Trump MAGAthread VII

[Gauthier]

If Pence doesn't become President anyways because Trump is pathologically incapable of not stupiding himself into impeachment.

Impeachment was designed to be difficult. Even if the Democrats in the House get him if they retake that Chamber in 2018, there's no way there'd be two thirds of votes to actually remove him.

Stupiding himself to where he becomes a liability to the Republicans. And if you're going to say that can never happen...

[Minzerland II]

What I intended to convey, and which should have been obvious by the focus of my parallel in the post, is that being loud and abrasive doesn't often damage a speech, on the contrary, it often makes the speech even more inspirational and engaging. That is true for both Hitler's and Trump's speeches.

You intended to convey that, yes, but I try to counter that argument by saying that the reason Hitler's speeches work well is not just their loudness, but a certain rhythm. Tension required build-up. Where Hitler finely tuned his speeches to have a flow of loudness and calm, Trump just shouts. Compare it with movies. Take, for example, Saving Private Ryan. It has some of the most gruesome fighting scenes in cinema, but it builds those up with periods of calm and thought. During the calm, the ideas and themes of the movie are displayed. During the fighting, they are put to the test. That's a speech by Hitler. Calm to show his ideals, and brutal volume to show his determination. Trump, on the other hand, can be compared to a lazy action movie. Just a lot of violence, explosions and vitriol, without much story to hold it together. I'm not necessarily put off by his volume, but there is no coherent story or narrative in his speeches. His volume just underpins that he has nothing to tell us. It certainly doesn't make it more engaging.

I never said that the speeches of Trump and Hitler were solely successful due to their loudness and abrasiveness, only that that worked to help; that is to say, it made their speeches far more engaging and inspirational. Being loud catches the attention of an audience, we can see this whenever Tywin Lannister begins a crucial sentence, but doesn't do well to carry that attention alone, it requires company: abrasiveness, details, gesticulation, simple language, dramatisation, etc. must help carry it along with the loudness. There is nothing wrong with the approach Trump took because he still was compelling, charismatic and persuasive.

This isn't actually a counter argument, though. Hurdergaryp implied that loudness and abrasiveness were somehow unable(?), so to speak, when one of the most charismatic men this planet has ever had was also, at times, just as loud and abrasive. For neither men did their loudness or abrasiveness effect their speeches in any damaging way.

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, and draw parallels which will no doubt be used against Trump, but Hitler was very inspirational whenever he was loud and abrasive in his speeches. Trump is not too different. Even if you cannot understand German, his speeches leave a memorable impression on people, including myself.

You say both Trump and Hitler are alike in that their speech leaves a memorable impression on the audience. That's not really much in common.

No, I said that they were both loud and abrasive, which did hardly anything to negatively effect their speeches.

I am by no means an expert in this stuff, but Trump, to me, seems to be a rather charismatic, compelling and persuasive character. Credit where credit is due.

I'm not entirely sure I'd call his method "charismatic"...

It certainly reflects a strong personality, but a strong personality can be a dynamo all on its own. You don't need charisma when you have a strong personality that can push other people over, particularly among the uneducated or people with low education.

Strong personalities, I find, often exert charisma.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yeah, you're right. On one hand, if Trump actually colluded with the Russians, then his impeachment would be the right thing to do. On the other hand, like you said, we'd get president Pence, who is far more effective as getting legislature past a Republican-controlled congress. So, keeping Trump where he is at the moment for the moment would be better for America.

However, if Trump actually colluded with the Russians, I'd be all for impeachment. In that case, we could not let him get away unpunished. The Democrats will have to take back control of the Legislature in 2018.

But what does colluded even mean? It's such broad and murky term with no substance of crime. Yes, Junior tried to get dirt from the Russians, but that's not quite colluding yet.

Besides, why would Republicans ever turn on Trump? Even if Democrats take back the House, no matter how much you look at it, Republicans will be keeping the Senate. It'd be pretty improbable to get the two-thirds.

That's a problem I have with the US constitution, and with Common Law systems in genera. Legal terms are not as well-defined, and many lawyers have a 'I know it when I see it' mentality. Which is fine in almost all cases, but there is very little jurisprudence on this subject. Which makes it quite hard to say whether there was collusion, just because we don't know what the word means in a legal sense. Just to get basic perimeters:

If the Russian government gave secret financial aid to the Trump campaign, that would probably be collusion.
If the Russian government gave classified information stolen from Democrat servers, that would probably collusion.
If Trump had some inconsequential meetings with high-ranking government officials, that would most likely NOT be collusion.
If Trump junior tried, unsuccessfully, to get information, that would most likely NOT be collusion.

We'll just have to figure out. Was it just the meetings? Was it the meetings and information? Or, worst of all, was it the meetings and love financial aid?

Republicans could target Trump if his voter base turned against him, which is unlikely, or if they feel like Pence would be a better replacement. Still, it would have to gain them more than they lose face by impeaching their own candidate, so I guess the chances are pretty slim. But is there no possibility that the Senate will become Democrat? It has been Democrat before in recent history, if I remember correctly.

[The Flutterlands]

Impeachment was designed to be difficult. Even if the Democrats in the House get him if they retake that Chamber in 2018, there's no way there'd be two thirds of votes to actually remove him.

Stupiding himself to where he becomes a liability to the Republicans. And if you're going to say that can never happen...

The republicans aren't going to turn on there own voters by impeaching Trump. If Trump goes, they go down too, and Republicans know that. Trump owns the party for the time being.

[Hurdergaryp]

Impeachment was designed to be difficult. Even if the Democrats in the House get him if they retake that Chamber in 2018, there's no way there'd be two thirds of votes to actually remove him.

Stupiding himself to where he becomes a liability to the Republicans. And if you're going to say that can never happen...

Trump will only become a true liability to the Republicans if that party starts hemorrhaging power profusely. Currently they're still relatively strong.

[Washington Resistance Army]

But is there no possibility that the Senate will become Democrat? It has been Democrat before in recent history, if I remember correctly.

With the 2018 map it would take an actual miracle from God for the Democrats to get majority.

[Gauthier]

Stupiding himself to where he becomes a liability to the Republicans. And if you're going to say that can never happen...

Trump will only become a true liability to the Republicans if that party starts hemorrhaging power profusely. Currently they're still relatively strong.

Nobody thought he would be President either. And Stupid Watergate has yet to peak.

[Tmutarakhan]

You intended to convey that, yes, but I try to counter that argument by saying that the reason Hitler's speeches work well is not just their loudness, but a certain rhythm. Tension required build-up. Where Hitler finely tuned his speeches to have a flow of loudness and calm, Trump just shouts. Compare it with movies. Take, for example, Saving Private Ryan. It has some of the most gruesome fighting scenes in cinema, but it builds those up with periods of calm and thought. During the calm, the ideas and themes of the movie are displayed. During the fighting, they are put to the test. That's a speech by Hitler. Calm to show his ideals, and brutal volume to show his determination. Trump, on the other hand, can be compared to a lazy action movie. Just a lot of violence, explosions and vitriol, without much story to hold it together. I'm not necessarily put off by his volume, but there is no coherent story or narrative in his speeches. His volume just underpins that he has nothing to tell us. It certainly doesn't make it more engaging.

I never said that the speeches of Trump and Hitler were solely successful due to their loudness and abrasiveness, only that that worked to help; that is to say, it made their speeches far more engaging and inspirational. Being loud catches the attention of an audience, we can see this whenever Tywin Lannister begins a crucial sentence, but doesn't do well to carry that attention alone, it requires company: abrasiveness, details, gesticulation, simple language, dramatisation, etc. must help carry it along with the loudness. There is nothing wrong with the approach Trump took because he still was compelling, charismatic and persuasive.

This isn't actually a counter argument, though. Hurdergaryp implied that loudness and abrasiveness were somehow unable(?), so to speak, when one of the most charismatic men this planet has ever had was also, at times, just as loud and abrasive. For neither men did their loudness or abrasiveness effect their speeches in any damaging way.

You say both Trump and Hitler are alike in that their speech leaves a memorable impression on the audience. That's not really much in common.

No, I said that they were both loud and abrasive, which did hardly anything to negatively effect their speeches.

I'm not entirely sure I'd call his method "charismatic"...

It certainly reflects a strong personality, but a strong personality can be a dynamo all on its own. You don't need charisma when you have a strong personality that can push other people over, particularly among the uneducated or people with low education.

Strong personalities, I find, often exert charisma.

This is one of those occasions where the Hitler comparison is actually insulting to Hitler, who knew how to craft a speech.

[The Flutterlands]

But what does colluded even mean? It's such broad and murky term with no substance of crime. Yes, Junior tried to get dirt from the Russians, but that's not quite colluding yet.

Besides, why would Republicans ever turn on Trump? Even if Democrats take back the House, no matter how much you look at it, Republicans will be keeping the Senate. It'd be pretty improbable to get the two-thirds.

That's a problem I have with the US constitution, and with Common Law systems in genera. Legal terms are not as well-defined, and many lawyers have a 'I know it when I see it' mentality. Which is fine in almost all cases, but there is very little jurisprudence on this subject. Which makes it quite hard to say whether there was collusion, just because we don't know what the word means in a legal sense. Just to get basic perimeters:

If the Russian government gave secret financial aid to the Trump campaign, that would probably be collusion.
If the Russian government gave classified information stolen from Democrat servers, that would probably collusion.
If Trump had some inconsequential meetings with high-ranking government officials, that would most likely NOT be collusion.
If Trump junior tried, unsuccessfully, to get information, that would most likely NOT be collusion.

We'll just have to figure out. Was it just the meetings? Was it the meetings and information? Or, worst of all, was it the meetings and love financial aid?

Republicans could target Trump if his voter base turned against him, which is unlikely, or if they feel like Pence would be a better replacement. Still, it would have to gain them more than they lose face by impeaching their own candidate, so I guess the chances are pretty slim. But is there no possibility that the Senate will become Democrat? It has been Democrat before in recent history, if I remember correctly.

Democrats are protecting 25 seats in the Senate. Republicans are only protecting 3. It's not pretty.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Strong personalities, I find, often exert charisma.

Many strong personalities exert charisma.

Not all strong personalities, by default, are charismatic.

Trump has a strong personality, but he doesn't come across as charismatic.

Trump's personality is certainly strong, and like I said, a dynamo on its own, but it's not because of "charisma", it's because of a desire to push people over to his side. And that often wins you a lot of people over, even if you are loud and harsh.

[The Flutterlands]

Trump will only become a true liability to the Republicans if that party starts hemorrhaging power profusely. Currently they're still relatively strong.

Nobody thought he would be President either. And Stupid Watergate has yet to peak.

Because there is no Watergate at the moment. Trump is probably to stupid to copy Nixion.

[Ifreann]

To borrow something said about Clinton during the campaign, Pence is wrong, but he's wrong within normal parameters.

Electroshock conversion therapy is within normal parameters?

Yes. Pence is hardly alone in believing that homosexuality can be "cured". Believing that ECT would be effective towards that end probably isn't all that odd, within that group.

Whereas Trump doesn't have any political beliefs, just raging narcissism. He only wants to reform healthcare because he hates Obama and Obama reformed healthcare, so Trump has to beat that Kenyan Muslim. He wants to reform taxation because he doesn't want to pay taxes ever again. He wants to bomb the shit out of ISIS because imagining himself a strong leader works just as well as a little blue pill.

[Minzerland II]

I find it far more complicated than you have characterised it, tbh. You may not find him particularly persuasive, compelling, or even only charismatic to a small degree, but that is a whole other story for many people. These people aren't even by any means stupid, though some may be, they are just captured by what he is saying, which is why I think it is more complicated than how you've characterised it. Smart people have been captured by his rhetoric just the same as the common masses too.

Btw, I don't find your perspective particularly elitist, as far as I can tell anyway. If you were to say that people are stupid for being captured in his words, I'd probably call you elitist then.

I would not say that people who voted for him are stupid.

Many of them though are followers. Trump's strong personality resonates well with the weaker, more sheepish personalities of a crowd that wants a strong leader.

My dad basically nailed it down to me, and I saw what he meant in Trump, when he told me that to be successful in business, and life in general, is to push over a few people at times. These are the words of a man who has been fairly successful by comparison, and who is largely self-educated.

If my dad thinks that way, I have no doubt Trump and other strong personalities also are that way, and this is what attracts people, the strength he showcases with his personality.

Mind, that doesn't necessarily mean he's strong willed, a strong personality doesn't necessarily beget a strong will, but it helps to fake it.

Sure, that is also a very apt explanation for many people voting for him. I would endorse that as one reason. However, and I cannot stress this enough, the power of words always comes up; Trump uses simple language with the occasional technical or uncommon word mixed wherever he pleases. As I have stated beforehand, people will find this appealing because people are sick and tired of hearing weasel words from politicians.

[Valrifell]

I wonder if you can find any article from 2013 speculating about Bernie Sanders running for President in 2016 ... if you get my point.

I do, Bernie very much did just come out of nowhere. I guess we'll have to wait and see if anyone good can pop up and win the primaries but I just don't really have a ton of faith in the Dems currently.

With all due respect, you're a fuzzing Libertarian, you've never had much faith in the Dems.

[AiliailiA]

Even if Democrats take back the House, no matter how much you look at it, Republicans will be keeping the Senate. It'd be pretty improbable to get the two-thirds.

I wouldn't be too sure Democrats can't take the Senate. We've talked about it many times before, but earlier we were going on the Senate seats we KNOW will be contested next year ... which is fair enough, speculation becomes meaningless if we try to consider every remote possibility simultaneously.

It's almost certain there will be a special election for the Arizona seat currently held by John McCain. Arizona is a red state, but not deep red, and without an incumbent that's a winnable Senate spot for a Democrat. So the maths has changed, in a way we couldn't have predicted back in say February.

Add a couple of other special elections (ie, seats we didn't know earlier would be contested, and don't know now) and it is possible for Democrats to take the majority. Though they do need 51, not just 50 as the Republicans do; a 50/50 tie is actually a Republican Senate because of the VP's tiebreaking vote.

As to the two-thirds (for Democrats) that is literally impossible with the seats we know now will be contested. Dems would need to win 19 (I think) seats away from Republicans and there aren't that many held by Republicans! Even if Democrats could win a state like Utah which of course they can't (the other kind of impossible: not mathematically so, but so improbable it's not worth talking about). It would take a huge number of special elections to make that possible, and even with serendipitous choice of which ones (ie, avoiding LOSING any Democratic incumbents in special elections) it's the second kind of impossible.

Two-thirds is what it takes to convict after impeachment, so I guess that's why you mentioned the number. Just checking you know that the supermajority for breaking a filibuster is less than that, at three fifths? It wasn't always so, it was still two thirds, but Dems changed it in the 1970's ... a bit of trivia which for some reason fascinates me.

[Minzerland II]

Strong personalities, I find, often exert charisma.

Many strong personalities exert charisma.

Not all strong personalities, by default, are charismatic.

Trump has a strong personality, but he doesn't come across as charismatic.

Trump's personality is certainly strong, and like I said, a dynamo on its own, but it's not because of "charisma", it's because of a desire to push people over to his side. And that often wins you a lot of people over, even if you are loud and harsh.

Well, I find that Trump is charismatic, but I guess we'll have to disagree.

I never said that the speeches of Trump and Hitler were solely successful due to their loudness and abrasiveness, only that that worked to help; that is to say, it made their speeches far more engaging and inspirational. Being loud catches the attention of an audience, we can see this whenever Tywin Lannister begins a crucial sentence, but doesn't do well to carry that attention alone, it requires company: abrasiveness, details, gesticulation, simple language, dramatisation, etc. must help carry it along with the loudness. There is nothing wrong with the approach Trump took because he still was compelling, charismatic and persuasive.

This isn't actually a counter argument, though. Hurdergaryp implied that loudness and abrasiveness were somehow unable(?), so to speak, when one of the most charismatic men this planet has ever had was also, at times, just as loud and abrasive. For neither men did their loudness or abrasiveness effect their speeches in any damaging way.

No, I said that they were both loud and abrasive, which did hardly anything to negatively effect their speeches.

Strong personalities, I find, often exert charisma.

This is one of those occasions where the Hitler comparison is actually insulting to Hitler, who knew how to craft a speech.

You don't necessarily need to be able to craft a speech as well as Hitler to be compelling, charismatic or persuasive.

[Unified Heartless States]

Laughing my ass off while all these crazed tinfoil-hat russian conspiracy theorist run around desperately looking for anything.

Voting for Trump was great.

[Valrifell]

Laughing my ass off while all these crazed tinfoil-hat russian conspiracy theorist run around desperately looking for anything.

Voting for Trump was great.

Don't be so spiteful.

[Gauthier]

Laughing my ass off while all these crazed tinfoil-hat russian conspiracy theorist run around desperately looking for anything.

Voting for Trump was great.

If you're filthy rich enough to afford healthcare then good for you I suppose.

[The Flutterlands]

Laughing my ass off while all these crazed tinfoil-hat russian conspiracy theorist run around desperately looking for anything.

Voting for Trump was great.

Don't be so spiteful.

Yeah. No need to be so... heartless.

[Lady Scylla]

Laughing my ass off while all these crazed tinfoil-hat russian conspiracy theorist run around desperately looking for anything.

Voting for Trump was great.

Don't be so spiteful.

This is the norm for said individual. It's better to ignore them and move on.

[Ifreann]

Laughing my ass off while all these crazed tinfoil-hat russian conspiracy theorist run around desperately looking for anything.

By which you mean the large and growing team of lawyers investigating the Trump campaign and now Trump's own finances?

[Lady Scylla]

Don't be so spiteful.

Yeah. No need to be so... heartless.

Lord...

[The Flutterlands]

Even if Democrats take back the House, no matter how much you look at it, Republicans will be keeping the Senate. It'd be pretty improbable to get the two-thirds.

I wouldn't be too sure Democrats can't take the Senate. We've talked about it many times before, but earlier we were going on the Senate seats we KNOW will be contested next year ... which is fair enough, speculation becomes meaningless if we try to consider every remote possibility simultaneously.

It's almost certain there will be a special election for the Arizona seat currently held by John McCain. Arizona is a red state, but not deep red, and without an incumbent that's a winnable Senate spot for a Democrat. So the maths has changed, in a way we couldn't have predicted back in say February.

Add a couple of other special elections (ie, seats we didn't know earlier would be contested, and don't know now) and it is possible for Democrats to take the majority. Though they do need 51, not just 50 as the Republicans do; a 50/50 tie is actually a Republican Senate because of the VP's tiebreaking vote.

As to the two-thirds (for Democrats) that is literally impossible with the seats we know now will be contested. Dems would need to win 19 (I think) seats away from Republicans and there aren't that many held by Republicans! Even if Democrats could win a state like Utah which of course they can't (the other kind of impossible: not mathematically so, but so improbable it's not worth talking about). It would take a huge number of special elections to make that possible, and even with serendipitous choice of which ones (ie, avoiding LOSING any Democratic incumbents in special elections) it's the second kind of impossible.

Two-thirds is what it takes to convict after impeachment, so I guess that's why you mentioned the number. Just checking you know that the supermajority for breaking a filibuster is less than that, at three fifths? It wasn't always so, it was still two thirds, but Dems changed it in the 1970's ... a bit of trivia which for some reason fascinates me.

How much is two thirds?

[Valrifell]

Laughing my ass off while all these crazed tinfoil-hat russian conspiracy theorist run around desperately looking for anything.

By which you mean the large and growing team of lawyers investigating the Trump campaign and now Trump's own finances?

It's both heartbreaking and mildly hilarious to see Trump supporters still pretend everything is okay and there's no reasonable grounds to be concerned over anything.