What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?

[Greg Davidson]

So far, it has not mattered that he has blown up the deficit, broken campaign promises (one of hundreds was universal health care for everyone at lower costs https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021), made concessions to our enemies without anything in return (North Korea) while offending our allies, had more convictions in the first years of his Administration than President Obama had in 8...

Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh even suggested that the President should be immune from any legal consequences for his actions until he's out of office. But by that standard, a President could literally take a gun and murder any Supreme Court Justices who disagreed with him as long as he had the votes of 34 Senators. And a President with those powers does not ever have to leave office.

So what are the red lines?  I am assuming that if President Trump literally pulled a trigger to commit a murder, that would be adequate to change your view (but I am also prepared to be surprised). But go beyond that - are there any other things he could do that would stop you supporting him?

[Seriati]

What could President Trump do that would stop you from making new troll threads asking what it would take other people to stop supporting him?

What would it take for you to stop making misleading and erroneous statements in connection with said troll threads?

Is it time for yet another CA versus TX or other random state thread with cherry picked stats?

[Lloyd Perna]

I think you've already run this troll.  http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,425.0.html

[yossarian22c]

What could President Trump do that would stop you from making new troll threads asking what it would take other people to stop supporting him?

If he had united the world against Chinese trade policies instead of blundering into a trade war with the rest of the world all at once. If he had achieved concessions in talks with North Korea. If he had gotten a better Iran deal. If he had passed an infrastructure plan. If he had completed a revenue neutral tax reform instead of just cutting taxes for corps and the 1%. If he treated our allies with the same kind of deference he shows Putin. If he hadn't prioritized separating parents from kids over prosecuting drug dealers and human traffickers. If he didn't have cabinet members like Scott Pruitt. If he didn't nominate a person who worked on his campaign and was then employed by Alfa bank to head the criminal division of the justice department. If every other word out of his mouth wasn't a lie.

I don't expect you to change your mind. Republicans get tax cuts for the rich and corps, "strong man" foreign policy, the administrative death of the ACA, 1/8 of the federal bench, and 2/9 of the Supreme Court. So I get why you feel like he is accomplishing things you want, but the cult of personality around Trump is dangerous and he is probably dirty.

[TheDrake]

I think you've already run this troll.  http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,425.0.html

I hate summer reruns.

[Wayward Son]

Our concern and worry is that Trump has already appears to have crossed several traditional Republican "red lines," on trade, foreign relations, deficit spending, morality, and integrity.  So much so that many traditional Conservatives, like Steve Schmidt and George Will have actually left the Republican party.  So much so that many Congressmen are retiring.  So we are wondering if there is any line that he can't cross.

Republicans used to criticize Clinton for having affairs.  Ralph Reed, co-founder of the Christian Collation, once said:

''Character matters, and the American people are hungry for that message,'' said Mr. Reed, the coalition's former executive director and now a private political consultant. ''We care about the conduct of our leaders, and we will not rest until we have leaders of good moral character.''

Now, when asked about Trump character shortcomings, he says:

To be effective in advancing public policy that reflects their faith, men and women who enter the arena fired by their religious beliefs cannot make the perfect the enemy of the greater good. We are all flawed, we are all sinners, we all fall short of God’s glory, we are all in various ways far from perfect.

Republicans used to be for balancing the budget.  They used to be for family values.  Now separating thousands of families for misdemeanor offenses seems perfectly OK.

Seriously, when you voted for Trump, did you expect him to approve a tax cut that would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion?  Did you wonder how long it would take to start a trade war with China, Mexico, Canada and the European Union?  Were you looking forward each month to see who would next be dismissed or resign due to scandal?  Did you delight in finding out our foreign ambassador positions are not being filled, including one that oversees North Korea?  Sure, you wanted and expected justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade, cut government programs and secure the border.  But did you expect it to be handled this way, and do you approve of it all?

And weren't you at least somewhat worried about these things beforehand?

The line which Republicans won't cross seems to keep moving, and we're wondering if there is any line that won't be crossed.  Would cancelling elections because of a war with Iran be too much?  Would disenfranchising millions of voters make you pause?  Would arresting Democrats and locking them up in old Wallmarts be too much?

You might consider this trolling, but we don't.  We are genuinely concerned.  Is there some principles that Trump could break that would make you stop supporting him?  Or, as long as he cut taxes, secures the border and moves toward making abortions illegal, would you support him no matter what he does?

We are really wondering...

[rightleft22]

Many of the Evangelical Christians I know will continue to support Trump as long as he continues to move toward making abortions illegal.
(I personally find the wiliness to disregard character as being hypocritical and confusing as they want to save all the babies and at the same time remove any social net that might give these kids a chance.)

Anyway my guess at a line that Trump that would lose him support would be to change direction in support of abortion. 

[Crunch]

So what are the red lines?  I am assuming that if President Trump literally pulled a trigger to commit a murder, that would be adequate to change your view (but I am also prepared to be surprised). But go beyond that - are there any other things he could do that would stop you supporting him?

At one time, I would have said my limit was things like illegal gun running to drug cartels, using the IRS to target political enemies, abandoning US soldiers and diplomats to die, sending pallets of cash to our enemies so they can fund terrorism, using a private email server to circumvent federal law, you know, those kinds of things.

But now, as I see the cultural war we're in and how the enemy has no limit, I've removed mine.

For the first time, we have a war time president who is fighting back and winning. The only limit I have is if he stops winning. I don't care what Trump does as long as he continues what is literally the best economy in US history, keeps our allies on edge and honest and our enemies closer. Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning. Losing is the only sin I won't forgive.

With two more SCOTUS picks in the balance over this term or the next, I'll tolerate even a few losses because this war is bigger than a few battles.

The left has engaged in total war for decades, I'm ready for whatever it takes to win now.

[D.W.]

Always interesting to see a 'fresh' perspective from Crunch.  Years ago, here, I'd accuse you of being someone's pet project for playing devil's advocate.  Now?   

I take it at face value and as much as I cringe when I read your posts, they are... enlightening.  Enjoy your "winning" while it lasts.  Sorry you feel so assailed by The Left. 

[Greg Davidson]

Crunch,

If you would be willing to stand behind those standards, I would love to hear you defend NRA Head Oliver North who back in the Iran-Contra Scandal days was breaking the law by "illegal gun running to drug cartels". Or explain the US soldiers left to die in Niger by a still unexplained action of the Trump Administration, or the 60 people killed in 13 Embassy attacks during the George W Bush Presidency.

But perhaps your most important and honest comment was as follows:

For the first time, we have a war time president who is fighting back and winning. The only limit I have is if he stops winning. I don't care what Trump does as long as he continues what is literally the best economy in US history, keeps our allies on edge and honest and our enemies closer. Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning. Losing is the only sin I won't forgive.

I'll skip over the historical ignorance of your assertion that this is "literally the best economy in US history" and focus on what seems to be at the heart of your support for Trump.

And thank you again for your honesty in this.

You don't care what he does, you don't care about facts, you are motivated by hating other Americans and America. Your words say that he can literally do "whatever he wants" as long as he helps what you call "my side" win. He can violate precedent, he can violate the law. And demographics are pretty clear that what you call "my side" is defined primarily by being white Americans and predominately male white Americans. When someone believes the fearless leader is more important than the law, and when their standard for success is making sure another group in society loses, that's pretty much the definition of fascism and racism.

Crunch, can you describe any meaningful way that the position that you have laid out is not fascism or racism? Except maybe the caveat that since Muslims and Jews are also in the group that you hate, it's bigotry rather than just racism.

[cherrypoptart]

I have to agree with Crunch that the gloves are off and it would be foolhardy to let political opponents use your own morals against you. It's like letting someone use your own religion against you. After a while you finally have to face reality and admit that enough is enough and you just can't take it anymore. You won't take it anymore. Trump's Supreme Court picks made everyone who ever doubted him from the conservative side have to admit, at least if they are being honest with themselves, that they were wrong. The differences there between Trump and Hillary mean that not being gung-ho for Trump, all the way, 100%, was just prideful foolishness considering the disaster Hillary would have brought upon us with her Supreme Court picks. All we need for proof of that is the reaction of the left to Trump's picks. There is no doubt that would have been the same reaction from the right to Hillary's. Epic defeat and utter heart wrenching, hopeless despair for at least a generation.

[rightleft22]

Interesting
What other leaders have gotten such support?
Everyone loves a winner, until...

[Seriati]

You don't care what he does, you don't care about facts, you are motivated by hating other Americans and America.

I literally read him to be saying, that the left doesn't care about what Trump does, don't care about facts, are motivated by hating other Americans and have no intention of consistently applying any principal, and accordingly it would be foolish to let them manipulate him against his own interests by appeals that they don't actually believe.

It's interesting that your take away from him saying that he's going to be drop to the level of his opponents (which presumably includes you), is to claim that's proof he's horrible.  Do you fail to see the irony there or not?

[cherrypoptart]

rightleft22

"Interesting
What other leaders have gotten such support?
Everyone loves a winner, until..."

... they are blowing their own brains out down in a bunker?

Good point that it is important to be very careful about mindlessly following any leader but Trump is the one giving us back our freedoms like the freedom not to have to purchase an over priced and substandard product from a for profit corporation against our will. The 2nd Amendment is now secure. If you don't have controlled borders then you hardly have a country at all so Trump is securing us there too. I don't really see where the racism comes into it. Trump has more black Americans working than at any time since before the Civil War. I should probably delete that and I'm not sure if it's technically accurate but the point is that reducing under the table illegal labor helps the American poor, of all races, get those jobs and forces employers to pay more and offer benefits which they don't have to do if they hire illegal labor and Trump also helps Americans out at the top end by reducing the abuse of the H1-B program which for instance had highly trained and paid Disney technical workers training their foreign replacements, giving the lie to those being the jobs that Americans don't want or aren't trained to do. It hardly makes sense to see America first as racism when Americans are already of all different races.

Racism is just a reactionary term at this point and hardly has any meaning since it's thrown around so loosely. When almost everything is called racist then hardly anything probably is really racist. For instance, limiting immigration. That's just common sense. There has to be a limit.  Hardly racism at all though it may have a disproportionate affect, obviously. But we can't accept everyone who wants to come to America. Or can we? Are we racist if we don't then?

[Crunch]

Crunch,

If you would be willing to stand behind those standards, I would love to hear you defend NRA Head Oliver North who back in the Iran-Contra Scandal days was breaking the law by "illegal gun running to drug cartels". Or explain the US soldiers left to die in Niger by a still unexplained action of the Trump Administration, or the 60 people killed in 13 Embassy attacks during the George W Bush Presidency.

I’m not going to defend it, I’m joining you in absolutely not caring about these things. Your standards are now mine.

But perhaps your most important and honest comment was as follows:

For the first time, we have a war time president who is fighting back and winning. The only limit I have is if he stops winning. I don't care what Trump does as long as he continues what is literally the best economy in US history, keeps our allies on edge and honest and our enemies closer. Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning. Losing is the only sin I won't forgive.

I'll skip over the historical ignorance of your assertion that this is "literally the best economy in US history" and focus on what seems to be at the heart of your support for Trump.

And thank you again for your honesty in this.

You don't care what he does, you don't care about facts, you are motivated by hating other Americans and America. Your words say that he can literally do "whatever he wants" as long as he helps what you call "my side" win. He can violate precedent, he can violate the law. And demographics are pretty clear that what you call "my side" is defined primarily by being white Americans and predominately male white Americans. When someone believes the fearless leader is more important than the law, and when their standard for success is making sure another group in society loses, that's pretty much the definition of fascism and racism.

Yeah, it’s kind of like the left during the Obama era, just no media cover up. I love how you run to the cry of racism depite no mention of it. It’s a tried and true playbook ... well, not anymore. Call me whatever names you want, it’s meaningless any more. You’ve worn that tactic out, nobody cares.

Crunch, can you describe any meaningful way that the position that you have laid out is not fascism or racism? Except maybe the caveat that since Muslims and Jews are also in the group that you hate, it's bigotry rather than just racism.

LMAO, yeah, whatever. I don’t care what baseless slurs you conjure up and trot out. The vast majority of Americans don’t care either. You’re fake news, yawn.

[Crunch]

You don't care what he does, you don't care about facts, you are motivated by hating other Americans and America.

I literally read him to be saying, that the left doesn't care about what Trump does, don't care about facts, are motivated by hating other Americans and have no intention of consistently applying any principal, and accordingly it would be foolish to let them manipulate him against his own interests by appeals that they don't actually believe.

It's interesting that your take away from him saying that he's going to be drop to the level of his opponents (which presumably includes you), is to claim that's proof he's horrible.  Do you fail to see the irony there or not?

QFT

[Crunch]

Interesting
What other leaders have gotten such support?
Everyone loves a winner, until...

Clinton. He was a serial rapist. If they can support a guy that routinely rapes women, it’s kind of hard to take the whining about lack of limits seriously.

[Crunch]

Always interesting to see a 'fresh' perspective from Crunch.  Years ago, here, I'd accuse you of being someone's pet project for playing devil's advocate.  Now?   

I take it at face value and as much as I cringe when I read your posts, they are... enlightening.  Enjoy your "winning" while it lasts.  Sorry you feel so assailed by The Left. 

See the part where Greg just makes thing up and calls me a racist and a fascist. I don’t “feel” assailed, it’s straight up, full on, attack.

Maybe you could ask Steve Scalise if he “feels” assailed upon?

[cherrypoptart]

In a way I'm actually glad that Obama was President for eight years and the Democrats controlled Congress for a while because it gave us a good chance to see what that gets us with Obamacare and the Supreme Court picks, with the Christian genocide in the Middle East and the Arab Spring that turned into chaos and a mass migration into Europe which helped open the floodgates of economic immigration as well. It's not even a what-if scenario anymore or something and no one can just be accused of imagining things. I said before President Obama took office that results matter and if his results would have been good I would be happy to admit it but what we saw was devastation. My stock portfolio did well and that's nothing to take for granted but in so many other ways President Obama was a huge disappointment. He had so much potential too. There was so much hope but he just didn't live up to the hype which is why we saw so many areas that went for Obama before turn to Trump instead of Hillary. She promised more of what Obama gave us and that just wasn't good enough.

[Wayward Son]

So what are the red lines?  I am assuming that if President Trump literally pulled a trigger to commit a murder, that would be adequate to change your view (but I am also prepared to be surprised). But go beyond that - are there any other things he could do that would stop you supporting him?

At one time, I would have said my limit was things like illegal gun running to drug cartels, using the IRS to target political enemies, abandoning US soldiers and diplomats to die, sending pallets of cash to our enemies so they can fund terrorism, using a private email server to circumvent federal law, you know, those kinds of things.

I would hope that you realize that every single one of those statements is an exaggeration, distortion or out-right lie.  But, naturally, you don't. You think they're God's truth.  Which is precisely what they want you to think.

But now, as I see the cultural war we're in and how the enemy has no limit, I've removed mine.

For the first time, we have a war time president who is fighting back and winning. The only limit I have is if he stops winning. I don't care what Trump does as long as he continues what is literally the best economy in US history, keeps our allies on edge and honest and our enemies closer. Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning. Losing is the only sin I won't forgive.

With two more SCOTUS picks in the balance over this term or the next, I'll tolerate even a few losses because this war is bigger than a few battles.

The left has engaged in total war for decades, I'm ready for whatever it takes to win now.

And that is precisely what they want you to believe and feel.

You're following the plan perfectly, Crunch.  First, convince your followers that the opposition has no morals, no scruples, and cannot coexist with your most deeply held values and beliefs.  Convince them they will literally do anything to defeat your side.  Make them an existential threat.

Then, you can convince your followers to do anything.  Shoot illegal immigrants on sight?  Hey, they were going to kill you.  Prevent the other side from voting, or cancel the vote completely?  Hey, the vote wasn't legitimate anyway, because the other side was cheating.  Round up all Democrats and hold them in old Wallmarts?  They were planning to do that to us!  Don't you remember the "military exercises" they were going to use as an excuse back in 2015?  Thank God we did it to them first!!

You should read "The Protocols of Zion" again to remind yourself of how that works, and what it can lead to.

This attitude, this belief, is precisely what I fear the most.

Because it will justify any action to the followers.  There is no limit.  And it can tear this country apart.

I know I can't convince you that you've been lied to and used.  Only you can convince yourself of that.  But just remember one thing before you step up to do your part for the cause.

They will tell you that the other side are pushovers.  Snowflakes.  Once the heat is on, they will melt and trickle away.  There will be no fight, no opposition.  Once our side show our strength, they will run from us.

Don't believe them.  We believe in what we believe in as much as you do, if not more.  We will fight.  We will fight you in the courts, at the ballot box, even in the streets if necessary.  If you come to take away our rights, our livelihoods, or even our lives, we will no go willingly.  And it will cost you.  Count the costs before you start.

You think we've been in total war for decades?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  We will defend our country with our lives, if necessary.

Don't make it necessary, for your own sake.

[rightleft22]

Clinton. He was a serial rapist. If they can support a guy that routinely rapes women, it’s kind of hard to take the whining about lack of limits seriously.

And if billy jump off a cliff would you follow him - I think that's the standard parental reply when kids try to excuse their behavior by pointing to others bad behavior.   

Anyway like so many I don't care anymore. I'm not my brothers keeper. I'm a old white guy, no kids, so even if I don't agree with the direction the far right is going  - I'll be good and with luck dead when it comes time to pay the price.

[cherrypoptart]

A lot of that sounds more like what's coming from the left, for instance with Antifa violence and recently Maxine Waters saying, “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she added.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keET6bbERc4

But yeah, it should be a concern.

[cherrypoptart]

You're going all the way to shoot illegal immigrants on sight but is that really fair or accurate when all the right wants is controlled immigration? Isn't it more accurate to say that the left is the side that seems to have gone overboard here? May I ask what now is the position of the left on immigration? What limits should there be? Are those limits really reasonable? It seems the left has gone so far to the extreme that now even just a reasonable position on immigration which matches exactly where the Democrats themselves were twenty years ago is now called extreme right and racist. Does that mean that twenty years ago the Democrats were extreme right and racist on immigration? Or is it more likely that it means that the right now isn't that racist at all on immigration and just wants it controlled instead of having uncontrolled and virtually unlimited immigration?

[Crunch]

I would hope that you realize that every single one of those statements is an exaggeration, distortion or out-right lie.  But, naturally, you don't. You think they're God's truth.  Which is precisely what they want you to think.

“They”. LOL, right. The Russians I assume. Go look at the economic statistics, the real numbers. Or don’t, whatever.

I know I can't convince you that you've been lied to and used.  Only you can convince yourself of that.  But just remember one thing before you step up to do your part for the cause.

They will tell you that the other side are pushovers.  Snowflakes.  Once the heat is on, they will melt and trickle away.  There will be no fight, no opposition.  Once our side show our strength, they will run from us.

Don't believe them.  We believe in what we believe in as much as you do, if not more.  We will fight.  We will fight you in the courts, at the ballot box, even in the streets if necessary.  If you come to take away our rights, our livelihoods, or even our lives, we will no go willingly.  And it will cost you.  Count the costs before you start.

You think we've been in total war for decades?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  We will defend our country with our lives, if necessary.

There it is, the threat of violence. Gonna shoot some people at baseball practice maybe? Run up and hit people with locks? Dress in all black, hide your face, and riot?  Come on, be specific, what violent action are you advocating?

Don't make it necessary, for your own sake.

You’ve been watching too many movies. 

[TheDeamon]

I know I can't convince you that you've been lied to and used.  Only you can convince yourself of that.  But just remember one thing before you step up to do your part for the cause.

They will tell you that the other side are pushovers.  Snowflakes.  Once the heat is on, they will melt and trickle away.  There will be no fight, no opposition.  Once our side show our strength, they will run from us.

Don't believe them.  We believe in what we believe in as much as you do, if not more.  We will fight.  We will fight you in the courts, at the ballot box, even in the streets if necessary.  If you come to take away our rights, our livelihoods, or even our lives, we will no go willingly.  And it will cost you.  Count the costs before you start.

You think we've been in total war for decades?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  We will defend our country with our lives, if necessary.

Don't make it necessary, for your own sake.

The "Snowflake Army" is laughable mostly because the proportion of them with any kind of actual military or law enforcement background is pretty freaking small. The preponderance of people performing those roles trend strongly very strongly towards centrist or "conservative"(not the pundit definition, the more literal usage re: "reasonably comfortable with status quo") views.

A leftist uprising in the Unties States, particularly against a conservatively inclined government is going to be a spectacular train wreck.

At least a right-wing uprising in the United States, even during a left-wing inclined government, is going to be much more of a mixed bag because "status quo" is going to be scattered all over the place.

The most a leftist uprising can do, particularly when up against Federal opposition, is to essentially become terror groups. If you think that's going to help your cause, good luck with that, but I'm pretty sure it's more likely to push things in a direction other than the one you desire.

Sure they'd probably manage to obtain some enclaves with provisional "democratic support" existing within those, but it still becomes a matter of their not fully understanding how dependent most parts of the country are on other parts of the country. They're going to find standing on their own exceptionally difficult. Particularly if they want to continue to enjoy their "urban amenities."

Which is the bigger part of the derision regarding "Snowflakes" many of the people most inclined to use the term also are not particularly reliant on those same amenities, and in many cases would likely be just fine without them. That they also tend to live in more rural areas, and have some modicum of ability to not be reliant on receiving goods and/or services every couple of days from third parties further underlines that.

Most of Urban America is in deep *$@& if they become "unplugged" from the rest of society for more than a day, nevermind the better part of a week or more. No external power grid, no water diversions, no food shipments, and so on.

I'd love to see how well San Francisco, as well as LA, and San Diego hold out when their respective aqueducts and water diversions get shut off. Or how California fares when Nevada and Arizona stop supplying them with Electricity. Silicon Valley can't do squat when they can't get access to even a kilowatt.

The list goes on and on and on. Yes, it would be highly disruptive for all involved, but I'd put better odds on rural america being able to "hold out" against a total embargo for longer than 48 hours with minimal chaos. Los Angeles or New York on the other hand? I doubt law and order would persist past the first few hours, particularly if people knew why it was happening.

[TheDeamon]

Don't make it necessary, for your own sake.

You’ve been watching too many movies. 

I'm more concerned about the historical precedence that exists on this. IIRC, and bearing in mind polling data is obviously non-existent for obvious reasons. But the American Revolution only had the estimated support of somewhere between 20 to 30% of the population at the onset. Of course, the loyalists were also a comparatively small fraction of the population as well(estimated to be around 20% as well).

Fast forward to the American Civil War and we again see a comparable thing happen, a comparatively small percentage of the population(even among the Confederate states themselves!) supported what the Confederacy did. Likewise mirrored by a comparatively small percentage of the population actively supporting what Lincoln decided to do in response. Most of the population, in both cases was largely indifferent. But that didn't prevent large protracted and relatively(given populations of the eras) bloody conflicts from occurring.

Also noteworthy is that arguably "status quo" won out both times, although it can be argued on how much Colonial Independence/self-determination as an outcome of the Revolutionary War truly reflected "status quo" for most colonists.

The Civil War, at least in terms of reunification(which was Lincoln's reason), if you ignore the issue of slavery,  was once again, "status quo" as well.

Right now we're in a weird limbo-state regarding which way the "status quo" decision is going to fall, but in either case, whichever side "Acts first" to upset the status quo in this current iteration of things is likely to be the side "that loses the war."

And as it stands, the Republicans/Conservatives are the ones with the home court advantage, if the "Snowflakes" want to be the neo Confederacy and rebel before Trump does something to thwart them, then it is going to be an uphill slog for them. Going by the rhetoric being used by many, I think they are preparing to do exactly that as well, since I doubt the electoral outcome is likely to be to their liking. Only time will tell, and there is hope cooler heads will prevail before then, but I'm concerned and torn all the same.

In a darkly twisted way, I find the prospect of a violent leftist backlash utterly hilarious because of how self-defeating it would be. But in most other ways I find any kind of violent backlash, without respect to who does what, horrifying because the human cost of those acts is going to be unacceptable. Except it seems that many people are nearly ready to invoke a blood price at this point.

[Greg Davidson]

Hey Crunch, if your political views are to support a supreme leader regardless of his actions and regardless of the laws, your political beliefs are fascist. That's not an insult or an attack, that's essentially a definition*. If you don't think that fascism is an accurate description of your beliefs, don't be a snowflake, instead just tell us all what actions President Trump could take that you would not support. Also tell us all what you feel are the limits on his power to fire anyone investigating him and to pardon anyone committing any crime.

* A deeper description the early warning signs of fascism was put up many years ago at the Holocaust Museum

• POWERFUL AND CONTINUING NATIONALISM
• DISDAIN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
• IDENTIFICATION OF ENEMIES AS A UNIFYING CAUSE
• SUPREMECY OF THE MILITARY
• RAMPANT SEXISM
• CONTROLLED MASS MEDIA
• OBSESSION WITH NATIONAL SECURITY
• RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT INTERTWINED
• CORPORATE POWER PROTECTED
• LABOR POWER SUPPRESSED
• DISDAIN FOR INTELLECTUALS AND THE ARTS
• OBSESSION WITH CRIM AND PUNISHMENT
• RAMPANT CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION

[TheDeamon]

Wait, since when were fascists anti-intellectual? Eugenics and a long list of other Nazi/fascist nastiness was the height of intellectual thinking in Europe, up until the Nazi concentration camps became general public knowledge.

For that matter, their(nazi/fascist) "corporate protection" was oddly selective and very capricious. (Party Membership-- in good standing -- required)

Given the Nazis were socialists, I am not sure how "LABOR POWER SUPPRESSED" tracks with fascists.

"RAMPANT CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION" has a "there are no Angels to be found here" issue.

"CONTROLLED MASS MEDIA" seriously? This points at the Democrats far more strongly than the Republicans, or Trump specifically.

Most of the others can be valid, can be red herrings, or have other issues present in that "they're not ALWAYS bad" by themselves. Agreed that certain specific combinations are cause for concern, but that doesn't mean the SS is around the next corner.

[velcro]

Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning.

Please tell us who "your side" is.  It is not America.  It may be some small subset of America, but is unquestionably less than the majority, and undeniably not the country as a whole.

In case you are wondering, when it comes down to it, "my side" is the people who preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. When Trump and Republicans start fulfilling that oath, no matter what policy differences we have, they will be on "my side".

Given the Nazis were socialists, I am not sure how "LABOR POWER SUPPRESSED" tracks with fascists.

You may want to do a little research before making such absolute statements.  Because in this case, you are categorically wrong..  Having "socialist" or "workers" in your name does not mean anything.  It was put there to mislead.

In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered.

Eugenics and a long list of other Nazi/fascist nastiness was the height of intellectual thinking in Europe

  Again, no.  It was not the height of intellectual thinking in Europe.  It was a subset of one tiny part of intellectual thinking. It was also wrong.  Being fascist doesn't mean you are stupid.  If you are anti-intellectual, but you find some misinformed group of intellectuals who make your case for you, supporting them does not prove you are not fascist. 

But you are missing the point.  The list is warning signs.  You don't need to have all of them. But if you have a lot of them, you really ought to consider the possibility.

Yup, any one of those factors could be  red herrings.  But if you consider Fox, the National Enquirer, and Breitbart to be mass media, (not every single outlet, but mass media) then I think we have all of them covered.  We really ought to consider the possibility.

[cherrypoptart]

I think a mass amnesty even for the Dreamers would be something that would turn me against Trump a bit unless it was accompanied by something very solid like getting rid of birthright citizenship for people not here legally along with tourists. I suppose getting rid of the visa lottery and going to a strict merit based system might also be okay in return for Dreamer amnesty but that would also cost some support since it's obviously better to do those things and still block Dreamer amnesty too.

Along those lines, is there anything that could turn people who hate Trump in his favor? For instance, if he granted the Dreamer amnesty would that do anything for him?

[velcro]

How about granting Russia amnesty for meddling with elections, annexing Crimea, supporting Assad, assassinating British citizens in Britain, and interfering with Brexit? Would that cause problems with his supporters?

[Greg Davidson]

How about siding with Russia over the United States?  https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/944375235750079/UzpfSTIzMjg0MzQ0ODQwOTpWSzo5NDQzNzUyMzU3NTAwNzk/

[yossarian22c]

The answer is no. He is giving each group something they want. Religious conservatives get judges. He has created the fear over immigrants at the southern boarder and he is being "strong" on boarders for the more nationalistic wing. The part of the party he is most likely to lose is the business community, they got tax cuts but a trade war with the rest of the world all at once is going to cost them more.

I hope the Trump will start to see him for the con man he is but I'm not holding my breath. A number of Republicans came out and criticized him yesterday. I give it a week before all of them that are planning on staying in office backtrack or refuse to speak of it again.

[velcro]

What would turn Trump to my favor?

For a start, apologize sincerely to the literally hundreds of people he has publicly insulted and humiliated.
Apologize for commenting on investigations in process, and never do it again.
Personally retract his comment saying he would order American soldiers to kill relatives of terrorists, which is a war crime.
Admit that he had no evidence that Obama tapped his phones, or that there were 3 million illegal votes.
Admit he was a major force behind the lie that Obama was not born in the US.
Admit that the women accusing him of sexual harassment and assault are not all liars.

That's off the top of my head.
Notice that these are not policy positions. These are not things that Republicans do or Democrats don't. These are evidence that he is a total a**hole, and not a person who should be representing our country.

Pence will provide the judges and the anti-immigrant rhetoric and the tax cuts, without all the garbage Trump brings.  So there is no rational reason to keep him.

[rightleft22]

“Notice that these are not policy positions”

That’s an important point. Policy decisions can be debated. I may or may not agree with a policy however in a democracy, I don’t expect to agree with everything. (I think we have forgotten that, its not all or nothing)

I believe that character matters and that the ends don’t justify the means – that is not to say that I don’t understand that sometimes doing something you don’t like or want to may be required however it doesn’t justify it. Crap is crap, so we must be careful as the end is always in the beginning and there is always an accounting.

[velcro]

One more thing that would turn Trump in my favor:

Release his tax returns.
Like he said he would.  Many, many times.  Over several years.

[TheDrake]

Trump could lose support if he:

1. Pushed to restore funding to Planned Parenthood, and even increase it.
2. Pushed to raise the number of work Visas, green cards, and naturalized citizens from Latin America.
3. Rolled back tariffs unilaterally without pretending to have achieved anything.
4. Appoint a Democrat to a high level Cabinet position.
5. Pleasured himself with an American flag while the anthem was being sung on Veteran's Day.

As long as he's pushing the MAGA agenda, and doesn't do anything against that process, he's going to do great. Anything disparaging he has to say about foreign governments or any federal agency - including intelligence - only increases the fervor of his supporters.

As for me - Trump is inherently going to be Trump. There is no scenario in which I could vote for him, apologize for him, or tolerate him. Even if he did all of the above things, he'd still do it as Trump, with petty insults for a different group of opponents and all his usual style. He'd still be railing about the press, who would undoubtedly criticize him for his complete reversal rather than praising him for changing his position. He'd still be wanting to spend money on a grand military parade for himself, and possibly a giant statue. He'd still be loathed by half the population, although possibly many would switch sides.

[cherrypoptart]

So basically for a lot of people, it's personal. That's cool. Nothing wrong with having morals and convictions. I didn't really like the fact that Obama did hard drugs and didn't seem to have a problem with it while Trump and Romney too for that matter have never used illegal drugs at all as far as we know, and don't even drink alcohol. We could go into the Clintons but it's personal and subjective and everyone has their personal lines they'd prefer others didn't cross especially if they are our political leaders. I don't see anything wrong with people being against Trump then for all of those reasons and wouldn't try to talk anyone out of it.

One thing that does make me cautious is Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." So while everyone should set their own standards and try to live up to them people also have to be careful not to let others use it against you. Abortion really isn't one of my main issues but an example for some of the people for whom it is would be not to let people use Trump's problems to talk them into giving away the Supreme Court. Obviously a lesser of two evils situation. I think that's where a lot of the Trump support is coming from and I'm sure it happens on the Democrat side as well, holding your nose and voting for a candidate whose personal behavior you don't necessarily condone but seeing the necessity of it anyway.

One can't help but wonder with Trump's past of supporting Democrats, if he had run on the Democrat ticket and beat Hillary in the primary and was looking to nominate more liberal justices to the Supreme Court if many of the people who would never vote for him as a Republican because of his personal issues would hold their nose and do it anyway if he were a Democrat. I suppose many wouldn't and would give up the Supreme Court because of personally not liking a candidate but that would sure put it all to the test.

[Wayward Son]

There it is, the threat of violence. Gonna shoot some people at baseball practice maybe? Run up and hit people with locks? Dress in all black, hide your face, and riot?  Come on, be specific, what violent action are you advocating?

Let me make is clear (just in case there was any confusion), I am not advocating violence.  If there is violence, then we have all failed.

What I am saying is that, in order to implement your "winning" agenda, you will eventually have to enact certain laws to institutionalize this agenda and force everyone in the country to adhere to them.  What good is making abortion illegal if it is still legal in California and New York?  What good is limiting immigration if people welcome immigrants to jobs and to homes?  What good is your "winning" if a sizable segment of the population refuses to acknowledge they have "lost" and continues to do what they did before?

The traditional method is by force.  Enact laws and enforce them.  If people break the laws, arrest and jail them.  Arrest those who encourage people to break the law.  If too many people break the law, arrest them all.  If there aren't enough jails--well, as President Trump said, then they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place...

And then there is staying in power.  After all, what good is "winning" if your "side" loses the next election?  Or the one after that?  Or the one after that?  Your agenda may be weakened, or completely repealed, if you lose elections again.  So your side will need to find a way to prevent that from happening.  Like making sure only the right people vote.  Or making sure only the correct results are official.  Or just eliminating the whole voting thing completely, since you can't trust the results anyway...

I just want to put you on notice that if things like this happen, people will not take it lying down.  There will be push back.  In whatever form is necessary.  Which may include violence, especially if violence is used to enforce your "winning."

You have stated that you will continue to support President Trump, regardless of what he does, so long as he continues to implement the policies you approve of--as long as your side is "winning."  And I'm trying to warn you that if part of those things that he does entails revoking the hard-earned civil rights we have in this country, and violence is used to enforce those revocations, people will fight.  And it isn't going to be a short, easy little war, either.  Those opposing won't just lay down and die.  Which means that your "side" may require you and/or your loved ones to fight for them at some point.  And the cost will probably be more than you are willing to pay.  But at that point, you won't have a choice.  Because you'll have to be either for them or against them.

So be careful when you decide that you will support someone or something no matter what.  Because it can get out of hand, especially when those you support want to hold on to their power no matter what.  And then you will be one of those who pay for that "no matter what."

[TheDrake]

Not bad points, cherry, but I would go beyond "not liking" in my disgust at Trump. I've disliked a lot of politicians based on character, its hard to find one that doesn't have character flaws and it might be a prerequisite for the office (I disqualified Hillary as well).

I don't think many of us are under any illusions that if the choice is between Trump and a socialist, spy hiring, baby murdering ballot fraudster intent on destroying everything that America stands for, that the Democrat will get a vote. Or even an abstention.

A question would be whether they would entertain a challenge from a God fearing, swamp draining, border walling, freedom loving challenger during the 2020 primaries. Those voters didn't necessarily have that choice last time, but you can bet that members of the House Freedom caucus might be thinking about a run. Would a Trump voter choose an establishment Republican like Pence? Maybe.

But support isn't just "I voted for him." It's enthusiastic support. It's donating and volunteering. It's planting signs in your yard. It's retweeting and making people uncomfortable at dinner parties.

[cherrypoptart]

"What good is limiting immigration if people welcome immigrants to jobs and to homes?"

The press does a good job of conflating legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so it's hard to know what anyone is really talking about anymore and when the press does it that's a form of fake news but it's kind of understandable since it's so commonly done that everyone else is falling into that pattern too but the point is, is this referring to illegal immigration or legal immigration?

It's hard to know where to go with this until that's settled first. If it's legal immigration, people don't really have a problem with it. If you limit H1Bs then the ones that are left are still legal immigrants so there's not really an issue. If this is actually a reference to illegal immigration then it gets interesting if there is supposed to be a civil war brewing if we try to control immigration.

[scifibum]

What would turn Trump to my favor?

For a start, apologize sincerely to the literally hundreds of people he has publicly insulted and humiliated.
Apologize for commenting on investigations in process, and never do it again.
Personally retract his comment saying he would order American soldiers to kill relatives of terrorists, which is a war crime.
Admit that he had no evidence that Obama tapped his phones, or that there were 3 million illegal votes.
Admit he was a major force behind the lie that Obama was not born in the US.
Admit that the women accusing him of sexual harassment and assault are not all liars.

That's off the top of my head.
Notice that these are not policy positions. These are not things that Republicans do or Democrats don't. These are evidence that he is a total a**hole, and not a person who should be representing our country.

I'd like him to acknowledge and apologize for the atrocity of stealing young children from their parents in some kind of attempt to scare people away from the border, and take steps to mitigate the damage done. 

Pence will provide the judges and the anti-immigrant rhetoric and the tax cuts, without all the garbage Trump brings.  So there is no rational reason to keep him.

Well, there is. It's the same reason that the GOP is afraid to criticize him. If Trump goes down, it demoralizes the people who voted for him. If Trump goes down, the midterm election is a huge blue wave.

Rational, but not moral.

[cherrypoptart]

"But Obama..."

Didn't Obama do the separation of families?

Then there was the kids in cages photo that was blamed on Trump when it was taken under Obama.

It seems like there are a lot of things Obama did and nobody had a problem with it but then all of a sudden it's a big issue because of Trump. What's a Trump supporter supposed to make of that?



https://www.gop.com/mcclatchy-yes-obama-separated-families-at-the-border-too/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4238798/us-children-immigration-photo-2014-trump/

[TheDrake]

Didn't Obama do the separation of families?

Obama separated far fewer, because that administration used discretion on prosecution and detention as opposed to the "zero tolerance" - but I think you already know that.

It is highly regrettable that the wrong pictures were used - which probably could have been avoided if anyone were allowed in to take current ones. Even US legislators were turned away.

[D.W.]

It seems like there are a lot of things Obama did and nobody had a problem with it but then all of a sudden it's a big issue because of Trump.

Qualifiers:  I know the laws that dictate that families be separated were not new to Trump's admin, and it was a matter of enforcement rather than law.  I'm not up to speed on how many families may have been separated under Obama.

With that out of the way, the reason it's suddenly a problem is that family separation was being used as a cudgel and a deterrent.   Part of his continued tactic/policy of inflaming anti-immigrant xenophobia.   It was the perfect opportunity as it fit the letter of the law as well.  A slight miscalculation in estimating the backlash, and it will take awhile before we determine if the 'scare factor' has any noticeable impact on illegal/amnesty immigration.

So it's a bigger deal now, because we don't see Obama as either whipping up fear of immigration for political gains, or as someone who would use this as a deterrent against vulnerable people.  Are we more willing to believe the worst about Trump?  Sure, that's fair, but there are reasons we believe that.  He is, objectively a terrible person.  It doesn't mean he has to be a terrible president (but that seems to be the case as well).

[Wayward Son]

"What good is limiting immigration if people welcome immigrants to jobs and to homes?"

The press does a good job of conflating legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so it's hard to know what anyone is really talking about anymore and when the press does it that's a form of fake news but it's kind of understandable since it's so commonly done that everyone else is falling into that pattern too but the point is, is this referring to illegal immigration or legal immigration?

I'm going to leave this as a moot point, cherry, since it was not the point of my post.  I wasn't making a comprehensive list of points that might stir "the other side" to action, but rather an example list of things.  So the specifics are not that important.

I would also like to point out that this Administration apparently is not distinguishing between the two very well.  I have heard that there are a few cases where an adult and child(ren) have presented themselves at the border asking for asylum, and the adult has been arrested and the child(ren) taken away.  When legally asking for asylum is treated like illegal immigration in the real world, there is very little reason to try to distinguish between them in a hypothetical.

Didn't Obama do the separation of families?

Then there was the kids in cages photo that was blamed on Trump when it was taken under Obama.

It seems like there are a lot of things Obama did and nobody had a problem with it but then all of a sudden it's a big issue because of Trump. What's a Trump supporter supposed to make of that?

The Trump supporter should consider the numbers.  How many such instances occurred during the 8 years of the Obama Administration?  How many during the last few months of the Trump Administration?

No one has a problem with separating children from their parents when the parent is a danger to the child.  But it is another thing when something that happened infrequently, most of the time for good cause, suddenly becomes the standard practice happening to dozens of people each month, so much so that there are not the resources available to handle them all.

This doesn't mean that it was acceptable under Obama.  But it wasn't such a big deal because it was so infrequent.  It pretty much went on under the radar.  But Trump has to do everything big and grand, so it will be noticed.

And, BTW, when did Republicans start getting all their morals from Democrats?  I mean, it used to be that Republicans disparaged the morality of Democrats.  But now, whenever Republicans do something immoral or unethical--like separating families or refusing to schedule hearing for Supreme Court nominees--they always point to the Democrats to justify it.  "It can't be immoral, unethical or wrong!  A Democrat did it first!"

Democrats know that we have to be examples to the nation, but we didn't realize that every time we stumble, Republicans will run with it as if it were the new normal.  Come on guys.  You really are putting an impossible burden on us!  Although you don't realize it, we aren't perfect!  Please stop expecting it of us!

[cherrypoptart]

I can't find the article about the liberal reporter who was crushed and disillusioned with Obama when Obama's answer to one of his questions indicated that Obama was using family separation as a deterrent. I wish I could though. It was only about a month ago that I think I saw it. But the point is that Obama was purposefully using family separation as a deterrent also.

[Gaoics79]

What I am saying is that, in order to implement your "winning" agenda, you will eventually have to enact certain laws to institutionalize this agenda and force everyone in the country to adhere to them.  What good is making abortion illegal if it is still legal in California and New York?  What good is limiting immigration if people welcome immigrants to jobs and to homes?  What good is your "winning" if a sizable segment of the population refuses to acknowledge they have "lost" and continues to do what they did before?

You're describing a zero sum game where for one side to win, the other side has to lose. You're describing a scenario where compromise is a dirty word.

I wish I knew how to convince you that this is exactly what your "side" has been doing for the past 50 years, successfully. That there were compromises available, that maybe both sides could have lived with, but no one on your "side" would give so much as a 1/4 inch while you were convinced your total victory was inevitable.

But I know already that it's impossible - you'll just assume that I'm being disingenuous, self-serving, and that I'm one of "them", even though I have much more in common with most of you than most of them.

[Wayward Son]

First off, jasonr, realize that I was describing what I see as Crunch's attitude, not my own.  Politics, like economics, does not need to be a zero-sum game.  It is usually characterized as such by those who want to manipulate their followers into believing so.  So perhaps your critique should be directed at him, not me.

Second, yes, it is a hard sell to say that "my side" has not been willing to compromise for the last 50 years (!), since it implies that "your side" would.  This, after John Boehner pledged: "We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it [the Obama agenda], stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."  After Mitch McConnell said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." After the House voted on two immigration bills specifically intended to prevent a bi-partisan bill from being forced to a vote on the floor.  And you see "us" as the ones who are never willing to compromise?

Of course, I'm more generous than you.  I only see Republican obstructionism lasting about 20 years, since late in the Clinton Administration.  What happened 50 years ago where "we" did not compromise with "them?"  Perhaps if you provided a list of these issues where "we" won't compromise, and "our" statements were "we" said we would never compromise (like the ones above), you'd have a better chance of convincing me of the intransigence of "my" side.  Because it seems to me that compromise only truly went out the window when the Haster Rule became entrenched in our government.  And that only became the norm in the late 90's with Newt Gingrich, after making a budget compromise with Clinton--just about the last major piece of legislation where our representatives cooperated across the aisle.

It would make an interesting topic to discuss which "side" is less willing to compromise than the other.  Perhaps you should start a topic on it?

[TheDrake]

I can't find the article about the liberal reporter who was crushed and disillusioned with Obama when Obama's answer to one of his questions indicated that Obama was using family separation as a deterrent. I wish I could though. It was only about a month ago that I think I saw it. But the point is that Obama was purposefully using family separation as a deterrent also.

As the number of asylum-seeking families from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico arriving in the United States soared in recent years, the Obama Administration aggressively expanded family detention in an attempt to “deter” the arrival of others. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened large detention centers to detain mothers and children. Although DHS has the authority to place asylum-seekers directly into immigration court proceedings, it continues to detain mothers and children and subject them to fast-track removal. Families and advocates have exposed the numerous ways that detention and fast-track removal jeopardize the well-being of asylum-seeking families. They have also drawn attention to the due-process violations caused by detention that prevent families from accessing the system of humanitarian protection created for people in their circumstances.

This report examines what happens when “family detention” does not actually keep loved ones together. Through its custody determinations, DHS splits family members—sending them to different facilities around the country—while failing to track and reunite those who arrive separately. While DHS claims that family detention keeps families together, the truth is that a mother and child who are sent to family detention will often have been separated by DHS from other loved ones with whom they fled—including husbands, fathers, grandparents, older children, and siblings. Minors who arrive with non-parent caretakers are often removed from their custody. These DHS custody determinations that divide families do not occur in a vacuum. The administration has targeted these families, while Congress maintains a controversial directive to fund a minimum capacity of 34,000 noncitizen detention beds.

So, depending on your point of view, they had more compassion and kept mothers and children together - or they understood that the optics of tearing kids out of the arms of their mothers would be much worse than separating other family. Or, practically, they knew it would require fewer personnel to care for the kids if you left them with one parent.

For asylum-seeking families who arrive in the United States together and who are apprehended together, the first point of separation is likely to be CBP’s temporary detention facilities near the U.S.-Mexico border. These holding cells—which are designed for short-term custody of 12 hours or less, yet regularly detain people for days at a time—are commonly referred to by guards and detainees alike as hieleras [iceboxes] or perreras [dog kennels] because of their frigid temperatures and harsh conditions.

article, Aug 2016


Wasn't just a recent thing, this from 2012, with an upbeat headline from CNN:

Obama proposes rule to ease immigration for some

But this was about having separated families due to a mix of citizen and non-citizen. The infamous "chain migration" that drives Breitbart regulars to tears of rage.

But, according to Ira Mehlman, with the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which seeks to reduce the number of immigrants, that doesn't make the proposal more acceptable.
"The bar re-entry rule was established as a deterrent to people violating immigration law -- that coming illegally could result in long-term denial back to the U.S. ," Mehlman told CNN after the proposed rule was announced. "The administration is undermining this important deterrent."

Doesn't quite feel like an administration that was trying to use family separation as a deterrent, but I could be wrong.