ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Which republicans in the house and senate would vote to impeach or convict if this were true? C'mon, I know you're not that dumb.

Democrats don't need a single Republican vote to impeach him. You probably know that. Impeach or no ballz.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As this recent Assange business demonstrates, the Trump administration is no true friend of the rights that matter.

It's not the same thing in the Assange case.

Assange was repeatedly told to redact information in the Iraq reports that would put military personal and informants at risk.

If it was just about bringing injustice to light, I'd completely agree with you. But his actions harmed or killed people in the process.

And morally, I can't stand by that type of behavior, even if it was meant in the greater good of transparency and military crimes.

"

Unfortunately, this is more likely than the best case scenario — Trump can generously be described as a President who prioritizes appearance over current reality.

Well, Trump is more center on a lot of his policies, which brings him to butt heads with the right and left side of the party.

Just look at what he did his first year.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/president-trump-legislation/index.html

Granted, he might not have done everything you wanted, but to say it was all appearances? Yeah, I wouldn't say that.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Which republicans in the house and senate would vote to impeach or convict if this were true? C'mon, I know you're not that dumb.

Democrats don't need a single Republican vote to impeach him. You probably know that. Impeach or no ballz.

Very well, I retract the last thing I said in that post. I'm sorry, I was wrong.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Which republicans in the house and senate would vote to impeach or convict if this were true? C'mon, I know you're not that dumb.

Democrats don't need a single Republican vote to impeach him. You probably know that. Impeach or no ballz.

Very well, I retract the last thing I said in that post. I'm sorry, I was wrong.

Xavderion is not American. He doesn't really care if the partisanship gets even worse and our government becomes even more dysfunctional. Impeaching without bipartisan support in the senate to get a conviction would be a dysfunctional plan, in my view. It would just make things worse for everyone that lives in the USA.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

he might not have done everything you wanted, but to say it was all appearances? Yeah, I wouldn't say that.

I wouldn't either. And I didn't. I said he prioritizes appearance over reality.

I know a thing or two about lying. Unfortunately I spent my youth, up until about age 26, among criminals — thieves and con artists, mostly. I've not only been a connoisseur of the lie, but I've strategized with others on how to deceive more effectively. And the one consensus among us was this: the best lies are blended with significant quantities of truth. It's to be expected that you'll be checked to some degree, and every check that comes back true builds valuable trust. Eventually the marks either stop checking, or their checks are so tainted by confirmation bias that they see only what they want to see. It's go time when you believe the Mark can look directly at evidence of your treachery and will refuse to believe their own lying eyes.

The status quo in Washington was one that was far too greedy. Risky, reckless, foolhardy. Even from a liar's perspective, they were far too full of shit. But now, even with a brazenly oppositional media calling attention to all of Trump's lies (with a healthy margin of false positives) — as opposed to cooperating with the deception — there's enough truth in Trump's behavior to buy the confidence of a small but fiercely loyal pool of partisan suckers. That thar is deception done good and proper.

Trump's far better at lying than those paid amateurs ever were.

About two years ago, I said in the Trump thread that the 2016 election was analogous to a vote between the Incredible Hulk and Loki. One is smart, but devious; the other is comparatively unthinking and emotional. In hindsight, I believe that's still accurate — but it is Hillary, not Trump, who represents Banner in this analogy. Ms Clinton couldn't even manage a private email server without the cat getting out of the bag; Comey's cover for her was breathtakingly transparent corruption. Trump, in the same situation, would have played it much smoother.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I wouldn't either. And I didn't. I said he prioritizes appearance over reality.

Alright. Well, correct me again, because I'm trying to understand where you are coming from and I'm going pry a bit into your position.

So as far as I can tell, you are disgruntled that he did two things that you are firmly against among probably others.

Which is doing interventionist wars (Syria) and attempting to put Assange (a free speech advocate) in prison.

You are then, extending that to the rest of his administration, and implying that Trump is more concerned about 'talking about freedoms' instead of defending them.

Because if you don't defend rights for one person, you aren't defending them for everyone.

Now, if this is what you are talking about, I got to disagree here.

While a few individuals have been singled out, Assange, (espionage) or ignored (Khashoggi murder).

They were all done with the consideration of the political consequences, (the reality as you would put it, of the diplomatic and economic ramifications) rather than the appearance it would give. (Trump doesn't care about human rights).

I mean, we both know, the real world isn't a black and white picture.

There are exceptions to the rule of the protection of human rights, especially when that protection endangers more people, then it intends to save.

I mean should we be willing to go to war or put sanctions on Egypt for their humanitarian violations? And ruin our good relations with them? Yeah, probably not. Again, the harm it would cause is a lot higher than the rights it supposedly protects.

So am I bothered that Trump at the very least, seem unconcerned about some people rights? Yes, I'm concerned, but at the same time. It doesn't remove that a majority of his actual actions (the policies he put in, that you have to follow as law) lean towards protecting people.

We should always give credit to people when they mostly do good things.

And I think that's the best you are going to get in the real world, especially when it comes to decisions where there isn't a clear good answer. (Israel and Palestine)

"

Turtledove wrote:

Impeaching without bipartisan support in the senate to get a conviction would be a dysfunctional plan, in my view. It would just make things worse for everyone that lives in the USA.

I'm stunned, I actually agree with turtledove on this.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

They were all done with the consideration of the political consequences, (the reality as you would put it, of the diplomatic and economic ramifications) rather than the appearance it would give. (Trump doesn't care about human rights).

I mean, we both know, the real world isn't a black and white picture.

There are exceptions to the rule of the protection of human rights, especially when that protection endangers more people, then it intends to save.

I mean should we be willing to go to war or put sanctions on Egypt for their humanitarian violations? And ruin our good relations with them? Yeah, probably not. Again, the harm it would cause is a lot higher than the rights it supposedly protects.

You yourself implicitly acknowledge that the US had no legitimate business in Iraq, and went far beyond the scope of their legitimacy in Afghanistan — as you correctly point out, a people slightly abused by their local government is better than a people slaughtered in the name of empire, and the former is their responsibility to correct anyway. So by what moral standard do you claim that those dispatched to a sovereign nation to kill its populace if it doesn't bend to the empire's appointed provincial government, these mercenaries, are worthy of special protection?

If an armed man enters your house with the intent to control it and to murder you if you resist, do you believe he has a right to freedom from the possibility of retaliatory force?

I am a veteran of the US Army. But I never joined out of some kind of patriotism. I joined because I was desperate for the ridiculous signing bonuses the Bush administration was offering at the time, and because I believed I had the moral flexibility in me to kill when ordered. In other words, I joined for a mercenary's reasons. I never believed that what we were doing over there was right, until I actually went over there. And even then, my true loyalty was to my brigade and its leadership, not to the US Army. I was extremely fortunate to be assigned to one of the good ones.

From experience I can say: soldiers aren't a monolith. Some are sociopaths who've found their license to kill; some have hearts filled with the rage of loss and seek bloody vengeance; some are whores to the highest bidder they can find (as I was, at first) and only as good as their bosses allow them to be; some follow blindly a family tradition generations old; some genuinely want to defend the innocent in foreign lands from those who would oppress them. I've met all of these and more (and successfully thwarted the first of the list, I'm proud to say). I know better than to believe either the myth that they're all good people, or the myth that they're all bad.

But it is a volunteer force, and I think it's safe to say the reasons at the Pentagon and the White House for those wars was nothing short of nefarious. Even a good man with no ill intent has to take responsibility for who it is they work for and with. If my buddy is the man breaking into the house planning home invasion, and I'm at his side as he does it, my ignorance, or my intent to stop him somehow, those are incredibly weak defenses against my being held culpable with him.

Soldiers in an unjust war are not deserving of redaction to protect their identities. Due process, possibly; anonymity, not at all.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Impeaching without bipartisan support in the senate to get a conviction would be a dysfunctional plan, in my view. It would just make things worse for everyone that lives in the USA.

I'm stunned, I actually agree with turtledove on this.

In and of itself, I don't think it would matter. Impeachment without hope of conviction would be a Trump wet dream. Whether that's slightly better for the country, or slightly worse, hinges on whether the next Democrat presidential nominee is slightly better or slightly worse than Trump. Given the structure and internal corruption of the DNC at present, those are the only two possibilities for 2020 — I hope for radical improvement, but Rome wasn't built in a day, and campaigning is already under way.

Of course, such an event could shake things up. With the right timing, there could be a bigger gain or a greater loss. But this would depend on factors beyond mere impeachment.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Trump posted a video of Omar saying her thing (she even smiles while saying it, bad look) and now the twitter harpies are screeching hardcore. Must mean he's right.

"CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,”

Fake news.

I mean yeah, it's fake news because CAIR was founded way before 9/11, by people with ties to Hamas by the way.

Deliberately left it there. It wouldn't be a quote if I change it. You response exactly how I want like a model student. :)

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

In and of itself, I don't think it would matter. Impeachment without hope of conviction would be a Trump wet dream. Whether that's slightly better for the country, or slightly worse, hinges on whether the next Democrat presidential nominee is slightly better or slightly worse than Trump. Given the structure and internal corruption of the DNC at present, those are the only two possibilities for 2020 — I hope for radical improvement, but Rome wasn't built in a day, and campaigning is already under way.

Of course, such an event could shake things up. With the right timing, there could be a bigger gain or a greater loss. But this would depend on factors beyond mere impeachment.

I disagree though. Democrats should be Ready, able and willing. It is legislative branch responsibility to rein in presidents’ power which they failed to do. It is like saying That's Not My Job because I wouldn't be paid. Oh wait... and cost them significant time and political capital. That is exactly what it is. Why would anyone want to do their job? They are giving the model answer and say "We’d Like to Help Out, But We Don’t Have the Capacity Right Now."

Democrats still don't take Trump seriously. 3/4 of Trump voters say they plan to vote for him. That is some scary number. Since Incumbent are more likely to win, be prepared for a second term of Trump. Don't people like the status quo?

"

RPGlitch wrote:

It doesn't remove that a majority of his actual actions (the policies he put in, that you have to follow as law) lean towards protecting people.

We should always give credit to people when they mostly do good things.

Allow me to choke down a quip about children in cages for a moment, and ask: what policies has Trump implemented that protect people? Maybe I just don't hear about it from my bubble, but I legitimately do not know what you're talking about on this one.

The only thing I can think of that is actually in favor of trump is the ban on bump stocks.