Oh yeah, after the thousands of lies that Trump has made while in office never lost him any support, what's going to change now?

It's funny you should say that, because, if the results of the election are correct, he did lose support. Or did he gain opponents? It is important to distinguish between false promises such as saying the pandemic will just disappear maybe that is a false prediction, and lies, such as... CNN, after much soul-searching has published an article on a small fraction of Trump's lies:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/31/politics/fact-check-donald-trump-top-lies-of-2019-daniel-dale/index.html

There you have it. Inaccuracies, exaggerations. Delusions? The point is that in order to lie you just know the truth. What if you believe a lie? If you believe a lie, you pass a lie detector test. Is that how it works.
When Bill Clinton came appeared on international TV and admitted he lied, that I accept. But who knows what hapenned, there was no evidence presented after all. Just reliable testimonies.

In order to lie you have to know the truth, or else what are you going to lie about? When discussing remote news items it even does not matter what the truth is: what matters is if these claims can be proven. Here we have been presented with a rare opportunity: statement that is testable, and in the short term. All this litigation and politicking is centered around two assumptions. The first is that the courts will rule in favor of the Trump campaign. The second is that members of congress will object and launch an investigation, which again will result in nothing less than the overturning of the election.

If these two things do not happen, it will be counted by Trump supporters (some of them at least) as failing to deliver on promises, which they have not seen in the past, more than 80% or the Republican voters support Trumps actions so far. If claims of election fraud are never proven, that will put Trump out of the running for the 2024 election because, and I am guessing here, they know that the forces arrayed against him are simply cannot be overcome. Voters are smart enough to be pragmatic, even Trump voters.

Trump's job approval rating is listed here by Gallup at around 39%:

https://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx

Gallup also has 'approval by party' poll that shows Trump at better than 85% approval by Republicans.

Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20

Republicans 95% 90% 87%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/328106/public-mood-sours-satisfied-approve-trump.aspx

Democrats do not approve of Trump. No surprises here.

All very interesting, so the acid test is looming and it has dates on it: January 6,2021 and January 20, 2021. At least it will all be over. The attacks on the President will continue, whoever he/she is.

acclimated — Echarmion

Acclimatised*

When Bill Clinton came appeared on international TV and admitted he lied, that I accept. But who knows what hapenned, there was no evidence presented after all. Just reliable testimonies. — FreeEmotion

There was his semen on her dress. Only then was there the confession.

I don't compare Clinton to Trump though. Diddling the intern is really bad judgment. Trying to dismantle a democracy for your personal ego is extra.

His supporters are in it for to aggrandize his personal ego? What do they get in return? That does not seem like politics. I do not demonize either side: both Democrats and Republicans have their own values and their own agendas, which is where the election comes in, a chance for one ideology to trump the other. Viewed from abroad, it does seem quite divisive, however. The Atlantic explains it quite well, I think.

George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” John Adams, Washington’s successor, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”

The same article goes on to say

Under divided government, congressional opposition partisans have no incentive to work with the president; their electoral success is tied to his failure and unpopularity. This is not a system of bargaining and compromise, but one of capitulation and stonewalling.

The election is over and it has been found free and fair. The fact that the Trump tinfoil-hat train lost 60 cases, including in front of the Supreme Court, underlines that they more than had their chance to demonstrate otherwise and failed miserably, so take your conspiracy-theorising elsewhere. It's embarrassingly foolish.

Even now FoxNews and NewMax have begun retracting their claims regarding the Dominion software being designed to flip the votes in Biden's favor because Dominion threatened to sue for defamation.

I saw that. The Newsmax one was quite amusing. The newscaster looked like he wanted the ground to open up...

In order to lie you have to know the truth, or else what are you going to lie about? — FreeEmotion

One lies about what they believe. One need not know the truth in order to lie.

One need not know the truth in order to lie. — creativesoul

So if you were to unwittingly spread a lie that you believe was the truth you would be lying?

One lies about what they believe. One is not lying if they believe what they are saying is true. Whether or not it is true doesn't matter.

The only way to unwittingly spread a lie that one believes is true is by virtue of trusting the truthfulness of another's testimony, when the other is saying things that they do not believe(when the other is lying unbeknownst to you);Spreading another's lie.

If claims of election fraud are never proven, that will put Trump out of the running for the 2024 election because, and I am guessing here, they know that the forces arrayed against him are simply cannot be overcome. Voters are smart enough to be pragmatic, even Trump voters.

I’m not so sure about that. They threw everything at Trump and he mostly prevailed—impeachment, fake hate crimes, a hostile press, a violent opposition, investigations into him and his family, riots, organized protests, leaks, big tech and media censorship. For years they warned us of a fascism that never arrived, but unfortunately in doing so they distracted everyone from real-world threats, leaving most unprepared for what was to come. While they distracted the American president with an impeachment charade, a virus was allowed to circulate within the country. In the end it took a once-in-a-century pandemic to do what they failed to do.

I could only imagine what his presidency might have been like had cynical, anti-Trump forces given him a chance. I suspect he won’t run again (he’s too old), but if he were to come back in 2024, I suspect even anti-Trumpers would love to fill that Trump-shaped hole in their brains.

As for Trump’s refusal to concede, I love it. I can only hope that by the end of it he declassifies everything.

Ok ok, so according to US law it isn't bribery... Or here's a ton of money and next time I'm an ambassador. That's isn't bribery either and certainly never happened.

They threw everything at Trump and he mostly prevailed—impeachment, fake hate crimes, a hostile press, a violent opposition, investigations into him and his family, riots, organized protests, leaks, big tech and media censorship. — NOS4A2

Who is this "they" that controls government agencies, politicians, the judicial system, the press, BLM?, leakers (that he appointed?), big tech, and online media? The riots were not directed at Trump, btw, and if anything the rioters should hate Biden far more than Trump. Biden admits to "mistakes" but only time will tell if he puts real effort into reform.

I could only imagine what his presidency might have been like had cynical, anti-Trump forces given him a chance. — NOS4A2

More favors for capital and fewer favors for labor, essentially, plus a stupid big beautiful border wall and a massive deficit (despite slashing entitlements).

... and if covid didn't burst the bubble there's a good chance something else would have.

A fantastic piece:

The Fraudulent Universalism of Barack Obama
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/12/the-fraudulent-universalism-of-barack-obama

One of the worst passages in that God-awful burlesque of a memoir is when Obama can’t even summon up the courage to admit that he was responsible for murdering innocent children abroad, pusillanimously claiming that:

“In places like Yemen and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, the lives of millions of young men like those three dead Somalis (some of them boys, really, since the oldest pirate was believed to be nineteen) had been warped and stunted by desperation, ignorance, dreams of religious glory, the violence of their surroundings, or the schemes of older men. I wanted somehow to save them—send them to school, give them a trade, drain them of the hate that had been filling their heads. And yet the world they were a part of, and the machinery I commanded, more often had me killing them instead."

Behind all that cowardly bluff and bluster is a wicked war criminal, just like the presidents who preceded him and those who will follow him.

What an astoundingly awful piece of shit.

May you always have Trumps, and Bushes, and even a Reagan or two. And to be sure, if you think Obama was such a bad man, a case your article - did you actually read it? - does not in any way make, then who is a good man?

You seem a person not happy unless someone has their boot on your neck, letting you bask in their largess for permitting you to breathe. How wonderful it must be to luxuriate in being allowed to live.

Obama's difficulties and failings can be encapsulated in two phrases: Merritt Garland and Guantanamo Bay. These reference problems he did not solve - and that may not have been solvable. And you, yourself, are proof that in time of difficulty, the good, and the good man, are vilified. I suggest counseling with a professional.

Obama's difficulties and failings can be encapsulated in two phrases: Merritt Garland and Guantanamo Bay. — tim wood

No, his Syrian "red line" inspired Syrian rebels and his withdrawal from Iraq helped create ISIS. There's a frontline documentary about it.

The reason Democrats don't look at Syria as his fault is politics-induced-blindness.

@Baphomet@frankLet's pretend that you can have the president you want. Your possibilities are Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Obama, Trump. And if none of these, who? Vladimir?

It appears you-all and some others blame Obama for things not his fault, or for not doing what he couldn't do, or that couldn't be done - in any case your comprehensive vitriol bears no proportion to the reality or even possibility. If of all people Obama is your "astoundingly awful piece of s***," then what, exactly, are your criteria? What language, for example, do you use for Mitch McConnell? Or Bush 2? Or are they and theirs your heroes?

It appears you-all and some others blame Obama for things not his fault, — tim wood

No, he really did signal American support to Syrian rebels. When Assad called his bluff, he backed down.

Trump the turd did less damage to the world than virtuous Obama did. It's challenging to face the fact that the world works that way, I realize.

Tim is basically a Trump supporter, but for Obama. He will excuse the fact that he is a war criminal who literally killed children by bombing hospitals, or that he entrenched a culture of corporate greed and immunity that continues to ruin millions of American lives when he had every chance to rein in it - making him the biggest coward recent memory - because he still thinks he is a 'good man'. Obama fucking sucked, and he continues to suck.

making him the biggest coward recent memory - because he still thinks he is a 'good man'. Obama fucking sucked, and he continues to suck. — StreetlightX

I just can't stand the emphasis on civility and compromise being presented by the centrists, trying to unite the country somehow, as if that would be a good thing. Fucking spineless. That's why I love Nina Turner; she knows who the enemies are. Would have written her in if I didn't live in a swing state.

edit: Trump and the GOP are also enemies, and I voted for Biden, if there was any ambiguity.

in any case your comprehensive vitriol bears no proportion to the reality — tim wood

Political discussion on this forum, perhaps every forum, tends to be overwhelmingly dominated by emotional poses. On this forum it's often the mods who lead that parade. That's life, this forum, like all forums, is guaranteed to be worth what we paid for it.

Political discussion on this forum, perhaps every forum, tends to be overwhelmingly dominated by emotional poses. — Hippyhead

Almost all of the criticisms of Obama made by progressives are entirely factual and indicative of a conscience, not emotional fragility. People who are resistant to such criticisms are themselves deeply emotionally invested in the idea that the ends always justify the means and that constant moral compromise is necessary. This is not the case.

No, he really did signal American support to Syrian rebels. When Assad called his bluff, he backed down. — frank

I don't challenge this. Part is the fact of history and part interpretation. But in terms of the evaluation of the man as man as man as president, it's a so what. Did he err? What exactly was the error? The buck stops with him, but was it really him and his doing? The distinction is between the failings of a good man - and all men fail at some point - and the acts of evil men. Really, then, a matter of good v. evil.

Now you have Obama doing more damage than Trump. There's more than a thumb on the scales in that weighing. Implied is that 1) you cannot tell the difference between a man like Obama and Trump, nor 2) correctly weigh the effects of either. And it's interesting that you appear to find enough virtue in clearly flawed white men who were president, such that they get a pass, and yet Obama rates apparent hatred as the worst. Forgot Nixon? Or is he news to you? Reagan, Ollie North, and Iran-contra - Ollie North knowing all about Bin Laden? Or is that news to you? Bush 1, a man of character, but only a few inches deep until you hit the weasel? Clinton certainly had and has personal fallings, but near as I can tell he was a good president. Bush 2? 9-11, Karl Rove, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, yellow-cake from Niger, lies on lies, and an absolutely toxic vice-president he couldn't control? And John Ashcroft, whose lasting claim to fame, aside from his racism, is covering the bare breasts on the statue of justice at the Dept. of Justice? And of course Trump, who started with lies and betrayal at all levels and who by the time the smoke clears will have a large share of personal responsibility in the unnecessary deaths of more people from Covid than were American soldiers killed in WW2. And just a footnote, hundreds of children now without families - what a hero of a man! And Obama the worst? When he had to deal with a GOP and its supporters who arguably could stand not his intelligence, his erudition nor the colour of his skin - McConnell making it explicitly clear his sole purpose to thwart and obstruct him? That's more than just a log in your eye, it's a whole forest.

And my question, that you ignored, is who is your choice?

I just can't stand the emphasis on civility and compromise being presented by the centrists, trying to unite the country somehow, as if that would be a good thing. Fucking spineless. — ToothyMaw

Trying to bring the country together somehow = fucking spineless. Emphasis on civility and compromise = fucking spineless. Hysterical emotional pose. Sophomoric.

However, as deemed by the ruling local authorities, appropriate on this philosophy forum, so as you were, continue as you wish.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mr. Guillotine-them-all man. Too bad a man - presumably - of your manifest calibre makes such a waste of himself. The problem here is not Obama's perfection or lack of, rather it is the lack of all proportion in criticizing, and that itself is deeply suspicious.

Maybe because you thought him your saviour, and having found some clay around his feet now despise him? That pathology?

I should also add: many are emotionally invested in a narrative in which personal character and intention mean more than the consequences of actions. That being said, and you didn't ask me, I would unequivocally choose Obama over Trump or Bush.

Trying to bring the country together somehow = fucking spineless. Emphasis on civility and compromise = fucking spineless. Hysterical emotional pose. Sophomoric. — Hippyhead

Do you really think we should compromise with the GOP? With Neoliberals? Do you think we should withhold our honest opinions or express them civilly just because we might hurt some war criminal's feelings? I don't even know what it means to unite the country; what does it mean to you? Because it sounds like the kind of shit someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about people would spew to justify compromise with even worse people.

Do you really think we should compromise with the GOP? — ToothyMaw

It's called democracy.

Because it sounds like the kind of shit someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about people would spew to justify compromise with even worse people. — ToothyMaw

What high school do you attend? Perhaps we could talk to your guidance counselor about this?

Obama was arguably the single most powerful man in the world. If you think he needs some kind of kid-glove treatment, you don't understand what 'proportionality' means.

It's called democracy. — Hippyhead

Yes, I'm not suggesting seizing power and instituting autocratic rule, I'm talking about pushing for the policies that are popular with most everyday people, such as Medicare for all, a living wage, etc. If anything that is the democratic thing to do.

What high school do you attend? Perhaps we could talk to your guidance counselor about this? — Hippyhead

edit: do you want to have a conversation? Or are you just going to flame me?

Maybe Vlad is. Obama, you may recall, couldn't get hearing on Merritt Garland - and in case you're not aware, Garland chosen as being understood to be acceptable to conservatives. And he couldn't close Guantanamo. Which I do not understand: if I'm president, I simply say that place is closed effective immediately.

Nor the question here is soft or hard treatment of him. I do not defend his shortcomings. But here he is compared with the likes of Trump, and that is either crazy or deliberate. What do you say?

When the man designated leader is called upon to lean hard into the grit and grind of an unpredictable and fraught future, on behalf and for the benefit of us all, what tools do we want him to use - given that neither he nor we can predict that future? Trump's, "That's not my responsibility"?

No less than Aristotle advises. Good character, good will, good judgment. Why don't you set up a listing of recent heads of state including presidents and (you) measure them against those three standards. Or would that be too reasonable?