Helsinki--the Tipping Point?

[Dill]

(07-17-2018, 09:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know. To me, that depends on the bfines, Sunsets and SSF's etc. of this world, figures I of course regard as some kind of allegoric entities representing a certain part of America. Yeah not really, they are just dudes with brains, but I guess those will decide Trump's fate in the end. If they start to fully turn against him, the electoral majority will slip.

Will they turn? I doubt it. There's still Maxine Waters, and that would be what they'd have to turn to. And tomorrow Trump maybe bombs some bad folks that more or less deserve it, and Helsinki will be past and you and I are back to being called deranged again. It's not like Trump didn't go that route with Putin before. He already said that it could also have been Tschaina, that Putin assured him he didn't do it and that he gets offended by the allegations by now. Those statements probably aren't that much less worse, but pretty much forgotten still.

All the "deplorables" who do know exactly what Breitbart is are lost anyway. I see the "he could shoot a guy (or Comey) and not lose support" as pretty much accurate for those people. The narrative that the real crazy america-hating enemy is within the own country and votes blue runs far too deep and beats every possible argument from the start. I'm sure Breitbart etc. will soon discover that Russia is good, the radical leftists+MSM+deep state is hateful and warmongering and that's that. Good enough for sure.

Remember, the same was true in several instances before. And people always tought that's it. From Grabbing to Charlottesville etc. Always rock bottom, never a real problem.

I don't know. I agree with your perception of Trump, but Helsinki didn't really alter or change my mind about him to begin with. What drives those who didn't share our perspective on him before, I dare not say.

Then again, foxy lady and her friends had to sit through an awful, cringeworthy live interview with Trump and still managed to not be forever shamed and disgusted. And who gets through that can get through anything to come through for Trump.

Excellent points, as usual. (Though I'm pretty sure SSF will say he is NOT a Trump defender, just a guy who calls out "extremists" on "both sides," so he cannot turn against him.)

A celebrity p-grabber is still an alpha male, and Charlottesville showed Trump does not kow tow to political correctness. If you are hard right, you want a tough guy facing down Putin on the international stage, right? That's why you look past what wussy liberals call bad behavior. National security and strong leadership are a priority.

What I see different about Helsinki, though, is that it shows Trump as weak, a REAL strongman's *****, which is worse than incompetent to a base that generally does not prize or (sometimes) even recognize incompetence.  That was the First Diplomat and representative of the whole nation up there doing what Putin wanted, at the expense of his own government and people--something NO ONE on his own staff or in Congress or at Fox News would have done.

Also, when Fox runs a title like "Putin eats Trump's lunch," that is hard to walk back. Not as humiliating as getting beat by a girl, but Russia's leader is clearly the master of Trump as he never was of Obama. That has to trouble people who stress "strength" over competence. And most of all it troubles the unstable Trump who, if I am right about his personality, must now "punch back twice as hard," all around him but not at Putin, to show he is not weak. He might quiet down a day or two, as he did after the Hollywood access tape, but his staff and cabinet can expect the worst in weeks to come. (So I predict.) I am thinking his staff might also plan some tuff-sounding rhetoric for him over the next week to show he is not in Putin's pocket. Any real pushback will have to come from Congress though.

[Bengalholic]

(07-17-2018, 10:07 PM)Nately120 Wrote: We elected a guy who had no political experience and now he's looking like the most clueless politician that ever lived.  What are the odds?

The fact that he wasn't an 'experienced politician' doesn't really seem to fly when it comes to him completely ignoring his own Intel community and law enforcement Directors, most of which, he appointed / hired. That just seems like something more than simple stupidity or ineptness.

IDK man, he had to know what the incredible backlash would be if he defended or sided with Putin, yet he did it anyway.

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2018, 09:46 PM)Dill Wrote: He apologized for the Hollywood Access tape. But as a "strong" leader who was going to show us how easy it all is, will he admit to bad political judgment on the foreign policy stage?

Can anything more than "outrage" follow from rational folks? Will that translate into a message vote in 2018 or a shrug?

As to what he did as a reality star; I'll view it in a different lenses that I do his words as POTUS, so I do not find Hollywood access (did you feel a little silly typing that?) to be relevant.

No; nothing more than outrage can really follow from a rational person. I have heard folks equate it to Pearl Harbor, Cuban Missile Crisis, and other happenings, but I do not consider that ilk to be rational. Not unlike a few in this forum.  

[*Nately120*]

(07-17-2018, 10:22 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The fact that he wasn't an 'experienced politician' doesn't really fly when it comes to him completely ignoring his own Intel community and law enforcement Directors, most of which, he appointed / hired. That just seems like something more than simple stupidity or ineptness.

IDK man, he had to know what the incredible backlash would be if he defended or sided with Putin, yet he did it anyway.

I hear ya, but he's Trump being Trump.  We elected Donald Trump to be our president...what else needs to be said?  My issue isn't with Trump so much as it is with people who seemed to legitimately embrace his negative characteristics as "just what the doctor ordered" for what they were conditioned to believe was a hell hole of a weak-ass USA due to a mere 8 years of liberal dictatorship.

[GMDino]

(07-17-2018, 10:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I heard some folks talking about this a little, recently. One of the theories is that Trump just doesn't want to run any risk of seeming like he didn't win on his own accord. But these folks brought up a good point in that Trump has been more friendly to Putin pre-2016. He has been friendly with Putin in other realms.

There might be another explanation, but I don't know what it would be.

Money.

That's why there are no tax returns.

He keeps his fragile, money losing businesses afloat with Russian investments.

[Dill]

(07-17-2018, 10:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to what he did as a reality star; I'll view it in a different lenses that I do his words as POTUS, so I do not find Hollywood access (did you feel a little silly typing that?) to be relevant.

No; nothing more than outrage can really follow from a rational person. I have heard folks equate it to Pearl Harbor, Cuban Missile Crisis, and other happenings, but I do not consider that ilk to be rational. Not unlike a few in this forum.  

Well that is an example of how "normalizing" Trump behavior lowers previous standards. But I'm not there yet, so yes, past behavior still says something about his character to me, about his lack of discipline and respect for others--how it is enabled and how it continues. I don't feel a bit silly about that.

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.

[Dill]

(07-17-2018, 10:22 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The fact that he wasn't an 'experienced politician' doesn't really seem to fly when it comes to him completely ignoring his own Intel community and law enforcement Directors, most of which, he appointed / hired. That just seems like something more than simple stupidity or ineptness.

IDK man, he had to know what the incredible backlash would be if he defended or sided with Putin, yet he did it anyway.

That is spot on.

He has people telling him how to prepare for summits, and what NOT to ever say. But he ignores their advice, wings it. Then blames the press and his staff when it all goes south, as his staff warned him it would.  "What about Hillary's server?" That isn't just inexperience. No candidate from either party would have called for this summit and then botched it like this.

I think it possible, even likely, that he DID NOT really understand the backlash that would follow from from kissing Putin's ring on behalf of the nation. I think Putin had a narrative ready for him, knew how to present it, and Trump, all alone and unprepared, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, thinking his base and most of the party would understand how "important" working with Russia is and how unimportant invading the Ukraine was. ("It happened under Obama.") That is Putin's narrative--not the GOP's. And most of the GOP could see that.

This will go down as the greatest and most successful psy op in history. Can all the US security agencies and the DoD and Congress effectively respond to Russian interference in our politics when the #1 "mole" is the commander in chief--and can't admit he's the mole?

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2018, 11:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Well that is an example of how "normalizing" Trump behavior lowers previous standards. But I'm not there yet, so yes, past behavior still says something about his character to me, about his lack of discipline and respect for others, and how it is enabled. I don't feel a bit silly about that.

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.

To be honest: no. A rational person would not change their vote over one incident; however, an emotional person would proclaim who they would.

I get that you and others keep looking for that decisive moment, but it just doesn't work that way and who should a rational person change their vote to? 

And quote "normalizing" all you want but quotes garnered from Access Hollywood in a private conversation while you are a reality celebrity do not equal comments made by a sitting POTUS,  

[Benton]

(07-17-2018, 11:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I think it possible, even likely, that he DID NOT really understand the backlash that would follow from from kissing Putin's ring on behalf of the nation.

Welcome to the uninformed meme generation. I think he honestly believed a lot of the falsehoods about Obama and his interactions with other world leaders. If you think obama was a Muslim terrorist then kissing Putin’s behind isn’t a big deal.

[Bengalholic]

(07-17-2018, 11:39 PM)Dill Wrote: That is spot on.

He has people telling him how to prepare for summits, and what NOT to ever say. But he ignores their advice, wings it. Then blames the press and his staff when it all goes south, as his staff warned him it would.  "What about Hillary's server?" That isn't just inexperience. No candidate from either party would have called for this summit and then botched it like this.

I think it possible, even likely, that he DID NOT really understand the backlash that would follow from from kissing Putin's ring on behalf of the nation. I think Putin had a narrative ready for him, knew how to present it, and Trump, all alone and unprepared, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, thinking his base and most of the party would understand how "important" working with Russia is and how unimportant invading the Ukraine was. ("It happened under Obama.") That is Putin's narrative--not the GOP's. And most of the GOP could see that.

This will go down as the greatest and most successful psy op in history.  Can all the US security agencies and the DoD and Congress effectively respond to Russian interference in our politics when the #1 "mole" is the commander in chief--and can't admit he's the mole?

One thing is for sure - whatever was said by Trump during his private meeting with Putin was recorded. If there's any truth that Putin had something on Trump prior to the meeting - and no one really knows for sure - he may have even more ammo now.

BTW, the attempt at damage control earlier today - saying that he should have said 'wouldn't' instead of 'would' was just embarrassing. It makes zero sense in context with the rest of the presser.

[Dill]

(07-17-2018, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be honest: no. A rational person would not change their vote over one incident; however, an emotional person would proclaim who they would.

I get that you and others keep looking for that decisive moment, but it just doesn't work that way and who should a rational person change their vote to? 

And quote "normalizing" all you want but quotes garnered from Access Hollywood in a private conversation while you are a reality celebrity do not equal comments made by a sitting POTUS,  

Shouldn't that depend on the incident?  I know a soldier who was leaning Trump until the comment about McCain as a POW. Was that irrational?

And why isn't repeated denial that bad behavior is disqualifying in a POTUS "emotional"? 

I would say a rational person should vote for competence.  People voting for Trump were not looking for that. But at this point, after MANY incidents, they ought to be prepared to send their party a message--rein this guy in or get rid of him. Passive "outrage" is hardly the only option.

No one says misogynistic comments made in private conversation by private citizens are the same as those made by a POTUS, but what about all the ugly tweets about women and people in general since Jan. 20, 2017?  How is Trump different now? Is he ( ) more presidential? Lots of gravitas while reading the snake poem or chanting "locker her up"? What president has EVER behaved this way in public since Andrew Johnson?  And that was in the 1860s.

[hollodero]

(07-17-2018, 10:20 PM)Dill Wrote: (Though I'm pretty sure SSF will say he is NOT a Trump defender, just a guy who calls out "extremists" on "both sides," so he cannot turn against him.)

More of a Trump tolerator. He doesn't defend him on every issue, far from it.

(07-17-2018, 10:20 PM)Dill Wrote: A celebrity p-grabber is still an alpha male, and Charlottesville showed Trump does not kow tow to political correctness. If you are hard right, you want a tough guy facing down Putin on the international stage, right? That's why you look past what wussy liberals call bad behavior. National security and strong leadership are a priority.
What I see different about Helsinki, though, is that it shows Trump as weak, a REAL strongman's *****, which is worse than incompetent to a base that generally does not prize or (sometimes) even recognize incompetence. That was the First Diplomat and representative of the whole nation up there doing what Putin wanted, at the expense of his own government and people--something NO ONE on his own staff or in Congress or at Fox News would have done.

I don't know if you're not falling for a pseudo argument here (strong, defending the country etc.). That is used if it seems effective, which doesn't mean it's imperative. Benton just mentioned an uninformed meme generation, and I think that's what we're dealing with when really talking the "base". They take anything in as an argument and selectively search for them. And there are enough providers. One can see the spin already. He only tries to make peace with Russia, he is so smart and doesn't fall for media naratives and for the propaganda about Putin that was stuffed in our heads by hateful leftist ideologists in the media etc. etc.

(07-17-2018, 10:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Also, when Fox runs a title like "Putin eats Trump's lunch," that is hard to walk back.

I see. They really run that?
It seems you come to agree with me that FOX news has to find a conscience and save the country. I still see them as crucial. And you're right, if they can't go along any more, than I'd say the tipping point is reached. I just have my doubts, I just took a peek at yesterday's Hannity show and he's already on full "Trump did great in Helsinki, media leftists deep state" mode.

(07-17-2018, 10:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Not as humiliating as getting beat by a girl, but Russia's leader is clearly the master of Trump as he never was of Obama. That has to trouble people who stress "strength" over competence. And most of all it troubles the unstable Trump who, if I am right about his personality, must now "punch back twice as hard," all around him but not at Putin, to show he is not weak. He might quiet down a day or two, as he did after the Hollywood access tape, but his staff and cabinet can expect the worst in weeks to come. (So I predict.) I am thinking his staff might also plan some tuff-sounding rhetoric for him over the next week to show he is not in Putin's pocket.  Any real pushback will have to come from Congress though.

Oh I guess you're right about Trump's personality, I can see him lashing out and tweeting awful things, I'm not so sure it matters much. With Congress, I suppose that's right also, but with these Republicans I don't see it happening. A neutered party is what I see, that already took so many steps into the mess for Trump that it's hard to suddenly stop and admit all the dirt. Especially when most republican voters won't appreciate it.
And the step that would be needed is conservatives voting democrat for the good of the country in those Midterms. Which I'd say would be the right thing to do, but already I saw the question posed who else to possibly vote for, so I guess others don't agree with that stance.
After all, hey the economy is good.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 12:12 AM)Dill Wrote: Shouldn't that depend on the incident?  I know a soldier who was leaning Trump until the comment about McCain as a POW. Was that irrational?

And why isn't repeated denial that bad behavior is disqualifying in a POTUS "emotional"? 

I would say a rational person should vote for competence.  People voting for Trump were not looking for that. But at this point, after MANY incidents, they ought to be prepared to send their party a message--rein this guy in or get rid of him. Passive "outrage" is hardly the only option.

No one says misogynistic comments made in private conversation by private citizens are the same as those made by a POTUS, but what about all the ugly tweets about women and people in general since Jan. 20, 2017?  How is Trump different now? Is he ( ) more presidential? Lots of gravitas while reading the snake poem or chanting "locker her up"? What president has EVER behaved this way in public since Andrew Johnson?  And that was in the 1860s.

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?  

[Benton]

(07-17-2018, 11:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be honest: no. A rational person would not change their vote over one incident; however, an emotional person would proclaim who they would.

I get that you and others keep looking for that decisive moment, but it just doesn't work that way and who should a rational person change their vote to? 

And quote "normalizing" all you want but quotes garnered from Access Hollywood in a private conversation while you are a reality celebrity do not equal comments made by a sitting POTUS,  

To the last: since when?

Evangelicals have used letters and out-of office comments by the founding fathers to try and slant church and state. Talking heads tried to label Obama as a socialist off college writings, and hrc as pro-criminal from her time as a lawyer.

That box has long been opened.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 12:47 AM)Benton Wrote: To the last: since when?

Evangelicals have used letters and out-of office comments by the founding fathers to try and slant church and state. Talking heads tried to label Obama as a socialist off college writings, and hrc as pro-criminal from her time as a lawyer.

That box has long been opened.

Well HRC has never been a sitting President so we need not address that. As to Obama anyone that as much stock in his comments as a college student as they did while he was a sitting POTUS is not looking at things through a clear lenses. And I do not know anyone that applied the same to each; perhaps you have different experiences. 

[Bengalzona]

For what it is worth, I don't believe he is "in cahoots" with Putin. Some of the people working under him have been, as evidenced by the mounting convictions and plea bargains in the Russian investigation.

I believe he is grossly incompetent for the position and morally deficient. It is interesting that enough Americans either saw enough of themselves in that to vote for him, or chose to plug their nose and press the button for various reasons (like because he had an "R" after his name on the ballot or to stack the SCOTUS and federal courts with partisan judges, etc.) that he was able to sneak into office.

Seriously, I don't know how a person could look themselves in the mirror after voting for this clown and seeing what he has become. Much less try to defend his absurd antics and outright lies.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 04:07 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: For what it is worth, I don't believe he is "in cahoots" with Putin. Some of the people working under him have been, as evidenced by the mounting convictions and plea bargains in the Russian investigation.

I believe he is grossly incompetent for the position and morally deficient. It is interesting that enough Americans either saw enough of themselves in that to vote for him, or chose to plug their nose and press the button for various reasons (like because he had an "R" after his name on the ballot or to stack the SCOTUS and federal courts with partisan judges, etc.) that he was able to sneak into office.

Seriously, I don't know how a person could look themselves in the mirror after voting for this clown and seeing what he has become. Much less try to defend his absurd antics and outright lies.

May I direct you to this site?



Oh, you'll get the occasional "he should not have done that" but they don't care in the long run.  whether that is because of party over country, refusal to admit they made a mistake, stupidity...I'll leave that up to the reader.

[GMDino]

[jj22]

So if you rape or sexually assault someone just be a reality star when it happened and it won't count towards your character per Trump supporters? This is what it's come to. Hard to believe if we wasn't witnessing the excuses daily.

Trump's dragging his supporters character down with his.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 09:46 AM)jj22 Wrote: So if you rape or sexually assault someone just be a reality star when it happened and it won't count towards your character per Trump supporters? This is what it's come to. Hard to believe if we wasn't witnessing the excuses daily.

Trump's dragging his supporters character down with his.

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.