Basically: Trump knows that Republicans in the Senate will stand behind anything to avoid losing power. All he has to do is implicate everyone around him (i.e. including Pence) so that they would...
Exemplary
Basically: Trump knows that Republicans in the Senate will stand behind anything to avoid losing power. All he has to do is implicate everyone around him (i.e. including Pence) so that they would go down with him in the case of impeachment. Senate Republicans would then face the choice of impeaching Trump, in which case Pence also goes down and Pelosi becomes president, or concocting a justification for defending Trump.
He knows that a growing majority of Americans back him and the Senate Republicans. Also, he knows that Pelosi has to actually come up with something substantive for that 2/3 majority vote in the...
He knows that a growing majority of Americans back him and the Senate Republicans.
Also, he knows that Pelosi has to actually come up with something substantive for that 2/3 majority vote in the Senate.
And, I'm sure that Rich McConnell can delay any actual vote in the Senate just as long as Pelosi can delay one in the House.
Curious what you're basing this on? Latest Gallup poll (PDF warning) lists his approval/disapproval at 40% / 56% respectively, with his average approval over the course of his presidency hanging...
He knows that a growing majority of Americans back him and the Senate Republicans.
Curious what you're basing this on? Latest Gallup poll (PDF warning) lists his approval/disapproval at 40% / 56% respectively, with his average approval over the course of his presidency hanging out at approx. 42%, trending slightly downwards.
That's a fair possibility. I personally doubt it, given both that Trumps successful election would likely encourage the "shy Trumpers" the article mentioned to be willing to speak up, which would...
That's a fair possibility. I personally doubt it, given both that Trumps successful election would likely encourage the "shy Trumpers" the article mentioned to be willing to speak up, which would reduce the total amount who would likely not respond to a poll. That, and even then I would figure that even counting for that, disapproval wouldn't be so broad across polls; virtually every poll listed on Wikipedia recorded disapproving numbers this year. (Other years are similar, but I chose this article because it lists more unique polls)
That all said, my opinion on the likelihood of that doesn't really count for much. Rather, I'm still curious what you've found to suggest generally increasing support? A lack of poll responses from a specific group doesn't really point towards "increasing approval" so much as it simply means increased odds of poll inaccuracies.
It's not that the Trumpers are "shy". They are disgusted at the media and don't trust them. Pollsters are viewed as an extension of the media. Perhaps a better litmus of Trump's approval would be...
It's not that the Trumpers are "shy". They are disgusted at the media and don't trust them. Pollsters are viewed as an extension of the media.
Perhaps a better litmus of Trump's approval would be the donations pouring in for him and the RNC versus those for the Dems. Oh, and the crowd sizes whenever they all speak.
Crowd size is meaningless. It only takes into account people who have the time and money to go to an event and are into the candidate enough to go, and doesn't count the people who just show up to...
Crowd size is meaningless. It only takes into account people who have the time and money to go to an event and are into the candidate enough to go, and doesn't count the people who just show up to vote. Trump probably had more / bigger rallies than HRC in 2016, but she got 3 million more votes.
"Although affluent donors in Beverly Hills, Orange county and San Diego contributed significant sums – and together constituted a majority of California funds in Trump’s campaign war chest – 92.8%...
"Although affluent donors in Beverly Hills, Orange county and San Diego contributed significant sums – and together constituted a majority of California funds in Trump’s campaign war chest – 92.8% of donations came from small donors contributing less than $100. " [1]
I see, so super PACs and large donors equate to a growing grassroots base? Because it seems to me that donations under $100 would be a far better indicator of grassroots support, yes?
I see, so super PACs and large donors equate to a growing grassroots base?
Because it seems to me that donations under $100 would be a far better indicator of grassroots support, yes?
Given his party was trounced in the 2018 elections (would have gone worse without ridiculous gerrymandering), I would not say support for him has increased at all, and in fact gone down. Idk...
Given his party was trounced in the 2018 elections (would have gone worse without ridiculous gerrymandering), I would not say support for him has increased at all, and in fact gone down.
Idk though, maybe there were just a lot of cross-burnings that night, and enough of them decided they didn't need to go out and vote since everyone loves Trump and his party would never lose right?
I have seen a couple of your comments now (not just in this thread) trying to downplay the seriousness of the recent revelations of Trump and his administration’s misconduct. Now you are also...
I have seen a couple of your comments now (not just in this thread) trying to downplay the seriousness of the recent revelations of Trump and his administration’s misconduct. Now you are also making claims about his support being a majority. You know he lost the popular vote in 2016, right? Are you claiming his support has increased since then? Or do you think there are a lot of people who didn’t vote in 2016 who are now backing Trump? Or do you just not know what ‘majority’ means?
If you can’t answer those questions in a sensible way, I have to question if you are not a troll.
You haven’t linked any sources which state that Trump has a “growing majority” of support. You made that claim. There is no burden on me to back anything as I haven’t made any controversial...
You haven’t linked any sources which state that Trump has a “growing majority” of support. You made that claim. There is no burden on me to back anything as I haven’t made any controversial claims.
You’re free to support Trump, personally, but you don’t get to make up statistics about the rest of the country on a whim, cite irrelevant sources. Trump is a criminal—he’s performed criminal acts on television in front of the whole world. I suppose you think that criminality it should be forgiven if you are popular? I doubt I’ll ever be able to understand the mindset of someone who thinks supporting Trump has any benefit.
This thread's devolved into personal attacks and bickering about completely tangential information. I'm not around today, so I'm just going to clean up the worst of it and lock it.
This thread's devolved into personal attacks and bickering about completely tangential information. I'm not around today, so I'm just going to clean up the worst of it and lock it.
Rather than just saying "search Google", would you mind linking to a source that a) you believe is credible and b) explains the connection to someone unfamiliar with it?
Rather than just saying "search Google", would you mind linking to a source that a) you believe is credible and b) explains the connection to someone unfamiliar with it?
It seems like this is just nepotism at the very most. Something that Trump has done 10x more than any of his political adversaries. Sure, nepotism isn't okay. At all. But is it to the level that...
It seems like this is just nepotism at the very most. Something that Trump has done 10x more than any of his political adversaries.
Sure, nepotism isn't okay. At all. But is it to the level that we can no longer trust US intelligence agencies to root it out?
And, even if one admits wrongdoing on Biden’s part, it’s not the President’s job to ask other nations to investigate, privately or publicly. Much less, withhold aid to those countries with corrupt...
And, even if one admits wrongdoing on Biden’s part, it’s not the President’s job to ask other nations to investigate, privately or publicly. Much less, withhold aid to those countries with corrupt intent. If Trump was aware of wrongdoing, he should have raised the concern with the appropriate apparatuses (like the whistleblowers did). It’s just your standard ‘whatabout’ fallacy.
Not likely. Most sources that cover conspiracy theories as if they were fact aren't widely considered as reputable. I understand the desire to give people a good faith chance, but every time we've...
Not likely. Most sources that cover conspiracy theories as if they were fact aren't widely considered as reputable.
I understand the desire to give people a good faith chance, but every time we've entertained these Trump conspiracies, they've come out to absolutely nothing. Eventually it's a "boy who cried wolf" situation.
Basically: Trump knows that Republicans in the Senate will stand behind anything to avoid losing power. All he has to do is implicate everyone around him (i.e. including Pence) so that they would go down with him in the case of impeachment. Senate Republicans would then face the choice of impeaching Trump, in which case Pence also goes down and Pelosi becomes president, or concocting a justification for defending Trump.
Clever. Absolute shame we have come to this. But clever.
He knows that a growing majority of Americans back him and the Senate Republicans.
Also, he knows that Pelosi has to actually come up with something substantive for that 2/3 majority vote in the Senate.
And, I'm sure that Rich McConnell can delay any actual vote in the Senate just as long as Pelosi can delay one in the House.
Curious what you're basing this on? Latest Gallup poll (PDF warning) lists his approval/disapproval at 40% / 56% respectively, with his average approval over the course of his presidency hanging out at approx. 42%, trending slightly downwards.
Because Trump doesn't poll correctly. What that means is that people who support Trump are likely to walk away from a pollster.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/
That's a fair possibility. I personally doubt it, given both that Trumps successful election would likely encourage the "shy Trumpers" the article mentioned to be willing to speak up, which would reduce the total amount who would likely not respond to a poll. That, and even then I would figure that even counting for that, disapproval wouldn't be so broad across polls; virtually every poll listed on Wikipedia recorded disapproving numbers this year. (Other years are similar, but I chose this article because it lists more unique polls)
That all said, my opinion on the likelihood of that doesn't really count for much. Rather, I'm still curious what you've found to suggest generally increasing support? A lack of poll responses from a specific group doesn't really point towards "increasing approval" so much as it simply means increased odds of poll inaccuracies.
It's not that the Trumpers are "shy". They are disgusted at the media and don't trust them. Pollsters are viewed as an extension of the media.
Perhaps a better litmus of Trump's approval would be the donations pouring in for him and the RNC versus those for the Dems. Oh, and the crowd sizes whenever they all speak.
Crowd size is meaningless. It only takes into account people who have the time and money to go to an event and are into the candidate enough to go, and doesn't count the people who just show up to vote. Trump probably had more / bigger rallies than HRC in 2016, but she got 3 million more votes.
And yet he still won. I contend that crowd size does has meaning.
Donations less than $100 would probably give some indication of his popularity with actual voters. Do you have a ready source fir this data?
"Although affluent donors in Beverly Hills, Orange county and San Diego contributed significant sums – and together constituted a majority of California funds in Trump’s campaign war chest – 92.8% of donations came from small donors contributing less than $100. " [1]
That's just California. You're mixing stats now.
Someone asked for stats, I gave a sample. Besides, I believe that it is a very telling indicator coming from a solid blue state.
Wow, 92.8%. That's a lot higher than I would have expected. Thanks for posting a source.
Got a source for that?
A dedicated base does not mean a growing base.
I see, so super PACs and large donors equate to a growing grassroots base?
Because it seems to me that donations under $100 would be a far better indicator of grassroots support, yes?
Given his party was trounced in the 2018 elections (would have gone worse without ridiculous gerrymandering), I would not say support for him has increased at all, and in fact gone down.
Idk though, maybe there were just a lot of cross-burnings that night, and enough of them decided they didn't need to go out and vote since everyone loves Trump and his party would never lose right?
Additionally, I heavily salt Wikipedia articles:
https://www.rt.com/usa/463794-clinton-epstein-whitewashed-wikipedia-google/
I have seen a couple of your comments now (not just in this thread) trying to downplay the seriousness of the recent revelations of Trump and his administration’s misconduct. Now you are also making claims about his support being a majority. You know he lost the popular vote in 2016, right? Are you claiming his support has increased since then? Or do you think there are a lot of people who didn’t vote in 2016 who are now backing Trump? Or do you just not know what ‘majority’ means?
If you can’t answer those questions in a sensible way, I have to question if you are not a troll.
You haven’t linked any sources which state that Trump has a “growing majority” of support. You made that claim. There is no burden on me to back anything as I haven’t made any controversial claims.
You’re free to support Trump, personally, but you don’t get to make up statistics about the rest of the country on a whim, cite irrelevant sources. Trump is a criminal—he’s performed criminal acts on television in front of the whole world. I suppose you think that criminality it should be forgiven if you are popular? I doubt I’ll ever be able to understand the mindset of someone who thinks supporting Trump has any benefit.
This thread's devolved into personal attacks and bickering about completely tangential information. I'm not around today, so I'm just going to clean up the worst of it and lock it.
What's he even referring to here? What happened in China? None of the articles I've read about this have picked up on this quote.
Search Google for "Biden's China connection".
Rather than just saying "search Google", would you mind linking to a source that a) you believe is credible and b) explains the connection to someone unfamiliar with it?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hunter-bidens-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804/
It seems like this is just nepotism at the very most. Something that Trump has done 10x more than any of his political adversaries.
Sure, nepotism isn't okay. At all. But is it to the level that we can no longer trust US intelligence agencies to root it out?
And, even if one admits wrongdoing on Biden’s part, it’s not the President’s job to ask other nations to investigate, privately or publicly. Much less, withhold aid to those countries with corrupt intent. If Trump was aware of wrongdoing, he should have raised the concern with the appropriate apparatuses (like the whistleblowers did). It’s just your standard ‘whatabout’ fallacy.
Not likely. Most sources that cover conspiracy theories as if they were fact aren't widely considered as reputable.
I understand the desire to give people a good faith chance, but every time we've entertained these Trump conspiracies, they've come out to absolutely nothing. Eventually it's a "boy who cried wolf" situation.
Ah, another right wing conspiracy theory. Neat!