The president is a criminal

[UberNeuman]

Just in time for the holidays! The Quibbler™️ in The Quibbler’s™️ Big Holiday Quibble.

Seriously, he’s dishonest as they come.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You keep ignoring my point, which is that conservatives are angry because of propaganda, not actual liberal behavior. Accordingly, there is no reason to expect that being more civil will improve their emotional state. Liberal behavior is not a huge factor for them because such behavior occurs in the real world, a place conservatives no longer reside.

I've criticized the left's identity politics in the past, but that is because I think there are some swing voters who might be turned off by it. Conservatives aren't the point because they are totally unreachable.

Well said

 

[realibrad]

You keep ignoring my point, which is that conservatives are angry because of propaganda, not actual liberal behavior. Accordingly, there is no reason to expect that being more civil will improve their emotional state. Liberal behavior is not a huge factor for them because such behavior occurs in the real world, a place conservatives no longer reside.

I've criticized the left's identity politics in the past, but that is because I think there are some swing voters who might be turned off by it. Conservatives aren't the point because they are totally unreachable.

If you want to argue that most of the anger from the Right is not based on the Left, then sure. I would say that if you actually think its all shit the Right has been serving themselves that is wrong.

Also, do you really think being civil does not improve things? If you truly believe that civility is pointless, then there are a lot of things that you are going to have to break down in society. I say this, because you start out by saying that its propaganda created by themselves that is making them angry, not Left actions, but then go into saying "not a huge factor" which implies less than 100%.

Also, you should be criticizing identity politics because its wrong to do, and not just because you are worried about voters. That might be your position, but I want to be clear on that.

It also appears that you are in the same camp as me, in that the Left can ostracize those in the middle with their actions, which does imply that something they are doing is likely wrong and that would in some small part anger the Right.

 

[realibrad]

Just in time for the holidays! The Quibbler™️ in The Quibbler’s™️ Big Holiday Quibble.

Seriously, he’s dishonest as they come.

Still to afraid to jump into the conversation eh?

 

[umbrella39]

You keep ignoring my point, which is that conservatives are angry because of propaganda, not actual liberal behavior.

People have been saying mean things about each other for decades. This is nothing new. What is new is just how angry some are getting about it that they are willing to burn down the house just to kill a spider...

I'm still waiting to hear just what the left has done to the modern day conservative that has them SO fueled by hatred they are applauding the insidious destruction of the middle and lower classes (and just about everyone else) just because it might piss off a few a libtards... I don't hate anyone on the right so much that I'm willing to give my POTUS and my other elected reps on the left one free pass much less two straight years of them...

It's really sad just how much they have invested into the propaganda their brains jones for... Just another form of addiction...

 

[Jhhnn]

I would say a decades long purposeful propaganda campaign has been the primary reason, that it played to peoples emotions was secondary.

Playing to emotion was the only reason it worked. It's all about playing on people's hopes & fears & pointing them at an "enemy". You know, the rest of America. Like we're persecuting them or something.

 

[dank69]

You said that the climate was the Right being extreme. That is not true as the Left also is playing a role in the political climate. I am in no way dismissing the responsibility of the Right and what they did. But, to say that its all the Right's fault is clearly wrong no?

No. Fuck no, it's not wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dems were being civil all along until our fellow Americans lost their fucking marbles over Trump. As this unfolds, it's obvious that they blew it rather badly. We tried to tell them in dozens of nice ways that they were being manipulated & conned but they couldn't hear us over their own chanting. They still can't, for that matter, and will continue with that folly because once they're conned, they stay conned.

 

[mect]

If you want to argue that most of the anger from the Right is not based on the Left, then sure. I would say that if you actually think its all shit the Right has been serving themselves that is wrong.

Also, do you really think being civil does not improve things? If you truly believe that civility is pointless, then there are a lot of things that you are going to have to break down in society. I say this, because you start out by saying that its propaganda created by themselves that is making them angry, not Left actions, but then go into saying "not a huge factor" which implies less than 100%.

Also, you should be criticizing identity politics because its wrong to do, and not just because you are worried about voters. That might be your position, but I want to be clear on that.

It also appears that you are in the same camp as me, in that the Left can ostracize those in the middle with their actions, which does imply that something they are doing is likely wrong and that would in some small part anger the Right.

I think we need to be clear that there are at least two components on the right. There are the wealthy that serve the propaganda and there are the poor that consume the propaganda. The wealthy fake outrage in order to sell their propaganda. The poor are truly outraged because they keep seeing their quality of life diminish I would argue primarily as a result of policies of the right, coupled with the outcome of capitalism pushing globalization and automation. The solution of the left is to socialize the benefits of globalization and automation, in other words spreading out the gains of increased productivity. The wealthy on the right don't want the benefits shared out to society, so they stick with the narrative of people needing to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps, and resort to nationalism and party to pass the blame so that they can keep pillaging the profits. They aren't concerned about anger and emotion so long as it keeps the masses voting their way.

If conditions for the middle and lower classes continue to degrade, eventually it isn't going to matter if the left calm and rational, the poor on the right will grasp for any straw they think will raise their wages. They cling to the past, looking for 20th century solutions in a 21st century world, wanting logging jobs and mining jobs like we had back in the 60s, and they can't figure out why this isn't working. Lets just hope they wake up before they double down.

 

[ivwshane]

Still to afraid to jump into the conversation eh?

What conversation? The one where you ask for examples and are given examples (nazis, Mussolini, etc) only to move the goal posts? Or the one where you ask for opinions and are given opinions (the dems history of trying to play nice) and then you dismiss them without providing any counter evidence or reasoning why their opinions are invalid?

Your whole premise is hypocritical as you complain about those labeling others in order to dismiss them as irrelevant as you simultaneously label people as "angry" and completely dismiss their position and feelings as extreme, aka irrelevant. You then spend four pages doing all you can to dismiss what people are saying while never addressing their points and repeating yours.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you are a horrible listener and you'd be better off if you just shut up and actually listen to people instead of ALWAYS playing devils advocate or the forum's chief quibbler. You derail every thread and rarely if ever add to the actual topic of the discussion, like you are doing now (the topic of the discussion is why shouldn't the president be in prison).

 

[Moonbeam]

What conversation? The one where you ask for examples and are given examples (nazis, Mussolini, etc) only to move the goal posts? Or the one where you ask for opinions and are given opinions (the dems history of trying to play nice) and then you dismiss them without providing any counter evidence or reasoning why their opinions are invalid?

Your whole premise is hypocritical as you complain about those labeling others in order to dismiss them as irrelevant as you simultaneously label people as "angry" and completely dismiss their position and feelings as extreme, aka irrelevant. You then spend four pages doing all you can to dismiss what people are saying while never addressing their points and repeating yours.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you are a horrible listener and you'd be better off if you just shut up and actually listen to people instead of ALWAYS playing devils advocate or the forum's chief quibbler. You derail every thread and rarely if ever add to the actual topic of the discussion, like you are doing now (the topic of the discussion is why shouldn't the president be in prison).

He fears that anger is irrational and has become what he fears. His fear is of knowing how angry he is. Injustice causes righteous indignation. Where reason applies is knowing what righteous really is. There is an innate since of injustice and rage that is the result of having your ego offended.

 

[cytg111]

You keep ignoring my point, which is that conservatives are angry because of propaganda, not actual liberal behavior. Accordingly, there is no reason to expect that being more civil will improve their emotional state. Liberal behavior is not a huge factor for them because such behavior occurs in the real world, a place conservatives no longer reside.

I've criticized the left's identity politics in the past, but that is because I think there are some swing voters who might be turned off by it. Conservatives aren't the point because they are totally unreachable.

And there it is.
Drop Fox from the conservative news diet and I gurantee their quality of life will improve drastically.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well said

+1

 

[cytg111]

People have been saying mean things about each other for decades. This is nothing new. What is new is just how angry some are getting about it that they are willing to burn down the house just to kill a spider...

I'm still waiting to hear just what the left has done to the modern day conservative that has them SO fueled by hatred they are applauding the insidious destruction of the middle and lower classes (and just about everyone else) just because it might piss off a few a libtards... I don't hate anyone on the right so much that I'm willing to give my POTUS and my other elected reps on the left one free pass much less two straight years of them...

It's really sad just how much they have invested into the propaganda their brains jones for... Just another form of addiction...

Can only reiterate what woolfe9998 has already said. It is not based in reality but an alternate singlesided fact-free universe portraied by Hannity like characters - fuelled and catalysed by Robert Mercer and friends, Fox, Sinclair, Breitbart etc.
It is a giant mindfuck of the masses and for what? Political vision? For a tax cut? For a tax cut. Its for a tax cut. Bannon jumped the train with a vision, but that is about as visionary as it gets on the right and at that and at best Bannon is another incarnation of a full feldged Anarchist. Some on here says the left has become unhinged. The right has gone off the fcking rails and is in free fall off the cliff.

 

[pcgeek11]

I am personally happy that @pcgeek11 has stated so clearly that he believes Trump should be removed from office should these crimes be sufficiently demonstrated. While I also believe what we know conclusively combined with the sheer amount of slime surrounding Trump provides able justification for any unbiased observer to judge these crimes as already sufficiently demonstrated, I don't think he is deserving attack for not falling in line with that as yet. I take him for his word that he believes a President who commits campaign finance felonies to get elected should be removed regardless of the President.

I suggest we start discussing the criteria that might be appropriate to demonstrate those crimes. @pcgeek11 I think Cohen's plea plus any substantiating evidence that Trump knew of the hush money payments (e.g. another witness testimony, recording, email, etc.) would be appropriate. What do you think?

I believe that the evidence has to be strong enough to sway the House of Reps to impeach the president. Then strong enough for the Senate to convict. The actual wording of the law makes it difficult to pin it down, as it is pretty damn broad as written.

The hush money is going to be a real hard spot as you would need to prove that it was campaign funds and not private funds. I don't think that is going to cut the mustard in this case. I'll wait and see what Mueller has to say about it.

 

[pcgeek11]

What do you expect a Republican Senate to do...The right thing? LOL ! Writing them won't do a bit of good.

How do you know that?

 

[realibrad]

What conversation? The one where you ask for examples and are given examples (nazis, Mussolini, etc) only to move the goal posts? Or the one where you ask for opinions and are given opinions (the dems history of trying to play nice) and then you dismiss them without providing any counter evidence or reasoning why their opinions are invalid?

Your whole premise is hypocritical as you complain about those labeling others in order to dismiss them as irrelevant as you simultaneously label people as "angry" and completely dismiss their position and feelings as extreme, aka irrelevant. You then spend four pages doing all you can to dismiss what people are saying while never addressing their points and repeating yours.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you are a horrible listener and you'd be better off if you just shut up and actually listen to people instead of ALWAYS playing devils advocate or the forum's chief quibbler. You derail every thread and rarely if ever add to the actual topic of the discussion, like you are doing now (the topic of the discussion is why shouldn't the president be in prison).

How do you figure goalposts were shifted? I clearly said the following.

"Well, past examples of when Civility has failed when not in the context of incredible hardship such as huge amounts of people becoming destitute through hyper inflation. I think its pretty reasonable to think that Civility can be nullified when positioned against extreme situations. I do not think the US is anywhere close to a situation like that though."

All of his listed examples after that did not adhere to what I asked for. The reason I asked for what I did, was because the situations that arise from that is going to be far too extreme for just civility to play a major role. You clearly got that wrong.

You will need to point to where I dismissed opinions of dems trying to play nice. What I remember saying is that Dems playing nice was in my opinion a big reason why things were better when they did. I even disagreed with Spy saying that I thought Obama being classy and civil is him holding the nation together. That to me seems like a compliment, but, that is what I remember.

As for dismissing people as angry as a way to dismiss them, you got that wrong too. I presume you are talking about the posts made to ecogen. Seems weird you think I dismissed him considering how many posts were made addressing his points and clearly not dismissing him. That said, he clearly indicates he is angry, and defends being angry as he enjoys being angry and directing it at people. I think that is a useless thing to do, but, to say I dismissed him while making multiple posts and responses to his points seems factually inaccurate.

If you are telling me that conversations should not grow in P&N then I do not know what to tell you. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to find when you fork a topic to another road. The OP of this thread and I were seemingly having a productive conversation. You also seem to be in disagreement with the OP as to the point of his thread, given how he posted this question.

"At what point is enough enough? At what point do you refuse to ever vote for another Republican until they do their job?"

That seems to very much indicate that you got the point of this wrong. That is where I started in this thread, and that was what I have been talking about sense.

 

[fskimospy]

I believe that the evidence has to be strong enough to sway the House of Reps to impeach the president. Then strong enough for the Senate to convict. The actual wording of the law makes it difficult to pin it down, as it is pretty damn broad as written.

The hush money is going to be a real hard spot as you would need to prove that it was campaign funds and not private funds. I don't think that is going to cut the mustard in this case. I'll wait and see what Mueller has to say about it.

You do not need to prove it is campaign funds. In fact, the evidence completely indicates it was private funds. What Trump did here by paying off stormy was give his campaign an undisclosed $125,000 donation, which is a felony. He could have paid her off and declared it but of course that would defeat the purpose of bribing people to stay silent. Being the conduit for this transaction is one of the felonies Michael Cohen will be going to prison for, in fact.

It’s all very obvious it was his money and they discussed how to keep the payment out of the public eye repeatedly. The intent to conceal it is obvious and all other parties involved agree it was to influence the election.

 

[brycejones]

How do you know that?

Relevant past behavior as the best predictor of future behavior.

Over the last two years the GOP majority has repeatedly chosen party over country.

Why expect them to change now?

 

[UberNeuman]

Mama’s little liar - trying to bail out the GOP Titanic with a tea spoon.

*glug*

lol.

 

[pcgeek11]

You do not need to prove it is campaign funds. In fact, the evidence completely indicates it was private funds. What Trump did here by paying off stormy was give his campaign an undisclosed $125,000 donation, which is a felony. He could have paid her off and declared it but of course that would defeat the purpose of bribing people to stay silent. Being the conduit for this transaction is one of the felonies Michael Cohen will be going to prison for, in fact.

It’s all very obvious it was his money and they discussed how to keep the payment out of the public eye repeatedly. The intent to conceal it is obvious and all other parties involved agree it was to influence the election.

So it falls back to Trumps reason for paying her.

1.) To keep it quiet for the campaign sake. (Campaign contribution)
or
2.) Keep it quiet for his family. (Private Business)

Still kind of a gray area... I'm sure it will sort itself out one way or the other.

 

[pcgeek11]

Relevant past behavior as the best predictor of future behavior.

Over the last two years the GOP majority has repeatedly chosen party over country.

Why expect them to change now?

Predicting is not knowing.

 

[soundforbjt]

How do you know that?

They can't buy anything with your words...

 

[Jhhnn]

So it falls back to Trumps reason for paying her.

1.) To keep it quiet for the campaign sake. (Campaign contribution)
or
2.) Keep it quiet for his family. (Private Business)

Still kind of a gray area... I'm sure it will sort itself out one way or the other.

Michael Cohen plead guilty to a felony in which he asserts that Trump directed those payments. Although not identified by name, Trump is an un-indicted co-conspirator at the moment.

 

[interchange]

I believe that the evidence has to be strong enough to sway the House of Reps to impeach the president. Then strong enough for the Senate to convict. The actual wording of the law makes it difficult to pin it down, as it is pretty damn broad as written.

The hush money is going to be a real hard spot as you would need to prove that it was campaign funds and not private funds. I don't think that is going to cut the mustard in this case. I'll wait and see what Mueller has to say about it.

1. The source of the funding is irrelevant. If the money is spent on the campaign and is over a certain amount, disclosure is required. If what Cohen plead to is true, then his statement that Trump directed him to make concealed payments of $140k and $150k for the principle purpose of winning an election constitutes with no uncertainty whatsoever that Trump has committed a felony.

2. This is a separate investigation not under the scope of the Mueller probe.

3. I am asking what would convince you that Trump deserves to be removed, not what the Constitution says.