Isn't it interesting that Trump and his supporters say their is no evidence about collusion with the Russians? Therefore, all of these investigations are "Witch Hunts." However, Mike Pence said that even though their commission on voter fraud has not found any evidence of voter fraud, they are on a "fact finding mission."
So, the Russian investigation is a "witch hunt" while the voter fraud commission with no evidence is a "fact finding mission." Talk about a double standard and hypocrisy! I believe Trump setup the commission for two reasons: (1) a distraction to take the heat off of the ongoing Russian collusion investigation and (2) to satisfy his twisted narcissistic ego about not winning the popular vote.
Mike, great points. I'd add voter suppression to #2. To me, that is the primary goal here.
"Isn't it interesting that Trump and his supporters say their is no evidence about collusion with the Russians?"
Given that the liberal definition of "collusion" means "exchanges words, written or verbal", who could possibly say there was no "collusion"?
Of course, if we use the dictionary definition instead (secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others) there is zero evidence of collusion.
Which brings us to witch hunt vs fact finding mission. Evidence HAS been noted in election fraud, however minor, and the facts of just how much remains to be seen. They must be found.
But the facts of collusion are and have been from day one seen to be zero. Nothing whatsoever has been found...unless we change the definition to allow liberals to chortle with glee when their brand of collusion is found.
OP made a very good point in hypocrisy. You look foolish saying the same things over & over again in different threads. Make you look like a bot.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon … A51UH?il=0
USA Treasury handed out a fine of 2mil to Exxon Mobil Corp for "reckless disregard" of U.S. sanctions in dealings with Russia in 2014 when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was the global oil company's chief executive, and fined it $2 million.
ExxonMobil had "demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements" by signing the deals with Sechin just weeks after the United States blacklisted him, OFAC said in an unusually lengthy three-page statement laying out its reasoning. (For the Treasury statement, see: bit.ly/2vnvQf2)
By dealing with Sechin, the company "caused significant harm" to U.S. sanctions on Russia, the Treasury said.
Treasury says ‘senior-most executives’ were aware of sanctions in 2014 over Crimea annexation when firm signed deals with Russian oil magnate Igor Sechin
Got it. Exxon violated sanctions against Russia. Therefore Trump "colluded" with Russia to rig the election and somehow harm the country, too. Because any illegal action by Exxon is absolute proof of Trumps collusion.
The logic escapes me (the two are not related in any manner I can detect), but I understand your words. Does that logic extend to jailing you for colluding also, or is it just Trump and anyone connected with him? Does it include anyone that voted for him - did they "collude", too?
I did not write this, but it reminded me of you for some reason:
How Deranged Are Trump Supporters? New Poll Shows That It's Worse Than You Ever Imagined
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7 … =emaildkre
Trump voters have evolved into a breed of ill-informed, willfully ignorant yokels whose devotion to their Orange Julius Caesar borders on cult worship.
Even if there was an investigation, and it found that the Trump campaign did collude with Russia to aid his campaign, 77% of his supporters think he should still stay in office.
Is there any line he can't cross? Apparently not. Because the survey also asked a question referencing Trump's campaign comment that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. And 45% of Trump voters said they would still approve of him if he shot someone. This is Jonestown-level dementia. When people talk about "drinking the Kool-Aid," they can't get closer to that comparison than this.
Wilderness, what are your sources of news and info? Cable, newspaper, social media, etc. ? The data and info is out there.
I'm curious because the story that came out a few hours ago about Deutsche Bank provides the link between the Trumps and Russians.
All of the above. And here in the forums. So far, no "collusion" as defined by Webster. Just "collusion" as defined by the Trump haters - anyone talking to any Russian about anything.
If you haven't already, please read the NYT piece, "Big German Bank..." (I'm unable to link it). Describes how Deutsche Bank was used as the conduit for the money laundering operations. Extraordinary work by the reporters with a very complicated subject.
Count the letters in "liberal". It is not a four-letter word.
You're right - the left has some good ideas and has done some great things. Gay rights is perhaps the latest, but it isn't alone.
But the radicals that have decided that anything that will get President Trump into a jail cell is justified...well, I don't know a reasonable four letter word for that group. Help me out here?
Probably the same word that ultra conservatives who are trying to take away medical care for the poor, damage our environment in the name of "jobs," and collude with Russians should be called. You are mistaking liberals for ultra liberals. I don't like either ultra group.
Wilderness, I'm not hearing the word "Collusion" lately. I'm hearing RICO, racketeering, money laundering, middle man, statute of limitations, income taxes, etc.
Yeah - nothing is found so some other nefarious activity is claimed. It'll remain until it is obviously as silly as as the previous one and they'll think up something else. I've about quit following it all - it isn't worth the time it takes to read the ridiculous claims any more.
Pay attention America. Trump filed for re-election on the day he was inaugurated. Access to voter information is a candidate's dream come true. This unprecedented action gives him privileges and accountability that he probably doesn't know how to handle.
Wilderness: Seven people in a meeting with Donald Jr. about saying no more adoptions of Russian children until sanctions are lifted that allow Putin and his oligarch friends to park their laundered money in the U.S. All under the guise of "we have dirt on Hillary." Wilderness, follow the money and you will see the need for collusion. Or better yet, let's see how Mueller defines collusion instead of starting the "happy talk." The following text is from the "The Hill."
"The White House has spent the last week on defense after it was revealed Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer ahead of the 2016 election to get campaign dirt on rival Hillary Clinton.
Trump and his administration have justified the meeting as opposition research typical of any politician during a campaign.
Trump Jr. said earlier this week that the meeting ultimately "went nowhere and it was apparent that [damaging information on Clinton] wasn’t what the meeting was actually about.”
Democrats have slammed the meeting regardless of Trump Jr.'s statement, calling it a smoking gun that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.
Continuing revelations about the meeting have only added to the speculation, despite the White House's repeated denial that the Trump campaign coordinated with Moscow.
The meeting revealed a broader lobbying effort tied to several Moscow figures, but questions remain over who exactly was present for the now-infamous meeting.
As of Saturday, reports place at least eight people in the room. Here's who they are and what we know about them so far:
Donald Trump Jr.
The New York Times first reported the president's son arranged to have a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Trump originally told the publication the meeting was "a short introductory meeting" with the lawyer to discuss adoption policy.
However, The Times also reported Trump Jr. was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton prior to the meeting.
On Tuesday, Trump Jr. released a chain of emails detailing his conversations with British publicist Rob Goldstone, who acted as an intermediary setting up the meeting. The emails, which were released on Twitter, confirmed Trump Jr. was promised damaging information on Clinton.
According to both Veselnitskaya and Trump Jr., Kushner was only briefly at the meeting.
Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, did not disclose the meeting on an application for his security clearance when joining the administration as a senior adviser. Kushner is the only known attendee of the meeting to now have a White House security clearance.
His representatives have called the initial omission an unintentional oversight, and his lawyer Jamie Gorelick — who has since stepped away from representing Kushner — issued a statement to The Hill confirming his attendance.
“As we have previously stated, Mr. Kushner’s SF-86 was prematurely submitted and, among other errors, did not list any contacts with foreign government officials. The next day, Mr. Kushner submitted supplemental information stating that he had had 'numerous contacts with foreign officials' about which he would be happy to provide additional information," Gorelick said.
"He has since submitted this information, including that during the campaign and transition, he had over 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which were during transition," she added.
Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who later briefly served as campaign manager before resigning from the Trump campaign, was also present for the meeting and was included in emails released by Trump Jr.
The then-campaign chairman, who has reported ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, recently disclosed the meeting and Trump's Jr.'s role in organizing it.
Veselnitskaya is the Russian lawyer Trump Jr.'s son arranged to meet with at Trump Tower. She is known for working against the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists Russians suspected of violating human rights. The law is reviled by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who responded to it by implementing a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children.
Veselnitskaya told NBC News she "never had damaging or sensitive information on Hillary Clinton," and that it was never her intention to obtain that information.
The Hill reported Veselnitskaya was let into U.S. by former President Obama's Justice Department "under extraordinary circumstances" before she took part in a lobbying campaign regarding adoption and the Magnitsky Act.
It was also reported that she was in touch with a Russian prosecutor as part of her fight against a U.S. sanctions law.
Akhmetshin is a former member of the Russian military intelligence services known as GRU. He is now a U.S. citizen and works as a lobbyist, and according to CNN is registered with Veselnitskaya's organization.
He confirmed to The Associated Press he was present for the meeting, but called reports about his ties to Russian intelligence a "smear campaign" aimed at him.
Goldstone is a British publicist who acted as an intermediary in arranging the meeting between Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya.
The publicist represents Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, the son of Aras Agalarov, who is a Russian oligarch. Goldstone told CNN Agalarov asked him to set up the meeting.
In his emails, Goldstone told Trump Jr. "a Russian government attorney" could provide damaging information about Clinton in order to aid the Trump campaign. He also said he wouldn't sit in on the full meeting but would be present for introductions.
According to Akhmetshin, Anatoli Samachornov acted as a translator for Veselnitskaya.
The translator did not tell reporters whether he was at the meeting but did say he was working with Veselnitskaya on matters regarding adoptions and the Magnitsky Act during the time of the meeting.
Akhmetshin identified Samachornov to The New York Times.
Unidentified representative of Emin and Aras Agalarov
CNN on Friday reported that the eighth person present in the meeting was a representative for Russian pop star Emin Agalarov and his father, Aras.
Emin Agalarov is a businessman and friend of Trump's. Trump appeared in the pop star's music video in 2013, along with Miss Universe contestants. "
"Wilderness: Seven people in a meeting with Donald Jr. about saying no more adoptions of Russian children until sanctions are lifted that allow Putin and his oligarch friends to park their laundered money in the U.S. All under the guise of "we have dirt on Hillary."
I see. Assuming this is true (wouldn't surprise me), Jr. was duped into a meeting where the Russian goal was to commit illegal activities within the US. Makes sense why it ended so quickly; the information Jr. was there to get wasn't there at all.
What doesn't make sense then is why so many people continue down the road of claiming "Russian collusion" to rig the election. Even this, their greatest triumph, turns to dust as it had nothing to do with any election.
Wilderness: If you were Putin, wouldn't you want Trump to get elected instead of Hillary? That is his motive for meddling in the election. How do you know what was actually said in that meeting with 8 people, the majority being Russian and with ties to Putin and his Oligarchs?
Don't forget Obama sent 35 Russian diplomats (spies) home because of meddling in the pre-election campaigns and he told Putin to "cut it out.". Putin wants to get his spy agency back into operation in the US. So he was willing to cut a deal with Trump via clandestine connections. As far as having evidence goes, we all have to be patient until Mueller releases his findings.
Right now Trump is trying to undermine Mueller's investigation by having his law team look for conflicts of interest with Mueller and pardon himself and his people from the investigation. Is this what an innocent man would do?
Of course Putin had a motive to rig the election. So did you and so did I. Your point? Are you trying to say that because there is a suspected motive that guilt automatically follows?
Uhhh...not that I recall. Obama kicked them out for spying, not for rigging elections. You don't get to invent new reasons for Obama's actions.
No, People - you can't go from Putin wanting to put spies in the US to being willing to cut a deal with Trump. Clandestine connections (to date unproven) or not. That is pure People speaking, and spinning as you go, not Putin, and you do not have the right to put words into his mouth. I even agree, but THAT doesn't give you the right either!
"Right now Trump is trying to undermine Mueller's investigation by having his law team look for conflicts of interest with Mueller and pardon himself and his people from the investigation.
No he's not. You can't "pardon yourself" from an investigation; only from a conviction.
"Is this what an innocent man would do?"
Might be, considering the hatred, vitriol and lies being spread by millions of people. Or considering that the justice appears, at this time, to be firmly in the pockets of the Democrats; you know, the people that rigged their election and managed to subvert justice with VIP meetings between spouse of the guilty and AG? I might be looking for ways to jailbreak were I in his shoes, too, and it wouldn't depend on guilt or innocence.
And if you're even half as smart as I think you are you will understand this. At the level we're talking guilt or innocence is pretty much irrelevant - only politics matters. And right now the "politics" is screaming "Hang him! Hang them all!"
Wilderness: You are in a state of denial. Because if you accepted any form of Russian interference with the election, your agenda would come crashing down like a house of cards.
So far none has been found. Not even with the Jr. fiasco.
But it's true that I don't find "interference with an election" the same as providing information to a candidate. We do it, their campaign people do it, newspapers and magazines do it, social media does it, TV does it. That a citizen of a foreign country does it verbally doesn't seem to be any different than most of those others. IF, of course, we actually knew that such a dastardly thing actually happened. So far we don't.
(I'll add that there is zero doubt in my mind that Russia has actually interfered in our elections for many years. Just as we have in theirs and everyone else's. So no, it's hard to be upset about Jr. talking to a Russian no matter how hard you try to spin it into some new, unusual and evil.)
It's amazing how DJT is going after Jeff Sessions on tweets.
This morning tweet from DJT!
Michael Flynn Jr
Wilderness: So your logic is if everybody does it, then you are not concerned about it? Assuming everybody does it, including the Russians, the difference is the magnitude of what the Russians have done. Everybody has told lies. It is about the magnitude of the lie and the consequences of it.
Trump is one of the greatest lairs on this planet. I don't trust him as far as I could throw his fat, narcissistic body. He is losing the trust of the American people, except those that support him.
They don't care what he does because he is going to "Make America Great Again and Give Them Back Their Country." To them it means no black man or woman in the White House, no LGBTQ, no technological advancements, build a wall to keep people out that are not like them, and bring back their coal mining and steel working jobs. They have been brainwashed by his lies and have a sense of false hope, that to me is very scary.
If this man is innocent, why is he trying to obstruct justice? Why is he so concerned about being investigated? Why is he lawyering up? Why is he so concerned about proving that he won the popular vote? Why does he appoint billionaires to his cabinet that don't have any experience in that job?
PeoplePower: So you logic is that if it can be twisted into something evil that Trump or anyone connected with him then it is wrong?
Jr. spoke to a Russian. You may like to assume he got dirt on Clinton, but you don't know that. You may pretend that it is somehow different to get the dirt from a Russian than from a French radio station, but it isn't.
Bottom line: you think Trump is the greatest liar on the face of the planet and that everything he says is false and/or evil. Any action he takes is wrong. Anything his family does is illegal, and anything the Republican part says or does is wrong. And it most definitely colors your conclusions.
You can answer those questions just as well as I can, and with answers just as simple and non-incriminating as I can. You just don't want to, so will pretend that they indicate guilt. They don't. They just indicate a deep seated hatred on your part.
Wilderness: The German people were indifferent to what Hitler was doing to the Jews because he touted that he was making Germany great again and they would rather be great again then pay attention to concentration camps.. Indifference and denial is much more dangerous for a country and its people than hate.
I'll ask this question again and you should be able to give me a non-incriminating answer. "If this man is innocent, why is he trying to obstruct justice? Why is he so concerned about being investigated?"
Oh my gawd! There it is... the Hitler comparison...
Even you know what that means peoplepower73.
Sometimes Hitler comparisons are legit. Surely, intelligent people can understand the validity of a comparison without knee-jerk, faux outrage. I'm, frankly, sick of that. One can legitimately point out similarities in the patterns of human behavior. Plenty of studies have shown that people will ignore and turn the other way when atrocities are being committed in the name of their politics, or their God, or their whatever. Plenty of studies have shown that, before the atrocities occur, the acceptance of normally unacceptable behavior starts small and grows. It happened with Hitler. It is happening now with Trump. What his supporters consider to be acceptable would definitely NOT have been acceptable for Obama or any other preceding president. I am thankful that the majority of Americans still know right from wrong and are disturbed at our president's conduct. I am highly disturbed, though, that some 40% of Americans are okay with what passes for presidential behavior these days.
Sorry, but it IS a legitimate comparison.
It's good to hear from you again Prettypanther. We have disagreed before, mostly over ideological perspectives - which make for good conversations, but on this one I think your perspective is wrong, and I think your comment illustrates why I think you are wrong. There is no legitimate use for a Hitler comparison in an honest discussion.
The comparison is so pejorative, and indicative of a closed-mind, that there is no room for further discussion - only defensive arguing.
Consider your above comment defending such a comparison. It was a reasonable explanation of the actions that could induce a comparison - without making that comparison, and, was done in a way that was open to further discussion.
I may even agree with your inference that your explanation applies to our current 'Trump' situation. Or, I also may have picked an aspect of your explanation to argue with - without dismissing the entirety of your comment. But my point is that your comment prompts discussion, a Hitler comparison only prompts an ideological attack - or an exit from the conversation.
Do you see the difference?
Hello, GA. I want to make sure I understand your point. You stated "there is no legitimate use for a Hitler comparison in an honest discussion." You then followed with "The comparison is so pejorative, and indicative of a closed-mind, that there is no room for further discussion - only defensive arguing." You then went on to say that the particular comments I made while making the comparison "prompt discussion" while a Hitler comparison only "prompts an ideological attack - or an exit from the conversation."
So, to be sure I understand, you are saying that a comparison to what happened with the rise of Hitler can be a valid point of discussion, but it is better not to outwardly state one is making the Hitler comparison, because the person on the other end of the discussion perceives it as an attack instead of a legitimate discussion. Is this correct? Also, you believe the person making the Hitler comparison is displaying a "closed mind" Is that also correct?
Before I go on, I want to make sure this is what you are saying.
You are almost correct PrettyPanther. My contention is that to declare a Hitler comparison indicates a particular position and mindset, while to offer a comparison of similar aspects indicates an opportunity for discussion, (and also a different particular mindset).
Perhaps an analogy might be more clear for my point. If I called you "A DAMN FOOL!" wouldn't you perceive a different possibility for discussion, (and my position), than if I had said, "I think you are wrong?"
So, it is not that "it is better" to do one than the other, (or outwardly state one vs. the other), it is that one declares a different position from the other.
But yes, I do think that someone making a direct Hitler comparison already has their mind made-up, aka close-minded to contrary discussion. Which only leaves both sides with defensive arguments amounting to nothing more than an "I am right and you are wrong, and that is the end of it!" exchange.
I hope that helps, because I wouldn't want you to think I was hiding behind an argument of propriety.
Okay, I think I understand you, but maybe I don't, because when I re-read peoplepower's post, it says: "The German people were indifferent to what Hitler was doing to the Jews because he touted that he was making Germany great again and they would rather be great again then pay attention to concentration camps.. Indifference and denial is much more dangerous for a country and its people than hate."
He didn't say Trump was Hitler. He didn't even say Trump was doing the same things Hitler did. He said that the German people were indifferent to what Hitler was doing, because they believed he would make Germany great again. He used the comparison to say that some Americans are doing the same thing with Trump--they are indifferent to behaviors that would have been unacceptable behaviors for previous presidents, because they think or hope this one will make America great again. This is an alarming similarity to some people. The comparison is valid, in my opinion, and just because peoplepower used lessons from the rise of Hitler as an example does not mean peoplepower is closed minded. In fact, I think the listener who automatically shuts down when confronted with comparisons to historical events or people, is the one who is close minded.
Heck, I have used the Hitler comparison to teach my children how it takes courage and compassion to step in when a group of "cool" kids is bullying, denigrating, and ostracizing another child. And, unless someone displays that courage, the bullies will continue and escalate. It is just a comparison, and it is one that everyone should pay attention to, because it is human nature for many people to follow authoritarian leaders into unethical (on the lower end of bad) to horrific (on the upper end of bad) situations.
Sorry, I know you think I'm wrong, but I think you're wrong on this one. I think it's those who automatically take offense or dismiss the Hitler comparison who are close-minded and weak. A strong and open-minded person can take the time to consider the merits of the comparison. They might still disagree with it, but dismissing it altogether without first considering its validity is taking the easy way out.
Sorry my reply is so late. Been busy with a new job and other stuff.
No worries PrettyPanther, so we disagree - it has been known to happen before. ;-)
But, in a detrimental thread about Pres. Trump, and referring to his "Make America great again..." slogan; a lead-in that says; "The German people were indifferent to what Hitler was doing to the Jews because he touted that he was making Germany great again..." sure sounds like a direct Hitler comparison to me. So I am sticking with my original thought
However, since peoplepower73, did continue the discussion in a rational manner - with an expanded approach, perhaps I should consider some shades of gray in my opinion. Hmm... but not as many as 50, I am sure.
Maybe it's semantics, but to me, making a direct comparison of one set of behaviors to the set of behavior surrounding the rise of Hitler does not mean one is saying a person is just like Hitler. Instead, it means one is comparing some aspect of what is occurring to what happened with Hitler and his followers. Like I did with the bullies with my kids. I was not saying the bullies were Hitler. I was saying that the reaction of kids [i.e., 1) going along with the bully by participating, or 2) approving of the bully's actions but not participating, or) 3 pretending to not see what the bully was doing, or 4) acknowledging that what the bully is doing is wrong but thinking it's none of their business, either because of fear or because of indifference] was similar. I was using it as a reminder of what happens when we don't stand up to such behavior. Even my kids could understand I wasn't accusing the bully of being as bad as Hitler. I was merely comparing the way people reacted to the bully to the way people reacted to Hitler.
I honestly think that is perfectly acceptable. I mean, what happens when a real Hitler-like leader comes along, and we start the comparison early in the Hitler-like behavior, and everyone yells, "No fair comparing Leader X to Hitler," and then, lo and behold, the comparison holds water but we weren't allowed to make the comparison when it really mattered? What happens then?
Just my two cents.
Geesh! Did you see that horse twitch again?
Lol, you think I'm beating a dead horse? It's because I care about preventing another Hitler and I've seen perfectly nice people vote for a pussy-grabbing, daughter-lusting, disabled-person-bullying, serial liar for president of a country that used to be a role model for the world. It is highly disturbing to me, given what we know about human psychology.
Thank you PrettyPanther for your comments. I'm asking the question again to this forum, but couching it differently. If Trump is innocent, why does he and his cohorts need to be pardoned? Isn't pardoning yourself an admission of guilt?
GA: I'm going to leave Hitler out of the discussion. It concerns me when you have a president, who is morally and ethically defective, who lies constantly, who calls the real news the fake news, and the enemy of the people, who calls the fake news the real news, who's decisions are based on how they affect him and not for the greater good of the country, who uses name calling and derision to attack his opponents, and will not take the blame for any of his mistakes and false accusations, and always places the blame on others. who divides and conquers to protect his image.
I'm also concerned that the "forgotten ones" and Trump supporters who are willing to overlook all of the things I have stated, because they believe in him "Making America Great Again. They are indifferent to all his bad qualities, just so they can turn the clock back to a simpler time when they can "have their country back."
In difference in a country is far more dangerous than hate, because it allows the leader of the country to perform acts that they are not aware of and that are not in the best interest of the people. They say, "history has a way of repeating itself." And quite frankly this man and his supporters, make me very concerned about where this country is headed.
Boy Scout speech was a reeeeeeeeal doozy. What he is doing to Sessions is cruel and unusual punishment.
Sessions, I believe, is very clever. Stying in that position, he can drive Trump nuts PLUS hear more infor and plan his counter attack.
Real good example for children to see how adults fight.
Hi Diane, I only saw part of the "Boy Scout" speech, but I think that, (with his obvious focus on personal loyalty), and, his actions regarding AG Sessions, might be pushing more folks towards peoplepower73's camp.
The camp should be the US of A. Why does every speech he makes turn political? There is soooo much he could have said to the scouts about their buzz words, family, country and mankind.
Diane: I'm beginning to believe that Trump cannot make the connection in his brain that in his speeches he contradicts himself constantly. However others with reasonable thinking can make those connections immediately. What was most troubling to me, was how the Boy Scouts booed his mention of Obama. That shows how much Trump has lowered the bar on being a role model and how even children now follow his lead.
I wondered about the support he was getting. Maybe they were caught up in the moment. I can't imagine all of the scouts supporting him. I sent a tweet to BSA and suggested that they get an apology from him. Jack Tapper wrote about it on his Facebook page. His article included a women's letter to BSA demanding that they get an apology.
This is all crazy.
Hi peoplepower73, The most important point I would make is that your criticisms are your opinion. Whether I agree with your opinion, or not, would be my opinion. The problem is that neither of us have facts to support our opinion - only appearances.
I believe we have seen examples of "real news" that were so slanted or biased, (and in some cases factually wrong), that they would qualify for a "fake news" label. Dan Rather's attack on Pres. "W" Bush's National Guard records might be one such example. And of course we have all seen real "fake news" presented as "real news" too. So, it would be hard to deny there is a kernel of truth in both accusations - Pres. Trump's and yours.
The "morally and ethically defective" charges are your judgement. Whether it is shared by many, or just you, doesn't change that it is still just a judgement - not a fact. But, once again, there may be enough substance in his actions to cause many to share your judgement, or, those same actions may be less than needed for others to make the same charges.
... and on it goes for each of your points. It is all about perceptions. And in politics, perception is reality - even when it is fake, and even when the same perception means opposite things to different folks.. You may be completely right, only half-right, or completely wrong. But one thing is for sure; this is a presidency of degrees like none I have seen before.
Now, to be fair to your effort, and remembering that our only support is our personal perceptions, I can't say that I completely disagree with some of your points.
GA:You have taken what are verifiable facts and turned them into my opinion and criticism. I can give concrete examples of all the "criticisms" I have stated in my first paragraph. The real difference between real news and fake news, is the number of times over a given period that an outlet has produced fake news as opposed to real news. Both sides are verifiable in this day and age. Citing Dan Rather as one incident from the past does not make a fake news outlet.
However, outlets who's mission it is to support the conservative agenda with distortion of truth by bashing the other side on an ongoing basis is real fake news. It turns out, that Trump is allied with such an outlet.
One of the first steps a dictator takes is to shut down the news, so that they can control the narrative. Trump has started that by calling the mains stream media the "enemy of the people and fake news." That is not my opinion and is completely verifiable. The irony of what Trump is doing with his tweets, and TV appearances is recording his behavior for all the world to see and hear.
Well then peoplepower73, if you can provide concrete facts that support your criticisms - let's give it a go.
Start with your criticism that he is "morally and ethically defective." What are your facts that prove this criticism?
And let's skip the real news fake news issue, because we apparently have different perceptions of what they are. For me the difference is a matter of truthful presentation of facts, for you, it appears, the difference is the degree of repetition.
GA: Here is Webster's definition of immoral : "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles." Trump on tape (1) with Billy Bush telling him that he loves to grab women by their pu**ies. (2) After just getting married to Melania, trying to have sex with Nancey O'Dell a married women. (3) Telling Bush that she had a boob job.
Walking into the dressing area of the Miss America contest while they were in states of undress. Telling his audience to "punch the hell out of hecklers." in campaign rallies. Implying to Megan Kelly she had menstrual blood coming out of her whatever. Calling women he attacks with his "counter punches" ugly, fat, pigs, losers, with no talent. i could go on and on.
Here is Webster's definition of unethical: "not conforming to a high moral standard : morally wrong : not ethical illegal and unethical business practices immoral and unethical behavior." Since unethical also includes what I already covered, I'm going to cover it from the business practice stand point. From his book the "Art of the Deal." When interviewed by Larry King about a speech he made, he told Larry he made 1 million from the speech. Larry proved to him it was on 400K, He said in his mind, it was worth a million to him. When asking for a loan from bankers on a property that was supposed to be almost completed, he found that it was just an empty lot. He had his people rent heavy equipment and make it look like it was being developed. When the bankers viewed the property, they asked him why is one man digging a hole and the other comes right behind him and buries it. Using his technique for distraction, he took them off on one his tangents and he got the money.
Obama born in Kenya - Trump claimed to have "high level" proof that Obama was born in Kenya. After Obama produced his birth certificate, Trump never apologized and there are still a lot of supporters that believe Trump, because it is an opened ended issue.
Trump University - Three lawsuits were filed asserting that Trump University engaged in a variety of illegal business practices, ranging from false claims to racketeering. Two were federal class-action lawsuits: one against Trump University and its managers, including Donald Trump, and one against Donald Trump personally. A third case was filed in New York State court.
James Comey - While on a field assignment in Los Angeles, he found out he was fired by Trump by watching it on TV. He had to leave his assignment and go back to Washington to officially leave his job.
Open ended voter fraud investigation - He wants it left open ended so that he can use it to claim he won the popular vote and for distraction of other issues The same for his renewed request of the Hillary investigations
Jeff Sessions - He was the first one to endorse Trump and has been loyal to him through out his time as AG, now that the investigation is a threat to the Trump Family Organization, he is threatening to fire Sessions, because he recused himself from the investigation. This is an ongoing story.
Coal miners allowed to dump waste into river used for drinking water.
Taking credit for things he didn't create - Jobs with Saudi Arabia, the economy, the stock market. If you want proof you can look it up. I could go on and on, but this should give you a good representation.
My View: There are several things that make Trump both unethical and immoral, including: (1) in his words he uses "truthful hyperbole" to exaggerate both positively and negatively. In his mind, this allows him to lie without lying. (2) He uses his "counter punches" with excessive force to retaliate against threats to the Trump Family Organization. (3) His decision making is always based on how he thinks it will affect his image, (4) His narcissistic behavior that gives him the feeling he is entitled to be praised and adored by everybody. (5) His desire to divide and conquer that he learned in military school (from Art of the Deal). He divided and conquered the entire republican candidate field by using name calling and false accusations. He is now doing the same thing to his cabinet, by replacing those who are not loyal to him with those that he thinks will be loyal, until they are not and then they will be fired. I have learned the number one rule in management is if you don't support your people, they will not support you.
How about referring to his daughter as a "Piece of AZZ." How can any father think of his daughter in that way?
It truly is beyond my comprehension how people can view this man as anything but a morally reprehensible, lying, whiny, disgusting excuse for a human being. I guess I just can't put myself in their place to understand their perspective. I try very hard. Every day I try, but I just can't understand it, I thought GWB was a war mongering fool, but at least I could understand how people from a different ideological perspective could view him as a strong leader. With this guy, I just can't fathom how anyone could see him as anything positive for our country. I just can't do it no matter how hard I try.
And, I'm being completely honest here, I'm having a hard time "forgiving" the intelligent people who inflicted this man upon us. I can forgive the uninformed, but he won this election because plenty of informed people were willing to cast a vote for him. He is our president, because knowledgeable people are willing to overlook his nasty, deceitful, childish, and potentially dangerous, behavior. I cannot forgive them. I just cannot. Trump has only been in office six months, and the sheer magnitude of his outrageous and disgusting behavior is horrifyingly clear. It is not going to get better, people.
Once again peoplepower73 you have presented opinions, speculation, and judgments. Even if I were to agree with any of them, I was expecting to see your concrete facts. While I appreciate your definitions, I am not sure they were necessary, or helpful to your justifications. I am sure you noted the "traditionally held" qualifier. Kinda makes moral judgments a moving target depending on whose "traditionally held" metric you apply..
Looking at the first two examples for instance; Pres. Kennedy proclaimed he was a devout Catholic, yet he was known to have multiple sexual affairs, cheating on his wife, the mother of his children. Breaking what many would consider the ultimate trust. Pres. Clinton did the same. Would you also label them as morally defective - with the vehemence that you have shone with Pres. Trump?
Before you jump to the conclusion that I am defending Pres., (and candidate, and businessman), Trump's "moral" behavior, let me be clear that I am not. I agree with you, but my agreement is still nothing more than a judgement. There are no facts involved. Sixty or so, years ago, his behavior would not have been criticized nearly as harshly as it is today. As mentioned, those "traditionally held" values that influence moral judgments changed. If our judgments were facts they would have been the same today as they were sixty years ago.
Relative to your "unethical" charges; would you apply the same harsh criticisms of Pres. Johnson, or Pres. Clinton, or Pres. Obama? Johnson made secret backroom political deals with powerful Southern Democrats to get supporting votes for his failed attempt to manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court bench prior to the next president's election, (the Fortas/Thornberry scheme). In the 1940s FDR's similar actions, (not the "packing the court" controversy), were seen as normal political efforts. Yet today such efforts are viewed as unethical, (like Pres. Obama's buying of Obamacare votes via political favors and federal monies). Once again, by your definition, ethics is tied to moral standards - which change, so your facts are still just judgments and opinions.
You should have left the Comey example out. There was nothing immoral or unethical about how it was done, you just don't agree with his method. I don't even see a "traditionally held" standard to apply it to. Once again, a judgement, not a fact.
The open-ended investigation - come on peoplepower73, what fact can you present to support that speculation?
The AG Sessions issue - where is the factual statement from the president that moves your claim from speculation to fact? Your speculation infers that AG Sessions would have been "Trump's man" in the DOJ if he hadn't recused himself. Is that the logic of your claim?
The coal miner's toxic waste issue - geesh! You have to do better than just repeating a Democrat 'talking point'. You could have at least embellished your claim a little by adding farmers and golf course owners as co-villains.
Here is a brief blurb that I think states the crux of the issue:
"President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February ordering EPA to review the rule, which farmers, fossil fuel companies and property-rights groups have criticized as too strict.
Environmentalists counter that the rule is essential to protecting water for human consumption and wildlife.The agencies say they'll move immediately to withdraw the existing measure as an interim step, then undergo a broader review of how far the federal government's jurisdiction over the nation's waters should reach."
* I added the underlining to note what I think are the important considerations. One being that the "Rule" at issue was an expansion of authority from "navigable waters" to farm acreage ditches and small marsh and swampland ponds.
How does that reality support your coal miners claim as a fact?
The last is just more of the first. All you have presented are judgments, opinions, and speculations. Even though I would agree with most of your points, that still doesn't change them to facts.
TRUMP: Look, Sessions gets the job. Right after he gets the job, he recuses himself.
BAKER: Was that a mistake?
TRUMP: Well, Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job, and I would have picked somebody else.
HABERMAN: He gave you no heads up at all, in any sense?
TRUMP: Zero. So Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself. I then have — which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, “Thanks, Jeff, but I can’t, you know, I’m not going to take you.” It’s extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president. So he recuses himself. I then end up with a second man, who’s a deputy.
(NY Times interview)
Plus, *multiples insults* and "we will see what happens, time will tell, time will tell".
Hi there Islandbites, I have also seen clips of those comments. But where is the factual statement that supports his intent behind those comments was to have an AG that would thwart the investigations to protect the president, or his family and associates?
I might also think that that is what Pres. Trump would expect from a 'loyal' Ag, and I might also think that your noted comments implied such, but that is just what I would think, it would not make it a fact. Someone else might just as naturally assume his intent was that he wanted a man he could trust, a man he appointed as head of the DOJ to handle the investigations - not a 2nd-rank deputy. (I don't follow that reasoning, but can't you see that it could be a possible alternative explanation?
The crux of my exchanges with peoplepower73 was facts vs. opinions. Regardless of how sound those opinions might seem.
GA: If that isn't enough for you, read this from the last 26 hours.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck … li=BBnb7Kz
I did read most of your MSN article. I wasn't swayed from my position in our discussion. It reads as Pres. Trump doing what most politicians do. Exaggerate, claim undue credit, and make over-blown charges. As I have been discussing, it is all a matter of degrees.
Pres. Trump has just added a few more numbers to the scale.
GA: You are right, moral and ethical issues are judgment calls, but they are based on how people are supposed to behave in a society. How would you judge Trump if he did those things to your daughter? How would you judge Comey's being fired, if he was your son? How do you think Obama's family feels about him being born in Kenya?
So you don't believe video recordings and tweets are verifiable facts? You have placed yourself in a position of judging me and Pretty Panther as some type of authority, when in fact you are using judgement calls about our replies.
Trump has lowered the bar of the office of President by his behavior and has lowered the moral and ethical standards for those who want to act like him. I don't care how you slice it.
Now he has tweeted that he wants to not allow transgenders in the military and discharge those who are already in the military. He doesn't even have a clue of what it what take to do that. I believe this is another one of his immoral and unethical acts, the purpose of which is to take the focus off of the investigation. (Notice I said I believe.)
peoplepower73, It didn't take a crystal ball, or a talent for prescience to see this coming. Even as I inserted some agreements with your judgments, and, pronouncements that I was not defending the behaviors, I saw by your responses that you were missing my point.
You presented your opinions, judgments, and speculations as facts. You were wrong. They are not facts. And that is the only contention I have made throughout our discussion.
I accept that there may be intelligent people that do not agree with your, (or my), judgments of Pres. Trump's behaviors, you apparently don't. Or you would have qualified your statements as opinions or judgments, or speculation - instead of calling them facts. Your comments should have included a lot of "I thinks" instead of declarations of fact.
Of course videos and tweets are facts of acts, but they are not facts of conclusions. There are too many other possibilities; the possibility that the behaviors are purposely contrived, the possibility that there is truth behind some of the declarations, etc., for me to conclude my, or your, judgments and opinions are facts.
I too have problems with Pres. Trump's behaviors, but... I am waiting to judge his actions. My opinion of the man is not good, and I don't see that changing, but, if his actions are those that I think are sorely needed in our government, then I will consider the price of his behaviors to be acceptable. That doesn't mean I accept his behaviors as acceptable. Consider that closely. I am not saying accepting the price is approving of the behavior.
Our ideologies are obviously different peoplepower73, and there are many other areas where I think your outlook is flawed, but you will note that when the issue is not a particular fact, I qualify my contentions with "I think," not "it's a fact."
In the case of this discussion thread, I didn't include an "I think" because it is not my opinion that a judgement cannot be called a fact - it is a fact. Or else it wouldn't be called a judgement. Which, you just acknowledged that your comments were.
ps. Yes, on the transgender comment I did notice your "I believe." And I think it was appropriately applied. I don't see anything immoral or unethical about this latest move, and, I don't agree with it, but I can't be sure it isn't intended to divert our attention. So many of our president's actions have left me just shaking my head. I wonder if there is a medical "Bobble-Head" condition, because I am starting to get frequent soreness in my neck.
PrettyPanther: Yes, but it was a good reply and well worth the wait. Thank you.
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter4 weeks ago
It looks like WH people are privately speaking about their past reservations about Paul Manafort. Corey Lewnadoski has an axe to grind. Sean Spicer is going to have to testify.It seems Manafort has a...
by Jack Lee3 weeks ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
by Sychophantastic7 months ago
What do you think of the so-called revelation that Jeff Session met with the Russians and then lied to Congress about it?This is obviously more fake news from the left-wing media.
by Don W7 months ago
I've tried to piece together a timeline of potentially related events related to the sale of a Russian oil company that shed some light on why allegations of collusion between Trump, his staff and Russian officials,...
by Susie Lehto8 minutes ago
"The tables have turned and what was once the media’s favorite message — President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election — has now grown silent.Apparently, it’s Bill and Hillary Clinton...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter9 months ago
Right now it looks like Putin/Trump are in agreement about the hacking. Can this issue be addressed without being partisan? Is the future of US democracy at stake? What are Trump's advisors telling him?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.