True enough.
That is why I am disappointed with the voters who reellected him, not quite so much with him.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Trump Supporters Believe He Is Not Corrupt
- Thread starter Axe Elf
- Start date
True enough.
That is why I am disappointed with the voters who reellected him, not quite so much with him.
But it is only accepted as a regular practice in the mainstream by the right, far as I can see.
It’s truth. I witness and encounter it all the time.
This is false. No more. No less.
That didn't start with him.
(Geeze...you didn't have a problem with Tricky Dick being re-elected?)
We have a long history of re-electing when we should be new-electing.
And keep an eye on 2020.
And for everyone's viewing pleasure....
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The reason I support Trump is if Mueller was investigating any member of Congress, he could find dirt, at the very least, on some of their associates. This would be sufficient to create politics damage. Trump just so happens to be the target of a political hit squad. Trump is not pure as newly driven snow, but he is not the only one in Washington that is tainted. Trump is a victim of selective justice.
For example, Paul Manafort did crimes before he worked for Trump. He was a lobbyist for Ukraine in 2012. This is the year Obama was reelected for his second term. This was two years before the Russians invaded Ukraine.
Manafort was already under reinvestigation by the FBI, during Obama. He was not pursued by the Justice Department, at that time; selective justice. His crimes were done in conjunction with the Podesta Group, which is a foreign lobby group owned by the brother of the former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff, John Podesta. There are many odd coincidences.
Manafort could have been charged in 2012, three years before Trump even announced he was running for president. Or once Trump announced, the FBI could have warned Trump to stay away from Manafort, since he had been under investigation. But the Democrats waited to pin this on Trump. The spin is there to make it appear Trump ordered Manafort in 2012, while Obama was president.
Mueller is not investigating the Podesta Group or charging them with anything. If justice was important at very least all the partners in crime would see justice. The look the the other way policy of Obama is still in affect for the Podesta Group owned by the bother of the John Podesta the former chief of staff for Bill Clinton. There is selective justice that is politically biased.
This selective justice is not so much about Trump breaking law, but about using law to set the optics for negative politics. The goal is break his support base. Trump supporters see this and respect Trump for not caving. Trump tweets about it and then goes about keeping campaign promises.
Based just on the evidence that's publicly available, it does seem that Trump is likely guilty of several crimes.
It seems prudent not to charge Trump when doing so would end up with either:
- Trump pardoning himself and getting off, or
- Trump pardoning himself and triggering a constitutional crisis about whether he has the power to do it.
Better to either:
- give a full report to Congress and let them go through the impeachment process, or
- wait until he's out of office to file charges.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
What evidence would that be? And even if this were true don't you think Trump would have been arrested and hung in the public square by now? I think you're buying into the disgruntled wishful thinking of those that got their butts handed to them in the last presidential election.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Just the verified parts of the Steele Dossier is quite a bit. There's also the convictions of many of his team members; it would stretch credulity to believe that they were all working on their own with no direction from Trump.
No, I don't. It's a bit hard to arrest someone who has wide-ranging pardon powers.
48.2% to Trump's 46.1% is hardly "getting their butts handed to them."
Perhaps they don't teach Americanistanian civics courses in the frozen north.
The popular vote doesn't determine who wins the presidency here. And even
though Trump only won 304 to 227 in the electoral college, close doesn't matter.
He became 100% President, & Hillary became 100% last week's haggis.
All this despite predictions that her commanding lead guaranteed her victory.
Thus, butts were handed.
Pollsters should've been counting yard signs.
They were a more accurate measure.
I think most politicians can be regarded as corrupt in one form or another. In the article you linked, there was a link to another article (How Can the U.S. Contain Corruption in the Government? - The Atlantic) which acknowledges that "Corruption has been inherent to American government since the Founding Fathers—and acknowledging that is the first step toward containing it."
Some might object to partisan notions that "party A" is more corrupt than "party B," which seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
The article you linked also mentioned different perceptions of corruption:
Neither one of these perceptions coincides with my perception of corruption. To me, any politician who favors benefiting the elite ruling establishment over the common people is, in my view, corrupt.
The best litmus test one can use to gauge corruption is to see what the elite support or oppose (as manifested in the mainstream media and other elite circles).
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Yes the statistics post election are clear. Tribalistic white, male Christian's are experiencing an identity crisis as the world rapidly draws closer together and the quantitative fact that such folks are going to lose their numerical superiority right quick.
I see it as a last painful gasp but, perhaps, one we must weather with compassion for the xenophobes. On the whole they are relatively naive about the greater world and the deep commonalities we all share. They need comforting but not a wall.
Last edited:
sealchan
Well-Known Member
What pollsters learned was that they should have been questioning racial identity politics which they weren't. This led to the failure to see the election outcome.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
It escapes you that this political hit squad is largely composed of Trump appointed people following long established standards of professional ethics.
Do you ever wonder why Trumps staff has experienced such high levels of turnover? Trump only understands loyalty, not morality, empathy or ethics.
Or instead of asking the wrong questions,
they asked a non-representative sample.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
It is in the best interests of pollsters to produce useful results. This means that they have cultivated means for determining whether their samples are representative or not. Certainly they are never perfectly representative but there are ways to measure this.
I think your critique was likely off-the-cuff and, in this case, not relevant, but if you have any research to link to that backs that particular possibility up i would be glad to read it.
Actually this article probably gives us both grounds to make our respective cases...
What political pollsters learned from the 2016 election
As we've heard from others, it's a common & cromulent criticism that
pollsters can miss the mark by questioning an unrepresentative sample.
My own semi-quantitative poll (surveying yard signs in rural eastern
states) suffered from that problem. The only useful result it yielded
was to call into question polls predicting the opposite. Reality lay
somewhere in between the 2 extremes.