Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

12930323435104

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    I suspect that at least some of the people impacted by Trump's trade-wars will blame China, since that's the country most immediately responsible for the protectionist measures that are harming them.

    And then they'll think "Well, since China is the country that's hurting us, and since Trump's against China, it makes sense to keep voting for him".
  • That's fair but I read a lot by Nate Silver before the election in which he pointed out why the State by States could be wrong. Moreover whilst the favouring one candidate over the other problem should even out from poll to poll, That's not true if they're not truly independent. Again Silver pointed out how various states were linked. So yeah, I reckon that the problem lies with interpretation much more than the polls per se. That's not to say that they can't be improved though.

    AFZ
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    It looks as though the 538 aggregation model will remain pretty much intact but there is an ongoing and rigorous critical assessment of the relative reliability of the various polls. That's always going to be a hindsight process, of course, but Nate Silver never lets the grass grow under his feet.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It looks as though the 538 aggregation model will remain pretty much intact but there is an ongoing and rigorous critical assessment of the relative reliability of the various polls. That's always going to be a hindsight process, of course, but Nate Silver never lets the grass grow under his feet.

    Yep. I'll have to find the link, again from 538; there's a review post '16 that showed the polls were not particularly worse than previously - it's just that the previous (expected) errors hadn't affected the outcome prediction so no-one really noticed... You know if you predict someone to win 52-48 and they win 60-40 then you're out by 8% points but no one cares but if they lose 51-49, you're only out by 3% points but pollsters are all useless...

    AFZ
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Fair enough, AFZ. It's a while since I read the post mortem and you are spot on about result merchanting!
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Fair enough, AFZ. It's a while since I read the post mortem and you are spot on about result merchanting!

    Thank you. It's so nice to have proper conversations about things - I do love the Ship - here's what I was looking for...
    Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.

    One of the consequences of that is that it shows how overall reliable the US polls are. Two caveats: 1) UK polls have never (in the past 30 years) been as good. 2) all the stuff above above poll interpretation is vital and single polls can be hugely misleading...

    Why does this matter? Well, I think it does for this reason: It shows that Comey's announcement of the reinvestigation of Hillary's emails was probably decisive. That is (as with any close race) there are a number of things one can point to that if they'd gone the other way would have made a difference. However, specifically, if the polls are not random number generators but measures of public voting intention with known accuracy parameters - which they are - then we can see that without Comey's unprecedented announcement, HRC would probably be President now.

    Which in light of Trumps most recent delusional rantings is important.

    AFZ
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Thanks again, AFZ. I did indeed read that article at the time but I think my memory was selective. The article stands the test of time.

  • Missed that one. What's it called? I'll see if it's on ewe-tube.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Missed that one. What's it called? I'll see if it's on ewe-tube.

    This is DJT tweet that I linked to:
    Will the FBI ever recover it’s once stellar reputation, so badly damaged by Comey, McCabe, Peter S and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, and other top officials now dismissed or fired? So many of the great men and women of the FBI have been hurt by these clowns and losers!

    Yes, those are the actual President of The United States words... I couldn't find the other bit where he was complaining there had been a massive conspiracy to stop him winning.

    For me, this is a very good example of the answer to people who complain that opponents don't respect Trump; you know the He is the President, you know argument. Well, two things: 1) Most of those who say this spent 8 years trying to delegitimize Obama and 2) As this Tweet among so say show, I have far more respect for the Office of President that Mr Trump does... (and I'm not even American...!)

    AFZ
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    That fact that he used an idiot's apostrophe six words into his tweet proves that he's an idiot. Next case.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I came across this Trump statement via the Washington Post:
    Don [ Trump, Jr. ] has received notoriety for a brief meeting, that many politicians would have taken, but most importantly, and to the best of my knowledge, nothing happened after the meeting concluded.

    The article goes on to note that this is a change of message for Trump, from "no collusion" to "no collusion to the best of my knowledge". In other words he's constructing a defense of ignorance and we all get to play that old Washington favorite, "what did the president know and when did he know it?"
  • That fact that he used an idiot's apostrophe six words into his tweet proves that he's an idiot. Next case.

    Ouch. I'm always doing that one and having to go back and correct it....

    AFZ
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Uh-oh. It was your mistake? I withdraw my comment about idiots, then. To twist logic: No passenger on the Ship of Fools is an idiot. Alienfromzog is a passenger on the Ship of Fools. Therefore . . . .

    I'm dying to read Omarosa's new book Unhinged. Amazon wants $28.00 for it, or $16.80 if you're a member of Prime, which I refuse to join. I think I'll wait.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited August 2018
    Crœsos wrote: »
    this is a change of message for Trump, from "no collusion" to "no collusion to the best of my knowledge".

    This is only about step 4 in a tried, tested, and much-repeated approach. There are lots of memes about it; this one sums them up. It's terrifing how effectively it's been used and reused.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    A variation on the Narcissist's Prayer:
    That didn’t happen.

    And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

    And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

    And if it is, that’s not my fault.

    And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

    And if I did…

    You deserved it.

    We are somewhere around line 3 with the Trump/Russia thing.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Interesting strategy. The defense has rested in the Manafort trial without presenting any evidence or calling any witnesses. They must figure that either they've already created reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury or that nothing they could present at this point would be able to do so. Closing arguments are tomorrow.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    They're banking on a guilty verdict followed by a presidential pardon.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    I'm dying to read Omarosa's new book Unhinged. Amazon wants $28.00 for it, or $16.80 if you're a member of Prime, which I refuse to join. I think I'll wait. ]

    Miss Amanda, try your local library. I would think you would get it faster than waiting for the price to come down.

    (Fixed code - B62)
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Only if they've stocked up on multiple copies. I'm sure there'd be a long waiting list otherwise.
  • Amazon will probably be offering used copies at a discount soon after it's published. I don't think this is a book anyone is going to want to keep forever, just buy it for a quick read.

    I've bought many used books from independent sellers on Amazon (and sold quite a few in the past). I have found it to be extremely reliable.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Interesting strategy. The defense has rested in the Manafort trial without presenting any evidence or calling any witnesses. They must figure that either they've already created reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury or that nothing they could present at this point would be able to do so. Closing arguments are tomorrow.

    I think it is a huge risk, but maybe putting Manafort in the witness box was an even bigger one. The judge has already ruled against a directed verdict to acquit, so he must believe there is a case to answer, sufficient evidence for a jury to weigh. I would guess his summing up might be important here.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    But isn't there another trial concerning Manafort's activities among the Russians? And isn't he still vulnerable to charges by various states? A presidential pardon isn't going to make all that go away.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Omarosa's book will surely be remaindered in about a month!

    Trump is simply incapable of shutting up. Surely that's what he should have done here. You let your proxies badmouth the woman. I initially thought it was going to go nowhere, but Trump getting down in the mud with Omarosa has made things more interesting.

    Ahhh, Paul Manafort. From the first time I saw him stumble over his words on TV, I loved him. He's a mad spender and a big risk taker. It makes me wonder whether the words 'perhaps we should consider your behavior in the context of bi-polarity', as a psych once delicately said to me about 20 years ago, apply to old Pauly.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Omarosa's book will surely be remaindered in about a month!
    I agree. I bought both Fire and Fury and The Faith of Donald Trump and don't regret either purchase, but I think Omarosa isn't credible enough. For all I dislike Trump, it looks too much like "disgruntled employee trying to make a quick buck" and there's nothing really damning in there.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Omarosa is a flake. The Donald has appointed a fair number of those.

    But then he's a flake as well. So a flakey White House is to be expected.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Mind you, I can understand the Mueller investigation being interested in any tapes she might have. Tapes are evidence.
  • They'd have to be admissible evidence. It sounds like some of them were illegal.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    True. But maybe not all?
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Against policy, perhaps, but not illegal.
  • Doesn't the legality of recording people's conversations without their consent vary state by state in the US? I have no idea what the law is in DC.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    They'd have to be admissible evidence. It sounds like some of them were illegal.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Doesn't the legality of recording people's conversations without their consent vary state by state in the US? I have no idea what the law is in DC.

    The District of Columbia is a "one party" jurisdiction, meaning that recording a conversation is legal if at least one party has consented. Note that consenting party may be the person making the recording, provided they are also a party to the conversation, as seems to be the case with Ms. Manigault Newman. In other words, leaving recording devices around to eavesdrop on your co-workers is illegal in DC but recording conversations you're participating in is legal.

    As for admissibility, even if the recordings were obtained illegally that doesn't mean that they're inadmissible in court. Admissibility is mostly about restricting the actions of police or prosecutors, neither of which describes Ms. Manigault Newman. For example, burglary is illegal but if a burglar discovers evidence of a murder while burglarizing a home that evidence is still admissible. This is true even if the burglar is a postal worker (a state employee) who is using his rounds to burglarize houses on his route.
  • I was just about to skip ahead and ask the question answered in your second paragraph Croesos. I'm also pleased to hear that postal workers are still public sector employees :)
  • sabinesabine Shipmate
    Just thought I'd add a note if levity re Mike Pence

    http://www.officialmikepence.com/
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    O, America!

    How could you go wrong with such a Manly Christian Man as your head of state?

    Ditch trumpkin immediately, or be Forever Lost!

    IJ
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    Ever notice how Trump's] most pejorative word is "dog?" You know he really dislikes you if he calls you a dog. MSNBC Lawrance O Donnell had a segment on this. Basically, the report claims Trump's use of the word suggests something is seriously wrong with him. They found only one picture of him holding a dog from the 90's and the Scotty he was holding had a worried look on its face. Trump's face looked like he was in pain (grin and bear it type), Trump is very much a germaphobe. It is said his first wife had a dog. Trump wanted to get rid of it, but wife said the dog is part of the package. Whenever Trump and his wife were in the same room, the dog would place itself them.

    Note to Purgatory the above information is documented by MSNBC. BTW, sorry about my last post being on the wrong thread.
  • edited August 2018
    I heard a thing on the radio with that Huckabee-Sanders person announcing something about a spy master named John Brennan who's getting his secrecy clearance ended. So I found a link about it which says the following:
    Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced the decision at a White House briefing, reading a statement from Trump that accused Brennan of making “a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the internet and television — about this Administration.”

    ...then I pondered the "wild outbursts, unfounded and outrageous allegations" and reference to "erratic conduct and behavior". So it'd be okay if the man had done it on the Twitter? Someone else must have seen the irony, even humour of it - well forced humour anyway of the "ha-ha I get it, not really funny, but ha-ha I guess, good one". Well, I see that we're on "dogs" not swine, but I thought of Orwell's Animal Farm pigs and people looking at each other and no-one could tell them apart. But I like dogs, not the pigs, though some dogs need to be put down because they're dangerous and bite and scare. Then I thought of the German "schweinhund"* which seems too polite just now.


    *pig-dog, gently approximates "asshole"
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    They found only one picture of him holding a dog from the 90's and the Scotty he was holding had a worried look on its face.
    In the opening Netflix© episode of House of Cards, the future president played by Kevin Spacey strangles a dog while talking to the camera.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Ever notice how Trump's most pejorative word is "dog?" You know he really dislikes you if he calls you a dog. . . . Shows-something-seriously-wrong-with-him.
    Didn't W.C. Fields say that anybody who hates dogs and children can't be all bad? He was wrong.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    The irony of Sanders' criticism of Brennan is quite remarkable.

    Trump has a huge enemies list. It contains everyone who criticises him for the stupidity of his ideas and his bad behaviour. And he is out to get them, to destroy their ability to get at him. It is his most dangerous characteristic.

  • Re T and dogs:

    Some time back, maybe on the vintage Ship, someone commented how awful it was that T didn't have a pet.

    I spoke up, because I'm not a pet person--for a mixture of reasons. I think animals are wonderful, and we're all part of the same Thing (e.g., God, Gaia,...). I sign petitions to help them.

    I am not in any way a fan of T. But I don't think it's fair to judge him for not having a pet. On that occasion, someone piped up to say that well, actually, they did have a friend who didn't have a pet (and/or wasn't a pet person), either. Like that's rare. (Eyeroll)

    It can be...tedious...when people who have X (pets, kids, SO, house, job, high salary, car, religion, etc.) opine that anyone without X isn't socially acceptable, isn't normal, is a loser, etc.

    If you're going to judge T on something, make it something that's actually *bad*. There's plenty of that.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I have to say, on behalf of pets everywhere, that I think it's great 44.2 doesn't have a pet. If he treated the pet the way he treats his staff, wives, children, etc. . . . Remember the flak Romney took for the "dog-on-the-car-roof" incident?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Trump's claims of no collusion are hogwash. Ex CIA Director John Brennan fires back.

    Wow. Trump's claims of "no collusion" are "hogwash"! That is really upping the ante.


    Because this may be behind a paywall for some of you, I'll give you a direct quote from the article.
    The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of “Trump Incorporated” attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.

    Apparently Trump stated, quite openly in an interview, that the reason he revoked Brennan's security clearances was because Brennan was one of those who initiated the special investigation. Not because Brennan represented any national security risk.

    I've never seen anything like this in over 40 years of US political watching. It beats into a cocked hat anything I recall from the Watergate era.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Barnabas62 said -
    I've never seen anything like this in over 40 years of US political watching. It beats into a cocked hat anything I recall from the Watergate era.

    And still trump is in office with no clear hope of that changing.

    :cry:
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I'm not a pet person. . . . I don't think it's fair to judge [Trump] for not having a pet. . . . It can be...tedious...when people who have X (pets, kids, SO, house, job, high salary, car, religion, etc.) opine that anyone without X isn't socially acceptable, isn't normal, is a loser, etc.

    Indeed. Miss Amanda is not a pet person either. Nor is she a children person. She avoids visiting people whose dogs are allowed to jump all over visitors on the excuse that "Oh, he just wants to be friendly." But she hopes that no one would classify her in the same category as the current occupant of the White House.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Omarosa's book will surely be remaindered in about a month!

    I found it on ebay for about $20.00.
  • When people say they dislike dogs, it is like disliking something curry. You have had bad curry.
  • So not only was WC Fields not funny, he was also a nasty piece of work.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    De gustibus non est disputandum (Latin: there's no accounting for taste).
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Ever notice how Trump's most pejorative word is "dog?" You know he really dislikes you if he calls you a dog. . . . Shows-something-seriously-wrong-with-him.
    Didn't W.C. Fields say that anybody who hates dogs and children can't be all bad? He was wrong.
    While I am loath to continue this tangent, the pedant in me needs to observe that W.C. Fields did not say that. Rather, it was said about him. At least, according to Wikiquotes.
  • It is not that he does not like dogs or any pet, but that he calls his enemies dogs. He has no worse pejorative term.
  • I call people I think are bastards 'dogs', and have done so for a very long time. I own two dogs and have another around for regular extended stays. Miss Amanda and I should meet at a local cafe, because my dogs are crazy as hell, especially the scruffy terrier. I consider 'dog' a low to medium level insult, akin to 'animal', 'bastard', 'dickhead' or 'bitch'. I am happy to supply a few top-level insults if required.

    I understand from some commentary (maybe Seth Meyers?) that calling someone a dog has the whiff of a racist slur about it in the USA. It doesn't have a racist whiff in Australia. One of our processed cheese is called Coon. Don't worry, we have plenty of racial slurs, more's the pity.

    In short, you guys are barking up the wrong tree.

    I very much agree with Barnabas concerning Trump's stated reasons for revoking Brennan's security clearance. How Trump could make the exact same stupid mistake a second time beggars belief. I think it's John Oliver who refers to the whole sorry saga as Stupid Watergate. I really hope Omarosa wasn't the only one recording conversations at the White House. Oh, I am going to laugh so hard about all this in about 20 years.
Sign In or Register to comment.