16 votes

The meaning of Donald Trump’s crazily damning self-defence

This topic is locked. New comments can not be posted.

32 comments

  1. [23]
    cmccabe
    Link
    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...

    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.

    20 votes
    1. Wolf
      Link Parent
      Clever. Absolute shame we have come to this. But clever.

      Clever. Absolute shame we have come to this. But clever.

      9 votes
    2. [21]
      Fjolsvith
      Link Parent
      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.

      1 vote
      1. [18]
        LukeZaz
        Link Parent
        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.

        12 votes
        1. [17]
          Fjolsvith
          Link Parent
          Because Trump doesn't poll correctly. What that means is that people who support Trump are likely to walk away from a pollster....

          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/

          4 votes
          1. [16]
            LukeZaz
            Link Parent
            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.

            11 votes
            1. [13]
              Fjolsvith
              Link Parent
              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.

              2 votes
              1. [2]
                moonbathers
                Link Parent
                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.

                8 votes
                1. Fjolsvith
                  Link Parent
                  And yet he still won. I contend that crowd size does has meaning.

                  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.

                  1 vote
              2. [6]
                NoblePath
                Link Parent
                Donations less than $100 would probably give some indication of his popularity with actual voters. Do you have a ready source fir this data?

                Donations less than $100 would probably give some indication of his popularity with actual voters. Do you have a ready source fir this data?

                6 votes
                1. [5]
                  Fjolsvith
                  Link Parent
                  "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]

                  1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/18/california-resistance-donald-trump-2020-election
                  5 votes
                  1. [3]
                    mike10010100
                    Link Parent
                    That's just California. You're mixing stats now.

                    That's just California. You're mixing stats now.

                    3 votes
                    1. [2]
                      Fjolsvith
                      Link Parent
                      Someone asked for stats, I gave a sample. Besides, I believe that it is a very telling indicator coming from a solid blue state.

                      Someone asked for stats, I gave a sample. Besides, I believe that it is a very telling indicator coming from a solid blue state.

                      2 votes
                      1. hungariantoast
                        (edited )
                        Link Parent
                        Nothing about the information in the article you linked is indicative of anything unexpected. The majority of the money came from "superdonations" from a handful of individuals, while the...

                        it is a very telling indicator coming from a solid blue state.

                        Nothing about the information in the article you linked is indicative of anything unexpected.

                        The majority of the money came from "superdonations" from a handful of individuals, while the overwhelming majority of the donations themselves came from "normal" people. That's exactly what we expect when looking at donations.

                        Furthermore, as is expected, a majority of donations originated from the areas that they are expected to originate from. In other words, they came from the conservative parts of California.

                        Also, while Trump is ranked third in terms of donations received by presidential candidates in the state of California, the two candidates in front of him, Buttigieg and Harris, have raised significantly more:

                        • Harris: $7.5m
                        • Buttigieg: $5.1m
                        • Trump: $3.2m
                        6 votes
                  2. Wes
                    Link Parent
                    Wow, 92.8%. That's a lot higher than I would have expected. Thanks for posting a source.

                    Wow, 92.8%. That's a lot higher than I would have expected. Thanks for posting a source.

                    3 votes
              3. [3]
                mike10010100
                Link Parent
                Got a source for that? A dedicated base does not mean a growing base.

                donations pouring in for him and the RNC

                Got a source for that?

                the crowd sizes whenever they all speak.

                A dedicated base does not mean a growing base.

                4 votes
                1. [2]
                  Fjolsvith
                  Link Parent
                  https://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/trumps-125-million-haul-highlights-fundraising-advantage-over-2020-dems
                  3 votes
                  1. mike10010100
                    Link Parent
                    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?

                    3 votes
              4. Velrei
                Link Parent
                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?

                1 vote
            2. [2]
              Fjolsvith
              Link Parent
              Additionally, I heavily salt Wikipedia articles: https://www.rt.com/usa/463794-clinton-epstein-whitewashed-wikipedia-google/

              Additionally, I heavily salt Wikipedia articles:

              https://www.rt.com/usa/463794-clinton-epstein-whitewashed-wikipedia-google/

              1 vote
              1. hungariantoast
                Link Parent
                RT is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government. It is not a reliable source, I'm afraid.

                RT is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government.

                It is not a reliable source, I'm afraid.

                8 votes
      2. [2]
        onyxleopard
        Link Parent
        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.

        6 votes
        1. Removed by admin: 2 comments by 2 users
          Link Parent
        2. [2]
          Comment removed by site admin
          Link Parent
          1. onyxleopard
            Link Parent
            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.

            4 votes
        3. Removed by admin: 3 comments by 2 users
          Link Parent
  2. Deimos
    (edited )
    Link
    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.

    7 votes
  3. [8]
    KapteinB
    Link
    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.

    Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine

    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.

    4 votes
    1. [7]
      Fjolsvith
      Link Parent
      Search Google for "Biden's China connection".

      Search Google for "Biden's China connection".

      1. [5]
        spit-evil-olive-tips
        Link Parent
        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?

        8 votes
        1. [3]
          Fjolsvith
          Link Parent
          https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hunter-bidens-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804/
          4 votes
          1. [2]
            mike10010100
            Link Parent
            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?

            2 votes
            1. onyxleopard
              Link Parent
              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.

              2 votes
        2. mike10010100
          Link Parent
          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.

          3 votes
      2. mike10010100
        Link Parent
        Ah, another right wing conspiracy theory. Neat!

        Ah, another right wing conspiracy theory. Neat!

        6 votes