Trump post-Trump

[TLK Valentine]

Trump voters didn't exist until 5 years ago. It's hard to be voter for a man not on a ballot.

That's not entirely true -- Donald did run for president in 2000, and again in 2012.

His voters existed then... but in very small numbers.

 

[Triumvirate]

As soon as he's a regular schlub again and he puts one foot out of line, kick him off twitter.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Would you believe 215?

Well, for starters
PolitiFact - Many more criminal indictments under Trump, Reagan and Nixon than under Obama, Clinton and Carter

Unless an administration official is charged with a crime for acts while in office, it’s not always easy to identify which indictments can be connected to a presidential administration; some administration officials have been indicted for acts in the private sector, some indicted people were involved in presidential campaigns but didn’t work in the administration, etc.

This claim exaggerates the number of indictments under Trump, in particular, by counting the number of criminal charges filed, rather than the number of people indicted; and it includes the indictments of people who are not part of his administration



I certainly believe that the number is higher for Trump than anyone else.

However, it all depends on how much digging people want to do when looking to "expose" a politician and how much of an ax there is to grind in general.

So for instance, George HW Bush only had 1. Given that he was involved in the Iran Contra scandal, and some of his judicial appointment scandals, had there been a public "ax to grind" against him, that number could've been much higher than 1.

So goes with any other modern president...if there's someone ambitious enough to do some deep digging into every administration's members and their actions (both in the public and private sector), there would likely be a lot of skeletons revealed.

Trump still surrounded himself with more sketchy people than prior administrations, but hopefully the next 4 years isn't just 4 more years of everyone pointing out how awful Trump was to deflect from what's certainly going to be a quite mediocre presidency for Biden (if his history in the Senate is any indicator)

...and I voted for Biden by the way, just to get things back to normalcy, but he's not going to be exceptional by any means...and I foresee every criticism of Biden for the next four years being countered with: "Oh yeah?!?!, well Trump..."

 

[TLK Valentine]

I certainly believe that the number is higher for Trump than anyone else.

However, it all depends on how much digging people want to do when looking to "expose" a politician and how much of an ax there is to grind in general.

So for instance, George HW Bush only had 1. Given that he was involved in the Iran Contra scandal, and some of his judicial appointment scandals, had there been a public "ax to grind" against him, that number could've been much higher than 1.

So goes with any other modern president...if there's someone ambitious enough to do some deep digging into every administration's members and their actions (both in the public and private sector), there would likely be a lot of skeletons revealed.

Would you agree that the GOP had an ax to grind against Obama? And yet after eight years they came up with goose eggs.

Trump still surrounded himself with more sketchy people than prior administrations, but hopefully the next 4 years isn't just 4 more years of everyone pointing out how awful Trump was to deflect from what's certainly going to be a quite mediocre presidency for Biden (if his history in the Senate is any indicator)

We've got mediocrity already -- if we at least get dignity and decency this time around, that's good enough.

I'm looking forward to four boring years.

...and I voted for Biden by the way, just to get things back to normalcy, but he's not going to be exceptional by any means...and I foresee every criticism of Biden for the next four years being countered with: "Oh yeah?!?!, well Trump..."

Biden's last boss was criticized for wearing a tan suit and putting mustard on a hamburger. I'll be very surprised if any criticism of him even merits a comparison to Donald.

 

[Andrewn]

The effects of Evangelical Protestantism in American life are pernicious. It's lacking in basic moral education qualities, as evidenced by the huge amount of support Trump got.

As if voting for Trump was not enough, there is significant support for his conspiracy theories after the elections. Very very sad. I wonder how much more damage he will do after Jan 20th!

"President Donald Trump won support from about 8 in 10 white evangelical Christian voters,"

"Among white Catholics, 57% backed Trump and 42% backed Biden,"

"Among Hispanic Catholics, VoteCast shows 67% backed Biden and 32% backed Trump."

Survey: Biden and Trump split the 2020 Catholic vote almost evenly

One-third of Hispanic Catholics is a large percentage considering all his anti-Hispanic rhetoric and policies!

 

[Andrewn]

Trumps voters are the same as they've been for decades, you just happily ignored our voices until we found a voice loud enough for you to hear.. Now that you know we are 73 million strong, will you work with us? Or will you continue to marginalize us and pretend we don't really exist?

I believe the message has been heard loud and clear by Democratic leaders that a huge number of those who voted for Trump did so bec of his anti-abortion beliefs and that a large portion of those who voted for Biden did so with a grain of salt bec of his pro-abortion beliefs, and kept Republicans in the Senate.

Even Obama made this observation after the elections.

Reality is, abortion is not the business of the federal government and late-term abortion is extremely unethical. This issue has to be dealt with if Democrats are to win in the future.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now that you know we are 73 million strong, will you work with us? Or will you continue to marginalize us and pretend we don't really exist?

At least as much as the current administration has worked hand in hand with the minority party.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I believe the message has been heard loud and clear by Democratic leaders that a huge number of those who voted for Trump did so bec of his anti-abortion beliefs and that a large portion of those who voted for Biden did so with a grain of salt bec of his pro-abortion beliefs, and kept Republicans in the Senate.

Even Obama made this observation after the elections.

The problem with that analysis is that it makes the bulk of Republicans (indeed, the bulk of voters) sound like they're utterly fixated on a single issue -- abortion.

After all, if this was so, surely someone would've mentioned both Donald's and the Senate's utter failure to promote or even suggest anti-abortion legislation... or their utter silence as the state attempts to do so were shot down one by one by SCOTUS.

 

[Andrewn]

The problem with that analysis is that it makes the bulk of Republicans (indeed, the bulk of voters) sound like they're utterly fixated on a single issue -- abortion.

I know how fixated Evangelical Christians are on this issue because I attend Evangelical churches, my friends and my wife are Evangelical Christians. I know this and supporting Israel is all they care about. Don't take my word for it, I certainly don't know every single Evangelical Protestant or every single Evangelical Catholic. Here is what Obama commented:

"Barack Obama has taken a swipe at Hispanic voters who chose Donald Trump, accusing them of ignoring the US president's "racist" comments. The ex-US president argued some overlooked Mr Trump's rhetoric because they supported his anti-abortion stance."

Obama criticises Hispanic voters who picked Trump

Obama is a very intelligent analyst. It's not a stretch to conclude that a lot of white Christians voted for Trump for the same reason.

After all, if this was so, surely someone would've mentioned both Donald's and the Senate's utter failure to promote or even suggest anti-abortion legislation... or their utter silence as the state attempts to do so were shot down one by one by SCOTUS.

Republican leaders don't give a hoot about abortion. Why should should they solve this issue when it has been their weapon by which they win elections?

On the contrary, it will be to the benefit of Democratic leaders to address and neutralize this weapon.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Would you agree that the GOP had an ax to grind against Obama? And yet after eight years they came up with goose eggs.



We've got mediocrity already -- if we at least get dignity and decency this time around, that's good enough.

I'm looking forward to four boring years.



Biden's last boss was criticized for wearing a tan suit and putting mustard on a hamburger. I'll be very surprised if any criticism of him even merits a comparison to Donald.

With regards to Obama, he was "cleaner" than most of our modern presidents...however, it should be noted that he had 3/4 of the media on his side, as well as majorities in both houses of congress for his first few year. So even if he had a slip up, I wouldn't expect there to be widespread prosecution and impeachment efforts.

...not to mention, having a special prosecutor assigned to go after charges of foreign election interference (and in the process, dig up dirt on everyone involved with the administration both from their conduct in the public and private sector) is likely to inflate those numbers.

If we had a Robert Mueller assigned to "deep diving" into every impropriety of every member of every administration, every president's numbers would be higher.

There's a lot of dirty people in politics and there's always dirt to be found, it's just a matter of how hard people want to dig it up.


There has to be a middle ground here...

Trump, as terrible as he was/is, was subjected to a disproportionate amount of scrutiny, and the fact that Obama was a better human being than Trump doesn't justify or negate anything.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's not entirely true -- Donald did run for president in 2000, and again in 2012.

His voters existed then... but in very small numbers.

But he quit before any voting, so no voters. Perhaps he quit because he didn't want to be a loser. Now that he's lost will he want to be a quitter again?

 

[KCfromNC]

With regards to Obama, he was "cleaner" than most of our modern presidents...however, it should be noted that he had 3/4 of the media on his side

Could this be because he was "cleaner" that most of our modern presidents?

 

[TLK Valentine]

With regards to Obama, he was "cleaner" than most of our modern presidents...however, it should be noted that he had 3/4 of the media on his side, as well as majorities in both houses of congress for his first few year. So even if he had a slip up, I wouldn't expect there to be widespread prosecution and impeachment efforts.

The media doesn't prosecute, so blaming them for the GOP's is getting tedious.

And lest we forget, Donald also had majorities in both houses of Congress for the first half of his term... didn't make him look good.

...not to mention, having a special prosecutor assigned to go after charges of foreign election interference (and in the process, dig up dirt on everyone involved with the administration both from their conduct in the public and private sector) is likely to inflate those numbers.

Well, that's what happens when your administration gets mixed up with sketchy foreign agents... you get investigated. And when your minions lie to Congress/The FBI, they get arrested. Had Obama done the same, he'd have been investigated as well.

If we had a Robert Mueller assigned to "deep diving" into every impropriety of every member of every administration, every president's numbers would be higher.

Clinton had a Ken Starr... his numbers still pale in comparison to Donald's.

Hillary had multiple Benghazi investigations... and nobody connected to her was even arrested.

Your excuses are ringing hollow.

There's a lot of dirty people in politics and there's always dirt to be found, it's just a matter of how hard people want to dig it up.

Are you suggesting that the reason the GOP never dug up anything dirtier than a tan suit on the 44th president was because they didn't "want it" enough? Are you further suggesting that the reason so many members of the 45th President's administration were indicted was because of the big, bad media...?

Does actual guilt or innocence even exist?

There has to be a middle ground here...

It's called "personal responsibility," in case the world has forgotten.

Trump, as terrible as he was/is, was subjected to a disproportionate amount of scrutiny,

Donald is -- soon to be "was" -- The President of the United States. He only ever saw the power and the privilege of that position... he couldn't have been more wrong.

When you are the single most powerful person in Western Civilization, with all the responsibilities thereof, there's no such thing as "disproportionate" scrutiny.

and the fact that Obama was a better human being than Trump doesn't justify or negate anything.

It certainly explains a lot... The GOP hated him for four years, and all they got to show for it was four more years of him.

Don't make a victim out of Donald -- everything that happened to him and his minions is a direct result of their own decisions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The media doesn't prosecute, so blaming them for the GOP's is getting tedious.

They have a hand in trying to shape public opinion, and congressional leaders try to pander to public opinion...that's kinda how they keep their jobs isn't it?

There are examples of both parties doing 180's on certain issues to pander to a public opinion that news media (and non-news media) helps generate.

Some examples of that?

You'll find more republicans in 2020 who are in favor of gay marriage and marijuana legalization than you would democrats who supported those things in 1995.

Clinton had a Ken Starr... his numbers still pale in comparison to Donald's.

Ken Starr was an incompetent prosecutor in comparison to Mueller.

Starr is the same guy who had to resign from his post as a school official because he couldn't even properly handle sexual assault allegations at Baylor University.

Are you suggesting that the reason the GOP never dug up anything dirtier than a tan suit on the 44th president was because they didn't "want it" enough?

There was dirt to be found with the Guantanamo Bay, as well as the IRS Targeting Controversy...but they just weren't smart enough to build a good case, and the 3/4 of the media that was on Obama's side downplayed it, which made people thing it was "no big deal", which made elected leaders claim it was "no big deal" in order to appease their voters.

Don't make a victim out of Donald -- everything that happened to him and his minions is a direct result of their own decisions.

Not making a victim out of him...simply saying that I can't think of any other president in my lifetime where a substantial number of media members had their entire identity wrapped up in trying to equate them to the devil or Hitler.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Starr is the same guy who had to resign from his post as a school official because he couldn't even properly handle sexual assault allegations at Baylor University.

No one was claiming Starr was a decent human being. What has he been up to post-Baylor...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Could this be because he was "cleaner" that most of our modern presidents?

Not really, there are politicians who are both clean and dirty that you can definitely tell get treated differently by the media.

Mitt Romney was a pretty clean guy, the media tore him up and down about a 47% comment and acted like they were outraged about it.

Although, since he's opposed Trump publicly a few times now, they don't badmouth him anymore.

Same with George W Bush (getting invited to be on shows like Kimmel) not 20 years after some in that crowd were literally accusing him of being responsible for 9/11

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No one was claiming Starr was a decent human being. What has he been up to post-Baylor...

The statement I made was that if any president had a sharpshooter like Robert Mueller digging into their administration member's public and private dealings, every administration would've had higher numbers on that graph, then another poster said "Well Clinton had Ken Starr".

My point is that there's a big difference between those two.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The statement I made was that if any president had a sharpshooter like Robert Mueller digging into their administration member's public and private dealings, every administration would've had higher numbers on that graph, then another poster said "Well Clinton had Ken Starr".

My point is that there's a big difference between those two.

I know what the statement was. I was just noting that your diminishing of Starr's effectiveness against Clinton was about his later moral failings. Those had nothing to do with how intensive his investigation of Clinton was. A better measure would be the duration and focus of the two investigations...

 

[FireDragon76]

They have a hand in trying to shape public opinion, and congressional leaders try to pander to public opinion...that's kinda how they keep their jobs isn't it?

There are examples of both parties doing 180's on certain issues to pander to a public opinion that news media (and non-news media) helps generate.

Some examples of that?

You'll find more republicans in 2020 who are in favor of gay marriage and marijuana legalization than you would democrats who supported those things in 1995.

View attachment 289684



Ken Starr was an incompetent prosecutor in comparison to Mueller.

Starr is the same guy who had to resign from his post as a school official because he couldn't even properly handle sexual assault allegations at Baylor University.



There was dirt to be found with the Guantanamo Bay, as well as the IRS Targeting Controversy...but they just weren't smart enough to build a good case, and the 3/4 of the media that was on Obama's side downplayed it, which made people thing it was "no big deal", which made elected leaders claim it was "no big deal" in order to appease their voters.



Not making a victim out of him...simply saying that I can't think of any other president in my lifetime where a substantial number of media members had their entire identity wrapped up in trying to equate them to the devil or Hitler.

You don't have to massage the facts very much, if any, when you are dealing with such a despicable human being.

If anything, alot of the media handled Trump with kid gloves when it came to overlooking his moral failings... much to our detriment as a society. The media treated him like an amusement far too much, when they should have been far more serious about the implications of his presidency.