Author Topic: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?  (Read 30223 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #150 on: August 14, 2017, 10:00:06 AM »
Seriati,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Manafort,

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

So what's you're specific concern here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some evidence that his policies are wrong for the country.  Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #151 on: August 19, 2017, 10:56:37 AM »
Quote
Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.

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

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #152 on: August 19, 2017, 11:28:51 AM »
Quote
Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.

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

There's a difference between something you know the person did but which could never stick in a court of law, versus things you have no idea at all they've done but which you sort of 'feel' they may have because they're sketchy. The former is Clinton, the latter, Trump. Odd are Trump has committed some kind of crime over his life, maybe tax fraud, who knows. But I've to date seen no direct evidence of malfeasance that makes me go "ok, he obviously did X even though no one can pin it on him". Again, the most obvious would be the matter of his taxes, which would certainly be bad if he did that, but then again I do think there's a small difference between tax evasion as a private citizen - which countless people do, and which is so pervasive that amongst the rich it could probably be called standard procedure - and between abuse of a public office for personal gain. One is greed and gaming the system (which he admits he's done) and the other is corruption and abuse of the public trust. This doesn't directly address your question of which precise crimes Hillary may have done, but even putting that aside the general issue with her potential malfeasance is that it was while occupying political offices and using those offices for her activities. I think I'm not the only one who sees this distinction as being significant.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #153 on: August 19, 2017, 01:30:17 PM »
You can't put "that" aside, and then assume its veracity.  What specific "it" in your penultimate sentence did Clinton do while occupying political office?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #154 on: August 19, 2017, 02:20:21 PM »
Crunch, you were not around here earlier, so let me totally debunk one of your claims:

Quote
Use the IRS to squash critics?

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

And yet at the same time, a number of conservative pundits that were highly critical of the Obama Admin were almost routinely getting flagged and audited by the IRS, in particular during the first term. Even when they decided to go for a "simple filing" instead and not claim a lot of deductions they were otherwise eligible for. To the point that like what went on with Glenn Beck, the agency he had doing his taxes, had never seen the amount of scrutiny his taxes were placed under during those first few years.. And they'd been doing that kind of work for decades for a number of other high profile/high value clients. And his experience wasn't unique among his peer group.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #155 on: August 19, 2017, 07:01:31 PM »
Quote
And yet at the same time, a number of conservative pundits that were highly critical of the Obama Admin were almost routinely getting flagged and audited by the IRS, in particular during the first term. Even when they decided to go for a "simple filing" instead and not claim a lot of deductions they were otherwise eligible for. To the point that like what went on with Glenn Beck, the agency he had doing his taxes, had never seen the amount of scrutiny his taxes were placed under during those first few years.. And they'd been doing that kind of work for decades for a number of other high profile/high value clients. And his experience wasn't unique among his peer group.

I call BS on this allegation. I am certain that you cannot prove it. I have no trouble believing that some right wing propagandists who have demonstrated a frequent willingness to make false statements (for example, Glenn Beck) may have made this accusation. It is even quite possible that some of them had their most frequent level of IRS auditing during that period of time - because that's how it would happen even if the incidence of IRS scrutiny was randomly distributed. And by the availability heuristic, those who got audited more frequently (particularly those who are conspiracy-minded) might impute causality. But your hypothesis is false, and I am confident that you have no evidence for it other than anecdotes of partisans with a track record of making false statements.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #156 on: August 19, 2017, 07:09:16 PM »
Quote
There's a difference between something you know the person did but which could never stick in a court of law, versus things you have no idea at all they've done but which you sort of 'feel' they may have because they're sketchy. The former is Clinton, the latter, Trump.

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

Because if you can't give a clear answer to all three, that which you "know" seems an awful lot like feelings

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #157 on: August 21, 2017, 10:34:14 AM »
You can't put "that" aside, and then assume its veracity.  What specific "it" in your penultimate sentence did Clinton do while occupying political office?

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

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

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

There are other things but these have always stuck in my mind as being most significant. Out of these, the Libya affair the most so, and there are many weird details involved in just that matter that could spawn a thread of its own. I didn't really intend to go into this as I do sort of want to stop beating the dead horse, but since two of you asked I thought you deserved an answer that wasn't just a hand-wave away. Again, I've based my conclusions on leaked documents, parsing conflicting reports, and basic common sense. Trump hasn't been involved in anything like the above, where there is at least strong suspicion of deliberate crime. Few people at this point are making direct attributions of Trump being a knowing conspirator, both because there's no evidence of it and because the meme has taken on a reality of its own (Russiagate) and can thrive on its own without making the accusations too specific. The idea itself of malfeasance there is stronger than any actual detail will look, and so the nebulous idea is what's being maintained. I have yet to hear of a definitive smoking gun there, although perhaps one will emerge eventually. I would certainly be very bad if that happened, so it's worth being attentive for it. I'm just skeptical that such a thing really exists at this point.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 10:38:49 AM by Fenring »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #158 on: August 21, 2017, 04:31:29 PM »
Quote
Actual evidence of a relevant crime - real evidence, not just left wing delusion and reinterpretation of laws that never worked the way you want them too.

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

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

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

I'm still waiting for an answer to my two year old challenge for someone to put forward a legitimate explanation for why Hillary's server was created and why she was permitted to direct government records off of government systems and onto it. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #159 on: August 21, 2017, 05:44:44 PM »
I'm still waiting for an answer to my two year old challenge for someone to put forward a legitimate explanation for why Hillary's server was created and why she was permitted to direct government records off of government systems and onto it.

Because Colin Powell did much the same thing?

The precedent did exist, such as it was.

Edit: Although it should be noted that in Powell's case there was a legitimate "convenience" factor relevant to his having done so, as I understand State did not have the technical capability to provide such services at the time(as it was an evolving capability of the time). Hillary doesn't have that excuse IIRC.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 05:46:51 PM by TheDeamon »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #160 on: August 21, 2017, 05:50:16 PM »
First of all, that's not a legitimate explanation.  Secondly, Powell did not do the same thing.  There's plenty of write ups on it.  Try again.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #161 on: August 22, 2017, 01:43:58 AM »
Fenring, you claim to be operating not on emotion but fact - but I don't see even the start of any facts in your list:

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

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

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

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

 

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #162 on: August 22, 2017, 01:46:34 AM »
Quote
Hillary Clinton violated the law with the operation of her server and the mishandling of confidential items and government records.  We've been over this before, but other than Comey, there doesn't seem to be anyone in the government that believes intent is relevant to these cases, or so the history of hundreds of prosecutions and penalties would seem to indicate.

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

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #163 on: August 22, 2017, 09:28:48 AM »
(c) The private server? Are you joking? Colin Powell had a private server.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There may be some election rules that it violates.

The problem with this is ethical and moral.  If you don't have a problem with it on that basis, then don't try to claim the highground cause you're way off it.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #164 on: August 22, 2017, 09:30:14 AM »
Quote
Hillary Clinton violated the law with the operation of her server and the mishandling of confidential items and government records.  We've been over this before, but other than Comey, there doesn't seem to be anyone in the government that believes intent is relevant to these cases, or so the history of hundreds of prosecutions and penalties would seem to indicate.

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

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

I think, if you do some honest research here you're going to have to conclude the opposite.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #165 on: August 22, 2017, 10:31:55 AM »
Just deleted a long response because it gets in the weeds. Instead:

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

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


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


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


 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 10:43:05 AM by Greg Davidson »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #166 on: August 22, 2017, 10:47:51 AM »
Greg,

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

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

It also makes you look ridiculous to claim that Hillary's server was okay against that back drop.  And nothing in any "case" you cited comes remotely close to Hillary's fact pattern, where she deliberately directed government records out of the government's control for no known legitimate purpose (which by the way, in case you missed it, is the specific intent that one doesn't even need under under the statute).

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #167 on: August 22, 2017, 02:04:12 PM »
Fenring, you claim to be operating not on emotion but fact - but I don't see even the start of any facts in your list:

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

Take the first thing I listed, Uranium One. I could link you to MSM headlines, documents, donation statements and all the rest showing the process of the Clintons' involvement in the transaction, the final go-ahead from State, the immediate large donation to the Clinton Foundation, etc. One person can look at all that and conclude, "Hah! It's almost transparent, pure pay to play using the office of SecState." Another person (you, I suppose) can look at the same and claim it's all circumstantial, without proof, no direct ties to Hillary even if her office was involved in a cursory way, and no way to connect the multi-million dollar donation to Bill and Hillary personally in terms of how they gain from that. And you'd be right on all counts. Unquestionably, the best one can do is look at the different points and reach a conclusion, and I can't really fault you for looking at it and saying the whole thing is too hazy to make positive claims about it. But that's not the same at all as turning around and saying that my assessment of the facts is based on emotion and without merit. The fact that I haven't listed all the facts I've come across is certainly a reason for you not to believe me, but not a reason to say they don't exist. That would just be an assumption on your part of me being sloppy. Maybe I am, maybe not. But I'll be frank that I don't obsessively collect documents, articles and other things to add to my conspiracy scrapbook because, well, I just don't have time or commitment to that kind of project. I look at things, save a few of them, and mostly try to remember the rest. Seriati has often pointed out that one's opinions are often based on facts in experience but that can't be summoned up at a moment's notice. That does leave us with the difficulty of memory often being unreliable, pride overwhelming memory and reason, and lack of a fact trail making it hard to check someone else's work. That's a toughie, all right. I guess the best course when discussing things like this with people you disagree with might be to try to assess your level of trust of the way they do their thinking and use that as a bit of an aid; not to convince you, but maybe to make you pause when you're considering dismissing what they say even when it sounds contrary to what you believe. I know over the years I've kept a lot of comments made by posters here in mind even when I had no way to know if they were right. But I knew they were smart and had reasons to believe it, and I take that into account.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #168 on: August 24, 2017, 11:03:43 PM »
I did create this posting in a hypothetical context - we have not yet seen any proof of the involvement of President Trump or members of his Administration in criminal actions- but it is also fair to mention that we have not yet seen the results of even a single structured investigation. In contrast, more investigative effort has been put into trying to find a crime that Hillary Clinton committed than for any other political figure in US history (and so far all of those searches have failed to do so).

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

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

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #169 on: August 25, 2017, 10:32:32 AM »
Base on the comments in the post I think you got your answer
Trump core supporters are all in and will not hold Trump accountable.
This has become a physiological matter, not one of reason. 

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

I would bet that in ten years most of those that voted for Trump will deny having done so.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #170 on: August 25, 2017, 10:47:15 AM »
That's a bad poll Greg.

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

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


Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #171 on: August 25, 2017, 10:48:38 AM »
Trump core supporters are all in and will not hold Trump accountable.

Only if you fail to define what "hold accountable" means. Does it mean 'will agree he's sub-optimal but would still stand by voting for him', or does it mean 'which switch to voting for the other party if Trump runs again'? Or maybe even worse, 'will actively volunteer for and give donations to Trump's opposition'? Whichever of these you may mean, there's fat chance of any of them because of what has become of politics in America, and Trump has nothing at all to do with that situation. You can blame the two parties for that, among others.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #172 on: August 25, 2017, 10:58:48 AM »
"I would bet that in ten years most of those that voted for Trump will deny having done so."

No need to wait that long. Most of those who voted for Trump denied they were doing to do so even before they did it. It's not worth losing family members and friends and maybe even jobs to admit it.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #173 on: August 25, 2017, 11:21:45 AM »
Only if you fail to define what "hold accountable" means. Does it mean 'will agree he's sub-optimal but would still stand by voting for him', or does it mean 'which switch to voting for the other party if Trump runs again'? Or maybe even worse, 'will actively volunteer for and give donations to Trump's opposition'? Whichever of these you may mean, there's fat chance of any of them because of what has become of politics in America, and Trump has nothing at all to do with that situation. You can blame the two parties for that, among others.
It could also mean get Trump impeached and support President Pence or support a primary challenger so Trump can't run again. Or encourage the GOP to reject Trump and support Congress in marginalizing Trump.

The US system is set up to enable the legislature to oppose the executive even when they're in the same party. Opposing Trump doesn't necessarily mean opposing the GOP or supporting the Democrats.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #174 on: August 25, 2017, 12:17:17 PM »
What I was trying to do was get people who support Trump to project forward, and identify where was their limit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What concerns me, is that too many people know longer care what the truth is, or what the actual facts are, but only that the result agrees with their preconceived notions.  This thread was not a well meaning attempt to gain understanding, it was barely passable as an attempt to demean people by forcing them to commit to improbable and negative outcomes, what it actually was, was just a flat out trolling of people who tried to give you good faith answers.  Disappointing.
 

slipstick

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #175 on: August 25, 2017, 03:11:49 PM »
Trump's victory frightened lots of people, but in his first six months in office he has not done anything very alarming, beyond  lots of rash talk. Accordingly his popularity has stagnated for the most part, declining slightly from a very low level. Thus he could try to recover by starting a major war, perhaps by destroying North Korea's nuclear facilities. That I would find unpardonable, but I doubt he will do it, as his chances of success seem slim. More likely he will keep on as he has, realizing that  he may be unpopular but that his opposition shows few signs of uniting behind any credible challenger.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #176 on: August 25, 2017, 03:51:57 PM »
Quote
No need to wait that long. Most of those who voted for Trump denied they were doing to do so even before they did it. It's not worth losing family members and friends and maybe even jobs to admit it.
That's why I said in ten years and the reasons you gave won't be the reason why.

Quote
Only if you fail to define what "hold accountable
Accountable means accountable. The Core supporters will never hold Trump accountable.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What's your limit for supporting Trump? Firing Mueller? Pardoning himself?
« Reply #177 on: August 25, 2017, 05:06:04 PM »
Meanwhile, how far will the supporters on your side go?  We already know they'll use violence for political goals.  Are they going to respect elections that they actually lose?  Is it going to occur to them that voter intimidation will let them win elections?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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