How can some Americans support a traitor for a President?

[Wandering Monk]

For three hours Trump watched the attack on the Capitol before he called in the troops. That says it all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

@Unfettered I mistakenly replied to the wrong post. It happens. This response is to you.

In the meantime, can you accept that what evidence is available was presented to a grand jury, which returned a True Indictment on the following:

one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States​

one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding ​

one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding​

one count of conspiracy against rights​

Can you also accept that the grand jury, guided by the legal minds available to them about what those charges entail and how the evidence applies, might be better informed about the matter than you are?

And can you also accept that those charges, if true, should be considered more serious in a sitting President (and he was a sitting President at the time) than in many other people, given the responsibilities of his office and the oath that he took, and given the nature of the "official proceeding" in question?

 

[Debater Slayer]

In the meantime, can you accept that what evidence is available was presented to a grand jury, which returned a True Indictment on the following:

one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States​

one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding ​

one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding​

one count of conspiracy against rights​

Can you also accept that the grand jury, guided by the legal minds available to them about what those charges entail and how the evidence applies, might be better informed about the matter than you are?

And can you also accept that those charges, if true, should be considered more serious in a sitting President (and he was a sitting President at the time) than in many other people, given the responsibilities of his office and the oath that he took, and given the nature of the "official proceeding" in question?

I never disagreed with the indictment of Trump or with the view that he's extremely dangerous, so I'm not sure why you're asking me these questions. In fact, I have directly stated support for both. Are you under the impression that I don't regard Trump as a threat to democracy in the US?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Let me, on the left sinful as I am, point out just one of your "charges:" that the Democrats are "failing to keep our children safe in school." Now, I assume the horrifying danger you are referring to is learning the truth about the history of the treatment of other races in the US, and the dreaded ambiguity (however true) of human sexuality, rather than the effort to make sure that everybody and his dog can carry guns wherever and whenever they want, and shoot children in schools. I mean, who cares about that latter, right? The "party of life?" Not hardly!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I never disagreed with the indictment of Trump or with the view that he's extremely dangerous, so I'm not sure why you're asking me these questions. In fact, I have directly stated support for both. Are you under the impression that I don't regard Trump as a threat to democracy in the US?

Sincere apologies -- it appears I replied to the wrong post. I was attempting to respond to @Unfettered

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sincere apologies -- it appears I replied to the wrong post. I was attempting to respond to @Unfettered

No worries!

 

[1137]

Its fascinating how you assume my position is what you're told to assume it is.

Let me, on the left sinful as I am, point out just one of your "charges:" that the Democrats are "failing to keep our children safe in school." Now, I assume the horrifying danger you are referring to is learning the truth about the history of the treatment of other races in the US,

Why would we not teach this?,

and the dreaded ambiguity (however true) of human sexuality,

You mean like sexual preference and such? I mean, we probably don't need to teach it before a certain age, and definitely shouldn't force anything on anyone. But I'm not sure why we wouldn't teach it?

rather than the effort to make sure that everybody and his dog can carry guns wherever and whenever they want, and shoot children in schools.

Well the republicans and democrats both make things worse here by fighting over guns instead of for mental health. Mentally healthy people do not mass murder.

I mean, who cares about that latter, right? The "party of life?" Not hardly!

Seems like all the talking points your favorite blue news source gave you failed. It's almost like calling out the left doesn't imply you support the right...

 

[Callisto]

For three hours Trump watched the attack on the Capitol before he called in the troops. That says it all.

Not only that, multiple persons - staff and family alike, implored him to take action and he refused.

Associated Press: Jan. 6: Trump spurned aides’ pleas to call off Capitol mob

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well the republicans and democrats both make things worse here by fighting over guns instead of for mental health. Mentally healthy people do not mass murder.

And which party, which government anywhere on earth, could guarantee the mental health of all (or even nearly all) of its citizens and visitors? That's laughable.

Any nation in which all of its citizens feel the necessity to always be armed is already unhealthy. The sheer stupidity of thinking you are always protected because you're armed boggles the mind. Your arms won't help in the least against the guy who intends to shoot you in the back without you even being aware he's there. I say you are much safer from him if neither of you is armed.

 

[Unfettered]

In the meantime, can you accept that what evidence is available was presented to a grand jury, which returned a True Indictment on the following:

one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States​

one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding ​

one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding​

one count of conspiracy against rights​

Can you also accept that the grand jury, guided by the legal minds available to them about what those charges entail and how the evidence applies, might be better informed about the matter than you are?

And can you also accept that those charges, if true, should be considered more serious in a sitting President (and he was a sitting President at the time) than in many other people, given the responsibilities of his office and the oath that he took, and given the nature of the "official proceeding" in question?

Response moved to How can some Americans support a traitor for a President?

 

[Twilight Hue]

And which party, which government anywhere on earth, could guarantee the mental health of all (or even nearly all) of its citizens and visitors? That's laughable.

Any nation in which all of its citizens feel the necessity to always be armed is already unhealthy. The sheer stupidity of thinking you are always protected because you're armed boggles the mind. Your arms won't help in the least against the guy who intends to shoot you in the back without you even being aware he's there. I say you are much safer from him if neither of you is armed.

Ask Ukraine citizens what they think of that assessment

 

[1137]

And which party, which government anywhere on earth, could guarantee the mental health of all (or even nearly all) of its citizens and visitors? That's laughable.

Yes this is a good illustration of left rhetoric damaging society.

Any nation in which all of its citizens feel the necessity to always be armed is already unhealthy. The sheer stupidity of thinking you are always protected because you're armed boggles the mind. Your arms won't help in the least against the guy who intends to shoot you in the back without you even being aware he's there. I say you are much safer from him if neither of you is armed.

Of course. There was no violence before guns after all, and today nobody is ever beaten, stabbed, strangled, run down...

 

[1137]

Democracy by Charles Bukowski


The problem, of course, isn’t the Democratic System it’s the living parts which make up the Democratic System. The next person you pass on the street, multiply him or her by 3 or 4 or 30 or 40 million and you will know immediately why things remain non-functional for most of us.

I wish I had a cure for the chess pieces We call Humanity… we’ve undergone any number of political cures and we all remain foolish enough to hope that the one on the way NOW will cure almost everything.

Fellow citizens, the problem never was the Democratic System, the problem is You.

 

[Unfettered]

Any nation in which all of its citizens feel the necessity to always be armed is already unhealthy.

It's not about always being armed, it's about always having the right to arm oneself when it is judged necessary—the right to exercise judgment and direct that judgment to action. That's what's on the table, at least fundamentally. It gets subdivided from there, with arguments about which guns are the most dangerous, etc. Those arguments distract from the main issue.

Anyway, just thought I'd make that monumentally critical distinction.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes this is a good illustration of left rhetoric damaging society.

Of course. There was no violence before guns after all, and today nobody is ever beaten, stabbed, strangled, run down...

Don't miss the point. On the subject of gun violence, the U.S. is an outlier. Oh, there are violent nations to the south of you, but around the world, the U.S. compares extremely badly.

 

[1137]

Don't miss the point. On the subject of gun violence, the U.S. is an outlier. Oh, there are violent nations to the south of you, but around the world, the U.S. compares extremely badly.

View attachment 83100

The point is that mentally healthy people dont commit mass violence.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The point is that mentally healthy people dont commit mass violence.

A No True Scotsman if ever I heard one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The point is that mentally healthy people dont commit mass violence.

Okay, then the U.S. must have more mentally unhealthy people than all those nations to the right of it on that graph. Correct?

 

[1137]

A No True Scotsman if ever I heard one.

How ?

 

[1137]

Okay, then the U.S. must have more mentally unhealthy people than all those nations to the right of it on that graph. Correct?

The chart isn't very descriptive. For instance does an act of self defense involving a gun get added to the graph?