Despite the detractors, Trump doing well

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 01:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: I consider that a flaw.

I am tempted to agree, but I don't. The flaw is within the electoral process. The whole reason that the president is supposed to be elected indirectly is to that Electors, who are elected by the public and in theory understand the process and candidates more, can cast their votes for the best person for the job. The Electoral College was designed to weed out the incompetent candidates as well as those with other characteristics that would be harmful to the country. It was designed to be the gatekeeper for the position.

Now that states have changed the way the elections are held and made it so that Electors are assigned based upon the popular vote for the presidential candidate and all that, it has removed the indirect election for the office and therefore eliminate the gatekeeping ability for the Electoral College. The flaw, therefore, lies with the way in which states assign electors, not with reasons for impeachment.

Impeachment is a tool for Congress to charge a POTUS for a crime since that is not something the executive branch would be able to do and why the Chief Justice presides over the Senate during the hearings.

[hollodero]

(07-05-2018, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The flaw is within the electoral process. The whole reason that the president is supposed to be elected indirectly is to that Electors, who are elected by the public and in theory understand the process and candidates more, can cast their votes for the best person for the job. The Electoral College was designed to weed out the incompetent candidates as well as those with other characteristics that would be harmful to the country. It was designed to be the gatekeeper for the position.

Well, they kind of let you down on that one, didn't they.
I know you explained the shift, I still find the existence of electors without having their designed function any longer astonishing.

(07-05-2018, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Impeachment is a tool for Congress to charge a POTUS for a crime since that is not something the executive branch would be able to do and why the Chief Justice presides over the Senate during the hearings.

Sure, I get that. I don't see the flaw in the impeachment process, I see the flaw in voting for one personality to be the leader to begin with. Voting for a party has the distinct advantage that the party itself can exchange the leader if he proves to be incompetent (or sick or whatever happens that makes him a liability). It's how we got rid of chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, a name I only mention because he later went on to be part of that Hapsburg group Manafort recruited to lobby for the Russian agenda.
It was a clean solution to get rid of a bad leader. That an even worse leader followed isn't part of my argument :)

[Bengalzona]

(07-05-2018, 01:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: I still find the existence of electors without having their designed function any longer astonishing.

We do too.

[Belsnickel]

(07-05-2018, 01:46 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We do too.

Well, some of us.

[BmorePat87]

Did you guys really waste a day trying to explain to someone why something isn't "objective" if they're defending it with "I" statements?

On a related note, since the thread was derailed by insincere attempts to suggest there's no legitimate criticism of Trump, what is he "doing well" as suggested in the thread title?

[*Nately120*]

(07-05-2018, 05:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: On a related note, since the thread was derailed by insincere attempts to suggest there's no legitimate criticism of Trump, what is he "doing well" as suggested in the thread title?

Trump was elected to make a significant portion of the country upset, and in that case he's doing gangbusters.  It's sort of like a 16 year old girl making a beeline for all the guys her parents told her not to date, really.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2018, 05:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Did you guys really waste a day trying to explain to someone why something isn't "objective" if they're defending it with "I" statements?

On a related note, since the thread was derailed by insincere attempts to suggest there's no legitimate criticism of Trump, what is he "doing well" as suggested in the thread title?

I'm not sure if it was a day wasted as I was inside beating the heat until a cookout planned for later in the day. But to your question Yes Matt did try to suggest that objective would have to be something "he" would not be able to deny.

(07-04-2018, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a part of TPP can be good or bad depending on your economic viewpoint. This is why that is a subjective thing. For free-market conservatives and neo-liberals, forming those free-trade agreements is a good thing economically. We haven't seen any data showing a measurable impact on our economy from not being a part of the TPP either way. So we lack any objective measure to say whether it was good or bad.

You're right, though, that I could find lots of ways to not give him credit for a great many things. This is why my request was for something objective, because something objective would mean that I would be unable to not give him credit. Subjective things can go either way, and in multiple ways quite often. For instance, the TPP situation is one in which I could have said that he gets no credit for pulling out of those negotiations because Clinton would have done the same were she elected based on what she said, and there is a great possibility that the agreement would not have passed muster for congressional approval. So him doing it wasn't really a big deal.

What I will give him credit for with the TPP thing, though, is that it is one populist policy that he actually held to. He campaigned with a populist message and then abandoned those he gained with that message almost immediately. But not on the TPP thing.

But I really don't think you should be so passively aggressive toward him; as we were having a rather civil discussion; although he did keep accusing me of putting words in his mouth and I kept asserting that objective would have to be without personal bias. But you should probably apologize to him for chiming in with no other intent than to call him out in such a manner.

If anyone suggests there is not legitimate criticism of Trump then they are every bit as deranged as any suggesting he hasn't done one thing. good. 

As to your query you would have to read the link from the OP. It points to satisfaction about the economy, unemployment, and international trade among other things

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2018, 05:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure if it was a day wasted as I was inside beating the heat until a cookout planned for later in the day. But to your question Yes Matt did try to suggest that objective would have to be something "he" would not be able to deny.

In other words Matt would not be able to defend his position against a Trump decision with an "I" statement.

Neither you or Matt can take a position on withdrawing from the TPP based on undisputed facts.  You both have to use your own opinions.  That is why Matt is correct when he says that is not an "objective" argument.

And that is why you still don't get it.  What indisputable fact can you cite to prove withdrawal from the TPP is a good decision?

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2018, 06:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In other words Matt would not be able to defend his position against a Trump decision with an "I" statement.

Neither you or Matt can take a position on withdrawing from the TPP based on undisputed facts.  You both have to use your own opinions.  That is why Matt is correct when he says that is not an "objective" argument.

And that is why you still don't get it.  What indisputable fact can you cite to prove withdrawal from the TPP is a good decision?

That's why I said it would be impossible in this forum. 

Is record low unemployment for African Americans an objective fact?

Did we join a coalition of allies to retaliate against a tyrant that used chemical weapons against his own citizens?

See both of those are going to be objective, but where it becomes subjective is when can we give Trump credit for it.

I get you wanting to pump Matt up and say he was correct after Pat's ugly personal attack; But he was not, he said I; thereby, introducing personal opinion/bias. . Now if he had said; any reasonable person; then he would have be on the money. 

But you roll with the "I still don't get it" slant; it is so you. 

[Belsnickel]

Continuing the discussion that went on is a fruitless endeavor. It highlights the lack of critical thinking skills that exist in much of society, today, that IMHO had led to the decline of our institutions. We should leave the conversation where it is because ganging up on someone over this issue will not improve their understanding of the situation and only entrench them in their beliefs further.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2018, 06:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  But he was not, he said I;

No.  He said "I can't".

But you refuse to see the difference.

If you attack a position with an "I" statement then it is a subjective argument.  If you CAN'T then it is objective.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2018, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  He said "I can't".

But you refuse to see the difference.

If you attack a position with an "I" statement then it is a subjective argument.  If you CAN'T then it is objective.

Yes, he said I can't; which points to subjectivity. Put pointing out that is subjective is a subjective argument? 2funny. 

But perhaps we should just take his advice and drop it; I know I am. I do hope yours and Pat's interjections have been eye-opening to some. 

[GMDino]

The US was never formally IN the TPP, were they?

All Trump did was stop trying to get congress to approve it.

But still, his decision took one day to unravel negotiations that began in 2015.  Mainly because A) Obama was for it and B) Trump still believes he negotiates the best deals.  (He also believes he hires the best people...we've seen how that has worked out.)

So, objectively, was it "good" for the country to pull out of something the country was not in yet?  

I'll leave that up to the unbiased listener to decide for themselves.  

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2018, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, he said I can't; which points to subjectivity. Put pointing out that is subjective is a subjective argument? 2funny. 

If you can make an argument with an "I" statement that is subjective.

If you CAN'T then it is objective.


I don't see what is funny about that.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-02-2018, 04:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly? A lot. Nate Silver's group does a running approval tracker (he did it for Obama, as well) and takes in all approval polls he can find to come up with his meta. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

If you ever want to see what the trend is, check them out over there. You can even look through the individual polls (this is know I knew the questions, he has the link to it) and see what the n was or whether it was adults, registered voters, likely voters, etc. These things all have to be taken into account for the meta.

Interesting site, but it really brings up a question. Namely, what the hell happened on Day 150 (June 18th)?

There's one huuuuge outlier for approval/disapproval on that day. We're talking like dots on 24%/76%, respectively.. for just that poll on that day. No other poll comes anywhere close to it. Couldn't find it in the corresponding list of polls, either.

[Belsnickel]

(07-06-2018, 02:05 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Interesting site, but it really brings up a question. Namely, what the hell happened on Day 150 (June 18th)?

There's one huuuuge outlier for approval/disapproval on that day. We're talking like dots on 24%/76%, respectively.. for just that poll on that day. No other poll comes anywhere close to it. Couldn't find it in the corresponding list of polls, either.

That was an icitizen poll conducted from 15-18 June 2017, so you had to click "Show more polls" quite a few times to get there. It was, indeed, 24/76, so good eye on the timing and the percentages. Clicking the link for the poll came up with an insecure connection warning, so I'm not going to look at that. Given the relatively unknown polling agency and just how much of an outlier it is, I'm certain that was thrown out of the calculations,