Trump

[Vertigo 7]

linkies?

Maddow on the subject (I know Maddow isn't everybody's cup of tea but focus on the detail rather than the presenter).

Oh, and I meant Ambassador Yovanovitch - my bad.

EDIT: And don't forget that comment from Trump on the Ukraine call transcript along the lines of ".. and she's going to go through some things".

Jeebus... that Hyde dude, what a creepy lil shit... It almost sounds like he was trying to get her killed.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... chment.pdf

Too early to draw hard conclusions but.... take a look for yourselves.

Well, it's just even more evidence that Trump has gone out of his way to abuse his office. The conclusion has already been drawn. It's more of a question of will Moscow Mitch and the other sycophants sack up and do whats right.

[Observe]

Democrats can reel off hundreds of pages of testimonies, documents pointing to crimes, and even facts and common sense. The Republican rebuttal, is that Trump hasn't done anything wrong and even if he did, it isn't an impeachable offense. Republicans will "win", because they hold the Senate.

Trump will be reelected because his opponents are hell-bent on liberalizing America. Most Democrats and independents do not see much past slightly left of center. That's why Biden will probably get the Democratic nomination, but he will be unable to muster any significant challenge to Trump.

[fiksal]

Democrats can reel off hundreds of pages of testimonies, documents pointing to crimes, and even facts and common sense. The Republican rebuttal, is that Trump hasn't done anything wrong and even if he did, it isn't an impeachable offense. Republicans will "win", because they hold the Senate.

Trump will be reelected because his opponents are hell-bent on liberalizing America. Most Democrats and independents do not see much past slightly left of center. That's why Biden will probably get the Democratic nomination, but he will be unable to muster any significant challenge to Trump.

oh well, 4 more years of fascism then?

[Observe]

Democrats can reel off hundreds of pages of testimonies, documents pointing to crimes, and even facts and common sense. The Republican rebuttal, is that Trump hasn't done anything wrong and even if he did, it isn't an impeachable offense. Republicans will "win", because they hold the Senate.

Trump will be reelected because his opponents are hell-bent on liberalizing America. Most Democrats and independents do not see much past slightly left of center. That's why Biden will probably get the Democratic nomination, but he will be unable to muster any significant challenge to Trump.

oh well, 4 more years of fascism then?

Afraid so. I wish there were cause for hope otherwise, but I just don't see it. Of course there is always the possibility of something unforeseen, but that's not much to put your money on.

[Vertigo 7]

I really don't think so. Even if the Senate doesn't toss him out on his fat orange ass, he's pissed off democrats, independents, and the remaining real republicans. He's not going to be reelected.

[Olterin]

I really don't think so. Even if the Senate doesn't toss him out on his fat orange ass, he's pissed off democrats, independents, and the remaining real republicans. He's not going to be reelected.

Quoting for posterity. I really hope you're right, but he got elected in the first place contrary to many expectations, so right now I refuse to believe in the assured defeat until it actually happens.

[RegisterMe]

I really don't think so. Even if the Senate doesn't toss him out on his fat orange ass, he's pissed off democrats, independents, and the remaining real republicans. He's not going to be reelected.

Quoting for posterity. I really hope you're right, but he got elected in the first place contrary to many expectations, so right now I refuse to believe in the assured defeat until it actually happens.

That's where I'm at as well.

[Vertigo 7]

I'm not saying its guaranteed. But I will give it better than 50% odds that he's out no matter what. Republicans are even ready to vote for a democrat president so long as that means getting rid of Trump. And the democrats, despite all of their bickering at each other, have been consistent on their message that whoever gets the nominee will have the full support of the other candidates.

Despite what a Trumpanzie will tell you, there's not a Democrat candidate that is as unsavory as Hillary was, except that one from Hawaii... seriously don't like her. That and there's no serious candidates on an independent ticket either to swing votes away. Since the GOP has buckled to Trump and they're not going to allow any challengers on the Republican ticket, I'm confident you'll see nothing more than a big GTFO to Trump this November.

But who knows... can't predict the future. I just know that the American people are not as stupid as Trump and Faux News treats them and he can lie about how much support he has all he wants, but come voting day, the lies won't count for jack all.

[Observe]

But who knows... can't predict the future. I just know that the American people are not as stupid as Trump and Faux News treats them and he can lie about how much support he has all he wants, but come voting day, the lies won't count for jack all.

There I think you are mistaken. It has nothing to do with being stupid. Lies do count for "jack all", because they get inserted into the story that people lives their lives by. How much of the narrative of what you or I think, is based on our respective conditioning, versus what we have concluded after looking at all the facts from all the various sides?

Take any Supreme Court decision. Have you ever read all the hundreds of pages of briefings and opinions of the different judges involved? Or, do you just automatically take a viewpoint that fits your conditioned narrative?

Besides, Trump has the statistical advantage of running for a second term. All things being equal, presidents are seldom voted out after their first term in office.

[Masterbagger]

Quoting for posterity. I really hope you're right, but he got elected in the first place contrary to many expectations, so right now I refuse to believe in the assured defeat until it actually happens.

Don't get your hopes up there. President Trump has pursued doing the things he was elected to do and kicked the economy into motion. Jobs and wages are going up and unemployment is going down. By the time November rolls around there will be hundreds of miles of border wall constructed in addition to what has already been built. I don't know anyone who voted for Trump and regrets it enough to vote against him next time outside of a primary. From my view there isn't a conservative section that I know of willing to flip for a democrat over Trump and I don't anticipate there ever being one while the dems here become increasingly radicalized by absurd progressive ideas. Neither the traditionally GOP voters or the dem extremists are going to waiver here. The truly independent and those who lean left but aren't radicalized are going to decide. The trouble for the dems is that the economy isn't bad anymore and the dems are not campaigning on the economy at all. Dems are putting forward radical ideas that only appeal to those voters already drinking their kool aid. They learned nothing from 2016. They doubled down on a platform that failed and made it even more extreme by adding socialism. They are going to run this against the President that promised jobs and economic growth and delivered them. It is going to be fun to watch.

[Vertigo 7]

But who knows... can't predict the future. I just know that the American people are not as stupid as Trump and Faux News treats them and he can lie about how much support he has all he wants, but come voting day, the lies won't count for jack all.

There I think you are mistaken. It has nothing to do with being stupid. Lies do count for "jack all", because they get inserted into the story that people lives their lives by. How much of the narrative of what you or I think, is based on our respective conditioning, versus what we have concluded after looking at all the facts from all the various sides?

Take any Supreme Court decision. Have you ever read all the hundreds of pages of briefings and opinions of the different judges involved? Or, do you just automatically take a viewpoint that fits your conditioned narrative?

Besides, Trump has the statistical advantage of running for a second term. All things being equal, presidents are seldom voted out after their first term in office.

I think you missed the point. I was specifically referring to his lies about number of supporters. Not the ramifications of his aversion to facts and truth.

I know some "people" want the government to consist of nothing more than a loud mouth racist and a group of uniformed thugs running around the world beating up on anyone whose skin is a few shades shy of white. I've said it before, I'll say it again, they're a lost cause. Darwinism will deal with them. But they're the minority and the rest of us are not going to sit idly by while the country is ripped apart. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men and women to do nothing. I'll give Trump this, he's unified the majority of the country against him. Trump is the enemy of the people.

[Mightysword]

Not quoting anyone in particular but something related to what's been discussing: do you notice that outside of the internet, you don't see a lot of people willing to engage in political discussion? May I ask that how many of you here engage in political argument in the same insensitivity you dedicate to this very thread almost daily or weekly? And why is that? I think the short and simple answer because the safety of anonymity the internet offer, but the long answer is 'what does that implies'?

Over year I had come up with an observation pattern to guess people's political allegiance in real life with a good degree of accuracy, for example:

- Group A: If someone constantly tries to bring it up and blame Trump for everything (related or not), then it's a safe bet that's a Left leaning person.
- Group B: If someone rarely engages, and only reluctantly give a courtesy cheer when the enthusiasm from A become too much, that person mostly is a neutral/independent.
- Group C: if someone squarely put their foot down with statement like "it's my policy to not discuss politic", then that person are likely a conservative/right leaning.

And each group have their own reason for behaving that way.

- Group A is the only group that can safely express their opinion in most public places and institutions without facing prejudice persecution, in fact they have the perfect counters if anyone else dare to rebutt them.
- Group B largely just want to avoid having an argument, especially when they considered most of such argument are pointless because they don't want to be pushed into a confrontational situation with people from Group A who largely behaves as if you are their enemies unless you agree with them.
- Group C behaves that ways so they can both stay safe and out of trouble. Basically they do it for their own good. Political point of view is not a protected class under the US law.

And in my observation in different communities, the split usually come out fairly even between the groups with Group B tend to be a little bit slightly ahead. However on the surface in pretty much every single groups - without fail - there is only one dominated narrative - and that's the one from group A. Again, not hard to guess why seeing theirs is the only political correct and accepted in public. Then here is the problem on voting days: it gives the false sense that Group A is the majority and will easily triumph against their hated candidate, while the reality is that most of the time, it usually comes down to a pretty even coin toss.

[Chips]

...and yet when the two sets of supporters meet there's often some very real anger thrown at each other.

There are many reasons.

1) Voting for someone doesn't make you a supporter of them. Stay with me a minute, you'll see what i mean...
Just like Labour in the UK kept going on about having the biggest political party membership in the UK. Translation to votes? No. Plenty of passionate people in social media extolling the virtues and bashing opposition? By the absolute truck load. Apparently largest number of canvassers on the doorstep too. That's the party leader who was at Glastonbury and got a standing ovation. "Pop star politics".

If you're not a supporter you may not be, plainly, that intense a political engage - you don't care enough for it to be prime conversation. You may label them as neutral - but I'd wager many of them (majority) vote the same way each time... they're not *that* unaligned, just don't care enough to make it the first, last, dominating topic of conversation. I don't discuss politics with my friends. Why? Because I don't see them all day every day, so we have plenty to talk about lives, what we're doing, and then onto whatever we're up to. Down the pub it isn't politics, it's an absolute legendary laugh. Trying to solve the worlds woes? No, we do NOT go to the pub to achieve that. Maybe if we were there daily it'd inevitably crop up and maybe we'd debate, but we aren't and we don't.

I'd agree that I mainly have heard left leaning specifically, but only in the sense that we've got a right wing (supposedly marginally right, lets hope it doesn't venture further) Government - so the opposition are going to criticise it. When it was a left Govt (some will say it never was ), I don't remember hearing much from Labour/left. Additionally, I've heard plenty of Tory support at work - none for Labour. Just they don't talk about the leader, it's policies itself they refer to and you can realise which direction they lean from what they're saying. Overwhelmingly Tory in that sense, but outside of the election time? Nothing.

So I'd say it's mainly opposition noise from my personal experience of the last 22 years of elections...

2) You don't talk to random people about politics.

Honestly, if anyone stands and challenges my political viewpoint (or asks for it) in public, I assume the worst. They're a militant supporter of X - and my opinion DOES NOT MATTER to them. They're there to force their opinion upon me and there's NOTHING for me to gain by engaging. It's going to be a waste of time. Internet? Slightly different, it's my time, place, choosing. Undoubtedly at home, comfortable, nothing better to do. Even then, I don't engage that much.

I do talk politics with my family, but that's because it crops up on the news and we comment. I don't agree with the political opinion of some of my relatives, but I don't force my own upon them - just say what i think, tis discussed a little, job done. We're family, we've better things to talk about that impacts us far more.

We did talk politics one time we were in the pub actually (my friends) and one supported Corbyn, which shocked us a bit. Then again, he fits the stereotype that's impressed by personalities (as in high profiles) and a bit of rebel stuff. Think he got worried, until we literally just said "you vote for who you want mate, as long as it's because you agree with their principles, their policies, then you shouldn't worry what we think".

That's literally it. Have your own political opinion, it's fine. I've pointed out many times in this thread, the only thing I find incredible is the inability for some to criticise Trump. Support him if you desire, but surely SOME things he's done aren't good I mean, the way he treats people, you can criticise him and still support his politics if that's your bag. But when you just ignore any transgression as it's seemingly an attack on your political beliefs (or try to highlight others instead, as if that somehow excuses him), that's concerning.

There is one thing in this thread I've come to agree with. Trump is awful in my opinion, yes. Why he's voted in I won't ever know. But I do agree, just like in the UK, it's the oppositions fault for not being able to field a candidate nor appeal to voters that means you've got him... and why you may still have him as president in the near future.

Can he really lose this election?

[Observe]

I think you missed the point. I was specifically referring to his lies about number of supporters. Not the ramifications of his aversion to facts and truth.

Just because Trump lies about his number of supporters, doesn't mean it isn't the truth. Trump lies pathologically, but sometimes his lies happens to be true.

Besides, it's not really about Trump, as much as it is about what many people see in him. They see someone who is building a wall against the liberalization of America. The list of things they are not happy with how things have been heading, is a very long list. They couldn't care less whether their standard barer is a pompous egomaniac or the next Saint. To them, liberals spell anathema to everything holy and decent about American life.

There are many of them. I wager that there are more supporting Trump now, than the first time around.

[Alan Phipps]

@ Mightysword: That's a pretty asute analysis that I think can be applied to some extent to almost any emotive or divisive debate or discussion. This is not something restricted to Trump and his deeds or intents, in my opinion. I can only speak for the UK here, but there is indeed significant political discussion currently going on outside of the internet and it is probably as polarised and passionate over topics such as Brexit and national leadership as is the case in the US over Trump issues, or so I believe. A troubling issue though is by whom and how are such popular deliberations best and impartially informed?

Internet anonymity does indeed enourage some to be overly outspoken, belligerent or even abusive at times, but you should also grant that the bulk of the readership probably has the intellect to recognise those loud voices for what they are and not be terribly swayed by volume, insults and hyperbole when held against sensible cold logic and analysis.

I think from your analysis, I would be firmly classed as being in camp B.

[Mightysword]

1) Voting for someone doesn't make you a supporter of them. Stay with me a minute, you'll see what i mean...

I actually had said the same thing many times myself in this thread in the last few years. Good luck having ' some members of the left' believe that though, trust me I tried. In fact, even when making it clears many time that I'm not supporting Trump, not voting for him, and criticize him (when warranted), just the fact I refuse to get on the Trump basing bandwagon that had been accused of being a Trump enabler and support, both directly and indirectly in this thread.

Besides, it's not really about Trump, as much as it is about what many people see in him. They see someone who is building a wall against the liberalization of America. The list of things they are not happy with how things have been heading, is a very long list. They couldn't care less whether their standard barer is a pompous egomaniac or the next Saint. To them, liberals spell anathema to everything holy and decent about American life.

This is very true, and exactly part of the message I'm trying to say. I don't know about the UK, but from the look of it it's more even there in term of public pressure for both side. If anything the US's liberal has been extremely successful at - and that they had managed to create a basically one-sided public narrative, a political correctness system that is openly hostile to anyone that oppose them. But I think that also creates an achilles heel for them. I had also discussed about the available of platforms and when people perceived they don't have one, it's not hard to convince themselves an alliance of convenience is necessary, even with a devil to fight even a greater evil. Now, the question what people perceive as the "greater evil".

An example for me personally is this: the Kevanaugh's hearing. Even now, this is still the single most damaging instance for Democrat/Liberal for someone with my standard. Beyond any politic, social equality, question of character ...etc... to me specifically the principal "innocent until proven guilty" is an overriding priority above all else, including all those mishap Trump got slapped on in an almost daily basic. When and if I perceive a political party or individual seem to threaten this one particular value, it may trigger a reaction from me to prevent its violation even if it means signing a deal with the devil.

And I know I'm not the only one with this mindset, people who carry prejudice or conditioned to a specific mindset tend to focus on one event at a time, and moving one from another. But a lot of us look at the undercurrent and trend over long period.

[Mightysword]

@ Mightysword: That's a pretty asute analysis that I think can be applied to some extent to almost any emotive or divisive debate or discussion. This is not something restricted to Trump and his deeds or intents, in my opinion.

Most certainly, others examples can be like #metoo, #blacklifematter ...etc.... While agreeing with those movements are something can be openly and safely discussed anywhere, internet or IRL. To talk about the 'back side' of those movements though, is not something most people will find the courage and comfort to do outside of the internet.

Internet anonymity does indeed enourage some to be overly outspoken, belligerent or even abusive at times, but you should also grant that the bulk of the readership probably has the intellect to recognise those loud voices for what they are and not be terribly swayed by volume, insults and hyperbole when held against sensible cold logic and analysis.

While that is true, it still constitute a false sense of reality though. Here are examples:

- Most people on reddit are liberal and from the left: this is actually not true, what actually happens they simply dominated and bullied everyone else from the "surface".
- This forum (egosoft) is somehow better than others in keeping level head political discussion. Not quite, depending on what you mean.

I don't believe a places like reddit lack the intellectual people to have proper discussion, or that the posters on this forum (myself included) is somehow better then our internet peers in other places. The difference is simply due to the moderators. Political correct behavior are endorsed and tolerated even when it crosses the line, this result in right leaning participants going underground while the neutral simply disengage because we don't want to simply join the echo chambers. As comparing to here, all views are given the right to speak as long as we obey the same etiquette. In fact, I think it's noticeably that extremist view crossing the line more often on here from the left than from the right, but here you can expect the moderators to step in and reel it in even if they share the same ideology as opposed to ignore and tolerate such behavior.

I intended to keep this thought until the next time one of those "forum appreciation" comments pop up, which appears every-once in a while in this thread, but this is a good opportunity to let it out. Also to fellow posters in this thread, I know that each time those 'appreciation' posts pop up people from all sides are all in agreement that this is one of those rare places on the net to have thoughtful and (mostly) safe political discussion. I would ask you to move beyond the simple lip service and look deeper at why it is the case. While the moderators are the catalyst for the 'reason', the reason itself is environment such as this can only be possible if all different view - no matter how unpopular- are given equal platforms to stand on.

[fiksal]

Not quoting anyone in particular but something related to what's been discussing: do you notice that outside of the internet, you don't see a lot of people willing to engage in political discussion? May I ask that how many of you here engage in political argument in the same insensitivity you dedicate to this very thread almost daily or weekly? And why is that? I think the short and simple answer because the safety of anonymity the internet offer, but the long answer is 'what does that implies'?

I can mostly speak to myself, as I attempt to approach the discussion the same way I do in real life as I do here. With whatever appropriate things the discussion requires.

If I dont, then I am being inconsistent or forgetful, and that's not a good thing, which I'd need to address.

- Group A is the only group that can safely express their opinion in most public places and institutions without facing prejudice persecution, in fact they have the perfect counters if anyone else dare to rebutt them.

That's inaccurate. I've witnessed myself a great number of vocal Trump supporters who are (vocally) proud of everything Trump has done. Who call for more walls, more children in camps, less protections for pre-existing conditions, and on and on. I witnessed one who called for gunning down refuges at the border. [1]

They seem to be quite safe to express those opinions on main stream TV and news as well.

Some examples hit closer to home for me, as my family is not only (vocally) proud of Trump's accomplishments, but also (vocally) proud of Putin's and the body count that he leaves.


[1] Though eventually(!) he did lose his job for it at the end.

Group C

I have a self proclaimed conservative friend, whose words I keep remembering. He said, there are no conservatives to the right of him. He called them something else.

[Mightysword]

That's inaccurate.

Not sure what inaccurate here while your post largely show exactly what I said?

They seem to be quite safe to express those opinions on main stream TV and news as well.

Of course they are safe if that is their job. If you are a conservative TV commenters then you are even paid to say it. I'm not talking about those who well-insulated within their circle (ala Steve Bannon), I'm talking about your average Joe working at average public companies and institutions. Hell, I'm pretty sure you are aware even if a kid wears a MAGA hat to school that can already create drama.

[1] Though eventually(!) he did lose his job for it at the end.

And ... that's why most people don't do it? Although you seem to be describing a nut case rather than an average conservative here. Beside I said most people don't do it so they don't get into trouble or put their lifehood at stake, you just provided an example to illustrate exactly that while claiming it's in-accurate

I have a self proclaimed conservative friend, whose words I keep remembering. He said, there are no conservatives to the right of him. He called them something else.

Again, sound like a nut case. And another thing: friend. I'm not talking about closed circle of friends and family. I had got closed enough to some people to know their true alignment, despite what they let on in public. And that's my point - publicly. You can try to experiment it yourself: wear a Clinton/Obama hat and walk around, like to your school and workplace and you will most likely receive no reaction. I know a lot of people don't like and disagree with Bernie Sander, but they won't react if you wear his shirt or hat. But, try to do it with a MAGA hat and ... see what happen for yourself.

I'll just wrap this point up by pointing out a very clear example: why were most people "surprised" at Trump winning 2016? It's because "on the surface" it seemed there aren't that many people would vote for him. Otherwise it wouldn't a surprise isn't it. That's simply a clear cut empirical evidence that I feel override any personal anecdotal incident or individual perception.

[Vertigo 7]

I think you missed the point. I was specifically referring to his lies about number of supporters. Not the ramifications of his aversion to facts and truth.

Just because Trump lies about his number of supporters, doesn't mean it isn't the truth. Trump lies pathologically, but sometimes his lies happens to be true.

Besides, it's not really about Trump, as much as it is about what many people see in him. They see someone who is building a wall against the liberalization of America. The list of things they are not happy with how things have been heading, is a very long list. They couldn't care less whether their standard barer is a pompous egomaniac or the next Saint. To them, liberals spell anathema to everything holy and decent about American life.

There are many of them. I wager that there are more supporting Trump now, than the first time around.

I highly doubt that. You're forgetting that:

A) Trump did not win the popular vote by a not insignificant amount. You telling me that there are suddenly 3 million + more people willing to tolerate racism, sexism, and criminality out of the white house suddenly? I think you'll find a huge shift in the other direction. People want our country to be respected around the world. That sure as hell isn't happening with Trump at the helm. He's made a mockery of the presidency and that matters to a lot of people.

B) 2016 had the lowest voter turnout in the last 20 years. 2 reasons for this... people didn't want to vote for either Hillary or Trump. And the sense among some that their vote doesn't count. I'm quite sure that trend will reverse itself this time around. Voter turnout majorly spiked for the midterm and gubernatorial races.

C) Look at the huge amount of democratic election wins, even in deep red states. I mean, come on, Alabama, of ALL of them, elected a democrat senator over a mini-me version of Trump. Virginia flipped its entire state legislative branch to democrats. On and on. This trend points to a huge loss for Trump and his cult this November.

Again, I can't predict the future, but this country has more sensible people than not and we haven't seen a president cause this much turmoil since Nixon. People don't want our government swamped in drama.