What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?

[TheDrake]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[rightleft22]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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!"

[TheDrake]

*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.

[Fenring]

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.

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?

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Crunch]

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

[Fenring]

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?

[TheDrake]

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?

[Gaoics79]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[rightleft22]

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

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.   

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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..."

[yossarian22c]

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.

[Seriati]

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.   

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[Seriati]

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?

[TheDrake]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

[Seriati]

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'? 

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?

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.

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?

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).

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? 

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.

[Seriati]

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?

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.

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. 

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. 

[D.W.]

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. 

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.

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.

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.

[Crunch]

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. 

[D.W.]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

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).

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"

[Seriati]

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.

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."

Also, muslim ban.

What muslim ban?  No such thing.

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.

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.

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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. 

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

And?  Isn't that what all politicians do?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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?

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). 

[NobleHunter]

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.

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.

[Seriati]

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.

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?

Or how to respond to North Korea?

Tillerson has answered that question, as have multiple others.

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.

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.

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

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?

[Seriati]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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… 

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. 

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.)

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.

I think you're miscalculating if you think Trump was a reaction solely to Hillary

Not solely no. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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?

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. 

[Greg Davidson]

Crunch, you were not around here earlier, so let me totally debunk one of your claims:

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).

[Seriati]

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.

(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.

 

(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.

(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.

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.

[Greg Davidson]

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:

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/
 
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

[Grant]

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.

[Greg Davidson]

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?

[yossarian22c]

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.

[Gaoics79]

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.

[Greg Davidson]

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? 

[Gaoics79]

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.

[Greg Davidson]

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?

[Gaoics79]

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.

[Grant]

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.