Author Topic: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?  (Read 30217 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2017, 03:28:29 PM by Greg Davidson »

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
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. 


Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.   


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
...
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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
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?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
...
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?

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 10:42:53 AM by Fenring »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
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?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
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

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
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).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
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

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
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?

 

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
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


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
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

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
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. 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
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?




Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 07:50:39 PM by D.W. »

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
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

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Well at least I agree it's a much harder problem to deal with.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
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!

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
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?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
     "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.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
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

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile

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.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 11:21:13 AM by D.W. »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 11:59:49 AM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
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

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
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. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
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 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
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