Forty-six percent of voters now have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of the president-elect. Twelve percent have a somewhat unfavorable opinion and 34 percent have a very unfavorable opinion of him.... Trump’s favorability has grown 9 points, 37 percent to 46 percent, compared to a Morning Consult poll right before the election -- while his unfavorability has dropped 15 points, from 61 percent to 46 percent.Why do you think this happened? It might be that the accomplishment and glory of getting elected cast a bright glow on the man and made a lot of people think he looks pretty good. It might be that people process election results and move past the conflict of the campaign and that the common natural impulse is toward serenity and hope for the future. And it might be that the hostility and over-dramatic acting-out by Trump haters backfired, driving people right into the plush, beefy arms of President Trump.
IN THE COMMENTS: The first commenter, reacting to the last sentence of the post, asks "Hmm, why would it do that?" I answer:
You have to ask why because you don't understand the counterproductive phenomenon you are part of. If you understood why, you might do something else. But go ahead, keep doing what is not working and wondering what the hell just happened. It's part of what I'm finding so funny in post-election American life.And tim in vermont says:
My wife voted against him, but all of this nonsense is making her rethink it and she is actually defending him. She rolls her eyes now when she gets off the phone with some of her friends.
पोस्ट्स
११७ टिप्पण्या:
Hmm, why would it do that?
A Presbyterian would credit the providence of God.
Or maybe It is because DJT talks to people and like FDR did. And now they will trust him to lead them through the fierce times ahead that we find ourselves in thanks to Obama and Soros plans for our destruction.
I wouldn't say that my opinion has moved to favorable, but I was quite frustrated with Trump on the basis that I thought that he was costing the Republicans a chance to (quite easily) win this election, and that we would deal with all of the repercussions of a Clinton presidency because of him. Clearly, I was wrong about that. I'm still not sure that he is overall better and wish that it were a different Repub, but I am impressed at his win and it definitely moves me further towards the positive.
Jesus Jon, to the kill file for you.
it could also be that these polls are as inaccurate as the ones that predicted trump would lose the election.
Or it may be that he never had that low of a favorability rating. For decades, election polls have been skewed to suppress Republican turnout and morale, then just before the election they have to move it to retain credibility. The favorability rating doesn't have to move at the end because it is subjective. My guess is the real Trump favorability is in the high 50s now because all Presidents get a boost after the election. The real Obama favorability is probably around 40.
Lord knows I voted for him with extreme reluctance, and would not have voted at all if I didn't have to maneuver my elderly Ma into the voting booth. But the post-election freakout makes me feel vindicated.
I love you too , Tim.
Of course. He's fairly normal. Can I assume that this increase is coupled with an increased contempt for the media that tried to mislead us and panic us?
That is one area where I hope Trump doesn't become too "presidential": I hope he continues to treat the media as it deserves.
An obvious caveat: The polls that showed Trump losing to Hillary turned out to be flat wrong.
Hence, I would be reluctant to pounce on some poll that shows Trump's popularity rising. It could be just as wrong as those other polls were.
After this election, I'm going to be very reluctant to quote any polls as if they are reliable.
I think it has come up. My wife voted against him, but all of this nonsense is making her rethink it and she is actually defending him. She rolls her eyes now when she gets off the phone with some of her friends.
Did anyone poll Mitt Romney, before and after?
Here's a beautiful example -- New York Mag quoting New York Times:
Last week, the New York Times reported that Trump intended to continue giving large rallies as president, so as to enjoy the “instant gratification and adulation that the cheering crowds provide.”
How's that impartial, unflinching, fair reporting for you?
One more time:
so as to enjoy the “instant gratification and adulation that the cheering crowds provide.”
mesquito said...
Lord knows I voted for him with extreme reluctance, and would not have voted at all if I didn't have to maneuver my elderly Ma into the voting booth. But the post-election freakout makes me feel vindicated.
You're far from alone. The more they protest and harass the EC electors, the more I know voting for Trump was the right decision.
And it might be that the hostility and over-dramatic acting-out by Trump haters backfired, driving people right into the plush, beefy arms of President Trump.
Yes, I think all the insanity from the media and anti-Trump protesters post-election has basically told America that they made the right choice after all.
Also, you know, the basic lesson of this election is that Trump was right and all the rest of us (and all the experts) were wrong. We thought he had a 2% chance of victory, but he won convincingly and in the process, flipped a bunch of states, changing the map precisely as he had told us he would, while educated people laughed at his naivete condescendingly. And watching a parade of foreign leaders ingratiate themselves with Trump, seeing the US dollar and US markets overall rise after his election -- all that also suggests that the experts who predicted doom from a Trump victory weren't just wrong, they were very wrong. And Trump was right.
I'll admit, even though I was mildly pro-Trump, I thought he was a clown, whose talents mostly lay in the realm of making the media look like driveling idiots (e.g. when he trolled them into running a promo video for his new DC hotel live and made them gnash their teeth, stupid with impotent rage). But now, honestly, in the back of my mind, I'm starting to think he's actually smarter than I am.
I had a similar feeling that Romney was probably smarter than I am (but have never thought that about, say, Bush II or Obama). Only, thinking Romney is smarter than you isn't as embarrassing as thinking you're probably dumber and less perceptive than Donald J. Trump. It is a bit of a blow to the ego.
It's like... It's like... Help me out here. What is it like?
Well, the people apparently considered for cabinet positions also look fairly impressive and quite "normal," so maybe the world won't end after all - this time.
And I think Obama's high personal popularity polls are partly because some people still can't get over having elected a Black man president - Lordy! I feel quite faint! - and partly because they don't want to be called racist - even in anonymity. It certainly cannot be connected to his abysmal performance ratings.
Jon Ericsson said "Hmm, why would it do that?"
You have to ask why because you don't understand the counterproductive phenomenon you are part of. If you understood why, you might do something else. But go ahead, keep doing what is not working and wondering what the hell just happened. It's part of what I'm finding so funny in post-election American life.
Taking everyone at their word, I'd say anecdotally yes, Trump had higher disapproval numbers than normal. But 1. Not outrageously so, 2. Not vehemently so, and 3. like Lyssa said, stemming from a perceived notion that he was costing the party.
But I find it strange that it was obvious the polls were crooked, but when the same people come out with a different poll, I'm supposed to believe it?
As for number 3, not only did Trump's win clear up that angst for people like Lyssa, but I think a lot of people are looking at the man and thinking - would Jeb! have cleared Pennsylvania and Michigan? Would Cruz have taken Wisconsin? Doubtful.
Oh well, one thing that's certain is that Trump has higher favorability than the press!
Choo-choo! Welcome aboard, all you new ticket holders. Next stop, White House!
"And it might be that the hostility and over-dramatic acting-out by Trump haters backfired..."
Bingo
"...driving people right into the plush, beefy arms of President Trump."
Really?
As someone who lives in the state of WI, and as someone who was pretty much turned off by the Democratic Party reaction to the Act 10 Passage, this all seems like familiar territory. The Democrats in Wisconsin *still* have no clue what they want to represent, as advocating for Unions (especially Public ones) is a real dead end.
So now, nationally, Democrats have a major and loud pity party/riot because a majority* votes against them, and the majority grows stronger because of it. The Democratic Party does not learn from history.
*I know, I know.
And it might be that the hostility and over-dramatic acting-out by Trump haters backfired
Over dramatic?! This is a man who has promised to commit war crimes including torture and the intentional targeting of non-combatants. Any one who believes in the constitution, the rule of law, human rights and basic international norms should be appalled by the election of Trump.
Ah, Freder, can you think of anyone presently that might be intentionally targeting non-combatants?
People are seeing that he isn't a monster - obviously has a good process in place for picking cabinet/staff. Is making a point of meeting with those who opposed him, both Republicans and Democrats. The meetings with Obama reportedly went very well. And the issues that got him the nomination remain in the spotlight - Islamic terror, immigration problems in Europe, violence against police, the ridiculousness of Obamacare. So people are continuing to see that he has valid points, even if they disagree with his approach to them. His family continues to impress. And the left keeps exaggerating, and attempting to bully him and his supporters, which has a backlash on the more reasonable members of the left and on REpublicans who supported him.
I'd have never voted for Trump if I thought the other choice was, even remotely, good for this nation.
But, with enemies like this, that Trump chap must have some remarkably good qualities.
Ah, Freder, can you think of anyone presently that might be intentionally targeting non-combatants?
The Russians certainly. If you mean ISIS, then that is irrelevant. If you mean Obama, that is just a lie and a smear (not that I agree with the drone program, but it does not rise to the level of intentional targeting of civilians).
Hey FrederFrederson.... how about if Trump gets the Nobel Peace Prize? After all the last Prez that got it ....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/killing-of-americans-deepens-debate-over-proper-use-of-drone-strikes.html
Check it out Freder.
Over dramatic?! This is a man who has promised to commit war crimes including torture and the intentional targeting of non-combatants. Any one who believes in the constitution, the rule of law, human rights and basic international norms should be appalled by the election of Trump.
Except that he didn't run in a vacuum. You have to look at the alternative. And there is no reality where Hillary is better on protecting the Constitution.
If you mean Obama, that is just a lie and a smear (not that I agree with the drone program, but it does not rise to the level of intentional targeting of civilians).
If Bush ran the IDENTICAL program in the IDENTICAL manner, you'd call it a war crime with no problem.
. If you mean Obama, that is just a lie and a smear (not that I agree with the drone program, but it does not rise to the level of intentional targeting of civilians).
...unless a Republican is in charge. FTFY
Any one who believes in the constitution, the rule of law, human rights and basic international norms should be thrilled that Hillary lost.
FTFY also.
… it could also be that these polls are as inaccurate as the ones that predicted trump would lose the election.
Certainly. However, I believe the election polls were simply reflective of the wishes and desires of the MSM, which the pollsters always want to please in exchange for free advertising, face–time on talk shows, fame, fortune, ideology promoting, etc. – all the classic motivations for deception.
Q. If Trump had been shown to be ahead in the polls from the beginning would the pollster’s names and businesses be trumpeted from one end of the MSM to the other as a constant refrain? I think not. I think that type of positive news about Trump would have been ignored and suppressed by the MSM.
I do not believe Hillary was EVER ahead of Trump. It was all a farce right up to the end on election night.
But this poll elevates the POTUS-elect, a figure the MSM hates. It’s probably more accurate because of that. And IF it is inaccurate it is probably inaccurate AGAINST Trump, which is the undisputed history of the election polls. Trump may actually have a HIGHER favorability than is shown by the poll.
As for me, I will always mentally give Trump 4 or 5 points on the polls. It’s what I did during the election and it’s what I’ll continue to do.
On other news: Morning Joe’s Free Fuckfest continues unabated. The whores are outdoing each other with advice to POTUS-elect Trump on who to pick for cabinet members. More women, more minorities is the mantra. I’m sure they have Trump’s best interests at heart – hahahaha.
Somehow I do not believe that Trump will be doing any affirmative action hiring this term. Maybe after he’s gotten things in shape and he’s looking toward re-election to a 2nd term. Right now we need competence and a big dose of reality, instead of chasing rainbows and unicorns like the Obama administration did.
Yeah, I always wondered how Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. He accomplished nothing to deserve it. But then I thought it makes sense. During his entire life he has been awarded all kinds of prizes for doing absolutely nothing.
It would be news if his popularity didn't "soar" after the election; the typical pattern is that the winner's popularity significantly improves after the election, probably for a host of reasons. Off the top of my head, here are a few likely ones:
- The end (or at least a reduction) of the barrage of overtly negative ads/stories as the candidate becomes the President-elect
- The beginning of the "benefit of the doubt" period, i.e. the hopeful "let's see what this person can do" period
- Comfort watching the President-elect demonstrate executive skills (as opposed to campaign skills) during the transition
- The "I'm getting back to my regular life" phase when people who are not political junkies start pushing themselves away from the smarminess of politics. Out of sight; out of mind.
- General goodwill.
I'm sure there are many others.
"intentional targeting of civilians". Fire-bombing of Germany and Japan, anyone?
Sketchy Guy Who Works at the Adult Bookstore says:
Something you might not realize: you can tell the election is over by the porn people purchase...
In the anxiety-frenzy of the weeks before an election the porn selections get more aggressive and extreme: people now need to see grandmas anally punished by big black men, young girls with tears and mascara running down their faces as a cock is brutally shoved deep into their lipstick-smeared mouth...
After the election is over and the dust begins to settle, most people's tastes ease back to the easy comfort food of big boobs and basic fucking: doggy-style, reverse-cowgirl -- the stock meat and potatoes...
Don't get me wrong -- there are always the guys who want the anally brutalized grannies and cock-tortured teens and fat girls getting fat-fucked while someone forces Twinkie after Twinkie into their mouths, creme filling smeared upon their chubby faces: those guys don't go away, they are consistent in their appetites...
It is just that one needs to know these things to keep a proper inventory: you don't want to be left with stacks of the extreme stuff when the Nation mellows...
By the way: I knew Trump was going to win by my customers' porn selections; perhaps I'll explain that at a later date...
I am Laslo.
and the intentional targeting of non-combatants
Unless everyone who spend a couple of thousand dollars to see a Broadway show was hardcore anti-Pence, this seems to be the position advocated by the cast of Hamilton.
"Record-High 77% of Americans Perceive Nation as Divided...
"...Americans are split about evenly on whether Trump will do more to unite the country (45%) or do more to divide it (49%). These views largely follow party lines, with 88% of Republicans believing Trump will do more to unite the country and 81% of Democrats saying he will do more to divide it. Independents predict Trump will do more to divide (51%) than to unite the country (43%)..."
gallup
Fire-bombing of Germany and Japan, anyone?
The Geneva Conventions were amended after the war to explicitly prohibit the kind of strategic bombing that we (and the Germans) conducted during the war.
And we still try to maintain the legal fiction that we (the British were worse than us, at least in Europe) were targeting military targets (we had to firebomb Japan because industry had been dispersed into individual homes). Even the British claimed they weren't targeting civilians in Germany, just their housing.
"… it could also be that these polls are as inaccurate as the ones that predicted trump would lose the election. "
If so then I expect the polls still are under counting trump supporters. Even though he won the election, it is still dangerous for many Americans to voice an honest opinion if they work in democrat controlled industries.
I voted for Trump but with no great enthusiasm. I was pleasantly surprised when he won. I see no reason to fault any of his behavior or decisions since winning the election. The press and the show biz crowd, on the other hand, have been over the top in their criticism of him. It backfired during the campaign, and it's backfiring now.......I saw one story where they blamed the atrocities in Allepo on Trump's cosy relationship with Putin. Putin and Assad apparently now feel entitled to commit war crimes since Trump was elected. Like they were inhibited by Obama. We thus find that two months before taking office Trump is complicit in war crimes. Shit like that drives you up the wall.
sunsong:
Everybody admits your efforts to divide the country have been largely effective.
Now what?
sinz52 said...
An obvious caveat: The polls that showed Trump losing to Hillary turned out to be flat wrong.
It's a mistake to conclude this. The polls were accurate, but polls don't measure votes. The final polls showed Clinton with about her level of vote support, while Trump's pickup came largely from Gary Johnson. So a large percentage of Johnson's supporters preferred actually voting for Trump presumably because Johnson had no shot. This is not an error, it's a limitation.
The error is people making broader claims than polls justify - like those who claimed Obama was leading Romney in the polls so Romney had no shot. While this turned out to be true everyone making that claim is/was still wrong and demonstrates they know nothing about polls or politics.
And it might be that the hostility and over-dramatic acting-out by Trump haters backfired, driving people right into the plush, beefy arms of President Trump.
This is part of it. The backlash against the hysterical, over the top demonizing of Trump and his supporters.
Also that in some areas merely expressing a mild interest or like of Donald Trump could possibly get you fired from your jog. It could cause you to be attacked, physically beaten, your car damaged, your property damaged, your business destroyed. At the least you would be ostracized from your social circle. This was not a problem in OUR area where 70% + of the population were vocal Trump supporters. However, if I were to visit where my family lives, I would have to be silent or else.....
Now that Trump has won, those who were fearfully hiding in the shadows can come out....a bit. As time goes on and when/if Trump's administration begins to show positive results the favorable rating will rise even more.
Birkel said...
Everybody admits your efforts to divide the country have been largely effective.
One of things I like about Trump is his highlighting of the left's nuts. Too many people don't understand how crazy these people are or how integral they are to the left largely because the left supporting media hides them. The media's efforts to shame Trump are inadvertently helping him highlight that which the left wants hidden, but in their post-election derangement they're unable to maintain their discipline.
We've finally found a MOAR! I can get behind.
Ditto about getting fired in some places - like California.
One thing this election has shown me is the value of unions, in one area anyway. Union members still have free speech as they are untouchable. At will employees and especially those in management need to be careful of any spoken (even in non-work social settings) or non-anonymous social media opinions.
How are Hillary's numbers these days ?
It might be that many people planning to vote for Trump thought he was a sure loser. So they like him for winning. Really, isn't that the best explanation.
The lead story on the front page of the Raleigh (NC) News & Observer today is about a planned KKK rally. The first paragraph is:
"The election of Donald Trump and the people he is choosing as advisers and cabinet members have brought renewed attention to one fan club that the president-elect has tried to distance himself from: The Ku Klux Klan."
I think we can expect the MSM to be in full demonize-Trump mode before the innauguration. We'll see what that does to his poll numbers.
My guess is they'll go up.
@ tcrosse
WaPo has Hillary +5 nationally.
It's gonna be long night for Trump.
tcrosse said...
How are Hillary's numbers these days ?
0.20 BAC.
Yes. I've spent a good deal of my time on social media over the last two weeks defending Trump, a person I did not even support. The attacks are too unfair to ignore
And was the news always so worthless? I am so sick of reading news items and then finding out that with the slightest digging, they turn out to be totally misleading. It's really aggravating. Is journalism mostly dead? I want news written by people who love reporting more than they love being activists. If I wanted activist news, I'd get on the DNC and RNC email lists. Where is the regular news?!
Oh, now we trust the polls?
re:but it'd not per the Geneva convention. Correct. Neither is spitting when you have the plague. Every U.S. soldier carries a badge, that badge says they are protected by the Geneva convention. Hasn't stopped one from having his or her head cut off. Your choice Mr. Churchill and Roosevelt, obey the treaty and face certain defeat. Let the Germans bomb Coventry without warning, or Firebomb Tokyo to destroy the one in 50 converted homes that house heavy arms factories, including the 1 in 5 homes where loading bullets until fingers tired was as a warmup for playing dominos.
Ditto the Russians who had no arms advantage, taking a German citizen and make him think he's dieing to make him more cooperative, not to tell a secret but move them from augmentative to cooperative, which is why every senior officer In the US is water boarded. To keep them from committing suicide and to train them it's their responsibility never to send those that know secrets that could lead to defeat ever find themselves in a position to be captured or are always accompanied by someone who will kill them. Because this type of "non" torture always works (bad cop good cop really does work). The FBI uses it too, hey just are able to dedicate years to punishment and reward
Choose, Mr. Leader, Obey a convention that means nothing or die, and as your nation with it. Oh no,that can't be true. Care to wager your family on this? Would yout opinyion change if you're child would die if not dug out of a grave in 48 hours unless you gave up a national secret that would kill all of, a, c, or D. Perhaps just your most favorite dog? And If your dog why not your country?
How are Hillary's numbers these days ?
0.20 BAC.
Now THAT is funny.
I'm still waiting for real analysis of the election numbers - never mind analysis of Trump's real popularity after the election. Sometimes I hear that voter turnout was lower than for Mitt Romney; other times I hear that white voters turned out in enormous numbers which changed the electoral college in the PA, NC, MI, WI, OH. Or else the black voters did not turn out in those same states. Or perhaps the Dems couldn't cheat in WI and elsewhere with voter ID laws. Or they didn't didn't cheat due to Project Veritas exposures. Or they did did cheat but were deceived by their own lying polls and didn't realize by how much they needed to cheat.
I'm certain that Trump supporters in Dem areas need to keep their heads down; I haven't met anyone in Milwaukee whose opinion changed or improved. Yet the opposition is still sort of phony in its public expressions. The mass-whining-rioting seems to me a very small localized response which is being inflated with media gas like a Macy's parade balloon. The truth about this election is going to come out slowly like cold press coffee. Maybe the truth doesn't exist yet - maybe this was Schrodinger's Cat election whose outcome depends right now on what happens over the next year.
Pretty standard in American presidential politics that if a poll--even just a few weeks after the election--asks for whom people voted, the winner gets quite a few more voters claiming to have voted for him than actually did. It's known as the "bandwagon effect." I think that was first noted when Kennedy beat Nixon, but it's probably been true since much longer ago than that.
It's probably too early for a lot of Dems to realize how the party was sacrificed to satisfy HRC's sense of personal entitlement. The Bernie crowd already knew that.
But wasn't this inevitable? The press coverage during the campaign was very overwrought (esp. the commentary). But the press filter starts failing as soon as the election is over, because the president-elect inevitably gets to speak (and do). The 60 Minutes interview alone would have given him 5% boost in the polls.
The "bounce" is due, for example, to those who were reading about boxcars and now discover a plan to deport criminals in the US illegally - a position that only the most demented SJW's could oppose.
Trump has to get a perceptual "normalized" bounce because of the pre-vote media hysteria. After the first bounce, his ability to gain and sustain support will depend on his dedication toward moderate goals.
What is interesting is not Trump's support - it's the opposition. We are watching as that fragments into a Sanders-type "we'll be with you if you'll be with us" and the demented screechings of some. You've featured several of those lately.
I don't know what the demented screechers hope to gain. That is the interesting part of the political landscape right now.
But it is clear that the fundamental structures of a democratic republic force Trump to degrees of moderation. For example, if he wishes Congress to back his push to prohibit sanctuary cities, requiring Congressional action, he has to focus on the areas where we have a consensus. Few in Chicago really want to go to the bat to protect criminals in the country illegally.
If Obama is looked on favorably by 52% of the population, why shouldn't Trump be 50 point ahead? Wait, that's Hillary's line.
This is the first time that a "Donald J Trump" has been elected President in America. For patently, painfully obvious reasons, this has induced an apoplectic fit in class diversitists. The Church will have to work overtime to settle the cognitive dissonance created by its Pro-Choice/class doctrine. The People, however, welcome the promise of a dawn following an extended twilight.
I don't care about the polls. I'd rather we care more about what Trump's doing, about how we got to this place, and what we're doing about it.
I know that polls are easy-peasy stories for everyone to chat about, but they mean fuck-all nothing, and I'm hopeful and happy that Trump can ignore them. This guy took a shitload of stick for 10 months, and he'd been taking stick since Spy under that whore Graydon Carter called him a "short-fingered vulgarian." He can slong them and do what he thinks is right.
"The lead story on the front page of the Raleigh (NC) News & Observer today is about a planned KKK rally." Given the number of North Carolina klan members, they could hold their rally in a phone booth.
He only had to show that he wasn't an ogre and better than the alternative.
He's done both.
Based on no polling but following the news, my guess is Trump's popularity is up because people are turned off by the unrest in the streets. A lot of the "sky is falling" stuff is going to sound overdone, and then even people who didn't like Trump are going to think "well he can't be THAT bad".
I was in NYC for a bit during my vacation and almost every conversation I overheard of people on their phones was in the vein of "what will we DO about this?" I don't remember it being quite that bad even after Bush was re-elected (and people were pissed then, I recall). If this stuff goes on much longer, his positives may end up above water.
jaydub: ""The lead story on the front page of the Raleigh (NC) News & Observer today is about a planned KKK rally." Given the number of North Carolina klan members, they could hold their rally in a phone booth"
If the klan guys play their cards right they could earn permanent commentary roles on MSNBC.
Prof. AA sez: You have to ask why because you don't understand the counterproductive phenomenon you are part of."
Or
#ThisIsWhyYouLost
Or
#ThisIsHowWeGotTrump
You only have to read the comments of Freder above to really understand the election and the aftermath. The more insane your opposition acts, the better you look with no effort at all.
The mainstream media have completely discredited themselves, and there is no regaining respect afterwards.
A lotta of Trump voters were shy about "coming out," because they were wary of being falsely called racist neanderthals.
That's why many of the polls were off.
Likewise, now that he's won, folks feel a little better about "coming out," thus increasing his favorability ratings. As Patton said, America loves a winner!
Your choice Mr. Churchill and Roosevelt, obey the treaty and face certain defeat. Let the Germans bomb Coventry without warning, or Firebomb Tokyo to destroy the one in 50 converted homes that house heavy arms factories, including the 1 in 5 homes where loading bullets until fingers tired was as a warmup for playing dominos.
To this day, there are legitimate debates as to whether the strategic bombing campaign in WWII was effective. One could legitimately argue that the strategic bombing campaign was actually counterproductive because of the extreme expense, the loss and diversion of manpower (the diversion of the best and brightest, both officers and enlisted, to aircrews undoubtedly impacted the competence of ground forces), and reduced tactical airpower capability--which was undoubtedly extraordinarily effective, especially once the allies invaded Europe . So it is not simply a case of "we had to do this to win."
Choose, Mr. Leader, Obey a convention that means nothing or die, and as your nation with it.
Yet if we choose to torture, the principles upon which this nation was founded have died, so it dies either way.
The more insane your opposition acts, the better you look with no effort at all.
So objecting to war crimes and torture is a sign of insanity?
Re: Freder Frederson:
So objecting to war crimes and torture is a sign of insanity?
No, rioting because your side lost an election looks, well, not so much like insanity as pure viciousness and anti-democratic intimidation. I mean, what's their plan here?
1. Burn down peoples' businesses and cars and steal their stuff
2. ???
3. Victory!
On the other hand, some of the stuff apparently going on at college campuses in response to Trump's victory really does make it look like Trump's detractors are mentally unbalanced.
That said, in fairness, Trump's electoral strategy basically looked like:
1. Hold lots of rallies
2. ???
3. Victory!
And he won anyway, so what do I know? I genuinely thought that he was going to underperform the polls because he did not have a data-driven get-out-the-vote operation, and that the professional Republican activists he was relying on through the RNC would provide him with only lukewarm support since the policies he was advocating were so different from what Republican activists had invested the last 30 years in promoting. But I was wrong, wrong, wrong!
So maybe American voters will knuckle under to Leftist/Progressive violence and intimidation.
So objecting to war crimes and torture is a sign of insanity?
If and when Trump actually commits war crimes and engages in torture, objecting to them will be perfectly rational.
Given that it's still two months until he's in office, objecting to them as if Trump has already committed them is, indeed, insanity.
"Yet if we choose to torture, the principles upon which this nation was founded have died, so it dies either way." Meh. As I said, they did this stuff during WWII, and "the principles upon which this nation was founded" apparently didn't die. You can pick rules for yourself, but don't expect me to be impressed when you demand that I accept them.
I still wouldn't mind Trump having an accident or health problem that forced him to step aside in favor of Pence, mind.
But however #NeverTrump I was before the election, the hyperventilators are managing to increase my goodwill toward the schmuck. I have to more and more explicitly remember my objections to the man to avoid them swaying me into his camp.
Why is Trump's popularity rising? Brandon Dixon. Soros-funded anti-Trump demonstrations. North Dakota Pipeline activists screaming "We are peaceful" while physically threatening the safety of truck drivers just trying to make a living.
As with Grover Cleveland in 1884, we love him for the enemies he has made.
After this election I do not trust polls ever again.
Big Mike... Ritmo types will never get it.
Freder Frederson said...
So objecting to war crimes and torture is a sign of insanity?
The very definition of insanity is repeating the same insane thing over and over again with no good results.
But keep it up Freder, maybe one day!
That said, in fairness, Trump's electoral strategy basically looked like:
1. Hold lots of rallies
2. ???
3. Victory!
Let me help fill in the blank you left under item 2. He spoke to the uneasy of millions who have seen how rampant progressive policies were dividing us into smaller and smaller demographic groups rather than seeing us as individuals, or a national whole. He spoke of how the shrinking middle class was being left behind economically and no one in Washington seemed to give a crap about that. He talked about how the left's economics have stunted the growth of our nation. He spoke of how illegal immigration took jobs from citizens and undermined the rule of law. He discussed the fact that the opposition candidate did acts that undermined national security and was not held accountable by either the media or those entrusted to uphold justice.
I could go on.....
A lot of people were concerned that [class] diversitists would project their [class] diversity orientation to the detriment of positive progress in civil society. The reconstitution of institutional racism and sexism under the Left's leadership has been a clear and progressive threat to people's lives and welfare.
Perpetual smoothing functions (e.g. redistributive change) have failed to revitalize and rehabilitate the economy, let alone the lives and welfare of people, notably in urban ghettos, and are first-order causes of inertial effects that have sustained lethargic development and even forced negative progress, [class] diversity, devaluation of capital and labor, family dysfunction, spiritual destruction, etc.
Trump promises a dawn following an extended twilight. So, people are understandably hopeful, even optimistic, of a positive change. Time will tell if the Profits of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change were right or wrong to maintain their faith.
If and when Trump actually commits war crimes and engages in torture, objecting to them will be perfectly rational.
Trump has already stated he will use torture against terror suspects, and has suggested killing the families of terrorists.
It will be too late to object after the fact (as we learned from Bush's approval of torture) But even Bush tried to pretend that we were not torturing anyone, adamantly claiming "we don't torture" even while we were. Trump apparently doesn't even care that torture and targeting civilians are illegal.
they did this stuff during WWII
Who did we torture in WWII. And as I explained above we went to great lengths to create legal fictions that we were not targeting civilians in the strategic bombing program. Regardless, the rules changed after the war.
The unhinged behavior of the losers is certainly a factor that confirms Trump supporters (or neutrals) in a belief that he was the least-bad choice. You see the weeping and rioting and baseless smears, and you think, "We need to keep these people, and those whom they support, as far as possible from the levers of government." So, go ahead, Progressives, keep doing the unspeakable to that chicken.
What is also disturbing about the unhinged behavior is that some of these people --I do believe this-- know better. They think they're just blowing off steam, making a point, helping to shape the environment and maybe create an impression of power (illicit, uncivil power) that could be used for future trades. But psychologically, by doing all this stuff, they are confirming their commitment to the crazy. Rituals are powerful because they make the participant *participate.*. You sign your name in blood, you make the sacrifice. That binds you to the group.
So having made these investments, they will try to cash them in, confirm them, at some future date. That is...not good.
Keep it up, Freder. I really mean that, too. You and those like you are Trump's most effective motivators.
Freder,
When the guy you're hysterically accusing of war crimes and torture isn't even going to take office for another 2 months, yes. That's pretty much insane on its face.
Freder,
How about you give us the quotes and links where he said he would do these things. And be warned, your quotes will be checked for context. After this weekend's "We're not taking anything off the table, but there will not be a registry based on religion" getting cut in half, leaving the second half out, in m9st of the headlines across the country, we know MSM quotes can't be assumed to be trustworthy at all.
Freder says, "Yet if we choose to torture, the principles upon which this nation was founded have died, so it dies either way."
No they haven't.
However. By NOT using every resource at your disposal when you are faced with terrorism then your nation will die. We have already seen the distain the rest of the world holds for the United States and Obama because of his inability or unwillingness to act. Being the toughest guy on the block doesn't make you a bully. Being the toughest guy on the block means the bullies are afraid of you.
1. Burn down peoples' businesses and cars and steal their stuff
2. ???
3. Victory!
The ??? is easily filled in: Intimidate 50 or 100 (or 150) Trump electors to vote for the Popular Vote Winner on Dec. 19.
How about you give us the quotes and links where he said he would do these things. And be warned, your quotes will be checked for context.
Google it, you will find lots of quotes. Butis one, and I can provide lots of other examples. But
"Yet if we choose to torture, the principles upon which this nation was founded have died, so it dies either way"
I can never remember if that was in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?
Birkel,
"Everybody admits your efforts to divide the country have been largely effective.
"Now what?"
Civil war; Sunsong loses.
Yes, yes, we all* hope it doesn't come to this. It would surely be catastrophic, but just as surely Sunsong would lose.
-----------------------------------
* Ok, ok, for certain values of "us" and "all".
Freeman,
"And was the news always so worthless?"
Yes. We just had fewer ways of seeing behind the curtain back then.
"I want news written by people who love reporting more than they love being activists."
That's pretty much an empty set these days. Except for some bloggers, maybe.
I can never remember if that was in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?
Torture under any circumstances is against U.S. and International Law. For a commander in chief to order it is to break the law and violate the constitution. We also have an amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
Maybe it's because Trump is now the strong horse.
I think there's a term for that--honeymoon.
"Torture under any circumstances is against U.S. and International Law. "
And just what is "international law," other than law which is enforced to the extent that it has become national law (as with treaties in the USA, following ratification by the Senate)?
It's amazing to me how so many people cite US and international law without, you know, paying attention to what the law actually says.
International law, in the form of the UN Convention against Torture, is explicit that there are forms of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" other than torture. Further, the applicable US law bringing that non-self-executing treaty into force only forbids torture. US law does not forbid other "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment". So you can prove beyond any doubt that Bush approved the latter all day, and that people were indeed subjected to "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment", and you still haven't actually proved any case of a violation of US law.
The Constitution does prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. But, of course, punishment means the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. Using cruel and unusual means to extract information, rather than as retribution, does not actually touch the Eighth Amendment.
Are these legal technicalities? Sure. But that's what happens when you bring up the law. The law is not an amorphous blob into which anything can be read -- or at least, it was a founding principle of this country that it isn't. Don't invoke the law unless you want to debate technicalities.
And as far as what a politician running for office said on the campaign trail, well, I'll get exercised about that as soon as the Roosevelt/Garner administration delivers on its pre-election promise to save the country's economy from the Depression by ceasing Hoover's government interference in the free market in favor of laissez-faire. Or perhaps when the Obama administration delivers on its pre-election promise to deliver health care reform without an insurance purchase mandate.
Things I believe.
1) So far Trump has been a pleasant surprise. He has hit the ground running and the people he has interviewed for cabinet positions are absolutely first rate. Well, except for Sarah Palin for Interior. Anybody can plainly see she belongs in charge of Energy.
2) McCain should shut his mouth. Trump won; McCain had his chance and blew it. Badly. Losers need to learn to shut up.
3) I am already past tired of the lefties as addlepated spoiled brats having one long temper tantrum. And folks like Freder wanted us to put THEM in charge?
4) Based on Martin Luther King's admonition to judge by the content of one's character rather than by color of skin, I'd have to say that Brandon Dixon is worthless on the best day of his life. Ditto Gigi Hadid.
Expect Trump's approval rating to go even higher.
I knew someone who trained as an interrogator. Throughout the course they were told torture doesn't work and yields no useful information. They learn good cop, bad cop, and various other "legal" methods to extract information from subjects. On graduation day they got a lecture from someone in the field, and I was told all graduating classes get a similar lecture. Not written down, never recorded. It consists pretty much of this.
***********
Some day you may be a situation where you have a prisoner with knowledge you need to save American lives. And you've tried every method we're taught you, and nothing has worked. Do what you have to do to get the information, and torture does work.
***********
You've seen some variation on the ticking time bomb on every crime show on TV. Does anyone ever condemn the cop who shoots the kidnapper in the kneecap to find the coffin where someone is buried alive? Nope. The Constitution, laws against torture, UN Conventions, none of them apply in extremis. A useful phrase to remember is often quoted as this: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
As far as Geneva Convention protocol goes, towards the end of WWII Germans identified as SS were not surviving more then a few minutes past their capture. The Geneva Convention applied to them. They were uniformed members of a state's armed forces. Front line troops knew by that time the SS had engaged in wholesale violation of all the Geneva Convention statutes. And were treated accordingly. I'm not aware of anyone ever being prosecuted for the unlawful killing of SS. Including this well documented episode.
Trump hater? No, Althouse, I don't hate him, I understand him because I have researched his jaded lifestyle, his less than above-board business dealings, his incessant lying, his interaction with the Mafia Dons who supplied the concrete for Trump Tower and their freeby weekends in Atlantic City, his bribing of politicians, his treatment of the little guys out there who worked for him and did business with him or got in his way like the little old lady in Atlantic City fighting his eminent domain action.
To continue, his mistreatment of rent-stabilized tenants, his lawsuits numbering over 5,000, his failure to provide important information about his income taxes , his trouble with the IRS, and an assessment of his mental and physical health. It would take me hours to list all the bad things about a very bad man - and I am amazed that none of his supporters even care. We are at the beginning of his term and he hasn't accompished nothing. I frankly expect that will continue.
He is an actor reciting lines and we are in act two: Pick the fools who will run my Cabinet and key advisory positions. Why is he pretending to interview those who can never be in his inner circle? Next up is the most garish inaugural celebration ever dreamed up with huge dollar signs - and the Trump fortune will begin its expansion. On the other hand, his economic plans will dig into your retirement savings (and mine) after first raising the cost of living.
Its all about trust , Ann - not today's feel-good aura. Donnie loves Donnie and that is the final analysis.
"And it might be that the hostility and over-dramatic acting-out by Trump haters backfired, driving people right into the plush, beefy arms of President Trump."
Fundamentalists think that calling people names somehow shames them into correct behavior, to fall in line. It's an assumption of power and moral authority.
And the current version works as well as conservative Christian outrage worked in the 80s.
There is a reassessment because of things like the lecture that Mike Pence got at Hamilton. or the riots we saw from people who were pissed off that Hillary lost. Or the constant cries that all the people in his inner circle are white supremacists. or the reports that kids were given time off from school to handle the trauma of hillary losing, as if they were tiny infants.
Mature people look at this mass hysteria and crying of babies and say ENOUGH already. SHUT THE F UP YOU WHINEY BITCHES. Its liberals that caused the white working class to abandon the democrats, and its liberal reaction NOW that is further pushing those same people away even more. Right into Trump's arms.
All he has to do is NOT be the nazis supremacist that he is being portrayed as and he comes out golden. The problem for liberals is, they can never argue anything except through demagoguery. So, rather than address that they might have a messaging problem they will double down on the you're a racist/sexist/homophobe argument every time.
And i LOVE it. Please continue doing that voodoo that you do so well liberals.
I don't like to think of Trump as having "plush, beefy arms." In fact, ew.
it could also be that these polls are as inaccurate as the ones that predicted trump would lose the election.
Ipsos kept a September poll under wraps because (I'm surmising) 60 percent of responders agreed with Trump's immigration and labor policies. Only one in six strongly opposed them. Pollsters, what would we do without them.
People like a winner and a strong horse. Trump won and he's coming out of the box like Man o'War.
"One could legitimately argue that the strategic bombing campaign was actually counterproductive - "
Argued by the same crowd that was certain Hillary would win in a landslide.
The Emperor has no clothes. I don't think you have even begun to understand just how much your side of aisle has been discredited.
Maybe you should lecture us about Global Warming Doom. That's always fun to watch.
Trump's numbers are up because he fights back.
Conservatives had forgotten what that was like, and many weren't around for Reagan.
Do president-elects tend to get a bounce in their favorability post-election? PollingReport.com offers some information on this. Obama got a very noticeable bounce in the favorability between election and inauguration according to most polls, about 10-15 points. With GW Bush, the bounce appears smaller, but not every poll shows an obvious bounce, and it's trickier because of the Court decision that was handed down on 12/12/00. The USA Today/Gallup poll seems to have the best result, giving him 9 more favorability points with a corresponding 7 point drop in unfavorability from 11/13 to 1/15. The Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll from 11/1 to 1/24 shows a 5 point increase in favorability and a 9 point drop in unfavorability. Other polls show the trend as pretty nonexistent. Some have decreasing unfavorables for him over the period even if the favorables didn't go up appreciably. Seems like he got something of a lift over the period, anyway, though it's less than either Obama's or what Trump has already gotten.
I would have to believe that most presidents begin with a honeymoon period. With President-elect Trump, it is understandable that his favorability rating would converge with his popular vote of 47% for starters. Those who held their nose and voted still have to have hope at this point, right? We haven't had two major candidates with underwater favorables in my lifetime, so this is uncharted water. Either candidate could only go up from where they were pre-election after winning. How much more this trend continues is anybody's guess. Sounds like a market proposition for PredictIt.
Fredo said...
Yet if we choose to torture, the principles upon which this nation was founded have died, so it dies either way.
11/21/16, 1:06 PM
Whatever.
Freder Frederson said...
I can never remember if that was in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?
Torture under any circumstances is against U.S. and International Law. For a commander in chief to order it is to break the law and violate the constitution. We also have an amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
Someone had an extra helping of stupid at breakfast this morning.
The only applicable law that applies to US forces is the Geneva Conventions. The constitution has zero bearing on non-US citizens. Only a fucking idiot would even mention the constitution in this discussion. The Geneva conventions apply to both sides of a conflict and if the other side does not abide by the Geneva conventions they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
And THAT, Freder, is why you lost. Virtue signaling and moral bankruptcy don't go together.
gadfly said...
Trump hater? No, Althouse, I don't hate him,
Now THAT is a lie. Now, I don't believe you about anything.
I understand him
Uhuh, which is why you predicted his election.
Pull the other one gadfly, it's got bells on it.
You sorry piece of trash. (A Texan taught me to say "trash" instead of "shit.") I'll say this for Hamilton: bring back dueling!
The only applicable law that applies to US forces is the Geneva Conventions.
This is simply not true. The UCMJ and federal law also applies, and that prohibits mistreatment and torture of prisoners, regardless of their status. Treatment of all detainees must comport with the Army Interrogation Manual.
The International Convention Against Torture also applies to any detainee held by the U.S., again regardless of their status.
U.S. law against torture has also been clarified and now explicitly applies to detainees held by any agency anywhere in the world.
And although the Constitution may not apply to non citizens outside the U.S., the citation was offered as an example of our guiding principles.
… we had to firebomb Japan because industry had been dispersed into individual homes …
Naw. We were losing too many aircraft to enemy anti-aircraft ordnance during daytime bombing runs. In war it is always good to kill the enemy and destroy enemy production. It is also a good strategy to limit your own casualties as much as possible and to reduce your own weapons losses.
So we switched to night-time bombing runs where it was harder for the anti-aircraft emplacements to see our aircraft and impossible for us to pinpoint targets on the ground. Nightvision technology did not exist. Ditto infrared.
It is also true that factories were located where the workers could easily get to them – such as centered among residential areas. They didn’t have Uber in Japan during WW2.
To this day, there are legitimate debates as to whether the strategic bombing campaign in WWII was effective.
Bullshit.
Yet if we choose to torture, the principles upon which this nation was founded have died, so it dies either way.
More bullshit.
Trump has already stated he will use torture against terror suspects, and has suggested killing the families of terrorists.
I think the families of terrorists should try to avoid being in the vicinity of terrorists lest they be part of the killed or wounded when we target terrorists. If they insist on ignoring this commonsense rule there really is no obligation on our part. In short – if you harbor a terrorist – be you family or friend – you are fucked and rightly so.
On the torture issue: I think that Trump recognizes that when faced with a totally ruthless enemy you will lose if you are not also ruthless.
Speaking personally – I could give a shit what the virtue-signalers think is permissible to do – I want my POTUS to protect me and mine in the most vigorous and PC-free method available. I want captured terrorists to be broken and the info they have extracted from them as quickly as possible. These people are not soldiers – no nation openly claims them as their own – and they are not combatants in a conventional war. So as far as I’m concerned: Fuck’em.
Trump's numbers are up because he fights back. Conservatives had forgotten what that was like, and many weren't around for Reagan.
BINGO! We have a winner! Come up here and claim your brand new GE toaster.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा