|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 13 2019 07:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 07:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
My only hope for any kind of GOP scrutiny of Trump that’s at all useful is that he overplays his hand even more egregiously so they turn on him. I hate to break it to you, but getting any kind of "scrutiny" on Trump from anyone who isn't a hardcore opponent of him is going to be damned near impossible now. Like I pointed out during the 2016 campaign, the problem with how Trump has been covered by the media is that they reported on everything that they possibly could, regardless of merit, that might be used to hurt him. In 2016, the consequence of the media's over-saturation of the airwaves with this crap was that the negative coverage of Trump became white noise. Many voters simply tuned it out and stopped caring. Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not. Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats.
I think Trump himself made it abundantly clear his supporters were doing this before the primaries were even over.
I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, ok? — Trump
On April 13 2019 07:56 Plansix wrote:
Man, 42% approval rating. Only Trump could get someone to brag about a 42% approval rating. It’s like Calvin and Hobbes where he says the key to happiness is to lower your expectations until they are already met.
Edit: also not a record. He has been at 42 before.
Posts like these might be cathartic but they don't undermine his point.
Edit: I presume he's referring either to his 49 in Rasmussen (which if you want to be technical/generous can probably qualify as within the moe for his record) or exaggerating, but that's not really his point.
|
Man, 42% approval rating. Only Trump could get someone to brag about a 42% approval rating. It’s like Calvin and Hobbes where he says the key to happiness is to lower your expectations until they are already met.
Edit: also not a record. He has been at 42 before.
|
|
|
United States24768 Posts
On April 13 2019 07:56 BerserkSword wrote: Also, if Trump is "aggressively unfit for the office he holds" then so were Obama, Bush, and Clinton, and that didnt stop any of them from two terms. You should either support this claim or retract it. It certainly doesn't stand alone.
|
On April 13 2019 07:56 Plansix wrote:
Man, 42% approval rating. Only Trump could get someone to brag about a 42% approval rating. It’s like Calvin and Hobbes where he says the key to happiness is to lower your expectations until they are already met.
Edit: also not a record. He has been at 42 before.
42% approval is respectable for any country leader these days, and that number becomes downright amazing when you factor in that he says things like 'windmill noise causes cancer 'on a weekly basis.
|
On April 13 2019 08:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 07:56 BerserkSword wrote: Also, if Trump is "aggressively unfit for the office he holds" then so were Obama, Bush, and Clinton, and that didnt stop any of them from two terms. You should either support this claim or retract it. It certainly doesn't stand alone.
So others can claim, with no "support," that Trump is aggressively unfit for office but I can't say I believe that Trump is just as fit for office as his predecessors were?
|
'Spygate' shirt now available from the official Trump shop.
Mod edit: Link and image removed.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United States24768 Posts
On April 13 2019 08:26 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 08:11 micronesia wrote:On April 13 2019 07:56 BerserkSword wrote: Also, if Trump is "aggressively unfit for the office he holds" then so were Obama, Bush, and Clinton, and that didnt stop any of them from two terms. You should either support this claim or retract it. It certainly doesn't stand alone. So others can claim, with no "support," that Trump is aggressively unfit for office but I can't say I believe that Trump is just as fit for office as his predecessors were?
You made an "if, then" statement without support and I pointed out that it's not at all clear/obvious why you are equating trump's fitness to his predecessors'. While I agree starting from a position of "Trump is completely unfit" is not fair as an axiom, the onus is on you to explain why those other former presidents were just as unfit... considering how unconventional Trump is, whether you like him or not.
Other people saying Trump is unfit can certainly go into detail, but that's been discussed to death here, whereas "Obama, Bush and Clinton were just as unfit for the office" has not been discussed from what I've seen.
|
Gallup has Trump up to 45, which ties previous highs that he had in January 2017 and in June 2018. Source. Rasmussen has him at 49% today and has had him as high as 53% this week. Source. Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation came up empty.
|
On April 13 2019 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Gallup has Trump up to 45, which ties previous highs that he had in January 2017 and in June 2018. Source. Rasmussen has him at 49% today and has had him as high as 53% this week. Source. Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation not being released yet.
Fixed that one for you.
|
On April 13 2019 08:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
'Spygate' shirt now available from the official Trump shop.
Posted by anyone else I would have thought it was to show how ridiculous it is. Coming from you I suspect it's an endorsement.
|
On April 13 2019 08:30 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 08:26 BerserkSword wrote:On April 13 2019 08:11 micronesia wrote:On April 13 2019 07:56 BerserkSword wrote: Also, if Trump is "aggressively unfit for the office he holds" then so were Obama, Bush, and Clinton, and that didnt stop any of them from two terms. You should either support this claim or retract it. It certainly doesn't stand alone. So others can claim, with no "support," that Trump is aggressively unfit for office but I can't say I believe that Trump is just as fit for office as his predecessors were? You made an "if, then" statement without support and I pointed out that it's not at all clear/obvious why you are equating trump's fitness to his predecessors'. While I agree starting from a position of "Trump is completely unfit" is not fair as an axiom, the onus is on you to explain why those other former presidents were just as unfit... considering how unconventional Trump is, whether you like him or not. Other people saying Trump is unfit can certainly go into detail, but that's been discussed to death here, whereas "Obama, Bush and Clinton were just as unfit for the office" has not been discussed from what I've seen.
I did not state that I think Clinton, Bush, and obama were unfit. That was not my argument.
All I was saying is that I think Trump is just as fit as Clinton, Bush and Obama were. and, in my opinion that if we go by that other dude's premise that Trump is aggressively unfit, then so were the others.
If you want support about how Trump is more or less the same as his last three predecessors, just look at how the status quo was more or less maintained. America is not drastically worse than it was a few years ago
|
United States43865 Posts
On April 13 2019 07:56 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 07:50 On_Slaught wrote:
Wishful thinking. Let's not forget that Trump is still an incompetent fool aggressively unfit for the office he holds. That will be al problem for him in 2020 no matter what. Just wait for the next fuck up and his poll numbers will tank again. We've been here before. People once said that Trump becoming president was wishful thinking. I agree with xDaunt's analysis Also, if Trump is "aggressively unfit for the office he holds" then so were Obama, Bush, and Clinton, and that didnt stop any of them from two terms.
Obama is clearly one of the smartest people in any room he’s in. It’s evident from the way he speaks, though he has the academic record to back that up. Trump is clearly not the smartest man in any room he’s in, including when he’s alone. Again, it’s evident from the way he speaks, and again he has the record to back that up.
They’re not comparable.
There’s a reason that he got literally laughed out of the UN. He’s an embarrassment. He Twitter feuds with his own government at times. Angela Merkel had to send a guy to make visual aids to help him understand that Germany can’t make a deal with him and that he needed to negotiate with the EU because after four explanations he just wasn’t getting it.
|
On April 13 2019 08:38 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Gallup has Trump up to 45, which ties previous highs that he had in January 2017 and in June 2018. Source. Rasmussen has him at 49% today and has had him as high as 53% this week. Source. Any way you cut it, Trump's numbers are up significantly since the Mueller investigation not being released yet. Fixed that one for you.
I expect it will be up next month pretty much for the reasons xDaunt laid out, though his supporters were there already. He'll be picking up the people thinking he was right about getting unduly targeted based off egregious media coverage and errors because the result of the Mueller investigation was a flop compared to the weekly "this might be what sinks Trump/proves collusion/proves obstruction"
Pretty much everyone still clinging to it at some point suggested it was obvious Trump was provably guilty of a crime and after what they deemed the best possible lawyer for the job took a look, he decided, "nope".
That's going to hurt the people who pushed the idea relentlessly politically whether they like it or not.
|
On April 13 2019 08:38 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 08:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
'Spygate' shirt now available from the official Trump shop. Posted by anyone else I would have thought it was to show how ridiculous it is. Coming from you I suspect it's an endorsement.
Nice little demonization of Obama, without evidence, the same way Trump started his political career. Trump knowingly courts the deplorables.
|
United States24768 Posts
On April 13 2019 08:39 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 08:30 micronesia wrote:On April 13 2019 08:26 BerserkSword wrote:On April 13 2019 08:11 micronesia wrote:On April 13 2019 07:56 BerserkSword wrote: Also, if Trump is "aggressively unfit for the office he holds" then so were Obama, Bush, and Clinton, and that didnt stop any of them from two terms. You should either support this claim or retract it. It certainly doesn't stand alone. So others can claim, with no "support," that Trump is aggressively unfit for office but I can't say I believe that Trump is just as fit for office as his predecessors were? You made an "if, then" statement without support and I pointed out that it's not at all clear/obvious why you are equating trump's fitness to his predecessors'. While I agree starting from a position of "Trump is completely unfit" is not fair as an axiom, the onus is on you to explain why those other former presidents were just as unfit... considering how unconventional Trump is, whether you like him or not. Other people saying Trump is unfit can certainly go into detail, but that's been discussed to death here, whereas "Obama, Bush and Clinton were just as unfit for the office" has not been discussed from what I've seen. I did not state that I think Clinton, Bush, and obama were unfit. That was not my argument. I fully recognized that you were comparing Trump to the others, not simply blanket labeling all of them as unfit.
All I was saying is that I think Trump is just as fit as Clinton, Bush and Obama were. Yes, we all know this. and, in my opinion that if we go by that other dude's premise that Trump is aggressively unfit, then so were the others. Yes, we know that your opinion is that the other former presidents are just as aggressively unfit (or not) as Trump.
If you want support about how Trump is more or less the same as his last three predecessors, just look at how the status quo was more or less maintained. America is not drastically worse than it was a few years ago This is your first attempt to actually address the issue. The country had many of its ups and downs throughout the past ~30 years those presidents served, and each president had various factors contributing to their fitness or lack of fitness. If you really think anyone here will accept, "America is not drastically worse than it was under the other presidents" as evidence that Trump is no less unfit than the others, then you are almost completely mistaken (I say almost because there are one or two people here who really drink the kool aid). Look to Trump's background prior to becoming president, and his behavior after becoming president. Every president you mentioned has done some stupid stuff, but Trump blows everyone else out of the water when it comes to giving off signs of being unfit for the job. It's going to take a lot more analysis before you have any chance of even remotely coming close to slightly changing the mind of even one person in this thread, given the mountain of a claim you chose to make.
|
Northern Ireland26531 Posts
On April 13 2019 07:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 07:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
My only hope for any kind of GOP scrutiny of Trump that’s at all useful is that he overplays his hand even more egregiously so they turn on him. I hate to break it to you, but getting any kind of "scrutiny" on Trump from anyone who isn't a hardcore opponent of him is going to be damned near impossible now. Like I pointed out during the 2016 campaign, the problem with how Trump has been covered by the media is that they reported on everything that they possibly could, regardless of merit, that might be used to hurt him. In 2016, the consequence of the media's over-saturation of the airwaves with this crap was that the negative coverage of Trump became white noise. Many voters simply tuned it out and stopped caring. Now we are coming out of a two-three year period of intense reporting that Trump and/or people in his campaign conspired to sell the country out to Russia or otherwise conspired to obstruct justice. All of that reporting is rapidly being exposed as outright fraudulent (and as a relevant aside, you can bet that Trump is manipulating and coordinating this exposure from behind the scenes for maximum political effect). Uncoincidentally, Trump's poll numbers are now rapidly rising and hitting term highs (and will likely surpass them). Given this environment, do you really think that a majority of the voting public is going to be inclined to listen to additional scrutiny of Trump? I think not. Y'all shot your wad. And missed. There are going to be very significant political consequences for that. All very bad for the Democrats.
Really not sure that’ll be the case. We’ll see.
What is good for Trump isn’t necessarily what’s good for the GOP, both in the short but especially the medium and long term.
If one’s sole metric is solely Trump’s personal approval ratings then sure certain things are good for him. His weird atypical iconoclast 4D chess thing that might be a strength for him isn’t necessarily so for those theoretically aligned with him.
And what does y’all even mean here? I really don’t particularly care about Trump being in office, it’s 4 years, 8 at absolute worst.
I would have reluctantly voted Clinton, I thought Trump in a best case scenario might be some kind of useful wrecking ball where through no intent of his own he might clear and pave the way for certain other things.
He’s been worse than I personally thought he would be, a wrecking ball that just wrecks things, and the few positions of his I agreed with he completely flipped 180 on.
|
On April 13 2019 08:39 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2019 08:30 micronesia wrote:On April 13 2019 08:26 BerserkSword wrote:On April 13 2019 08:11 micronesia wrote:On April 13 2019 07:56 BerserkSword wrote: Also, if Trump is "aggressively unfit for the office he holds" then so were Obama, Bush, and Clinton, and that didnt stop any of them from two terms. You should either support this claim or retract it. It certainly doesn't stand alone. So others can claim, with no "support," that Trump is aggressively unfit for office but I can't say I believe that Trump is just as fit for office as his predecessors were? You made an "if, then" statement without support and I pointed out that it's not at all clear/obvious why you are equating trump's fitness to his predecessors'. While I agree starting from a position of "Trump is completely unfit" is not fair as an axiom, the onus is on you to explain why those other former presidents were just as unfit... considering how unconventional Trump is, whether you like him or not. Other people saying Trump is unfit can certainly go into detail, but that's been discussed to death here, whereas "Obama, Bush and Clinton were just as unfit for the office" has not been discussed from what I've seen. I did not state that I think Clinton, Bush, and obama were unfit. That was not my argument. All I was saying is that I think Trump is just as fit as Clinton, Bush and Obama were. and, in my opinion that if we go by that other dude's premise that Trump is aggressively unfit, then so were the others. If you want support about how Trump is more or less the same as his last three predecessors, just look at how the status quo was more or less maintained. America is not drastically worse than it was a few years ago
Just a point of clarity; is your standard of 'fit for office' as low as 'got elected'? Do you not think that someone who is holding the highest political office in the land out to have... I dunno... some sort of background or training in, understanding of, or interest in politics?
|
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives. I just wonder if exhaustion at all the ensuing fights on a billion different topics will matter in 2020. I know most Americans are realizing that they are important fights, but I just wonder how many independents and moderates will long for a quieter news cycle and put their trust in someone other than Trump to calm things down.
I've seen polls on relative exhaustion with all the Trump news showing high percentages of Americans are worn out.
|
Trump's the first guy in a generation to aggresively push back on false media narratives.
This comes up time and time again. It's bullshit. I would give you the benefit of the doubt if it were just about the Investigation, sure.
The majority of the media is simply reporting on what he's doing, and more importantly, what he's tweeting. Then he goes ahead and calls it "fake news".
He has done jack shit to push back. In fact, i don't think you actually know what "pushing back" means. Crying like a little bitch about how unfair everyone is because you're "the best president this country ever had" isn't pushing back. It's being a bitch.
If media reports on yet another dipshit moment of his on twitter, and he'd come out clarifying that he fucked up but it's sad that media has to milk it so much, that's pushing back. Being a whiny, petty little manchild is not that. Like, not even remotely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
