• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I’m off the Trump Train

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
cytg111 said:
www.businessinsider.com

'Pure insanity': Intelligence veterans are floored by Barr's 'off the books' overtures to foreign officials about the Russia probe

"I have not heard of so much involvement by the attorney general in this sort of investigation," a former CIA lawyer said.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

Is this how you want to run GOV?
Click to expand...
Yes, i'm happy that the United States Attorney General is looking into the illegalities and abuses of the intelligence veteran bureaucrats and their actions if criminal.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
How about you read this instead? Not that Kyle Griffin isn't, you know, important.
constitution.congress.gov

Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The Constitution Annotated provides a legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution based on a comprehensive review of Supreme Court case law.
constitution.congress.gov constitution.congress.gov
Click to expand...

The constitution also has that pesky emoluments clause that bars the President and others from receiving gifts and financial rewards from foreign entities. So you're all in favor of impeachment on those terms, then? Great!
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Yes, i'm happy that the United States Attorney General is looking into the illegalities and abuses of the intelligence veteran bureaucrats and their actions if criminal.
Click to expand...

Would you not be more happy if it was not vs. an archenemy of the President? Or is your Hillary hate that deep? And when/if it turns out to be a nothingburger ... or rather reinforce the narrative that it was papadopoulos that set the whole thing in motion... cause if it does you can be sure you wont hear another bleep of it from Barr "I do believe there was spying going on" - or elsewhere close to the admin.
Your government is turning into Kremlin-light ... and you seem OK with that. Its just weird to watch someone not appreciate the freedom they were born into.
 
Commodus said:
The constitution also has that pesky emoluments clause that bars the President and others from receiving gifts and financial rewards from foreign entities. So you're all in favor of impeachment on those terms, then? Great!
Click to expand...


What about Secretary’s of State
 
fskimospy said:
Yes but that was an obvious lie, both that she was more corrupt and that he would end corruption.
Click to expand...

Obvious or no, it captivated many well-meaning normal people and still does. Given that fact, something other than "believers are bad" is required if we wish to heal from this divide. Personally, I don't thin that the majority of people that fell for Trump are psychologically much different than the majority of Democrat voters. And I don't say that because I mean to suggest Americans are stupid and bad on the whole. There are functional reasons for us to be susceptible to group-think. A collection of individuals with no group identifications does not a functional society make. Instead, I think our focus, should we desire an advancement of society, should be on building a diverse library of social skills so that we can pivot from the downfalls of whatever approach that becomes toxic.
 
I'll add that I want people with different views as part of this country. We need people who are vigilant to the possibility of government infringing on our freedoms. I think UC and others may struggle to move away from Trump because it seems that certain core values in America must be sacrificed in the process. I feel emphatically that this should not be the case. I wish that you had a stronger leader to attach to who represented the Republican ideals in an honorable fashion.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
How about you read this instead? Not that Kyle Griffin isn't, you know, important.
constitution.congress.gov

Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The Constitution Annotated provides a legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution based on a comprehensive review of Supreme Court case law.
constitution.congress.gov constitution.congress.gov
Click to expand...

Try to formulate your line in the sand ... What would Trump have to do to lose your support? To get you in favor of impeachment?
 
interchange said:
Obvious or no, it captivated many well-meaning normal people and still does. Given that fact, something other than "believers are bad" is required if we wish to heal from this divide. Personally, I don't thin that the majority of people that fell for Trump are psychologically much different than the majority of Democrat voters. And I don't say that because I mean to suggest Americans are stupid and bad on the whole. There are functional reasons for us to be susceptible to group-think. A collection of individuals with no group identifications does not a functional society make. Instead, I think our focus, should we desire an advancement of society, should be on building a diverse library of social skills so that we can pivot from the downfalls of whatever approach that becomes toxic.
Click to expand...

I agree that in a vacuum people are equally likely to believe bullshit regardless of their ideology. I think in practice however due to the impact of the media that conservatives tend to consume, the bias of media towards an imagined balance, and the lack of almost any concrete policy objectives on the right that they are more likely to believe nonsense because they are exposed to more of it. Whether or not that is the result of some underlying difference or just a coincidence in how media networks developed, who knows, but liberals simply lack the same sort of media vehicles such as Fox News or right wing talk radio. Not only is it not there, when it's been tried it has failed due to lack of interest.

I personally think our divide is primarily the result of the fact that our brains are wired to interact with people in a fairly close group of people we know pretty well and mass media has made that no longer the case. It's easy to think that other people are dumb and bad if you've never had them over to dinner. (okay, it's often easy to think so after dinner too, but still)
 
UglyCasanova said:
What about Secretary’s of State
Click to expand...

That would be illegal too but then again there's no evidence of that taking place. You're trying to say Clinton Foundation = Hillary Clinton despite there being no evidence she profited from it.

Odd though that you seem so concerned about the corrupt potential of the Clinton Foundation but I recall no such concerns about the current president being directly bribed by foreign governments through his hotels and other businesses. We aren't talking about contributing to a charity he runs or whatever, we're talking about money directly in his pocket. I mean one donation by Qatar to an organization Hillary gets no financial benefit from was enough for you to write off Clinton but three years of bribes from autocrats the world over wasn't enough to turn you from Trump. What do you chalk this disparity up to?
 
fskimospy said:
I agree that in a vacuum people are equally likely to believe bullshit regardless of their ideology. I think in practice however due to the impact of the media that conservatives tend to consume, the bias of media towards an imagined balance, and the lack of almost any concrete policy objectives on the right that they are more likely to believe nonsense because they are exposed to more of it. Whether or not that is the result of some underlying difference or just a coincidence in how media networks developed, who knows, but liberals simply lack the same sort of media vehicles such as Fox News or right wing talk radio. Not only is it not there, when it's been tried it has failed due to lack of interest.

I personally think our divide is primarily the result of the fact that our brains are wired to interact with people in a fairly close group of people we know pretty well and mass media has made that no longer the case. It's easy to think that other people are dumb and bad if you've never had them over to dinner. (okay, it's often easy to think so after dinner too, but still)
Click to expand...

More or less agreed on this. I have a small amount of training in group interpersonal theory. Interesting stuff. What sticks out to me if that when difference in a group becomes too great to integrate, then subgroups form. If tensions do not resolve, those subgroups become more and more divided and within each unified. They actively reject differences among subgroup members, for example, by attacking those on their side who present differences that might bridge out to the distant subgroup. This changes in one of 2 ways:
1. The consolidated subgroups begin to feel solid enough in their perspective that they start to allow differences to be expressed from within their subgroup. Those differences start to overlap with the differences expressed within the distant subgroup. Then the group as a whole can use this to start to integrate again.
2. Violence.

I'm hopeful that #1 is starting to work, but we still see efforts to resist differences to be allowed within each subgroup.
 
Do not focus on UC (Welcome to the right side of history) but rather on Trump.
Keep it simple:
Congress gave money to Ukraine and Trump did interfere.
Congress said no to Wall but he persisted.
Circumventing Advise and Consent by multiple "Acting" appointments.
These are High crimes and misdemeanors.
 
If true. Kudos to the OP. I see many people in our place of business who have reached similar conclusions.

Rational Republican leadership (if such there be) is looking at a Trump Presidency that gets goofier by the moment. He is not a Stable Genius slinging cleverly designed distractions at his opponents. He is an uncontrollable, desperate dullard in a position of extreme power. He is ripping the foundation from under the party elite. I'm not sure the Republicans can survive five more years of Trump. Currently the Republicans are regurgitating white house talking points - while behind the scenes they are inventing the epiphany that will be their escape route. We will now be treated to trial propaganda balloons until polls show that the public is taking the bait. Then the Republicans will all latch on to some obscure, previously unknown sin and demand removal from office.

Trump differs from any other president in that he doesn't understand any power besides personal power. He thinks that because Putin and Kim don't have an opposition and free press, they're more powerful than him. Obama and George W. Bush, and every previous president, both knew that they were more powerful than either of them because America was more powerful that Russia and North Korea, but Trump, who has never been part of anything larger than himself, is incapable of seeing things that way.

In many cases - perhaps most cases - being a strong leader means leading a weak country. Strong countries push back. Trump doesn't care if his country is strong or weak; all he cares is how much power he wields personally.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
He'd have to commit a high crime and misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

So, High Crime :

"an offense that the U.S. Senate deems to constitute an adequate ground for removal of the president, vice president, or any civil officer as a person unfit to hold public office and deserving of impeachment "

- As long as Mitch gives him as pass, its going to be OK with you?
I wasnt asking you for a technical line, I was asking for yours.
If they were to change the legal definition so that a little pedophelia was exempt(say they knew some Epstein stuff was coming up and wanted to get out in front of it so they changed the text) ... would that be cool with you as long as Mitch and gang gave it a pass?
Where is YOUR line.
 
TeeJay1952 said:
Do not focus on UC (Welcome to the right side of history) but rather on Trump.
Keep it simple:
Congress gave money to Ukraine and Trump did interfere.
Congress said no to Wall but he persisted.
Circumventing Advise and Consent by multiple "Acting" appointments.
These are High crimes and misdemeanors.
Click to expand...

He did that twice. Once this year and last year to have Ukraine stop cooperating in the probe of Manafort.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
@UglyCasanova theoretical question for you and no shame either way.
*if* you could cast your 2016 vote differently would you? What would it be?
Bonus points: What would you today tell your 2016 self?
Click to expand...


The answer is Im sure yes, but it wouldn’t be for Hillary. I would tell myself the push of the nation to drain the swamp is very real. Trump tapped into a very real thing in America. But unfortunately he is just another politician.
 
High crimes and misdemeanors

Refusing to acknowledge Putin attacked the US in 2016 and trying to blame Ukraine.
Siding with Putin over the United States in Helsinki
Extorting political dirt from another foreign leader for personal gain using taxpayer money.

Should be enough

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
UglyCasanova said:
The answer is Im sure yes, but it wouldn’t be for Hillary. I would tell myself the push of the nation to drain the swamp is very real. Trump tapped into a very real thing in America. But unfortunately he is just another politician.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, thank you for being brave enough to answer.
Hey final question because I know I’ve entered pain-in-the-ass territory.
What have you learned and what will guide you next election 2020?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top