The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Greg Davidson on July 22, 2017, 05:38:54 PM

Title: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 22, 2017, 05:38:54 PM
This is the first President in US history ever to include in his campaign remarks that he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters would still support him.

Well, there has already been textbook perjury committed by Jeff Sessions in his confirmation hearing and by Senior White House Adviser Jared Kushner in his first two false submissions of an SF-86. President Trump has removed from office the three government officials driving investigations of his ties to Russia, the last one being James Comey who based on prior actions is no ally to Democrats. What if Trump fires Mueller - a second Republican, who has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support and respect?

How about pardons? If Trump starts pardoning current and former members of his team, members of his family, and even himself, will you still support him?

Or does it have to be him shooting someone in the street?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: ScottF on July 22, 2017, 06:07:08 PM
I've heard a number of people say that Comey was investigating Trump's ties to Russia despite Comey himself saying he told Trump he explicitly wasn't under investigation. Was Comey lying when he said that? Assuming he wasn't lying, why do you state the opposite of what he said, under oath, as fact?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Pete at Home on July 22, 2017, 06:09:33 PM
What hardcore supporters of Trump are you speaking to here, Greg?  IIRC there's only Crunch and Cherry.

While I don't support Trump, I think that if you stop gaslighting the whole "emails issue" and walk through the information that was disclosed in the emails, you might come to grips with why Trump could be shooting people in the streets and half the country still think him more sinned against than sinning.

The DNC chokehold on the mainstream media approaches that of Stalin or Hitler.  Here we have proof that the DNC cheated in the election, committing mass fraud, and what's the big story?  How Russia villainously interfered with our free elections?  That's some chutzpah, Greg.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 22, 2017, 07:50:18 PM
ScottF,

Comey gave a very straightforward statement, which was at that time Trump was not a subject of the investigation. You really have to squeeze reality hard to assume that a statement of status in March ruled out ever finding anything further that would make the President a subject of the investigation.

They started the investigation with some evidence about other members of the Trump campaign, and at the times when Trump asked the question I am sure that there was not yet evidence making Trump a target of the investigation. We still don't that the investigation has made progress in a direction that Trump is now under investigation, but the President has taken multiple actions that sure look guilty as hell.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 22, 2017, 07:58:20 PM
Pete,

If the DNC had a Stalin/Hitler choke-hold on the media, why would the New York Times the week before the election give multiple headlines insinuating that the emails on Weiner's laptop were a major new find (when they weren't) and simultaneously publishing a front page article that there was no substance behind the Trump-Russia stories (which as we can see from multiple sources, including the recently uncovered "Clinton - Russia - Confidential" email from the Trump campaign, was also seriously wrong in a direction that favored Donald Trump)? Nate Silver attributed about a 3% shift in the polls due to the media coverage in the last week - so the DNC chokehold didn't seem to be working very well.


 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 22, 2017, 08:25:56 PM
What hardcore supporters of Trump are you speaking to here, Greg?  IIRC there's only Crunch and Cherry.

Pretty much this. I said he was a terrible Presidential candidate, he's a terrible president. The only one worse is Hillary, who incidentally, seems to currently hold a lower approval rating than Trump does? Go figure.

But as my support for Trump specifically was 0 to start with, I guess we're talking about a "divide by zero error" or alternately infinite support, depending on how you want to approach it.

That isn't to say that some or even many of the interests that Trump claims to support won't align with my own interests. Or that regardless of how much I may or may not care for the person himself, I am concerned about setting dangerous precedents about handling future Presidents if people act rashly in an effort to shove Trump out the door before the next election.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: yossarian22c on July 22, 2017, 10:24:59 PM
I think firing Mueller is the first action that Trump will have taken that makes me believe he actually committed a crime. I chalked the previous fires up to his ego getting in the way of better judgement. However the steps he would have to go through the fire Mueller go beyond that. I think there is a real chance that the crimes may not have to do with Russia. At the start of his presidency I would have put actual collaboration between his campaign and the Russian's extremely low, Trump's actions around the investigation have me revising that likelihood up.

Where the crimes may exist could be more financial in nature. I thought this idea from David Brooks was interesting:
Quote
...
Donald Trump, give him credit, he’s completely transparent. He basically said in that interview, my corruption can be found in my tax returns. If you look into my tax returns, I will fire you.

He transmits everything that he’s thinking out in public in an incredibly transparent way. So we’re looking at a fact where Bob Mueller will probably go to the tax returns. Donald Trump will probably fire Bob Mueller. And then we will be in some sort of constitutional crisis. And it’s all telegraphed right there out in the open.
...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-spicer-stepping-gop-health-care-bill-fumble/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-spicer-stepping-gop-health-care-bill-fumble/)

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: yossarian22c on July 22, 2017, 11:10:30 PM
...
While I don't support Trump, I think that if you stop gaslighting the whole "emails issue" and walk through the information that was disclosed in the emails, you might come to grips with why Trump could be shooting people in the streets and half the country still think him more sinned against than sinning.
...

To my knowledge the most damaging things to come out of the DNC email hack was basically the fact that the DNC (as they appeared to be, despite their claims of neutrality) was clearly in camp Hilary and mildly hostile to Bernie. This wasn't exactly shocking to anyone who has been paying attention to politics in this country for the past 20 years. Bernie was an independent before running and is so again now. Clinton's are the perennial political insiders. As to the fact that they were able to ghost write a few stories that got published I think it is entirely unethical, I doubt that it is anything all that uncommon with media budgets today. Was there something I missed there?

Oddly I think Trump did more to harm Bernie than anything else that happened in the race. He sucked up all the media attention so that Bernie didn't get enough attention early enough to really swing things his way when it could have changed the outcome. If the two races had gotten equal coverage I think Bernie would have taken off sooner and the media narrative would have changed to be "another Clinton collapse" instead of the latest antics of Trump. Once the "Clinton collapse" narrative caught on in the broader media it wouldn't have mattered that the DNC has a few journalist who will submit stories ghost written for them or that she had access to some of the debate questions (its not all that hard to have a good idea what is going to be asked about anyway). The train would have left the station and IMO Bernie would have gotten the nomination. The other way Trump really hurt Bernie was in the comparison between the two, both were somewhat populist in nature but Bernie was almost all about policy and Trump was almost entirely about ego. The stories comparing the two because they both could be called populists was almost slanderous to Bernie.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Crunch on July 23, 2017, 04:13:28 PM
This is the first President in US history ever to include in his campaign remarks that he could shoot someone in the street and his supporters would still support him.

Well, there has already been textbook perjury committed by Jeff Sessions in his confirmation hearing and by Senior White House Adviser Jared Kushner in his first two false submissions of an SF-86. President Trump has removed from office the three government officials driving investigations of his ties to Russia, the last one being James Comey who based on prior actions is no ally to Democrats. What if Trump fires Mueller - a second Republican, who has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support and respect?

How about pardons? If Trump starts pardoning current and former members of his team, members of his family, and even himself, will you still support him?

Or does it have to be him shooting someone in the street?
This is a weird thing to be saying. We've got a litany of anti-Trump activists in the media, celebrities, political leaders, etc, promoting violence and really the only people shooting others in the street -literally shooting - are democrats and their supporters. What's thr limit for supporting Trump? Jesus Christ, what's the limit for supporting democrats?!?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on July 23, 2017, 06:02:16 PM
I think that we have an interesting problem here. Almost no one among the intellectual classes defends or even likes Trump. The issue though is a catch 22 - the other side essentially proposes that they are blameless, that Trump's supporters are racists and idiots, that they have nothing to learn from Hillary's defeat. They essentially say (implicitly) you are morons, your concerns are invalid and you should admit your error and surrender.

Well of course nobody is opening the City gate if the army surrounding it is promising to rape and pillage when it's let in. The people in the city may not approve of Trump but they aren't about to throw him over the side of the wall until they see evidence that anyone would care about their interests.

What people need to realize is if you declare total war on Trump you are essentially declaring it on his supporters. And if you don't offer them a carrot they literally can't support you. If Trump needs to go, then you have to have something to replace him other than total surrender for his support base. In other words you need a better candidate, a better Democratic Party. Pick another Hillary and it will be 2016 all over again in 2020.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 24, 2017, 10:08:59 AM
Crunch,

I disagree with your assertion "We've got a litany of anti-Trump activists in the media, celebrities, political leaders, etc, promoting violence". It is politically useful for the right-wing to emphasize idiots like Kathy Griffin or hyperventilate over a production of Julius Caesar done as Trump without recognizing that idiots like Ted Nugent spent the entire Obama Administration acting as Griffin did, or that there were multiple Julius Caesar productions that used an Obama theme. Integrity means that you judge with equal severity the actions by who you see as your side.

But more importantly, this is a distraction. Members of the Trump Administration have already acknowledged that they have performed acts that are criminal.  They are arguing that it's now not a big deal when you go through a very serious security process and sign a document saying you understand you can go to jail for five years if you lie, and then you make false statements. 

And Trump supporters use a double standard to forgive behaviors far worse than those they hyperventilated over when they were accusing Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama). Classified information leakage - how about Trump revealing that there is an Israeli spy at the heart of ISIS? Corruption - not merely violation of the Constitution, but just wait until the investigations under Mueller (or at least state legal proceedings in case Trump shuts down the federal investigations) - it will be far more severe than Hillary Clinton meeting with people who gave money to a charitable foundation from which she derived no income.

So Crunch, what's your standard that you would apply to a Democratic or Republican President. What's your limit?

 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 24, 2017, 10:43:32 AM
Well, there has already been textbook perjury committed by Jeff Sessions in his confirmation hearing...

I think you need a new textbook.  I've been over this transcript multiple times and you couldn't win a perjury claim on it.  In the context of the question and his answer its a true statement, pulled out of context it requires further clarification.

Quote
..and by Senior White House Adviser Jared Kushner in his first two false submissions of an SF-86.

Again, not perjury unless there was an intent to lie on the form.  Nothing I've seen, and certainly nothing you've demonstrated shows any intent to deceive by Mr. Kushner. 

By the way, it's not uncommon that people correct their form SF-86's if they remember additional information, or realize that they misinterpreted how to answer a question.  That's really a different issue, with a form that complex.

Quote
President Trump has removed from office the three government officials driving investigations of his ties to Russia,...

Has he?  Who was primarily involved in that?  All I see is he fired an acting AG who refused to do her job, and fired a head of the FBI who was actively plotting against his administration ala J. Edgar Hoover.  Meanwhile, he has not touched how many people actively involved in that "investigation"?  Dozens, hundreds?  You have no idea.

Quote
...the last one being James Comey who based on prior actions is no ally to Democrats.

Not sure I buy that.  Comey's actions, taking it upon himself to publicaly clear Clinton for her crimes are in my book incredibly friendly to the Democrats.  He articulated a false standard of the law and prejudiced any attempt to actually apply the law as its written and has been applied to everyone not named Clinton by creating a "story" that it would be a partisan prosecution.  Certainly the way he acted towards Trump after the election was very much as an ally to the Democrats.

The only reason you really can even say this, is because of his bizarre behavior with Wiener's emails.  I'm guessing, that he realized if he didn't say anything and it came out that they were material he'd be going to jail himself and panicked.  Bet you if he had it to do over again, he never reveals the Wiener emails publically.

Quote
What if Trump fires Mueller - a second Republican, who has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support and respect?

The Special Prosecutor should never have been appointed on these facts.  Flat out you're a hypocrite if you never a saw a need for a special prosecutor in the last administration with either Holder or Lynch routinely burying investigations where the White House had conflicts, but think this one is justifiable. 

If they can't produce some evidence of the "crime" they were appointed to prosecute, my patience with this is close to an end.

That said, I do agree that firing Mueller, even with his appointment being illegitimate, may not be possible.

Quote
How about pardons? If Trump starts pardoning current and former members of his team, members of his family, and even himself, will you still support him?

Depends on what he pardons them for.  Have you ever stopped supporting a President over the exercise of their pardon power?

You have to prove your case, which you can't, that there was a crime connected to the election by the Trump admin and then he starts pardoning for me to be concerned.  If after wasting all this money investigation a fake allegation, it turns out that we see prosecutions - not for anything related to Russian interference - but for bizarre technicalities that no one else ever gets prosecuted for, then I'd be happy if he pardons people left right and center.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 24, 2017, 10:54:54 AM
Pete,

If the DNC had a Stalin/Hitler choke-hold on the media, why would the New York Times the week before the election...

Because they had no choice.  Manipulation of the media can't prevent a story from breaking, when there are other sources that have it.  NYT's did it's level best to spin the stories as less than they were when they impacted Dems and more when they impacted Reps.

Quote
...give multiple headlines insinuating that the emails on Weiner's laptop were a major new find (when they weren't)...

Nice hindsight analysis there.  The emails were a major news find, period, end of story.  If we lived in an era where the media only reported on verified facts and not speculation you might have a case about these stories, but then your whole Russian story line would completely disappear since its nothing but speculation at this point.

Quote
...and simultaneously publishing a front page article that there was no substance behind the Trump-Russia stories (which as we can see from multiple sources, including the recently uncovered "Clinton - Russia - Confidential" email from the Trump campaign, was also seriously wrong in a direction that favored Donald Trump)?

Because, again, at that time, the Trump Russia stories were based on a provably false set of manufactured documents.  What choice did they have?

You seem to have an odd recollection of history.

Quote
Nate Silver attributed about a 3% shift in the polls due to the media coverage in the last week - so the DNC chokehold didn't seem to be working very well.

Yep, Clinton was too damaged a candidate to survive the truth coming out - which is what actually hurt her, notwithstanding your claims to the contrary.

She had her damaging releases on Trump all tee'd up to go, but she couldn't overcome the public's demand and choice about which information they wanted to see.  Remember, the media is a supplier and they can taint everything they sell, but if the populace smells the Red Meat the Tofu burgers are gone sit there no matter how hard you push.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 24, 2017, 11:37:09 AM
Crunch,

I disagree with your assertion "We've got a litany of anti-Trump activists in the media, celebrities, political leaders, etc, promoting violence".   It is politically useful for the right-wing to emphasize idiots like Kathy Griffin or hyperventilate over a production of Julius Caesar done as Trump without recognizing that idiots like Ted Nugent spent the entire Obama Administration acting as Griffin did, or that there were multiple Julius Caesar productions that used an Obama theme. Integrity means that you judge with equal severity the actions by who you see as your side.

This what you used to say on this.

Quote
This is what political violence egged on by propaganda is like. It's not keeping score for two "teams" over a hundred years, it's holding any major political figure accountable for extremist rhetoric, right or left. It's about disavowing all of them, and their statements. The reason the criticism is particularly valid against Republican leaders today is because they are the ones committing the most acts of extremist speech. Go back in the past and there have been crazy leftists as well (Ford had two crazy would-be assassins who were more left wing than right's all stop itwing).

Be consistent with yourself, you repeatedly blamed Republicans for their rhetoric and it's consequences, you have multiple quotes on this topic, and none of their language rose to the level that Democrats are commonly using currently.

Quote
But more importantly, this is a distraction. Members of the Trump Administration have already acknowledged that they have performed acts that are criminal.

Who's done that?  You're not misrepresenting the law again are you?

Quote
They are arguing that it's now not a big deal when you go through a very serious security process and sign a document saying you understand you can go to jail for five years if you lie, and then you make false statements.

Ahh... yes you are.  Intent to deceive is for this to be a criminal act.  I assume you can prove the intent since you are stating these as facts and not a speculation.

Quote
And Trump supporters use a double standard to forgive behaviors far worse than those they hyperventilated over when they were accusing Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama).

I'm gonna walk through your examples below.  But this is just a flat lie.  There's no double standard, cause there's no reasonable basis for your claims that worse behaviors are being forgiven.

Quote
Classified information leakage - how about Trump revealing that there is an Israeli spy at the heart of ISIS?

The actual leak of this information was to the NYTs who published it.  The disclosure to the Russians, was by all accounts of those actually present not a leak of classified information (both as a factual matter because the President is actually empowered to disclose confidential information on
his own authority, and because what he was said to actually have shared was not inconsistent with what is typically shared in security cooperation arrangements).  It's a false meme the way you are using it, that actually ignores those who did breach security to make a political claim you want to be true.

Presumably, you think having a security conversation on one point, is somehow equivalent to actually violated the law on protection of confidential information - for no purpose other than to frustrate open records laws, which is another reason its hypocritical to ignore it.

Quote
Corruption - not merely violation of the Constitution,

What corruption would that be?  Do you have some actual proof, or is another case of the left asserts what they want to be true but don't have to show?  There was proven corruption during the last election, between the DNC and CNN but that doesn't bother you.

And what Constitutional violation occurred?  Again, put your proof out there or quit just throwing propaganda statements against the wall hoping something sticks.

Quote
...but just wait until the investigations under Mueller (or at least state legal proceedings in case Trump shuts down the federal investigations)...

Lol.  So you have no proof or even any convincing evidence, but you are banking on a criminal prosecution anyway?  Didn't realize you liked banana republic justice.

Quote
- it will be far more severe than Hillary Clinton meeting with people who gave money to a charitable foundation from which she derived no income.

Lol.  This says everything anyone needs to know about how little you actually care about corruption.  Take a look at the pay to play laws, or heck any anti-bribery statute, and maybe rethink how blindly you are supporting this issue.

There is enough evidence that contributions to the Clinton foundation resulted in State Department access and even results, that if this structure had been run in a foreign country there would be criminal charges for US companies involved.  But hey, she's on your side, so "nothing to see here."
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on July 24, 2017, 12:02:35 PM
And so as the thread unravels you have your answer Greg

As a collective Trump base is all in.
At a individual level I suspect that abandoning support for Trump will take something affecting them at a personal level... i.e. the person he "kills in the street" is a relative.... first, maybe second degree relative  :)
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 24, 2017, 12:17:11 PM
It is politically useful for the right-wing to emphasize idiots like Kathy Griffin or hyperventilate over a production of Julius Caesar done as Trump without recognizing that idiots like Ted Nugent spent the entire Obama Administration acting as Griffin did, or that there were multiple Julius Caesar productions that used an Obama theme. Integrity means that you judge with equal severity the actions by who you see as your side.

Greg, the difference this time is that it isn't just loudmouth celebrities like Ted Nugent or Kathy Griffin who go over the line. In fact, in a way Griffin and other leftists are really just following suit in response to the general reaction of the general public. Griffin may have gone too far, but she's the kind of comic (like Late Night hosts and other stand-up comedians) that tends to piggyback on something that's already a meme and take it up a notch because that's her gimmick. There have always been loudmouths who will take it up a notch, just as you say. But what's different is that the meme she picked up on is more of a zeitgeist than a random splash hitting the news that will be gone in a week or two (like most material daily show comedy milks for its ratings). She did what she did knowing full well that vast amounts of liberal Americans were passing along and posting 'trending' material on FB and Twitter that pretty well amounts to hate propaganda. It's not just a fad, but has become a cultural phenomenon. Why do you think CNN has unwittingly admitted to a singular strategy of "don't deviate from Trump coverage no matter what?"

The complaint about the Caesar production and Kathy Griffin isn't that two screwballs went too far. It's that they did what they did knowing they were appealing to popular sentiment, and it's that sentiment that is a brand new thing. It's not comparable to any other time when you can point to the other side having done the same thing in the past; I've never, ever seen anything like this. Most of my friends/contacts verge from centrist to leftist, and I still see a constant barrage of anti-Trump material being posted and commented on. I've never before seen statements on Facebook such as "Anyone who supports this dictator unfriend me immediately" written in all caps, where you know there's actual rage behind the words. The scary thing about joking about violence towards the President is that I bet a lot of people covertly would like to see that for real.

Quote
Classified information leakage - how about Trump revealing that there is an Israeli spy at the heart of ISIS?

Don't want to address the other points since it's aggravating to have to be on the side defending Trump in any instance, and in fact part of the anti-Trump bandwagon kind of rides on the ever-present double dare towards anyone with the gall to defend Trump on one point when they 'should' be hating him universally on every point, never minding the details.

But you might want to re-assess how much conviction can justifiably be put into the various points of certainty you've outlined. Take this one for example, which we've already covered here, and which we know to be false. Israeli intelligence had no spy, and the rhetoric about Trump putting people in danger was a lie. It was a hacking operation, and Israel wanted to keep it a secret. Trump may have screwed them over in some way by telling Putin, which is a potential diplomatic error (or at any rate, a choice), but he didn't (and cannot, by definition) breach any rules about classified information, and didn't put any spy in danger because there was no spy. This wasn't an issue about classified leakage, or about damaging anyone's safety. If anything it was about helping Russia with their safety, although I can't assess whether this materially helped Russia in any actual way. It seemed funny to me from the word go that this story was spun as Trump damaging Israeli security when really it was about the controversial choice to help Russia with theirs and to go against an Israeli request for how to handle the information.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: JoshCrow on July 24, 2017, 03:45:28 PM
I've never, ever seen anything like this. Most of my friends/contacts verge from centrist to leftist, and I still see a constant barrage of anti-Trump material being posted and commented on. I've never before seen statements on Facebook such as "Anyone who supports this dictator unfriend me immediately" written in all caps, where you know there's actual rage behind the words.

I'll just point out the obvious and note that you don't have right-wing friends and that's probably why you didn't grok the level of anti-Obama contempt in your feeds. It was out there and it was grotesque, just like the current level of vitriol. The primary difference is just who is doing it, and that mainstream media outlets and indeed I would dare say "the educated" (including conservative intellectuals) are now on the "opposition" side of things.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 24, 2017, 04:12:05 PM
I'll just point out the obvious and note that you don't have right-wing friends and that's probably why you didn't grok the level of anti-Obama contempt in your feeds. It was out there and it was grotesque, just like the current level of vitriol. The primary difference is just who is doing it, and that mainstream media outlets and indeed I would dare say "the educated" (including conservative intellectuals) are now on the "opposition" side of things.

I didn't say I didn't have any, just that the majority are center/left. If I had to put a number to it maybe it's 80/20 or 85/15. What would be fair to say, though, is that since I've always lived in the Northeast even my right-wing friends/acquaintances are of a certain strain. I don't have personal friends who are Southern evangelicals, so your point is taken that I can't say I've known a full cross-section of what we might call right-wingers. But I had known people who are avid hunters, religious people (albeit not Evangelicals), ex-military people, and fiscal as well as social conservatives. So that's still a decent chunk of types of people, even though you're surely right that I don't have contacts from certain parts of the country (mostly I know very few people from the South).

That being said, I'm highly skeptical that there was the same backlash against Obama as there is now towards Trump. I guess I can't prove that, but are you telling me you were aware of Republicans back in 2008 cutting all ties to anyone they knew who voted for Obama, calling for Obama to be locked up on a daily basis, and calling him a disgusting pig who was a disgrace to the country? And if you say this, did you perceive that it was mainstream? If so, then maybe I missed it. I never picked up on anything like that at all, notwithstanding all the usual invective that I did hear about him using the executive dictatorially and wanting to make the U.S. into a socialist paradise.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 24, 2017, 04:14:37 PM
Well of course nobody is opening the City gate if the army surrounding it is promising to rape and pillage when it's let in. The people in the city may not approve of Trump but they aren't about to throw him over the side of the wall until they see evidence that anyone would care about their interests.

What people need to realize is if you declare total war on Trump you are essentially declaring it on his supporters. And if you don't offer them a carrot they literally can't support you. If Trump needs to go, then you have to have something to replace him other than total surrender for his support base. In other words you need a better candidate, a better Democratic Party. Pick another Hillary and it will be 2016 all over again in 2020.

This goes back to my refrain of "They don't get it"
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 24, 2017, 04:32:08 PM
That being said, I'm highly skeptical that there was the same backlash against Obama as there is now towards Trump. I guess I can't prove that, but are you telling me you were aware of Republicans back in 2008 cutting all ties to anyone they knew who voted for Obama, calling for Obama to be locked up on a daily basis, and calling him a disgusting pig who was a disgrace to the country? And if you say this, did you perceive that it was mainstream? If so, then maybe I missed it. I never picked up on anything like that at all, notwithstanding all the usual invective that I did hear about him using the executive dictatorially and wanting to make the U.S. into a socialist paradise.

I know quite a few people who thought Obama was potentially either a closeted Communist groomed for the task of undermining and destroying the American Government from within. (Ironically, now the Democrats are making comparable, only more forceful claims indirectly comparable to that in regards to Trump and Russia--which used to be a Communist nation) Or that he was a closeted Muslim hell bent on destroying America's "Christian institutions and traditions." (Whereas I could see a Communist wanting to do the same, because well, they're atheists, and undermining such things makes things easier for them going forward) There also was a small number, of which I have to acknowledge some passing curiosity on this matter as well(although I deemed it highly unlikely, with the hedge of knowing that's also supposed to be one of his hallmarks--being it without people realizing it until "its too late"), who were undecided as to whether or not Obama might be the Anti-Christ himself.

That said, I don't recall anyone campaigning either for his death, or his removal from office by any (legal) means necessary.  Although I did see some of the obligatory efforts that seem to happen with every President where people come up with imagined or sometimes plausible grounds under which they felt he should be impeached, but I don't recall it being taken very seriously(sometimes even by the ones pushing it). Which is not the sense I'm getting from the Anti-Trump scene.

Of course, I guess some of that also may be because I most of my social circles are more about the letter/spirit in which the law was written, rather than how they personally feel about what the law should be, so if there wasn't a legal basis or other social precedent for it. Then that's that.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 24, 2017, 05:03:10 PM
I didn't say I didn't have any, just that the majority are center/left. If I had to put a number to it maybe it's 80/20 or 85/15. What would be fair to say, though, is that since I've always lived in the Northeast even my right-wing friends/acquaintances are of a certain strain. I don't have personal friends who are Southern evangelicals, so your point is taken that I can't say I've known a full cross-section of what we might call right-wingers.

You were right with your first point.  There was no where near the same level of rhetoric from the right as what you see from the left today.  My own contacts are closer to 50/50, and do include people from the South as well as the North.

TheDeamon is right that many on the right thought Obama was a bad guy, some even thought he might be the antiChrist, but what they didn't do is treat his voters with this level of personal animosity.  Pretty much the idea was that Obama voters were freeloaders or not too bright, but not something to hate.  That's what's different with the left, they can't even accept Trump supporters are humans.  They back total war against them.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 24, 2017, 11:58:16 PM
Seriati,

You do appear to have a lot of time on your hands, but you still don't come clean when you are wrong. Still waiting for your answer when you predicted that Democrats would go crazy over destroyed emails, and then didn't respond to the fact that they didn't.

Fenring,

You have interesting standards for what is unusual. You have anecdotal evidence of Facebook friends saying
Quote
"Anyone who supports this dictator unfriend me immediately" written in all caps, where you know there's actual rage behind the words.
Do you recognize that Donald Trump has made multiple statements that are pretty close to what dictators say with respect to the degree that they are constrained by the law. Just this week he was claiming that he could pardon himself for any crime. Can you identify any prior President in US who made similar comments?
 

There is polling data where half of Republican voters said they believed that Obama was Muslim (implied meaning = friendly with terrorists), half said that he was not an American citizen (and thus ineligible to be President), and a quarter of them said that they believed he could be the anti-Christ.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 25, 2017, 12:00:49 AM
Quote
Be consistent with yourself, you repeatedly blamed Republicans for their rhetoric and it's consequences, you have multiple quotes on this topic, and none of their language rose to the level that Democrats are commonly using currently.

I am consistent. Kathy Griffin was a two-bit comic, and she was widely condemned by Democrats after those stupid remarks.  President Trump invited Ted Nugent to the White House.   
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 25, 2017, 12:10:08 AM
Seriati,

Thanks for your opinion on a SF-86. Have you ever signed one? It is a BFD, and this rule that you can lie on it shows how deeply radical extremism has a home among today's Republican Party.

Now, it is possible that there might be some foreign person who you met in some non-professional context who you did not name. But when you are a leader in a campaign for the Presidency and you hold a meeting with a Russian lawyer and her translator a few months ago, that's no accident. And when the topic is advertised in an email in advance as a foreign power actively moving to interfere in US elections, that's another flaming red line. And then when you go to the Russian Embassy to try to establish a secret communications channel that cannot be heard by the US government, that's another flaming red line.  And then when you sign a document after you have certified that any false reporting or omissions are punishable by up to five years in jail, that's another blindingly obvious line that honest people have no difficulty acknowledging. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Pete at Home on July 25, 2017, 12:49:26 AM
Quote
SF-86. Have you ever signed one? It is a BFD, and this rule that you can lie on it shows how deeply radical extremism has a home among today's Republican Party

While in your opinion, the remedy for someone lying on an SF-69 or whatever is massive unanimous public outrage?

Because that sounds to me more a matter for the federal courts than for a lynch mob. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 25, 2017, 09:08:11 AM
Seriati,

You do appear to have a lot of time on your hands, but you still don't come clean when you are wrong. Still waiting for your answer when you predicted that Democrats would go crazy over destroyed emails, and then didn't respond to the fact that they didn't.

You don't show a situation where there were deliberately destroyed emails.  The outrage would have been far less if Clinton was the innocent victim of a document retention policy, and had done everything in her power to get copies of the emails.

So to be quite frank, I stand by what I said.  There is no circumstance where Trump could deliberately delete emails and only turn over what he deems responsive where the left would not go over the top crazy.

Quote
Thanks for your opinion on a SF-86. Have you ever signed one? It is a BFD, and this rule that you can lie on it shows how deeply radical extremism has a home among today's Republican Party.

We might find it easier to communicate if you didn't misrepresent me and lie about what I said.

Show any place where I said he could lie on the form or retract your statement.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 25, 2017, 10:14:14 AM
Do you recognize that Donald Trump has made multiple statements that are pretty close to what dictators say with respect to the degree that they are constrained by the law. Just this week he was claiming that he could pardon himself for any crime.

I didn't read specifically about that claim so I can't comment about it. In general, no, I do not recognize that his general remarks sound like those of a dictator. They do, however, often resemble those of a boss or CEO who has a lot of unilateral power. Since I guess that's what people elected him to be it's reasonable in a funny way that his comportment matches what they voted for. The President doesn't actually have the same powers as a CEO but certainly Trump speaks as if he did. We might even suppose that the way he openly speaks of what he can do is a reflection on what the Presidency has evolved to become anyhow; he just openly says what is only generally supposed about a President but not admitted openly. And I have no problem agreeing that the apparent powers of the President have been extended too far, so if Trump is the catalyst to make some people realize the role should be reigned in then maybe he's done everyone a favor.

I'm still reading de Tocqueville (and likely will be for months because I'm a slow reader) and he speaks about how weak the powers of the President were in his time, and that this feature somewhat neutralizes the extent to which a bad choice can harm the people. If that is no longer the case then perhaps we should conclude that the office itself has become autocratic and that Trump is merely being vulgar about something is has been true for a while.
 
Quote
There is polling data where half of Republican voters said they believed that Obama was Muslim (implied meaning = friendly with terrorists), half said that he was not an American citizen (and thus ineligible to be President), and a quarter of them said that they believed he could be the anti-Christ.

I am more than happy to rubber stamp any proposition suggesting that the media has been poisoning public awareness for some time. And I was aware of significant anti-Obama sentiment at the time, but what I'm discussing is hatred towards the supporters of a President as well as vulgar and offensive language about the President. Maybe you experienced people calling Obama dirty names, but in my limited experience I never heard that. Oh, I heard people state very negative things about him, and I have no problem with anyone who does the same about Trump. It's the name-calling, the mocking, the rabid jeering, that feels new; and for all of this to be directed against Trump supporters equally with the man himself, I think that's new too.

If you wanted to do a comparison of tone I think a closer bet would be to look at Republican sentiment towards Hillary quite a while back, even before she was SecState. Boy, did they hate her. I daresay more so than they ever hated Obama. I used to literally see random signs up in conservative towns denouncing Hillary while she was a senator - maybe even before that. But even then the animosity seemed aimed solely at her rather than at one's own friends who may have been supporters of her.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 25, 2017, 10:25:31 AM
Quote
While in your opinion, the remedy for someone lying on an SF-69 or whatever is massive unanimous public outrage?

Jared Kushner's legal liability is totally a matter for the courts. My original post spoke about what would have to happen for supporters of Trump to lose their support, and it was going beyond a hypothetical time when there were convictions to the pardons phase.

And based on this very narrow sample, I don't yet see a threshold.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 25, 2017, 10:34:26 AM
Seriati:
Quote
Show any place where I said he could lie on the form or retract your statement.

My position is that any reasonable person hearing the following general statement about a senior campaign and White House official would conclude that the official had been lying:

Quote
Again, not perjury unless there was an intent to lie on the form.  Nothing I've seen, and certainly nothing you've demonstrated shows any intent to deceive by Mr. Kushner. 

When you sign the form, you state that you literally have to acknowledge that falsehoods or omissions are subject of a penalty of up to 5 years. What is the meaning of having anything like that statement on documents, if anyone can omit stuff and then when caught they are allowed to avoid all liability by stating that they forgot?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 25, 2017, 10:37:29 AM
I think, it's probably a lower threshhold than it takes for anti-Trumpers to give up on claims of Russian collusion without proof.  What's that a year without any evidence, and they're still doubling down?  Lol.

I give up on Trump when he stops trying to do the things he was elected to do, or actually betrays the country or the voters (and not just in the minds of the left, in reality). 

I should also point out that the premise is flawed.  No one should "support" a President in all things.  There are plenty of things that he and his administration are doing that I don't support, just far less on balance than his opponent would have done.  For example, the re-imposition of civil forfeiture.  That's a direct violation of the Constitution and an abomination. 

I'm not a fan of executive authority generally.  However, I don't mind Trump undoing regulatory excesses of his predecessors at all.  If it leads to a backlash even better, then I get rid of the original abuses and limit future abuses.

What exactly, do you think should cause someone to not support Trump?  What would cause you to support him?  Not in everything of course, but just in the way that we can generally support a President of the other party in the belief that he (or she) means well but is misguided.  Cause what I've seen, so far, is that there is no action - no matter what it is - that those on the left will get behind, even when its in their interests.  It's the epitome of irrationality.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 25, 2017, 10:56:54 AM
Seriati:
Quote
Show any place where I said he could lie on the form or retract your statement.

My position is that any reasonable person hearing the following general statement about a senior campaign and White House official would conclude that the official had been lying:

Nice back track.  I asked you to prove he was lying before, instead you accused me of lying.  However, your argument here is garbage.

He didn't list over one hundred foreign contacts on his form.  He informed the government the next day that it was incomplete and had been submitted in error.  He corrected and supplemented over the next few months.

The form itself tells you that you can supplement and update it.  The guidance that is out there makes it clear that an error is not a punishable offense, an inadvertant omission is not a punishable offense.   A misunderstanding of a question is not a punishable offense.

In fact, its common for people to make updates and corrections during the in person interview that happens after they submit the form and even after that point.

But lol, we should apply a different set of rules here than we would with anyone else.  Guess I shouldn't be surprised you also advocate a different set of rules for anyone name Clinton.

Quote
]Didn't mention contacts with agents of a foreign government in a private meeting held a few months earlier where the foreign agent was literally going to provide enemy intel to affect American politics

No evidence that she was an agent of a foreign government, or that they were aware she was.  No implication or evidence that she was providing "enemy intel" which is a double lie, since (a) Russia is not now or then a declared enemy of the US by our own account, and (b) it was not "intel" or intelligence, which implies state secrets that were to be offered, it by the email was records of a criminal investigation.

Quote
Didn't mention going to the embassy of that foreign country to try to establish a line of communications that would be protected from US oversight

Because it literally didn't occur.  What conspiracy site are you looking at?  What embassy  do you think was visited and what's your source?

In fact, its very common for foreign governments to reach out to transition teams and establish direct communications, they did it with every other transition team as well, you just didn't notice or care.

Quote
Submits an SF-86 that does not include this information

Asked, answered and explained.  I feel like your deliberately avoiding information that is contrary to your preconceived notions.

Quote
Quote
Again, not perjury unless there was an intent to lie on the form.  Nothing I've seen, and certainly nothing you've demonstrated shows any intent to deceive by Mr. Kushner. 

When you sign the form, you state that you literally have to acknowledge that falsehoods or omissions are subject of a penalty of up to 5 years. What is the meaning of having anything like that statement on documents, if anyone can omit stuff and then when caught they are allowed to avoid all liability by stating that they forgot?

Lol.  Whether you think its reasonable or not, we live in a country were people don't go to jail for specific intent crimes unless the government can prove that intent.  It's not perfect proof, which confused you guys when we discussed Benghazi and we couldn't find Obama's sworn testimony that his administration lied, but they do have to have some evidence of intent to establish.  A fact pattern, where they are immediately notified that the form is incomplete and will be supplemented is pretty much the literal opposite of a case for perjury.

Not to mention, in many cases people who have lied, then admitted the lie, have not been prosecuted and have in fact been granted security clearances.

You'd do well to remember that justice is supposed to be blind.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on July 25, 2017, 11:35:41 AM
Quote
He didn't list over one hundred foreign contacts on his form.  He informed the government the next day that it was incomplete and had been submitted in error.  He corrected and supplemented over the next few months.

The form itself tells you that you can supplement and update it.  The guidance that is out there makes it clear that an error is not a punishable offense, an inadvertant omission is not a punishable offense.   A misunderstanding of a question is not a punishable offense.

In fact, its common for people to make updates and corrections during the in person interview that happens after they submit the form and even after that point.

But lol, we should apply a different set of rules here than we would with anyone else.  Guess I shouldn't be surprised you also advocate a different set of rules for anyone name Clinton.
I got to ask.  What do you believe this form / process exists for?  I don’t mean to question any of the above.  It makes sense to allow people to make corrections without fear of being locked up for an “honest mistake”.  But if this loophole, which is large enough to drive a truck through, means, in your mind (and perhaps in most minds?) it is a toothless document / process entirely; then what’s the point?

Also, I want to point out that while it makes for good click bait and riling up both sides of the fringes, there are a lot of us out there who want this investigated so that we can see what did and did not happen.  An updated civics lesson on what IS and IS NOT permitted under current law.  A discussion about how and where our laws should be updated when the “honor system” or “tradition” or “ethic standards” have been used in place of actual laws because nobody believed anyone would be boorish enough to just ignore those things. 
I believe the Russian government wanted Trump to win.  I’ve explained previously how this is a win/win for them.  I believe that Trump is willing to do anything he can get away with to personally benefit.  I also believe that Trump is not an idiot.  And while he will be willing to sacrifice people, manipulate people with blatant lies and distract his tiny Grinch heart out; he’s not an idiot.  I, unlike many on my side of the political divide, don’t believe he will cross any legal line that has serious consequences for him.  Nothing he can’t “take back” and claim ignorance or victimhood on. 
This is not about a yes or no answer on Russian collusion.  While it’s important to answer that, it seems like anyone hoping for a “yes” result is in for some serious disappointment.  That doesn’t mean this is all a witch hunt, or a smokescreen or political theater, or obstructionism by means of distraction by Trump’s opponents.

Many of us here have complained about the expansive (and expanding) power of the executive.  Trump is showing us, and delighting in every moment of our “education”, how frail our safeguards are from keeping an inexperienced egomaniac demagogue from making a mess of our nation.  The man is so repellant to huge swaths of this country that this is hardly a matter of politics at this point.  People (most even) HATE Trump.  They only dislike or worry about Republican policy goals.  That “Trump’s supporters” are seen as disciples of the man, not supporters of their party/politics’ representative, is driving force behind the animosity against them by the left.

I will say that it’s unfair.  The smugly pointed to popularity numbers even among Republicans even shows this is unfair.  Yet this image, in the minds of the left persists.  Mostly because the media delights in showing fringe right “Trump supporters”.  Not loyal Republicans defending their “Well at least we stopped Hillary” and the implied, any person capable of placing a signature to paper is “good enough”, vote.  Never forget (or at least I’ll never forget) how badly we pooped the bed by nominating Hillary Clinton as our candidate.  Scandals aside, she was reviled by the right, and by the end, a poor consolation prize by a big faction of the left.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on July 25, 2017, 01:10:19 PM
P.S.  Formatting in Word looked (slightly) less of a mess.  Still didn't proofread that well enough.   :-\
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 28, 2017, 03:25:20 PM
Just saw a FB post trending around, consisting of a statement: "Dear Senator McCain, I am so glad that I do not have to hate you."

There is a lot to say about a statement like this being passed around, and presumably endorsed by those posting it. There is the word "hate" in there, mentioned as if it's the duty of liberals to hate people who oppose them; and maybe also lumped in the notion that hatred is the proper weapon to be employed in order to cow people into falling in line. Then there's the idea that any time a person votes against something you care about they are evil and should be hated. And even beyond that there's the curious idea that a man can vote any way he likes for years, pursue any agenda he wants, and in one instant when he votes according to the agenda of a hot topic the crusaders can embrace him as being ok.

So why am I making a big deal about this s***post? When considering the question of how far people will go in "supporting Trump", as others have mentioned the issue isn't supporting him, but rather what kind of people one would be inviting in by not supporting whatever candidate the GOP had running. The fact that it's Trump is almost irrelevant in this context, it just means that many people no doubt had to 'support' him through gritted teeth. Not that I'm saying that this extreme quote somehow represents the majority of Democrats out there. But when sentiments like this become popular enough that they get significant support from vocal activists and some measure of online 'press', can we really wonder why many conservatives or Republicans couldn't imagine how to ever find common cause with these kinds of people?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 28, 2017, 06:54:05 PM
Fenring, I disagree that you can impute how a group believes based on some social media postings - if you did that, for the past few years there has been a greater volume of more hostile social media posts in favor of the belief system on the right rather than the left (in part due to concerted action of those wanting to promote pro-Republican beliefs, a group that our intelligence agencies agrees includes the Russian government).   

I do think it is bogus to make decisions on hatred on a single vote, even something that from the perspective of the Democrats (and epidemiologists using peer reviewed scientific research) is that this vote determines whether thousands of Americans live or die each year.

But you then go to question how "conservatives or Republicans couldn't imagine how to ever find common cause with these kinds of people".  That's a crazy standard, particularly based on anecdotal evidence that I recognize you may really feel, but may reflect less than a few percent of Democrats.

Imagine if we applied that standard consistently, and instead people on Side A hating someone because of an action they took, people on Side B asserted that the President from your party was foreign-born (and thus not a legitimate President of the US), Muslim, and may be the anti-Christ? Because arguably all of those in this context are the same or worse than "hate", and more than 50% of Republicans asserted the first two hateful claims, and more than 25% asserted the third.

That's not a few social media posts or a few percent - that's a majority of Republicans who had those beliefs during the Obama Administration. So by your rules, how should Democrats feel about Republicans who make common cause with that other half of their party?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 29, 2017, 03:53:18 AM
The honest answer is the point at which I would stop supporting Trump is if he stops deporting illegals. Obama allowing the invasion of America was a greater betrayal than anything that Democrats have ever fantasized Trump doing. If that's all Trump does is secure the border and keep up the deportations then nothing else he does short of nuclear war will do more harm than the good he does by saving America from the devastating effects of open borders.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on July 29, 2017, 07:54:22 AM
Quote
Imagine if we applied that standard consistently, and instead people on Side A hating someone because of an action they took, people on Side B asserted that the President from your party was foreign-born (and thus not a legitimate President of the US), Muslim, and may be the anti-Christ? Because arguably all of those in this context are the same or worse than "hate", and more than 50% of Republicans asserted the first two hateful claims, and more than 25% asserted the third.

That's not a few social media posts or a few percent - that's a majority of Republicans who had those beliefs during the Obama Administration. So by your rules, how should Democrats feel about Republicans who make common cause with that other half of their party?

Greg, there's a key distinction you're not perceiving. Yes, many of the people who hate Obama because he's a secret Muslim (or whatnot) are also the kinds of people that conservatives (like myself) might find distasteful, even appalling in some circumstances.

Yet, the fact remains that these people are on the losing side of a culture war that's been going on for decades. Their influence in the media is practically nil, culturally they are losing most of their power. Rural, religious, socially conservative - these are dying values.

I know you are probably skeptical of that latter comment, but I do believe I'm right and I'm not the only one. As Michael Moore (someone whose views carry alot of weight with me these days): "The left won the culture war". PERIOD.

This is about culture. One type of culture is ascendant, one is fading away. The people who think Obama is a secret muslim? They're being swept away. The people who think anyone who supported Trump should be hated? They're ascendant. Trump's election provokes such an extreme reaction in them for the exact reason that they're so used to winning every war they have fought, getting virtually everything they ever wanted (although never realizing it), that when someone came to power who was truly contemptuous of their values, it was the biggest shock of ice water to their faces most of them had likely experienced in their lives. For them it must have been like somebody showing up on CNN advocating for the return of slavery.

So yes, there is hate on both sides, but one side is fading, decaying and impotent, while the other side - well they're the next generation. They will shape the policies of the future. Trump is a last gasp of a spent force - a fluke caused by the Democrats selection of a woefully inadequate / tone deaf candidate and a catastrophically botched campaign. And even then it was neck and neck.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 29, 2017, 10:25:51 AM
Quote
Imagine if we applied that standard consistently, and instead people on Side A hating someone because of an action they took, people on Side B asserted that the President from your party was foreign-born (and thus not a legitimate President of the US), Muslim, and may be the anti-Christ? Because arguably all of those in this context are the same or worse than "hate", and more than 50% of Republicans asserted the first two hateful claims, and more than 25% asserted the third.

That's not a few social media posts or a few percent - that's a majority of Republicans who had those beliefs during the Obama Administration. So by your rules, how should Democrats feel about Republicans who make common cause with that other half of their party?

Greg, there's a key distinction you're not perceiving. Yes, many of the people who hate Obama because he's a secret Muslim (or whatnot) are also the kinds of people that conservatives (like myself) might find distasteful, even appalling in some circumstances.

Woah there, better slow down a bit. "Hate" in regards to Obama is perhaps too strong of a term to use. Dislike, distrust, and disapprove sure. But (unthinking) hate? That's a no go.

At least based on my own experience with people who suspected it was likely that Obama was any of the above(or alternately some flavor of "secret Communist"). Largely because I sat on the edge of that camp myself, in that I viewed those options as possible, but not very probable over time(although some of those options were ranked at 50/50 for a time). Generally, my experience with people in those camps was they viewed most of the people backing Obama as being deceived either willingly or unwillingly. Which is a stark contrast to the "typical liberal response" being seen in regards to Trump's win.

That isn't to say there wasn't a subset of people within those anti-Obama camps that simply went to unthinking, unrelenting, reflexive hate in regards to anything Obama was up to. But you're probably still only taking a single percentage point out of a fraction of a fraction of the population. And those types are distasteful in general, but don't painting significant pluralities with that brush.
 
Quote
This is about culture. One type of culture is ascendant, one is fading away. The people who think Obama is a secret muslim? They're being swept away.

Well, that and Obama is functionally irrelevant at this time, not that he isn't trying to change that. So long as he remains irrelevant, most of that stuff doesn't matter much, and the "birther issue" should have ended with his Presidency, anyone still pursuing it at this point is either a historian, a nutcase, a scam artist, or someone with "a patron" that is one of the above.

Quote
The people who think anyone who supported Trump should be hated? They're ascendant. Trump's election provokes such an extreme reaction in them for the exact reason that they're so used to winning every war they have fought, getting virtually everything they ever wanted (although never realizing it), that when someone came to power who was truly contemptuous of their values, it was the biggest shock of ice water to their faces most of them had likely experienced in their lives. For them it must have been like somebody showing up on CNN advocating for the return of slavery.

Largely agreed.

Quote
So yes, there is hate on both sides, but one side is fading, decaying and impotent, while the other side - well they're the next generation. They will shape the policies of the future. Trump is a last gasp of a spent force - a fluke caused by the Democrats selection of a woefully inadequate / tone deaf candidate and a catastrophically botched campaign. And even then it was neck and neck.

Trump is the culmination of well over a decade of "tone-deaf politics" on the part of both sides. While he wasn't actually a Tea-Party candidate, if anything he was an anti-Tea-party candidate, he just also wasn't pro-establishment. He basically was, as I was saying over a year ago, "the Tea Parties revenge" during the Primaries(perhaps the better name would have been "The dis-affected conservative voters revenge"), which caught him the Republican nomination. Which then put him in position during the general election to then pick off a large number of "dis-affected democratic voters" that Clinton generated during her own tone-deaf campaign(and 8 years of being largely ignored by Obama and the DNC). Clinton just further compounded it by failing to connect with other "key parts of the Democratic base" which caused voter turnout in districts that could have helped her to drop.

The mid-terms will be interesting to watch, in particular many of the Republican Primaries, but I still expect the General Election is going to be a complete zoo, and result in an underwhelming outcome for the Dems. Because they're not getting it.

Of course, I guess its possible that a Trump presidency may result in some districts seeing some slightly better than usual candidates step up in traditionally Republican districts, but I think pressure from the national campaign organizations(both for and against them) will still net the result of "they don't get it" because of the tone-deaf national platforms... Advantage goes to the Incumbents.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 29, 2017, 11:39:19 AM
Quote
The honest answer is the point at which I would stop supporting Trump is if he stops deporting illegals. Obama allowing the invasion of America was a greater betrayal than anything that Democrats have ever fantasized Trump doing.

Cherry, if that's really your fundamental point, how would you compare President George W Bush to President Obama? Because illegal immigration into the United States grew by many millions under Bush, while Obama increased the level of deportations and the number of illegal immigrants in the US declined.   

So if your principles are really about illegal immigration rather than hating on Democrats, you should be able to say that Obama was far better than Bush on your most fundamental concern. But of course you won't do that, just creating more evidence that you care less about policy outcomes and more about partisanship.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 29, 2017, 11:53:12 AM
jasonr,

There are cultural elements that have gone strongly in the Democrats direction in recent years, particularly with respect to treatment of those formerly subject to legally sanctioned prejudice, and some aspects of healthcare (not just Obamacare, but even going back to Reagan signing the bill that emergency rooms could not reject patients who could not pay). At the same time, there are cultural elements that have gone far in the other direction - gun culture has pushed mainstream policy to a place that is far to the right of even what the NRA was advocating for back in the 1960's.  And cultural attitudes towards the very wealthy have enabled the highest pay gap between CEOs and average workers in about a century.

The thought that those one the left are used to winning every battle we have ever fought is different from my experience.  Jimmy Carter was the most conservative Democrat running in 1976, so much so that he and Ford were about the same on policy (and I favored Ford -although I was too young to vote). Then came two terms of Reagan, followed by Bush, followed by Bill Clinton who again was more to the right than left of the Democrats.  Then came George W Bush, the cutting of the capital gains tax in half, gutting regulation, cutting sweet deals for corporations (they gave back the multi-billion settlement against tobacco companies for lying about smoking and cancer), and the Iraq War (where they won Congress by superimposing the face of Osama bin Laden on the faces of Democratic candidates).  And let's not even go into the level of opposition against President Obama, because there's a long list of extraordinary behavior by Republicans that were unfortunately rewarded by political success.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 29, 2017, 11:59:07 AM
TheDeamon,

I was contrasting the difference between some anecdotal evidence that some on the left were using "hate" to describe Republicans, and polling data showing a majority of Republicans were willing to believe absolutely crazy stuff about President Obama, including that he was not eligible to be President, a secret Muslim (read: ally of terrorists), etc. I'd say that's both more people and a substantially stronger negative sentiment held by those larger amount of people.

So if the principle is that opposition to a group may be justified/explained because some in that group hold distasteful views, wouldn't that imply that Democrats should have a far more difficult time getting along withe Republicans rather than the reverse? (And note, I am disagreeing with that principle, because it would lead to no one ever getting along with anyone else)
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on July 29, 2017, 12:05:22 PM
Greg you are confusing left wing culture with a left wing political establishment. On Bush's watch, for example, gay marriage became universal. His positions didn't move the needle at all. He made 0 difference in gay rights, immigration, abortion, and pretty much any position the right cares about. Pretending he shifted the culture rightward (or indeed any Republican did since Reagan) is fantasy.

Where the argument gets murky is on gun rights and corporate dominance. The former is an issue tbat straddles right and left and isn't entirely clear like abortion for example. The latter is one area that is also murky and seems to straddle both political parties. But the left won the culture war. Note I say won, not winning. It's over.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 29, 2017, 12:34:04 PM
Fenring, I disagree that you can impute how a group believes based on some social media postings - if you did that, for the past few years there has been a greater volume of more hostile social media posts in favor of the belief system on the right rather than the left (in part due to concerted action of those wanting to promote pro-Republican beliefs, a group that our intelligence agencies agrees includes the Russian government).

If you think you're seeing more hostile right-wing social media posts at the moment compared to what I'm seeing from the left, I shouldn't be surprised that you would want to delete your accounts. I've never seen anything like what I've been seeing recently. If you're seeing something even worse why punish yourself?

But yes, I do think the extremist slogans one sees are telling, even of the more mainstream elements. You can tell which way the wind is blowing by how far extremism will be generally accepted without any blowback or answer. When a comment is posted that I would consider radical in essence and multiple people who I know are not lunatics "like" it or make generally positive replies, while that doesn't mean the majority agrees it does mean that it's coming to the point where it's passing as acceptable or even agreeable.

One thing I have distinctly noticed about social media posts on 'SJW' topics is that those posting them are definitely *not* looking for discussion or debate. I used to reply to posts like that sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, or sometimes just questioning the premise without opposing it outright, but in almost all cases such posts were met with blatant hostility, even from people who are mild-mannered in life. Maybe you've observed the same from right-wing posts, and if so I guess I'm not surprised. But since any kind of dissent isn't tolerated in some social media settings it's certainly possible that there are those who oppose the posts but are cowed into saying nothing about it. That's a reasonable assumption, but then again if the opposition is cowed doesn't that mean that the extremists have de facto won the debate and taken front and center in the visible public sphere?

It is therefore not necessarily relevant to even try to impute group sentiment from disparate social media posts. A minority can still control the conversation if they're the only ones speaking. That is a problem in American culture right now, that there is no significant public voice for the moderate center.

Quote
But you then go to question how "conservatives or Republicans couldn't imagine how to ever find common cause with these kinds of people".  That's a crazy standard, particularly based on anecdotal evidence that I recognize you may really feel, but may reflect less than a few percent of Democrats.

It's not a crazy standard if the voice of 'these kinds of people' become the de facto voice of the left due to lack of competition. One of the chief problems in politics right now isn't that no one has anything in common, but that the lines of communication have been reduced to the extreme elements of each side yelling at each other. The middle has been effectively silenced or pushed to each side by default. That doesn't mean there *is no* middle, but it does mean that - if you think of cultural wars as being a list of checkboxes where you tick off your position - the only options being offered as legitimate positions are on the extreme edges.

Quote
That's not a few social media posts or a few percent - that's a majority of Republicans who had those beliefs during the Obama Administration. So by your rules, how should Democrats feel about Republicans who make common cause with that other half of their party?

The way the conversation is structured right now it's been engineered for this exact thing to be the result - that no one can see anything in common with their fellow man. I'm not surprised, it's just that there is an additional level of hypocrisy when the exact same people who argue that it's wrong to hate someone for being different openly advocate for hating people who...are different.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 29, 2017, 12:56:08 PM
Quote
The honest answer is the point at which I would stop supporting Trump is if he stops deporting illegals. Obama allowing the invasion of America was a greater betrayal than anything that Democrats have ever fantasized Trump doing.

Cherry, if that's really your fundamental point, how would you compare President George W Bush to President Obama? Because illegal immigration into the United States grew by many millions under Bush, while Obama increased the level of deportations and the number of illegal immigrants in the US declined.

First, on the illegal immigration and Bush(43) pursuing an amnesty. That cost him a LOT of conservative support, and played a major role in undermining the support base of the Republican Party from the conservative quarter in the latter half of the Bush Administration, as they essentially viewed him as being little different from the Democrats. Which translated into their either staying at home, or voting third party in protest, which in turn helped the Democrats gain seats. McCain likewise paid the price for that in 2008 as IIRC, he kept the amnesty option open, among a few other issues. Which for the conservative voter made him little different from Obama, so many conservative voters remained at home in 2008. Of course, the second term for Bush was complicated for reasons other than immigration alone. The fiscal conservatives didn't like the runaway deficit(even Obama campaigned on curbing it!), as well as push back on No Child Left Behind, which turned out to only be a warm-up for Common Core under Obama.  As well as a number of other issues that have been lost to the haze of time.

Quote
So if your principles are really about illegal immigration rather than hating on Democrats, you should be able to say that Obama was far better than Bush on your most fundamental concern. But of course you won't do that, just creating more evidence that you care less about policy outcomes and more about partisanship.

Except that there is a difference between prior admins and the Obama Admin

A quick Google come up with: (Keep in mind, they rate the stated claim false, but also admit that the numbers indicate only a slight increase in total. Just how they're reported and tracked has changed)

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/15/lou-dobbs/lou-dobbs-obama-administration-manipulated-deporta/
Quote
In federal government lingo, official judicial or administrative orders to leave the country are called "removals," and they can happen right at the border or anywhere else on American soil. A removal is what most people would consider a deportation.

But for people caught illegally crossing the border and simply turned around, there’s another term: "return."

Unlike removals, a return does not bar someone from legally entering the country someday, though that is hard for most because they do not have a family or employment connection necessary to get in line for citizenship, said David Martin, a University of Virginia School of Law professor.

. . .

Whereas many immigrants previously caught at the border simply were bused back to Mexico, they now are returned with official deportation orders, prosecuted, or moved to different parts of the border so they cannot reconnect with their smuggler, Martin said.

In short, these people previously would have been classified as a "return," but the policy has been to put them through removal proceedings. As such, they are classified as a "removal."

. . .

What he’s getting at: Obama is boosting his "removal" statistics by including people who used to be on the "return" list.

To check the numbers, we turned to two different sources, though each has its problems.

. . .

The chart shows the total number of removals is up, and the share of removals from the border has been increasing since 2008. By 2013, 64 percent of the year’s 369,000 ICE removals were people who crossed the border and put through a formal process before leaving the country, a jump of 28 percentage points from 2008. The number of people deported from within the country fell accordingly, from 64 percent in 2008 to 36 percent in 2013.

. . .

The second set of data from the Department of Homeland Security’s Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, which measures removals and returns separately for each fiscal year (Oct. 1-Sept. 30). It includes data from ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which houses the Border Patrol. The most recent data is through 2012.

According to Homeland Security data, removals have indeed climbed over recent years, starting in 2006 and continuing under Obama.

But returns, which don’t carry formal consequences, have gone down.

The recession and increased border resources are partially credited for the decline in returns, as is the shift in policy.

"To me, the thing that really stands out with the lower number of returns is fewer number of people are getting apprehended at the border in the first place," said Matt Graham, a Bipartisan Policy Center immigration analyst. "(Obama) has fewer opportunities to return people."

Removals are highest on an annual basis under Obama, says Theresa Brown, Bipartisan Policy Center director of immigration policy. But if you factor in returns, Bush indeed outpaces Obama.

"If you want to say that he’s removed more people than any other administration, then that’s true," Brown said. "If you want to say he hasn’t actually expelled more people than any other president, that might also be true."

People should be more precise so we know exactly what they mean by "deportation," Brown said. "It’s the difference between getting off with a warning and going to court."
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 29, 2017, 01:19:31 PM
One thing I have distinctly noticed about social media posts on 'SJW' topics is that those posting them are definitely *not* looking for discussion or debate. I used to reply to posts like that sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, or sometimes just questioning the premise without opposing it outright, but in almost all cases such posts were met with blatant hostility, even from people who are mild-mannered in life. Maybe you've observed the same from right-wing posts, and if so I guess I'm not surprised. But since any kind of dissent isn't tolerated in some social media settings it's certainly possible that there are those who oppose the posts but are cowed into saying nothing about it. That's a reasonable assumption, but then again if the opposition is cowed doesn't that mean that the extremists have de facto won the debate and taken front and center in the visible public sphere?

It is therefore not necessarily relevant to even try to impute group sentiment from disparate social media posts. A minority can still control the conversation if they're the only ones speaking. That is a problem in American culture right now, that there is no significant public voice for the moderate center.

Agreed. Of course, the "anti-SJW" crowd is often as venomous as the SJW's themselves are. But it still generally stands, on the topic of the SJW's, there is little ground left for most people to be able claim a middle ground on. They'll get roasted from at least one side at best, and both at worst. In that kind of environment, most people learn to simply keep their heads down and try to steer clear of those topics, or move discussion away from them so they don't need to stake out a for or against position on the topic at hand. The only real option left for a moderate is to remain silent on the matter at this time.

Quote
But you then go to question how "conservatives or Republicans couldn't imagine how to ever find common cause with these kinds of people".  That's a crazy standard, particularly based on anecdotal evidence that I recognize you may really feel, but may reflect less than a few percent of Democrats.

It's not a crazy standard if the voice of 'these kinds of people' become the de facto voice of the left due to lack of competition. One of the chief problems in politics right now isn't that no one has anything in common, but that the lines of communication have been reduced to the extreme elements of each side yelling at each other. The middle has been effectively silenced or pushed to each side by default. That doesn't mean there *is no* middle, but it does mean that - if you think of cultural wars as being a list of checkboxes where you tick off your position - the only options being offered as legitimate positions are on the extreme edges.

Which goes back to the "they don't get it" refrain in particular in regards to "the Left" they're setting themselves up for someone not much unlike Reagan(but a moderate, rather than conservative) to come along and play to the "moral majority" that lies somewhere in the center of this quagmire, the challenge such a person has at present is finding a platform to run such a campaign from. Because the extremes on both sides are working to ensure that moderates cannot function in the political arena.

Quote
Quote
That's not a few social media posts or a few percent - that's a majority of Republicans who had those beliefs during the Obama Administration. So by your rules, how should Democrats feel about Republicans who make common cause with that other half of their party?

The way the conversation is structured right now it's been engineered for this exact thing to be the result - that no one can see anything in common with their fellow man. I'm not surprised, it's just that there is an additional level of hypocrisy when the exact same people who argue that it's wrong to hate someone for being different openly advocate for hating people who...are different.

Which isn't to mention they're ignoring the "hate the sin, not the sinner" which is something a lot of the Conservatives and even Moderates attempt to abide by. It was also part of my earlier comment on "anti-Obama believers in ____" group largely believing that most of the people supporting Obama and company were being mislead and were misinformed or misguided. That isn't HATE.

Compare that with the Left wing archetype of "the Republican Supporter" which is basically a caricature of a person, loves their guns more than life itself, hates gays or anybody else who might be "different" from them, can't be bothered to give  a rat's a-- about the welfare of the fellow man, so on and so forth. 

I mean hell, most conservatives wouldn't want to have much to do with THAT caricature, but that is a large part of backlash and sentiment coming from the left on social media. "If you support(ed) Trump, or the Republican Party please unfriend/unfollow me, as I don't want anything to do with someone who supports eating black babies." There isn't really any kind of parallel I'm aware of from "the right" when it came to people who supported ObamaCare, Obama in general, or anything of the like.

Of course, the other thing that's being conveyed in this thread from Greg and a few others is underlying loss of ability to disagree with someone in a respectful manner. The mental trap all too many Left-wingers is falling into these days is the fallacious assertion that people who merely disagree with them are haters, and that they're not presenting a position from anything approaching logic from their own respective point of view. They're being disagreeable with them because they hate them.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 29, 2017, 02:35:38 PM
As was pointed out, Bush was also a failure on border security. I don't buy that bit about Obama being tougher and deporting more because Obama changed the definition of a deportation to everyone turned around at the border. So someone tries to get in five times and is caught at the border four times and turned around but makes it on the fifth try then that counts as four deportations when in reality it is one extra undocumented immigrant. I don't remember Bush's push for amnesty but I take TheDeamon's word for it. Certainly his brother lost the primary because of his support for amnesty and open borders and saying coming to America was an act of love by undocumented immigrants. Well I do agree it is an act of love for many of them who just want the best opportunity for themselves and their children; there just aren't enough resources to let everyone in who wants to come. Europe is finding that out the hard way right now too.I wouldn't mind more legal immigrants but they have to be background checked, health checked, and able to support themselves and their families without becoming public charges, and the people and resources it takes to do all that checking limits how many we can take in at a time. There are many reasons why border security is the most important issue. National security. Demographics and their effect on elections. Culture and assimilation. Law and order. Trump was the only candidate who had the right position and he's doing a great job on fulfilling his promise. I support him on a host of other issues, and disagree with him on a few, but if immigration was the only thing he did right and I disagreed with him on everything else I'd still support him. You can't have a country at all if you don't have a border.

The whole Russia thing is pretty ridiculous as just about every Trump supporter knows Russia had nothing to do with why they voted for Trump unless Putin was whispering into Trump's ear that he'd better secure the border. Mueller should be fired for not recusing himself since he was the mentor of leaker Comey so has a conflict of interest and he is stacking his staff with Democrats. But one good thing about letting him stay on is if even he can't find anything on illegal Russian collusion then that will be quite telling.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 29, 2017, 02:53:10 PM
I don't remember Bush's push for amnesty but I take TheDeamon's word for it.

Don't need to take mine, a quick google search turns this up:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/01/08/bush-amnesty-plan-raises-immigration-concerns.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

Of which this one is somewhat relevant to 2008's General Election:

Quote
The bill was a compromise based largely on three previous failed immigration reform bills:
The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033), a bill proposed in May 2005 by Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, sometimes referred to as the "McCain-Kennedy or McKennedy Bill."
The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438), a bill proposed in July 2005 by Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl, sometimes referred to as the "Cornyn-Kyl Bill."
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter, which was passed in the Senate in May 2006 but never passed in the House.
The bill's sole sponsor in the Senate was Majority Leader Harry Reid, though it was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy, McCain and Kyl, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and input from President George W. Bush, who strongly supported the bill.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 29, 2017, 06:24:42 PM
Quote
Which isn't to mention they're ignoring the "hate the sin, not the sinner" which is something a lot of the Conservatives and even Moderates attempt to abide by. It was also part of my earlier comment on "anti-Obama believers in ____" group largely believing that most of the people supporting Obama and company were being mislead and were misinformed or misguided. That isn't HATE.

Compare that with the Left wing archetype of "the Republican Supporter" which is basically a caricature of a person, loves their guns more than life itself, hates gays or anybody else who might be "different" from them, can't be bothered to give  a rat's a-- about the welfare of the fellow man, so on and so forth.

Except you don't have any evidence that Republicans are more gentle and kindly in their opposition - you just feel that to be true. But your feelings are inconsistent with actual polling data. Polls have shown that a majority of Republicans actually held those grotesque, false, and incredibly negative views about President Obama as the foreign, Muslim, and yes even potential anti-Christ that I referred to. A smaller subset got into the really racist stuff (just last week someone I have known for years referred to him as the "zebra Hitler") and that might be analogous to the anecdotal negatives from some on the Left being ascribed as representative of all those on the Left.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 29, 2017, 06:35:35 PM
Quote
But yes, I do think the extremist slogans one sees are telling, even of the more mainstream elements. You can tell which way the wind is blowing by how far extremism will be generally accepted without any blowback or answer.

Fenring, I think we are in agreement here - but that's a question that runs through this whole topic: how much the extraordinary extremism of the Republican Party and the Trump Administration is being normalized. Let's take some major structural things that have become normalized within the Republican Party:

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on July 29, 2017, 07:17:59 PM
Greg are the three items listed supposed to be examples of Republicans hating those on the opposition? I thought that was the topic... But assuming you're just airing grievances against the Trump admin, would those be your top 3? Because if so, now I know why I just tuned out the anti Trump fanatics - weak weak weak sauce.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 29, 2017, 09:25:14 PM
Except you don't have any evidence that Republicans are more gentle and kindly in their opposition - you just feel that to be true. But your feelings are inconsistent with actual polling data. Polls have shown that a majority of Republicans actually held those grotesque, false, and incredibly negative views about President Obama as the foreign, Muslim, and yes even potential anti-Christ that I referred to.

Depending on how the poll question was phrased, you do realize I could very well have answered in the affirmative to the questions as well? Well, aside from the birther stuff, because I honestly didn't care, so long as his mother was who he said she was, and since nobody to my knowledge has challenged on that grounds, it was firmly filed under "I could care less either way."

As to his being a Muslim, and/or being the Anti-Christ(as being the anti-Christ and Muslim isn't mutually exclusive to my knowledge) it still remains in the "possible" column for me based on some of what he's been up to in recent months. I do not view it as particularly probable, but I'll acknowledge it as possible. So with that said, I can honestly say that while that would have potentially made me wary of meeting Obama in person, it had little bearing on how I interacted with others who espoused their support for Obama.

I know for most everybody else I knew who had suspicions of one kind or another towards Obama likewise were able to keep separate the idea of dislike for Obama vs dislike of all people who supported Obama. In the meantime, I don't even have to try to find an Anti-Trump person who will socially blacklist you the moment you say anything even remotely supportive of Donald Trump.

How you're drawing equivalence between somebody holding the view that you may be (situationally) retarded for supporting _____. When compared to the person who will blackball you the moment they discover you either won't instantly condemn _____, or might actually agree with ____ on ____. Is beyond me.

Yes, Republicans and Conservative held some really poor, or potentially outright crazy views regarding Obama personally. Your polling data reflects that. What it doesn't reflect is how those Republicans and Conservatives reacted to people who were not President Obama.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 30, 2017, 03:26:06 PM
JasonR,

Those three points were in rebuttal to Fenring making claims about the left having normalized extreme behavior through rhetoric.  I countered by identifying three examples of actual extremist behavior (by the standards of any past era at least in the last 60 years) that has been normalized within the right wing of the United States.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 30, 2017, 03:57:24 PM
Quote
What it doesn't reflect is how those Republicans and Conservatives reacted to people who were not President Obama

I have two answers to this:

(1) My perception is that there is hateful and derogatory language towards those of us on the left with at least as much hostility, frequency, and reach as towards those on the right.  For example, the nasty childish insult "Libtard" - which I bring up as an example because of its frequent use by political editorials by Sinclair Communications, the right-wing media company buying up local stations and forcing their management to air the right-wing propaganda or be fired. Or consider the example of the Speaker of the House in the 1990's, Newt Gingrich, coming up with a list of hateful, venomous language to be used by all House Republicans in referring to all liberals in the country. You cannot name any analogous activity on the same scale on the left.

(2) Are there any conditions under which you believe that people are justified in actually having hatred for others due to the actions that they take? Personally, I try to make my judgments based on actions - hate the deed, not the do'er. That's a pretty hard standard to achieve - how many of you think that your previous comments would reflect living fully up to that standard?   

If it is possible to legitimately have hatred for an evil ruler, say a Mussolini, then the question is where on the spectrum any current leader falls. Trump has not taken actions as evil as Mussolini eventually did. However, he has violated standards of decency that prior to his rise to power would have horrified both Republicans and Democrats. He has already proudly admitted to doing things that sent Republicans into apoplexy when they were accusing a Clinton of doing the same. As one of many examples, Bill Clinton talked for 20 minutes on a plane with someone who doesn't work for him and Republicans get apoplectic; Trump says he's firing the head of the FBI because of the Russia investigation, and clearly wants to fire the Attorney General because he recused himself, and you give him the benefit of a doubt. Except for mouthing the words of the oath of office, he's given little indication that he believes he is bound by the rule of law.

There's no comparison between the actions of President Trump and those of President Obama and Clinton. As with President George W. Bush, we had to grapple for years of the question "Great President or Greatest President" before history inevitably revealed that he was the same disaster that liberals had predicted from the beginning. The same will eventually happen with President Trump, and my hope is that we reach that day without an unnecessary war or the unnecessary use of nuclear weapons. And when that day comes, based on my experience with the Republican supporters of President Bush (who are 90% the same supporters of President Trump), you will take no more responsibility for your actions - you as voters - than you did the last time. 

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 30, 2017, 06:07:53 PM
Note I have not said that I hate any supporters of Donald Trump, and I certainly have not cut myself off from talking with them.

But I also can't see the case that hatred for the supporters of Donald Trump is morally worse than support for Donald Trump himself, because he himself incites hatred against others. For example, and this was an early signal for me that Trump (and his supporters) were an outlier in American politics in my lifetime, he claims to have personally seen thousands of American Muslims cheering on 9/11 in favor of the terrorists. The Trump supporters who let that pernicious anti-American lie go unquestioned have committed a more immoral action than those people on the left who hate those on the right with so much passion that they (gasp) unfriend them on Facebook.   

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: yossarian22c on July 30, 2017, 10:11:44 PM
...
But I also can't see the case that hatred for the supporters of Donald Trump is morally worse than support for Donald Trump himself, because he himself incites hatred against others.
...

Trump is will likely go down as the worst president in our lifetimes. However saying that hating someone who supports him (for unknown reasons) is morally equivalent to hating him is a false equivalence. Unless the individual in question comports themselves like Trump or actively promotes hatred of others then you are unjustly tarnishing someone for Trump's actions. I "supported" Obama but I didn't agree with everything he did, nor should I feel the need to defend all of his actions. Your attitude can only serve to force Trump's supporters even closer to him because his actions are their actions (at least in your mind) and that is a dangerous attitude for everyone to have.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 30, 2017, 11:15:07 PM
I was going to reply more in depth tomorrow but really what yossarian said is superior to what I would have wasted much space trying to say.

I will add one thing, though: even the term "supporting" is misleading, because it suggests morally supporting or endorsing in some way. But there are two different scenarios: one is when you're in the voting booth, and you have to check an option, the other is when someone is in office and you have to speak off the cuff about what you think of the President. In the first case it's basically binary for most people: vote for the person running for your party. For most voters this is hardly more 'support' than simply rubber stamping to only viable option. The other case, speaking during a presidency, is more grey, and kind of does involve actively saying 'I approve of this action' or not for various actions and positions. But even then there is covertly the implication that you're being made to defend your vote or not. "Bet you regretted voting for him!" Something like that. However in this type of voting system it's entirely possible to be against literally every single thing Trump does and yet still stand behind voting against Hillary, which puts those questioned in a tough spot when claiming they do or don't 'support' Trump. It's the Kobayashi Maru of political discussion. And this doesn't even take into account what Greg is saying, that those who voted for Trump are accountable for each of his statements and actions.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 31, 2017, 02:20:41 AM
Your vote only makes an extremely small impact on the outcome, but the aggregation of votes in a democracy is how we make our political will known. You are responsible for your actions, whether you can predict the outcomes or not. People who stood behind Donald Trump as President, knowing what we knew as of the day that ballots were cast, are responsible for their choice on that day. Those who continue to support him afterwards, as we learn more, are responsible for that support. Morally, we are what we do. 

As we learn more - not just firing the FBI Director, or that his top campaign aides were meeting with Russians to collaborate on the use of foreign intelligence to influence the US election, but the next set of revelations that are almost certain to emerge - we will continue to see the moral character of those who continue to support Donald Trump despite his actions.  The original point of this post was to find out what was the limit at which the moral burden of supporting wrong actions would overcome partisanship. Now, it may turn out that there's nothing behind this scandal - that when Trump literally admitted that he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigation, that was merely the wild musings of a confused mind. Maybe there are no illegal financial dealings in the Trump background that are hidden because he won't reveal his income taxes. But if there are, when to those on the right start showing a moral compass? If and when he fires Mueller, is that enough for you? When he starts pardoning his associates, is that enough for you? When he pardons himself, is that enough for you?

This isn't tough stuff. I would have been disgusted by any Democratic candidate even refusing to show his tax returns. Firing an FBI Director while under investigation would also have been a clear and obvious red line. The Donald Jr email verifying collusion with Russians is another blindingly obvious violation. Where do all of you draw your lines?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: yossarian22c on July 31, 2017, 08:11:52 AM
...
This isn't tough stuff. I would have been disgusted by any Democratic candidate even refusing to show his tax returns. Firing an FBI Director while under investigation would also have been a clear and obvious red line. The Donald Jr email verifying collusion with Russians is another blindingly obvious violation. Where do all of you draw your lines?

You make an excellent case for disliking Trump and that he is the most likely President in my lifetime to end up being impeached. However please step back from your criticism of his "supporters." I think they are being lied to by the president and the conservative media. Trusting the wrong people doesn't make you evil or worthy of hatred, maybe just gullible.

Honestly the attitude that we are morally justified in hating people with the wrong beliefs is a quick way to see the last vestiges of civil discourse vanish in our society. Do you really not see the danger in the argument you are putting forward?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 31, 2017, 10:20:00 AM
I do not choose to hate people I disagree with, but I am making an argument on their behalf (and remember, this is unlikely to be Hutu-Tutsi-level hatred, and more "I am going to unfriend you on Facebook"). That "hatred" is a lesser moral culpability than supporting Trump, given what you would only know from literally seeing and hearing taped statements from him. 

Quote
the attitude that we are morally justified in hating people with the wrong beliefs is a quick way to see the last vestiges of civil discourse vanish in our society

A far more direct way to facilitate the erosion of civil discourse is to put your voice and political power as a citizen behind the President who has done more to attack civil discourse than any other in our history.  That action trumps any number of acts of unfriending on Facebook.

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 31, 2017, 10:39:51 AM
That "hatred" is a lesser moral culpability than supporting Trump, given what you would only know from literally seeing and hearing taped statements from him. 

They could say the same for people who voted for Hillary. So what? We could go in circles all day elaborating on how both of those candidates were among the most deplorable the country has ever seen. You might see fit to quibble about which is worse than the other but bottom line various people alternatively felt that one or the other was an unacceptable option. Personally I wish more people had voted for neither for I guess that's not a realistic hope. But at the end of the day what you're critiquing is that you felt the other side showed poor judgement. Well maybe, maybe not. But you'd have to go further than that and demonstrate malice in order to morally condemn those voters. If all they did was use their best judgement - even if that judgement was in fact stupid - then the best you should be able to do is condemn the education system and social mores in the country for producing whatever mindset led to that kind of decision. Blaming the individuals ignores the reality that led to their vote. Trump failed multiple times in the past, so how do you explain his win now? Did all his voters magically become evil and stupid in the last four years? Something happened, but what?

In the end we can be sure of at least one thing, which is that voters were disgusted with establishment candidates, and to a large extent with the parties. If you really must sling hate around, which I don't recommend, the real targets should be them. Both parties are responsible for Trump and for those who support him. Oh, there are other contributing factors, but this one should be blatantly obvious to see. Republican voters showed how upset they are with their party. My only real question is why Democrat voters refuse to admit what the other side already has, which is that the two parties both stink.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on July 31, 2017, 11:03:23 AM
Had the election gone the other way, I'm sure there's a myriad of different things that Hillary would do that I would in no way feel compelled to defend.  Would I speak out about her?  Hard to say.  Maybe I would.  Maybe I'd just take the "bad medicine" with the good I think she may have achieved (or safeguarded).

While I don't cut the Trump voters any slack for being gullible, I think they were in the same position I was.  Vote for a candidate you don't like and don't want, or let the worst possible outcome in your view happen by not voting at all.

Greg does make a good point though.  If the level of "hate" we are measuring is people's Facebook behavior, I think that only proves how healthy our country still is regarding the party divide.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 31, 2017, 11:07:27 AM
Greg does make a good point though.  If the level of "hate" we are measuring is people's Facebook behavior, I think that only proves how healthy our country still is regarding the party divide.

I am certain that if I were to (dishonestly) tell various people I know that I was a Trump supporter they would not just unfriend me, but would almost certainly cancel our real friendship as well. I hear how they speak about such things, they wouldn't back down or 'come to their senses' when it comes to a real-life person as opposed to a FB account.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 31, 2017, 11:14:46 AM
I got to ask.  What do you believe this form / process exists for?  I don’t mean to question any of the above.  It makes sense to allow people to make corrections without fear of being locked up for an “honest mistake”.  But if this loophole, which is large enough to drive a truck through, means, in your mind (and perhaps in most minds?) it is a toothless document / process entirely; then what’s the point?

The process exists to allow the government to evaluate whether someone has been compromised, knowingly or unknowingly.  What you are decrying is not a loophole or a large exemption.  Failing to disclose a material contact, even accidentally can lead to a denial of security clearance - which is what the form is designed to judge, ie whether a person gets a security clearance.  Taking it further, and charging someone with a crime requires that they have done something illegal - in this case that would be deliberately lying, which the government has to show.

I get that the media is deliberately confusing people by implying that the point of the form is some kind of perjury trap, but that's not factually correct, the point of the form is to evaluate someone for clearance.  It's entirely possible that someone can fill it out correctly, without violating any law and be denied clearance.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on July 31, 2017, 11:21:51 AM
Sorry Seriati, I was under the impression when I quoted and asked my question about it, you were defending the omission of information the forms were intended to put under scrutiny for just the reasons you pointed out above.

When the government is denied the opportunity to evaluate this information (intentionally by the party omitting that information), it seems like a big deal to me.  If you were just pointing out that it is possible for someone to make an honest mistake clerical of forgetfulness in nature, and correct it; then thanks for that info.

I took it as something else.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 31, 2017, 11:47:47 AM
Fenring, I disagree that you can impute how a group believes based on some social media postings - if you did that, for the past few years there has been a greater volume of more hostile social media posts in favor of the belief system on the right rather than the left (in part due to concerted action of those wanting to promote pro-Republican beliefs, a group that our intelligence agencies agrees includes the Russian government).

So you disagree that you can "impute" that but you'll do it anyway?  I get you think you have science on your side, cause you can cite to any number of studies showing Republicans are worse than Democrats.  Big surprise against an academic background where members of the left outnumber members of the right, what 95:5?  and members of the media by similar numbers?  Not going to be alot of self critical studies that show the left is irrational when the researchers are all writing the studies to "show" the opposite.  Which is why its generally easy to show the flaws in the feel good studies you cite to.

By the way, it's flat error (I assume you are not deliberately lying) to claim that our Intelligence organizations say the Russians want to promote Republican ideals.  They actually say that the Russians want to disrupt our government, and they have certainly achieved that by helping both the Dems (hello Trump Dossier) and the Repubs, by playing the two sides off each other.  It's probably beyond their wildest dreams how successfully they've manipulated the Dems and the media to completely pursue and make credible a story of Russian manipulation controlling our free election. 

Quote
But you then go to question how "conservatives or Republicans couldn't imagine how to ever find common cause with these kinds of people".  That's a crazy standard, particularly based on anecdotal evidence that I recognize you may really feel, but may reflect less than a few percent of Democrats.

Less than a few percent?  My personal view is at least 50% of the politically active members of the left.  Certainly, when one adds up the various organizations, protestors, town hall disruptors, activists, writers - likers of writers, those polled who want a resistance or there to be no compromise, those who write about refusing to "normalize" and push that position, it's closer than your estimate.

Quote
Imagine if we applied that standard consistently,

Would love to see you apply standards consistently. 

Quote
...and instead people on Side A hating someone because of an action they took, people on Side B asserted that the President from your party was foreign-born (and thus not a legitimate President of the US), Muslim, and may be the anti-Christ? Because arguably all of those in this context are the same or worse than "hate", and more than 50% of Republicans asserted the first two hateful claims, and more than 25% asserted the third.


In reverse order, there's no way 25% asserted he was the anti-Christ, that's a fringe view even among religious fundamentalists, who are themselves fringe.

Muslim?  Been hashed out many times, there's a technical argument on it about his father, but no good reason to doubt his own statements on religion.  But what happened to your consistent standards?  The "evidence" of Obama being a Muslim exists in greater depth than the evidence that Trump "colluded with the Russians" yet you believe the latter absolutely, and think the former is practically offensive.  How about some consistency on your belief of baseless accusations?

Birth location is a legitimate inquiry under our laws.  There was definitely reason to suspect he was not borne where he claimed based on statements made by his relatives.  However, there's literally no way to prove it one way or the other and therefore no reason no to accept the validity of his birth certificate.  Not sure why you think sharing tax records is mandatory - when it's literally not - but proving your birth isn't - when it's literally a Constitutional requirement - should I chalk that up as another win for consistently applied?

Quote
That's not a few social media posts or a few percent - that's a majority of Republicans who had those beliefs during the Obama Administration. So by your rules, how should Democrats feel about Republicans who make common cause with that other half of their party?

Lol.  You should keep feeling however you keep telling each other to feel.  Nothing like spending you life in an echo chamber telling each other what the "other side" feels and thinks rather than asking them about it directly.  Even on your "hot topics of nonsense" you could have found reasonable grounds on which reasonable people would entertain such views, "holding" them is too strong a word.  It's not like the left doesn't do the same thing on any number of topics where they jump to crazy conclusions.

Quote
The honest answer is the point at which I would stop supporting Trump is if he stops deporting illegals. Obama allowing the invasion of America was a greater betrayal than anything that Democrats have ever fantasized Trump doing.

Cherry, if that's really your fundamental point, how would you compare President George W Bush to President Obama? Because illegal immigration into the United States grew by many millions under Bush, while Obama increased the level of deportations and the number of illegal immigrants in the US declined.

What a misleading quote. I can't give you good faith on this anymore, since your Deporter in Chief formulation of the statistics has been addressed on these boards before, citing to them now is pretty much relying on statistics you know are discredited.  Obama virtually ended deportations from the interior of the country, he certainly completely undermined enforcement of the actual laws of the country everywhere but the border.

He did that against a backdrop of a majority of both parties wanting more enforcement of the laws against illegal immigration.

He gets zero credit in a real debate for increasing deportations.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 31, 2017, 11:57:33 AM
Fenring, I think we are in agreement here - but that's a question that runs through this whole topic: how much the extraordinary extremism of the Republican Party and the Trump Administration is being normalized. Let's take some major structural things that have become normalized within the Republican Party:

Normalized?  Lol, nice over statement.  None of the below is "normalized".

Quote
The new rule is that either (a) Donald Trump only can name Supreme Court Justices thru December 31st, 2019, or (b) it's perfectly acceptable for a majority in the Senate to prevent a President of the opposite party from nominating a Supreme Court Justice ever again

The "new" rule is the same as the "old" rule, but not the same as the rule that applied twenty years ago.  With the SC increasingly politicized, which really is the left's baby and brainchild, as a agency for social change that can't be won at the ballet box, the appointment of justices will be politicized.  Absolutely no way, either party is ever going to willingly let the other appoint a tipping point justice when they have the opportunity to prevent it.

The only rule here is going to be straight power until we come to our senses and curb the power of the unelected courts.

Quote
The emoluments clause of the Constitution shall no longer be enforced, and it is acceptable for President's to accept financial payments "of any kind" from foreign governments with no accountability violating the Constitution or even for reporting the payments

Or, as I like to put it, the emoluments clause will continue to be enforced exactly as it always has been and we won't pretend it suddenly does something it never has before simply because we want, apparently, to make it a crime to have ever been an international business man who goes into politics.

Whine about it if you like, but there is literally no historical or legal backing for the interpretation of the emoluments clause you are trying to make here.  And if you read it as broadly as you are, you can lock up half of Congress at the same time (including very likely, your preferred candidate and her husband from the last election).

What were you saying about consistency before again?

Quote
From now on, it is perfectly okay if Presidential campaigns meet in secret with foreign agents to collaborate on efforts to win an election

Still not okay, and still never happened.  This persistent delusion, and re-writing of facts to make it fit the delusion is definitely troubling.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 31, 2017, 12:08:35 PM
Your vote only makes an extremely small impact on the outcome, but the aggregation of votes in a democracy is how we make our political will known. You are responsible for your actions, whether you can predict the outcomes or not. People who stood behind Donald Trump as President, knowing what we knew as of the day that ballots were cast, are responsible for their choice on that day. Those who continue to support him afterwards, as we learn more, are responsible for that support. Morally, we are what we do.

Given that, apparently, you would have preferred we support the other corrupt, lying felon what does that mean for being morally "what we do"?

I accept the moral consequences of my votes.  I chose a candidate with serious personal failings over a candidate who was even worse.  I'm troubled that you think that is morally reprehensible somehow. 

I remain hopeful that this President, either by his direct action, or by consequent reaction of Congress will make a serious impact on the slide into unaccountable bureacratic government that this country has been suffering under.  I'm disappointed with his effectiveness, with the chaos, and with the personal nastiness.  But I'm also disappointed with the Democrats in the legislature, who honestly are acting like babies rather than members of our government.  I'm disappointed with the moderate Republicans and the hard right Republicans who can't even agree with their own party members long enough to do what's right for the country.  Against that backdrop?  I welcome anything that diminishes the role of the federal government, and brings it's focus back to what it's supposed to be doing.

But your lectures on my apparent moral failings sound grossly hypocritical in a context where you supported at best an equally flawed candidate, seem to think that Russian manipulation is worthy of our focus, but couldn't seem to care less about the apparent betrayal of their oaths of office by the permanent administrative state with their constant leaks, or about what appears to have been politically motivated unmasking and leaking, or about any number of things.  You don't have to be perfect to be concerned about moral failings, but you darn well be perfect if you refuse to rationally consider why reasonable people reached different conclusions than you did when you make accusations of their moral failings.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on July 31, 2017, 01:53:41 PM
Is Hillary still relevant?
Does the Trump Administration get to do whatever they want because Hillary was/is more corrupt.

Trump Administration and acolytes love the magician trick of misdirection. Trump is a master at it.
When do we get to move beyond the smoke and mirrors?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 31, 2017, 02:00:43 PM
Is Hillary still relevant?

She is when the fault one is being accused of is not voting for her.

Quote
Does the Trump Administration get to do whatever they want because Hillary was/is more corrupt.

Nope. Glad to call the Trump Admin out if they actually do things that are corrupt.

Quote
Trump Administration and acolytes love the magician trick of misdirection. Trump is a master at it.
When do we get to move beyond the smoke and mirrors?

Probably never.  I agree Trump loves to distract the audience.  However, so does the media.  We're not likely to see any real coverage of issues.

I mean, for example, whether one likes it or not, Obamacare has warts.  It needs, at a minimum, substantial reworking.  But we never get to an honest debate on it, because we're too distracted by the fake misdirections of both sides.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on July 31, 2017, 02:12:26 PM
She is when the fault one is being accused of is not voting for her.

For the record, one had more choices. Voting for a third party was possible, as was leaving the ballot blank. I don't fault anyone for choosing differently, but many of us effectively abstained because we couldn't stomach either of the two major party nominees.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on July 31, 2017, 02:25:03 PM
She is when the fault one is being accused of is not voting for her.

For the record, one had more choices. Voting for a third party was possible, as was leaving the ballot blank. I don't fault anyone for choosing differently, but many of us effectively abstained because we couldn't stomach either of the two major party nominees.

This is true, however the people who hate Trump and his 'supporters' seem to be the same ones who were pushing the idea that doing anything other than voting for Hillary (i.e. against Trump) was wasting your vote. I saw pretty much just as many social media messages about rallying against Trump by voting for Hillary as I have about Trump hate, and they are all the same people. Granted, some of them had been Bernie supporters before he lost, but once he did they flipped and began pushing anti-Trump hard, with messages such as "Come on guys, Bernie would want us to back the best candidate, so get out there and support Hillary." I was so surprised to see the lack of messages saying that after Bernie lost his supporters should vote Green /s
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on July 31, 2017, 03:03:32 PM
She is when the fault one is being accused of is not voting for her.

For the record, one had more choices. Voting for a third party was possible, as was leaving the ballot blank. I don't fault anyone for choosing differently, but many of us effectively abstained because we couldn't stomach either of the two major party nominees.

No one didn't.  Once you decided who the biggest threat was, doing anything but voting for the best chance to beat that threat is not an option.  Voting for a third party in that context is, to me, equivalent to good men doing nothing and letting evil prevail (for the avoidance of doubt, not literal evil, it's analogy).
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on July 31, 2017, 03:52:12 PM
Seriati, that depends on whether you are taking a strategic long term view, or an immediate short term view. This is based on what you think is a greater threat. I, personally, see a future of choices like Hillary and Trump as the greater threat than what either could have done with the next four years.

In other words, you may have been "wasting your vote" in this election, but using it wisely to influence future ballots.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on July 31, 2017, 05:28:18 PM
Quote
I was so surprised to see the lack of messages saying that after Bernie lost his supporters should vote Green /s
Because even Sanders knew he had to run as a Democrat to have a shot.  :P
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 01, 2017, 01:52:20 AM
Quote
I get you think you have science on your side, cause you can cite to any number of studies showing Republicans are worse than Democrats.  Big surprise against an academic background where members of the left outnumber members of the right, what 95:5?  and members of the media by similar numbers?  Not going to be alot of self critical studies that show the left is irrational when the researchers are all writing the studies to "show" the opposite.

Kind of convenient to claim that all of science is against you, so you can disregard whatever doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs. If you ever get diagnosed with cancer, and I have been so I hope you don't, I wonder if you will trust the treatments by all of those liberal scientists. After all, you can find almost as many chemo-deniers as climate science deniers if you look hard enough.

Quote
The "evidence" of Obama being a Muslim exists in greater depth than the evidence that Trump "colluded with the Russians" yet you believe the latter absolutely, and think the former is practically offensive.

Other than Trump publicly asking the Russians to hack Clinton emails, and members of his Administration lying about contacts with Russians, and his campaign leadership getting together with Russian agents for a meeting entitled "Russia-Clinton - Private" with the invitation to Russian collusion being expressed in writing as “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

And what is your contrary evidence that is stronger than this that President Obama was a secret Muslim?

 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 01, 2017, 08:06:10 AM
Quote
Kind of convenient to claim that all of science is against you, so you can disregard whatever doesn't fit your preconceived beliefs. If you ever get diagnosed with cancer, and I have been so I hope you don't, I wonder if you will trust the treatments by all of those liberal scientists. After all, you can find almost as many chemo-deniers as climate science deniers if you look hard enough.

As I alluded to on the transgender thread, one must be extremely careful to differentiate between statements of fact, which may be the subject of scientific evidence, versus statements of pure opinion (of ideology), which are not.

Further, there are entire "disciplines" within academia that are purely ideological in nature and therefore, in my view, not entitled to any deference by laypeople.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 01, 2017, 08:55:15 AM
Other than Trump publicly asking the Russians to hack Clinton emails

You don't do your case any favors by rehashing points that have already been discussed and debunked. While this particular item is still trotted out in the media as being ironclad, and therefore 'the public knows it's true', you should know better and not try to pass this kind of thing by us here lumped in a laundry list. It should be plain that Trump was (a) trying to be humorous, and (b) that even within his humor he was suggesting that the Russians might already have the emails and if so maybe they could help Hillary out by disclosing them for her. The gist of the joke was that Hillary is dishonest, and wasn't particularly about Russia. I know you know that it wasn't call for 'hacking' since Clinton's machines weren't online anymore and, in fact, had been largely smashed up. How do you hack a non-server? With a cloth? lolol

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 01, 2017, 03:02:50 PM
Quote
Other than Trump publicly asking the Russians to hack Clinton emails

Quote
You don't do your case any favors by rehashing points that have already been discussed and debunked.

That was debunked?
I personally remember watching a video of Trump asking the Russians to do just that.
I commented on it at the time thinking it ought to have been enough to have him removed from the race
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 01, 2017, 03:09:03 PM
And now we have a White House spokesperson saying that Trump "weighed in" on how to handle the initial response to Junior's meeting being outed. Prediction - no wavering of support despite the contradiction to earlier "he wasn't involved" statements.

Instead, supporters will likely rage about disloyal "leakers" (possibly one or more of the advisers Trump overruled) who gave this to WaPo and the media witch-hunt.

Interesting timing on this, given the people in communications who resigned or were fired recently.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 01, 2017, 03:15:26 PM
Quote
Other than Trump publicly asking the Russians to hack Clinton emails

Quote
You don't do your case any favors by rehashing points that have already been discussed and debunked.

That was debunked?
I personally remember watching a video of Trump asking the Russians to do just that.
I commented on it at the time thinking it ought to have been enough to have him removed from the race

The joke was that Clinton had claimed the emails were gone, deleted. So if the Russians successfully hacked them it would mean Clinton was lying and they weren't deleted. Get it?

Actually it was the funniest moment of the election and the cleverest thing Trump said. That people would be hysterical about the fact that a candidate (tongue in cheek) called for the Russians to retrieve deleted public records rather than the fact that a public servant ilegally deleted them to thwart a government investigation is depressing, but entirely consistent with the idiocy of the whole Russian collusion narrative, which is as big a dud now as it ever was. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 02, 2017, 05:25:34 PM
Must have missed it when it was labeled a clever tongue and cheek statement by Trump... Or was that one of those correct the statement after the fact to cover it up things the administration seems to be so good at?



Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 02, 2017, 06:28:12 PM
Must have missed it when it was labeled a clever tongue and cheek statement by Trump... Or was that one of those correct the statement after the fact to cover it up things the administration seems to be so good at?

It was obviously tongue in cheek.

But assuming I'm wrong and he was serious there are two possibities:

1. Hilary was telling the truth and the emails were gone - in which case Trump was calling for a "hack" of data that didn't exist; or

2. Hilary lied and the data still did exist and Trump wanted the Russians to recover it.

In scenario 1 his comment was at worst irrelevent because calling on someone to recoverthe non existent is impossible - akin to calling on someone to steal my Rolls Royce.

In scenario 2 you're correct that he was calling on a foreign government to illegally hack a rival politician - in order to expose that rival's dishonest and *criminal* conduct.

That you think calling for the uncovering of a serious crime (albeit through illegal means) is more serious than the underlying crime is funny, but not surprising in the least given the coverage around this issue.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 02, 2017, 07:44:23 PM
I just thought it showed a total lack of seriousness on cyber-defense in general and an adversarial nation in particular.  It's also showed a lack of understanding how damaging it would be him (Trump) if they managed to pull it off.  Even if they never got anything in return, I think the current state of media frenzy proves that having it hanging over his head that the Russians may have "gifted" him the election is a pretty big deal. 

I don't look at it as a criminal act, or treasonous or even a poor sense of humor.  It showed me (another piece of evidence anyhow) how inept this man would be on the world stage.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 02, 2017, 07:56:38 PM
Quote
I just thought it showed a total lack of seriousness on cyber-defense by an adversarial nation. 

I guess context matters, because 10 years ago I might have looked at it differently too. But post Snowden, it's alot harder for me to attack this issue with the same degree of earnestness and outrage.

I mean we discovered that the US government was conducting an illegal spying operation, not merely gathering meta data, or surveilling foreign agents, but straight up spying on its own citizens, without meaningful oversight, without actual warrants. On top of that, they lied about it point blank to congress.

Then when this conspiracy was exposed, the reaction? Have no fear folks, we'll apprehend the traitor who exposed our misfeasance and see to it that he's punished for his crimes.

So it's funny, in a scary kind of way. And in a way Trump's irreverence was refreshing. It's not even that dissimilar a situation when you stop and think about it. Clinton illegally destroys these e-mails, which are supposed to be public records, We're told pish posh, nothing of interest in those e-mails (which are conveniently destroyed) Trump laughingly asks the Russians to "help" her "find" them, and we get this tutt tutt from the media and the intelligence agencies (the ones who conspired to spy on us illegally) that Trump is jeopardizing national security.

So yes, the man's an unserious clown and he's unfit to be President - no argument there. But faced with what someone like Clinton represents and the others in her league, there is this part of you that wants to make a mockery of it all.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 02, 2017, 07:58:56 PM
So because our country is abusive in it's practices regarding cyber espionage, we should invite the same by outside "saviors"... and Russia is as good as anyone to invite in to protect us?

 :o
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 02, 2017, 08:09:13 PM
So because our country is abusive in it's practices regarding cyber espionage, we should invite the same by outside "saviors"... and Russia is as good as anyone to invite in to protect us?

 :o

Nope, not quite. More like because the government has engaged in illegal cyber espionage on a massive scale, lied about it and then sought to sweep it under the rug and punish the whistleblower, it is hard for me to take their solemn pronouncements about the dangers of foreign espionage that seriously, let alone admonishing a presidential candidate for *joking* about conduct vastly less concerning than what they have done with impunity.

And in regards to Russia, they're a foreign country - they can be expected to be self-serving and even adversarial. You don't like them hacking your servers? Get better security, problem solved. Much easier a problem than protecting the country from its own government.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 02, 2017, 08:18:56 PM
Well at least I agree it's a much harder problem to deal with.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 02, 2017, 11:44:35 PM
All of this seems to bypass the intended irony of his joke (whether or not it's funny, or even whether or not it's a joke), which is that he was implying that Russia might be more willing to adhere to Hillary's FOIA duties than she was. Or rephrased, even a criminal dictatorship would adhere to our laws better than Hillary did. I actually do think it's a funny joke, assuming I'm correct about its intended meaning. That's the way I took it, anyhow. He was deliberately playing on the public image of Russia being untrustworthy, and comparing them favorably with Hillary. In this sense it was the opposite of implying Russia was ally or to be trusted, as people imply who suggest he was legitimately calling on them to do him a favor; rather, it was him using the fact that Russia isn't trustworthy to serve as a benchmark in order to say that Hillary is even worse than them. The joke only makes sense if it's understood he's implying that Russia is a bad guy, and so it makes the accusation against him that he was "calling on" Russia to do his dirty work all the more dishonest. The worse Russia is within the context of his joke the worse Hillary is, since his joke basically says "she's worse than them." Get it? It's not really complicated.

Regarding the issue of intelligence agencies calling foul when they do worse, it's a tiny bit apples and oranges. On the face of it I agree entirely with the spirit of what jasonr is saying. When inspecting the details I do think there's a difference between running the U.S. like a police state versus complaining that the country is being compromised from afar. Offhand I do think that one's own government doing it is a greater cause for concern than when Russia does it, because with Russia you should always be on your guard. But losing trust in your own government kills morale in a bad way, and is a hard relationship to repair. In the long term I think that Russia gains far more from American citizens distrusting its own intelligence services than it could ever gain from some particular hacking operation. So from standpoint it is rank hypocrisy to blame Russia for America's ills when local agencies are causing far more damage. And I'll lay blame directly on Obama as well for hurting his country's morale, because he had a chance to act when the whistleblowers came forward, and his action was to try to shut them down. I personally think this was one of his greatest failings, although to be fair I don't know the behind-the-scenes details that may have tied his hands in the matter. Supporting them might have caused him damage in ways I'm unaware of, but nevertheless I was very displeased to see how speaking out about the system was being discouraged. Snowden's leak should have resulted in heads rolling and some exec being scapegoated, but instead it was swept under the rug. SAD!
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 03, 2017, 06:17:12 AM
1. Biden Rule.
2. Clinton Foundation. The money dried up when she lost pretty much proving it was influence peddling.
3. Russian golden shower dossier. Who paid for that opposition research?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 03, 2017, 06:18:57 AM
     "The new rule is that either (a) Donald Trump only can name Supreme Court Justices thru December 31st, 2019, or (b) it's perfectly acceptable for a majority in the Senate to prevent a President of the opposite party from nominating a Supreme Court Justice ever again
    The emoluments clause of the Constitution shall no longer be enforced, and it is acceptable for President's to accept financial payments "of any kind" from foreign governments with no accountability violating the Constitution or even for reporting the payments
    From now on, it is perfectly okay if Presidential campaigns meet in secret with foreign agents to collaborate on efforts to win an election"

1. Biden Rule.
2. Clinton Foundation. The money dried up when she lost pretty much proving it was influence peddling.
3. Russian golden shower dossier. Who paid for that opposition research? Plus the Ukrainian ambassador.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 03, 2017, 10:18:10 AM
Quote
It was obviously tongue in cheek.

I guess I don't set it as obvious as I don't equate the request as having anything to do with the question of if there were or were not deleted emails.

It was a statement made by a Presidential candidate calling on foreign nationals to hack a American citizen for his benefit...
Now that we know there was communications hinting that Russian citizens were offering dirt on Hillary (whether they did or didn't) it is not a stretch to believe that this off the cuff comment was a slip indicating knowledge of such possible help.

Add to that Trump communication style, which may be clever in its bluntness and manipulation, but not clever in its subtleness.

So I don't buy your explication and must go with ockham's razor

Trump means what he says when he says it and how he says it, even when he knows its not true, the style is intentional and we must take what he says seriously
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 03, 2017, 10:50:29 AM

I guess I don't set it as obvious as I don't equate the request as having anything to do with the question of if there were or were not deleted emails.

That is literally what he was talking about, this point isn't even up for debate.

Quote
It was a statement made by a Presidential candidate calling on foreign nationals to hack a American citizen for his benefit...

Wait, so now Hillary's FOIA responsibilities were all about Trump's benefit? That the only winner in her public records being released is one private citizen? So I guess when anyone is asked to obey the law they only do so to help Donald Trump? How far will the tunnel vision go? Oh, sure, it may in fact have benefited Trump, but it may have benefited the American people as well. But in any case, the fact that following the law benefits him isn't an argument for or against it being followed. It's totally irrelevant!

Quote
So I don't buy your explication and must go with ockham's razor

Your definition of Ockham's razor seems to be that any explanation implicating Trump in a conspiracy theory is the most likely to be correct.

Someone who reads these boards pointed out to me recently that I spend a fair amount of time apparently defending Trump, and that I'm barking up the wrong tree defending him. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I'm defending is honesty and reasonable discourse. I feel the need to to comment when I see rational argument take second place to partisan attacks, and I think we're capable of being better than that here on Ornery. Very often we are. There is a lot to legitimately criticize about Trump, and while "more fuel for the fire" seems like a safe practice since half the country is happy to throw on logs, I prefer to try to differentiate between what he's really done wrong versus what is conveniently pinned on him because it made good press. So just to be clear, when I'm 'defending Trump' my real objective is to try to combat blind belief in media narratives. It just so happens that Trump is the center of so many of these right now that it ends up being about him a lot of the time. But I believe that accepting false arguments to demonize a bad President hurts the country in the long run rather than helping it. Even if it somehow helps to get him ejected before his term his up, what then? The rhetorical tricks used will remain after he's gone, and they scare me more than he does.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 03, 2017, 11:18:16 AM
Quote
I feel the need to comment when I see rational argument take second place to partisan attacks, and I think we're capable of being better than that here on Ornery.
A nice sentiment but here’s the thing;  Hillary had a credibility and trustworthiness deficit and many people believed she was in the pocket of wall street.  And guess what?  She lost.  I don’t think any of us credit a brilliant race by her opponent as the cause of her loss.  SHE blew the race.  She alienated a large portion of her party (or rather those who vote for Dem. or against Rep. though not Dem. party loyalist.)  who were only willing to give lukewarm support after winning the primary.  She also motivated a lot on the other side to vote, ANYTHING but her. 

We get it.

But here’s the thing.  One person is a fund raising tool who SOME believe still has value in giving her blessing on the eventual leadership options moving forward for the party.  The other is President of United States.  Which one of those two do you think I give half a *censored* about right now? 

I got to say even if it came down to incontrovertible proof that Hillary broke laws and Trump MAY have broken laws, I’d want a lot more attention paid to the guy in the oval office.  Investigate her or don’t.  Charge her or don’t.  Punish her or don’t.  But if you think ANYTHING she did, may have done, thought about doing or may have known about means that we dismiss all suspicion of Trump as “no big deal in comparison”, then you have forgotten who won the election. 

A potential criminal has been, or a potential criminal running our country?  I know which one I fret over.  You?

To be clear.  Had she won, I'd be all for investigations into her marching ahead.  Keeping POTUS on their toes seems like a good thing to me as a rule.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 03, 2017, 11:53:01 AM
Agreed with Fending on the joke.

To channel the McCarthy hearings, "have you no sense of humor, sir?"



The proper response from the DNC would be a mock request to North Korea and Iran to help locate Trump's Long Form birth certificate.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 03, 2017, 11:59:31 AM
Quote
I feel the need to comment when I see rational argument take second place to partisan attacks, and I think we're capable of being better than that here on Ornery.
A nice sentiment but here’s the thing;  Hillary had a credibility and trustworthiness deficit and many people believed she was in the pocket of wall street.  And guess what?  She lost.  I don’t think any of us credit a brilliant race by her opponent as the cause of her loss.  SHE blew the race.  She alienated a large portion of her party (or rather those who vote for Dem. or against Rep. though not Dem. party loyalist.)  who were only willing to give lukewarm support after winning the primary.  She also motivated a lot on the other side to vote, ANYTHING but her. 

We get it.

But here’s the thing.  One person is a fund raising tool who SOME believe still has value in giving her blessing on the eventual leadership options moving forward for the party.  The other is President of United States.  Which one of those two do you think I give half a *censored* about right now? 

I got to say even if it came down to incontrovertible proof that Hillary broke laws and Trump MAY have broken laws, I’d want a lot more attention paid to the guy in the oval office.  Investigate her or don’t.  Charge her or don’t.  Punish her or don’t.  But if you think ANYTHING she did, may have done, thought about doing or may have known about means that we dismiss all suspicion of Trump as “no big deal in comparison”, then you have forgotten who won the election. 

A potential criminal has been, or a potential criminal running our country?  I know which one I fret over.  You?

To be clear.  Had she won, I'd be all for investigations into her marching ahead.  Keeping POTUS on their toes seems like a good thing to me as a rule.

In theory, what you said makes sense, but have you read the news?  You honestly think Trump is running the country? 

The fact that Trump's alleged crime was accepting information re DNC crimes also changes the equation
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 03, 2017, 12:13:42 PM
Quote
You honestly think Trump is running the country?
Touché

On this specific issue, his "crime" was a total lack of comprehension of political optics at this level. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 03, 2017, 01:08:03 PM
A potential criminal has been, or a potential criminal running our country?  I know which one I fret over.  You?

I fret more about the people Hillary represents than I do about Trump, as they are the movers.

In context of this conversation, though, the Hillary point was only brought up because Trump's joke was one of the items in Greg's laundry list of crimes Trump has perpetrated, and I had to explain the context (which involved dredging up Hillary again) to explain my point.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 03, 2017, 01:27:25 PM
I guess I just don’t see the joke. Maybe I’m not hearing the full context in which he made the statement.

Regardless I don’t give a crap about what Hillary may or may not have done, she lost, investigate her, again, if you wish to make some lawyers richer, put her in prison, whatever 

Trump won so he’s on the hot seat.  Full Stop

When you say Trump is not running the country are you saying people behind the scenes are running the country, or that because he appears to be all over the place he is not yet running the country everything is just kind of happening with no real leadership from him 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 03, 2017, 02:58:05 PM
Quote
When you say Trump is not running the country are you saying people behind the scenes are running the country

Yes. Intelligence agencies, career bureaucrats, the DNC machine, the billionaires.

Like Jimmy Carter, he's a president with his own party supposedly in power and yet he's little more than a public scapegoat. A substitute for all the good comedians that quit unreplaced over the last 6 years.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 03, 2017, 05:00:34 PM
Then anyone would be a fool for wanting to be president and we are all wasting a hell of allot of time talking about it
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 03, 2017, 06:38:59 PM
We are definitely wasting a lot of time, all right?

Meanwhile, who wouldn't want to be President? You can call important people from any corner of the globe and insult them.

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 03, 2017, 08:27:44 PM
Then anyone would be a fool for wanting to be president and we are all wasting a hell of allot of time talking about it

The fact that the President isn't a dictator and doesn't have unilateral powers of a CEO doesn't mean it doesn't have serious power and perks attached to it. There's plenty to want, even if the office of the Presidency isn't always occupied by someone at the forefront of the power elite. It certainly was when the Bushes were in power, but not so much for Obama, and certainly not for Trump. A lot of the office boils down to what you can make of it; it's an undefined opportunity that has so much latitude it's hard to properly say what the President "does". Certainly one of the key things granted by the office is similar to that of the Queen of England, which is prestige and access. It gives you an audience with pretty much whomever you want whenever you want, and creates insane lines of communication. That alone is a business goldmine.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 04, 2017, 11:08:13 AM
Its not how I’d like to spend my twilight years but then maybe I’m selfish or just know I have nothing to offer that would make the world a better place. I assume a president, even if self deluded, hopes to leave the world in a better place.

I just don’t see how anyone would trust a man of Trumps character. There is nothing in his biography that indicates that this is a man that can or should be trusted. I’m certain history will come to the same conclusion. 

It doesn't matter.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 04, 2017, 11:46:14 AM
Jumping back to the OP, I have come to understand that Trump backers would probably still not abandon him if:

1. An audiotape surfaced with him specifically saying, "If Russia wants to help my campaign, great! The sanctions are a dumb deal anyway and I'll get rid of them if I win. Let's make it happen, let them know!"

2. He then tweeted about it and confirmed that it was him and he said it.

3. Bank accounts showed a multi-million dollar transfer from somebody on the Magnitsky Act list to Ivanka Trump.

4. Transcripts showed that after the election, Trump thanked Putin personally for his help and said "I couldn't have done it without you, Vlad."

My further prediction is that it would be sloughed off with a combination of:

1. Fake news.
2. Witch hunt.
3. Clintons are worse.

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Pete at Home on August 04, 2017, 01:38:35 PM
Jumping back to the OP, I have come to understand that Trump backers would probably still not abandon him if:

1. An audiotape surfaced with him specifically saying, "If Russia wants to help my campaign, great! The sanctions are a dumb deal anyway and I'll get rid of them if I win. Let's make it happen, let them know!"

2. He then tweeted about it and confirmed that it was him and he said it.

3. Bank accounts showed a multi-million dollar transfer from somebody on the Magnitsky Act list to Ivanka Trump.

4. Transcripts showed that after the election, Trump thanked Putin personally for his help and said "I couldn't have done it without you, Vlad."

My further prediction is that it would be sloughed off with a combination of:

1. Fake news.
2. Witch hunt.
3. Clintons are worse.

Yeah. So?

What's your prediction for the left's response if Trump drastically reduced unemployment, killed the head of ISIS, and exposed a massive electoral fraud?

"But the Russians!"
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 04, 2017, 02:52:07 PM
*shrug*

Giving somebody credit for something as global as the economy isn't really the same thing as holding somebody accountable for their malfeasance. Certainly, Hillary lost support and Bernie gained it because at least some of them were affected by her clear deceptions, if not illegal activity. Her approval rating is as low as Trumps (with a similar hardcore base).

I don't think the people on the left would take it easy if Elizabeth Warren were caught taking bribes from Goldman Sachs.

The question is about when someone hits their limit on supporting a politician. When they might mount a primary challenge. When they might reconsider a donation. When they might abstain from voting.

There does appear to be a slip in support for Trump by poll numbers. Anyone's guess for all the causes, but not delivering on his pledge to repeal and replace ACA is surely a factor, as well as potential dissatisfaction with the Republican proposal that didn't pass.

For his supporters, if they abandon him, it won't be because of the things they don't care about. Among the things they don't care about - Trump's relationship with the truth. Trump's meddling with investigations. Any meeting between Trump people and Putin people.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 04, 2017, 03:13:03 PM
I don't think the people on the left would take it easy if Elizabeth Warren were caught taking bribes from Goldman Sachs.

If? I'd be surprised if there are more than a handful of Congresspersons who aren't financed by one of the biggies. I know you mean illegal bribes rather than legal ones, but c'mon. You know they get more than we see. We would hope that Warren in particular would be above that...but is she? I've never looked into it. There was some debate about whether Bernie was the real deal or just one of the regular players but with better marketing. I was squarely on the side of believing he was the real deal, but that was important to me precisely because I think there aren't many like that.

Quote
The question is about when someone hits their limit on supporting a politician. When they might mount a primary challenge. When they might reconsider a donation. When they might abstain from voting.

The reason OP in its unmodified form is being resisted is because the issue isn't about "support" but about which actions are going to achieve what results. Even if there was such a thing as ceasing to support Trump individually what would the result of that choice be? To abstain from political participation? To defect over to the 'other side' and vote Democrat? Vote Green? What exactly is the real question being asked? And we can't even get that far because people aren't just voting Trump in a national to support Trump; they are also supporting their party, even despite the fact that Trump is the guy at the helm for the time being. Ever hear of the investment principle that you stick with your investment even when it goes down one quarter because you know in the long run it goes up? We could argue the same about politics, where you stick with your party and even if the current President is a dud the stock will go back up later and in the meantime you helped your party to stay stronger than if everyone abandoned them. That would be the argument, anyhow.

So asking what it would take for people to stop "supporting" Trump really sounds to me like an undefined question. Something more specific might be "what would it take for someone who voted Trump to vote Democrat next time". That would be a hypothetical that could be considered on its own terms without having to deal with OP's insinuation that people who voted for Trump actively enjoy his Presidency and trust him or something. Maybe some do, but I suspect few to none of the people here, and it's tough for us to answer on behalf of those not present, right?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 04, 2017, 04:24:09 PM
As a Trump supporter, and I think I'm fairly typical, I'd stop supporting him if he stopped doing the things I wanted him to do. Simple as that. As long as he is performing, getting results, and doing things I support what does the rest of it really matter? It doesn't matter at all. And if we're honest we'll admit that it never mattered for Democrats either as far as supporting a politician who is doing what they want done no matter their personal or professional faults. Example from today's headlines: "Half of Detroit’s 8 mayoral candidates are felons." Look at Marion Barry. Nobody cares about anything but results anymore. The Democrats made sure of that. Trump supporters aren't about to let Democrats with no morals succeed in playing on ours. Not falling for those tricks anymore especially from the prominent talking heads in the mainstream media who supported a criminal like Hillary. Obama has taught Trump supporters, like those who may have stayed home instead of voting for McCain or Romney, the high price of idealism and we know we can no longer afford it.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Crunch on August 04, 2017, 06:06:42 PM
As a Trump supporter, and I think I'm fairly typical, I'd stop supporting him if he stopped doing the things I wanted him to do. Simple as that. As long as he is performing, getting results, and doing things I support what does the rest of it really matter? It doesn't matter at all. And if we're honest we'll admit that it never mattered for Democrats either as far as supporting a politician who is doing what they want done no matter their personal or professional faults. Example from today's headlines: "Half of Detroit’s 8 mayoral candidates are felons." Look at Marion Barry. Nobody cares about anything but results anymore. The Democrats made sure of that. Trump supporters aren't about to let Democrats with no morals succeed in playing on ours. Not falling for those tricks anymore especially from the prominent talking heads in the mainstream media who supported a criminal like Hillary. Obama has taught Trump supporters, like those who may have stayed home instead of voting for McCain or Romney, the high price of idealism and we know we can no longer afford it.

QFT
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 04, 2017, 09:25:34 PM
As a Trump supporter, and I think I'm fairly typical, I'd stop supporting him if he stopped doing the things I wanted him to do. Simple as that. As long as he is performing, getting results, and doing things I support what does the rest of it really matter? It doesn't matter at all. And if we're honest we'll admit that it never mattered for Democrats either as far as supporting a politician who is doing what they want done no matter their personal or professional faults. Example from today's headlines: "Half of Detroit’s 8 mayoral candidates are felons." Look at Marion Barry. Nobody cares about anything but results anymore. The Democrats made sure of that. Trump supporters aren't about to let Democrats with no morals succeed in playing on ours. Not falling for those tricks anymore especially from the prominent talking heads in the mainstream media who supported a criminal like Hillary. Obama has taught Trump supporters, like those who may have stayed home instead of voting for McCain or Romney, the high price of idealism and we know we can no longer afford it.

QFT

Quantum field theory?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 05, 2017, 10:23:55 AM
So then trump wasn't that far off the mark when he boasted he could shoot somebody on fifth Avenue and not lose support. Presumably as long as he keeps deporting illegals, blocking Muslims from coming into the country, eliminating regulation, and cutting social welfare programs?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 05, 2017, 10:50:28 AM
So then trump wasn't that far off the mark when he boasted he could shoot somebody on fifth Avenue and not lose support. Presumably as long as he keeps deporting illegals, blocking Muslims from coming into the country, eliminating regulation, and cutting social welfare programs?

Somebody needs to give his supporters a face saving option that isn't = surrender and admit you were wrong to oppose us in the first place.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Crunch on August 05, 2017, 03:36:27 PM
So then trump wasn't that far off the mark when he boasted he could shoot somebody on fifth Avenue and not lose support. Presumably as long as he keeps deporting illegals, blocking Muslims from coming into the country, eliminating regulation, and cutting social welfare programs?

You phrase that dishonestly, he didn't boast, he joked. You car argue that it was in poor taste but to assert it being a boast is a total mischaracterization. However, the left wing of American politics is not boasting about it, they are literally doing it.  No outrage over the continued support there.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 05, 2017, 04:23:38 PM
If Trump had really raped a 13 year old girl I wouldn't support him no matter what else. If he shot an innocent person in the street that would be over the line too. Also if he started burning people alive like the mad king I wouldn't oppose impeachment hearings. But all of this penny ante stuff, most of which is fake news anyway? Not only does it not hurt Trump's support, it reinforces it and hurts the media's credibility instead. So whatever happened anyway with those allegations of Trump raping a 13 year old girl that the media ran with right before the election? This was a grown woman who made those allegations so is that legal to falsely accuse men of rape? Why haven't any Democrats called for her prosecution? It may seem like it's not a big deal but it hurts real rape victims because people see that women make that stuff up too.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 05, 2017, 05:35:01 PM
Quote
As a Trump supporter, and I think I'm fairly typical, I'd stop supporting him if he stopped doing the things I wanted him to do.
So if I understand correctly for you character does not matter as long as a republican is doing what you want him to do.

But character would matter if Trump stops doing what you wanted... or was a Democrat

Quote
The high price of idealism and we know we can no longer afford it.

The shadow knows

I suspect the only thing Trump could do that would have his supporters turn on him would be to say he wanted to work under the label Democrat - even if he didn't change his policies, his followers would desert him in droves.   ;)
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 06, 2017, 01:05:59 AM
If there was a Democrat who would secure the borders and enforce the law running against an open borders Republican I would vote for the Democrat.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 06, 2017, 06:54:18 AM
An interesting story for those upset by Trump's "Muslim ban".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/579aaa0c-2b0e-39d5-a770-7686ed9067f0/ss_a-sydney-suburb-bans.html

"A Sydney suburb has banned the construction of a synagogue because it could be a terrorist target..."

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: yossarian22c on August 06, 2017, 04:13:21 PM
I guess we should use the Minnesota Mosque bombing as a reason to prevent building new mosques. And blacks shouldn't have been able to build churches in the South during Jim Crow because the church could be a terrorist target.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2017, 04:03:29 PM
But here’s the thing.  One person is a fund raising tool who SOME believe still has value in giving her blessing on the eventual leadership options moving forward for the party.  The other is President of United States.  Which one of those two do you think I give half a *censored* about right now?

Honestly, I think you care about the one that is a Republican.  That he's the President gives you cover because you don't have to prove that you would consistently have held the Democrat to the same level of accountability.   

Quote
I got to say even if it came down to incontrovertible proof that Hillary broke laws and Trump MAY have broken laws, I’d want a lot more attention paid to the guy in the oval office.

Sure now.  Were you passionate about investigating both during the election?  It was obvious, barring a miracle, that one of them was going to get elected.  An actual deserved indictment may have saved us all from having to choose between the two of them.

Quote
Investigate her or don’t.  Charge her or don’t.  Punish her or don’t.  But if you think ANYTHING she did, may have done, thought about doing or may have known about means that we dismiss all suspicion of Trump as “no big deal in comparison”, then you have forgotten who won the election.

I don't base my desire to investigate based on who one an election.  If there is evidence of a crime bring it forward. 

Quote
A potential criminal has been, or a potential criminal running our country?  I know which one I fret over.  You?

I don't fret over a "potential" criminal at all.  Even if a President has committed crimes in the past (regardless of party), we are still capable of evaluating their actions in office.  If there is actual evidence of a crime bring it forward, we don't need a special prosecutor to build a case, impeachment is a political process not a legal one.

Quote
To be clear.  Had she won, I'd be all for investigations into her marching ahead.  Keeping POTUS on their toes seems like a good thing to me as a rule.

Sorry, but I just doubt you on this.  Maybe I'm being unfair and I should go back and look on the election threads to see what you said then, let me know if I'm being unfair.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2017, 04:16:29 PM
Jumping back to the OP, I have come to understand that Trump backers would probably still not abandon him if:

1. An audiotape surfaced with him specifically saying, "If Russia wants to help my campaign, great! The sanctions are a dumb deal anyway and I'll get rid of them if I win. Let's make it happen, let them know!"

Honestly, I was of this opinion about the sanctions when Obama put them in place.  They looked then like a deliberate attempt to sabotage the incoming Trump admins foreign policy.  I honestly question whether they would have been implemented if Hillary had won.

I still think Congress has risked a war with a super power by its tough guy antics.  Russia has kicked almost a thousand of our diplomatic staff out of the country, which says to me that if we're not ready for a new Cold War we're being awfully short sighted.

However, if you're going to assume that you have tape of Trump in a secret collusion call, why not have him acknowledge that he was secretly raised by the Russians as deep plant in the tape?  Honestly, why not just have him "admit" to any number of horrible things, if you are making up evidence?

Would you decide to support him if he didn't collude with the Russians?  Is that your single issue?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 09, 2017, 05:04:12 PM
Quote
However, if you're going to assume that you have tape of Trump in a secret collusion call, why not have him acknowledge that he was secretly raised by the Russians as deep plant in the tape?  Honestly, why not just have him "admit" to any number of horrible things, if you are making up evidence?

Would you decide to support him if he didn't collude with the Russians?  Is that your single issue?

Not at all. The question is, are there actions Trump could be shown to take that would erode his support, and what might they be? By definition they are hypothetical. I can pose whatever I want, regardless of what he may or may not have done by way of inquiry. I could throw out a number of other random ones. I know that politicians I have supported could and sometimes have gone over a line. Some supporters of Obama did over ACA, when they judged it unconsitutional and with some good reasons.

I could answer the reverse question - what could Trump do to turn me into a supporter? He could give me some evidence that he carefully considers options before expressing an opinion. He could vow not to choke off the skilled foreign workers that help fuel tech innovation in this country. Perhaps most importantly, he could act like he gives a damn about the people whom he's impacting, even if he regretfully decided he still had to take the action anyway. Most importantly, he could properly divest his business interests and reduce the nepotism in his inner circle. Don't bother arguing that those are things that lots of his existing supporters admire about him, I don't expect him to change, so that too is hypothetical.


Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 09, 2017, 05:20:38 PM
Quote
Honestly, I think you care about the one that is a Republican.  That he's the President gives you cover because you don't have to prove that you would consistently have held the Democrat to the same level of accountability.
I suppose this depends a lot on what I’m holding them accountable for.  I haven’t really found myself in need of critiquing the president on the grounds of his “Republican-ness”.  And to be clear, I’d be just as outraged and perplexed at the idiocy involved if Hillary was making moves that appeared to be blatant attempts at abuse of authority meant to quash investigations into her.  Other than that, I don’t have to prove that I would hold ANY former or perspective president besides Trump to the same level.  He’s (I hope) a one off; an aberration in our political world.

Quote
An actual deserved indictment may have saved us all from having to choose between the two of them.
While I’m inclined to agree with this, the whole process was timed for maximum chaos.  That type of “coincidence” doesn’t sit well with my truth-o-meter.  While not the same as saying I think Hillary is “innocent” I think she would have (eventually) beaten anything thrown at her.  I align with much of her policies but have never liked her, never trusted her and never as a rule want to see family members or progeny of past presidents to sit in the big chair.  But my candidate lost in the primaries.  And I am not the type to cast a protest vote or abstain when I saw a danger to this country on the other side of the ticket.

Quote
I don't base my desire to investigate based on who one an election.  If there is evidence of a crime bring it forward. 
My flippancy on this is I honestly feel it will be a waste of time.  They wouldn’t pin anything on her, wrong doing or not.  I may not like her, but I judge her as an extremely capable political creature, one not likely or prone to leaving herself exposed to legal issues.  I would say I classify Trump similar, but I fear he’s use to just buying his way out of trouble rather than covering his ass. 
Quote
Sorry, but I just doubt you on this.
Oh well.  I can’t make you believe that if I have to chose between two crooks I want the one I think will get the job done and never be caught…  You’re not being unfair.  You want to paint me into a partisan box.  Sometimes I fit, sometimes I don’t. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2017, 05:53:00 PM
Not at all. The question is, are there actions Trump could be shown to take that would erode his support, and what might they be? By definition they are hypothetical.

I think the team concept of "support" is flawed for your question.  I don't agree with the transgender ban for instance.  I don't support nasty tweets, I think tweets generally are a great way to skip through media bias.  I wouldn't support gun control, or new laws restricting abortion.  There are plenty of things that I wouldn't support, but what does it mean to erode 'Trump's support'? 

Quote
I can pose whatever I want, regardless of what he may or may not have done by way of inquiry. I could throw out a number of other random ones.

Of course, but what's the point?  If you asked if people would support him after sin x, what's your goal?  Is it just to tar and feather them?

Quote
I could answer the reverse question - what could Trump do to turn me into a supporter? He could give me some evidence that he carefully considers options before expressing an opinion.

Why would that make you a supporter?  Maybe it would give you more comfort in his judgement, but actual support?  I have no doubt that President Obama carefully considered his options, I just felt his baseline goals and assumptions were flawed in such a way as to lead to results I thought wrong.

Quote
He could vow not to choke off the skilled foreign workers that help fuel tech innovation in this country.

Isn't that what he suggested with his change to a skill based immigration system?  That we prioritize immigrants with the skills we need?

Our current system is a mess, with lotteries and political connections having too much sway.  Not to mention abusable and leading directly to US workers being replaced with non-US workers rather than supplemented with skills we don't have.  Why is that a good thing from anyone's point of view other than company owners?

Quote
Perhaps most importantly, he could act like he gives a damn about the people whom he's impacting, even if he regretfully decided he still had to take the action anyway.

Watch his speeches.  He does give a damn, and generally he seems to think he's helping the people he is impacting.  There are fundamental differences in how the two political sides think you help people, following the other side's way is not trying to hurt people (even if they are wrong about whether it helps).

Quote
Most importantly, he could properly divest his business interests and reduce the nepotism in his inner circle.

I couldn't care less about the nepotism, didn't care when it was the Kennedy's either.  It may have been prudent for him to divest harder from his businesses but ultimately, that is something that he will be risking being held to account for throughout his term in office.  Can you imagine what will happen if he intervenes as President directly to save his business interests? 

Quote
Don't bother arguing that those are things that lots of his existing supporters admire about him, I don't expect him to change, so that too is hypothetical.

I honestly don't care why people "support him" or even if they do.  I think they should look at every politician's positions (and quite relying  on party loyalty to pick their positions).  He's trying to do a lot of things that people say they want, and a lot of things that would help people.

I mean look at Obamacare.  None of us agree on what to do there, but almost all of us can see it has real problems.  He's not leading from the top, or imposing his will, which every one would almost certainly hate as a solution.  He's pressuring Congress to fix the mess.  That's their friggin job, they've been utterly negligent about putting forward responsible solutions.  So we're left with more people covered, much better pre-existing condition coverage, more people worse off financially, more people paying excessive and rising premiums with unaffordable deductibles and more people stuck with higher taxes for refusing coverage.  It's a mess. 

What exactly is there to hate about what he's doing?  He specifically demanded a fix, he's flat out said he'd work with the Democrats if they put forward proposals, he's pressured the GOP to the point of forcing them to eat their eight year campaign promise, which will have real consequences to their detriment with their voters, and he hasn't rejected any potential solution so far.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 09, 2017, 06:02:43 PM
Quote
Honestly, I think you care about the one that is a Republican.  That he's the President gives you cover because you don't have to prove that you would consistently have held the Democrat to the same level of accountability.
I suppose this depends a lot on what I’m holding them accountable for.  I haven’t really found myself in need of critiquing the president on the grounds of his “Republican-ness”.  And to be clear, I’d be just as outraged and perplexed at the idiocy involved if Hillary was making moves that appeared to be blatant attempts at abuse of authority meant to quash investigations into her.  Other than that, I don’t have to prove that I would hold ANY former or perspective president besides Trump to the same level.  He’s (I hope) a one off; an aberration in our political world.

But D.W., I hear that and I look back to the last administration and see a Justice department that had blatant conflicts of interest on investigations every bit as bad into the last administration, and none of that lead to your outrage or being perplexed.  At least that's how it looks from my perspective.  Maybe you can clarify how you are being objective against that background?

Quote
Quote
An actual deserved indictment may have saved us all from having to choose between the two of them.
While I’m inclined to agree with this, the whole process was timed for maximum chaos.

Of course it was, thus the term "October Surprise."  Go back and look, Hillary released anti-Trump items in October for the same reason they just couldn't out compete the DNC emails and her server in the media.

Quote
Quote
I don't base my desire to investigate based on who one an election.  If there is evidence of a crime bring it forward. 
My flippancy on this is I honestly feel it will be a waste of time.  They wouldn’t pin anything on her, wrong doing or not.  I may not like her, but I judge her as an extremely capable political creature, one not likely or prone to leaving herself exposed to legal issues.  I would say I classify Trump similar, but I fear he’s use to just buying his way out of trouble rather than covering his ass.

I was talking about Trump when I said bring the evidence of the crime forward.

I'm on record on Hillary. Having looked at the statutes involved, there is no way anyone not named Hillary Clinton, would not have been indicted.  If you look at the government actions against others on those statutes you can find dozens (if not hundreds) of examples of prosecutions of people who more innocently violated the rules than she did. 

Quote
Quote
Sorry, but I just doubt you on this.
Oh well.  I can’t make you believe that if I have to chose between two crooks I want the one I think will get the job done and never be caught…  You’re not being unfair.  You want to paint me into a partisan box.  Sometimes I fit, sometimes I don’t.

Well I agree, sometimes you fit and sometimes you don't.  I don't recall ever asking anyone else if I was being unfair, I meant that sincerely. 

I think that people are too influenced by the media history, I suggest going back and reading things you wrote real time (for everyone) to see if your opinion shifted and then finding what facts (and I mean real facts) lead to that shift.  Trump's "crimes" are one of those things that people have shifted on without any evidence, tons of speculation and even made up stuff, very little actual facts. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 09, 2017, 07:32:28 PM
Quote
Watch his speeches.  He does give a damn, and generally he seems to think he's helping the people he is impacting.
If I believed that, even a little, I'd cut him more slack. 
Quote
He's not leading from the top, or imposing his will, which every one would almost certainly hate as a solution.  He's pressuring Congress to fix the mess.
This would be an example.  It has to be the rosiest of possible interpretations of the fact he HAS no position (and I would argue, doesn't give a damn) on the topic.  The only position he has, is to tear down the legacy of the previous president because his base will delight in that.  What takes it's place?  He doesn't care at all.  This is not Trump having a different plan or ideology on health care.  This is pure pandering.  That's why he's not "leading from the top".  I'd say he wouldn't know how if he had to, but since I don't think he wants to, we'll never know on this.  Scratch off the "Obama" label and call the same thing "Trump Care" and he'd be grinning ear to ear and sell it to his base how great he is for "solving" that horrible mess.  Just tear it all down and leave nothing in it's place?  Well, that's a bummer, but he can still claim victory on that one.

He is trying to do things some people SAY they want.  Mostly, I would argue, people who don't understand the repercussions of what they are asking for.  But, that's not a flaw unique to Trump supporters.  Trump does have one thing going for him.  He's pushing for some things that most politicians use as slogans but balk at because the nuance stalls it every time.  He's very much a chaos be damned, type.  The people want bread and circus?  He'll dole it out and let those who come after pay the bill.

Quote
Maybe you can clarify how you are being objective against that background?
I didn't see them.  Now that could EASILY be that I wasn't paying that much attention.  Or, to be more accurate, the news I read was not paying that much attention.  All possible, but Serati, you got to concede that the negative press from the previous administration was overwhelmingly... well, bat *censored* crazy.  Maybe I tuned out real scandal and signs of corruption because of a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.  But more than any of that is one important fact.

Obama acted well within, if not nailed perfectly, the mantle of what it is to be presidential.  Trump, while I'll concede he may be a breath of fresh air to [refraining from derogatory labels describing... well many blood kin] his supporters, I find it repellent beyond any political differences.  That means that I do NOT hold Trump to the same standards.  I see him as a symptom of national temporary insanity.  A symptom of an allergic reaction to Hillary so violent that many reached for Trump brand ipecac.  I can't help but be critical of the man's presidential activity because an impostor is in the white house.  We don't have a president right now.  We have a symptom.  A reaction.  A bull*censored* "artist". 

If he would play the part and take good advice (even if it was starkly partisan advice), I'd be far less critical.  I'd still be against his policies, but I wouldn't be cheering his failure and wishing doom upon the party who allowed this to happen to us come next two election seasons.  And, in case you haven't noticed, I've not been all that supportive of the DNC picking such an impressive winner in doing their part to lay the groundwork for this constitutional stress test we find ourselves in.
Quote
Hillary released anti-Trump items in October for the same reason
Yep.  Why they felt the need to try is beyond me.  Though, I got to say, out of all the things that seem to have been true and had zero impact, how would you know what to believe and what was too good (awful?) to be true?  I was still steaming about the lost opportunity that was the Democratic primaries. 

Now maybe I'm wrong, but I think I've not put much focus on Trump's "crimes".  I focus a lot more on optics of his actions and the motivations behind them.  On those counts, this guy is beyond redemption.  He can't fire his way out of the disgrace he's bringing to the office.  Is the media out to get him?  You bet your ass.  They see the same thing I do and want it over with as swiftly as possible so our country can get back to the slow simmering mess it usually is instead of this grease fire.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Crunch on August 09, 2017, 07:44:05 PM
Crunch,

I disagree with your assertion "We've got a litany of anti-Trump activists in the media, celebrities, political leaders, etc, promoting violence". It is politically useful for the right-wing to emphasize idiots like Kathy Griffin or hyperventilate over a production of Julius Caesar done as Trump without recognizing that idiots like Ted Nugent spent the entire Obama Administration acting as Griffin did, or that there were multiple Julius Caesar productions that used an Obama theme. Integrity means that you judge with equal severity the actions by who you see as your side.

But more importantly, this is a distraction. Members of the Trump Administration have already acknowledged that they have performed acts that are criminal.  They are arguing that it's now not a big deal when you go through a very serious security process and sign a document saying you understand you can go to jail for five years if you lie, and then you make false statements. 

And Trump supporters use a double standard to forgive behaviors far worse than those they hyperventilated over when they were accusing Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama). Classified information leakage - how about Trump revealing that there is an Israeli spy at the heart of ISIS? Corruption - not merely violation of the Constitution, but just wait until the investigations under Mueller (or at least state legal proceedings in case Trump shuts down the federal investigations) - it will be far more severe than Hillary Clinton meeting with people who gave money to a charitable foundation from which she derived no income.

So Crunch, what's your standard that you would apply to a Democratic or Republican President. What's your limit?
Having thought about this, and despite your complete misrepresentation of media and pop culture, my limit is Trump doing anything and everything that's been done by the left.  That's the bar, however low. Use the IRS to squash critics? No problem.  Cut deals with the AG t avoid prosecution? Sure.  Illegal gun running, media collusion, secret deals to get even richer, why not?  I'm down with a conservative version of liberal tactics. The left supported these things then, too late to cry and whine about it now that the other side is in power.

With the potential of 2 or 3 more Supreme Court appointments in the balance, the limit of my support is pretty damn far.  8)
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 09, 2017, 07:50:06 PM
Just as an aside, what do you guys mean by "support"?
Because other than voting for Obama, I didn't do much to "support him". 
Other than voting against Trump, rambling here, and clicking "like" or "hahaha" on various anti-trump facebook crap, I don't work to thwart the man. 

So are we asking, "What would make you vote against Trump next election?" 
"What would make you call your representatives and tell them to do something to stop his behavior?"
"What would it take to get you to protest for impeachment?"

Support, is kinda a hollow word for many who sling it around I think.  To date, even though I find him to be a threat to our nation and our reputation abroad, I've done nothing more against Trump than I've done against any Republican president or candidate.  Other than being a bit more vocal on social media and treating him with the (lack of) respect I believe Trump deserves there.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 10, 2017, 07:15:58 AM
Quote
Isn't that what he suggested with his change to a skill based immigration system?  That we prioritize immigrants with the skills we need?

"The move comes after Trump, as a candidate, paraded laid-off IT workers onstage and called for the end of the H-1B visa program.

H1B is a skilled worker program. He called for its end, not a crackdown on abuse and seems ignorant of the fact that in tech, there are often a lack of qualified citizen candidates.

probably deserves its own thread to go deeper than that.

Quote
Perhaps most importantly, he could act like he gives a damn about the people whom he's impacting, even if he regretfully decided he still had to take the action anyway.

Quote
Watch his speeches.  He does give a damn, and generally he seems to think he's helping the people he is impacting.  There are fundamental differences in how the two political sides think you help people, following the other side's way is not trying to hurt people (even if they are wrong about whether it helps).

He doesn't show much sympathy to the people he is impacting. Including people set to lose health coverage if ACA were repealed. He does think he's helping other people, and he can even think that it is  a net good. Also, muslim ban. Also, transgender. Also, also....

At the end of the day, character counts more for me personally than policy.

And support, for me, again.... Means voting, contributing to a campaign, defending someone online, in person, going to a rally. Most easily measured by polls asking "is he doing a good job?" not "is he better than the alternative"
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 10, 2017, 10:19:09 AM
Quote
Isn't that what he suggested with his change to a skill based immigration system?  That we prioritize immigrants with the skills we need?

"The move comes after Trump, as a candidate, paraded laid-off IT workers onstage and called for the end of the H-1B visa program.

H1B is a skilled worker program. He called for its end, not a crackdown on abuse and seems ignorant of the fact that in tech, there are often a lack of qualified citizen candidates.

I already answered both those points.  The H-1B program has been grossly abused, it was supposed to supplement the US worker base not replace it.  And Trump's actual immigration proposal is to move to a skilled based system for all immigration decisions.

Quote
He doesn't show much sympathy to the people he is impacting. Including people set to lose health coverage if ACA were repealed.

Really?  I've seen multiple speeches where he has promised them better coverage and expressed that he doesn't want to kick them off (not a very Republican ideal by the way).  Where he's premised reform on including protection of certain entitlements.  Maybe you can cite what you think he said that contradicts this?

Not to mention, he's also repeatedly talked about people are hugely negatively impacted by Obamacare who you are ignoring.  You know, everyone who pays the "tax penalty" and everyone who pays for unsusidized insurance that has a deductible so high that it's useless.  Pretty much Obamacare made a heck of lot middle class people into working poor - I think so they'd press to increase the subsidies and 'get us closer' to universal care.  Too bad for the necessary casualties on the way to "utopia."

Quote
Also, muslim ban.

What muslim ban?  No such thing.

Quote
Also, transgender. Also, also....

Well I disagree with him on that, but you can't legitimately argue that there are not reasonable reasons to exclude from active duty soldiers that have known higher costs, have expected extended absences and have a higher suicide risk.  I'd choose to favor the American ideal of equality over those extra costs and burdens, but it's not unreasonable to favor military effectiveness instead.

I mean we exclude all kinds of people from service for medical reasons beyond their control, that the private sector would be forced to accommodate under the ADA, why aren't you in an uproar over that?  It's a highly parallel situation in many ways (not all of course).

Maybe less relying on dog whistles and sound bites.

Quote
At the end of the day, character counts more for me personally than policy.


Character counts for sure, and his is definitely not great. I honestly don't think he's as far out of the mainstream for a politician as you'd like to believe.

Quote
And support, for me, again.... Means voting, contributing to a campaign, defending someone online, in person, going to a rally. Most easily measured by polls asking "is he doing a good job?" not "is he better than the alternative"

Is he doing a good job.  Yes.  There's a limit to what a President can accomplish without Congressional support, which he does not have, but he's delivered on a number of things to the extent of his legal authority.  Would I be happier if Congress would unite around a policy?  Yes, uniting around something productive - as opposed to uniting in destructive policies - would be awesome.  But it doesn't look like we're going to get that any time soon.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 10, 2017, 11:02:32 AM
The only position he has, is to tear down the legacy of the previous president because his base will delight in that.  What takes it's place?  He doesn't care at all.  This is not Trump having a different plan or ideology on health care.  This is pure pandering.

That's as uncharitable as you can be.  Are you taking that  from what  he's said, or from what his opponents say about him (including the MSM)?

We've talked Healthcare endlessly, there's a lot of different ways for improvement.  Flat out the last admin's law was a mistake, and I don't care if you want universal healthcare or not when I say that.  Creating a law that is designed to hurt people - which this one does - so they'll demand your preferred policy goal is next to evil.  It should be torn down.  We can have plebisite about whether to go universal or to unwind to a market based system, heck we could do a Constitutional Amendment for that matter.  I don't have an issue with us choosing how we want to live and what collectively we think we should be responsible to pay for with respect to our fellow man.  I do object to being lied to, railroaded and generally manipulated into what our leaders think is best over our objections.

Quote
Scratch off the "Obama" label and call the same thing "Trump Care" and he'd be grinning ear to ear and sell it to his base how great he is for "solving" that horrible mess.  Just tear it all down and leave nothing in it's place?  Well, that's a bummer, but he can still claim victory on that one.

I doubt it, but who can say what's true about an internal motivation.  Tearing it down and leaving nothing is exactly what I said about passing it in the first place, it's making a heck of a lot of people worse off as a necessary evil on the way to you goal.  It's evil on its face. 

However, I don't agree that tearing it down means nothing is in its place.  We have an entire healthcare market, we have existing contracts that don't expire till next year, we would have the ability to pay for care or to select less expensive insurance, we'd still have the requirement that hospitals can't turn people away.  A straight repeal makes everyone without a subsidy better off immediately. 

Quote
He is trying to do things some people SAY they want.

And?  Isn't that what all politicians do?

Quote
Mostly, I would argue, people who don't understand the repercussions of what they are asking for.

I agree people don't understand repercussions, though I think that would cut more against Democrats than Republicans if they did.

Quote
I didn't see them.  Now that could EASILY be that I wasn't paying that much attention.  Or, to be more accurate, the news I read was not paying that much attention.  All possible, but Serati, you got to concede that the negative press from the previous administration was overwhelmingly... well, bat *censored* crazy.

If the media had covered Obama with the intensity that they have Trump, he would have been impeached.  No question about it.  If you rely on the MSM you're going to get rosy coverage for the Dems and doom and gloom for the Republicans.  Sure they want to paint the criticisms of Obama as BS crazy.  But there was a lot of legitimate issue there.

Obama had a dozen real scandals, and you can still find media reports about his "scandal free" administration.

Quote
Maybe I tuned out real scandal and signs of corruption because of a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

And has that caused you to tune out the Russian scandal after a year of not finding a wolf?  Why not?

Quote
Obama acted well within, if not nailed perfectly, the mantle of what it is to be presidential.

Why stop there?  Obama is one of the best public speakers I've ever seen.  If only he'd used those powers for good.

Quote
I see him as a symptom of national temporary insanity.  A symptom of an allergic reaction to Hillary so violent that many reached for Trump brand ipecac.

I think you're miscalculating if you think Trump was a reaction solely to Hillary.  He caught the attention of a large group of voters who have routinely been lied to because there is nothing they can do about it.  I mean, Democrats took for granted that working class voters would vote for them regardless of whether they ever delivered.  Just like they take black voters for granted.  Can you imagine the nightmare it'll be for the Democrats if Trump's policies actually show improvement for black voters, more jobs and more safety and real economic improvement?  Granted the media will do everything, and I mean everything, in its power to make sure that they don't know there are improvements from his policies.  But I've salivated for years over the impact of black America realizing that the Democrats hurt their interests far more than they help them.

Quote
I can't help but be critical of the man's presidential activity because an impostor is in the white house.  We don't have a president right now.  We have a symptom.  A reaction.  A bull*censored* "artist".

I kind of see that as delusional thinking.  It's the same process we used in making war propaganda films.  Paint the enemy as "other" than human and its easier to hate.

Take a step back.  Accept that he's a human and the President.  Make an assumption that he actually is trying to make things better and take a fresh look at the policies he's proposing.  Blind resistance doesn't serve anyone's interests. 

Resist policies where you think it makes sense.  But have a plan.  You can't just say no to his immigration reforms and have no idea what do.  You can't just say no to a travel ban and have no explanation for when this country is entitled to stop travelers coming in. 

Quote
If he would play the part and take good advice (even if it was starkly partisan advice), I'd be far less critical.

All indications are that he delegates and takes advice, but that he also expects results.  So you should be "far" less critical already.  In fact, this is exactly what you're complaining about on Obamacare reform - its Congresses job to pass a law, not the President's - yet you want him to what write the law?

Quote
Quote
Hillary released anti-Trump items in October for the same reason
Yep.  Why they felt the need to try is beyond me.  Though, I got to say, out of all the things that seem to have been true and had zero impact, how would you know what to believe and what was too good (awful?) to be true?  I was still steaming about the lost opportunity that was the Democratic primaries.

It's just in the playbook.  Honestly, Hillary had no reason to believe it wouldn't work, we have direct evidence that she was colluding with media sources to put articles out in favorable ways (by the way, that's legitimate the scariest thing that was revealed in this campaign, and of course the media isn't going to cover it, but there is no excuse for us dropping it). 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 10, 2017, 11:19:02 AM
Have you missed what Trump's posturing on subsidies is doing to insurance rates? They're sky-rocketing not necessarily because of a problem with how the industry currently works but because they need to price in the risk that Trump will stop the subsidies without changing the burden on the insurance companies.
Quote
All indications are that he delegates and takes advice, but that he also expects results.
What advice did he take advice before tweeting his new policy on trans people in the military? Or how to respond to North Korea? Or firing Comey? Or implementing his ban on people from certain countries?

I think you're far too willing to take a habitual (if not pathological) liar at his word.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 10, 2017, 11:47:18 AM
Have you missed what Trump's posturing on subsidies is doing to insurance rates? They're sky-rocketing not necessarily because of a problem with how the industry currently works but because they need to price in the risk that Trump will stop the subsidies without changing the burden on the insurance companies.

Actually the problem is with how the "industry currently works."  Obamacare, despite what you believe was not paid for by Obama.  There is a pending lawsuit about whether the CSR's can even be legally paid, as Obama ordered, without Congress appropriating funds for them, which they never have.  That, by the way, is the only reason Trump can even threaten not to make the payments.

But I'm not sure how much you even understand this issue.  It sounds like any premium increases that result from the CSR being stopped will be made up - for the consumer - through tax credits, if they want to continue with a silver plan (CSR's don't apply to bronze or gold plans).  So the debate about "premiums" is a bit fake, not completely, cause having to pay and get reimbursed will turn a lot of people off the plans.

Quote
Quote
All indications are that he delegates and takes advice, but that he also expects results.
What advice did he take advice before tweeting his new policy on trans people in the military?

I've seen Conway answer that question.  Have you looked for the answer?

Quote
Or how to respond to North Korea?

Tillerson has answered that question, as have multiple others.

Quote
Or firing Comey?

He talked to Comey's direct boss and his boss before he fired him.  The decision may have been already made, but who knows if it would have changed if they had opposed rather than supported the firing.

Honestly, using Comey as an example, completely undermines your point in my view.  Everyone should be onboard with his firing.  We haven't had a worse example of an FBI directors overreach since Hoover.

Quote
Or implementing his ban on people from certain countries?

Also widely reported that he screened it though part of the DOJ and his own Presidential legal staff.

If you want to believe nonsense I can't stop you.  But disagreeing with him is not proof that he didn't do exactly what I said.

Quote
I think you're far too willing to take a habitual (if not pathological) liar at his word.

I don't think I have to take him at his word to review his actions fairly.  I just have to not buy into an ideologically driven agenda that everything he said must be a lie.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 10, 2017, 11:49:11 AM
Is he doing a good job.  Yes.  There's a limit to what a President can accomplish without Congressional support, which he does not have, but he's delivered on a number of things to the extent of his legal authority.

I've been doing a bit of work (maybe too much) being a bit of a goalie in trying to block dubious claims about Trump from being taken as facts, which may come off as supporting him even though to whit I don't think I've said anything positive about his Presidency so far. You won't hear much out of me on that, but the one thing I will say is that when he came into office he seemed to dive right into exactly the issues he campaigned on. Half of the complaints I hear about him are about his comportment (no comment) and the other half are about his policy decisions, which for the most part are exactly what he promised to do. I don't recall in recent memory a President going all-in to implement the things he campaigned to do, and that should get serious credit, notwithstanding the fact that one may hate the actual policies. I have not been a fan of his decisions so far, however I do recognize that virtually none of them were arbitrarily out of left field. It's unfortunate that people are screaming when he implements a campaign promise, because while they think they're winning some kind of brownie points for saying how evil he is (e.g. the "Muslim ban") they don't even realize that they are in effect advocating for reneging on campaign promises in order to do whatever is expedient once you're in office. And that's exactly what the system has been feeding them for years - candidates that promise all sorts of things and then revert to business as usual once the election is over. So apparently the people do indeed get the government they deserve.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 10, 2017, 11:58:26 AM
Quote
Also, transgender. Also, also....

Well I disagree with him on that, but you can't legitimately argue that there are not reasonable reasons to exclude from active duty soldiers that have known higher costs, have expected extended absences and have a higher suicide risk.  I'd choose to favor the American ideal of equality over those extra costs and burdens, but it's not unreasonable to favor military effectiveness instead.

I mean we exclude all kinds of people from service for medical reasons beyond their control, that the private sector would be forced to accommodate under the ADA, why aren't you in an uproar over that?  It's a highly parallel situation in many ways (not all of course).

I never said I was crabbing about his decision, or some of the reasons. I said he doesn't acknowledge that this means that people currently serving are about to lose their jobs. He doesn't acknowledge that by such a broad definition, even trans service members with no special medical needs are going to lose their jobs.

Nor does he offer a transition plan that suggests that he will phase out recruiting, but grandfather in people who are already serving. Nor a plan that even says he will phase it out through re-enlistment. Nor a plan that even promises they will get their next paycheck.

Quote
Character counts for sure, and his is definitely not great. I honestly don't think he's as far out of the mainstream for a politician as you'd like to believe.

You may be right. Others might be very close, or even worse. But at least they have the courtesy to cover it up. Certainly Nixon was worse in any number of ways, but few knew how bad until his tapes came out. FDR did worse to citizens than trump has to illegal immigrants, but he at least pretended to be reluctant about it.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 10, 2017, 12:04:27 PM
Quote
Actually the problem is with how the "industry currently works."  Obamacare, despite what you believe was not paid for by Obama.  There is a pending lawsuit about whether the CSR's can even be legally paid, as Obama ordered, without Congress appropriating funds for them, which they never have.  That, by the way, is the only reason Trump can even threaten not to make the payments.

But I'm not sure how much you even understand this issue.  It sounds like any premium increases that result from the CSR being stopped will be made up - for the consumer - through tax credits, if they want to continue with a silver plan (CSR's don't apply to bronze or gold plans).  So the debate about "premiums" is a bit fake, not completely, cause having to pay and get reimbursed will turn a lot of people off the plans.
So he's still threatening not to pay them and insurers are still raising prices because losing the subsidies will cause people to bail on the plans.

I know that the White House has admitted it's a political game and that he overrode the process underway to evaluate the effect of trans people in the military. That it was a surprise to a substantial part of the defense community.

So his fire and fury tweet wasn't just off the cuff?

He made his decision to fire Comey, then took advice? I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. As for the results, journey before destination. Process matters even if the wrong process gets good results.

Which ban was widely screened? The first attempt was a surprise to a whole lot of people.

There's a consistent pattern of this administration making decisions that catch the main players off-guard.

Quote
I've been doing a bit of work (maybe too much) being a bit of a goalie in trying to block dubious claims about Trump from being taken as facts, which may come off as supporting him even though to whit I don't think I've said anything positive about his Presidency so far. You won't hear much out of me on that, but the one thing I will say is that when he came into office he seemed to dive right into exactly the issues he campaigned on.
Where did he campaign on blowing up health insurance?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 10, 2017, 12:09:10 PM
I never said I was crabbing about his decision, or some of the reasons. I said he doesn't acknowledge that this means that people currently serving are about to lose their jobs.

In a tweet.  The tweet is not the actual policy.  I expect you'll have those answers in the final policy.  You could legitimately argue that announcing it as a tweet, when it's this sensitive an issue, should never happen.  I'd agree with that.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 10, 2017, 12:48:42 PM
by such a broad definition, even trans service members with no special medical needs are going to lose their jobs.

Are you 100% certain this is at all implied in what Trump is proposing? From what I read this isn't what is going to happen, and that the policy is going to cover people fitting very specific criteria. I haven't researched this extensively, maybe a few hours, so if you've read something that confirms what you just said and could quote it I'd be happy to read the details.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: D.W. on August 10, 2017, 12:51:33 PM
Quote
That's as uncharitable as you can be.  Are you taking that from what he’s said, or from what his opponents say about him (including the MSM)?
What he’s said.  How he speaks on topics he claims to care about.  Maybe you would suggest he is just the most easily flustered man we have had in office.  Unable to pull his thoughts together when put on the spot.  The man speaks exclusively in platitudes and campaign rhetoric.  He speaks for effect and almost never to convey information.  His desperation to either be adored or to portray himself as a martyr is all consuming. 

I like to think that if someone had an actual opinion on any given policy they could relay that to the people in a coherent manner.  Even Bush Jr. could manage that and, at the time, a lot of us thought he sounded foolish doing so.  While he had the misfortune of being bookended by two good public speakers, I can’t say, even while I teased him occasionally, I didn’t understand his position.  The only way I can reconcile what Trump says and how his positions change in both substance and fervor is that he doesn’t give a *censored*.  He wants to be loved.  He wants credit.  If something big may be accomplished, he will speak as if HE is at the wheel steering the ship.  If it seems likely to fail, he will scatter blame widely or find a worthy sacrifice to shed failure from his presence. 

I’ve never seen a public figure so blatantly selfish and petty.  I’m not saying others aren’t power hungry or selfish, they just aren’t this transparent.  But hey, maybe this is the transparency we’ve all been calling for… 
Quote
We've talked Healthcare endlessly, there's a lot of different ways for improvement.  Flat out the last admin's law was a mistake, and I don't care if you want universal healthcare or not when I say that.  Creating a law that is designed to hurt people - which this one does - so they'll demand your preferred policy goal is next to evil.  It should be torn down.
While I thought they went about several things improperly regarding ACA, I think the execution was even better than I anticipated.  I hope that we do go from here to universal health care, but even if we don’t, we’re better (as a country) for having the ACA passed.  Republicans (as well as Democrats) want to improve it?  I’m all for it.  Tearing it down, is first chaotic, and second, what we had previously was just a worse status quo.  If nothing or nobody else has changed your opinion on this by now, nothing I say ever could though. 
Just to clarify, when you say MSM, do you mean “Main Stream Media”?  And if I somehow claimed the Obama administration was “scandal free” I apologize.  He, and his administration acted as I expect a president to act. 
Quote
And has that caused you to tune out the Russian scandal after a year of not finding a wolf?  Why not?
Honestly?  I had for awhile tuned it out as nonsense, wishful thinking of those too focused on a “do over” instead of facing that the Democratic party is every bit as much to blame as the Republican party for Trump.  However, the stunningly inept way the Trump administration has handled the optics on this place me back in the, “Well who knows, maybe he really did something we can’t let slide?” 
We may not have found a wolf but I’m sure getting sick of those around him trying to cover up all the paw prints and changing their story to what is least damning that they think they can sell… until the next time. 

Again, I don’t condemn him or his staff for what they may have done that broke laws regarding Russian collusion.  I condemn them for giving Putin the opening he needed to cast doubt on this whole administration regardless of if any actual wrongdoing occurred.  This was a setup that I think any local bumpkin of a mayor would have seen coming and avoided.  But Trump is a business man first, and a politician… never.  He is wired to exploit opportunities.  He was an easy mark.  I hate him for that; not “his” policies.  (If I believed he had any.)
Quote
Obama is one of the best public speakers I've ever seen.  If only he'd used those powers for good.
Other than continuing the “evil” of previous administrations and expanding presidential powers, not much evil happened from where I’m sitting.  A few errors in judgment weighing in on social issues bothered me at the time, but his statements seem tame and of no note compared to the dawning of Twitter in Chief’s freeform fun.

Quote
I think you're miscalculating if you think Trump was a reaction solely to Hillary
Not solely no. 
Quote
He caught the attention of a large group of voters who have routinely been lied to because there is nothing they can do about it.
Well, at least they’re use to being lied to.
Quote
Can you imagine the nightmare it'll be for the Democrats if Trump's policies actually show improvement for black voters, more jobs and more safety and real economic improvement? 
I have a hard time picturing that outcome, but if it did happen, I don’t think it would be a nightmare.  I’d welcome it anyhow.  Look, I don’t want the guy to fail at any cost.  The one good thing about a man who worships himself and wants other worshipers is that he will claim ANY victory within reach.  He chose the party and talking points that was low hanging fruit.  If he sees other opportunities for credit, I think he’d be willing to cross party lines to achieve it if he didn’t have to sacrifice his base.  That threshold apparently offers wide latitude. 

Quote
Paint the enemy as "other" than human and its easier to hate.
He’s the one holding the brush Seriati!  The man is about as “other” as we’ve ever seen at this level of our government. 
Quote
Make an assumption that he actually is trying to make things better
  I think on immigration he believes he is trying.  I think it’s a flawed plan, but I think he’s trying.  On dropping out of the Paris Accords I think he was trying to get us “a better deal”.  Though that deal should never have been measured in sharply economic criteria.  Healthcare I don’t believe for a moment he has a clue on how to improve things.  He just knows that “repeal” is the war cry and he loves the feeling he gets leading the chant. 
Make an assumption that he doesn’t care about anything but his own fame and power and influence.  Listen to what he says.  Listen to how he talks about policy.  Ask yourself, “If he really cared, wouldn’t he have something of more substance to say?”  Ask yourself, “If he had an actual agenda, would he waste time on X, Y or Z topic?  Wouldn’t he be trying to get support in congress for this?”

I’m curious to see him get to tax reform.  Seeing them try to argue against the math of health care reform causing amazingly disproportionate damage to THEIR BASE, it should be an impressive show.  Now maybe I’m wrong.  (Wow would I love to be wrong)  Maybe they will produce a plan that helps the average Joe rather than being a gift to big business and the already amazingly rich.  I expect it will be more, “Sacrifice in the name of your principals and the American Dream!  Praise Jesus!” and then rely on reflex to keep their base in line.

Quote
All indications are that he delegates and takes advice, but that he also expects results.
All indications that have nothing to do with communication you mean?  Because MSM would just corrupt it anyhow?
Quote
Honestly, Hillary had no reason to believe it wouldn't work, we have direct evidence that she was colluding with media sources to put articles out in favorable ways (by the way, that's legitimate the scariest thing that was revealed in this campaign, and of course the media isn't going to cover it, but there is no excuse for us dropping it). 
I found the DNC’s (and the media’s) blatant favoritism towards Hillary as scarier, but that was pretty awful stuff. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 11, 2017, 11:10:26 AM
Crunch, you were not around here earlier, so let me totally debunk one of your claims:

Quote
Use the IRS to squash critics?

(1) Critics were not "squashed" by the IRS - what happened was that groups seeking to get a tax break because they claimed that their groups were not primarily political had to answer questions to demonstrate that claim.
(2) Eventually, they all got the tax break. Even Karl Rove's Crossroad GPS which obviously was and is political, raising $80M in funds that they spent on political campaigns
(3) Obama did not "use" the IRS to do this - there was no contact with the White House, instead an IRS group in Ohio that was understaffed took shortcuts in who they investigated by looking for political terms in the names of these self-proclaimed social welfare groups (such as "Tea Party", etc.).  By far, most of the groups examined had right-sounding political names, but it was also true at that period that most of the quasi-political groups applying for that tax break at that time were from the right and not the left (although some on the left also got the same scrutiny).
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 11, 2017, 11:29:59 AM
Crunch, you were not around here earlier, so let me totally debunk one of your claims:

His claim is hyperbole not literal, but your "debunking" is flawed.

Quote
(1) Critics were not "squashed" by the IRS - what happened was that groups seeking to get a tax break because they claimed that their groups were not primarily political had to answer questions to demonstrate that claim.

No.  What happened is that conservative groups that submitted facially valid requests were singled out inappropriately for political reasons in violation of the law and sent both requests that exceeded the mandate of the information necessary to make the determination and unnecessary delayed in being granted their status.  In fact some of them just received their confirmations this year.

 
Quote
(2) Eventually, they all got the tax break. Even Karl Rove's Crossroad GPS which obviously was and is political, raising $80M in funds that they spent on political campaigns

They didn't ask for a tax break, they asked for a status confirmation (as was their right).

Crossroads is a boogeyman for you, but you're conflating different Crossroads organizations in making your claims.  That said the Crossroads entity received its confirmation 5 years after it applied for something that should have been granted within 6 months.

Quote
(3) Obama did not "use" the IRS to do this - there was no contact with the White House, instead an IRS group in Ohio that was understaffed took shortcuts in who they investigated by looking for political terms in the names of these self-proclaimed social welfare groups (such as "Tea Party", etc.).

BS.  The evidence showed that it was targeting, not shortcuts.  And not one of you demonstrated that any delay was for a facially valid reason in the hundreds of pages of discussion we had on this point.

Quote
By far, most of the groups examined had right-sounding political names, but it was also true at that period that most of the quasi-political groups applying for that tax break at that time were from the right and not the left (although some on the left also got the same scrutiny).

Revisionist history.  It was literally demonstrated that left groups did not receive the same scrutiny, irrelevant and excessive demands for information and were not delayed to the same extent.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2017, 12:09:23 PM
Seriati,

Were these "political" groups and not "social welfare" groups? You assert that these were conservative groups, by which I assume you mean that they were politically conservative groups, and if we accept that claim then the law is that they are not eligible for this special tax treatment.

Here's some specifics on Crossroads GPS.  Between April and November 2012 alone Crossroads GPS moved on order of $100M, most of that on political ads. And how big was the burden that they had to bear to make the case that there were not a political organization? They had to address:

Quote
more than a dozen questions with a subset of detailed queries for everything from specifics on how much time and money GPS spent on all of the its component activities to a full printout of its entire website and copies of all of its fundraising pitches. The following May, GPS’ lawyers sent the IRS two three-inch binders filled with hundreds of pages of explanations and supporting documents

And then they carried the burden of getting to operate under exactly the IRS status that they wanted
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/02/how-crossroads-gps-beat-the-irs-and-became-a-social-welfare-group/ (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/02/how-crossroads-gps-beat-the-irs-and-became-a-social-welfare-group/)
 
I do agree that groups that used conservative political language in their organizational name were more prominent on the Be On The Lookout (BOLO) list that the IRS office in Ohio used, and that constituted a form of political profiling that is wrong even if those most likely to violate the law were the groups using conservative terms in their organizational names. 

But most importantly, Crunch did not use the IRS example as hyperbole, he used it as an example of what he would justify being used by President Trump, specifically "my limit is Trump doing anything and everything that's been done by the left"

And those who are willing to believe the unending barrage of right-wing propaganda can be ready to justify virtual any actions of their leader. From what I hear from those favoring Trump on this thread, many if not most are willing to accept  Trump firing Mueller, and him pardoning his team members and even himself. When he does all that, will you tell a story that the left is just as bad, despite actual facts
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Grant on August 12, 2017, 05:46:01 PM
What's my limit on supporting President Cheetoh? 

That's really a loaded question.  First, I really didn't support him during the election anyways.  I didn't support Her Holiness either.  I don't really support him now, or probably in the future.  But I don't think that's really the question.  The real question is do I support impeachment or removal by 25thecution, isn't? 

As a general rule, I support the POTUS within the execution of his or her office, and their serving their term, whether they are Democrat or Republican or Democrat or Sith Party, given they are elected as per the Constitution.  As a general rule I support the POTUS as the leader of the Executive branch of the US government, and as a symbol and figurehead for the people of the United States, whether Democrat, Republican, or National Socialist Greenday Liberty Fun Transhumanist Party; given they are elected as per the Constitution.  As I general rule I respect the office of the Presidency and whatever clown may be currently sitting on the four year throne, no matter what party, etc etc. 

I support impeachment of the President under the rules of the Constitution.  I support impeaching the President given sufficient evidence of a high crime to convince enough members of the Senate of the United States that he or she should be impeached, and found guilty by enough members of the Senate, overseen by the Supreme Court.  That is all. 

I generally support 25thuation given sufficient cause to make a majority of his cabinet and the Speaker of the House and the Vice President to remove him.  I believe this is an emergency stopgap measure, and should be used last, if impeachment is impractical due to time constraints or emergency situations. 

But I don't think this question is for me.  This is about Trump supporters.  This is about the Republicans who even now continue to press the "approve" button on that lovely little Gallup poll that we get updated every week.  The one that says that says that Pres "So Much Winning" sits at 82% approval among Republican responders, as of the 6th of August. 

GASP.  "How can this be?" asks Greg.  He so crayyze. 

Easy.  It's simply the general popularity life of a Republican President.  Imagine a world where the vast majority of Republican voters, maybe 80%, don't really give a toot about all the bad things everyone over here is saying that the Republican President is doing.  They don't really watch the news.  They don't read the newspaper anymore, if they ever did at all.  They might watch a little Fox and listen to a little Limbaugh, but plenty don't even do that.  Today they are going to get up, have breakfast, go to work, where they work all day without a computer or a cellphone or a TV to stare at, and when they go home, they eat dinner, mow the grass, drink a beer, put the kids in bed, and then pickle tickle their cisgender woman in a woman's body that can become pregnant spouse.  Like Rhett Butler, he doesn't give a damn.  He gets 90% of his information from whatever loudmouth smart guy who constantly talks politics at work. The guy who elsewhere's Facebook page is 95% wacked out politics he or she gets from other places in Facebook.   

Now Pres Trump may sit at 82%, but that's basically where every one of the last four Republican Presidents have sat at the 30 week mark.  That's right, they all sit in the 80s.  Basically, the Republicans who don't like Trump now are the ones who didn't like him in November of last year, and that's about the same for all of them.  Democrats and Progressives etc etc have been saying that each Republican President is the offspring of Satan and a female cisgendered yet non-consenting ewe since Lincoln.  They couldn't tell the difference.  They'd probably get more worried if liberals started loving the guy, like the high approval numbers GHW Bush had after GW1.  Globalist elite and all that. 

So the approval numbers are pretty much set, because the attitudes of the vast majority of Republicans are set and have nothing to do with the news. What would it take for Trump to lose the support of a majority of Republicans?  Shooting someone on 5th Ave?  A sex scandal?  Coming out as trans-gendered and changing his name to Danielle Trump? 

Probably none of those things.  One thing is given.  By the middle of the third year, after mid-terms, almost everybody is unpopular.  You're old news, and you've had plenty of time to find that ONE single thing, that one pet issue, that each Republican may have, that would cause a change of heart.  Add in the fact that you probably helped lose control of Congress, which invariably happens, and your popularity plummets.  Throw in an economic recession, and a failed war, and you may get his Republican approval numbers down to 50%, which is as far down as they will ever get.  The reason his numbers will never get any further down than that is because no matter how bad he is, he's not a Democrat, or a Liberal, or a Progessive, and he talks cac about all three, and probably 50% of all Republicans are not really Conservative, but are anti-Liberal, or anti-Progressive, etc. 

This might seem rather harsh, but I suspect the same is true for Democrats.  I pretty much bet that 35% of them don't really care about Liberal or Progressive values or issues, or at least not a majority of them, but they definitely hate those evil dastardly Republicans.  Case in point would be Jimmy Carter.  Even LBJ barely dipped below 50% approval among Democrats. 

So if you're looking for impeachment opportunities, I'd suggest you look forward to 2019.  Particularly if the Democrats take back Congress.  Otherwise, hope for a really good recession.  Maybe work on that College Loan Bubble.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 12, 2017, 06:46:28 PM
Impeachment is a matter of politics, not justice, and I see it as extremely unlikely that we will ever get 19 Republican Senators to make the 67 votes needed to impeach. I have essentially no influence on impeachment.

I am more concerned about people here and their actual views. I am asking people here, who are not among the large majority who read no news, what it would take within their moral compass to go from a position favoring President Trump to one of clear opposition.  Those of you who are convinced that Hillary Clinton was a criminal or Obama was a tyrant, what would President Trump have to have done to make him even worse in your mind than your image of Clinton or Obama?


Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: yossarian22c on August 12, 2017, 10:18:37 PM
Impeachment is a matter of politics, not justice, and I see it as extremely unlikely that we will ever get 19 Republican Senators to make the 67 votes needed to impeach. I have essentially no influence on impeachment.

For a typical president I would agree. Trump's adversarial role with Republican political leaders I think changes the calculus. If Trump's poll numbers drop far enough President Pence may start to sound pretty appealing to the leaders on the hill. So if Mueller turns up something significant and Trump starts pardoning his family and others from his campaign I could see this congress turning on him.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 12, 2017, 10:35:42 PM
Quote
I am more concerned about people here and their actual views. I am asking people here, who are not among the large majority who read no news, what it would take within their moral compass to go from a position favoring President Trump to one of clear opposition.  Those of you who are convinced that Hillary Clinton was a criminal or Obama was a tyrant, what would President Trump have to have done to make him even worse in your mind than your image of Clinton or Obama?

The problem is that the majority of the people here who you are referring to don't actually "support" or even like Trump.

Let me put it to you this way. I'm appalled by Trump. I am not actually appalled by anything he has done (I consider the Russia issue to be complete BS) or anything he has said (I don't give a *censored* if he bragged about grabbing pussy) but by who he is. He's not fit to be President, end of story. So if you're asking how I get there - the answer is, I'm already there and was way before election night.

But I'm also appalled by the people opposing him for reasons I consider to be self-serving, disingenuous and corrupt. It is not about whether I hated Hilary more or less or whether she would have made a better president. At this point, regardless of Hillary's merits or demerits, I would love to see Trump disappear, fall off the face of the earth - but not if it means handing "victory" and justifying the actions of the people seeking to remove him for corrupt reasons, using irrelevant pretexts. It is very important to me that if Trump fails, it happen for the right reasons and does not reward the wrong people.

So there's an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. How to make Trump disappear without vindicating and emboldening (and rewarding) people I despise?

I'm not sure there's a satisfactory answer here. I feel a bit like China must feel right about now. Trump is to many of his "supporters" what North Korea must be to China - something embarrassing, regrettable, something we'd love to just toss into a black hole - but something we are stuck with because the alternative would be total capitulation to our adversaries. We would be happy to throw Trump under a bus - but not THEIR bus to vindicate THEIR agenda.

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 13, 2017, 01:35:25 AM
Quote
I am not actually appalled by anything he has done (I consider the Russia issue to be complete BS)

Do you have any concerns about the actions already acknowledged by Flynn, Manafort, Sessions, and/or  Kushner with respect to false disclosures (in Sessions case perjury, in Kushner's case criminal violation as clearly labelled on an SF-86?).

And if not, what would you consider a concern? 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 13, 2017, 08:16:33 AM
Greg prove to me that Trump actually took a bribe or is somehow in Russia's pocket and that would be interesting. But note I already have conceded that this guy isn't fit to be President. I want him gone as much as you do - just not to vindicate Clinton, the DNC, or hyperleft partisans who throw temper tantrums when someone doesn't cowtow to their sacred shibboleths.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 13, 2017, 11:20:03 AM
Quote
Greg prove to me that Trump actually took a bribe or is somehow in Russia's pocket and that would be interesting.

I agree that we need to wait until more substantial evidence is uncovered regarding criminal actions taken by President Trump before making direct conclusions about him.

I have seen a constant moving of the line of acceptable behavior as more and more Trump associates have committed actions that used to be considered unacceptable.  Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath about adultery; Jeff Sessions lied under oath about contact with Russians and yet somehow that does not matter. People who flipped out because they believe that Hillary Clinton got special treatment regarding her security clearance somehow accept that Jared Kushner hid his considerable ties to Russian agents in filing his paperwork to get his security clearance with none of the consequences that would have affected anyone else.  Flynn and Manafort were taking multi-million dollars from foreign interests while actively pursuing policies that favored their interests. 

So forgive me if I am skeptical as to whether those who support Trump will continue to move the line of acceptable behavior. I want to get some red lines here, so it will be more obvious if people shift the goalposts one more time. If Trump fires Mueller with no more justification than when he fired Comey (proudly confessing to others he is doing it because Comey is investigating ties to Russia), does that raise a flag? If he pardons Flynn, Manafort, and/or Kushner, does that raise flags? If he pardons himself for crimes he has committed, does that move you to opposition?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 13, 2017, 12:54:01 PM
Well I told you what I needed to take the Russian story seriously. Legally speaking, you may or may not need something less tban that to get impeachment. The issue isn't the "red line" partisans need to get rid of the President they always hated and have determined to eliminate through any means.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Grant on August 13, 2017, 01:46:54 PM
Impeachment is a matter of politics, not justice, and I see it as extremely unlikely that we will ever get 19 Republican Senators to make the 67 votes needed to impeach. I have essentially no influence on impeachment.

Meh.  I can see it.  If there ever is a really good smoking gun linking him to making direct deals with an actual member of the Russian government, particularly one connected to intelligence, then I think you could get 19 Republicans easy in the Senate.  The hard part would getting the simple majority in the House, IMHO. 

I can name 7 R Senators who I think would pull the trigger.  Flake, Sasse, McCain, Graham, Collins, Paul, and Scott are all probably good bets.   There are a few that are probably borderline that could probably be easily convinced given the public reaction to an impeachment among republican voters.  Rubio, Cruz, Capito, Hatch.  But there is only one guy who is really important in that entire thing.  That's McConnel.  McConnel is the only guy who could herd 19 cats into the travel carrier.  And I don't think McConnel is too fond of the Prez. 

The best way to ensure Trump is found guilty is to have a smoking gun, and to convince around 50% of Republican voters to abandon him. The best way to get those 50% is to slow play it in the media.  If Al Sharpton or Rachel Maddow or some other prince of progressive news comes out and makes it a non-stop frothing attack 24-7, then you won't be able to convince those 50%.  I'm sorry.  I know that doesn't sound right.  It isn't.  It's completely anti-antithetical to truth.  But Rachel Maddow could say that the sun was rising tomorrow in the east and 50% of Republicans would probably immediately see it as proof that the sun rose in the west, the earth was flat, and that they had been lied to by progressive globalist elites about where the sun comes up. 

I say this as a Conservative.  I say this as someone who works with Republicans and whose facebook feed is full of Republicans.  I say it as a person who believes that if Trump or George W Bush said the sun rose in the east you would probably get a similar rate of disbelief on the left.  Especially if it was said during an election cycle. 

But you're never going to get liberal media to slow roll impeachment proceedings.  It would be the biggest media feeding frenzy in the history of mankind.  MSNBC isn't interested in winning.  They are interested in ratings.  And they are going to get more ratings by going nutz and encouraging the Democrat base to go nutz.  That scene where Robert Shaw talks about the shark biting down and his eyes rolling back in his head when he tastes the blood in Jaws?  That's what it's going to be like.  Fox can be the same way, yeah. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 14, 2017, 10:00:06 AM
Seriati,

Were these "political" groups and not "social welfare" groups? You assert that these were conservative groups, by which I assume you mean that they were politically conservative groups, and if we accept that claim then the law is that they are not eligible for this special tax treatment.

None of what you said above is an accurate statement of the law.  501(c)(4)'s status is based on their activities and goals not their titles or affiliations.  The Republicans could create a social welfare advocacy group and it qualify as a 501(c)(4) depending on its activities.  501(c)(4) are not an efficient way to conduct covert political activities (despite the paranoia you have on this point), their ability to engage in political activity is limited solely to the promotion of their social welfare goals, upon which they have to spend the majority of their money and efforts.

Find me the group who's application didn't express a legitimate goal and we'll talk.  Until then, this is one of those classic "myths of the extreme left" talking points that I give zero credence to.

You do understand that 501(c)(4)'s grant zero tax benefit to the donors right?  All the tax break does is prevent the 501(c)(4) from having to pay gift tax.

Quote
Here's some specifics on Crossroads GPS.  Between April and November 2012 alone Crossroads GPS moved on order of $100M, most of that on political ads. And how big was the burden that they had to bear to make the case that there were not a political organization? They had to address:

Crossroads is your boogeyman.  It has zero to do with the hundreds of legitimate organizations that this abusive policy hurt.

At best, it's kind of like focusing on the handful of women who make up rape claims in a discussion whether we should take claims of rape seriously.  It's a "partially true" claim that misses the whole point and undermines the actual numbers because of sensationalism.

I note too, that while you can make a great argument about Crossroads GPS, it ultimately won the status on appeal.  Preferring that the law works differently is NOT the same thing as refusing to apply  it as it does work.

Quote
I do agree that groups that used conservative political language in their organizational name were more prominent on the Be On The Lookout (BOLO) list that the IRS office in Ohio used, and that constituted a form of political profiling that is wrong even if those most likely to violate the law were the groups using conservative terms in their organizational names.

It's nice that you "agree" on a fact that they were targeted.  Not sure why you need to "agree" to it.

But you need to prove "most likely to violate the law" not just "profile" it away.  As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no substantive backing to that claim.  Certainly not for the hundreds that were delayed and inconvenienced.  You don't get to make a "racist-style" assumption and move on.  Prove it.

So below, Greg you throw out a lot of "buzz word" style terms.  Most of which have been debunked or have little rationally to do with your point.  My tolerance for unsupported buzz words is at an end.  If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim, the fact that "everyone on the left agrees or knows" has zero weight with me.

Quote
I am not actually appalled by anything he has done (I consider the Russia issue to be complete BS)

Do you have any concerns about the actions already acknowledged by Flynn,

Who was fired by the administration when it became aware of the extent?  Correct?  Or did I imagine that?

The same General Flynn who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama and granted security clearance by the Obama admin?

What exactly is your concern here?  That Trump should have known about Flynn's actions ahead of time?  fired him faster?  What?   Seems like politicians on both sides think Flynn is a good person (notwithstanding the electorates uninformed passion on the topic).

Quote
Manafort,

Trump's campaign manager for two months, who worked on the campaigns of literally every Republican President (except apparently Bush Jr.) of the last 40 years.  He clearly didn't register as a foreign agent as he should have in connection with work his law firm performed.  I'm curious with this sudden interest how many new retroactive filings we are seeing this year.  Bet you there's been a massive increase as people realize that work they've been doing for years requires registration.

So what's you're specific concern here?

Quote
Sessions, and/or  Kushner with respect to false disclosures (in Sessions case perjury, in Kushner's case criminal violation as clearly labelled on an SF-86?).

Sessions.  There's no basis for a perjury claim.  You could bring it but you'd lose - no question by the way on that. 

Even if we assume you have a basis, care to explain why Sessions would lie about that?  What purpose is to be gained by being deceptive about his publicaly known meetings in his role as a member of the Senate?   Take 10 seconds and actually think about it, and explain what goal he could have been serving with such a "lie". 

The only way you make a technical case is to refuse to acknowledge context.  The Senate is fully capable of pursuing a perjury claim, but they know what you apparently don't, the only merit such a claim has is political and they can only get that by making snide media comments, if they brought the case it'd be a win for Sessions and the issue would be dead.

Kushner.  That's already been debunked by me on this site.  If you'd care to address any of the substantive arguments I made please feel free, otherwise I feel you are making such an assertion in bad faith.

Quote
And if not, what would you consider a concern?

Some evidence that his policies are wrong for the country.  Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 19, 2017, 10:56:37 AM
Quote
Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.

Just curious - can you be specific about the crime that you believe Hillary Clinton has committed and the "actual evidence" that you believe is the standard for reaching such a conclusion?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 19, 2017, 11:28:51 AM
Quote
Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.

Just curious - can you be specific about the crime that you believe Hillary Clinton has committed and the "actual evidence" that you believe is the standard for reaching such a conclusion?

There's a difference between something you know the person did but which could never stick in a court of law, versus things you have no idea at all they've done but which you sort of 'feel' they may have because they're sketchy. The former is Clinton, the latter, Trump. Odd are Trump has committed some kind of crime over his life, maybe tax fraud, who knows. But I've to date seen no direct evidence of malfeasance that makes me go "ok, he obviously did X even though no one can pin it on him". Again, the most obvious would be the matter of his taxes, which would certainly be bad if he did that, but then again I do think there's a small difference between tax evasion as a private citizen - which countless people do, and which is so pervasive that amongst the rich it could probably be called standard procedure - and between abuse of a public office for personal gain. One is greed and gaming the system (which he admits he's done) and the other is corruption and abuse of the public trust. This doesn't directly address your question of which precise crimes Hillary may have done, but even putting that aside the general issue with her potential malfeasance is that it was while occupying political offices and using those offices for her activities. I think I'm not the only one who sees this distinction as being significant.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: DonaldD on August 19, 2017, 01:30:17 PM
You can't put "that" aside, and then assume its veracity.  What specific "it" in your penultimate sentence did Clinton do while occupying political office?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 19, 2017, 02:20:21 PM
Crunch, you were not around here earlier, so let me totally debunk one of your claims:

Quote
Use the IRS to squash critics?

(1) Critics were not "squashed" by the IRS - what happened was that groups seeking to get a tax break because they claimed that their groups were not primarily political had to answer questions to demonstrate that claim.

And yet at the same time, a number of conservative pundits that were highly critical of the Obama Admin were almost routinely getting flagged and audited by the IRS, in particular during the first term. Even when they decided to go for a "simple filing" instead and not claim a lot of deductions they were otherwise eligible for. To the point that like what went on with Glenn Beck, the agency he had doing his taxes, had never seen the amount of scrutiny his taxes were placed under during those first few years.. And they'd been doing that kind of work for decades for a number of other high profile/high value clients. And his experience wasn't unique among his peer group.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 19, 2017, 07:01:31 PM
Quote
And yet at the same time, a number of conservative pundits that were highly critical of the Obama Admin were almost routinely getting flagged and audited by the IRS, in particular during the first term. Even when they decided to go for a "simple filing" instead and not claim a lot of deductions they were otherwise eligible for. To the point that like what went on with Glenn Beck, the agency he had doing his taxes, had never seen the amount of scrutiny his taxes were placed under during those first few years.. And they'd been doing that kind of work for decades for a number of other high profile/high value clients. And his experience wasn't unique among his peer group.

I call BS on this allegation. I am certain that you cannot prove it. I have no trouble believing that some right wing propagandists who have demonstrated a frequent willingness to make false statements (for example, Glenn Beck) may have made this accusation. It is even quite possible that some of them had their most frequent level of IRS auditing during that period of time - because that's how it would happen even if the incidence of IRS scrutiny was randomly distributed. And by the availability heuristic, those who got audited more frequently (particularly those who are conspiracy-minded) might impute causality. But your hypothesis is false, and I am confident that you have no evidence for it other than anecdotes of partisans with a track record of making false statements.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 19, 2017, 07:09:16 PM
Quote
There's a difference between something you know the person did but which could never stick in a court of law, versus things you have no idea at all they've done but which you sort of 'feel' they may have because they're sketchy. The former is Clinton, the latter, Trump.

Fenring, I challenge you to make specific your claim. There is something that "you know" that Hillary Clinton did, and you are being clear that you don't think that this is a feeling. So if you are certain, can you name (1) the action that Hillary took and when she took it, (2) the criminal statute that it violated, and (3) the evidence that you have which gives you such certainty?

Because if you can't give a clear answer to all three, that which you "know" seems an awful lot like feelings
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 21, 2017, 10:34:14 AM
You can't put "that" aside, and then assume its veracity.  What specific "it" in your penultimate sentence did Clinton do while occupying political office?

This answer is to both your question and Greg's. Let's put the two issues in perspective. There's the Trump accusation, which to date seem to be restricted to (a) collusion with Russia, and (b) cheating on his taxes, the latter of which had nothing to do with any tenure in public service (not that it's rendered irrelevant, but it means it wasn't abuse of a public office). I can't even think of any other crimes Trump has been accused of, although a lot of hay is made about his supposedly bad policies, bad tweets, bad diplomacy, etc etc, which we can grant are maybe problematic. But those aren't crimes. The potential conflicts of interest with his private businesses have been lauded as theoretical problems but I've not seen a specific accusation of impropriety there so far. Actually I'm surprised I haven't, you'd think it would be easy to make up. But in any case the only crime thus far I've seen him accused of as President is colluding with Russia, and even then most reasonable commentators seem to restrict the accusation to Trump being a patsy (and therefore dangerous to America) rather than an deliberate conspirator with Putin. Since being a patsy isn't against the law, most current attempts are going after members of his family or administration instead, such as with that incident with the Russian lawyer and the trick meeting which was a non-started in terms of any connection to the Russian government. Even if members of Trump's admin messed up due to lack of political experience even so that doesn't make Trump, himself, a criminal, merely incompetent. That's something to talk about for sure, but a completely different discussion from one about deliberate malfeasance in a public office such as people have about Hillary.

My intent was to show that the types of complaints or accusations levied against Hillary and Trump aren't the same. If one wanted to there would be plenty of ammo to throw at Hillary in terms of her comportment, manner, and policies. However very few things I've seen, or threads on Ornery, are about that at all. People seem to leave those alone and instead focus on what they see as actual criminal activity; in other words, bigger fish to fry. I wasn't looking to have a 'throw-the-paint-at-Hillary-and-see-what-sticks' session, especially since, as others have mentioned, there are more pressing matters now. Although I agree with Seriati that the timeliness of an issue shouldn't really impact how seriously we treat it, even though in practice that seems to be inevitable. But I'll list a few items from Hillary's time in public service that I either suspect, or strongly believe, to be deliberate acts that I believe are significant violations of the law. A lot of my evidence comes directly from Wikileaks, but some is just deduction based on available evidence and cross-checking many sources to see what facts are listed that are reliable.

(a) The matter of the Uranium One sale to the Russians, after which the Clintons received a substantial donation from the middleman who conducted the transaction for them. (b) The invasion of Libya, which I think should qualify as a war crime (especially Hillary first calling for, and then celebrating, the brutal murder of a national leader). I suspect, but cannot be certain, that this operation was Hillary's baby, and she was certainly receiving intelligence from start to finish that contradicted statements she made in public about what was going on over there. (c) The private server, which I think was a deliberate attempt to evade FOIA for personal reasons, and where she essentially gave the finger to the government when the files were requested. The "with a cloth" comment was rather telling in terms of how much contempt she had for the law there. It was evident that the head of her IT team was on Reddit asking how to wipe a server with no trace, right after she had been obliged to hand everything over, and of course they did proceed to try to wipe it. (d) The collusion with the DNC and certain media companies to fix an election. I can't be sure this one is a 'crime' as I guess that depends on how the internal rules of the DNC and media corps are regulated (which I don't know), but it certainly seems to me to be criminal in terms of the spirit of the law, vis a vis a conspiracy to undermine the integrity of an election process. I'll avoid mentioning anything that happened 'before my time' (such as Whitewater, or that incident where her boss said she was a crooked lawyer) as I'm not that well-versed in that stuff.

There are other things but these have always stuck in my mind as being most significant. Out of these, the Libya affair the most so, and there are many weird details involved in just that matter that could spawn a thread of its own. I didn't really intend to go into this as I do sort of want to stop beating the dead horse, but since two of you asked I thought you deserved an answer that wasn't just a hand-wave away. Again, I've based my conclusions on leaked documents, parsing conflicting reports, and basic common sense. Trump hasn't been involved in anything like the above, where there is at least strong suspicion of deliberate crime. Few people at this point are making direct attributions of Trump being a knowing conspirator, both because there's no evidence of it and because the meme has taken on a reality of its own (Russiagate) and can thrive on its own without making the accusations too specific. The idea itself of malfeasance there is stronger than any actual detail will look, and so the nebulous idea is what's being maintained. I have yet to hear of a definitive smoking gun there, although perhaps one will emerge eventually. I would certainly be very bad if that happened, so it's worth being attentive for it. I'm just skeptical that such a thing really exists at this point.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 21, 2017, 04:31:29 PM
Quote
Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.

Just curious - can you be specific about the crime that you believe Hillary Clinton has committed and the "actual evidence" that you believe is the standard for reaching such a conclusion?

That's an interesting re-direct.  I take it then, you can not defend your charges.

Hillary Clinton violated the law with the operation of her server and the mishandling of confidential items and government records.  We've been over this before, but other than Comey, there doesn't seem to be anyone in the government that believes intent is relevant to these cases, or so the history of hundreds of prosecutions and penalties would seem to indicate.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my two year old challenge for someone to put forward a legitimate explanation for why Hillary's server was created and why she was permitted to direct government records off of government systems and onto it. 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 21, 2017, 05:44:44 PM
I'm still waiting for an answer to my two year old challenge for someone to put forward a legitimate explanation for why Hillary's server was created and why she was permitted to direct government records off of government systems and onto it.

Because Colin Powell did much the same thing?

The precedent did exist, such as it was.

Edit: Although it should be noted that in Powell's case there was a legitimate "convenience" factor relevant to his having done so, as I understand State did not have the technical capability to provide such services at the time(as it was an evolving capability of the time). Hillary doesn't have that excuse IIRC.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 21, 2017, 05:50:16 PM
First of all, that's not a legitimate explanation.  Secondly, Powell did not do the same thing.  There's plenty of write ups on it.  Try again.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 22, 2017, 01:43:58 AM
Fenring, you claim to be operating not on emotion but fact - but I don't see even the start of any facts in your list:

(a) Are you talking about a deal that 9 agencies had to approve of, that it is unclear whether Clinton had any influence on a decision that was brought up from lower levels in the State Department, and by "donation" do you mean that she got zero dollars of personal income for this? Can you specify what criminal statute you believe was broken? Can you provide any evidence to verify that she actual committed the illegal actions associated with that statute?

(b) The invasion of Libya as a crime? What criminal statute do you believe she violated, and what action did she take that was a violation? (we won't even go into the actual challenges, as there was a real threat of genocide and the aftermath of the fall of Yugoslavia was actively debated; furthermore Britain and France had their own motivations and intenions and US actions were in that context... but you are talking crimes not policy so please explain)

(c) The private server? Are you joking? Colin Powell had a private server. The Bush White House had a private server, and they destroyed 24 million emails when under investigation for an actual scandal that led to the resignation of the Attorney General. The Trump White House has a private server right now. All of this only proves the hypocrisy of those freaking out about Clinton's private server, but the more important point is that this was not a criminal violation of the law. If you think it was, name the statute and provide the evidence of action that was criminal.

(d) Collusion with the DNC and the media? First, let's take the media - getting a question before a debate was not fair, but it was nothing compared to the $2B of free media value given to Donald Trump. Collusion with the DNC - I don't want to wade through all the bogus paranoia stuff (like how the DNC somehow got the Republican-controlled election officials in Arizona to do some wack things with polling places), so let's cut to the chase:name a specific criminal activity and how you know that Hillary Clinton took a specific illegal action.

 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 22, 2017, 01:46:34 AM
Quote
Hillary Clinton violated the law with the operation of her server and the mishandling of confidential items and government records.  We've been over this before, but other than Comey, there doesn't seem to be anyone in the government that believes intent is relevant to these cases, or so the history of hundreds of prosecutions and penalties would seem to indicate.

So if I could show you the opposite, that there many other than Comey who hold those same views, would you acknowledge that you are wrong?
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 22, 2017, 09:28:48 AM
(c) The private server? Are you joking? Colin Powell had a private server.

You  are reading questionable sources.  Colin Powell did not have a private server.  There are plenty of write ups about his limited use of private email at a time that the State Department barely used any email.  Pretending there is an equivalence between that and what occurred with Clinton is the kind of joke that only a partisan can love.

Quote
The Bush White House had a private server, and they destroyed 24 million emails when under investigation for an actual scandal that led to the resignation of the Attorney General.

Well accept again is a build out of a fake scandal from scraps of reality.  People in the Bush Whitehouse had RNC email accounts because they were not permitted to do political work on government email accounts - which is a violation of law.  Some of them improperly used their RNC accounts to do government work. 

When the issue was detected, they put in an effort to collect and provide all the emails to the government.  It was determined that the RNC's server wiped all emails after 60 days, and it was initially feared they would be lost.

However, if you'd read any follow up, you'd already know that the missing emails were eventually recovered from the RNC's back ups.

Quote
The Trump White House has a private server right now.

For political work, or government work?  Political work is still generally not permitted to use government resources.

Quote
All of this only proves the hypocrisy of those freaking out about Clinton's private server, but the more important point is that this was not a criminal violation of the law.

Nah, what this proves is that you're spending too much time on conspiracy sites and not enough time researching your claims.

Quote
If you think it was, name the statute and provide the evidence of action that was criminal.

Done it more than once on this board.  There are dozens of reasonable write ups on it.

Quote
(d) Collusion with the DNC and the media? First, let's take the media - getting a question before a debate was not fair, but it was nothing compared to the $2B of free media value given to Donald Trump.

Lol, and what about media members actively burying stories, or running campaign propaganda as stories? 

So your argument is that the media can deceptively manipulate in favor of Hillary and collude with the DNC, but that's all okay because they hated on Trump harder and more publically?  Some of these explanations are straight out of 1984.

Quote
Collusion with the DNC - *** -name a specific criminal activity and how you know that Hillary Clinton took a specific illegal action.

If that's your standard I assume you think Mueller should close his investigation as well?  Lol.

I'm not aware that colluding with the media is a crime.  Collusion in general is a crime only in some very limited contexts. 

There may be some election rules that it violates.

The problem with this is ethical and moral.  If you don't have a problem with it on that basis, then don't try to claim the highground cause you're way off it.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 22, 2017, 09:30:14 AM
Quote
Hillary Clinton violated the law with the operation of her server and the mishandling of confidential items and government records.  We've been over this before, but other than Comey, there doesn't seem to be anyone in the government that believes intent is relevant to these cases, or so the history of hundreds of prosecutions and penalties would seem to indicate.

So if I could show you the opposite, that there many other than Comey who hold those same views, would you acknowledge that you are wrong?

Knock yourself out.  If you can prove that the entire history of government prosecution in this area shows that intent is relevant to the crime, in the face of hundreds of prosecutions and convictions that say otherwise I'll be very impressed.

I think, if you do some honest research here you're going to have to conclude the opposite.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 22, 2017, 10:31:55 AM
Just deleted a long response because it gets in the weeds. Instead:

Quote
Quote
If you think it was, name the statute and provide the evidence of action that was criminal.

Done it more than once on this board.  There are dozens of reasonable write ups on it.


Seriati, I don't trust your word. You evidently have many words to go on other subjects, but to respond to the heart of my question (show me the statue, show me the evidence that she violated the statute) you can't bother to put down the words that actually address the challenge I laid down.


Enough for today. I will apologize in that I just don't have enough time to go through everything you say, and maybe that is unfair to you and the others on Ornery, and so maybe it would make more sense to step back for a bit.


 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 22, 2017, 10:47:51 AM
Greg,

Both your links show the Bush emails were recovered.  As does CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/ (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/white.house.emails/), which is the basis for Wiki pretty much declaring they have been recovered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy?yui_3_18_1_1_1503412936791_564=1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy?yui_3_18_1_1_1503412936791_564=1).

I suggest you read the Wiki, since it directly explains how this occurred - ie an attempt to comply with the Hatch Act.

It also makes you look ridiculous to claim that Hillary's server was okay against that back drop.  And nothing in any "case" you cited comes remotely close to Hillary's fact pattern, where she deliberately directed government records out of the government's control for no known legitimate purpose (which by the way, in case you missed it, is the specific intent that one doesn't even need under under the statute).
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 22, 2017, 02:04:12 PM
Fenring, you claim to be operating not on emotion but fact - but I don't see even the start of any facts in your list:

Greg, thank you for your reply. But I think you're confusing me listing facts with me having based my beliefs on facts. Even if I had the data at finger's reach, neatly organized in specific folders and titled and everything (as if I was preparing to make a court case) that doesn't mean I'd find it appropriate to start listing all of that here. My intent isn't really to convince you of this, although I guess that would be an ok goal, but rather just to explain why the random accusations made against Trump are of a totally different strain than those that were/are levied against Hillary. Not of the same type, and not with the same kind of primary documents backing them up. You asked for examples and I gave them. I don't recall suggesting that I was preparing to make a grand indictment of her on these boards and to prove to everyone that I'm right. And actually, this isn't really possible in the simple syllogistic sense you seem to be implying. Don't you know that the only possible case in matters such as this would hinge on a mounting of evidence? You're not going to find the slam-dunk secret memo that unilaterally proves everything. That's not how these things work. But holding out for the "absolute proof" that is irrefutable is exactly the method of never allowing yourself to believe anything suggested at all. It's an unattainable standard, and is the easy way of dismissing claims that aren't desirable to believe.

Take the first thing I listed, Uranium One. I could link you to MSM headlines, documents, donation statements and all the rest showing the process of the Clintons' involvement in the transaction, the final go-ahead from State, the immediate large donation to the Clinton Foundation, etc. One person can look at all that and conclude, "Hah! It's almost transparent, pure pay to play using the office of SecState." Another person (you, I suppose) can look at the same and claim it's all circumstantial, without proof, no direct ties to Hillary even if her office was involved in a cursory way, and no way to connect the multi-million dollar donation to Bill and Hillary personally in terms of how they gain from that. And you'd be right on all counts. Unquestionably, the best one can do is look at the different points and reach a conclusion, and I can't really fault you for looking at it and saying the whole thing is too hazy to make positive claims about it. But that's not the same at all as turning around and saying that my assessment of the facts is based on emotion and without merit. The fact that I haven't listed all the facts I've come across is certainly a reason for you not to believe me, but not a reason to say they don't exist. That would just be an assumption on your part of me being sloppy. Maybe I am, maybe not. But I'll be frank that I don't obsessively collect documents, articles and other things to add to my conspiracy scrapbook because, well, I just don't have time or commitment to that kind of project. I look at things, save a few of them, and mostly try to remember the rest. Seriati has often pointed out that one's opinions are often based on facts in experience but that can't be summoned up at a moment's notice. That does leave us with the difficulty of memory often being unreliable, pride overwhelming memory and reason, and lack of a fact trail making it hard to check someone else's work. That's a toughie, all right. I guess the best course when discussing things like this with people you disagree with might be to try to assess your level of trust of the way they do their thinking and use that as a bit of an aid; not to convince you, but maybe to make you pause when you're considering dismissing what they say even when it sounds contrary to what you believe. I know over the years I've kept a lot of comments made by posters here in mind even when I had no way to know if they were right. But I knew they were smart and had reasons to believe it, and I take that into account.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 24, 2017, 11:03:43 PM
I did create this posting in a hypothetical context - we have not yet seen any proof of the involvement of President Trump or members of his Administration in criminal actions- but it is also fair to mention that we have not yet seen the results of even a single structured investigation. In contrast, more investigative effort has been put into trying to find a crime that Hillary Clinton committed than for any other political figure in US history (and so far all of those searches have failed to do so).

What I was trying to do was get people who support Trump to project forward, and identify where was their limit.  If Trump is found guilty of criminal actions, I expect that there will be propaganda efforts to de-legitimize our judicial system and to normalize whatever criminal actions he takes. And I wonder how far his supporters will go. There was a recent poll of Republican voters, and more than half of them at least said that they would support delaying the 2020 Presidential election if Trump told them that the voting rolls were infested with millions of illegal immigrants.

This may all blow over. I don't think so, but we shall see.  And from what I have seen here, there's a substantial core of those who support Trump (or hate his enemies) who will pretty much accept anything. That is of concern.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 25, 2017, 10:32:32 AM
Base on the comments in the post I think you got your answer
Trump core supporters are all in and will not hold Trump accountable.
This has become a physiological matter, not one of reason. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41028733
Quote
Why Trump's supporters will never leave him
By Katty Kay, Presenter, BBC World News
Jerry, I'll call him that, is a mild-mannered African American in his early 70s from West Virginia.
He grew up under segregation and it was to his family's deep dismay that he voted for Mr Trump last year.
He believes Mr Trump understands that America needs more discipline: no more young men walking round with their jeans halfway down their butts showing off their boxers, was how he described it to me.
Jerry hankers for a time when young men dressed well, behaved well and didn't answer back to their elders.
When I asked him if he'd be disappointed if Mr Trump failed to live up to his campaign promises of healthcare reform, tax reform and making American manufacturing great again, Jerry was clear.
Mr Trump, he said, would probably never achieve any of those things for three reasons - the media, the Russia investigation and the Republican Party.
But he didn't even really care - those are details, he said. What matters is that the president understands what America should be like
.

I would bet that in ten years most of those that voted for Trump will deny having done so.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDrake on August 25, 2017, 10:47:15 AM
That's a bad poll Greg.

Quote
But that’s just a start. The researchers note that before asking respondents whether they would support delaying the election, they asked several other questions:

Respondents were asked whether Trump won the popular vote, whether millions of illegal immigrants voted, and how often voter fraud occurs. These questions evoke arguments frequently made by Trump and others about the integrity of the 2016 election.
In other words, the respondents were primed to be thinking about Trump’s (spurious) claims of widespread voter fraud, already shading their impressions before they got to the central question. Pollsters and political scientists long ago showed that the sequence and tone of questions can help determine the way people will answer the question.

Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Fenring on August 25, 2017, 10:48:38 AM
Trump core supporters are all in and will not hold Trump accountable.

Only if you fail to define what "hold accountable" means. Does it mean 'will agree he's sub-optimal but would still stand by voting for him', or does it mean 'which switch to voting for the other party if Trump runs again'? Or maybe even worse, 'will actively volunteer for and give donations to Trump's opposition'? Whichever of these you may mean, there's fat chance of any of them because of what has become of politics in America, and Trump has nothing at all to do with that situation. You can blame the two parties for that, among others.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 25, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
"I would bet that in ten years most of those that voted for Trump will deny having done so."

No need to wait that long. Most of those who voted for Trump denied they were doing to do so even before they did it. It's not worth losing family members and friends and maybe even jobs to admit it.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 25, 2017, 11:21:45 AM
Only if you fail to define what "hold accountable" means. Does it mean 'will agree he's sub-optimal but would still stand by voting for him', or does it mean 'which switch to voting for the other party if Trump runs again'? Or maybe even worse, 'will actively volunteer for and give donations to Trump's opposition'? Whichever of these you may mean, there's fat chance of any of them because of what has become of politics in America, and Trump has nothing at all to do with that situation. You can blame the two parties for that, among others.
It could also mean get Trump impeached and support President Pence or support a primary challenger so Trump can't run again. Or encourage the GOP to reject Trump and support Congress in marginalizing Trump.

The US system is set up to enable the legislature to oppose the executive even when they're in the same party. Opposing Trump doesn't necessarily mean opposing the GOP or supporting the Democrats.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: Seriati on August 25, 2017, 12:17:17 PM
What I was trying to do was get people who support Trump to project forward, and identify where was their limit.

Were you?  Honestly, it looked more like you were trolling them.  I went back and looked, and you received any number of well thought out responses.  That you haven't really acknowledged.

How exactly would a "Trump Supporter" whose primarily concerned with government insiders and government excess ever find the actions of those very government insiders to undermine him some kind of evidence that their support is wrong?  Trump himself is irrelevant, other than that he's an outsider, and there is no legitimate alternative option.

Quote
If Trump is found guilty of criminal actions, I expect that there will be propaganda efforts to de-legitimize our judicial system and to normalize whatever criminal actions he takes.

If?  What criminal actions.  If Greg is caught on to catch a Predator, I expect we'll find him very distasteful as well.

You keep phrasing your claims to "assume" a bad fact and then running well past the bounds of the hypothetical to paint people as incorrigible. 

Meanwhile, you already have a history of doing exactly what you seem to fear the other side will do, "more investigative effort has been put into trying to find a crime that Hillary Clinton committed than for any other political figure in US history (and so far all of those searches have failed to do so)."  All that's been revealed in Clinton's case is that some people are above the law.  I have no intention of softly extending that to Trump or anyone else, but it's your philosophy, not mine, that's endorsing that some people are above the consequences of their actions.

Quote
And I wonder how far his supporters will go. There was a recent poll of Republican voters, and more than half of them at least said that they would support delaying the 2020 Presidential election if Trump told them that the voting rolls were infested with millions of illegal immigrants.

Lol.  I'll just flat out say it, there's no legitimate poll that shows that. 

Meanwhile, how far will the supporters on your side go?  We already know they'll use violence for political goals.  Are they going to respect elections that they actually lose?  Is it going to occur to them that voter intimidation will let them win elections?

Quote
This may all blow over. I don't think so, but we shall see.  And from what I have seen here, there's a substantial core of those who support Trump (or hate his enemies) who will pretty much accept anything. That is of concern.

It seems to me that you don't actually listen.  Pretty much everyone whose responded to you has said the opposite, that they don't have a personal loyalty to Trump, and you come back and reassert your original (and unsupported) belief.  Everyone told you about actions they don't support, and also told you that Trump being a fool is not magically proof that the philosophies they believe are true are not true.  Trump is not the avatar of the Republican philosophy.

What concerns me, is that too many people know longer care what the truth is, or what the actual facts are, but only that the result agrees with their preconceived notions.  This thread was not a well meaning attempt to gain understanding, it was barely passable as an attempt to demean people by forcing them to commit to improbable and negative outcomes, what it actually was, was just a flat out trolling of people who tried to give you good faith answers.  Disappointing.
 
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: slipstick on August 25, 2017, 03:11:49 PM
Trump's victory frightened lots of people, but in his first six months in office he has not done anything very alarming, beyond  lots of rash talk. Accordingly his popularity has stagnated for the most part, declining slightly from a very low level. Thus he could try to recover by starting a major war, perhaps by destroying North Korea's nuclear facilities. That I would find unpardonable, but I doubt he will do it, as his chances of success seem slim. More likely he will keep on as he has, realizing that  he may be unpopular but that his opposition shows few signs of uniting behind any credible challenger.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 25, 2017, 03:51:57 PM
Quote
No need to wait that long. Most of those who voted for Trump denied they were doing to do so even before they did it. It's not worth losing family members and friends and maybe even jobs to admit it.
That's why I said in ten years and the reasons you gave won't be the reason why.

Quote
Only if you fail to define what "hold accountable
Accountable means accountable. The Core supporters will never hold Trump accountable.
Title: Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 25, 2017, 05:06:04 PM
Meanwhile, how far will the supporters on your side go?  We already know they'll use violence for political goals.  Are they going to respect elections that they actually lose?  Is it going to occur to them that voter intimidation will let them win elections?

It is a bit worse than that for the Leftists in the United States, where current events aren't doing them any favors in even seeing this particular scenario come to play out:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-congressional-map-is-historically-biased-toward-the-gop/

Quote
Even if Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points — a pretty good midterm by historical standards — they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats.

And in an echo of something I, and others were mentioning back in November:

Quote
This is partly attributable to the nature of House districts: GOP gerrymandering and Democratic voters’ clustering in urban districts has moved the median House seat well to the right of the nation. Part of it is bad timing. Democrats have been cursed by a terrible Senate map in 2018: They must defend 25 of their 48 seats while Republicans must defend just eight of their 52.

And going back to discussions on the Electoral College from that time, 538 also touches on that, as they point to the makeup of the Senate(which is a major factor in some of the "dysfunction" seen in the EC--like Wyoming getting 3 votes):

Quote
Consider: In 1980, there were 18 states where the presidential margin was at least 5 points more Democratic than the national result, 18 states where it was at least 5 points more Republican than the national result and 14 states in between. Hypothetically, over three successive election cycles, all either party needed to do to win a Senate majority was win all 36 of the seats in the friendly states plus at least 15 of the 28 swing-state seats.

Today, Republicans don’t even need to win any “swing states” to win a Senate majority: 52 seats are in states where the 2016 presidential margin was at least 5 percentage points more Republican than the national outcome. By contrast, there are just 28 seats in states where the margin was at least 5 points more Democratic, and only 20 seats in swing states.

Which should actually terrify the Democrats in some respects going by that measure. From those numbers, it is possible, on paper, for the Republicans to potentially end up with up to 72 Senate seats out of the 100 available. As it only takes 67 votes to counter a Presidential Veto, or ratfiy an impeachment proceeding, that particular demographic shift is hinting at the potential future inability of another Democratic President to ever manage much in terms of a partisan Democratic Agenda, the Republican senate will just kill it on sight.