DC Unrest Megathread

[Hammy]

This whole thing just continues to get progressively more horrifying as time goes on.

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1349965432070012933

This is neither new or surprising though-they'd been threatening Pence ever since he said he wouldn't steal the election for Trump.

[Former President tack50]

This.

Parliamentary privilege isn't some airy fairy thing. It's an importany underpinning of our democracy. Indeed it was a vital part of ensuring the United Kingdom shifted to a democratic government.

From the Parliament of Canada:

Members must be able to fulfill their parliamentary duties without undue obstruction, interference or intimidation.

Incidents involving physical assault or physical obstruction (such as traffic barriers, security cordons and demonstrations) have been interpreted as impeding members’ access to the parliamentary precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct.

Interfering with the right of our lawfully elected officials to take their seat in the legislature with impunity undermines this crucial right.

Except no one is stopping them from getting inside the chamber? Just don't bring anything illegal inside and you'll be fine.

I know Canadian rules wouldn't apply in the US, but it does not seem to me like a metal detector is an "undue obstruction" to voting in Congress.

Like I said before, unless you are one the police guarding the Capitol from intruders, why would you need a gun inside anyways? Especially if you are an elected official, why would you want to bring a gun or another dangerous metallic thing with you?

[cg41386]

Maybe I'm missing a rules change, but I'm really failing to see what the basis is for GOP whining about the metal detectors and security screen before entering the House floor. Did the 117th Congress rules package change  the exception for members of Congress from the ban on firearms in the Capitol?

If it didn't, then the rules are the same as they've always been: members can carry their weapons in the Capitol, but not on the floor (without explicit permission from the Sergeant-at-Arms). Are the Republicans whiners claiming they've previously been violating the long-standing ban of firearms from the House chamber? If so, they should be expelled. Are they afraid to to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms for a waiver? If so, why? (I'm sure these men and women who want to carry firearms in the very chamber of the august body in which they serve are all extensively trained and regularly practiced in their use. Anything less would be grossly irresponsible.) Or is the firearms whining really a cover for something else they don't want revealed  by metal detectors? 

None of the members I've seen mentioned firearms in their complaints about the metal detectors.

(Your posts are often provocative, but I don't recall you descending to Trumpian reality denial before.)

https://twitter.com/RepBoebert/status/1349171194046668805
https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1349806701998989312

I thought Twitter temporarily suspeneded her account?

[VAR]

https://twitter.com/HerreraBeutler/status/1349959275922206721

Read the full thread, it's good.

[DC Al Fine]

This.

Parliamentary privilege isn't some airy fairy thing. It's an importany underpinning of our democracy. Indeed it was a vital part of ensuring the United Kingdom shifted to a democratic government.

From the Parliament of Canada:

Members must be able to fulfill their parliamentary duties without undue obstruction, interference or intimidation.

Incidents involving physical assault or physical obstruction (such as traffic barriers, security cordons and demonstrations) have been interpreted as impeding members’ access to the parliamentary precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct.

Interfering with the right of our lawfully elected officials to take their seat in the legislature with impunity undermines this crucial right.

Except no one is stopping them from getting inside the chamber? Just don't bring anything illegal inside and you'll be fine.

I know Canadian rules wouldn't apply in the US, but it does not seem to me like a metal detector is an "undue obstruction" to voting in Congress.

Like I said before, unless you are one the police guarding the Capitol from intruders, why would you need a gun inside anyways? Especially if you are an elected official, why would you want to bring a gun or another dangerous metallic thing with you?

You're framing the issue backwards, which gets to the root of what Averroes and that other poster were arguing about.

The discussion of "just don't bring X in" or "why do you need a gun anyways" is besides the point. The point of Parliamentary Privilege (among other things) is that elected officials don't need to justify themselves to anyone to take their seats the legislature. I can't vouch for the specifics of the American rules vs Canadian ones, but it predates the American Revolution going back to the 1600's in the British system, and therefore presumably carried over.

Further, holding up members of Congress has been justified on the grounds that certain (Republican) members of Congress themselves are security risks*. This is bad faith partisanship at it's worst. If members of Congress seriously have to fear for their safety, or god forbid, their lives, from other members of Congress, the House and Senate need to take steps far more serious than than this security theatre... but of course they aren't taking those steps, which suggests that the alleged threat is malarkey.

In short:

1) Obstructions to members taking their seats need to be justified to members, not the other way around.

2) Any reasonable justification for the metal detectors holding up those Representatives would also imply that said Representatives need to be expelled from the House/Senate and/or arrested.

3) Since we are not taking these steps, Congresspeople ought to be exempted from these security measures.

*I know you didn't argue this, but I was going to post about it anyway, so I included it here.

[Badger]

Lawmaker is an occupation, however long it is held, the same way dishwasher is an occupation.

Neither of these roles is what I would call an occupation, but that's not really germane to the original distinction between employer-employee relationships and others.

It's clear enough that this can't be explained to you, or Badger, or any of the others expectorating about it here. Your view of the world is so fundamentally impoverished that it has no meaning to you and your only response to different perspectives is to assert that they are wrong.

I wouldn't be so condescending about this if it were not such a distraction. There are better arguments for the metal detectors than the employment analogy. But you insist on not only pressing the point but also being nasty about it. Oh well, I tried.

We just had an armed mob seeking to intimidate members of Congress from voting their conscience. And judging from the first-hand reports from Jason Crow and others about Republicans being literally in tears that if they voted for impeachment they and their families lives will be in danger, it was successful. Now we have the biggest Congressional supporters and possible literal co-conspirators with the mob insisting on bringing firearms on the house floor for literally no God damn good reason whatsoever. The individuals in question are just hyper-conservative, but very arguably literally mentally ill. And to no one's surprise political opponents are feeling intimidated and having the freedom to speak openly and aggressively chilled by this very Salient an obvious fact.

I realize you are attempting to make some Big Thoughts^TM point here, but you can really stop condescending anytime now as if we're the ones somehow missing the forest for the trees here.

[Badger]

This.

Parliamentary privilege isn't some airy fairy thing. It's an importany underpinning of our democracy. Indeed it was a vital part of ensuring the United Kingdom shifted to a democratic government.

From the Parliament of Canada:

Members must be able to fulfill their parliamentary duties without undue obstruction, interference or intimidation.

Incidents involving physical assault or physical obstruction (such as traffic barriers, security cordons and demonstrations) have been interpreted as impeding members’ access to the parliamentary precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct.

Interfering with the right of our lawfully elected officials to take their seat in the legislature with impunity undermines this crucial right.

Except no one is stopping them from getting inside the chamber? Just don't bring anything illegal inside and you'll be fine.

I know Canadian rules wouldn't apply in the US, but it does not seem to me like a metal detector is an "undue obstruction" to voting in Congress.

Like I said before, unless you are one the police guarding the Capitol from intruders, why would you need a gun inside anyways? Especially if you are an elected official, why would you want to bring a gun or another dangerous metallic thing with you?

You're framing the issue backwards, which gets to the root of what Averroes and that other poster were arguing about.

The discussion of "just don't bring X in" or "why do you need a gun anyways" is besides the point. The point of Parliamentary Privilege (among other things) is that elected officials don't need to justify themselves to anyone to take their seats the legislature. I can't vouch for the specifics of the American rules vs Canadian ones, but it predates the American Revolution going back to the 1600's in the British system, and therefore presumably carried over.

Further, holding up members of Congress has been justified on the grounds that certain (Republican) members of Congress themselves are security risks*. This is bad faith partisanship at it's worst. If members of Congress seriously have to fear for their safety, or god forbid, their lives, from other members of Congress, the House and Senate need to take steps far more serious than than this security theatre... but of course they aren't taking those steps, which suggests that the alleged threat is malarkey.

In short:

1) Obstructions to members taking their seats need to be justified to members, not the other way around.

2) Any reasonable justification for the metal detectors holding up those Representatives would also imply that said Representatives need to be expelled from the House/Senate and/or arrested.

3) Since we are not taking these steps, Congresspeople ought to be exempted from these security measures.

*I know you didn't argue this, but I was going to post about it anyway, so I included it here.

1) sure, but apparently most members are in support of it and it's only a few radicals and entitled assholes who have an issue with this.

2) No? At all?

3) a step one, steal underwear. Step 3, profit - level logical fallacy, leaving several missing tracks in the middle.

This ain't rocket science, people. In order to be a fair and deliberative body it is absolutely essential the members not have to worry that unhinged loons like MTG and Lauren boebert, et al may not to shoot them in a fit of schizophrenic rage. The interference of legislative privilege and perogative by opening legislators to intimidation by pistol packin colleagues on the floor dwarfs by a factor of about 1000 that of other legislators right to bring their firearms to the chamber "for self defense", and to go through a metal detector to ensure this when so many people are  expressly refusing to play by the rules.

[Badger]

We just had an armed mob seeking to intimidate members of Congress from voting their conscience. And judging from the first-hand reports from Jason Crow and others about Republicans being literally in tears that if they voted for impeachment they and their families lives will be in danger, it was successful. Now we have the biggest Congressional supporters and possible literal co-conspirators with the mob insisting on bringing firearms on the house floor for literally no God damn good reason whatsoever. The individuals in question are just hyper-conservative, but very arguably literally mentally ill. And to no one's surprise political opponents are feeling intimidated and having the freedom to speak openly and aggressively chilled by this very Salient an obvious fact.

I realize you are attempting to make some Big Thoughts^TM point here, but you can really stop condescending anytime now as if we're the ones somehow missing the forest for the trees here.

I've written plenty about the riot on this forum and on AAD, if anyone doubts how disturbing they are to me. This is far from the only facet of the situation on which I've bothered to comment.

I'm not accusing you of supporting the riot. It's well-established that, like every other sane intelligent person, you vehemently don't. But I thought the issue here was requiring members of Congress to go through a metal detector in order to enforce a no firearms on the chamber floor rule as being some sort of undue interference with legislative privilege?

[DC Al Fine]

This.

Parliamentary privilege isn't some airy fairy thing. It's an importany underpinning of our democracy. Indeed it was a vital part of ensuring the United Kingdom shifted to a democratic government.

From the Parliament of Canada:

Members must be able to fulfill their parliamentary duties without undue obstruction, interference or intimidation.

Incidents involving physical assault or physical obstruction (such as traffic barriers, security cordons and demonstrations) have been interpreted as impeding members’ access to the parliamentary precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct.

Interfering with the right of our lawfully elected officials to take their seat in the legislature with impunity undermines this crucial right.

Except no one is stopping them from getting inside the chamber? Just don't bring anything illegal inside and you'll be fine.

I know Canadian rules wouldn't apply in the US, but it does not seem to me like a metal detector is an "undue obstruction" to voting in Congress.

Like I said before, unless you are one the police guarding the Capitol from intruders, why would you need a gun inside anyways? Especially if you are an elected official, why would you want to bring a gun or another dangerous metallic thing with you?

You're framing the issue backwards, which gets to the root of what Averroes and that other poster were arguing about.

The discussion of "just don't bring X in" or "why do you need a gun anyways" is besides the point. The point of Parliamentary Privilege (among other things) is that elected officials don't need to justify themselves to anyone to take their seats the legislature. I can't vouch for the specifics of the American rules vs Canadian ones, but it predates the American Revolution going back to the 1600's in the British system, and therefore presumably carried over.

Further, holding up members of Congress has been justified on the grounds that certain (Republican) members of Congress themselves are security risks*. This is bad faith partisanship at it's worst. If members of Congress seriously have to fear for their safety, or god forbid, their lives, from other members of Congress, the House and Senate need to take steps far more serious than than this security theatre... but of course they aren't taking those steps, which suggests that the alleged threat is malarkey.

In short:

1) Obstructions to members taking their seats need to be justified to members, not the other way around.

2) Any reasonable justification for the metal detectors holding up those Representatives would also imply that said Representatives need to be expelled from the House/Senate and/or arrested.

3) Since we are not taking these steps, Congresspeople ought to be exempted from these security measures.

*I know you didn't argue this, but I was going to post about it anyway, so I included it here.

1) sure, but apparently most members are in support of it and it's only a few radicals and entitled assholes who have an issue with this.

2) No? At all?

3) a step one, steal underwear. Step 3, profit - level logical fallacy, leaving several missing tracks in the middle.

This ain't rocket science, people. In order to be a fair and deliberative body it is absolutely essential the members not have to worry that unhinged loons like MTG and Lauren boebert, et al may not to shoot them in a fit of schizophrenic rage.The interference of legislative privilege and perogative by opening legislators to intimidation by pistol packin colleagues on the floor dwarfs by a factor of about 1000 that of other legislators right to bring their firearms to the chamber "for self defense", and to go through a metal detector to ensure this when so many people are  expressly refusing to play by the rules.

Look, Badger, I'm not going to take lectures about rage and risking someone's safety from the guy who constantly insults his fellow posters and told Fhtagn to kill herself on AAD. Why the mods haven't banned you yet I don't know. You clearly deserve it.

 Ignored.

[It’s so Joever]

I support the installation of the metal detectors.
Not necessarily for any real reason other than to own the cons which I believe is a great cause.

[emailking]

I thought Twitter temporarily suspeneded her account?

I think she said she couldn't access it but she's been tweeting since.

[Del Tachi]

Lawmaker is an occupation, however long it is held, the same way dishwasher is an occupation. I don't care if that occupation is classified as employee, independent contractor, or whatever. It comes with an array of special privileges and perks, to be sure, but none of these include lawmakers existing in some legal gray area where they are exempt from security rules that every other member of society must follow.

lolwut?

The bolded is just patently untrue.  Members of Congress enjoy multiple, Constitutional privileges related to their free movement and immunity from civil/criminal action resulting from their role as legislators. 

Maybe you should try, I dunno, reading something sometime?  or taking a high school government class?

[Sbane]

Lawmaker is an occupation, however long it is held, the same way dishwasher is an occupation.

Neither of these roles is what I would call an occupation, but that's not really germane to the original distinction between employer-employee relationships and others.

It's clear enough that this can't be explained to you, or Badger, or any of the others expectorating about it here. Your view of the world is so fundamentally impoverished that it has no meaning to you and your only response to different perspectives is to assert that they are wrong.

I wouldn't be so condescending about this if it were not such a distraction. There are better arguments for the metal detectors than the employment analogy. But you insist on not only pressing the point but also being nasty about it. Oh well, I tried.

Practically speaking, there are a couple congressman in there that could be possible murderers. Let the authorities get to the bottom of it before we do away with security measures. We can't just let a murder occur on the floor of the house or the senate merely days after it got stormed by a bunch of terrorists.

[Former President tack50]

You're framing the issue backwards, which gets to the root of what Averroes and that other poster were arguing about.

The discussion of "just don't bring X in" or "why do you need a gun anyways" is besides the point. The point of Parliamentary Privilege (among other things) is that elected officials don't need to justify themselves to anyone to take their seats the legislature. I can't vouch for the specifics of the American rules vs Canadian ones, but it predates the American Revolution going back to the 1600's in the British system, and therefore presumably carried over.

Further, holding up members of Congress has been justified on the grounds that certain (Republican) members of Congress themselves are security risks*. This is bad faith partisanship at it's worst. If members of Congress seriously have to fear for their safety, or god forbid, their lives, from other members of Congress, the House and Senate need to take steps far more serious than than this security theatre... but of course they aren't taking those steps, which suggests that the alleged threat is malarkey.

In short:

1) Obstructions to members taking their seats need to be justified to members, not the other way around.

2) Any reasonable justification for the metal detectors holding up those Representatives would also imply that said Representatives need to be expelled from the House/Senate and/or arrested.

3) Since we are not taking these steps, Congresspeople ought to be exempted from these security measures.

*I know you didn't argue this, but I was going to post about it anyway, so I included it here.

The thing is, guns inside the House chamber are already banned by the rules? It's not like Dems are making up a new rule, they are just enforcing a currently existing rule!

Parliamentary privilege, while definitely a big part of what makes countries democratic, is far from absolute though, and there are lots of rules that parliament members must follow. Somoene who isn't following the appropiate parliamentary decorum can and do indeed get removed from the chamber.

I actually can agree with the fact that the extra checks are partisanly motivated and it isn't done to improve security at the Capitol. Though I personally would be scared if I was a representative and people who weren't guards had guns with them, but that is why guns are banned inside the floor anyways.

In any case, the "don't have guns inside the floor" rule is not a new one, it just wasn't enforced. Republicans are free to make a case why the House rules should be reformed to allow carrying guns inside the chamber; possibly even change the appropiate law to allow it when they get a majority (or if enough Dems support such a change)

Or alternatively, I imagine that parliamentary privilege breaches might be a justiceable question, so the Republicans could just sue.

As for the 3 step process you describe:

1a) No one is stopping them from taking their seats though! I am pretty sure Boebert and what not have already sweared in as Representatives.

1b) Even if you mean the fact that they aren't being allowed to vote, if the US congress has remote voting or vote by proxy, then they can still easily vote. If it isn't allowed, then you could have a point but I don't view "don't have guns" as an undue burden. Like I said, parliamentary privilege, while wide ranging, is not absolute.

2) No it doesn't? To use a UK example, there is a very famous incident where an MP called then-Prime Minister Cameron "Dodgy Dave" refused to retire that and then was expelled from the House of Commons.

If a violation of parliamentary decorum even as small as that can get you removed from the chamber, how is "don't have guns" somehow such a bit offence?

3) I don't think Congressmen should be exempted from any security measures. Freely speaking your mind without fear of retribution is parliamentary immunity protected. Carrying guns is not.

[Sbane]

https://twitter.com/HerreraBeutler/status/1349959275922206721

Read the full thread, it's good.

Watching that Capitol police officer getting beaten to death is just heartbreaking. The Congressman who are responsible for this have to face consequences! Charge the motherduckers with treason!

[Sbane]

Lawmaker is an occupation, however long it is held, the same way dishwasher is an occupation. I don't care if that occupation is classified as employee, independent contractor, or whatever. It comes with an array of special privileges and perks, to be sure, but none of these include lawmakers existing in some legal gray area where they are exempt from security rules that every other member of society must follow.

lolwut?

The bolded is just patently untrue.  Members of Congress enjoy multiple, Constitutional privileges related to their free movement and immunity from civil/criminal action resulting from their role as legislators. 

Maybe you should try, I dunno, reading something sometime?  or taking a high school government class?

When those congressman and women are trying to get their colleagues murdered we have to do something. And now they want to bring guns on to the floor? We will not show weakness to these terrorists! Those who planned the capitol terrorist attack need to be expelled before security measures are taken away.

[Torie]

Lawmaker is an occupation, however long it is held, the same way dishwasher is an occupation.

Neither of these roles is what I would call an occupation, but that's not really germane to the original distinction between employer-employee relationships and others.

It's clear enough that this can't be explained to you, or Badger, or any of the others expectorating about it here. Your view of the world is so fundamentally impoverished that it has no meaning to you and your only response to different perspectives is to assert that they are wrong.

I wouldn't be so condescending about this if it were not such a distraction. There are better arguments for the metal detectors than the employment analogy. But you insist on not only pressing the point but also being nasty about it. Oh well, I tried.

Practically speaking, there are a couple congressman in there that could be possible murderers. Let the authorities get to the bottom of it before we do away with security measures. We can't just let a murder occur on the floor of the house or the senate merely days after it got stormed by a bunch of terrorists.

Yes, a few of the congresspersons themselves seem that they are potentially deranged and unstable. The idea that any of them could being a weapon into the capitol is disturbing and a risk that should not be taken.

[Sbane]

Lawmaker is an occupation, however long it is held, the same way dishwasher is an occupation.

Neither of these roles is what I would call an occupation, but that's not really germane to the original distinction between employer-employee relationships and others.

It's clear enough that this can't be explained to you, or Badger, or any of the others expectorating about it here. Your view of the world is so fundamentally impoverished that it has no meaning to you and your only response to different perspectives is to assert that they are wrong.

I wouldn't be so condescending about this if it were not such a distraction. There are better arguments for the metal detectors than the employment analogy. But you insist on not only pressing the point but also being nasty about it. Oh well, I tried.

Practically speaking, there are a couple congressman in there that could be possible murderers. Let the authorities get to the bottom of it before we do away with security measures. We can't just let a murder occur on the floor of the house or the senate merely days after it got stormed by a bunch of terrorists.

Yes, a few of the congresspersons themselves seem that they are potentially deranged and unstable. The idea that any of them could being a weapon into the capitol is disturbing and a risk that should not be taken.

Perhaps this doesn't need to be permanent, but they are required in this moment in time as we try to understand what exactly happened and who is culpable. I also wouldn't advocate getting rid of any duly elected congressman or women without due process and that takes time. So in the meantime, better to be safe than sorry.

[compucomp]

Going back to a previous point, federal prosecutors are charging the rioters with the intent to capture and kill elected officials, anyone still want to deny that?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/politics/capitol-capture-assassinate-elected-officials/index.html

(CNN)Federal prosecutors offered the most chilling description yet of rioters who seized the Capitol last week, writing in a new court filing that the intention was "to capture and assassinate elected officials."

The view was included in a memo seeking to keep Jacob Anthony Chansley, who rallied people inside the Capitol using a bullhorn, in detention. According to Capitol Police information included in the filing, Chansley was notable for his headdress, face paint and carrying of a six-foot spear.

"Strong evidence, including Chansley's own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government," government prosecutors wrote.

[SteveRogers]

Lawmaker is an occupation, however long it is held, the same way dishwasher is an occupation. I don't care if that occupation is classified as employee, independent contractor, or whatever. It comes with an array of special privileges and perks, to be sure, but none of these include lawmakers existing in some legal gray area where they are exempt from security rules that every other member of society must follow.

lolwut?

The bolded is just patently untrue.  Members of Congress enjoy multiple, Constitutional privileges related to their free movement and immunity from civil/criminal action resulting from their role as legislators. 

Maybe you should try, I dunno, reading something sometime?  or taking a high school government class?

Constitutionally, members of Congress cannot be arrested on their way to and from session (except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace), and they cannot be held liable for anything they say during speech and debate on the floor. That doesn’t magically transform them into super-people who are immune from all rules and security procedures.

[DINGO Joe]

Constitutionally, members of Congress cannot be arrested on their way to and from session (except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace), and they cannot be held liable for anything they say during speech and debate on the floor. That doesn’t magically transform them into super-people who are immune from all rules and security procedures.

Well. treason, felony and breach of peace do seem to be the issues at hand these days.

[Sbane]

Going back to a previous point, federal prosecutors are charging the rioters with the intent to capture and kill elected officials, anyone still want to deny that?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/politics/capitol-capture-assassinate-elected-officials/index.html

(CNN)Federal prosecutors offered the most chilling description yet of rioters who seized the Capitol last week, writing in a new court filing that the intention was "to capture and assassinate elected officials."

The view was included in a memo seeking to keep Jacob Anthony Chansley, who rallied people inside the Capitol using a bullhorn, in detention. According to Capitol Police information included in the filing, Chansley was notable for his headdress, face paint and carrying of a six-foot spear.

"Strong evidence, including Chansley's own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government," government prosecutors wrote.

Yeah, it has become abundantly clear that this is a terrorist attack. Literally the definition of one.

[Inmate Trump]

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/01/15/biden-begins-presidency-with-positive-ratings-trump-departs-with-lowest-ever-job-mark/


Trump is now at 29% approval and 68% disapproval according to the Pew poll.  Republican support dropping to 60%.  I hope this is a trend and not an outlier.

Biden is at 58% approval and 39% disapproval.

[Calthrina950]

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/01/15/biden-begins-presidency-with-positive-ratings-trump-departs-with-lowest-ever-job-mark/


Trump is now at 29% approval and 68% disapproval according to the Pew poll.  Republican support dropping to 60%.  I hope this is a trend and not an outlier.

Biden is at 58% approval and 39% disapproval.

The events of the past week have made me even more grateful that Biden won the election. I can only imagine the disaster we would be facing if Trump had won reelection. We have just five more days before he is out of the White House, hopefully for good.

[Alben Barkley]

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/01/15/biden-begins-presidency-with-positive-ratings-trump-departs-with-lowest-ever-job-mark/


Trump is now at 29% approval and 68% disapproval according to the Pew poll.  Republican support dropping to 60%.  I hope this is a trend and not an outlier.

Biden is at 58% approval and 39% disapproval.

WOW. Trump just took a nosedive in the FiveThirtyEight average because of this, below 40 for the first time in years. Looks like he’s gonna leave office at a low point, basically unheard of.