The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Kurth]

There is nothing that Trump broke that can't be fixed. It won't be easy or fast, but it can be fixed. If Germany from the 1920s through 80s can be put back together and trusted again, anything is possible.

A better parallel is the British Empire. Were not starting at a hyperinflative collapse and making a 60 year comeback. We are starting as the world's #1 superpower and making a descent into relative irrelevance.

Irrelevance? I don't think so. At least, not for some time:

[El Guapo]

All I see about the 1960s in that is the 61% watched the Kennedy - Nixon debate, which is itself somewhat misleading (or not apples to apples) since that was the first televised debate, so some of the higher rate would I assume be driven by novelty rather than 'engagement' per se. I do find the drop in viewership from 92 - 96 to be interesting; we've been building back up since then. But just looking at debate ratings seems like a wildly incomplete way of assessing electorate engagement.

61% of households - Nielsen wasn't measuring viewers then. However there was a lot more people watching in the past. That much is true. Why were they watching? They were more engaged. I could see somehow arguing that maybe people switched to other forms of engagement but that doesn't really track with reality. What did they switch to in 1996 when it fell through the floor? I think it is a coincidence but that happens to be around when the GOP started with the Contract with America. Also, is it really building? Hard to say - it is pretty flat and the pop was likely for Trump's reality show (similar to first televised debate). The main thing I'll point out is that 50-70% less eligible voters watched the first debate of each election in the 00s/10s versus ones in 70s/80s. That is simply significant. There is no other way to paint it. We can dig in more and get all the debates but I can't imagine that this trend is going to fall apart.

And I don't know what your point about 'experts' is getting at here. Back in the 1950s and 1960s (for example) it's probably true that there were fewer news outlets. That might have produced more uniformity of news (probably people had more news sources in common) but there are real downsides to that too - people have access to a LOT more viewpoints and sources of information than they did in the past. So which way that cuts in terms of people being informed is not super clear.

If you want a clinical talk about it - here is one take. The idea is that people had access to higher quality information more consistently. And importantly there was near universal trust in those sources of information. Sure it was from fewer viewpoints but I've never heard any indication it was overall bad information. Compare that to today where it is true you can still find great information - but you have to pick it out of the fire hose of garbage data being flooding into every discussion. And relying on people to have time to validate every bullshit thread is impossible. More so trust in the source of information is completely severed from the quality of the data. It is pure tribalism. We see this strongly on the right. It happens on the left too but less strongly.

As an example, this goes back to my criticisms of headlines. When you have ~4% click through rates, the headline is the information dispersion mechanism. So you can literally control misinformation by literally speaking it to a reporter if you have the right role in government. Think about the possible misuse of that channel alone. You don't have to even think about it - you can see it every day now.

Anyway, it is becoming apparent we are now entering an age of anti-reason. Whatever you feel is true and you can find something to back it up. That is why the many viewpoints you talk about are not necessarily a good thing. So many of them are intentionally poisonous and have overwhelmed our public body. To paraphrase a concept from the great game Planescape: Torment, free speech has met its nemesis and it is itself in its purest form. Noise overwhelming the signal.

I'm just saying that all of this is more complicated and dynamic than I think you are making it out to be. The 92 - 96 drop could easily be explained by the 1996 election never really being especially competitive. The size of the drop itself suggests something more is at play than long-term engagement, since one wouldn't expect the electorate to have such a seismic shift in one cycle.

On the broader stuff, media landscape changes tend to have both positive and negative effects. On the downside, there's no real Walter Kronkite-type figure these days that can provide neutral broadly accepted facts across the political spectrum the way he could. On the plus side, it is now *way* easier to fact check specific claims than it used to be. If the government wants to represent events in say Syria or Yemen, it's much, much easier to check those claims than it was, say, 50 years ago. Whether the bad outweighs the good is harder to say, and will change over time. Like, I totally agree with the chyron issue, but on the other hand I can see media adapting to that effect already and being savvier about what they put in headlines and chyrons vs. how they were in 2016.

But we should probably move this into another thread (maybe the death of media thread) given that we're fairly far afield from impeachment at this point.

[Zarathud]

Putting a plant with something to hide on the panel is blatant obstruction. Conflict him out and add another obstruction charge.

[malchior]

I'm just saying that all of this is more complicated and dynamic than I think you are making it out to be. The 92 - 96 drop could easily be explained by the 1996 election never really being especially competitive. The size of the drop itself suggests something more is at play than long-term engagement, since one wouldn't expect the electorate to have such a seismic shift in one cycle.

Where did I say it isn't complicated or dynamic? The size of the drop argument is basically saying the data doesn't fit a model so it can't happen. That isn't an actual argument on its own. It has stayed consistently lower. Something changed. The CW is that the electorate is pretty apathetic - and I think this is an indicator. You can choose to disagree but I didn't really thing that lack of engagement was a really controversial argument to be honest. The idea that people have gotten more apathetic over time was also IMO seen as pretty much a given. Can you imagine this happening in the 50s or 60s with the information we know? The people would have been out in the streets.

On the broader stuff, media landscape changes tend to have both positive and negative effects. On the downside, there's no real Walter Kronkite-type figure these days that can provide neutral broadly accepted facts across the political spectrum the way he could. On the plus side, it is now *way* easier to fact check specific claims than it used to be. If the government wants to represent events in say Syria or Yemen, it's much, much easier to check those claims than it was, say, 50 years ago. Whether the bad outweighs the good is harder to say, and will change over time. Like, I totally agree with the chyron issue, but on the other hand I can see media adapting to that effect already and being savvier about what they put in headlines and chyrons vs. how they were in 2016.

It may be way easier to check things but *people do not do it*. When they do broad polls on issues they find that people on the right are consistently misinformed. Again I don't get how this is a controversial argument. The leadership of a political party is pushing a russian born conspiracy theory and the debunking information is being widely reported. Yet go on twitter and the mobs on the right are running with it. That is what I'm talking about. The experts are saying...whoa this is fantasy land shit...and the right won't listen because they saw the 'truth' on Facebook or in Breitbart. I'd point out there has never been such a concentrated instance of this happening in the US across such a broad swath any time in our history.

But we should probably move this into another thread (maybe the death of media thread) given that we're fairly far afield from impeachment at this point.

Fair enough but I do think this is heavily impeachment related in general because this is the field of battle they fight on. It is disinformation versus facts. In fact, the President sought to wage a disinformation campaign literally because this dynamic exists. In all this, what is going to happen at the trial is they are going to drag Hunter Biden in and the media may help contain the propaganda effect of it but I won't hold my breath there.

[malchior]

On another front people are arguing this morning about what to do with Nunes. Some think Pelosi should strip him off the committee <- terrible idea!! Others are pushing for an ethics investigation. That sounds right. As in everything the timing is key. Parnas isn't exactly a non-conflicted witness so he'd have to be able to provide some evidence at least before an investigation begins. It is an another infuriating thread IMO because every time you turn a corner there is another shoe dropping and the wide front actually hurts versus helps because it divides attention from core issues.

[El Guapo]

I'm just saying that all of this is more complicated and dynamic than I think you are making it out to be. The 92 - 96 drop could easily be explained by the 1996 election never really being especially competitive. The size of the drop itself suggests something more is at play than long-term engagement, since one wouldn't expect the electorate to have such a seismic shift in one cycle.

Where did I say it isn't complicated or dynamic? The size of the drop argument is basically saying the data doesn't fit a model so it can't happen. That isn't an actual argument on its own. It has stayed consistently lower. Something changed. The CW is that the electorate is pretty apathetic - and I think this is an indicator. You can choose to disagree but I didn't really thing that lack of engagement was a really controversial argument to be honest. The idea that people have gotten more apathetic over time was also IMO seen as pretty much a given. Can you imagine this happening in the 50s or 60s with the information we know? The people would have been out in the streets.

On the broader stuff, media landscape changes tend to have both positive and negative effects. On the downside, there's no real Walter Kronkite-type figure these days that can provide neutral broadly accepted facts across the political spectrum the way he could. On the plus side, it is now *way* easier to fact check specific claims than it used to be. If the government wants to represent events in say Syria or Yemen, it's much, much easier to check those claims than it was, say, 50 years ago. Whether the bad outweighs the good is harder to say, and will change over time. Like, I totally agree with the chyron issue, but on the other hand I can see media adapting to that effect already and being savvier about what they put in headlines and chyrons vs. how they were in 2016.

It may be way easier to check things but *people do not do it*. When they do broad polls on issues they find that people on the right are consistently misinformed. Again I don't get how this is a controversial argument. The leadership of a political party is pushing a russian born conspiracy theory and the debunking information is being widely reported. Yet go on twitter and the mobs on the right are running with it. That is what I'm talking about. The experts are saying...whoa this is fantasy land shit...and the right won't listen because they saw the 'truth' on Facebook or in Breitbart. I'd point out there has never been such a concentrated instance of this happening in the US across such a broad swath any time in our history.

But we should probably move this into another thread (maybe the death of media thread) given that we're fairly far afield from impeachment at this point.

Fair enough but I do think this is heavily impeachment related in general because this is the field of battle they fight on. It is disinformation versus facts. In fact, the President sought to wage a disinformation campaign literally because this dynamic exists. In all this, what is going to happen at the trial is they are going to drag Hunter Biden in and the media may help contain the propaganda effect of it but I won't hold my breath there.

I'm not arguing that people are apathetic or commonly misinformed, I'm just skeptical that it's that much different from previous eras. You're putting a lot of weight on debate ratings over the past couple decades, which I wouldn't deny is an indicator, but it's just one incomplete data point. I mean, there was literally a Know Nothing party that was widely popular in the 19th century. You had the John Birch Society spreading far right conspiracy theories and disinformation in what was evidently a golden age of informed electorate.

I think this is just that you treat it as self-evident that the electorate of today is less informed and more subject to disinformation than prior eras, and I'm skeptical that it's that much different than prior eras.

[Kraken]

I think this is just that you treat it as self-evident that the electorate of today is less informed and more subject to disinformation than prior eras, and I'm skeptical that it's that much different than prior eras.

The difference is that we now have mass media designed to misinform. Before the internet and the profusion of TV channels (*cough* Fox News), you had local media sources pushing their own biases, but mass media usually reported the same facts, and tried to do it objectively. NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS all covered the same major stories in the same general way, and those were your only non-print sources of national and international reportage. Everybody watched one of those sources. Today our tribe has our own facts from sources that we trust, and the other tribe has their facts from their sources, and there is very little agreement between them.

[Combustible Lemur]

On another front people are arguing this morning about what to do with Nunes. Some think Pelosi should strip him off the committee <- terrible idea!! Others are pushing for an ethics investigation. That sounds right. As in everything the timing is key. Parnas isn't exactly a non-conflicted witness so he'd have to be able to provide some evidence at least before an investigation begins. It is an another infuriating thread IMO because every time you turn a corner there is another shoe dropping and the wide front actually hurts versus helps because it divides attention from core issues.

I would think immediately getting parnas deposed and judging if you can public hearing him would be move #1. If the goods are real, call Nunes.

People are apathetic even If they recognize corruption. Being a Co conspirator in your own grand jury vs just partisan? I think that's straightforward enough for the broad public to condemn. It's one of those things we've all suffered from at some point. The boss who broke their own rules.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, but now Nunes is threatening to sue the news media:

Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican member on the House Intelligence Committee, is reportedly threatening to sue CNN and The Daily Beast after the publications reported damaging allegations that could implicate him in the ongoing impeachment probe the committee is currently conducting.

I hope he does. And I hope he's flayed alive.

[Grifman]

A healthy dose of reality here - a lot of this *is completely irreversible* near term.

Please, I find that more than a bit condescending. We can disgree but that doesn't mean that you have a better grasp of reality than I do, ok?

You can see it in the regulatory environment in Europe.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but Europe has had a very different, and less lazefaire regulatory scheme for years. I don't see anything new here, but maybe you can be more explicit?

You can see it in the hedging that countries around the world are taking on around their military alliances. See South Korea making overtures to the Chinese.

This seems rather vague - what other countries? You mention SK but I don't think anyone thinks they are going to trust their future to the Chinese, who are propping up NK. Sure, they would take help where they could get it but China isn't going to station 30,000 troops there to protect against a NK invasion. They still want/need us.

He has done massive amounts of damage. It is all underwater right now but its out there.

I agree but I think it is temporary unless Trump gets a second term. Then I worry.

In addition, put aside Trump both parties said they were going to jettison the TPP which was seen as the firewall against Chinese influence expansion in SE Asia. That was 2016.

And since we are discussing Trump, why is this even relevant? I agree we should be in the TPP, but both parties are to blame for this.

Since then Xi has only flexed his muscles and we've shown we won't provide a shield against the Chinese *and* the North Koreans.

What shield and to whom? The Japanese still want and need us and we have supported them, and if Trump isn't re-elected that's not going to change. And i think we help to deter an attack on Taiwan - interesting that Trump hasn't said anything there one way or another. Did you have anyone else in mind?

A severely delayed response to these issue might come in 2021. Maybe. But probably not because the next Democratic President will be under attack from the right. That is a lot of time for all those nations to re-align. The tide has turned. There is no turning back the clock there.

And what is the evidence of this re-alignment?

So what? What they've seen is rebukes to the President don't change what the President actually does. There is no meaningful constraint on his power. He essentially ignored the sanctions on the Russians. What happened? Jack shit. Action or in this case inaction speaks volumes in this space. I can hear someone say...well the next Democratic President will then do what they want. Which *is the problem* - we can't say with any certainty that in 4 more years our policy won't whipsaw again.

Assuming a Democrat wins, I think we go back largely to where we were before. A new president knows that relationships need to be repaired and I think most friends want to have us back. We went on a bender, we had a very bad weekend, but they will be glad to see us again.

True - for right now but we've done nothing but exposed the truth to them that we aren't a stable partner to base their security strategy on. They'll be forced to at least attempt to consolidate that decision making without UK/US lead being assumed. I don't know if they'll succeed but they have to try. We can't actually believe they will just wait around and see if we get our shit together. It is just not going to happen. Instead we have to assume they have people working on this around the clock right now.

I would certainly be planning for the worst if Trump were re-elected if I were them, but I would also certainly welcome the US back if he were defeated. I think things largely go back to the way they were, because that is KNOWN. Anything else is uncertainty which politicians and people in general abhor. They don't really have any good solutions without the US.

I don't think so. They see our problems with wide open eyes that we don't. They know that American politics are broken. They were broken before Trump. They'll be broken after Trump. We are deeply sick and they see it. They feel it and they aren't sympathetic friends who are waiting for us to kick our crack addiction and then wistfully hope we won't pick the pipe up again. They will have to assume that in their long-term national security planning the scenario that we are not a reliable partner. It'd be insane not to. Handicapping that risk is a big ask but we've been progressively getting worse for 20 years and again they clearly see it. Especially now that the foreign service has been banged up so badly.

That would make sense if we were alone but virtually every Western country (there are a few exceptions) are dealing with right wing populists - this just isn't an American problem. We are all in this together, the US is too big a part of the West to just ignore it. If they turn their backs on the US and don't keep us involved then they potentially face even bigger problems. We're too big and powerful not to be a part of the picture.

Trump is an apocalypse in this sense but getting rid of him doesn't remove several major risk overhangs. Why should they believe the Republicans aren't going to *whole hog* oppose all actions of the next Democratic President? The Europeans and other nations see clearly that the next President will not be allowed to succeed. Unless major structural changes occur, we are simply not going to be trusted. End of story. I'd love to be wrong on this but I'm really, really sure I'm not.

Even at their height of opposition to Obama, the Republicans largely supported his policies towards NATO, the EU, South Korea, Japan, etc. Opposition was largely domestic policies and the Middle East. I don't see any swell from the Republicans that says any of their perspective on the NATO, etc. has changed, and you haven't show anything like this either. You need to show their is a growing trend in the GOP towards a Trumpian foreign policy - I see no evidence that it exists to any major extent.

[malchior]

A healthy dose of reality here - a lot of this *is completely irreversible* near term.

Please, I find that more than a bit condescending. We can disgree but that doesn't mean that you have a better grasp of reality than I do, ok?

I'm sorry you are taking it that way. I have a perspective here that I was sharing. To be clear I am not in the foreign service but I am dealing with multiple countries around the world every day. I'm telling you what I'm seeing based on what I'm seeing first hand out there. I've heard with own ears that my client partners got guidance from allied governments to not store data in the United States. And to be clear these were not privacy discussion around GDPR which is a totally separate matter. These were national security discussions about protecting critical infrastructure. It wasn't just one source. I heard this from multiple sources. The Germans had the strongest point of view on this but the Dutch were essentially going to follow the Germans. The difference was a nuance that the Dutch weren't likely to be as prescriptive in their potential regulations.

Anyway the takeaway is that their trust has slipped so much that while they are not treating us as an adversary, they certainly aren't treating us like a friend. That isn't reversible damage. They aren't going to change that stance because Trump goes. They didn't make that decision based solely on Trump or a whim. And this isn't that you do/don't have a better grasp on reality. I'm relating information I have that you haven't heard about the stuff that is happening out of your view. There is extremely little chance you could have unless you were also working through cyber security adjacent critical infrastructure issues in Germany/Austria/NL or Denmark...like I am.

You can see it in the regulatory environment in Europe.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but Europe has had a very different, and less lazefaire regulatory scheme for years. I don't see anything new here, but maybe you can be more explicit?

This is a reference to the above which was 'off the record' but verbal guidance around implementing EU NIS directives. Also there are open big picture discussions in the EU about limiting American company exposure to data. It has been widely reported as privacy/anti-trust but combine it with what I heard in the critical infrastructure channels and it seems reasonable to assume some of that is national security related as well. In other words, they are distancing themselves on multiple fronts. Not in a way that impacts business strategy yet (that I can see) but for all I know they are having those discussions up at the top tiers across certain critical industries.

You can see it in the hedging that countries around the world are taking on around their military alliances. See South Korea making overtures to the Chinese.

This seems rather vague - what other countries? You mention SK but I don't think anyone thinks they are going to trust their future to the Chinese, who are propping up NK. Sure, they would take help where they could get it but China isn't going to station 30,000 troops there to protect against a NK invasion. They still want/need us.

They have been quietly re-aligning with China. The 66 year alliance between the US and South Korea is in deep trouble.

In addition, put aside Trump both parties said they were going to jettison the TPP which was seen as the firewall against Chinese influence expansion in SE Asia. That was 2016.

And since we are discussing Trump, why is this even relevant? I agree we should be in the TPP, but both parties are to blame for this.

I was talking about the big picture and framing the relatively scale of time here. Trump is the major locus now but my entire point is that the external world sees us as *America* and that goes beyond Trump. America pushed hard for TPP and then basically abandoned the pacific rim for temporary political points. Then Trump did his trade war shit and walked across the DMZ on a whim. It rattled them. So yes, both parties started the mess but Trump made it tremendously worse. There is a major risk there to be sure. Is that reversible? It isn't looking good at the moment but...meh...maybe? And we'll be re-starting this after a 5 year lapse which is a long time for the world to move on. One last thought - I also hate to say it but there was a good chance a President Clinton would have re-thought this decision.

Since then Xi has only flexed his muscles and we've shown we won't provide a shield against the Chinese *and* the North Koreans.

What shield and to whom? The Japanese still want and need us and we have supported them, and if Trump isn't re-elected that's not going to change. And i think we help to deter an attack on Taiwan - interesting that Trump hasn't said anything there one way or another. Did you have anyone else in mind?

Relations are warming between Japan and China. I won't quote the article because the mark up is out of control already. The takeaway is that Trump pushed Japan towards China as well. Japan isn't worried about China invading them. They are worried about economic and other issues in relation to China. And they are extremely worried about the rogue NK regime with nukes. Trump leaving might help there but I am not going to think it is too strong to think that Japan is going to be skeptical about our ability to deliver. We have weakened our position considerably with all parties. A new President isn't going to fix that.

A severely delayed response to these issue might come in 2021. Maybe. But probably not because the next Democratic President will be under attack from the right. That is a lot of time for all those nations to re-align. The tide has turned. There is no turning back the clock there.

And what is the evidence of this re-alignment?

I'm not going to go much beyond what I linked already. SK and Japan are obviously not completely re-aligned but they sure as shit aren't where they were even last year. There is a positive spot. Vietnam is still in our corner especially since we gave them a Coast Guard cutter as a signal of support. A little caveat that unfortunately pulling out of TPP was bad for Vietnamese workers (it would have imposed a worker's protection regime). However, unless workers connect some very tenuous dots I don't think that'll lead to meaningful impact in the national security arena.

Importantly Japan inked a big deal with the EU that pushed American exports out of the marketplace. The TPP was our in-road there and it hurt our negotiating position. It isn't that they wouldn't have signed it but now we have no way to be competitive in that and many of these markets. Extremely hard to reverse at this point. And we'll have incurred quite a lot of lost time/opportunity there even if we can get back in.

So what? What they've seen is rebukes to the President don't change what the President actually does. There is no meaningful constraint on his power. He essentially ignored the sanctions on the Russians. What happened? Jack shit. Action or in this case inaction speaks volumes in this space. I can hear someone say...well the next Democratic President will then do what they want. Which *is the problem* - we can't say with any certainty that in 4 more years our policy won't whipsaw again.

Assuming a Democrat wins, I think we go back largely to where we were before. A new president knows that relationships need to be repaired and I think most friends want to have us back. We went on a bender, we had a very bad weekend, but they will be glad to see us again.

I get the hope but I think you are misinterpreting how damaged our credibility and frankly how dysfunctional we are. They see it. A lot of our fellow citizens don't get it...yet. 10-15 years ago when people were saying that the GOP was losing their minds we heard this same it'll be fine shit over and over. And guess what people still have their heads firmly buried in the sand and its way worse now. But the important thing is that people who depend on you often see your flaws well before you do.

True - for right now but we've done nothing but exposed the truth to them that we aren't a stable partner to base their security strategy on. They'll be forced to at least attempt to consolidate that decision making without UK/US lead being assumed. I don't know if they'll succeed but they have to try. We can't actually believe they will just wait around and see if we get our shit together. It is just not going to happen. Instead we have to assume they have people working on this around the clock right now.

I would certainly be planning for the worst if Trump were re-elected if I were them, but I would also certainly welcome the US back if he were defeated. I think things largely go back to the way they were, because that is KNOWN. Anything else is uncertainty which politicians and people in general abhor. They don't really have any good solutions without the US.

They may go back to the way they are. They also have been on the receiving side of a lot of tremendous scares. Just this morning news broke that Trump is talking about pulling out of NATO. They have to be prepared. And they have to worry about what is over the horizon with us. You seem to be very...optimistic...about how things will go when Trump goes away. I see it as we elected Trump despite his abomination nature. We have this system that dilutes concentrates power into a delusional minority's hands. Again our friends see us for what we are now. It isn't like the 40% deplorable problem goes away on 1/21/21.

I don't think so. They see our problems with wide open eyes that we don't. They know that American politics are broken. They were broken before Trump. They'll be broken after Trump. We are deeply sick and they see it. They feel it and they aren't sympathetic friends who are waiting for us to kick our crack addiction and then wistfully hope we won't pick the pipe up again. They will have to assume that in their long-term national security planning the scenario that we are not a reliable partner. It'd be insane not to. Handicapping that risk is a big ask but we've been progressively getting worse for 20 years and again they clearly see it. Especially now that the foreign service has been banged up so badly.

That would make sense if we were alone but virtually every Western country (there are a few exceptions) are dealing with right wing populists - this just isn't an American problem. We are all in this together, the US is too big a part of the West to just ignore it. If they turn their backs on the US and don't keep us involved then they potentially face even bigger problems. We're too big and powerful not to be a part of the picture.

This goes well beyond right-wing populism. A democratic President is going to be waging budget battles. They'll have tan suit level ridiculousness of every sort. If you thought what happened to Obama was bad wait until these aggrieved snow flakes don't have absolute power and throw monster legislative tantrums. Especially if they hold the Senate which is likely. Nothing will get done. Again a Democratic President can't be allowed to succeed.

Trump is an apocalypse in this sense but getting rid of him doesn't remove several major risk overhangs. Why should they believe the Republicans aren't going to *whole hog* oppose all actions of the next Democratic President? The Europeans and other nations see clearly that the next President will not be allowed to succeed. Unless major structural changes occur, we are simply not going to be trusted. End of story. I'd love to be wrong on this but I'm really, really sure I'm not.

Even at their height of opposition to Obama, the Republicans largely supported his policies towards NATO, the EU, South Korea, Japan, etc. Opposition was largely domestic policies and the Middle East. I don't see any swell from the Republicans that says any of their perspective on the NATO, etc. has changed, and you haven't show anything like this either. You need to show their is a growing trend in the GOP towards a Trumpian foreign policy - I see no evidence that it exists to any major extent.

I don't have to show this because this isn't about the GOP going back to normal. Other nations are not putting this entirely on Trump like you do. They see us as fractured and insane. I don't think I can say this stronger. They think we are a basket case nation. Our policy positions are not stable between governments in wild ways. Say like when we abandon our allies to a senseless death in Syria. Oh sorry - I swear it won't happen again baby is hardly going to cut it.

Major parts of our ruling party are spouting Russian propaganda as a fact on national media. Our allies have the same intelligence we do. They know that this has been debunked and see the GOP lying to the population. Do you think that is something they'll just overlook? Again they see our problems much clearer than many of us do.

Plus, even if Trump drops dead the cult isn't going away. I'd even say they are scared of what we become if he does drop dead. Did Killary get him? Did he get Epstein-ed? We are a conspiracy driven nightmare. That isn't going to be fixed just because Trump goes away. If you depended on someone and they went this berserk this fast...wouldn't you be extremely wary of them?

[malchior]

Yo - this #DirtyDevin scheme is crazier than you could imagine. This clip goes through the whole thing. It really sounds like he is tied into the whole thing much deeper than expected. Even worse this could definitely be used as kompromat. I have to imagine the FBI is wondering about opening a counter-intel investigation and looking at his security clearance at this point.

[Holman]

Yo - this #DirtyDevin scheme is crazier than you could imagine. This clip goes through the whole thing. It really sounds like he is tied into the whole thing much deeper than expected. Even worse this could definitely be used as kompromat. I have to imagine the FBI is wondering about opening a counter-intel investigation and looking at his security clearance at this point.

I wish I could trust a Barr DOJ to do anything but muzzle such investigations.

This is nauseating. Nunes has been a part of the Ukraine scheme all along, and he sat there pretending to preside over investigating it.

[malchior]

Even worse he called it a sham and belittled the effort like it was a joke. If true, the consequences for him should take that into account. Again I am reminded that these are *NOT GOOD PEOPLE*. This needs to be investigated thoroughly and publicly and we need thugs like this run out of public life forever. This is getting absurd.

[YellowKing]

Again I am reminded that these are *NOT GOOD PEOPLE*.

The most disappointing aspect of all this is that there are 197 GOP representatives and 53 GOP Senators. That's 250 people, many of whom have served under multiple administrations, that can't possibly all be as corrupt and immoral as Trump and his cronies. And yet in spite of the overwhelming evidence of Trump's wrongdoing, in light of the repeated abuses of power by this administration, there is NOTHING from them. Crickets. Complete passive acceptance of the pervasive rot inside the Republican party.

[malchior]

Again I am reminded that these are *NOT GOOD PEOPLE*.

The most disappointing aspect of all this is that there are 197 GOP representatives and 53 GOP Senators. That's 250 people, many of whom have served under multiple administrations, that can't possibly all be as corrupt and immoral as Trump and his cronies. And yet in spite of the overwhelming evidence of Trump's wrongdoing, in light of the repeated abuses of power by this administration, there is NOTHING from them. Crickets. Complete passive acceptance of the pervasive rot inside the Republican party.

Yup - I'm fed up with the lot of them. Obviously this isn't like being a Nazi or a Baathist and need them to be permanently thrown out of public service. However, they all deserve some time in a penalty box if not for pure cowardice and injury to the concept of public service. This is our nation on the line and they only care about themselves.

[Kraken]

Again I am reminded that these are *NOT GOOD PEOPLE*.

The most disappointing aspect of all this is that there are 197 GOP representatives and 53 GOP Senators. That's 250 people, many of whom have served under multiple administrations, that can't possibly all be as corrupt and immoral as Trump and his cronies. And yet in spite of the overwhelming evidence of Trump's wrongdoing, in light of the repeated abuses of power by this administration, there is NOTHING from them. Crickets. Complete passive acceptance of the pervasive rot inside the Republican party.

The prevailing narrative says they are terrified of their own voters.

This is getting absurd.

"Getting?"

[malchior]

Again I am reminded that these are *NOT GOOD PEOPLE*.

The most disappointing aspect of all this is that there are 197 GOP representatives and 53 GOP Senators. That's 250 people, many of whom have served under multiple administrations, that can't possibly all be as corrupt and immoral as Trump and his cronies. And yet in spite of the overwhelming evidence of Trump's wrongdoing, in light of the repeated abuses of power by this administration, there is NOTHING from them. Crickets. Complete passive acceptance of the pervasive rot inside the Republican party.

The prevailing narrative says they are terrified of their own voters.

Yeah but at this point I don't care. They gerrymandered their home districts. They ran on lies and blew dog whistles for years. They created this frankenstein's monster and either they need to get a backbone or get lost.

"Getting?"

Ha. Fair. I more meant we are seeing an all out attack on our form of government and people *still* aren't taking this seriously. It is hard not to be extremely angry and exasperated about how quickly we are falling apart.

[Grifman]

Unfortunately, from what I've read, poll wise, we are past "peak" impeachment. Most polls that I have seen have shown support for impeachment has actually dropped since the hearings started, which seems really strange to me. And unless the polls were to change dramatically, the Republican Senate will not convict. From what I have read about interviews with individual voters, people are just tired of all of the controversy, and in a sense, have become inured to all of the constant controversy around Trump. They don't see the gravity of the issue and think this is just MOTS. So to that extent, Trump has in a very real sense won. His outrageous conduct has become normalized.

[Holman]

Unfortunately, from what I've read, poll wise, we are past "peak" impeachment. Most polls that I have seen have shown support for impeachment has actually dropped since the hearings started, which seems really strange to me. And unless the polls were to change dramatically, the Republican Senate will not convict. From what I have read about interviews with individual voters, people are just tired of all of the controversy, and in a sense, have become inured to all of the constant controversy around Trump. They don't see the gravity of the issue and think this is just MOTS. So to that extent, Trump has in a very real sense won. His outrageous conduct has become normalized.

I was wondering about this, and I dug a little deeper into 538's tracking of impeachment polling. It currently shows the aggregate as 46.3% in favor and 45.6% against, essentially tied.

However, the most recent polls they've seen were taken in the ranges of November 14-18 or 19, with only the single latest poll covering Nov 17-20.

The very powerful days of testimony this week were Nov 19, 20, and 21. It's likely that the current sense of the polls doesn't reflect any (or at most just a little) of the sense of things after this huge week of news and revelations.

I guess we'll see if it makes a difference.

[YellowKing]

One article I read said that we wouldn't really get a good feel until the first week of December. Polling over Thanksgiving week is likely to be light.

[Kraken]

One article I read said that we wouldn't really get a good feel until the first week of December. Polling over Thanksgiving week is likely to be light.

For the next week the pols all leave the fishbowl to mix it up with constituents and donors. IDK if we'll see a paradigm shift or more hatch battening when they return, but they'll all be more grounded on whatever ground they washed up on.

[El Guapo]

Unfortunately, from what I've read, poll wise, we are past "peak" impeachment. Most polls that I have seen have shown support for impeachment has actually dropped since the hearings started, which seems really strange to me. And unless the polls were to change dramatically, the Republican Senate will not convict. From what I have read about interviews with individual voters, people are just tired of all of the controversy, and in a sense, have become inured to all of the constant controversy around Trump. They don't see the gravity of the issue and think this is just MOTS. So to that extent, Trump has in a very real sense won. His outrageous conduct has become normalized.

I was wondering about this, and I dug a little deeper into 538's tracking of impeachment polling. It currently shows the aggregate as 46.3% in favor and 45.6% against, essentially tied.

However, the most recent polls they've seen were taken in the ranges of November 14-18 or 19, with only the single latest poll covering Nov 17-20.

The very powerful days of testimony this week were Nov 19, 20, and 21. It's likely that the current sense of the polls doesn't reflect any (or at most just a little) of the sense of things after this huge week of news and revelations.

I guess we'll see if it makes a difference.

My expectations going into impeachment were that the most we could expect out of the whole thing in the long run is material further damage to Trump's approval rating - say it gets pushed down from like 42-43% to 39-40%, which would materially impact his reelection chances. This stuff that's coming out is bad enough that I did bump up my chances of removal from 0% to ~ 1%. We'll need to see a material movement in polls (which we're not seeing now, and I doubt that we will see) before removal starts to become feasible.

[YellowKing]

And the sense is that Republicans are doubling down on conspiracy theories instead of doing the right thing. I don't know how we continue to function as a democracy when one major party doesn't believe in reality.

[msteelers]

Every so often I'm struck by how dead on Stephen Colbert was almost 15 years ago with his "truthiness" bit.

We're not talking about truth, we're talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to exist. Now I'm sure some of the 'word police', the 'wordinistas' over at Webster's are gonna say, 'Hey, that's not a word'. Well, anybody who knows me knows I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn't true. Or what did or didn't happen.

When asked in an out-of- character interview with The Onion's A.V. Club for his views on "the 'truthiness' imbroglio that's tearing our country apart", Colbert elaborated on the critique he intended to convey with the word:

Truthiness is tearing apart our country, and I don't mean the argument over who came up with the word ...

It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President [George W. Bush] because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true? ...

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.

I've had numerous political conversations end with someone, unable to back up their position with facts, throwing up their hands and saying "well that's just my opinion!"

[Zarathud]

The American public never got the joke about truthiness.

[Jeff V]

I've had numerous political conversations end with someone, unable to back up their position with facts, throwing up their hands and saying "well that's just my opinion!"

There's a quote I remember from a college philosophy class but I'll be damned if I could remember who said it. It went, "Opinion is the lowest form of thought."

A much more identifiable response to this, though would be your standard "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one."

[msteelers]

I've had numerous political conversations end with someone, unable to back up their position with facts, throwing up their hands and saying "well that's just my opinion!"

There's a quote I remember from a college philosophy class but I'll be damned if I could remember who said it. It went, "Opinion is the lowest form of thought."

A much more identifiable response to this, though would be your standard "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one."

Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge… is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.”

I don't know who Bill Bullard is, or if he ever actually said it, but that's a good quote.

[El Guapo]

[gilraen]

A much more identifiable response to this, though would be your standard "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one."

Ha ha, I like this one. I usually go with "you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts" - although, granted, it's not always the same underlying meaning.

[Jeff V]

I've had numerous political conversations end with someone, unable to back up their position with facts, throwing up their hands and saying "well that's just my opinion!"

There's a quote I remember from a college philosophy class but I'll be damned if I could remember who said it. It went, "Opinion is the lowest form of thought."

A much more identifiable response to this, though would be your standard "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one."

Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge… is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.”

I don't know who Bill Bullard is, or if he ever actually said it, but that's a good quote.

That sounds like it could be it. I don't remember who Bullard is exactly, but it seems slightly familiar. I should add that a lot of braincells were sacrificed during a post-final ritual for this class...lots of weed and booze was consumed, ending at 2 am in a dive bar with the professor challenging students in a game of pool; "If you win, you get an "A", if you lose, you fail." One guy took him up on it, both were so wasted the game took 2 hours and by the end nobody cared who won.

[Jeff V]

A much more identifiable response to this, though would be your standard "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one."

Ha ha, I like this one. I usually go with "you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts" - although, granted, it's not always the same underlying meaning.

That's only a meaningful retort when both sides agree that facts are not something that is malleable. In today's world, alt-facts appear to be whatever the beholder wishes they would be, not what they actually are.

[malchior]

CNN has a poll with women breaking 61% against Trump which may be fairly significant.

[Pyperkub]

A much more identifiable response to this, though would be your standard "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one."

Ha ha, I like this one. I usually go with "you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts" - although, granted, it's not always the same underlying meaning.

Also "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, as long as its the same as mine."

[LordMortis]

I've had numerous political conversations end with someone, unable to back up their position with facts, throwing up their hands and saying "well that's just my opinion!"

There's a quote I remember from a college philosophy class but I'll be damned if I could remember who said it. It went, "Opinion is the lowest form of thought."

A much more identifiable response to this, though would be your standard "Opinions are like assholes -- everyone has one."

When I want your opinion I'll give it to you?
If I had wanted to listen to an asshole I would have farted?
When I want your lip I'll scrap it off my zipper?
Which is to say you have formed a judgement rooted neither in rational thought nor empirical observation?

Though honestly, depending on the conversations, opinions can relevant. Where things tend to come off the rails for me is "I feel" or "I believe" vs "I think" or reference-able facts and specific phenomena vs generalization without guidance (ie, call "bad actor did this" response "They're all corrupt, therefore I believe bad actor isn't as bad as this unrelated thing that I am firmly against")

[Holman]

And the latest now shows 49% support to 43.5% not.

Seems like a significant rise since last week's news. I say we keep going.

[Alefroth]

I wonder if things that affect his general approval ratings are also affecting the impeachment poll, for example, the Gallagher situation.

[Holman]

I wonder if things that affect his general approval ratings are also affecting the impeachment poll, for example, the Gallagher situation.

What's really interesting is that support for impeachment (which has changed noticeably and recently) doesn't track with any changes in Trump's approval rating (which has barely changed at all in many months).

The key demo seems to be Independents who dislike Trump but might or might not feel that impeachment is too radical a step.

[Smoove_B]

The key demo seems to be Independents who dislike Trump but might or might not feel that impeachment is too radical a step.

This really only supports my feeling that Independents aren't real. They're just people that don't want to say their party affiliation (for whatever reason) when asked or formally required to declare it. I'd love to see a study confirming that independents vote (D) or (R) an overwhelming majority of the time depending on demographics. Case in point:

Nearly four-in-ten U.S. adults (38%) identify as politically independent, but most “lean” toward one of the two major parties. Only 7% of Americans overall don’t express a partisan leaning, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party and 17% lean toward the Democratic Party.

If you're an Independent (tm) and your feeling after 3+ years of this horseshit is that "impeachment is too radical a step" then I question your reality.

[Isgrimnur]

Pew Research

Among the public overall, 38% describe themselves as independents, while 31% are Democrats and 26% call themselves Republicans, according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2018. These shares have changed only modestly in recent years, but the proportion of independents is higher than it was from 2000-2008, when no more than about a third of the public identified as independents. (For more on partisan identification over time, see the 2018 report “Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification.”)

An overwhelming majority of independents (81%) continue to “lean” toward either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Among the public overall, 17% are Democratic-leaning independents, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party. Just 7% of Americans decline to lean toward a party, a share that has changed little in recent years. This is a long-standing dynamic that has been the subject of past analyses, both by Pew Research Center and others.