I think Trump is likely to be impeached AND convicted before his term ends. — Wayfarer

Personally, I can't see that happening before the end of his term, but it might be possible in the next Congress. Apparently (if I understand correctly) what would be needed to convict is a two thirds vote in the Senate, that is, two thirds of whoever shows up for the vote. If true, then Republican senators, cowards that they are, could support the effort to convict simply by not attending that vote. That is, they could kind of have their cake and eat it too, the most popular of all meals.

Is the following true?

1) Trump can be convicted in the next session of Congress

2) Conviction takes two thirds of whoever shows up to vote.

3) Conviction would prevent Trump from running again.

If the above is true and Trump gets convicted, we arrive at new questions. If Trump can't run again what does he do next? He's not interested in issues except as a vehicle to his own advancement. If he can't run again does he abandon politics? Does he launch something like TrumpTV purely as a revenge vehicle?

The point of this thread could be an attempt to better understand Trump's appeal to his base.

Calling Trump voters stupid is an insufficient analysis because many of them used to be Democrats. Were they stupid when they voted with us too?

While it's true that the act of voting for Trump (especially the 2nd time) was a stupid act, that doesn't automatically equal the concerns that caused a person to vote for Trump being automatically invalid.

In the recent Democratic primary Andrew Yang seemed to be the only person who actually understood the historical forces generating social instability, and the only person with a bold plan for addressing that instability. And he kinda went nowhere. None of the candidates seemed to have much of anything at all to say about nuclear weapons which, as you know, strikes this voter as being beyond bizarre. No candidate that I know of has addressed the question of how many people we want to have living in America, so why should any of them be considered credible on the subject of immigration? The entire political class has basically dodged all such issues for decades, so what is the point really of voting for them yet again??

Trump voters (and Sanders voters too) are teaching us that the American political culture (including the media) is seriously broken. We will all now say we know that already, but if we aren't reaching for some kind of radical alternative to the status quo, we don't actually get it yet.

So, it's possible for Trump voters to have both made a serious error in voting for Trump, and have insights in to the American political system which we have not yet achieved.

Now, watch how every poster will either ignore this, or claim they already know it. Watch how childlike egos will totally dominate any following discussion of these claims. That's Trump's evil genius, he sees us more clearly than we see ourselves. He knows we're addicted to melodrama and self serving delusional mental stimulation and so he feeds that reality, and we suck up the reality TV soup he is serving, just like he knew we would.

As the greatest philosophers of all time, we should be shifting our focus away from Trump and on to ourselves. We are who is supporting corporate media's drama for profits business plan. We built the polarized culture. We accepted the broken status quo for decades. All Trump did is take over the machine that we ourselves built.

And he figured out how to do that before any of his competitors. Thus, it's not all that unreasonable for Trump voters to conclude that Trump is smarter than his competitors, as that appears to be true.

If we persist in calling Trump voters stupid, if we keep feeding the polarization, all we're accomplishing is handing the broken machine over to the next clever asshole to come along. And that would make us stupid too.

France has a long tradition of demonsrating in the streets, since their much beloved revolution. The US hasn't had that tradition for a long time, yet I think, unfortunately, it will be the new normal for you now. — ssu

My point was that Europe also influences the US. It's a two-way street. Least we forget, fascism was born in Europe for instance, and all these white supremacists are in effect euro-centric by definition.

As for the tradition of demonstrating in the streets, remember the US has had a lot of that, historically, upto the civil rights movement at least. They too had a revolution (that influenced the French one much) so the US and France have something in common in their basic political mindset.

There was actually a guy among the rioters in the Capitol waving the tricolor. He wasn't downing a yellow jacket but I bet he was close.

Check this video taken by two female journalists, also French, who were reporting on the demonstration (2:07) and then decided to follow the rioters inside the Capitol (3:15 onward). The guy and his French flag appears at 5:40.

https://www.tf1.fr/tmc/quotidien-avec-yann-barthes/videos/capitole-le-recit-minute-par-minute-de-nos-journalistes-au-coeur-de-linvasion-16460883.html

His supporters had hungered for a charismatic leader like him

It always baffles me who the right-wing find charismatic. Hitler, Putin, Berlusconi, Trump. Or even the right of the left-wing (Blair). All these so-called "charismatic" leaders all seemed like pretty hideous characters, quite pathetic. It's not like Trump's image changed between 2016 and 2020: he seemed like a vile human being (racism, misogyny, boasting about sexually assaulting women, mocking people for their illnesses) and a total moron long before he was elected.

When I think "charismatic", I think charming, smart, strong, self-confident, maybe good-looking. Trump was self-confident beyond the pail, but utterly charmless, mentally stunted, frail, and he looked ridiculous, somewhere between an aging female Nevada motel owner and a clown.

Are they defining the word differently or are they genuinely seeing the person differently? What kind of mindset do you have to have where you see some orange old dude boasting about grabbing strange women's pussies and you think, "Wow! I will follow him to the ends of the Earth"?

When I think "charismatic", I think charming, smart, strong, self-confident, maybe good-looking — Kenosha Kid

Charisma is perhaps more accurately compared to the phenomena of screen presence in TV and films. It's not so much about the character being laudable as it is about their ability to hold our attention. Think of John Malkovich for example. He typically plays evil characters, but he's a very watchable actor. When he's on screen he's probably what you're looking at.

Charisma is a mysterious force in human affairs. It doesn't necessarily have a logical basis, because human beings aren't fundamentally rational.

Charisma is perhaps more accurately compared to the phenomena of screen presence in TV and films. It's not so much about the character being laudable as it is about their ability to hold our attention. Think of John Malkovich for example. He typically plays evil characters, but he's a very watchable actor. When he's on screen he's probably what you're looking at. — Hippyhead

But this is about being drawn to follow someone, right? If you saw John Malkovich (the "overrated sack of shit" -- Being John Malkovich) in Con Air, you might find his hamming entertaining and his character darkly curious, but you wouldn't think "This is the guy for us, he will lead us into a new golden age." You'd think something more like "This character is funny but I'm glad I don't know him."

Trump was certainly funny when he didn't mean to be. "What will come out of this moron's mouth next?" was essentially our "Next time on 24..." He has watercooler appeal, for sure. I just can't get my head around what sort of person -- and there are tens of millions of them, so it's my fault -- would see leadership in that. He did the opposite of charming people: he gave them every reason to be turned off, and invented a few new ones.

Charisma is a mysterious force in human affairs. It doesn't necessarily have a logical basis, because human beings aren't fundamentally rational. — Hippyhead

But it has a statistical footprint. The human race is a large sample. It's not random noise: there's causality at work here.

I just can't get my head around what sort of person -- and there are tens of millions of them, so it's my fault -- would see leadership in that. He did the opposite of charming people: he gave them every reason to be turned off, and invented a few new ones. — Kenosha Kid

Ok, so let's try to understand this phenomena together. I don't have the perfect answer obviously, so the following is just a place to start.

First, they see leadership in Trump because Trump actually did lead. He defeated the entire political establishment of both parties and defied media speculation which was convinced of Clinton's inevitable victory. Trump declared himself a winner, and then he proved that claim by winning, somewhat against all odds as calculated at the time.

Once elected Trump led by overturning a number of decisions and assumptions of the established political class. Instead of ignoring immigration and conceiving of that issue as being very complicated and sophisticated etc etc blah, blah, blah, he said, "Fuck that, let's build a wall!" That's not the kind of leadership you and I are shopping for, but it is leadership, a dramatic change of perspective.

He left the Iran deal, the Paris accords, the WHO. He challenged NATO to pay their own way. Same thing here. Examples of bold leadership, just not the flavor that you and I prefer.

More importantly perhaps, Trump offered his base leadership on a more personal emotional level. Educated liberals such as ourselves have been looking down our snooty noses at rural and working people for decades. We are the cool smart people, they are the clueless bumpkins etc. Trump led by raising his middle finger and jamming it in our eye, thus channeling the understandable emotions of many millions of people, who then rewarded him with their loyalty.

I think we need to separate the decision to vote for Trump (stupid) from the desire to kick over a corrupt status quo (smart). The rational move here is to dial back discussion of the stupid decision, and shift the focus to the arguably valid desire to kick over the status quo. Look for those areas where we have some level of agreement with Trump voters, and focus on that.

What's also true is that "all politicians lie" is not that unreasonable of a claim. Not perfectly true in every instance, but true enough often enough that it can't just be swept off the table. — Hippyhead

We all lie, I think it's impossible to avoid this unpleasant fact. But a lie is an act which can be judged in relation to consequences, and intention, just like any other act. Therefore a lie which has criminal consequences, and criminal intent, is clearly a criminal act. This is called fraud. And it's not hard to see that Trump's actions after the November elections are acts of fraud.

And it's not hard to see that Trump's actions after the November elections are acts of fraud. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd be happy to see him slammed in to federal prison for the rest of his life. That would send a message that's worth sending. But that's not going to address the underlying issues which led to Trumps rise.

Imho, a leading cause of Trump's rise is the knowledge explosion. The accelerating rate of technological change generates considerable uncertainty which expresses itself in social disruption. Here's an example, which I got from Andrew Yang.

Driverless vehicles are coming. This development threatens to put 3.5 million truck drivers out of work. And for every one of those folks who lose their job there will be ten more who wonder if they're next. These folks will understandably be dissatisfied with the status quo, and they may become vulnerable to confident con men who promise to "make America great again".

And while we're discussing such phenomena the knowledge explosion continues to race forward, faster and faster. It can reasonably be argued that over the long run the knowledge explosion is worth it, but not if in the short run social and political instability crashes the entire system.

Just look at last election. Best I could tell, Andrew Yang was the only candidate on any side who spoke to these underlying forces in an intelligent manner. But we weren't ready to hear, so he was discarded.

First, they see leadership in Trump because Trump actually did lead. He defeated the entire political establishment of both parties and defied media speculation which was convinced of Clinton's inevitable victory. — Hippyhead

I think that's presupposing the answer to the question. Did he do that or did they? Almost everything he did seemed to highlight him as a disastrous candidate based on prior experience. Did he actively prove them wrong, like find some kind of cheat codes that cut through the crap and got to the heart of the matter, or did his supporters do that? I think the latter. The candidate is obviously important to the election result, but that result is realised through votes. They must have loved him before they voted for him.

Once elected Trump led by overturning a number of decisions and assumptions of the established political class. Instead of ignoring immigration and conceiving of that issue as being very complicated and sophisticated etc etc blah, blah, blah, he said, "Fuck that, let's build a wall!" — Hippyhead

He promised the wall as part of his campaign, so his supporters either voted for him in part because of that or despite it. I get that a lot of people in the confederate states hate Mexicans, hate non-whites in general, so I understand that there's an appeal to even a pipe dream of that kind of determination and vision. But a) even here he made it seem unworkable by claiming Mexico would be made to pay for it (how did they think that would work?), and b) the southern states that would love that idea would mostly have voted Republican anyway. Does someone in Wyoming or Michigan or Wisconsin want a wall between the USA and Mexico? Why?

He left the Iran deal, the Paris accords, the WHO. He challenged NATO to pay their own way. Same thing here. Examples of bold leadership, just not the flavor that you and I prefer. — Hippyhead

I guess another one here is Obamacare, which Republican voters hated anyway because it was Obama and it was a bit too socialist for them. The same people would have opposed the Paris accords. I'm less certain about the Iran deal, the WHO, NATO, and the free press. I didn't see any pre-existing overwhelming opposition to these before Trump took them on. Rather he had an approach of demonising something, promising to do something about it, then doing it. But why be sympathetic to that and not, say, someone saying "We need universal health care, it's wrong for Americans to be left to die just because they're poor, I'm going to do something about that, there I did something?"

Let's narrow it down, a toy model of Trump (free with every box of Cheerios): some ridiculous-looking, illiterate old guy says, "I like grabbing women's pussies. And the Iran deal was bad, I'm going to pull out of that if I'm President." What about this would make someone go, "Yeah, fuck the Iran deal, we need this guy to sort it out"? A pre-existing prejudice against the Iran deal, sure. But there didn't seem much of one.

If I was to hypothesise why it was so easy to convince people that the Iran deal was bad, and therefore so easy to then gain support by promising to pull out, it's that the Iran deal was brokered by Obama, and therefore bad by proxy. I really don't think your average MAGA-hatted dunderhead really thinks Iran should be left to develop their own enrichment facilities, not just because it's obviously a bad idea, but because that's a tad abstract and overseas for them.

More importantly perhaps, Trump offered his base leadership on a more personal emotional level. Educated liberals such as ourselves have been looking down our snooty noses at rural and working people for decades. We are the cool smart people, they are the clueless bumpkins etc. Trump led by raising his middle finger and jamming it in our eye, thus channeling the understandable emotions of many millions of people, who then rewarded him with their loyalty. — Hippyhead

I have seen no evidence of this. In fact, he's notorious for putting his foot in his mouth about things like "suburban wives".

Anyone else think this impeachment is a terrible idea? It's totally doomed to faliure and it will dominate Biden's first month in office while he should be focused on the economy and pandemic. It will also hold up cabinet appointments.

His term shouldn't start off dominated by Trump. The guy is off social media and most media outlets won't let him on. Let him fade away. He's an obese 74 year old so its entirety possible nature takes away the 2020 threat, and in any case, it seems not improbable he might be in state prison or have fled the country by then.

It's refreshing to see another view. My personal take is that for Democrats it's probably best if they wouldn't impeach and leave this problem festering and dividing the Republican Party. For the GOP impeachment and conviction would be a godsend.

That's the political calculus.

The right thing to do? Is dealing with all the underlying shit that lead to Trump and make him irrelevant. That won't happen in the US though.

To act as attorney for Trump voters....

Almost everything he did seemed to highlight him as a disastrous candidate based on prior experience. — Kenosha Kid

In comparison to what? More decades of the same old political status quo which has failed so many people?

They must have loved him before they voted for him. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, because Trump promised an alternative to the status quo, which he then delivered on. This can be compared to the political class who promise all kinds of things, and then shift focus once elected. Remember George Bush senior? "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" Whereupon he proceeded to support new taxes.

He promised the wall as part of his campaign, so his supporters either voted for him in part because of that or despite it. I get that a lot of people in the confederate states hate Mexicans, hate non-whites in general — Kenosha Kid

Please observe the assumption that a desire for defendable borders to one's country is a function of racism. People in the confederate states have been the target of such insults for decades, so they hired a professional asshole to respond in kind.

We agree that a vote for Trump was not the right solution, but the desire for real borders to one's country is entirely reasonable, and the status quo political class has consistently failed to address that reasonable concern in an effective manner. Given that the Bushes and Clintons have all failed to address this reasonable concern, who is it that you expect Trump voters to choose as their candidate?

What about this would make someone go, "Yeah, fuck the Iran deal, we need this guy to sort it out"? — Kenosha Kid

All the Iran deal did was kick the can down the road. The Iran deal served to hand Obama's problem off to some future President.

I actually think Trump handled Iran pretty well. Note for example his success at building an alliance between some Arab states and Israel. Note how he surgically removed Soleimani, and then immediately sought to defuse the situation. He was tough, hitting a very specific and appropriate target, without going over board. Not bad, imho.

Because Trump is a self centered asshole, he understands the other assholes around the world. As example, he knows the Iranian regime cares only about their own personal situation, so he takes out one of their buddies to demonstrate, this could happen to YOU too. But he didn't carpet bomb Tehran, or any other such nonsense.

I have seen no evidence of this. — Kenosha Kid

Have you heard of the term "cultural war"? It's been going on since the 1960s. Trump picked a side of that war to be on, and then articulated that side's emotions more effectively than any other speaker in my life time.

A question you might consider could be...

Is your goal to understand the Trump phenomena, or just be against it? My argument is that to the degree we're focused on being against it, we're not going to be able to really understand it. Understanding is going to require looking at this through the eyes of Trump voters to the degree that's humanly possible.

Anyone else think this impeachment is a terrible idea? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was against it for the reasons you cite, until I realized it might prevent Trump from running again. Removing that threat once and for all seems worth a shot. But yea, do it as quickly as possible and then move on.

The right thing to do? Is dealing with all the underlying shit that lead to Trump and make him irrelevant. That won't happen in the US though. — Benkei

Nor on this forum.

Anyone else think this impeachment is a terrible idea? It's totally doomed to faliure — Count Timothy von Icarus

I thought this too, until my wife informed me that what is required is a two thirds of vote of whatever senators show up for the vote. If true, then Republicans could get rid of Trump simply by not showing up for the vote. No finger prints on the murder weapon, so to speak.

Anyone else think this impeachment is a terrible idea? It's totally doomed to faliure and it will dominate Biden's first month in office while he should be focused on the economy and pandemic. It will also hold up cabinet appointments. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think it's a terrible idea, but it does seem kind of pointless. Just wait a couple of weeks and arrest the tyrant.

The guy is off social media and most media outlets won't let him on. Let him fade away. He's an obese 74 year old so its entirety possible nature takes away the 2020 threat, and in any case, it seems not improbable he might be in state prison or have fled the country by then. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is good reason to suspect he is a criminal, and he was President. We should not let him fade away. He should be investigated by the FBI and, if a case is surmountable, he should be brought to trial, extradited if necessary and possible, voluntarily exiled if necessary and not possible.

Ordinarily there would be justified trepidation about pursuing a former or outgoing President for his crimes in terms of setting a precedent. Fortunately, or rather unfortunately, Trump has already set that precedent by attempting to have his opposition arrested in both in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Until the Republicans get their house in order, there is no reason to believe that the next Republican candidate will have more integrity. It would be extremely dangerous to have a situation in which one party incrementally criminalises the other and the other turns a blind eye to the crimes of the first. The best way of ending the trend of trying to outlaw political opposition is to have an actual strong case against the party who are setting the precedent, i.e. make them afraid of their own principles. For that reason, the Biden administration should offer it's full support to the idea that any criminal activity in office, from either party, will be met with consequences. That way the Republicans will be forced to choose between crime and retribution.

It won't remove him. Only one GOP senator has said they would vote to impeach. 7 in total signalled they might flip. They need 17. A large proportion of Republican law makers voted to overturn the election and make Trump President from 2021-2025 after the shitty crowd sourced coup attempt. It has absolutely zero chance.

If anything, it will vindicate him by letting him "win" a trial over his involvement in the attempt. Better to hit him with criminal charges later.

There's nothing in principle wrong with someone hosting a private medium of discussion.
There's nothing in principle wrong with them deciding how to filter content on it.
But there's definitely something wrong with the effective public square of society being on such privately controlled media, of course.
Yet that privately controlled media became the effective public square because a bunch of people chose to use it. — Pfhorrest

First amendment, US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I think a close reading of the amendment will make clear both what is right and what is wrong with your post.

If we persist in calling Trump voters stupid, — Hippyhead

What's a euphemism for stupid? They are stupid; we may as well say so. Question: do you know of any responsible spokesperson for the Trump right? Is there anything even arguably correct coming out of the Trump right? Anyone at all? Anything at all? Whatever kernels of even arguable truth might have been in his policies, they were perverted, bent, and screwed up beyond any utility.

What's a euphemism for stupid? They are stupid; we may as well say so. — tim wood

If making a mistake automatically qualifies one as stupid, then we all are stupid.

If making a mistake automatically qualifies one as stupid, then we all are stupid. — Hippyhead

That's ignorance, and that's the condition of us all. Stupid is when you buy it, take it home, and keep it, when it shouldn't be either bought, taken, or kept.

It won't remove him. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If successful, conviction would remove him from any future run for high office.

I agree that removing him in the next 10 days is very unlikely.

That's ignorance, and that's the condition of us all. Stupid is when you buy it, take it home, and keep it, when it shouldn't be either bought, taken, or kept. — tim wood

Ok then, you are smart, smart, smart and those people over there are stupid, stupid, stupid. Given that every other post on every philosophy forum is basically making this same point, the pattern seems a bit tiresome.

It wouldn't be if you answered the questions I asked you. but that too is a general practice.

s there anything even arguably correct coming out of the Trump right? Anyone at all? Anything at all? — tim wood

I've addressed this already in other posts above, which you are free to read should it interest you to do so.

All right. Good. Thank you!

s there anything even arguably correct coming out of the Trump right? Anyone at all? Anything at all?
— tim wood
I've addressed this already in other posts above, which you are free to read should it interest you to do so. — Hippyhead

All right. Good. Thank you! — tim wood

I've looked; you haven't. You have offered some apologetics, and mentioned Yang and Sanders, but nothing to the point. So maybe try reading the question for comprehension and then answering it.

He’s simply a conman who tells them what they want to hear and in a way that they enjoy hearing it. Not just anyone can do that. Have you ever watched him speak at one of his rallies? It’s just raw divisive nonsense that only a completely unprincipled narcissist could spew.

Almost everything he did seemed to highlight him as a disastrous candidate based on prior experience.
— Kenosha Kid

In comparison to what? More decades of the same old political status quo which has failed so many people? — Hippyhead

There's no obvious route from that to racism, misogyny, ablism, ineloquence, stupidity, or the demonisation of the free press which his supporters would ordinarily declare a violation of first amendment rights.

Yes, because Trump promised an alternative to the status quo, which he then delivered on. — Hippyhead

See my earlier question:

But why be sympathetic to that and not, say, someone saying "We need universal health care, it's wrong for Americans to be left to die just because they're poor, I'm going to do something about that, there I did something?" — Kenosha Kid

Seeking to change things is not something Trump has a patent on.

Remember George Bush senior? "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" Whereupon he proceeded to support new taxes. — Hippyhead

Trump demonised mask-wearers, raising an anti-masker movement in the US, then started wearing a mask. He is not immune from U-turns either. And how's that wall going?

Please observe the assumption that a desire for defendable borders to one's country is a function of racism. — Hippyhead

No, that's not what I said. Immigration policy is separable from racism. I have no beef with people who prefer a stricter immigration policy than I do because there's no authoritative right answer to that. I am a multiculturalist because I enjoy being surrounded by diversity: my parents do not and so are not, but even I am okay with tighter immigration in the UK because of the housing crisis.

Rather, southern states are hotbeds of racism, especially against blacks and hispanics, and building a wall appeals to that, especially when the cited reasons for that wall include "[Mexicans] are rapists". Don't fall for the right-wing fallacy of pretending one thing is equivalent to another just because there's an overlap.

All the Iran deal did was kick the can down the road. The Iran deal served to hand Obama's problem off to some future President. — Hippyhead

Not taking the bait, that's not the point. The Iran deal became a hot issue because Trump made it one. Not that it already was and Trump dealt with it. He successfully manufactured the problems he would solve. That cannot be used as evidence for his supposed charisma.

Is your goal to understand the Trump phenomena, or just be against it? — Hippyhead

It's not my goal to be against it. I am against it. My goal is to figure out how someone boasting of sexually assaulting women is seen as charismatic, especially by women. That's a reduction of what I can't get my head around.

He’s simply a conman who tells them what they want to hear and in a way that they enjoy hearing it. Not just anyone can do that. Have you ever watched him speak at one of his rallies? It’s just raw divisive nonsense that only a completely unprincipled narcissist could spew. — praxis

I get that, but why do they want to hear *that*? And, as I said to Hippyhead, it seems more like whatever he says becomes what they want to hear.