Helsinki--the Tipping Point?

[jj22]

Except you are ignoring that Trump has been accused for doing what he bragged about by nearly 20 women. So you ignore that just to cover with this "locker room talk" excuse. Not cool. But maybe those are the things you brag about to your boys... But I wonder how your boys would feel about you if nearly 20 women accused you of rape/sexual assault as you bragged about it to them. I bet they wouldn't think you were just "talking the talk".

We have to be better than this as people.

Again, Trump is dragging the character of his supporters down with him.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 10:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: See when we board the hyperbole train we lose any rational discussion. I view his words of "grabbing women" on a bus as a reality star to be nothing more than bluster. This is the exact say way I viewed dude's words to his lover about how he was going to stop something. I do not view them as rape or sexual assault. Of course if you were talking about Hillary's reaction to actual sexual harassment or rape then I apologize as that is not hyperbole. 

I'll have to take folks at their word when they haven't spoken about women in a braggadocios manner in private conversation with a friend. And I don't need any White Knights telling me they have not; we've been down that road, Any actual actions he took are a totally different matter.

I have seen no one in this forum excess Trump's words or actions in his summit with Putin, but you cannot stop folks from what they perceive as defense.  As for my character, I just looked in the mirror and was pleased. 

Well, clearly!  He had to impress Billy Bush.  

Maybe if Trump just said "hit" and then took someone to task for focusing on a woman's looks?  

All seriousness aside even if he was just swinging his tiny weiner around it showed the length (pardon the pun)  he'll go to to make himself look good and the easy with which he will lie.

So you either accept he sexually assaulted women because "they let you get away with it" or you accept that he's a serial liar.  And then you voted for him.

[hollodero]

(07-18-2018, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: And then you voted for him.

Except that he didn't. I don't know why I made it some kind of life task of mine to run around clarifying that one over and over, but it's obviously what I do.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 10:44 AM)jj22 Wrote: Except you are ignoring that Trump has been accused for doing what he bragged about by nearly 20 women. So you ignore that just to cover with this "locker room talk" excuse. Not cool. But maybe those are the things you brag about to your boys... But I wonder how your boys would feel about you if nearly 20 women accused you of rape/sexual assault as you bragged about it to them. I bet they wouldn't think you were just "talking the talk".

We have to be better than this as people.

Again, Trump is dragging the character of his supporters down with him.

Sorry, but you don't get to take the high character train by talking down those that voted for Trump over Hills. Both are flawed individuals, so you were left with:

Cast a vote for the viable flawed person that most follows my political ideology

Cast a vote for  less flawed person that has 0 chance of winning

Don't vote

I've shared numerous times which way I voted and it was because I knew my vote didn't matter in my state anyway.

As to Dems v. GOPs. Trump was the last person the RNC wanted, and Hillary was the first person the DNC wanted. Ask yourself which party gets to take the high character road. 

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 11:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: Except that he didn't. I don't know why I made it some kind of life task of mine to run around clarifying that one over and over, but it's obviously what I do.

Well he claims he voted for neither.  

That's a vote for Trump in a state that Trump won.




Especially when he says he agree more politically with Trump and supports him over and over despite the obvious trainwreck that this presidency is.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 11:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: Except that he didn't. I don't know why I made it some kind of life task of mine to run around clarifying that one over and over, but it's obviously what I do.

This is correct; however, there were 2 cases in which I may have held my nose and pulled the lever:

If I lived in a swing state and my vote could have mattered

If there were only 2 candidates

Sore losers now get the privilege of saying "well you voted for Trump" without stating what would have been a better alternative for someone with a conservative ideology. WTS, I was all in on Jim Webb, it's just the DNC only had one candidate they wanted to support. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2018, 11:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is correct; however, there were 2 cases in which I may have held my nose and pulled the lever:

If I lived in a swing state and my vote could have mattered

If there were only 2 candidates

Sore losers now get the privilege of saying "well you voted for Trump" without stating what would have been a better alternative for someone with a conservative ideology. WTS, I was all in on Jim Webb, it's just the DNC only had one candidate they wanted to support. 

Sorry Bfine, you're swimming upstream on this.  If you don't utterly condemn Trump at every chance then you are a Trump supporter and deserve scorn!  If you didn't vote for Trump but also didn't vote for Hillary, which covers us both btw, then you voted for Trump!  If you don't disagree with every policy position of Trump's then you, by default, approve of everything he does!  You can't win with simplistic worldviews like Dino's were you're either black or white, positive or negative.


As for Trump's comments in Helsinki, yes, they were ill advised.  However, I have a question for the "treason!" crowd, what exactly changed based on those statements?  What benefits did Russia gain and what did the US lose?  I honestly think Trump is trolling people at this point.  Do people really want to go to war with Russia?

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 11:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is correct; however, there were 2 cases in which I may have held my nose and pulled the lever:

If I lived in a swing state and my vote could have mattered

If there were only 2 candidates

Sore losers now get the privilege of saying "well you voted for Trump" without stating what would have been a better alternative for someone with a conservative ideology. WTS, I was all in on Jim Webb, it's just the DNC only had one candidate they wanted to support. 

Someone who is all in on supporting Trump saying they "would have voted for a democrat if it was (fill in the blank)" is just empty.  Especially when their main excuse is they didn't "like" Clinton, so the unprepared guy who claims to never make a mistake is the better choice. 

It's the self-justification of knowing they support an awful person, who most people knew was awful and would not be "presidential" (or even "modern presidential").

And I know plenty of people doing incredible mental gymnastics to defend their choice.  One libertarian is just in fits saying Rand Paul defending Trump is the right thing to do...while saying Trump is just another statist and Clinton is the Devil. 

[hollodero]

(07-18-2018, 11:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well he claims he voted for neither.  

That's a vote for Trump in a state that Trump won.

I'm not sure I'm following that logic. I guess it doesn't matter though.

(07-18-2018, 11:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Especially when he says he agree more politically with Trump and supports him over and over despite the obvious trainwreck that this presidency is.

I'd expect a conservative to agree more with Trump politically, albeit it's probably more agreeing with the GOP politically and knowing that Trump won't obstruct their politics too much.
I don't agree Hillary was equally flawed, but that doesn't mean I'd expect a conservative to vote for her. In that light, I think he did the best one could expect from a right-leaning person in this situation.

I sure agree with you on the trainwreck part.

(07-18-2018, 11:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sore losers now get the privilege of saying "well you voted for Trump" without stating what would have been a better alternative for someone with a conservative ideology.

I get that. One maybe could make the case that at times, it's better to not accept/vote for a certain candidate for the good of the party one feels aligned to, to not encourage them to continue on that wrong path. I behaved that way in our last elections, but sure we have more alternatives and I don't have to go for the political antagonist when doing so. So easily said for me.

But with the GOP... I wonder if a huge loss now isn't the best that could happen to them long term. This whole Trump episode isn't the proudest of moments for conservatives, and it might further corrode the party. Is how I see it.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Someone who is all in on supporting Trump saying they "would have voted for a democrat if it was (fill in the blank)" is just empty.  Especially when their main excuse is they didn't "like" Clinton, so the unprepared guy who claims to never make a mistake is the better choice. 

It's the self-justification of knowing they support an awful person, who most people knew was awful and would not be "presidential" (or even "modern presidential").

And I know plenty of people doing incredible mental gymnastics to defend their choice.  One libertarian is just in fits saying Rand Paul defending Trump is the right thing to do...while saying Trump is just another statist and Clinton is the Devil. 

Well to be honest I didn't expect an open-minded response, but Jim Webb's political views as well as his decorated Military service held a lot of weight with me. As to "not liking Clinton", you do realize Jim Webb stated he would not vote for Clinton, aligned himself closer to Trump, and was a huge critic of Obama's foreign policy. 

BTW, care to share who you voted for so I can call you a liar? 

[hollodero]

(07-18-2018, 11:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for Trump's comments in Helsinki, yes, they were ill advised.  However, I have a question for the "treason!" crowd, what exactly changed based on those statements?  What benefits did Russia gain and what did the US lose?  I honestly think Trump is trolling people at this point.  Do people really want to go to war with Russia?

I didn't say treason, I sure thought it was deeply unpatriotic though, but Americans use that term differently than me obviously. As for your question, what the US is potentially losing is the moral highground, the trust of allies and partners. Also, it's yet again a very divisive move, and that's in Russia's explicit interest. Even if Trump were just trolling, that's still bad for the country, isn't it? i think there's a reason a president isn't really supposed to be a troll.

Why you'd ask about war, I do not know. I don't know of anybody who wants to go to war with Russia. There's something in between a military conflict and cozying up though.

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 12:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well you did ask should this one incident change the vote of a rational person. Then go on to point to different incidences and repeated behavior. So did you you mean this one incident or did you mean other incidences and/or repeated incidences or are you just making this up as you go along?  

This is not an either/or. It is easy to imagine more than one scenario built around ONE INCIDENT. Don't you do that automatically with questions like this?

1. Imagine Trump has not done badly for two years, then suddenly, it is discovered that he arranged to scuttle a B-2 on a runway in Russia so they could get the technology, in return for a Trump tower in Moscow. Even Devon Nunes is not likely to say "Well, that's just one incident."  So clearly if ONE incident reached the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, it could change the vote of a rational person.

2. Then there is the straw that broke the camel's back: imagine Trump has another summit, this time with Xi, and screws up again. People who forgave him for Singapore and Helsinki might now find this incident one too many, and change their vote. That would not be irrational. Though it probably was to stick by Trump this long because a voter doesn't want to be swayed by "one incident."

Either way, these possibilities call into question your notion that a rational person does not change his vote over one incident.

In Helsinki we have the perfect example of an incident which could make rational voters change their mind.

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sorry, but you don't get to take the high character train by talking down those that voted for Trump over Hills. Both are flawed individuals, so you were left with:

Cast a vote for the viable flawed person that most follows my political ideology

Cast a vote for  less flawed person that has 0 chance of winning

Don't vote

I've shared numerous times which way I voted and it was because I knew my vote didn't matter in my state anyway.

As to Dems v. GOPs. Trump was the last person the RNC wanted, and Hillary was the first person the DNC wanted. Ask yourself which party gets to take the high character road. 

NO.  When one candidate is incompetent, undisciplined and dangerous, you don't put that person in office of such power and so few restrictions because both are "flawed individuals."  They weren't both dangerous and incompetent.

[jj22]

(07-18-2018, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sorry, but you don't get to take the high character train by talking down those that voted for Trump over Hills. Both are flawed individuals, so you were left with:

Cast a vote for the viable flawed person that most follows my political ideology

Cast a vote for  less flawed person that has 0 chance of winning

Don't vote

I've shared numerous times which way I voted and it was because I knew my vote didn't matter in my state anyway.

As to Dems v. GOPs. Trump was the last person the RNC wanted, and Hillary was the first person the DNC wanted. Ask yourself which party gets to take the high character road. 

The party that didn't fall for Russian propaganda or fake news pushed by Russian bots on social media. But none of that had anything to do with the points made in my post.

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2018, 11:25 PM)Dill Wrote: So a "rational person" could not even change a vote because of this incident, not to mention the many leading up to it and those still to come?

rational=passive with respect to Trump's behavior?  Sounds like the #1 problem in US politics is still people who exaggerate Trump's behavior--not Trump's behavior.

Dude, above is the question you posed. You clearly asked someone to look at this single incident, by excluding them with "not to mention". When it was answered you moved the goalpost and continue to do so

(07-18-2018, 12:03 PM)Dill Wrote: This is not an either/or. It is easy to imagine more than one scenario built around ONE INCIDENT. Don't you do that automatically with questions like this?

So your question was answered and when you found you could not take fault with the answer provided, you chose to reframe your question. 
But to answer your question: Yes. I generally try to answer questions as they are posed, not how the sender whats me to answer. 

[jj22]

(07-18-2018, 11:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well he claims he voted for neither.  

That's a vote for Trump in a state that Trump won.




Especially when he says he agree more politically with Trump and supports him over and over despite the obvious trainwreck that this presidency is.

Many people voted for Trump but refused to admit it.  And now that his Presidency looks historically bad, they definitely don't admit it. If we had to go by the number of people who admitted to voting for Trump, Trump would have got about 5m votes instead of 60million.

It's an interesting dynamic as no other POTUS has had so many of his voters ashamed to admit to voting for him.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 12:16 PM)jj22 Wrote: The party that didn't fall for Russian propaganda or fake news pushed by Russian bots on social media. But none of that had anything to do with the points made in my post.

I don't think the RNC fell for any Russian propaganda pretty sure they were going to back the Republican nominee, but your answer of 
: The party that cheated to ensure the candidate they wanted, not necessarily the people,received the nomination was the party of higher morale character.

And it has everything to do with what you are talking about. You slur those that voted for Trump without providing a logical alternative. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 12:19 PM)jj22 Wrote: Many people voted for Trump but refused to admit it.  And now that his Presidency looks historically bad, they definitely don't admit it. If we had to go by the number of people who voted for Trump, Trump would have got about 5m votes instead of 60million.

Who did you vote for so I can call you a liar? 

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 10:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: See when we board the hyperbole train we lose any rational discussion. I view his words of "grabbing women" on a bus as a reality star to be nothing more than bluster. This is the exact say way I viewed dude's words to his lover about how he was going to stop something. I do not view them as rape or sexual assault. Of course if you were talking about Hillary's reaction to actual sexual harassment or rape then I apologize as that is not hyperbole. 

I'll have to take folks at their word when they haven't spoken about women in a braggadocios manner in private conversation with a friend. And I don't need any White Knights telling me they have not; we've been down that road, Any actual actions he took are a totally different matter.

I have seen no one in this forum excess Trump's words or actions in his summit with Putin, but you cannot stop folks from what they perceive as defense.  As for my character, I just looked in the mirror and was pleased. 

Would it be fair to say that the POTUS boards the hyperbole train rather frequently, daily even?  Shouldn't that be a more serious problem than a few journalists or occasional congress person? It means we cannot have rational discussions about policy, doesn't it? Then throw in the constant lies about and character assassination of opponents. Your best response to this so far is that you don't really defend Trump as you find hyperbole in his critics.

And I don't see why your "view" of Trump's claimed assault should be more credible than anyone else's.  Those braggadocios you have met in private conversation--do they have 19+ women accusing them of assault?  You just made a decision to look the other way--before you looked into your mirror.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 12:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Would it be fair to say that the POTUS boards the hyperbole train rather frequently, daily even? 

Hell yeah and many of his twitter conversation are void of rational thought from all sides. 

Did I answer that one as you wanted? 

EDIT: BTW, I learn some new and interesting terms in this forum. Would the question you posed be considered "Whataboutisim"?