimated 250,056,000 voting age population, and 138,847,000 votes, for a turnout of 55.5%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
Other articles says 136,669,276 votes, 46.09% went to Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

Gets you betwen 25.1 and 25.6% of voting age people voted for Trump.

[Travis]

Can I break into this excellent discussion of diplomacy to complain about Trump's 8:52 am tweet on the monthly jobs report (I have a Ph.D. in labor economics and study the economy intensely for my current employer):

• He shouldn't comment on the report within the first hour
  
• He inflated the numbers to claim it was a fantastic report
• He won't subtract the striking GM workers' jobs next month (ask me how I know...)
• He didn't need to do any of this deception because it was actually a decent report that shows the labor market is still expanding, and because Trump's economic record is pretty good in general
  

But if he was honest about something it might set precedent he doesn't want to maintain.

At first I wrote that sarcastically, but there's probably some truth in it.

It appears to me that for him good things can't just naturally happen. It has to be by his doing, and he's going to ensure he takes credit.

[Leisured]

I've no idea what Drumpf is trying to do, and I'm not convinced he does, either.

Back to the old Kyle Schuant. Good. I misunderstood you for a while. I liked your quote from Rudyard Kipling's The White Man's burden. I think the British Empire worked fairly well for India, but the results in Africa are patchy. I saw a TV program recently where an Indian teacher in an upper class private school in India described British efforts at educating Indians as a Renaissance for India, as British and European knowledge entered India.

Nehru was the first President of an independent India, and he was born into wealth, spent decades in Britain as a barrister I think, and absorbed the British way of life. Once he was President of India he sometimes sarcastically referred to himself as the last Englishman to rule India.

Britain admired the Roman Empire and the Pax Romana, and imposed its own Pax Britannica. The Pax Americana emerged at the end of WW2, and we still live under that Pax today.

I think you underestimate global good will towards the US and Britain, Kyle. BBC radio and TV is listened to worldwide. The rise of China allows people to compare China's heavy handed approach at global influence with that of the US. I cannot imagine a Chinese version of the White Man's Burden. China learns from us; we do not learn from China.

[former player]

My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  […] to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.

I quite like the line "Being elected was not enough by itself for Trump to be President, he also had to take the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  Everyone who voted for Trump knew he would have to take that oath and would have expected him to keep it.  Because he has broken his oath to defend the Constitution he no longer deserves anyone's vote in a future election."

[Kl285528]

Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.

This.
My wife and I discuss it everyday.
It is as if a large percentage of the population has embraced ignorance as a virtue.

[SpeedReader]

I have maintained for years that this country's biggest crisis is in education.  Trump's election proved it to me.

[Psychstache]

Trump is just about exactly as bad as I thought he would be. It just seemed so obvious. He is a cancer on our country, and on the world at large.

I still can't believe any thinking person voted for him.

Isn't it amazing that what seems so obvious to you and me is not all all obvious to so many other people? That's the part that I am still struggling to understand.

I saw a great post of a friends recently that said "Fox News did to our parents what they said video games would do to us."

[Kyle Schuant]

Back to the old Kyle Schuant. Good. I misunderstood you for a while. I liked your quote from Rudyard Kipling's The White Man's burden. I think the British Empire worked fairly well for India, but the results in Africa are patchy.

The US results have been disastrous in recent years.

In any case: unless and until the left in the US stop this "deplorables" nonsense and acknowledge the very real problems of the working class in the US, and how protectionism has improved things for them, Trump will win in 2020, and I am quite serious when I say that if his supporters are ambitious enough, he could with the right il/legal shenanigans win again in 2024.

[nereo]

Back to the old Kyle Schuant. Good. I misunderstood you for a while. I liked your quote from Rudyard Kipling's The White Man's burden. I think the British Empire worked fairly well for India, but the results in Africa are patchy.

The US results have been disastrous in recent years.

In any case: unless and until the left in the US stop this "deplorables" nonsense and acknowledge the very real problems of the working class in the US, and how protectionism has improved things for them, Trump will win in 2020, and I am quite serious when I say that if his supporters are ambitious enough, he could with the right il/legal shenanigans win again in 2024.

It's statements like those which make me completely discount your other commentary on US politics. A person (Trump) who has never had the majority support of the populace, who lost the house and barely held onto the Senate under the most favorable electoral and economic conditions is not going to be able to illegally maintain power past 2024.

[Kyle Schuant]

You have to be popular to subvert the democratic process and rule of law, now? I better chuck out those history books.

I love how the reasoning goes.
"This one is awful because he violates the Constitution!"
"So he could stay in power after his term ends?"
"No! That would violate the Constitution, which is impossible to violate!"
"But -"
"He violates it in that way, but could never violate it in this other way!"

Anyway, it can be changed, and has been many times. That's why I said, "if his followers are ambitious enough."

That's the problem after your current problem, though. You must get through 2020 before worrying about 2024. You current problem is an inability to understand why abusing a large chunk of the electorate and ignoring their issues, and that there issues are now no longer as bad as a result - they believe - of policies instituted by Drumpf - why doing that is going to make them vote the "wrong" way, for him. Tens of millions of working class Americans are, you say, horribly racist. But these same people - for example, in Michigan - voted for Obama last time. So not only are you insulting potential voters, you're ignoring reality.

"Hey, we tried this in 2016, and we lost. Let's try it again! Hey, let's double down and impeach him!"

I recognise this kind of stupidity, because it's shared by the left here in Australia in the form of the ALP. When a left-wing party takes the group historically their strongest supporters - the working class - and by its policies makes them unemployed and poor, and then abuses them as racist - well, that party tends not to do so well at the ballot box.

[bacchi]

But these same people - for example, in Michigan - voted for Obama last time. So not only are you insulting potential voters, you're ignoring reality.

Look at the number of voters in MI in 2008 and 2012. Look at the number of voters in MI in 2016. You'll see the total number of voters for President declined.

If you look at the population growth of Michigan, you'll notice that Michigan gained adults from 2012 to 2016.

What happened here?

Sometimes, a lackluster candidate can affect the outcome, even among the party faithful. This is particularly important in Michigan where Wayne County (Detroit) carries the state. Low turnout in Wayne County limits the number of votes for the Democrat.*

That's what happened in Michigan. Trump didn't win from hordes of voters switching parties; he won because there were voters that decided that Clinton wasn't worth enough energy to go the polls.

[Kyle Schuant]

Interesting:-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/02/facebook-twitter-donald-trump-lies

The problem today, apparently, is that FB et al allow people to spread lies, unlike traditional journalism, and that people listen to those lies, unlike traditional journalism. Since the masses are too dimwitted to discern truth from lies, we must act on their behalf, break up Facebook, Twitter and similar platforms, and then... there will be no more lies? And people will, presumably, return to the traditional media, full of good wholesome truths (like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, one assumes).

Reich is speaking, of course, to the middle-class lefty audience of The Guardian, but he is not speaking OF them. The proles should know their place.

Can you see how even if the working class don't read this sort of article, the attitude carries through, and leads to people deciding to either not turn out to vote for the people who speak of them in this insulting and patronising way, or even voting for the other guy? If you carry on allowing people like Reich and Clinton to speak for the left in the US, you will make certain Drumpf's future victories.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Interesting:-

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/02/facebook-twitter-donald-trump-lies

The problem today, apparently, is that FB et al allow people to spread lies, unlike traditional journalism, and that people listen to those lies, unlike traditional journalism. Since the masses are too dimwitted to discern truth from lies, we must act on their behalf, break up Facebook, Twitter and similar platforms, and then... there will be no more lies? And people will, presumably, return to the traditional media, full of good wholesome truths (like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, one assumes).

Reich is speaking, of course, to the middle-class lefty audience of The Guardian, but he is not speaking OF them. The proles should know their place.

Can you see how even if the working class don't read this sort of article, the attitude carries through, and leads to people deciding to either not turn out to vote for the people who speak of them in this insulting and patronising way, or even voting for the other guy? If you carry on allowing people like Reich and Clinton to speak for the left in the US, you will make certain Drumpf's future victories.

Also note that political ad spending on Facebook and especially Twitter is minuscule, and more generally, "Everyone always talks about how much money there is in politics. This is the wrong framing. The right framing is Ansolabehere et al’s: why is there so little money in politics?". Surely, the amount of misinformation being generated organically by individuals on their own time is many orders of magnitude larger in impact than political advertisement spending on these platforms. The argument that breaking up Twitter or Facebook would reduce that problem is a tough sell... With the amount of content being generated every day across FB, Twitter, YT, etc., policing community standards (let alone truth content) is a daunting challenge; e.g., "There is No Algorithm for Truth".

[nereo]

You have to be popular to subvert the democratic process and rule of law, now? I better chuck out those history books.

I love how the reasoning goes.
"This one is awful because he violates the Constitution!"
"So he could stay in power after his term ends?"
"No! That would violate the Constitution, which is impossible to violate!"
"But -"
"He violates it in that way, but could never violate it in this other way!"

Anyway, it can be changed, and has been many times. That's why I said, "if his followers are ambitious enough."

That's the problem after your current problem, though. You must get through 2020 before worrying about 2024. You current problem is an inability to understand why abusing a large chunk of the electorate and ignoring their issues, and that there issues are now no longer as bad as a result - they believe - of policies instituted by Drumpf - why doing that is going to make them vote the "wrong" way, for him. Tens of millions of working class Americans are, you say, horribly racist. But these same people - for example, in Michigan - voted for Obama last time. So not only are you insulting potential voters, you're ignoring reality.

"Hey, we tried this in 2016, and we lost. Let's try it again! Hey, let's double down and impeach him!"

I recognise this kind of stupidity, because it's shared by the left here in Australia in the form of the ALP. When a left-wing party takes the group historically their strongest supporters - the working class - and by its policies makes them unemployed and poor, and then abuses them as racist - well, that party tends not to do so well at the ballot box.

No, Kyle.  You've chosen to misconstrue one of multiple reasons why your "Trump in 2024!" push is destined to fail (his popularity/unpopularity) and once again ignored all of the other problems raised with your proposal.  Then you've erroneously accused me of calling tens of millions of people 'horribly racist', and tell me I'm 'ignoring reality'. Your claims that Trump's strongest supporters are largely the unemployed and poor is not even accurate.

You bring some good commentary and an Australian perspective to this forum, but you keep  banging on this drum despite all the counter-arguments.  It's not debate or an opinion - it's trolling.

[partgypsy]

I honestly did not think Trump the President would be as bad as Trump the candidate. I felt that Trump the candidate was a) not really serious, but doing it to get attention, disrupt the proceedings. But once he was elected, that he would take it seriously, as well as have moderating influences aka checks and balances of feedback from generals, long term administrative staff, diplomats inform him what's what. Well, none of that stuff happened. Trump the president is Trump the candidate. He is still campaigning. He sees this primarily as a popularity contest and will say and even do whatever outrageous thing to get attention (and in his mind adoration). The things I did not predict. Trump is not as cognitively intact as I assumed he was. That even if he was ignorant of the constitution, as well as the various powers and limitations on the executive branch, his unwillingness to learn or follow those rules and laws of our land. And lastly the degree that Republicans as a group chose holding onto power via Trump, over their allegiance to the country and our constitution. It has shocked me.

We all know that Trump in addition to his admiration for dictators who do things like kill journalists, and his own words demeaning and dehumanizing his political opponents (recently called never Trumper Republicans "human scum" and worse than Democrats)  as well as whoever he perceives as his enemy (the free press) with "joking" suggestions for people to use their 2nd amendment rights to deal with it, the Republicans are following his cue.
Just now they hand delivered empty packages with a bow and "get packing" scrawled on it to Democrats involved in the impeachment process. Since the 2016 election Democrats have been sent threatening letters as well as defused pipe bombs from people worked up by Trump to be angry at Democrats.  The Republicans excused their behavior by saying it was a "joke". White house police had to be called, told the aides not the touch the packages, and needed to examine the packages as potential bomb threats.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/democrats-facing-tough-races-receive-suspicious-packages-impeachment-vote

[OzzieandHarriet]

RE “deplorables”: so Hillary Clinton made ONE statement with ONE word that was then taken out of context and held up as the reason she lost the election. And repeated a million times.

And OTOH you have Trump and his minions using far more insulting language about anyone and everyone more times than anyone could count, and that’s okay why?

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

RE “deplorables”: so Hillary Clinton made ONE statement with ONE word that was then taken out of context and held up as the reason she lost the election. And repeated a million times.

And OTOH you have Trump and his minions using far more insulting language about anyone and everyone more times than anyone could count, and that’s okay why?

There were a bunch of articles documenting the increasingly smug tone of American liberal discourse that came out in 2016, indicating the issue extended far beyond that single emblematic HC comment. This somewhat lengthy article, which came out prior to the 2016 election, covers the major highlights; among other things, it notes (warns?):

"Smug liberals said George [W. Bush] was too stupid to get elected, too stupid to get reelected, too stupid to pass laws or appoint judges or weather a political fight. Liberals misunderestimated George W. Bush all eight years of his presidency."

But who knows, maybe Trump is too crude, misogynistic, and treasonous to get reelected--in which case, it won't matter how Democrats frame his supporters this time around. However, US politics doesn't need more shrillness in it. Before you label someone as evil and dumb, maybe consider instead that they are merely biased and misinformed.

[BlueHouse]

My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote. 

[RetiredAt63]

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

I think this is why voter numbers have gone up in Canada over the last 3 elections - the Conservatives don't really resonate with a lot of voters and the ABC (anyone but Conservatives) voters are getting out and voting.  Voting against a party or candidate is just as valid as voting for a candidate or party - especially here, when you have a choice between several parties/candidates.  We have recounts going on in 3 ridings right now, so a small number of votes can make a big difference.

[nereo]

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

I think this is why voter numbers have gone up in Canada over the last 3 elections - the Conservatives don't really resonate with a lot of voters and the ABC (anyone but Conservatives) voters are getting out and voting.  Voting against a party or candidate is just as valid as voting for a candidate or party - especially here, when you have a choice between several parties/candidates.  We have recounts going on in 3 ridings right now, so a small number of votes can make a big difference.

Not to mention that the number of ridings in Canada (338) with the lower population (29MM adults) means there’s way fewer people per riding than we have here in the US with our 435 congressional districts and 210MM people

*Canada averages 86,000 adults per riding, whereas in the US the mean number of voters per congressional district is 483,000, roughly 5.6x more people per representative. 
**The number of congressional representatives has been frozen at 435 since 1929.  Given our current population the US has among the most people per representative of any modern democracy.

[RetiredAt63]

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

I think this is why voter numbers have gone up in Canada over the last 3 elections - the Conservatives don't really resonate with a lot of voters and the ABC (anyone but Conservatives) voters are getting out and voting.  Voting against a party or candidate is just as valid as voting for a candidate or party - especially here, when you have a choice between several parties/candidates.  We have recounts going on in 3 ridings right now, so a small number of votes can make a big difference.

Not to mention that the number of ridings in Canada (338) with the lower population (29MM adults) means there’s way fewer people per riding than we have here in the US with our 435 congressional districts and 210MM people

*Canada averages 86,000 adults per riding, whereas in the US the mean number of voters per congressional district is 483,000, roughly 5.6x more people per representative. 
**The number of congressional representatives has been frozen at 435 since 1929.  Given our current population the US has among the most people per representative of any modern democracy.

That is so many people per riding/district, but how can 435 representatives manage?  Adding more seats would be even more awkward. 

Automatic recounts: "An automatic recount is triggered when the difference in the number of votes received by the top-finishing candidates equals 0.1 per cent or less of the total number of votes cast".  I am guessing most of your elections have only 2 or at most 3 candidates?  Of course normally (except in Quebec) we have 3 main candidates as well, so this does work.

Our 3 contested ridings had vote differences of 328, 325, and 153 between the first and second place candidates.  Even multiplied by 5.6, that is only a difference of about 1800 and 900.  Not a lot if there are an average of 483,000 voters in a district.  We have 3 recounts for 338 ridings - that would be maybe 4 or 5 for you?  Not huge, but not nothing, either.

I guess basically my point is that even with large numbers of voters per district, each vote can make a difference if the district is at all close, especially if a third party candidate is pulling votes away.  (Not that I want to try to explain the Bloc to non-Canadians, but look at what they did to everyone else this time.)

[talltexan]

My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

While where I live--North Carolina--is supposedly purple, I can already see the conservatives around me beginning the gymnastics they need to go through over the next year in order to wind up voting for Trump.

Here's my plan to persuade them to stay home: talk about how great the economy is, and why I think it won't be a close election.

[Kris]

The Spectator, a British publication, is reporting that Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s chief adviser and son-in-law, was allegedly involved in the plot against murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The whistleblower claims that Kushner also gave MBS the go-ahead to arrest Khashoggi.

A second source told the Spectator that Turkish intelligence has an intercept of the call between Kushner and MBS — and that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan used it as leverage to persuade Trump to move U.S. troops out of northern Syria ahead of Turkey’s invasion last month.

The Spectator leans conservative, by the way.

[nereo]

WH Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham (who you may recall replaced Sarah Sanders) said that four-star Marine General John Kelly was "totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President." Seriously.

Denigrating one of the military's most storied living heros. But hey, as long as he keeps tossing billions to the military it's all good, right?  Oh wait, he's robbing the military of congressionally appointed funds to pay for a few hundred miles of boarder fencing.

[talltexan]

I go away for one hour, and--when I return--there are basically three new scandals in two posts.

I simply cannot keep up!

[Glenstache]

The Spectator, a British publication, is reporting that Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s chief adviser and son-in-law, was allegedly involved in the plot against murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The whistleblower claims that Kushner also gave MBS the go-ahead to arrest Khashoggi.

A second source told the Spectator that Turkish intelligence has an intercept of the call between Kushner and MBS — and that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan used it as leverage to persuade Trump to move U.S. troops out of northern Syria ahead of Turkey’s invasion last month.

The Spectator leans conservative, by the way.

This is terrible if true. It will be interesting to see if this has enough backup to have legs.

[nereo]

saying "we won't object if you arrest Khashoggi" is a quantum-leap difference from saying "we give you the green light to kill him."

It's unclear which, if either, actually happened. 

[former player]

saying "we won't object if you arrest Khashoggi" is a quantum-leap difference from saying "we give you the green light to kill him."

It's unclear which, if either, actually happened.

The bigger issue to my mind is that whatever did happen provided the scope for the President of Turkey to blackmail the President of the USA into withdrawing USA troops from Syria, leading to the betrayal and murder of the the USA's Kurdish allies by Turkey.

It was already clear that Kushner was a shit, but when his shittiness puts the Trump at the mercy of Erdogan then that is a serious breach of national security and the President's oath of office.

[Just Joe]

I remember him in 1990 when the Marla Maples story was big.  I thought he was a disgusting sexist a$$ then, and he only got worse. 

To second rab-bit, the real problem is how so many people can look at the same thing and see a great man doing everything right.  WTF?

I recently watched a dose of Fox News. If a person's primary news source is Fox News then it is likely that person is UNaware of his misteps. Fox News was lying by omission.

They were still ranting and raving about liberals. Old news in some cases. Hilary Clinton ought not come up in any conservative ranting at this point. She holds no office, has little influence, not part of any election.

If a person was reading certain websites and watching Fox News and surrounded by people who were doing the same it would be easy to believe in Trump.

It doesn't take long looking at any other news outlets to realize how insular the conservative media is though. And reality is easy to find in most places around the country.

I wonder if the WV coal miners have a different opinion of Trump in 2019. 

Trump is as bad or worse than I expected. And the Kurds. I am surprised that someone didn't stand up at the Pentagon for the Kurds who have helped the US missions in the middle east. 

[partgypsy]

My BIL voted for Trump.  He doesn't think he's an ideal President, and he doesn't do much to defend him, but he digs his heels in when anyone else criticizes him.  And comments like these make him hold his ground even harder.  I think he may have admitted long ago that Trump is a loser, if I hadn't been saying "I told you so" or demeaning his base all these months. 

My BIL is quite intelligent and even pretty thoughtful.  He's usually fair and impartial, so I really don't get it, but to fix this mess we're in (both on a personal level for me and wider level for the country) I think we need to find a way to let those people off the hook and bring them back to being decent human beings again.  Tell them they were hypnotized or something that doesn't make them feel so stupid.

With the election only a year away, I am puzzling about how to persuade such a person to not show up and vote for Trump on election day. Any thoughts?

I think the approach depends on the person and the situation.  I think part of it is acknowledging some of their frustrations that may have led them to vote for Trump(or perhaps against Clinton, as the case may be).  And then, depending on what their reasons are, there may or may not be an avenue.  (For instance, if they have hardline views on immigration, you're probably not going to persuade them)

If you're trying to be persuasive, don't go down the "how could you possibly have voted for that (negative adjective)" road.  Instead, focus on the ways in which Trump hasn't lived up to the reasons that that person may have chosen to vote for him.  Point out empty promises.  For instance "Drain the Swamp" looks and sounds absurd when your Secretary of Education comes from a family of Republican megadonors, you appoint your daughter and son-in-law to official positions, your Secretary of Transportation was a previous Cabinet member(and the spouse of the Senate majority leader), and you actually thought it was appropriate to try to schedule a G-8(G-7?) meeting at your own property.

Also, offer information rather than judgement - if you try to tell someone what to think it'll backfire 99 times out of 100.  If you help by giving them access to information/examples that support an alternative perspective you may have more success.

@talltexan you make a good point.  I don't have to convince him of anybody else having better policies, I just have to convince him not to vote.

A lot of analysis indicates, that Trump is likely in the 2020 election to lose the popular vote, and win the electoral vote again. He can even lose 2 of the states he previously won and still win the electoral college. So, I have to say unless something substantially changes, there is a real likelihood we will have another 4 years of Trump. Sure our populations is becoming younger and more diverse. But not in the states that matter. Shocking but true. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/how-trump-could-lose-5-million-votes-still-win-2020-n1031601

[Just Joe]

Do you guys not get world history in the US?  What you're saying is laughably and demonstrably false.

Actually - we don't, or - I didn't. I mean the information is available but when i went through school (70s/80s) the history teaching plan ended around the Great Depression. When I took history parts 1 and 2 in college - the teaching plan ended before WWII. I live in a Red state and have wondered if this figured into the teaching plan. Discussions with our kids seem to indicate the same happened in their classes.

20th century history is very important but the history classes I took focused heavily on early American history. Perhaps they were avoiding controversial recent topics?

[nereo]

Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

[bacchi]

Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

[partgypsy]

Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

Yep. Very possible.

[OtherJen]

Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

Yep. Very possible.

Bill Clinton was impeached midway through his second term, and the results didn't seem to help Al Gore in 2000. I'm not seeing the comparison here.

[OtherJen]

None of this surprises me at this point, but I find that I am still capable of disgust.

Former Ambassador To Ukraine Says She Was Told To 'Watch Her Back'

Yovanovitch said, per the transcript of her deposition, the first she heard that Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, was targeting her was from Ukrainian officials. She also noted that Ukrainian officials told her she should "watch her back," because now-arrested Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman wanted a different ambassador in the post.

-----

Yovanovitch detailed a campaign to oust her from her post, and when she spoke to Sondland about the campaign against her, he told her that she should tweet her praise for Trump.

"You need to, you know, tweet out there that you support the president and that all these are lies and everything else," Yovanovitch said, paraphrasing what Sondland told her. "And, you know, so, you know, I mean, obviously, that was advice. It was advice that I did not see how I could implement in my role as an ambassador and as a foreign service officer."

[GuitarStv]

Do you guys not get world history in the US?  What you're saying is laughably and demonstrably false.

Actually - we don't, or - I didn't. I mean the information is available but when i went through school (70s/80s) the history teaching plan ended around the Great Depression. When I took history parts 1 and 2 in college - the teaching plan ended before WWII. I live in a Red state and have wondered if this figured into the teaching plan. Discussions with our kids seem to indicate the same happened in their classes.

20th century history is very important but the history classes I took focused heavily on early American history. Perhaps they were avoiding controversial recent topics?

That would explain some comments I've heard about the US's role in the world.  It's a lot rosier and more defensible if we assume history stopped at WWII.

[bacchi]

Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

Yep. Very possible.

Bill Clinton was impeached midway through his second term, and the results didn't seem to help Al Gore in 2000. I'm not seeing the comparison here.

True, not a solid comparison but Bill's approval ratings bounced back from his impeachment and he was well liked at the end of his 2nd term. Trump's ratings, while not high in the first place, only need to bounce back enough for Republicans to go to the polls.

If there are enough Republicans that are ambivalent about his quid pro quo -- and, currently, that's the case -- then it'll hurt his chances in the purple states.



Eta: Bill was popular before the trial and his numbers didn't drop too much after the Senate rejected the articles. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/03/clintons-impeachment-barely-dented-his-public-support-and-it-turned-off-many-americans/

He did end on a high note, with approval in the mid 70s.

[BlueHouse]

Do you guys not get world history in the US?  What you're saying is laughably and demonstrably false.

Actually - we don't, or - I didn't. I mean the information is available but when i went through school (70s/80s) the history teaching plan ended around the Great Depression. When I took history parts 1 and 2 in college - the teaching plan ended before WWII. I live in a Red state and have wondered if this figured into the teaching plan. Discussions with our kids seem to indicate the same happened in their classes.

20th century history is very important but the history classes I took focused heavily on early American history. Perhaps they were avoiding controversial recent topics?

That would explain some comments I've heard about the US's role in the world.  It's a lot rosier and more defensible if we assume history stopped at WWII.

I agree with @Just Joe  .  US History ended at WWII, but then there was an added chapter on Vietnam.  Was it accurate?  Sure...from the American government perspective.  US interference is toned down or described as us helping the less fortunate and less-able countries.  I remember my own history teacher in 8th grade refused to call the civil war anything other than "the war of northern aggression".  This was in NJ.  We just thought it was cute and didn't understand the significance of whitewashing history. 

Remember also that textbook selection in the US is heavily influenced by politics and political donors.  It's pretty eye-opening when you reach adulthood and start learning what really happened. 

[Kris]

Another American chiming in that US history class ended in WWII. The sum total of my high school education about Vietnam was a Hollywood movie my history teacher showed. I can't really remember, but I'm guessing it was Apocalypse now. However, with literally no actual supporting materials, the movie didn't teach me hardly anything (and the history teacher in question was one of the football coaches and frankly used movies and "worksheets" and stuff in class somewhere in the area of 50% of the time-- not to teach, but to eat up class time so he did not have to teach).

[bacchi]

Another American chiming in that US history class ended in WWII. The sum total of my high school education about Vietnam was a Hollywood movie my history teacher showed. I can't really remember, but I'm guessing it was Apocalypse now. However, with literally no actual supporting materials, the movie didn't teach me hardly anything (and the history teacher in question was one of the football coaches and frankly used movies and "worksheets" and stuff in class somewhere in the area of 50% of the time-- not to teach, but to eat up class time so he did not have to teach).

Gah, using gym teachers to teach history and social studies is such a disservice.

[OtherJen]

Another American chiming in that US history class ended in WWII. The sum total of my high school education about Vietnam was a Hollywood movie my history teacher showed. I can't really remember, but I'm guessing it was Apocalypse now. However, with literally no actual supporting materials, the movie didn't teach me hardly anything (and the history teacher in question was one of the football coaches and frankly used movies and "worksheets" and stuff in class somewhere in the area of 50% of the time-- not to teach, but to eat up class time so he did not have to teach).

Wait, did we go to the same high school? My senior year gov't teacher was one of the assistant football coaches. Half the varsity team and all three senior cheerleaders were in the class, and the football team was undefeated that season. I'm sure you can imagine how much actual education happened in that classroom.

We learned laughably little about Vietnam, even in AP US History. Husband and I just finished watching the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary on Netflix (which is excellent, BTW) and were appalled at how little we knew, not only about the battles and US politics, but the underlying world politics.

[nereo]

Yeah, we ended roughly at the Marshal Plan, and that IIRC was the last week when no one was really paying attention anymore.  We spent boatloads of time on the colonial years, including first settlements, first governments, the various allegiances with European nations (e.g. the English, the Dutch, the French and the Spanish).
Then weeks of the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the constitution (with mention of the articles of confederation).  Somewhere in there the French & Indian war was mentioned.
Then another few weeks of the US Civil war, and then the industrialization of our country and its shift from agrarian to factories. 
We barely touched the First World War - honestly we spent more time on the roaring 20s and the Great Depression. WWII took probably a whole quarter. 
THen... that was largely it.  no Korean War, no Vietnam, no war protests or Watergate or Cold War.  The Gulf War (part I) was only a few years old when I was in high school, but we didn’t study that at all.

History for the US ends circa 1950.

[OtherJen]

Yeah, we ended roughly at the Marshal Plan, and that IIRC was the last week when no one was really paying attention anymore.  We spent boatloads of time on the colonial years, including first settlements, first governments, the various allegiances with European nations (e.g. the English, the Dutch, the French and the Spanish).
Then weeks of the Revolutionary War and the drafting of the constitution (with mention of the articles of confederation).  Somewhere in there the French & Indian war was mentioned.
Then another few weeks of the US Civil war, and then the industrialization of our country and its shift from agrarian to factories. 
We barely touched the First World War - honestly we spent more time on the roaring 20s and the Great Depression. WWII took probably a whole quarter. 
THen... that was largely it.  no Korean War, no Vietnam, no war protests or Watergate or Cold War.  The Gulf War (part I) was only a few years old when I was in high school, but we didn’t study that at all.

History for the US ends circa 1950.

Yep. Pretty sure I learned more about WWI politics from a Canadian novel (Rilla of Ingleside, last of the Anne of Green Gables series) than I ever did in school. I think we're about the same age, as Gulf War part 1 happened when I was in junior high.

[MKinVA]

I wanted to add a comment to Just Joe's comments about news sources. I heard one commentator bemoan Fox news' lack of real journalistic standards on programs that purport to deliver news. He suggested that one real problem is Fox news, Daily Mail, local talk radio, etc., are FREE sources of news. In depth reporting like the Post, NYTimes, and other sources that may provide more well reasoned discussion cost money. You have to pay a subscription fee. I believe there is a lot of truth to this.
I am trying to convince local sources in my area to devote time/ink to basic civics lessons, taught in plain language, to help people who didn't learn these things in school. People complain about taxes constantly and have no idea how much they actually pay and where that money goes.
I, too, spent years in school hearing about the War of Northern Agression and wondering what the hell they were talking about.

[nereo]

There's a saying in marketing:
If you aren't paying for a product, and it is not obvious who is paying for the product, then you ARE the product.



It applies to media outlets, social networking sites and other things we consider "free".

[MKinVA]

And the Dems think they are going to explain the president's transgressions and crimes to the American people and have the people rise up (figuratively) and call for his removal. I have my doubts. The MSM can't seem to explain anything in a logical manner. And having the whole thing come to a head during the Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Year holidays is crazy. The Dems long ago stopped shooting themselves in the foot and are now just aiming for the head.

[js82]

Which polls are these?  All the ones I've seen show key battleground states to be within the polling margin of error... which is to say, pretty much a tossup. 

Not that this should be a surprise - at this point the majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to various candidates, and opinions won't solidify until well after the primaries begin.  A good chunk of the electorate won't start really caring until sometime next summer.

It is also - as they say - a lifetime away in politics.  On the Dem side there will be gaffs, there will be scandals, there will be breakout moments yet to come.  On DJT's side the scandals will likely continue (possibly to not effect) but there could be a turn in the economy, most likely a major international event (or three), some natural disasters.  Much will change between now and next fall.

If the smell of a Trump impeachment, and possible censure, is still in the air next October, then Trump is likely a goner. He'll have the same problems that Hillary did -- a lack of enthusiasm at the polls. If the impeachment finishes in March, then it'll be forgotten history and he may pull a Bill.

Unless there are some heretofore unknown revelations that pop up, I don't think the impeachment changes a lot.  It'll pass the house, die in the Senate mostly on party lines, plus or minus a couple votes in swing states.  Trump's base is largely loyal to him, and I don't see that changing, barring something utterly earth-shattering.

I see 2 possible scenarios:

1) The economy holds on for the next 12 months, in which case we get a 2016 repeat, plus or minus a few percent.  Of course, plus or minus a few percent means that the following states are theoretically in play with 2016 margins of victory <4%:

-Arizona (R+3.5% in 2016)
-Florida (R+1.2%)
-Maine(D+3%)
-Michigan(R+0.2%)
-Minnesota(D+1.5%)
-Nevada(D+2.4%)
-New Hampshire(D+0.4%)
-North Carolina(R+3.7%)
-Pennsylvania(R+0.7%)
-Wisconsin(R+0.8%)

In this scenario, it all comes down A) Turnout, and B) Democrats nominating a candidate and focusing on a message that can win the swing states.  2016 showed us that Trump is an unconventional candidate, and that contributed to a polling miss in the Midwest.  2020 could be equally difficult to poll, particularly if the democrats nominate an unconventional candidate of their own.

2) The economy starts to turn south, and Trump gets crushed.  There are enough voters whose reasons for supporting trump can be summed up as "I got a tax cut and the economy's doing well" that the state of the economy will be pivotal in the 2020 election.  It won't take much of a hiccup to shave a percent or two of support away from Trump - and that's probably enough to make the difference between a close election and a landslide, given the number of closely-contested states in 2016.  Of course, this means it's a pretty sure bet that the Republican party will start clamoring for economic stimulus, and Trump will assault the Fed with an epic tweetstorm at the first sign of a blip.

[OzzieandHarriet]

This seems  apropos somehow:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/americas-goodly-veneer-was-lie/601105/?fbclid=IwAR342KSCl4mcdQO4eh6pJcC76tYcI6MBtePXbGTmctTptR8AUM2Nzb-w8rg