Thanks for your responses, you've been the friendliest person yet to respond to me since I came back. I've already been called alt-right for disagreeing with someone.
You're quite welcome, though I hear that the US Politics section was still pretty nasty back even before I joined it during the JREF years.
Yeah, I probably embellished my 50000 post claim but its far more than I expected upon revisiting this site last week for the first time in years. The old JREFer in me was disappointed in the overwhelming calls for impeachment, and worse, based on the scant evidence we have so far.
If the calls were based on Trump colluding with Russia, I agree, and some posters have called for that. It feels like more argue that he should be impeached for reasons that are separate to that, and if there was collusion, that would just make things more convenient.
Oh and I agree that its all suspicious, but it's like we are trying to solve a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces. It could be Russia simply being Russia or it could be far more sinister. We need more information to draw conclusions. That's pretty basic in the world of critical thinking and shouldn't need to be pointed out here. I just don't see how rationalists can "turn it off" when it comes to politics. And you know, the sane rationalist in me asks the question "Why would Trump risk this? Is he that insane?". It's the same type of question we ask the 9/11 truthers about motive.
You might have noticed that most of us don't hold Trump's strategic thinking in high regard or his character to be even remotely honest. Given his actual behavior, it's not hard to imagine that, for example, if the Russians approached him with an offer to "help him out," that he would just grin and accept a deal with them without thinking deeply about it at all (after all, he's getting a really, really good deal upfront and if he expects to lose anyways, who going to really care enough to even try to dig it up?)... and then later find himself trapped in a compromised position. Thus, "Why would Trump risk this? Is he insane?" isn't particularly meaningful to invoke as part of a line of argument, given that it's assuming things that aren't really in evidence.
You may be right there, but the media has been pushing the collusion angle hard and have been pretty fast and loose with the (lack of)facts. A number of Dems(and Reps) up to the Comey hearing were pushing collusion, then after the hearing they pivoted to the obstruction angle when the dog wasn't hunting anymore.
Hmm. Some, maybe. I'm reminded of an article on ABC News, though, that was basically, "Numerous Russian hackers tried to hack election related systems in a particular state, no evidence that they succeeded." I've seen similar pointed clarifications made in CNN and NBC News articles as well on many related matters. I can't really speak towards much of the actually "liberal" media, though, given that I pay fairly little attention to most of it and automatically take it with much more of a grain of salt, much like I do with the more conservative media.
I disagree on the media. Chris Matthews, that blowhard on CNBC was openly calling for impeachment and some talking heads wanted to impeach him for the firing of Comey, as if thats an impeachable offense in and of itself. I know Pelosi has smartly called off the dogs and I like how Bernie has conducted himself as well,
but they cant hold it in forever.
Hmm. I'll accept that you disagree, but given that I don't tend to even listen to the talking heads for anything, forgive me if I take them less seriously than what actually gets published. I also haven't really looked at CNBC in general, though.
"
A May 16 survey by Public Policy Polling, a partisan Democratic firm generally rated as credible, found that the pro-impeachment numbers for Trump had shot up to 48 percent, with 41 percent opposed."
Hardly a surprise, there, honestly, given Trump.
Agree that Trump is a trainwreck. But don't hack democracy to get what you want. Just let it work. The wheels of justice grind slowly but finely.
I'm much in agreement with this... but, to be fair, given the focus that the Republicans have put on gerrymandering and voter suppression, among other things, it quite looks like they're the actual criminals when it comes to who's actually trying to hack democracy.
It is irrational, in my opinion. People knew what he was going in.
Many did. And many either hated him or just strongly opposed him for that from the start. It's not like he's done pretty much anything to change their minds and it's not like there was some kind of reset button that would make "People knew what he was going in" into a meaningful argument for the irrationality of their current dissatisfaction. Need the tired point that Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin be brought up again, too?
We knew he was a narcissist troll and he'd make terrible decisions and say dumb things. But the reaction I don't feel is proportionate to the actual offenses. Outrage culture and Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's a thing.
Those are also cards that those on the right frequently overplay in an effort to dismiss legitimate issues along with illegitimate issues. As for the reaction... it's actually somewhat predictable given how much Trump loves ratings and how much experience he's had with getting the media to give him ratings.
Agreed that an investigation should have happened after Flynn lied about his Russian contacts. But do you honestly think it should be playing out like this? In this manner? To this extent?
That depends. Remember,
Trump is the one who's been stroking it into what it is in the media with his words and actions, more than anything else.
I have a different take on the obstruction stuff and I alluded to it earlier. I would need to see Flynn being charged with an actual crime before we talk about charging Trump. Like you said though, even not being charged, he was being investigated so the water is muddied. Trump basically vouching for Flynn IMO doesn't warrant an obstruction charge. But I'm no lawyer and I'm admittedly out of my depth here. If it were any other President, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
If it were any other President, they likely would have been much smarter about how they handled things, in other words. Either way, I'm fine with leaving that issue to the actual lawyers and people who are in a position to do anything about it, should it be deemed that action is warranted. It's not like it's even remotely a surprise that Trump acted that way, after all.
All the Dems had to do was wait for him to eff up royally and then pounce. It's all about timing. Pushing conspiracies and calling for impeachment before the facts are in doesn't work for me. It smells like a witch-hunt. Like I said, if the Mueller investigation comes up empty - it's no bueno. I know how moderates think, and moderates are usually rational. It'll be bad in 2018.
Maybe. Why wouldn't they want to strike while the iron's hot, though? And I wouldn't call Mueller coming up empty to be no bueno. If so, many of the Dems will quiet down and focus more on other topics. There would certainly be a fair bit of questions when it comes to how some of the Trumps' business ventures were passing scrutiny, though.
But I need to see that. It seems like we are putting the cart before the horse here. All I know is Flynn hasn't been, and very likely won't be charged with a crime.
Maybe, but there's plenty of grounds to charge him, even if we've learned that perjury by Republican doesn't matter at all, but perjury by Democrat is a serious offense.
Like I said, I'm rooting for chaos in the hopes that it can become a lynchpin for a viable 3rd party. It's a longshot though.
Unfortunately. It's hard to get a viable new party going without massive resources, after all.
I see the Democratic Party moving farther and farther to the left, and I think that's why it's appeal is dropping among the moderates. It may partially explain why the Dems are ceding more and more ground. Moderates want border security, by and large, and are sick of PC culture and identity politics.
Instead of internalizing and trying to have a broader appeal, the left just attacks people as alt-right or white supremacists or other such nonsense. That crap has gotta stop, and it's another thing I didn't expect to see here.
In general, a lot of behaviors that relate to politics should stop. I really hate seeing the intelligence of many of my Republican friends and family drop incredibly when it comes to matters that have been touched by partisanship, after all. I'm not talking about that they disagree with me, either, but about how their arguments drop to levels like "Obamacare is killing people" supposedly being a response to "Republican congressmen are being hypocrites and dramatically more partisan in their approach to the AHCA than the Democrats were with the ACA."
