The president is a criminal

[Moonbeam]

Personally, the only remedy I see for this assuming I am right would be civil rational discourse which simply cannot happen. People are too angry. Anyone that tries to call for civility and rationality are labeled things like "water carriers" or "stealth sympathizers" and recently "concern trolls" which relegates the position to irrelevance. That is because when people are angry, they want to hurt people. Right now, everyone wants to hurt the other side to protect themselves from their pain.

So, until things calm down, those on the Right will not stop.

What pain?

 

[realibrad]

What pain?

You know when you eat too many chips and you get that little cut on the corner of your mouth, and then you eat pizza the next day? That pain.

 

[fskimospy]

Ill take a stab at answering that last question.

Because the Right sees the Left as being so bad for the country, they are willing to vote for just about anything that stops the left from winning.

The point at which the Left becomes less harmful is thus extreme. When you exaggerate everything to absurdity, reality moves more and more out of focus. In a culture where passion means more than reason (not evidence), those that exaggerate the most are seen as being more truthful. The chaos that comes from that environment causes up to look the same as down as rationality is push out for more passion.

Personally, the only remedy I see for this assuming I am right would be civil rational discourse which simply cannot happen. People are too angry. Anyone that tries to call for civility and rationality are labeled things like "water carriers" or "stealth sympathizers" and recently "concern trolls" which relegates the position to irrelevance. That is because when people are angry, they want to hurt people. Right now, everyone wants to hurt the other side to protect themselves from their pain.

So, until things calm down, those on the Right will not stop.

How do you calm down when the thing you are angry about is that the chief executive is a felon? (and probably a serial felon)

What is the middle ground between 'hold elected officials accountable for criminal activity' and 'don't hold elected officials accountable for criminal activity.'?

 

[realibrad]

How do you calm down when the thing you are angry about is that the chief executive is a felon? (and probably a serial felon)

I really tried to think of how to say this a better way, because I'm sure this will be taken as a slight at you, but the answer is maturity.

Having a felon as a president is not good for the country. Anger has a bad habit of making people become irrational and thus make mistakes. Obviously it would be stupid to say feel nothing, but, you have to be mature and try to constrain yourself so your actions are not unduly influenced by anger.

If you think people are purposely lying to themselves about Trump, your passion will be ignored. If you think they are mistaken, your passion will be seen as an attack and people will put their guard up. Either way, you and your ideas will be dismissed.

What is the middle ground between 'hold elected officials accountable for criminal activity' and 'don't hold elected officials accountable for criminal activity.'?

Why on earth would you say that? Why is it that you cannot hold people accountable without being so angry?

 

[Moonbeam]

The criteria necessary to demonstrate those crimes isn't decided by an internet forum. The evidence won't be click bait opinion pieces.
Trumps guilt has been clearly demonstrated to the majority here, most of you know beyond any reasonable doubt that he's guilty of a long list of crimes. What you should be doing is writing your congress person demanding impeachment proceedings rather than listing his numerous "internet guilty" verdicts.
It's nice to come in here and stroke each others ego's discussing the obvious crimes he's committed, but it does nothing. The information you want to compile to prove Trumps guilt is an exorcise in ostracizing pcgeek because he doesn't agree with you, and at the same affirming that your own opinions are indeed correct and shared by others.

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Greenman, I would like you to join me and not be afraid. It is on earth as it is in heaven but you do not see it. If you had an infinite treasure would you want to share it with me? Would you accept me telling you it is worthless?

 

[Moonbeam]

You know when you eat too many chips and you get that little cut on the corner of your mouth, and then you eat pizza the next day? That pain.

I really tried to think of how to say this a better way, because I'm sure this will be taken as a slight at you, but the answer is maturity. Hahahaha! Thanks for the maturity. Did you feel slighted?

 

[cytg111]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...investigation-trump-latest-jerome-corsi-claim

Gotta keep those wheels turning on the Special Counsel ... it will end up draining ALL the swamps...

 

[fskimospy]

I really tried to think of how to say this a better way, because I'm sure this will be taken as a slight at you, but the answer is maturity.

Having a felon as a president is not good for the country. Anger has a bad habit of making people become irrational and thus make mistakes. Obviously it would be stupid to say feel nothing, but, you have to be mature and try to constrain yourself so your actions are not unduly influenced by anger.

If you think people are purposely lying to themselves about Trump, your passion will be ignored. If you think they are mistaken, your passion will be seen as an attack and people will put their guard up. Either way, you and your ideas will be dismissed.

Why on earth would you say that? Why is it that you cannot hold people accountable without being so angry?

I think you missed my point. I don't believe any of the people in charge making decisions how to combat Trump are not calm so if you're worried about those mistakes there's no need as they aren't really happening. I took calm down to mean to stop acting like the future of democratic governance in the country is not at stake which would be a huge error because...well... it is. So I guess I'm confused as to what you're asking, for no one out of millions of rank and file people to be angry? If so that's an impossible request. If you just care about the decision makers not being angry then that's never been an issue to begin with.

To me the idea that conservatives would be totally down with impeaching Trump if Democrats were just nicer about it seems almost impossibly naive. Democrats spent eight years under Obama being as absolutely nice as possible about things and if anything Republicans got even angrier and even crazier. (remember 'when they go low, we go high'?) Why would that tactic be more effective now?

 

[realibrad]

I think you missed my point. I don't believe any of the people in charge making decisions how to combat Trump are not calm so if you're worried about those mistakes there's no need as they aren't really happening.

I'm not super worried about those governing remaining clam. I have said before that I believe we have some strong safeguards in place to protect our country from people like Trump.

I took calm down to mean to stop acting like the future of democratic governance in the country is not at stake which would be a huge error because...well... it is. So I guess I'm confused as to what you're asking, for no one out of millions of rank and file people to be angry? If so that's an impossible request. If you just care about the decision makers not being angry then that's never been an issue to begin with.

Then you took it incorrectly. Calming down does not mean you don't try to fix the problem.

Think of it like this, in the military, do they train people to be emotional, or, do they try and train them to control their emotions?

Also, my care about those staying rational and to be more calm is directed at the masses, not so much those in power. We live in a society and damage can be done by leaders and or anyone else in the society.

To me the idea that conservatives would be totally down with impeaching Trump if Democrats were just nicer about it seems almost impossibly naive.

Agreed, and I will say that I think you are again misunderstanding rather than trying to purposefully twist what I have said.

What I did say is that Conservatives would be less extreme if the political climate were not so extreme. I also said that they are in large part the cause of that climate as well.

Democrats spent eight years under Obama being as absolutely nice as possible about things and if anything Republicans got even angrier and even crazier. (remember 'when they go low, we go high'?) Why would that tactic be more effective now?

Its not a good tactic to win an election, but, its a much better society to live in. You are going to blow up the country fighting fire with fire just because the other side started it.

 

[ecogen]

Its not a good tactic to win an election, but, its a much better society to live in. You are going to blow up the country fighting fire with fire just because the other side started it.

One side playing nice has led your country to where it is right now. Maybe it's time to try something else.

 

[realibrad]

One side playing nice has led your country to where it is right now. Maybe it's time to try something else.

Oh?

What country is successful when the vast majority of the political parties have been uncivil?

 

[ecogen]

Oh?

What country is successful when the vast majority of the political parties have been uncivil?

What country has been successful when the extremists have been allowed to do whatever they want without strong opposition?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not super worried about those governing remaining clam. I have said before that I believe we have some strong safeguards in place to protect our country from people like Trump.

Then you took it incorrectly. Calming down does not mean you don't try to fix the problem.

Think of it like this, in the military, do they train people to be emotional, or, do they try and train them to control their emotions?

Also, my care about those staying rational and to be more calm is directed at the masses, not so much those in power. We live in a society and damage can be done by leaders and or anyone else in the society.

For the military it depends a lot on the situation. Sometimes emotion is highly valuable, sometimes it's not. People don't fight because the general has explained to them the strategic objectives and clamly laid out the pros and cons, people fight because of the emotional bonds they have with their fellow soldiers. Politics is the same way - harnessing your emotions and the emotions of others is one of the most powerful tools we have for effecting positive change. To not use that would very foolish in both situations.

As for what the masses do that's simply not achievable so there's not much point in worrying about it. There will always be extreme people and frankly all things considered the left has been very calm in the face of the greatest governance crisis our country has faced since 1860.

Agreed, and I will say that I think you are again misunderstanding rather than trying to purposefully twist what I have said.

What I did say is that Conservatives would be less extreme if the political climate were not so extreme. I also said that they are in large part the cause of that climate as well.

Its not a good tactic to win an election, but, its a much better society to live in. You are going to blow up the country fighting fire with fire just because the other side started it.

I think harnessing emotions and political energy on the left is probably far more useful towards saving the country than any slight reduction in conservative extremism that would come from being nicer.

Like I said eight years of Obama being almost preternaturally calm and measured led to the Republican Party spending eight years spinning itself up into ever greater levels of insanity, culminating with the elevation of a corrupt, racist demagogue to the presidency. At some point it's important to admit when a tactic has failed. If that's not indicative of failure what would be?

 

[realibrad]

What country has been successful when the extremists have been allowed to do whatever they want without strong opposition?

Opposition does not equate to being uncivil. Are you not aware of that?

 

[ecogen]

Opposition does not equate to being uncivil. Are you not aware of that?

Civil opposition seems to have done nothing for you, and there are many past examples where civil opposition wasn't enough. Are you not aware of that?

 

[realibrad]

For the military it depends a lot on the situation. Sometimes emotion is highly valuable, sometimes it's not. People don't fight because the general has explained to them the strategic objectives and clamly laid out the pros and cons, people fight because of the emotional bonds they have with their fellow soldiers. Politics is the same way - harnessing your emotions and the emotions of others is one of the most powerful tools we have for effecting positive change. To not use that would very foolish in both situations.

I think you already forgot post 104 where I said this...

" Obviously it would be stupid to say feel nothing, but, you have to be mature and try to constrain yourself so your actions are not unduly influenced by anger. "

You also seemed to have not understood when I said "control". I clearly am not saying to feel nothing. I am saying to make sure you do not let those feelings get to the point where they are damaging your ability to make rational decisions. Harness and control can be exchanged in this context.

As for what the masses do that's simply not achievable so there's not much point in worrying about it. There will always be extreme people and frankly all things considered the left has been very calm in the face of the greatest governance crisis our country has faced since 1860.

Wait, you don't think you can influence a society by shifting actions?

I think harnessing emotions and political energy on the left is probably far more useful towards saving the country than any slight reduction in conservative extremism that would come from being nicer.

The Republicans had the same strategy when they sought out the south. They sold their soul to win elections no?

Like I said eight years of Obama being almost preternaturally calm and measured led to the Republican Party spending eight years spinning itself up into ever greater levels of insanity, culminating with the elevation of a corrupt, racist demagogue to the presidency. At some point it's important to admit when a tactic has failed. If that's not indicative of failure what would be?

Obama was not a president in a vacuum. He may have very well been the reason things were better then vs now. We no longer have a strong leader that we can look to. He worked his ass off to try and keep the country together. I think him being influenced by Lincoln was a huge help. Lincoln had to sign off on actions that he knew would be the death of millions because people let their emotions override their logic. I'm hoping people realize and remember that time because I truly believe we are on the same path.

So tell me, do you think the civil war could have been avoided if the anti-slavery side had just been a little more angry? I would be that you would counter by trying to argue that had the anti-side not be so passionate we would not have ended slavery. Lets see how I do.

 

[realibrad]

Civil opposition seems to have done nothing for you, and there are many past examples where civil opposition wasn't enough. Are you not aware of that?

Opposition to what? That is rather vague of you.

 

[ecogen]

Opposition to what? That is rather vague of you.

How is it vague in the context of the conversation? Your country has two major parties of which one of them are extremists. Do the math.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh?

What country is successful when the vast majority of the political parties have been uncivil?

Don't be obtuse. The GOP has been increasingly uncivil since Gingrich, at least, probably since the end of the fairness act & the rise of Limbaugh-esque rhetoric, Fox News, & a constellation of right wing mind rot "news" sources. After being pummeled with derisive lies for decades it's only natural that people will get angry.

If the GOP wants civility they'll have to earn it at this point, I'm afraid, seeing as how they've rejected it for a very long time.

I mean, what's more uncivil than electing Trump president as a giant fuck you to the rest of America & the world?

 

[realibrad]

How is it vague in the context of the conversation? Your country has two major parties of which one of them are extremists. Do the math.

You said this...

Civil opposition seems to have done nothing for you, and there are many past examples where civil opposition wasn't enough.

The argument against the first is that one civil side may be the reason things were not worse before. The 2nd you would need to explain.

 

[ecogen]

You said this...

Civil opposition seems to have done nothing for you, and there are many past examples where civil opposition wasn't enough.

The argument against the first is that one civil side may be the reason things were not worse before. The 2nd you would need to explain.

You want past examples of civil opposition not being enough to stop extremist political parties? Seriously?

 

[realibrad]

Don't be obtuse. The GOP has been increasingly uncivil since Gingrich, at least, probably since the end of the fairness act & the rise of Limbaugh-esque rhetoric, Fox News, & a constellation of right wing mind rot "news" sources. After being pummeled with derisive lies for decades it's only natural that people will get angry.

If the GOP wants civility they'll have to earn it at this point, I'm afraid, seeing as how they've rejected it for a very long time.

I mean, what's more uncivil than electing Trump president as a giant fuck you to the rest of America & the world?

Man, MLK got it so wrong. We really should not have followed his dumb ideas eh?

Pro tip, Black people had it far worse than Liberals of today.

 

[realibrad]

You want past examples of civil opposition not being enough to stop extremist political parties? Seriously?

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.

 

[ecogen]

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.

It's never too late until it is. All that civility from one side has managed so far is to drive the other side to even further extremes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can't wait until January. Things are going to get real interesting then. There's more than enough material to properly impeach and remove Trump and has been for quite some time and those who claim any understanding of the Constitution would understand that fact. Only political will stands in the way and while it is entirely possible that the Republicans such as Mitch will utterly destroy his party for Trump he may yet come to understand that his and other's actions will now have consequences. If McConnell wants funding for a rubber chicken he's going to have to start talking turkey. If he wants to protect his party leadership then his and the Republican's loyalty cannot be seen as absolute. I'm leaning towards the Senate protecting Trump, but that's going to make them suffer hell.