The President of the US has been impeached

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

7 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

As I told Link, please refer to the *enters troll* notification. Maybe that means something different than I assumed it does?...

I saw your troll mode comment.  I am just taking the opportunity to clearly state the tragic level of cognitive dissonance that is in play when genuine whataboutism pops up in reference to Trump.

 

[m308gunner | 352]

14 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

I am certainly not painting all Trump supporters with the brush of parroting the talking points, but there is undeniably a sizeable portion of his base that fall into that.

But do you honestly believe that your "viciously smart" coworkers are representative of the average Trump supporter?

 

That said, I agree that it is challenging to offer meaningful criticism of the guy that doesn't just seem to galvanize his base, that for whatever reason believe the man can do no wrong.

It is a pretty disturbing cult of personality that is in play, when you get down to it.

No, I don't believe my coworkers are representative of the average but I don't pretend to know if there is an "average Trump supporter" as it were. How do you even measure that?

  The cult of personality is one of Trumps most effective persuasion techniques, and I had hoped the Democrats and media would have learned that by now. They are literally making him stronger almost every day. As I mentioned early in this thread, they seriously dropped the ball by starting things out at "11". There's just nowhere to go after that, but since Trump keeps getting them (the media) clicks I'm not sure they care or are thinking ahead all that much.

[m308gunner | 352]

Just now, arch_8ngel said:

I saw your troll mode comment.  I am just taking the opportunity to clearly state the tragic level of cognitive dissonance that is in play when genuine whataboutism pops up in reference to Trump.

 

Ah, yes, point taken.

[Rooster | 124]

Anyone want to take a peek at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories bad boy, and then tell me again how unfairly Trump was treated leading up to the 2016 election? 

[Link | 2,714]

2 hours ago, m308gunner said:

  I think you missed my *engage troll* notification at the beginning and end of that line. It was meant as tongue in cheek. 

I absolutely did not miss it, and I will not accept such hedging as a cue to ignore statements that I feel merit response. If you say something in a discussion of serious nature, I expect you to mean it. If you don’t mean it, don’t say it. Nothing in this thread implies it’s not serious. Disclaimers do not apply. “Jokes” don’t fly in this conversation. Not acceptable.

2 hours ago, m308gunner said:

I'm sure I could dig up an article or two as well, but it seems like different people measure a good economy different ways. Keep in mind that Trump doesn't deal so much with facts as persuasion, and his persuasion game is strong economically. 

Are you saying he can persuade people he is improving the economy? Well, he can’t persuade me. Call it persuading if you want to. I think I will call it fooling. I see what’s going on. People struggle with health care, work 60+ hour weeks, depend on shit gig work. Meanwhile, the largest private employer in the country undermines economic structures across the country until they are the only game in town. The second largest works toward same, and forces conditions amounting to human rights abuse. I do deal in facts. I know some people are happy with what’s going on, and they’re either already extremely rich and/or powerful, or they ignore long term consequences, are shortsighted, and have no concern for future generations. Stock market is doing well, sure. It has chaotic, wild swings from time to time due to the president’s wacky behavior (this is not a good thing, fyi) but overall it’s well. That is but one aspect of the economy. Defense spending is up. That is another aspect. It is very good for defense contractors. Again, good for the rich and powerful. Not so good for others. And there are many other aspects of the economy which are not doing well. So how do you measure it? I look at numbers and facts. Did you read what I linked, or do you just want to get in a pissing contest that you could find contradicting statements if you felt like it? Read it. It’s not really assailable. Unless you throw all established standards in the garbage, which is, I suppose, again, standard M.O. for our very own Dear Leader, but it’s really fucking weird that conservatives are so happy to do exactly that. Just goes to show the true nature of their convictions, hey!

Good economies do not include opioid crises, mass incarceration, or gofundme campaigns just to pay the bills. We have all of those in good ol’ U.S.A. and they are not on the decline. I’ll forward you the memo.

2 hours ago, m308gunner said:

I never said they wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't. I'm not sure why you think I did. It seems like we're constantly misunderstanding each other. Not mad, just puzzled.

I didn’t say you said they wouldn’t. I said you said they WOULD. And I said they DID. I’m pretty sure I do not misunderstand you at all. You might be misunderstanding me. 

[Link | 2,714]

I was re-reading posts to quote the passage relevant to above (regarding whether or not The President’s Rape Victims would or wouldn’t or should or couldn’t come forward).  It’s not quite brief enough of a back and forth to bother quoting each relevant line building to the question, but I think it’s plain enough for anyone who cares to do the same.

However, I did re-encounter this tidbit that I meant to respond to earlier, but lost in the morass: 

6 hours ago, m308gunner said:

can any of us REALLY say we trust our government, given the number of scandals, revelations, waste and reported blunders over the past... our own lifetimes? Heck, just limit it to the past three administrations. You really put much stock in THAT monstrosity? I know public memory is pretty short, but I would hope it's not THAT short.

Which monstrosity is THAT to which you refer? And, please list some scandals and blunders of the last administration. If you choose the Affordable Care Act, explain what the problem is with the intent of the legislation.

And, yes, speaking as a humanist, punk, theoretical anarchist, I do trust the concept of government as it is structured in this country. God (who I don’t believe in) forgive me. I never did, until I noticed that the tea party in 2007 (and henceback the Republicans from Reagan on) were actively trying to destroy it in the name of “freedom” for pollution, industry, anti-worker, union-busting, privatizing, tycoons and stockbrokers and anybody they can buy off. That’s who is fucking everything up for the little guy, and the right wing is part and parcel of it, too happy to play along. And they are pulling the Democratic party in the same direction, not encountering a whole lot of resistance. 

BACK on topic (or not), I forget what I was watching recently, but I saw that one of the Eisenhower-Nixon campaign slogans promised to “clean up the mess in Washington.” I have mixed feelings about Ike. But it’s funny how people who say they’re gonna “drain the swamp” tend to get impeached. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Link

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

17 hours ago, m308gunner said:

My original posting of Trump's quote was to help give full context of what he said. And context matters. In the context of Trump the celebrity stating he can "do what he wants" to what he describes as willing participants ("And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."), it brings into focus that the situation many would like to describe as naked sexual predatory behavior is not reflected in the situation described (albeit in Trumps words). 

What don't you get about me saying that no context makes this ok? Yes, context matters. Let me say again, no context makes this ok. This line of thinking is why women who are abused don't come forward. Men using their stature and status, like Harvey Weinstein for example. It's sickening. I'm glad you don't condone it, but for fucks sake, don't try to excuse it then. 

[fcgamer | 4,727]

Relations between the USA and Taiwan have been really strong recently, compared to other times in recent history. Thanks President Trump! 

[m308gunner | 352]

18 hours ago, Link said:

I absolutely did not miss it, and I will not accept such hedging as a cue to ignore statements that I feel merit response. If you say something in a discussion of serious nature, I expect you to mean it. If you don’t mean it, don’t say it. Nothing in this thread implies it’s not serious. Disclaimers do not apply. “Jokes” don’t fly in this conversation. Not acceptable.

Are you saying he can persuade people he is improving the economy? Well, he can’t persuade me. Call it persuading if you want to. I think I will call it fooling. I see what’s going on. People struggle with health care, work 60+ hour weeks, depend on shit gig work. Meanwhile, the largest private employer in the country undermines economic structures across the country until they are the only game in town. The second largest works toward same, and forces conditions amounting to human rights abuse. I do deal in facts. I know some people are happy with what’s going on, and they’re either already extremely rich and/or powerful, or they ignore long term consequences, are shortsighted, and have no concern for future generations. Stock market is doing well, sure. It has chaotic, wild swings from time to time due to the president’s wacky behavior (this is not a good thing, fyi) but overall it’s well. That is but one aspect of the economy. Defense spending is up. That is another aspect. It is very good for defense contractors. Again, good for the rich and powerful. Not so good for others. And there are many other aspects of the economy which are not doing well. So how do you measure it? I look at numbers and facts. Did you read what I linked, or do you just want to get in a pissing contest that you could find contradicting statements if you felt like it? Read it. It’s not really assailable. Unless you throw all established standards in the garbage, which is, I suppose, again, standard M.O. for our very own Dear Leader, but it’s really fucking weird that conservatives are so happy to do exactly that. Just goes to show the true nature of their convictions, hey!

Good economies do not include opioid crises, mass incarceration, or gofundme campaigns just to pay the bills. We have all of those in good ol’ U.S.A. and they are not on the decline. I’ll forward you the memo.

I didn’t say you said they wouldn’t. I said you said they WOULD. And I said they DID. I’m pretty sure I do not misunderstand you at all. You might be misunderstanding me. 

 I wasn't aware you were the arbiter of humor, but just to be clear, you're not. If I want to inject some frivolity into the preceding that is my prerogative, just as apparently it's other people's prerogative to impose their own interpretations of my statements that do not reflect what I actually said. But I digress.

  And yes, Trump's main strength is in the art of persuasion, though one could characterize it as fooling. He seems to intuitively know what to say when and to whom for whatever effect he desires, for good or ill.

  I did read the article you linked to. And sure, things could turn out just as that article purports. Truth be told the intricacies of the economy are not in my wheel house. But you know what? Experts have been spelling out doom for the economy since before Trump took office, before his tax plan was signed, so color me cautious. 

  I'm not sure it's a good idea to lump all conservatives into a single group and characterize them the way you have, unless you're talking about "conservative" politicians, in which case, yeah, I'd say your closer to the truth than not.

  Regarding whether or not good economies include the things you mentioned, I think you'd first have to define what you consider a "good economy" and then pinpoint how you believe those issues are caused solely by economic factors and not societal/psychological/biological factors.

  Ok, so we're both saying the same thing. Good. Issue cleared up.

[m308gunner | 352]

16 hours ago, Link said:

I was re-reading posts to quote the passage relevant to above (regarding whether or not The President’s Rape Victims would or wouldn’t or should or couldn’t come forward).  It’s not quite brief enough of a back and forth to bother quoting each relevant line building to the question, but I think it’s plain enough for anyone who cares to do the same.

However, I did re-encounter this tidbit that I meant to respond to earlier, but lost in the morass: 

Which monstrosity is THAT to which you refer? And, please list some scandals and blunders of the last administration. If you choose the Affordable Care Act, explain what the problem is with the intent of the legislation.

And, yes, speaking as a humanist, punk, theoretical anarchist, I do trust the concept of government as it is structured in this country. God (who I don’t believe in) forgive me. I never did, until I noticed that the tea party in 2007 (and henceback the Republicans from Reagan on) were actively trying to destroy it in the name of “freedom” for pollution, industry, anti-worker, union-busting, privatizing, tycoons and stockbrokers and anybody they can buy off. That’s who is fucking everything up for the little guy, and the right wing is part and parcel of it, too happy to play along. And they are pulling the Democratic party in the same direction, not encountering a whole lot of resistance. 

BACK on topic (or not), I forget what I was watching recently, but I saw that one of the Eisenhower-Nixon campaign slogans promised to “clean up the mess in Washington.” I have mixed feelings about Ike. But it’s funny how people who say they’re gonna “drain the swamp” tend to get impeached. 

As much as I hate referencing Wikipedia, search for "List of federal political scandals in the United States". It gives a breakdown by administration and branch for all the scandals dating back to George Washington.

  The Affordable Care act's intention may have been decent. I say may, because I don't have the time and energy at the moment (with all the Christmas prep work) to delve into that subject in detail. The one issue I didn't appreciate was the mandate, but again, time is a factor.

  As far as the ideologies you follow... man that's a book's worth of posts to address. Not all bad, but not all good either (but that depends on how you define good and bad, or even if you subscribe to the notion that either exist ).

  As for draining the swamp and impeachment, I'm sure there are correlations, but it would require more in-depth analysis. Right off the bat though, the circumstances surrounding both impeachments are rather different, though the common factor you mentioned does lend one to think there's something to the swamp biting back.

[m308gunner | 352]

11 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

What don't you get about me saying that no context makes this ok? Yes, context matters. Let me say again, no context makes this ok. This line of thinking is why women who are abused don't come forward. Men using their stature and status, like Harvey Weinstein for example. It's sickening. I'm glad you don't condone it, but for fucks sake, don't try to excuse it then. 

  Perhaps I am less inclined to an emotional state of mind, but from an objective standpoint if two adults engage in certain behaviors that may raise the eyebrows of the common man or woman, and neither party raises a red flag, we literally have no room to make a value judgement on it (depending on what kind of authoritarian or libertarian worldview one uses as their reference point). That would be scenario A, which is what Trump seems to be alluding to. You can claim that "no context makes this ok", but it is your subjective opinion and assumption that the situation matches a perceived model you seem to already be holding to. If one of them does raise the red flag (scenario B), then that is when people should start to take notice and move though the proper channels of law enforcement and the courts (of which Link was kind enough to provide a list of). No line of thinking another person holds is responsible for people coming or not coming forward. If you think I'm trying to excuse any behavior you would have to deliberately misinterpret my statements. Human interactions and psychology are far too complex for pat answers and mind reading.

  

[Link | 2,714]

On 12/24/2019 at 6:51 PM, m308gunner said:

 I wasn't aware you were the arbiter of humor, but just to be clear, you're not. If I want to inject some frivolity into the preceding that is my prerogative, just as apparently it's other people's prerogative to impose their own interpretations of my statements that do not reflect what I actually said. But I digress.

I’m not the arbiter of all humor. I am, however, the arbiter of what kind of debate I will engage in. And that does not include an opponent who wants to raise a point, but simultaneously discount that point by claiming he is only trolling. Trolling, announced or not, is not legitimate discussion, and to make a statement and also say ‘but ignore my statement’ is bad faith, intentional distraction, not respectable, or at best, wasting everyone’s time. That is why I said it’s not acceptable. If we are going to discuss then let’s do so. If you are going to poison the well, I won’t drink from it. 

On 12/24/2019 at 6:51 PM, m308gunner said:

sure, things could turn out just as that article purports.

It’s not prediction. It’s not speculation. It’s past, and numbers, and facts. Speaking of, nobody is trying to read The Donald’s mind here, no matter how many times you use that phrase. Most criticism of Teh President is response based on statements he has made and actions he has taken. 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Link

[Californication | 1,477]

This thread is starting to scare me. How many other Republicans in key states feel the same as M308, confident and energetic while being almost completely devoid of facts and reasoning. To think that his vote and others like them are allowed to vote is frightening.

Edited December 26, 2019 by Californication

[m308gunner | 352]

2 hours ago, Californication said:

This thread is starting to scare me. How many other Republicans in key states feel the same as M308, confident and energetic while being almost completely devoid of facts and reasoning. To think that his vote and others like them are allowed to vote ia frightening.

Republicans, Moderates and a few Democrats (if Scott Adams is to be believed). And your sophistic hand waving and poor characterization of the sum and total of what I have said in this thread is below the level of discourse we have been enjoying so far, Link's one point not withstanding.

[m308gunner | 352]

10 hours ago, Link said:

I’m not the arbiter of all humor. I am, however, the arbiter of what kind of debate I will engage in. And that does not include an opponent who wants to raise a point, but simultaneously discount that point by claiming he is only trolling. Trolling, announced or not, is not legitimate discussion, and to make a statement and also say ‘but ignore my statement’ is bad faith, intentional distraction, not respectable, or at best, wasting everyone’s time. That is why I said it’s not acceptable. If we are going to discuss then let’s do so. If you are going to poison the well, I won’t drink from it. 

It’s not prediction. It’s not speculation. It’s past, and numbers, and facts. Speaking of, nobody is trying to read The Donald’s mind here, no matter how many times you use that phrase. Most criticism of Teh President is response based on statements he has made and actions he has taken. 

 Then perhaps we should find a way to retroactively label this thread a debate, since for the most part it looks more like a conversation, to me at least. And considering the subject at hand (Trump) unless you want to have an aneurysm it is vital that one maintains some level of humor (which the left ironically has lost for all intents and purposes). I contest your characterization of my clearly labeled troll comment, especially now that I have explained it's point and meaning.

  I'll read the article again. It looks like I may not have understood it the first time.

  And there's PLENTY of evidence that Democrats (and a fair number of people in this thread) continue to try to read Trump's mind (and mine apparently). Go back and read some of my posts for context. Also, again, keep in mind that the way to read Trump is through the lens of persuasion. Until the Democrats stop treating Trump like the Republicans of old they will continue to hit the same wall, to their most likely 2020 decimation.

[Link | 2,714]

6 hours ago, m308gunner said:

Then perhaps we should find a way to retroactively label this thread a debate, since for the most part it looks more like a conversation, to me at least.

Ok, maybe I have misunderstood you after all. Sorry. 

6 hours ago, m308gunner said:

again, keep in mind that the way to read Trump is through the lens of persuasion.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I do agree that his own trolling, and needling and bullying are successful to his ends. I wouldn’t guess that he is convincing anyone or changing their mind, which is what I think persuasion is. (of course, we’ll never know about that for sure. since we can’t read them... ) 

[Tanooki | 4,934]

I think that is the point, the trolling, needling, and bullying.  That IS his lens of persuasion.  The equal level of idiots in the media and the left, or at least those siding with the left in pounding the guy whether it is right or wrong, fair or not, on a case by case basis sets up all that bs like a nice day on the greens for Trump.  Do something he can call out, and he'll troll, needle, and bully depending on the comment and score more points, and it's not just with that base which is what like 40-45% of the country in general averages, but also those 10-20 of people in the middle or even moderate left that are just sick and tired of all the sorry attempts at gotcha.  The impeachment has come off looking like a political farce with the speed, the non-felonious level charges, and the rest of the antics both sides engaged in leading up to it.  IT all fueled Trump to bully jerky behavior, needle the crap out of anyone getting a rise out of it, and in general opening the door to some fine trolling moments from a guy that should be pulled from twitter anyway given the behaviors.  People just keep throwing more and more bait out there and keep getting caught, and unlike most fisherman who would use a line or a net, Trump antics are like throwing a stick of dynamite in to get many at once and it works.

I would think if the left really wanted him gone they'd start acting mature like they did in the last century, be decisive, be smart, not act like fringe nuts with scary promises, and definitely stop talking to or baiting Trump.  If they threw that guy the silent treatment like you would do to a child, it would drive him nuts and he'd either implode, or go quiet and have nothing to feed the beast off of and they'd have an easier way of it.

[Californication | 1,477]

38 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

I think that is the point, the trolling, needling, and bullying.  That IS his lens of persuasion.  The equal level of idiots in the media and the left, or at least those siding with the left in pounding the guy whether it is right or wrong, fair or not, on a case by case basis sets up all that bs like a nice day on the greens for Trump.  Do something he can call out, and he'll troll, needle, and bully depending on the comment and score more points, and it's not just with that base which is what like 40-45% of the country in general averages, but also those 10-20 of people in the middle or even moderate left that are just sick and tired of all the sorry attempts at gotcha.  The impeachment has come off looking like a political farce with the speed, the non-felonious level charges, and the rest of the antics both sides engaged in leading up to it.  IT all fueled Trump to bully jerky behavior, needle the crap out of anyone getting a rise out of it, and in general opening the door to some fine trolling moments from a guy that should be pulled from twitter anyway given the behaviors.  People just keep throwing more and more bait out there and keep getting caught, and unlike most fisherman who would use a line or a net, Trump antics are like throwing a stick of dynamite in to get many at once and it works.

I would think if the left really wanted him gone they'd start acting mature like they did in the last century, be decisive, be smart, not act like fringe nuts with scary promises, and definitely stop talking to or baiting Trump.  If they threw that guy the silent treatment like you would do to a child, it would drive him nuts and he'd either implode, or go quiet and have nothing to feed the beast off of and they'd have an easier way of it.

I am pretty sure Trumps base is like 35% of the country.

I think you are confused by what high crimes and misdaemeanors means. High crimes does not mean felony. High crime is a reference to the office of the presidency. Any crime committed by the president is a high crime.

Also, I think think the Democrats are doing pretty good on the impeachment, Trump is super bothered by it, you can tell because he is saying more crazy, incomprehensible things than usual.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Californication

[Tanooki | 4,934]

Not really I get the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors, and I don't think with you or a few others here I'll make them happy, but from what I've read up on all that's here, I've not seen anything rock solid enough to qualify, at least not so much as the hurdle that got vaulted by Clinton or Johnson long ago.  I wish I could toss Nixon on there but he got smart and bailed.

Maybe they are maybe not.  I think he's more pissed they went through with it as he doesn't like being embarrassed, but at the same time I think as pissed as it may be showing himself to be, it's a fairly good chance it's more an act than for real as he'll gin up all sorts of support from within and from outside his base who are fed up with all the bs.  The amount of cash he has been raking in ever since this got all riled up in the press awhile back has been nuts.

 

I think I read someone here was ripping on Trump because he has this like cult of personality thing going on, total ego stroking and what not.  I find it kind of remarkable that people are being astonished and upset by it as it is like something that isn't new.  In general going further back it hasn't been something that was typical of someone going for the job, not for quite a long time, perhaps decades depending on what that person did in life before hand like JFK or Eisenhower.  But let's be honest here, the previous seat warmer (Obama) was a hugely equally inflated self fart sniffing ego maniacal idiot who didn't like being told no either.  Here's a guy who was all about driving a cult of personality, playing groups of people against other groups, doing huge rallies and election night wins like his roman pillar setup looking like some coronation.  I mean if we're really going to call the current doofus out for it, the left needs to be thrown under the bus for being perfectly fine for the same inane ego stroking garbage lapping it up during the previous administration as it was equally sickening.

[Rooster | 124]

Anyone want to weigh in on this right here?  Is Trump playing 100 dimensional chess?  Is this one another genius troll of his?

 

[Tanooki | 4,934]

I think the correct answer is both.  It's a solid attempt at trolling wind power.  But it's also running a multi-leveled game of chess there too.  You have a few ninja smoke bombs thrown in as well with the fumes bit.  Sure there are fumes, they aren't made with clean energy, kind of how like people bitch how battery powered this and that are better but if you look into what it takes to make the battery you'll cringe.  He's totally trolling and playing a multi-level mind game going against this and that with wind, then goes into the other direction of want clean this and that everywhere and how our current output of bad gasses are lower now and so on.  He's trying to appeal to a base, pander to another, and trying to rope some attention while also screwing with wind lovers.

[Rooster | 124]

Ok but where does that get America?  He is trolling to what end?  Is it to rile up snowflakes, or is he actually working towards something to help the people of America?  He ran for office promising to save coal jobs, and even if you believe that wind power is bad for the environment, surely you can't argue that coal is a better source of energy.  So what did he accomplish other than making himself appear to have dementia?

[coffeewithmrsaturn | 100]

Editing it out...I suppose there's no point, so never mind.  This president makes me so sad.

Edited December 28, 2019 by coffeewithmrsaturn

[Californication | 1,477]

Tanooki, lets stay on point, you don't think it is a crime for the president to hold back money congress has appropriated, so he could use it as a negotiating chip, to get a personal benefit from a foreign country?

Really?

Edited December 28, 2019 by Californication

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

7 hours ago, Rooster said:

Anyone want to weigh in on this right here?  Is Trump playing 100 dimensional chess?  Is this one another genius troll of his?

 

Best comment I read about this was that he is just bitching about wind because of a turbine farm fight near his Scotland golf course.

The whole thing makes him sound like a moron, but he does have a genuine grudge against the wind power industry.