Trump or Lincoln?

[homersapien 11,366]

If you are way into politics, you are not the average American. Not even close.

A new poll from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center reveals how shockingly little people know about even the most basic elements of our government and the Constitution that formed it.

 

Take your pick from this bouillabaisse of ignorance:

 

* More than one in three people (37%) could not name a single right protected by the First Amendment. THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

* Only one in four (26%) can name all three branches of the government. (In 2011, 38% could name all three branches.)

 

* One in three (33%) can't name any branch of government. None. Not even one.

 

* A majority (53%) believe the Constitution affords undocumented immigrants no rights. However, everyone in the US is entitled to due process of law and the right to make their case before the courts, at the least.

 

(And the First Amendment protects the rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of the press and the rights of people to peaceably assemble, in case you were wondering.)

 

"Protecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution presupposes that we know what they are," said Annenberg Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson. "The fact that many don't is worrisome."

 

Uh, yeah.

 

Sadly, the Annenberg poll is far from the first to reveal not only our collective ignorance about the basic tenets of democracy but also the fact that we are even less informed than we were in the past.

 

Take this Pew Research Center poll from 2010. When asked to name the chief justice of the Supreme Court, less than three in 10 (28%) correctly answered John Roberts. That compares unfavorably to the 43% who rightly named William Rehnquist as the chief justice in a Pew poll back in 1986.

 

What did the 72% of people who didn't name Roberts as the chief justice in 2010 say instead, you ask? A majority (53%) said they didn't know. Eight percent guessed Thurgood Marshall, who was never a chief justice of the Court and, perhaps more importantly, had been dead for 17 years when the poll was taken. Another 4% named Harry Reid, who is not now nor ever was a Supreme Court Justice.

What we don't know about the government -- executive, legislative and judicial branches -- is appalling. It's funny -- until you realize that lots and lots of people whose lives are directly affected by what the federal government does and doesn't do have absolutely no idea about even the most basic principles of how this all works.

 

The level of civil ignorance in the country allows our politicians -- and Donald Trump is the shining example of this -- to make lowest common denominator appeals about what they will do (or won't do) in office. It also leads to huge amounts of discontent from the public when they realize that no politician can make good on the various and sundry promises they make on the campaign trail.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/poll-constitution/index.html

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

It also leads to huge amounts of discontent from the public when they realize that no politician can make good on the various and sundry promises they make on the campaign trail.

Suppose that is why Trump has not and will not loose his base. He has tried to fulfill his promises you know. 

Top that with everyone busy and happy lately. Looking more like another four years for President Trump each day. You agree Brother Homer?

Great to see getting the ole kick back.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

You don't answer questions you don't wish to answer.  Typical of arrogant pseudo intellectuals as is your final comment.

No, I don’t answer stupid red herrings. Whether you or I personally know someone who feels this way Does. Not. Matter.  And it has zero bearing on the veracity of the poll. 
 

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

I didn't insinuate the poll was hijacked. I don't believe the result reflects reality. I believe it reflects the desire to be combative, rather than be honest.  

Whatever that means. 

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

46 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Whether you or I personally know someone who feels this way Does. Not. Matter.  And it has zero bearing on the veracity of the poll. 

I know several people in the panhandle that think he is the greatest ever. They are just good people. Would not say they have "brain rot".

[AUFAN78 3,894]

I work almost exclusively with Democratic constituents.These numbers are no surprise. 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

No, I don’t answer stupid red herrings. Whether you or I personally know someone who feels this way Does. Not. Matter.  And it has zero bearing on the veracity of the poll. 
 

Whatever that means. 

BS. I work and live in heavy Trump states, and work with some of the most ardent Trump supporters you'll find. Got many friends and family who wholeheartedly are in his camp. Zero who seriously believe he is a better POTUS than Lincoln. Now would they say such things on FB, Yahoo msg boards, a poll, etc...to trigger other groups out of spite and defiance? No doubt. 

The very premise is idiotic.  Had the rate been 49%, you'd never have had an article, and miraculously never have been any outrage, viral posts, etc...

This kind of garbage is more message board fodder for the keyboard warriors.  Try and reproduce anything resembling these percentages through interactions with real people. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, johnnyAU said:

BS. I work and live in heavy Trump states, and work with some of the most ardent Trump supporters you'll find. Got many friends and family who wholeheartedly are in his camp. Zero who seriously believe he is a better POTUS than Lincoln. Now would they say such things on FB, Yahoo msg boards, a poll, etc...to trigger other groups out of spite and defiance? No doubt.

And yet that still means nothing. You’re making the mistake of assuming that your sphere of knowledge is representative of the whole. You need to get this through your head:  Anecdotes are not evidence. 

1 minute ago, johnnyAU said:

The very premise is idiotic.  Had the rate been 49%, you'd never have had an article, and miraculously never have been any outrage, viral posts, etc...

This kind of garbage is more message board fodder for the keyboard warriors.  Try and reproduce anything resembling these percentages through interactions with real people. 

Again, put up or shut up. “I don’t believe it” isn’t a rebuttal. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

I know several people in the panhandle that think he is the greatest ever. They are just good people. Would not say they have "brain rot".

If your friends think Trump is a better President than Reagan or Lincoln, I’m afraid so. 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I know several people in the panhandle that think he is the greatest ever. They are just good people. Would not say they have "brain rot".

Something ain’t working right.

[SaturdayGT 719]

For kicks, how about a poll on those who believe in polls?

 

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/423023-a-majority-of-americans-are-skeptical-that-public-opinion-polls

 

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If your friends think Trump is a better President than Reagan or Lincoln, I’m afraid so. 

Never said they are my friends. Just some good people that love Trump. 

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

20 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Something ain’t working right.

Working right enough to realize this entire impeachment scam. I would not want to see the country go through this with Obama at the helm. Neither would the "brain rot" crowd. Schiff and company should resign. You know they have screwed the pooch big time don't you Brother Tex?

[TexasTiger 12,831]

25 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Working right enough to realize this entire impeachment scam. I would not want to see the country go through this with Obama at the helm. Neither would the "brain rot" crowd. Schiff and company should resign. You know they have screwed the pooch big time don't you Brother Tex?

I don’t know how it plays out politically, if that’s what you mean, but everyone I’ve seen attacking Schiff has had significant character issues.

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t know how it plays out politically, if that’s what you mean, but everyone I’ve seen attacking Schiff has had significant character issues.

It must be tough for you guys. Living in a country with so many people around supporting President Trump. Did I hear Schiff say that Trump had to be impeached so these good people would not elect him again? 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

48 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

It must be tough for you guys. Living in a country with so many people around supporting President Trump. Did I hear Schiff say that Trump had to be impeached so these good people would not elect him again? 

It is challenging to see the danger we are in as a country and have so many folks like yourself who can’t see it or simply don’t care enough because they are currently comfortable. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

It must be tough for you guys. Living in a country with so many people around supporting President Trump. 

I'll admit, it is troubling that so many people willingly support such an awful person and bad leader.  It's especially troubling when they do more than simply cast a vote for him out of a feeling of "lesser of two evils" and actively advocate for, defend, excuse, or praise anything he does simply because he "owns the libs" or whatever.  I thought better of Republicans, conservatives, and especially Evangelicals before the 2016 election and their behavior since then. 

[bigbird 60,500]

Disagreeing with impeachment doesn't necessarily mean it's a vote of confidence for the president. IMO, the threshold hasn't been met by any measure.

[homersapien 11,366]

6 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Disagreeing with impeachment doesn't necessarily mean it's a vote of confidence for the president. IMO, the threshold hasn't been met by any measure.

Why? 

Do you think the findings of the impeachment report weren't supported by the evidence presented?

Or do you think it happened pretty much as described but those actions don't meet the minimum requirements of an impeachable offense?

 

[bigbird 60,500]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Why? 

Do you think the findings of the impeachment report weren't supported by the evidence presented?

Or do you think it happened pretty much as described but those actions don't meet the minimum requirements of an impeachable offense?

 

I don't think hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinions reach the threshold of fact and to try and impeach with that shows extremely poor judgement and is a disservice to America.

I'm not saying he didn't do it, but they haven't proven that he did.  IMO, impeachment needs to be clear as day and be presented with as little opinion as possible. Politicizing impeachment is a very dangerous direction.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

27 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I don't think hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinions reach the threshold of fact and to try and impeach with that shows extremely poor judgement and is a disservice to America.

I'm not saying he didn't do it, but they haven't proven that he did.  IMO, impeachment needs to be clear as day and be presented with as little opinion as possible. Politicizing impeachment is a very dangerous direction.

So do you not think there is sufficient proof the President withheld aid in an effort to have Ukraine announce an investigation into a political rival?

[bigbird 60,500]

43 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So do you not think there is sufficient proof the President withheld aid in an effort to have Ukraine announce an investigation into a political rival?

What did I say?

I m not trying to be confrontational, but my statement wasn't ambiguous.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

What did I say?

I m not trying to be confrontational, but my statement wasn't ambiguous.

If I’m guilty, I want you on the jury.

[bigbird 60,500]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If I’m guilty, I want you on the jury.

I take that as a great compliment. Thank you.

[homersapien 11,366]

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

I don't think hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinions reach the threshold of fact and to try and impeach with that shows extremely poor judgement and is a disservice to America.

I'm not saying he didn't do it, but they haven't proven that he did.  IMO, impeachment needs to be clear as day and be presented with as little opinion as possible. Politicizing impeachment is a very dangerous direction.

First, do you understand that it is Trump who is preventing witnesses who could offer first hand testimony from appearing before the committee?  

In fact, this in itself is obstruction of justice, which is an impeachable offense.

Regardless, the testimony that has been provided by people like Mick Mulvaney and Gordon Sondland - along with the transcript of the phone call which is Trumps own words - is sufficient proof Trump clearly attempted to leverage U.S. aid for personal political purposes.

The impeachment process could have been avoided had Trump simply owned up to making a mistake.  Had he done so, the most Congress would have done is censure him.  But Trump would never do that. 

In fact, Trump will continue his attempts to rig the 2020 election in his favor using whatever resources he can, including domestic (the state department*) and foreign.

Allowing presidents to illegally influence pending elections is the real danger this represents.  Trump will take full advantage to do so.

 

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/05/new-revelations-about-barr-giuliani-strengthen-case-against-trump/

New revelations about Barr and Giuliani strengthen case against Trump

One of the strongest arguments made by experts testifying against President Trump is that he poses a present and continuing threat to our democracy. By adopting the stance that extorting a foreign leader into helping him rig the election was perfectly fine, Trump has confirmed he’ll keep using the levers of government to continue to corrupt it on his behalf.

“If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference in the next election,” one constitutional scholar called by Democrats testified on Wednesday. “No misconduct is more antithetical to our democracy.”

The latest nefarious doings of none other than William P. Barr and Rudolph W. Giuliani have now forcefully underscored this very point. In so doing, Trump’s attorney general and his personal lawyer — whose roles Trump views as one and the same — have helpfully strengthened the case against Trump.

Two new investigative reports demonstrate that Barr and Giuliani are, in effect, continuing to carry out elements of the very same corrupt scheme for which Trump is currently getting impeached. Their activities have been described as “brazen,” but the truth is worse: They demonstrate with great clarity that Trump’s efforts to corrupt our political system will continue — a reminder of why he’s being impeached in the first place.

Barr hits a snag

The Post reports that Barr has hit a major snag in his efforts to validate Trump’s claim that the investigation into Russian sabotage of the 2016 election was a hoax. Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, privately asked Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, who’s executing Barr’s review of the origins of that investigation, to validate a key element of Trumpworld’s “theory” of those origins — and he did not.

This is terribly inconvenient for Barr — and Trump and his propagandists. They hope such a review will allow them to cast the whole Russia investigation — and its findings of Russian sabotage and extensive efforts by Trump to coordinate with and benefit from it — as illegitimate.

Central to this is the idea that the Maltese professor who first told a Trump adviser about dirt gathered by Russia on Hillary Clinton — which launched the original FBI probe — was a U.S. agent setting up the Trump campaign. Horowitz, who is also examining the probe’s origins, has reportedly determined that he was not, and asked Durham — and intelligence agencies — to produce evidence to the contrary. They couldn’t.

It’s true that Horowitz will also reportedly announce serious irregularities with the FBI’s original handling of the investigation, and Trump’s propagandists will hype this to the skies. But the bottom line is Horowitz is expected to conclude that the investigation’s basis was legitimate, and while we don’t know what Durham will conclude, it seems clear he’s finding little to validate Trumpworld’s wild theories.

The key point here is that Barr, who is gearing up to cast doubt on Horowitz’s conclusions, is continuing to use the levers of government to carry out Trump’s overall corrupt project — which Trump is actively cheering on. Barr is trying to undercut the legitimacy of the Russia investigation’s conclusions — which would help make Russia’s criminal attack on our political system and Trump’s nefarious reaping of its gains disappear.

That’s exactly what Trump tried to extort Ukraine into helping him do, by announcing an “investigation” into the lie that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered, thus validating that lie — part of the corrupt plot for which he’s being impeached.

Giuliani’s latest moves

Giuliani is doing the same as we speak. The New York Times reports that Giuliani has traveled to Budapest and Kyiv, where he’s meeting with shadowy Ukrainian figures to keep building the case that Joe Biden and his son Hunter acted corruptly in Ukraine.

This line of nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, but Giuliani met with one of its key proponents, and is participating in the filming of a fake “documentary” that’s designed to make that narrative seem true.

In other words, Giuliani — who was the ringleader of the scheme to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would also make that narrative seem true — has continued to try to achieve the same goals that drove the corrupt plot for which Trump is being impeached.

This, in and of itself, does not necessarily add to the case for impeachment. But, tellingly, when the Times pressed Giuliani to say whether he kept Trump informed of these latest moves, he refused to answer, even though he had previously kept Trump regularly apprised. That means it’s possible Trump has blessed Giuliani’s continued efforts to smear Biden with lies, though without the direct extortion element.

Trump’s intent is corrupt

All of this reinforces the corrupt intent that Trump has exhibited throughout. Republicans still laughably claim Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky only because he cared about “corruption” in Ukraine. But this shows again that Trump’s primary concern has been to achieve announcements of investigations into only the things that would help him politically.

In his July 25 phone call with Zelensky, Trump directed him to talk to Barr and Giuliani, who would, Trump hoped, act as his henchmen in helping Zelensky carry out those investigations. The two have simply continued to carry out this very same effort on Trump’s behalf.

Even as Trump is getting impeached for using the power of his office to falsify the story of his corruption of our last election and to corrupt the next one, he’s still trying to accomplish both goals. And in Barr’s case, he’s cheerfully continuing to rely on the manipulation of the levers of government to do so.

[bigbird 60,500]

Again, hearsay, conjecture, inference, and opinion is not FACT.

You do realize that if there is conflict between two of the branches, it's the third that decides the way forward, right?. So, if the Congress believes he is obstructing, then the court needs to rule. Take it to the court. Have them rule then proceed. That's how the process works, you know that, right? Circumventing the process is not the way to proceed.

Look at Nixon. They took it to the court, the court ruled against Nixon and within the next day or two he resigned. 

Why are the Dems so hastily trying to run this through? There is a reason and it has nothing to do with collusion, quid pro quo, extortion, bribery, obstruction, or abuse of power. It's purely political and its transparent that it is.

What is the new catch phrase gonna be, we must impeach before we can prove he's done something impeachable?