How can some Americans support a traitor for a President?

[Valjean]

You're the second Trump hater I've seen in this thread talking about restricting people's voting rights! I wonder if there will be a third to make it a trend!

Huh? I'm a Trump hater? I don't hate Trump. I largely ignore him, though I do see him as a threat to democracy.
Restricting people's voting rights?! Dude! I'm a liberal. I promote voting rights. I'm against all the restrictive shenanigans the Right has been working so hard to impose.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We know full well that @Unfettered will not do his own work. He is most certainly not going to search diligently for something he very much wishes NOT to find. His mind's made up, and has no wish to be confused by facts.

He fails to understand how Trump works -- most Trump supporters do, or they couldn't possibly be Trump supporters. Donald Trump has spent his whole life speaking a kind of code through which he always makes his wishes perfectly clear, but always expressed in such a way that he can claim he meant something else. (Remember Bill Clinton: "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is.")

If I send someone a message to commit a crime, in a code to which he has the key, the fact that I didn't say it "in so many words in plain English" will not absolve me of complicity.

Yep, like some sort of mob boss. While practically everyone around him goes down for his crimes.

 

[Unfettered]

Cool so you're not actually interested in the facts.

I just took the time to dig up several different stories for you that all say the same thing, from Trump himself, Pence and other witnesses. And now you're complaining that I'm not spoon feeding them to you?
Somebody who is actually interested in the facts wouldn't be this lazy about seeking them out.

I understand your difference of opinion where my effort is concerned. If you look at other posts here, you'll note that those that include quoted excerpts from broader material get attention; they get fed. There is a reason for that.

I assure you that if you'll present the specifics of why you believe the way you do, I'll look at them. Because I am interested in the facts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand your difference of opinion where my effort is concerned. If you look at other posts here, you'll note that those that include quoted excerpts from broader material get attention; they get fed. There is a reason for that.

I assure you that if you'll present the specifics of why you believe the way you do, I'll look at them. Because I am interested in the facts.

I have presented you with the facts you seek. Your turn. Show me you're interested in the facts.

 

[PureX]

My thoughts are that some people see Trump as different from a status quo that they perceive to have failed them, so they vote for Trump in hope of change. Some also find that his biases and politics match their own, so they support him. For many, I suspect that support for Trump is a combination of these factors.

Some people might call my viewpoint jaded, but I feel like it requires considerable recency bias and excessive zooming in on just a small part of US history for one to view support for Trump as dramatically different from support for some of his predecessors or, on a global level, support for other morally dubious figures. Why do some people support Trump despite what he has done? Probably for similar reasons as why some people, both in the US and abroad, have previously supported warmongers, war criminals, corrupt and dishonest politicians, and mass murderers to be their leaders. Add to that the polarization that makes so many people vote against the other candidate rather than for their own candidate and the answer becomes far simpler than some would suggest.

The notion that American politics was much better and more principled before Trump strikes me as remarkably flawed and neglecting to consider the bigger historical picture. In my opinion, Trump is exactly the kind of person that American politics has been leading up to since at least as far back as the '60s.

"Leading up to" clearly indicates a pinnacle has been reached. So Trump is NOT the same as politicians of the past. He is the culmination of all their worst traits and inclinations gotten away with. And in this I agree. But this does NOT CREATE EQUIVALENCY. The parties are not equivalent. The candidates are not equivalent. And the differences do matter. Just as a path was followed to get us into this situation, a path can be followed to get us away from it, and back to a less criminally chaotic political disposition.

 

[Unfettered]

We know full well that @Unfettered will not do his own work. He is most certainly not going to search diligently for something he very much wishes NOT to find. His mind's made up, and has no wish to be confused by facts.

He fails to understand how Trump works -- most Trump supporters do, or they couldn't possibly be Trump supporters. Donald Trump has spent his whole life speaking a kind of code through which he always makes his wishes perfectly clear, but always expressed in such a way that he can claim he meant something else. (Remember Bill Clinton: "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is.")

If I send someone a message to commit a crime, in a code to which he has the key, the fact that I didn't say it "in so many words in plain English" will not absolve me of complicity.

I'll never search for that which observation compels me does not exist. And if the matter here is one of divining "how Trump works" by superimposing my own imaginings onto things he says and does, or if it is about my decrypting esoteric "codes" being used in open-air addresses to millions of viewers, which I then can use to properly interpret all his actions over the decades then yes, I submit to the conclusions offered here about my laziness. If, on the other hand, the matter here is about speech and actions being measured against a commonly known, definable, standard of law and justice, then the minute I hear or see the speech or act that appears to offend that standard, I'll have cause to go back and look again, but not to confirm what I think I observed, but to ensure that my judgement is just.

Let's all just present what we have and allow others to make up their own minds. We don't have to get upset and accuse people of not being willing to do work when the most casual of presentations doesn't immediately result in another's judgment conforming to ours.

 

[Debater Slayer]

"Leading up to" clearly indicates a pinnacle has been reached. So Trump is NOT the same as politicians of the past. He is the culmination of all their worst traits and inclinations. And in this I agree. But this does NOT CREATE EQUIVALENCY. The parties are not equivalent. The candidates are not equivalent. And the differences do matter. Just as a path was followed to get us into this situation, an path can be followed to get us away from it. And back to a less criminally chaotic disposition.

No, I didn't mean to state that a pinnacle has been reached. I often don't see the comparisons between Trump and his predecessors as possible to reduce to "better" versus "worse" either, since that usually depends on the individual issue in question.

Is Trump worse for American democracy than most of his predecessors since the '60s (the period I specified in my post)? I think there are significant reasons to say that yes, he definitely is. He has worked to undermine and bring its results into disrepute far more than his predecessors have.

Is Trump worse for civil rights than most of his predecessors since the '60s? I think there are solid arguments for a yes, although I also see merit to counterarguments. My personal opinion leans toward a yes, although it should be noted that Bush, Jr., started the "War on Terror" with its creeping encroachment on civil liberties and Obama continued the task with his administration's widened enabling of surveillance.

Is Trump worse than most of his predecessors since the '60s in terms of foreign policy? My answer is an emphatic no. He came close to starting wars with Iran and North Korea, but it ultimately didn't happen. On the other hand, Bush, Jr., started two wars, Obama continued them and increased the rate of drone strikes inside the borders of other sovereign countries, and many members of both the Democratic and Republican parties supported the Vietnam War and heavy-handed American military actions.

Going by raw numbers, it is simply a fact that the Trump administration didn't kill nearly as many people as the administrations of either Bushes, Obama, Lyndon B. Johnson, or Nixon. Perhaps there are people who won't view this fact as sufficient grounds for regarding them as worse than the Trump administration, but in my view, it is an absolutely central point that sometimes gets overlooked in such comparisons.

 

[1137]

But isn't it the Left marching against racism,

I dont see either side doing this. Indeed someone I know at a major university just finished a training on how "students of color" require special treatment to succeed.

promoting science,

I wish, neither side seems to care beyond what fits their narrative.

pushing to restore social services,

I can tell you first hand nobody is doing this.

and promoting individual rights to abortion, voluntary euthanasia, &c?

For sure whenever autonomy fits their agenda. Now do lockdowns etc.

When has the Left encouraged crime, violence and drug addiction?

Crime and violence has been highly encouraged since the death of George Floyd. Blue states now openly give out things like paraphernalia to drug addicts, while also supporting pharmaceutical companies who push horribly dangerous and addicting drugs.

Isn't it the Lefr calling for gun control legislation to keep our children safe?

No, because the problem is mental health.

Obsessive talking points? It's the Right that invents issues and feeds daily talking points to the media.

Its both, thats the point.

Isn't it the Left that's promoting therapy and rehabilitation for prisoners and drug users, over punishment and social ostracism?

Like the VP responsible for uncountable marijuana imprisonments and a government that wont legalize?

Isn't it the Left promoting inclusion, equal rights and equal opportunities based on race, gender, &c?

Nope neither side does. See above.

I'm not seeing any abominations from the New Left here.

Because you close your eyes and plug your ears as you are told to.

 

[1137]

<>

To repeat ...


</>

Well said, it's nice to see you gain some self awareness!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'll never search for that which observation compels me does not exist. And if the matter here is one of divining "how Trump works" by superimposing my own imaginings onto things he says and does, or if it is about my decrypting esoteric "codes" being used in open-air addresses to millions of viewers, which I then can use to properly interpret all his actions over the decades then yes, I submit to the conclusions offered here about my laziness. If, on the other hand, the matter here is about speech and actions being measured against a commonly known, definable, standard of law and justice, then the minute I hear or see the speech or act that appears to offend that standard, I'll have cause to go back and look again, but not to confirm what I think I observed, but to ensure that my judgement is just.

Let's all just present what we have and allow others to make up their own minds. We don't have to get upset and accuse people of not being willing to do work when the most casual of presentations doesn't immediately result in another's judgment conforming to ours.

Then it appears that your observational skills need quite a bit of work.

 

[1137]

Quite a list! Got any examples? Or is that just throwing stuff against the wall, hoping something might stick?

Why? If you're not aware of it then you've chosen not to see it. You on the left are indistinguishable from your mirror images on the right who would have the gall to ask "got any examples of Republicans oppressing women?" Yes: open your eyes and stop being a sheep.

 

[Unfettered]

"...None so ignorant as those who will not see."

Can those who choose to remain uninformed hold a legitimate opinion? Should they be allowed to vote on issues they know nothing of?

I've not been invited to "vote" on Donald Trump's guilt. The law has not invited me to participate in that judgment. Nor has it invited you, or anyone else here. Ours is a discussion, not a legal proceeding.

But if we pretend for a moment that we are in a legal proceeding, what judge is going to allow either the prosecution or defense to offer up link to some online article as evidence for anything other than the existence of the link or article? The side submitting evidence has to actually provide the specific evidence, not merely mention that it exists and send the jury packing after it. And even then, if he has any hope at all of seeing that evidence persuade anyone, he's going to provide both a summary of the evidence and a clear statement as to how it establishes the claim he's making.

I'd offer that what's good for legal proceedings is good for us here. Absent, of course, a binding judgment at the conclusion of the proceedings.

 

[PureX]

No, I didn't mean to state that a pinnacle has been reached. I often don't see the comparisons between Trump and his predecessors as possible to reduce to "better" versus "worse" either, since that usually depends on the individual issue in question.

Is Trump worse for American democracy than most of his predecessors since the '60s (the period I specified in my post)? I think there are significant reasons to say that yes, he definitely is. He has worked to undermine and bring its results into disrepute far more than his predecessors have.

Is Trump worse for civil rights than most of his predecessors since the '60s? I think there are solid arguments for a yes, although I also see merit to counterarguments. My personal opinion leans toward a yes, although it should be noted that Bush, Jr., started the "War on Terror" with its creeping encroachment on civil liberties and Obama continued the task with his administration's widened enabling of surveillance.

Is Trump worse than most of his predecessors since the '60s in terms of foreign policy? My answer is an emphatic no. He came close to starting wars with Iran and North Korea, but it ultimately didn't happen. On the other hand, Bush, Jr., started two wars, Obama continued them and increased the rate of drone strikes inside the borders of other sovereign countries, and many members of both the Democratic and Republican parties supported the Vietnam War and heavy-handed American military actions.

Going by raw numbers, it is simply a fact that the Trump administration didn't kill nearly as many people as the administrations of either Bushes, Obama, Lyndon B. Johnson, or Nixon. Perhaps there are people who won't view this fact as sufficient grounds for regarding them as worse than the Trump administration, but in my view, it is an absolutely central point that sometimes gets overlooked in such comparisons.

But what you're overlooking here is that Trump has attacked and seriously damaged the actual mechanisms of the nation's functional democracy. And he fully intends to destroy it if he gains the power to do so.

It's one thing to accuse a politician of misusing the mechanisms of democracy to start a foolish and unnecessary war. I agree that is a very bad thing to have done. But it's another thing all together to deliberately attack and destroy those mechanisms, themselves. In the case of the former, we can always rid ourselves of the bad politician by voting him out. In the latter case, we will no longer be able to do that. As he fully intends to create a dictatorship similar to Putin's.

Both are "bad" political actions and ambition, clearly, but THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT as one will have exponentially worse consequences than the others ever have.

 

[Unfettered]

Then it appears that your observational skills need quite a bit of work.

I understand.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why? If you're not aware of it then you've chosen not to see it. You on the left are indistinguishable from your mirror images on the right who would have the gall to ask "got any examples of Republicans oppressing women?" Yes: open your eyes and stop being a sheep.

From my experience, the ones constantly yelling "sheep!" at everyone else, tend to be the sheep themselves.

 

[1137]

From my experience, the ones constantly yelling "sheep!" at everyone else, tend to be the sheep themselves.

Perhaps. It would be better to judge based on one's actually beliefs and practices though. Politics are a good way to judge who thinks for themselves because only by not doing so can you think one side is good and the other evil. If a republican asked you "is there any evidence the right is bad" would you really feel the need to do more than laugh?

 

[Shaul]

“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”


“As the January 6 congressional certification proceeding approached and other efforts to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function failed, the Defendant [Trump] sought to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the certification to fraudulently alter the election results. The Defendant did this first by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to convince the Vice President to accept the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than count them. When that failed, the Defendant attempted to use a crowd of supporters that he had gathered in Washington, D.C., to pressure the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election results.”



I will return to my previous claim: "anyone that voted for trump should lose their right to vote, just like any other criminal/felon."

One quote out of context and misinterpreted and another (unattributed) quotation of opinion and unsupported assertion are not justifications for wholesale and unlawful taking of voting rights and voter suppression for putative crimes for which no one has been convicted. Indeed it would be the ones who propose such unlawful actions as the ones promoting crimes and felonies. Furthermore those that voted for Trump did so before this putative "insurrection"[sic] did not commit any crime nor felon. Yet your statement wants "anyone that voted for trump[sic]" to have their rights taken away.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But what you're overlooking here is that Trump has attacked and seriously damaged the actual mechanisms of the nation's functional democracy. And he fully intends to destroy it if he gains the power to do so.

I haven't overlooked that; I explicitly cited it as the area in which Trump has been worse than most of his predecessors. It is certainly alarming, especially for a country as powerful as the US that needs to have the person at the center of that power checked by other branches of government. Those branches need to be functional in order to do what they're intended to do in the first place.

It's one thing to accuse a politician of misusing the mechanisms of democracy to start a foolish and unnecessary war. I agree that is a very bad thing to have done. But it's another thing all together to deliberately attack and destroy those mechanisms, themselves. In the case of the former, we can always rid ourselves of the bad politician by voting him out. In the latter case, we will no longer be able to do that. As he fully intends to create a dictatorship similar to Putin's.

Both are "bad" political actions and ambition, clearly, but THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT as one will have exponentially worse consequences than the others ever have.

As I said, I don't tend to think of these comparisons between administrations in terms of equivalency. No, they're not equivalent, but I question whether a perceived equivalence or lack thereof matters as much as the real-world effects of each administration's policies and actions.

What I completely agree on is that Trump is far more dangerous and unpredictable than any of his current opponents, be they Democrats or fellow Republicans. That's where "they're not equivalent" is most relevant, in my opinion, because I don't find the flaws of his Democratic opponents to be anywhere near as dangerous as his flaws and malice are.

 

[Shaul]

The Republican party was on the left, the party of Lincoln, in the time of Lincoln, was a very liberal progressive party as you yourself point out. If the Republican party of today returns to those liberal progressive values they would have my support.

No I didn't point out any such thing. I pointed out that the Republican party did that. It is only your own imagination that wants to rewrite history so that the nascent Republican party is liberal and progressive. The early Republican party was a broad spectrum right leaning party then as it is today. Because fighting against slavery and seeking freedom is a conservative and right wing principle, not a left wing one as you mistakenly think.

 

[Bthoth]

One quote out of context and misinterpreted and another (unattributed) quotation of opinion and unsupported assertion are not justifications for wholesale and unlawful taking of voting rights and voter suppression for putative crimes for which no one has been convicted. Indeed it would be the ones who propose such unlawful actions as the ones promoting crimes and felonies. Furthermore those that voted for Trump did so before this putative "insurrection"[sic] did not commit any crime nor felon. Yet your statement wants "anyone that voted for trump[sic]" to have their rights taken away.

The crook has been a crook most of his career. Well before any 2016.

AS I was raised, choosing a political leader has been about finding someone with integrity to represent the person voting and collective for a given area. Now, it's about who can say what people want to hear over any integrity. No one even does any homework to check on credibility.