Trump's Second Impeachment - A jump to conclusions

[Windwalker]

"Optimism"?
Nay, tis cynicism. I don't give people credit for such sophisticated
manipulation of others.

Well, cynicism is just the flip side of denialism and is for all intents and purposes the exact same thing. In this particular case, you denying that Trump is gaslighting people, I hear as optimism. You are giving far more benefit of the doubt than he deserves.

You doubt he has the skill set for that type of manipulation? It's not a matter of shrewdness and cunning, but a matter of course for those with with a narcissistic personality disorder type symptoms exhibit. It's how they do things. Make others doubt their sanity in seeing the obvious before their own eyes. They don't have to be particularly intelligent to do that. They just do it, because they are good studies of manipulating others to get what they want.

Their actually believing loopy things
bespeaks my low opinion of them.

I think this is an interesting article worth your read, as well as it was worth my own time reading the other night. It goes into how people, average and well-meaning people, fall prey to those who spread the Big Lies.

The Art of the Lie? The Bigger the Better

I think you've just bought into vapid feminist jargon that justifies
feeling all the more a victim of someone who dares have a
different opinion.
I disagree about things...I'm not out to drive anyone crazy.

Now that is pure cynicism here. I've never once imagined, nor thought of recognizing gaslighting as a "feminist" issue. That's curious. But be assured, even if that would mean something negative to you, it has nothing to do with my own observations, or influences. I know what I am seeing. I have seen it before many times.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Believing that the elections were stolen doesn't mean you need to resort to violence anymore than believing that systemic racism exists in America. Sure, these issues would enrage a lot of people, but that alone can't be a reason to ban or target such speech otherwise, that becomes a slippery slope from speaking out against a lot of things.

In Trump's case specifically, his followers can take in all of his information and choose to protest or "fight" peacefully or lawfully. Some may react by resorting to violence, but unless Trump intended that or said literally, go shoot x,y,z then we shouldn't blame him for that.

Well, that is what criminal neglect is for. He should have know it would happen. It is for the totally of what has been said, where it would lead. It is in human nature, that some people would act as they did and Trump brought that about with his lies about a stolen election and the ambiguity of some of his words.

And now remember, this is not a criminal trial. So your standard of standard criminal law doesn't apply.
Trump is guilty, because either he intended it or he is too stupid to understand the consequence of his words in toto.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, cynicism is just the flip side of denialism and is for all intents and purposes the exact same thing. In this particular case, you denying that Trump is gaslighting people, I hear as optimism. You are giving far more benefit of the doubt than he deserves.

You would have to make the case that Trump doesn't
actually believe his claims. He could very well be that
divorced from reality.
Still, it's possible that he's tricking MAGAs into believing
a faux conspiracy & coup.

You doubt he has the skill set for that type of manipulation? It's not a matter of shrewdness and cunning, but a matter of course for those with with a narcissistic personality disorder type symptoms exhibit. It's how they do things. Make others doubt their sanity in seeing the obvious before their own eyes. They don't have to be particularly intelligent to do that. They just do it, because they are good studies of manipulating others to get what they want.


I think this is an interesting article worth your read, as well as it was worth my own time reading the other night. It goes into how people, average and well-meaning people, fall prey to those who spread the Big Lies.

The Art of the Lie? The Bigger the Better


Now that is pure cynicism here. I've never once imagined, nor thought of recognizing gaslighting as a "feminist" issue. That's curious. But be assured, even if that would mean something negative to you, it has nothing to do with my own observations, or influences. I know what I am seeing. I have seen it before many times.

"Gaslighting" is an over-used faux claim made
popular by the loonier elements in feminism.
I've been accused of it here. Why?
Mere disagreement over issues & observations.
(I guarantee I intended no attack on mental health.)
You have your observations. I question some of them.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

Well, that is what criminal neglect is for. He should have know it would happen. It is for the totally of what has been said, where it would lead. It is in human nature, that some people would act as they did and Trump brought that about with his lies about a stolen election and the ambiguity of some of his words.

If I were to follow your logic, then we would not be able to speak about hot button issues out of fear that it could enrage someone and lead him or her to commit violence. That includes matters of race, politics, religion, etc. That's obviously not a good standard to follow.

You bring up criminal neglect, and I'd like to hear a debate on it before deciding on it. I can agree that Trump would know that some may resort to violence, but does that mean that he remains silent and not express his views? Is it up to him to determine how someone reacts, especially when he's not advocating for violence, implicitly or explicitly? What if impeaching resorts leads to violence - then don't do it out of fear? You might then say that impeachment though is a good thing, but I would also say that allowing people to believe what they want (as opposed to acts of violence) is also a good thing.

And now remember, this is not a criminal trial. So your standard of standard criminal law doesn't apply.
Trump is guilty, because either he intended it or he is too stupid to understand the consequence of his words in toto.

This is not a criminal trial, but can you at least consider it for debate here. For a debate, I presume that you accept that going by logic and evidence is a good thing. If someone asks me, if Trump incited a riot, wouldn't it be rational to offer a view that is based on logic and evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

Your optimism at times is so saccharine, it borders upon denialism. Just remember, it was you who poo-pooed those of us who knew Trump was not going to concede, long, long ago, before the election as "hysterical". This is no different.

This should be something to please both of us.
In the news today...
The Trumps are reportedly preparing to move out of the White House

Rumors Trump is starting to move out of White House as boxes & photo taken out

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But isn't that what we are seeing him attempting to do with us? "It was a perfect phone call"; "Everything I said [at the insecurrection] was appropriate". It takes those who try to give the benefit of the doubt, and brazenly lies to them. That manipulation may not work with everyone, but these lies are not targeted for them, but to those he can convince that the doubts they may have about him, are not real. If they have them, there's something wrong with them, and that is where loyalty tests and such apply.

He's speaking to his audience. He's very self-centered. He lies because he knows the cheering horde before him will believe anything he says. He's not challenging their view of the world, he's creating it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is more of a post to challenge those who believe that Trump should be impeached.

There are a lot of "extras" that should be taken into consideration in some capacity. Such as Trump literally attempting to bully Pence into "simply" reversing the electoral college results upon announcement. Trump has shown he was basically willing to go to great lengths - many of them not according to the constitution nor lawful - to get his way in this. As someone else already said, the rioters/capitol-invaders likely had Trump's tacit approval. He would never say such out loud, and he would be careful to make sure he had a back-door out of such allegations - something he has done time and time again ("Proud Boys stand back and stand by" comes to mind). With Trump you simply always need to be on your guard for dishonesty. In fact, you should expect it. In every single instance you are talking to him about anything of any importance, you should literally expect him to be dishonest.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your optimism at times is so saccharine, it borders upon denialism. Just remember, it was you who poo-pooed those of us who knew Trump was not going to concede, long, long ago, before the election as "hysterical". This is no different.

There is a medium place between cynicism and denialism, one that gives the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't not shy away from calling out a lie when they know it. Yes, Trump is gaslighting his followers, and those in the middle who are unsure of themselves facing a manipulator of his level. And no, once again, this is not being hysterical.

He didn't concede. That doesn't mean he was the next Hitler or was intent on trying to stay in office. He's leaving, his fights to overturn the election weren't full efforts of what he could do, he's always known it's over. But in his world he is in charge, and he's about to go back into his world where he personal approves of the cuts and edits.
He's a con and a showman. Nothing more.

 

[Windwalker]

You would have to make the case that Trump doesn't
actually believe his claims. He could very well be that
divorced from reality.

I suspect that Trump begins with a lie, ad libbing his way pulling from his bag of tried and true tricks that seem to work for him. He then repeats the lie, and makes it a reality for others. He then himself now inhabits that truth he created. He then programs himself to maintain that illusion, and next he becomes delusional, believing in his own completely fabricated reality.

It helps him to suck people in with him, through his charismatic personality to maintain the delusion. The end goal, is to find believers in him to reinforce his reality with himself at the center. Like the gravity of a giant black hole, with everything being consumed by his ego.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I think it goes.

"Gaslighting" is an over-used faux claim made
popular by the loonier elements in feminism.

I could care less. There are lots of perfectly suitable terms that get over worked. Like the word "God". When I use that term, I sure am not meaning what fundamentalists mean when they use God to mean something associated with themselves. The over-politicizing of words, is no reason to not use it when it is a recognized term and has meaning, especially when it's defined as a term in psychology. Psychology is not feminism.

I've been accused of it here. Why?

Not by me. I hope that wasn't inferred by something I said.

 

[Windwalker]

This should be something to please both of us.
In the news today...
The Trumps are reportedly preparing to move out of the White House

Rumors Trump is starting to move out of White House as boxes & photo taken out

I'll steal some of your optimism. I sure as hell hope that's happening.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not by me. I hope that wasn't inferred by something I said.

No such implication.
But I thought you should know how the term is so often wielded.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll steal some of your optimism. I sure as hell hope that's happening.

I predicted it.
I'm on a roll.
So have some.

 

[Windwalker]

He didn't concede. That doesn't mean he was the next Hitler or was intent on trying to stay in office. He's leaving, his fights to overturn the election weren't full efforts of what he could do, he's always known it's over. But in his world he is in charge, and he's about to go back into his world where he personal approves of the cuts and edits.
He's a con and a showman. Nothing more.

I would agree he's a con and a showman, but given the taste of power he has had now, he is something more than just that. I would not say he is a Hitler, but others who have studied autocrats align him more with Mussolini. He most certainly has been trying to shuffle everything he could to try to stay in power, following the dictator's hand from the beginning. One wonders if it's just some intuitive pattern they all follow historically, Trump being no exception to that pattern.

I personally believe he very much wanted to create such a disruption, and such a schism to happen on Jan. 6, that it was just his "throw it hard at the wall and see where the splatter lands" maneuver, hoping, in some mad delusional way, that enough rising up in the house would throw the Republic into such a tailspin, he would in fact declare himself the winner and set himself up as president. But he wasn't that skilled to pull it off.

I think it's a mistake if we underestimate his danger, even though it's tempting to not want to really believe it. Myself included.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

These are pretty weak examples, and nothing compared to the years of villifying and demonization of Democrats by Republicans--and certainly nothing compared to Trump and his allies who literally call for shooting, hanging etc of their political enemies.

How about this one said during BLM protests:

"Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) called on Americans to crank up “unrest in the streets” in a weekend interview on MSNBC.
“You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”"
Source: Rep. Pressley Calls on Americans to Crank Up ‘Unrest in the Streets for As Long As There’s Unrest in Our Lives’ (msn.com)

Impeach?

 

[Orbit]

How about this one said during BLM protests:View attachment 46937

"Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) called on Americans to crank up “unrest in the streets” in a weekend interview on MSNBC.
“You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”"
Source: Rep. Pressley Calls on Americans to Crank Up ‘Unrest in the Streets for As Long As There’s Unrest in Our Lives’ (msn.com)

Impeach?

So sad. False equivalence. No go.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

So sad. False equivalence. No go.

Please elaborate. I'd like to see a logical explanation as to why calling for or encouraging unrest in an already heated situation is not inciting in comparison to what Trump did.

 

[Orbit]

Capitol riot suspect Jacob Chansley, known as the "Qanon shaman," is asking for a pardon from President Trump, saying he believed Trump had invited him to enter the Capitol, says his attorney. My client "felt he was answering the call of our President," says Albert Watkins. (via CNN).

 

[Orbit]

Please elaborate. I'd like to see a logical explanation as to why calling for or encouraging unrest in an already heated situation is not inciting in comparison to what Trump did.

'Kill him with his own gun': Police describe facing the mob at the Capitol - CNNPolitics

Sedition is sedition. BLM did not try to overthrow the government.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

'Kill him with his own gun': Police describe facing the mob at the Capitol - CNNPolitics

Sedition is sedition. BLM did not try to overthrow the government.

You did not deny that the Democrat Representative was inciting violence when I pressed you on it. Instead, your focus is on the target of the violence. I would've thought that all violence was bad. You see this is why I suspect that some Democrats are not really against violence, but rather they are only against it when it doesn't support their cause or their group.

If I recall correctly, BLM protestors tried to make their way to the White House. What do you think they were going to do at the White House? Plant flowers?

Capitol riot suspect Jacob Chansley, known as the "Qanon shaman," is asking for a pardon from President Trump, saying he believed Trump had invited him to enter the Capitol, says his attorney. My client "felt he was answering the call of our President," says Albert Watkins. (via CNN).

I question if Jacob's belief was reasonable given the fact that many protestors did not enter the Capitol after hearing the same speech. Also, Trump clearly said that protests needed to be "peaceful". I still fail to see how Trump should be held responsible when some decided to do things beyond or contrary to what he advocated for.

 

[Lyndon]

Were you living in a cave? All the Democratic leaders came out against the looting and violence, end of story.