Politicians for the most part from either party are foremost about their own survival. Don’t fool yourself that you’re on the correct side. — Noah Te Stroete

But you have committed a philosophical fallacy. You have assumed that which is not in evidence.

If you go back a couple of posts I have taken pains to note that I am a disillusioned Democrat and lifelong social liberal. I am still a liberal Democrat. But the Democrats and liberals have gone to a dark place. I oppose what they've become.

That makes me a supporter of Trump. He's exposing what they've become. One doesn't always get the ideal historical figure to do what needs to be done, which is blowing up the corrupt neoliberal consensus of the past 30 years. If you don't know that Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were the same president, you are missing the point. This is not a partisan issue. The corruption and dysfunction are bipartisan.

As a sane, independent-minded centrist, I haven't got a side. That's the tragedy. I have noticed this for quite some time now. I don't have a side and I don't have a tribe. I believe the worst of what each side says about the other.

I support Trump as a historical figure doing some things that need to be done at this point in our history. I can't think of any Congressional Republicans I wouldn't drop down a well. Mitch McConnel? Jeez. I'd throw away the well.

No. I have not got a side. But if it's Trump versus what's become of the Dems, I'm with Trump. There isn't anyone else.

No. I have not got a side. But if it's Trump versus what's become of the Dems, I'm with Trump. There isn't anyone else. — fishfry

My apologies. I didn’t read the entire thread. My persuasion is to side with a more community-minded message. I realize that it is basically bullshit messaging, but everything about Trump is bullshit and far worse bullshit. It’s downright dangerous to civil society.

(I said in another thread that Nixon was more of a liberal than Obama, crook that Nixon was. Eisenhower even more so.)

So the solution to neoliberalism is the dissolution of all that is decent? I don’t even think Trump’s policies are any good for the vast majority of the population. He’s a self-serving showman who is tearing apart civil society.

So the solution to neoliberalism is the dissolution of all that is decent? I don’t even think Trump’s policies are any good for the vast majority of the population. He’s a self-serving showman who is tearing apart civil society. — Noah Te Stroete

I see Trump as a symptom of a system that's not working anymore. And as proof, I offer Bernie. His popularity comes from the same place. Outsiders committed to blow up the system. I believe Bernie could have won in 2016. I don't think he could win in 2020. In fact I predict that if the Dems nominate him it will be 1972 all over again when Nixon crushed McGovern. And if the Dems cheat Bernie out of the nomination, his supporters won't show up. Trump wins either way.

But the major point is that Trump and Bernie both result from a populace starting to notice that something's wrong with what's been passing as the ruling class consensus.

I don't happen to agree that Trump is uniquely bad. I think that what's been going on before Trump has been uniquely bad. Start with 19 years of endless war, most of which create more enemies than we eliminate, and drain the wealth of the nation. It all starts from there. The day the Dems signed on to the Iraq war, that was the day they lost me. It's been downhill since.

If you don't know that Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were the same president, you are missing the point. This is not a partisan issue. The corruption and dysfunction are bipartisan. — fishfry

I don't understand how you can say that. I think all of them had their faults and weaknesses, and I think W. was arguably culpable of criminality for the invasion of Iraq. But none of them hold a candle to Trump when it comes to downright mendacity and self-dealing. He is visibly, palpably dishonest and utterly corrupt. The Republicans muttered about impeaching Obama when he wore a tan suit on the White House podium. Can you think for a minute what they would have said if a Democrat had pandered to Putin, like Trump has? Can you imagine the pandemonium if a Democrat had been called out for exactly the phone call that the impeachment enquiry was about? Even several of the Republicans who voted to acquit said he was shown to be guilty but that they had decided to put politics before principle and the law.

I agree with you the Democratic Party seems hopeless at this point. But that's hardly a matter for rejoicing. To me, your viewpoint seems utterly bathed in cynicism - like Trump's obvious malfeasance is the 'fault of the system'. Whereas he's visibly corrupting the system, tearing down faith in the law, the foreign services, America's alliances, and the media. How can any of that be a good thing?

But the major point is that Trump and Bernie both result from a populace starting to notice that something's wrong with what's been passing as the ruling class consensus. — fishfry

The problem is the system, I agree, but not in the sense that you may think. The system has been telling you lies since birth: what to value, how you are valued, how to value other people. Neither Bernie nor Trump offer any sane solutions. Just more egomaniacal bullshit. I just prefer the lies of the Democrats, so I won’t be voting for Trump.

The problem is the system, I agree, but not in the sense that you may think. The system has been telling you lies since birth: what to value, how you are valued, how to value other people. — Noah Te Stroete

Agreed.

Neither Bernie nor Trump offer any sane solutions. Just more egomaniacal bullshit. — Noah Te Stroete

But of course. I apologize if I have not made it perfectly clear that I agree with this point.

I'm analyzing, not partisan-izing. Trump and Bernie represent people's dissatisfaction with the status quo. That's all I'm saying. That it's worth noting that enough Americans are unhappy enough with the government to want to fundamentally blow up the system. With either Bernie or Trump.

I just prefer the lies of the Democrats, — Noah Te Stroete

I used to. It was Teddy. That's the first time I recall a crack in my reflexive liberalism. Teddy killed a girl. That's bad even if he pushes legislation for women's rights. Even if he's your guy, at some point he has crossed a line you won't cross.

But the Dems and liberals rallied around him. I was startled at the hypocrisy. I've always had a special annoyance with hypocrisy.

I forgot about all this for years, till the Clintons. The sexual hypocrisy on display was appalling. This guy was a genuine sexual predator. Don't pretend people didn't know that in the 90's. The stories were always around. And again liberals closed ranks. A "feminist" named Nina Burleigh made a remark that I won't reprint in a family newspaper, but it confirmed that liberals have an absolute double standard when it comes to sexual ethics.

By the time Hillary voted for the Iraq war, I'd had it. I voted for Obama and mostly liked him except for his foreign policy, which was basically Bush's third and fourth terms. And what I've seen since 2016? I just can not in any way endorse any of it. I'm off the reservation.

so I won’t be voting for Trump. — Noah Te Stroete

I live in California so technically I don't need to, since California goes to the Democrat no matter who it is. My vote doesn't count. This lets me cast protest votes. Frankly if Tulsi Gabbard ran third party I'd send her money and volunteer. She is the only one who speaks the truth about our eff'd up foreign policy.

I don't understand how you can say that. I think all of them had their faults and weaknesses, and I think W. was arguably culpable of criminality for the invasion of Iraq. But none of them hold a candle to Trump when it comes to downright mendacity and self-dealing. He is visibly, palpably dishonest and utterly corrupt. The Republicans muttered about impeaching Obama when he wore a tan suit on the White House podium. Can you think for a minute what they would have said if a Democrat had pandered to Putin, like Trump has? Can you imagine the pandemonium if a Democrat had been called out for exactly the phone call that the impeachment enquiry was about? Even several of the Republicans who voted to acquit said he was shown to be guilty but that they had decided to put politics before principle and the law. — Wayfarer

I hope you don't mind that I find it unproductive to engage on these specifics with people who hold your opinions. Please know that I am perfectly well aware of the details behind each of these talking points and could in theory get into endless debate with you about each one, after which neither of us would change our opinions. So I prefer not to go that way. But Trump pandering to Putin? My God that is so absolutely contrary to truth. You know that military aid to Ukraine Trump withheld for a month? Obama withheld that exact same aid to Ukraine for the entire eight years of his presidency, so as to avoid not upsetting Putin. In fact Trump has been far tougher with Putin than Obama was. That Russiagate shit was hatched up by Podesta and Mook so they wouldn't have to answer for losing the most winnable election in history.

But ok I stipulate that you're with the Trump haters. Let's agree to disagree. He's a polarizing figure for polarized times.

I agree with you the Democratic Party seems hopeless at this point. But that's hardly a matter for rejoicing. — Wayfarer

I find it tragic. For the country, and for the party of which I have always been a member. I voted for Mondale, for Dukakis in the tank helmet. For John Kerry and Jimmy Carter. All those guys. D next their name they get my vote. I do not rejoice in the recent developments.

I rejoice over their self-destruction because it's now become necessary. As recently as 2018 I wrote online that if the Dems were smart they'd spend two years working on health care and infrastructure and inequality and reigning in our totally out of control war machine foreign policy. I said if they did that they'd win back the presidency. And that I feared that instead they'd piss it all away in an orgy of anger at Trump. You may remember the 2018 House Dems ran their campaigns based on getting things done and not on indulging their Trump hate. But that's what they did. That was a tragic mistake that doomed the party and might well doom the country. That's why it's now necessary that they be utterly destroyed.

To me, your viewpoint seems utterly bathed in cynicism — Wayfarer

Well, I have been closely observing politics for a long time! Cynicism is the rational position here I'm sure you'll agree.

- like Trump's obvious malfeasance is the 'fault of the system'. — Wayfarer

Please don't be disingenuous about what you know I said. Trump is a symptom of people being unhappy with the system. That's political analysis. It's beneath you to twist my words like that to pretend I said that Trumps flaws, of which there are many, are the system's fault. I did not say that and you know I didn't. I said that he is a symptom of a system that's not working.

Whereas he's visibly corrupting the system, tearing down faith in the law, the foreign services, America's alliances, and the media. How can any of that be a good thing? — Wayfarer

You know ... a lot of this stuff needs to get torn down. The law? Corrupted by Obama, Hillary, Comey, and many others. The media? A disgrace to the word journalism. America's alliances? Nixon and Kissinger played the world against itself for the purpose of US interests. Trump does the same thing. His foreign policy often seems insane, and often works out brilliantly. He's either really lucky or really good. Yeah I agree he makes me crazy too. But he often prevails.

Trump pandering to Putin? My God that is so absolutely contrary to truth. — fishfry

Fake news, eh? I suppose it must be, in the alt universe.

Fake news, eh? I suppose it must be, in the alt universe. — Wayfarer

Ok man. See you in November. We'll let the American people decide.

Ok man. See you in November. We'll let the American people decide. — fishfry

Matters of law, and the abuse thereof, are not decided by public elections, but by the penal code. Those who flout the penal code ought to be subject to legal sanction not popular vote. This will be the case, even if Trump wins the election, which would amply demonstrate that his occupancy of that office is a threat to the rule of law.

Matters of law, and the abuse thereof, are not decided by public elections, but by the penal code. Those who flout the penal code ought to be subject to legal sanction not popular vote. This will be the case, even if Trump wins the election, which would amply demonstrate that his occupancy of that office is a threat to the rule of law. — Wayfarer

Ok man. I had no idea you felt that way. Thanks for sharing. /s

It might interest you to know that many people of longtime political awareness and good will hold the opposite. That it's the Democrats who have been lawless; and that Trump is a flawed but strangely effective opponent of much that's wrong in our system. He's gotten the Dems to reveal who they are: Nancy Pelosi tearing up the SOTU speech, having pre-ripped it earlier. That's what your side's come down to. That's what you offer the American people.

I don't see how anyone can watch that Helsinki performance and still believe that Trump is acting in American interests. Not possible.

As for the Democrats acting lawlessly - that has no foundation in fact. But again, there are no facts in Trumpworld, so as you say, pointless to argue.

1. Donald Trump during his property management interests was accused of discriminating and settle out of court.
2. Fred Trump was involved in the KKK rally in New York City and was incarcerated.
3. Donald Trump during his presidency has explicitly disparaged minority women and has told them to go back to their countries because he didn't like them critiquing him.
4. Donald Trump routinely uses racist language and appears to support extreme white nationalism. — 3017amen

5. Michael Flynn who was Trump's campaign director plead guilty to Russia collusion.
6. Six individuals were found guilty of wrongdoing all of whom were part of Trump's 2016 campaign. And some are in jail.
7. Trump destroyed the transcripts from the Putin summit.
8. The Mueller report did not find collusion, but found Russia meddling with our election on his watch. — 3017amen

9. During Muellers testimony , Mueller was asked specifically whether he felt Trump had lied to him and he said I quote: "generally". — 3017amen

1. A great many people have been accused of a great many things..
2. Guilt by association
3. This is fair
4. Can you site examples of him doing so?
5. Guilt by association continued..
6. Guilt by association continued further...
7. These types of actions do raise suspicion.
8. This is beside the point of your accusations.
9. Okay well that's his opinion. If he has good reason to hold it then he should present evidence. As should you.'

Dude, you a nine points in and presented little of value. Do you have any arguments as to why he should be impeached.

I don't see how anyone can watch that Helsinki performance and still believe that Trump is acting in American interests. Not possible.

As for the Democrats acting lawlessly - that has no foundation in fact. But again, there are no facts in Trumpworld, so as you say, pointless to argue. — Wayfarer

It's a crazy world we live in. People pointing at a blue sign and telling me it is yellow...and they really think they are telling the truth as far as I can tell :yikes:

:up: :cry:

Do you have any arguments as to why he should be impeached. — Nonsense

Hi Nonsense!

Thanks for the concern. Yes, I believe it's called abuse of power and obstruction. Mueller and Schiff found obstruction; his campaign team from 2016 were meddling with Russia, many of whom were found guilty of the aforementioned/various violations, and of course the most recent Ukraine abuse of power Impeachment for personal gain; Parnas, Giuliani, ad nauseum.

With respect to your question #4, he consistently uses ad hominem attacks to anyone who doesn't agree with him i.e., Mitt Romney, Ocasio Cortez, John Cain, the list is endless. And of course his racism; Charlottesville, KKK involvement, found guilty of being a slum lord and not renting to blacks, and other nefarious behavior like was guilty in the now defunct Trump University scam. I can't remember everything right now but will be happy to dig them back up... . If you don't mind, I've listed 25 things that may include some of which you're concerned about (particularly if you watch FOX news/they don't report everything and down play the facts-they didn't even have live coverage of the House Impeachment hearings and ran regular programming) that speaks to his lack of character, consistent lying (which he did again recently about denying he knew Parnas-like he did with Mike Cohen/Stormy Daniels), so on and so forth.

I've got a list of things that go beyond the 25 that speaks to even criminal behavior and other poor character issues or so I had posted here, and would be happy to dig those back up too, if you want to debate... . (It goes all the way back to fact checking his narcissistic emphasis on crowd size.)

26. 2/7/20: Lt. Colonel Vidman was escorted from the White House on Friday. He already informed the NSC that he planned to leave his position by the end of the month, but Trump opted for a public spectacle of it by humiliating him through security escort. ‘Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful,’ his lawyer said. Other notable’s from the Impeachment:

Vindman’s twin brother was also let go for no apparent reason, which begs the question of ‘retaliatory vindictiveness’.

European Ambassador Sondland who testified and told the truth about the quid pro quo, was also let go. ( He reportedly had donated a million dollars to Trump's campaign.) Was this punishment for telling the truth?

Marie Yovonovitch-The career diplomat was scheduled to remain until July, but Trump removed her when she objected to Rudy Giuliani's activities in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations

Considering the behavior of the Trump White House, it bears revisiting the question concerning expectation levels of character and temperament in the White House. Sure, every President has the right to fire appointed position's, no exceptions taken there! However, it was known from the beginning that Trump was quite an emotional guy who had thin skin, and took many things too personal. I mean, no one has proved the Impeachment witnesses were lying about Trump. It almost seems as though he is looking for 'yes men'. He comes across as being highly insecure.

There's a bit of an irony here. Are emotions good or bad in this case? Are they good when they are appropriately used in a virtious way? When Clinton was Impeached, the subsequent Prayer Breakfast was more of an act of contrition, with apologies and a humble heart. In the case of Dumpertrumper, even though the GOP said he had learned a lesson from his Impeachment, the opposite appears to have happened, and I'm afraid it will continue to happen. Questions:

1. Do we want a President who is too emotional and has thin skin? Assuming the answer is no, can you blame critics who are worried about his behavior and the safety of our nation? Could his emotions be a dangerous vice or moral flaw?

2. Since he encouraged meddling in 2016, and 2020 for personal gain, could he be still trying to get back at the people who Impeached him?

3. What will he stop at doing, for his own personal gain? (He was quoted in a Rally that he could shoot someone, and no one would care.) Obviously, through social media, he has demonstrated a lack of character/restraint and continues to show his thin-skinned demeaner through his personal attacks and apparent retaliations/vindictiveness, whenever someone disagrees with him.

4. Does he only want people who ‘hear no evil, see no evil’? Should a President encourage opposing opinions to help streamline and vet public policy? In a free society, do we want freedom of speech in order to help critique our public policies? In part, isn't that what makes America great? We critique each other in business and in our personal lives and families in order to get better.

5. Should freedom of speech include daily ad hominem from POTUS? Do personal attacks help or hurt people? What should our expectations be?

6. Should any POTUS seek foreign assistance for personal political gain?

7. Should our Impeachment trial process include or exclude witnesses?

8. Should we have whistleblower laws and procedures? Does that make Government more efficient/better?

9. Do the ends-justify-the-means?

Bonus question: Should private individuals who have been on the receiving end of Trump's emotional tirades/vindictiveness, can or should they sue POTUS (at some point) for libel and/or defamation of character?

Post Impeachment truth and lies:

27. 2/13/20: President Trump told Fox News friend Geraldo Rivera on Thursday that he did send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to procure damaging information on his political rivals. "Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer?" Rivera asked Trump on his podcast. "Are you sorry you did that?" "No, not at all," Trump responded. "When you tell me, why did I use Rudy, and one of the things about Rudy, No. 1, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor."

"That is literally the exact opposite of what he told Bill O'Reilly in an interview in November," CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale told Don Lemon on Thursday night, playing the clip where Trump said, "No, I didn't direct him," meaning Giuliani. "So what has changed now? Well, perhaps Trump just thinks impeachment's over with, I've been acquitted, I can say whatever I want. Perhaps he forgot that he ever denied this. Regardless, though, what he's saying now is the truth. He did direct Rudy to go there. We heard that not only from Rudy himself, but from testimony from others in the impeachment inquiry."

Commentary:

Sound Familiar? He did that with the Stormy Daniels/Michael Cohen, lied about hush money before the 2016 election. (This is starting to remind me of the OJ Simpson trial. Afterward, OJ wrote a book called 'If I did it'.) Rest assured, sooner or later the truth will reveal itself. Lies are like cockroaches, for every one you discover there are many more that are hidden.

" I’m not upset that you lied to me; I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you."
—Friedrich Nietzsche

So did the prosecution fail because Trump was impeached using emotion rather than logic? :wink:

Great question! I have a few more (just a few regarding emotion). Did the jury acquit using emotion rather than logic? And is Trump's emotion of revenge getting the better of him? Or was his fear of losing an election based on emotion? LOL

You know, kinda like the OJ trial (and/or the Clinton Impeachment). :wink:

Emotions are a strange phenomena indeed...any clues here?

Maybe Dr. Spock knows:

28. 2/20/20. A federal judge sentenced President Donald Trump’s friend, the longtime Republican operative Roger Stone, to more than 3 years in prison on Thursday for lying to Congress and tampering with a witness in an effort to protect Trump.

“He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president, he was prosecuted for covering up for the president,” said Judge Amy Berman Jackson about Stone, who showed no visible emotion when he was sentenced in U.S District Court in Washington, D.C.

“The truth still exists, the truth still matters. Roger Stone’s insistence that it doesn’t ... are a threat to our most fundamental institutions,” Jackson said in a blistering denunciation of Stone, who he lied about his efforts to obtain damaging emails related to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Democratic presidential campaign that were stolen by Russian agents.

who he lied about his efforts to obtain damaging emails related to Hillary Clinton’s — 3017amen

Can you tell is why you know that the e-mails were damaging if you did not see them, and why we should not see them if they are damaging?

that were stolen by Russian agents. — 3017amen

Can you tell us who these "Russian agents" are and how one "steals e-mails"?

The answer to why they were, of course, was to cover-up for the Dumpertrumper. Regarding Russian agents, since he was convicted by a jury I'm thinking Roger/the Dumpertrumper knows (or perhaps the jury)?

What do you think?

The answer to why they were, of course, was to cover-up for the Dumpertrumper. Regarding Russian agents, since he was convicted by a jury I'm thinking Roger/the Dumpertrumper knows (or perhaps the jury)?

What do you think? — 3017amen

I think your discombobbled word soup makes no sense at all. Can you write what you are trying to say in plain English, so it is understandable for those of us outside your echo chamber?

You may want to check-in with Dr. Spock, he's not as emotional as you seem to be... .
LOL

You may want to check-in with Dr. Spock, he's not as emotional as you seem to be... .
LOL — 3017amen

Don´t know what that is supposed to mean, either. Can you write in plain English, if you have something coherent to say? Thanks.

Quod non intelligis?

Quod non intelligis? — 3017amen

Trying to impress people by having found out that Googletranslate has Latin?
OK... if it works for you.

However, I still dont know what (if anything) your previous word soup was suppsed to mean.

Bene, quid habes reversus cum magna dicens!