What is better or worse for Trump?

[GMDino]

Is it better or worse if turns out all of these meetings and payoffs and everything is true but Trump literally knew nothing about them?

He just happened to be surrounded by people (he hired or family) that made all of these bad (possibly illegal) decisions.

How would that affect your view of the POTUS?  

Would he become a sympathetic person who's image and power was used by others to enrich themselves? Or does he become a lost feckless figure that has no idea what is going on even in his immediate circle all while claiming to be a great leader who hires the best people?

Just curious.

Quick edit: Obviously it is best for im if there are no crimes found to have been committed and worse if it's proven he knew about actual crimes that were committed.

[*michaelsean*]

All that and you didn't know about it obviously works better in the sense of you weren't as dirty as supposed, but it sure reinforces the view of his judgment of character.

[fredtoast]

Reagan got away with playing the "ignorant" card in the Iran/Contra crimes.

Many Republicans still believe Ronny ascended to heaven on a beam of light after he left the White House.

[fredtoast]

I have predicted from the beginning that even if they found something they would have a very hard time proving Trump knew the details.

[jj22]

I think the "didn't know" excuse would have worked best at first. Not sure if it's better now or not.

After this all began, he should have just come out and said he wasn't a politician, didn't know the norms of campaigning, took assistance from whomever offered it, didn't realize the extent of Russias attempt to influence our election until now (after sworn in) and supported any sanctions against Russia as he took the attack on our democracy seriously.

I would have understood that. But the more he talked up Putin, refused to say anything bad about Putin or even acknowledge Russia's role in the hacks it all went downhill for him. I know his supporters think there is nothing there, but there was no reason for him to throw is support behind Putin and defend him and Russia for so long while attacking Americas Intelligence community. That's how you make a bad situation worse.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 03:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Reagan got away with playing the "ignorant" card in the Iran/Contra crimes.

Many Republicans still believe Ronny ascended to heaven on a beam of light after he left the White House.

Worked for Hills and her emails too. So yeah, some will buy it.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-23-2018, 03:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Reagan got away with playing the "ignorant" card in the Iran/Contra crimes.

Many Republicans still believe Ronny ascended to heaven on a beam of light after he left the White House.

He went to his ranch first.  Duh.

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 03:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Worked for Hills and her emails too. So yeah, some will buy it.

Except Hillary knew she was using a private server and no laws were broken.

But other than that, yeah it is exactly the same. 

[fredtoast]

(05-23-2018, 03:34 PM)jj22 Wrote: but there was no reason for him to throw is support behind Putin and defend him and Russia for so long while attacking Americas Intelligence community. That's how you make a bad situation worse.

Trump made himself look foolish (to some people) for calling the Russian influence claims "Fake News" now that they have been proven to be true.

Others don't really care.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 03:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except Hillary knew she was using a private server and no laws were broken.

But other than that, yeah it is exactly the same. 

Yeah, no laws were considered to be broken because of her proclaimed ignorance. Glad we agree they are pretty much exactly the same

[*PhilHos*]

(05-23-2018, 03:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except Hillary knew she was using a private server and no laws were broken.

IIRC, she did break the law. Comey just said there was no intent on breaking the law hence why he didn't think she should be charged.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2018, 01:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: IIRC, she did break the law. Comey just said there was no intent on breaking the law hence why he didn't think she should be charged.

No she did not break the law.  Either intent, or in this case "gross negligence", is required to break a law.

Every car accident involves some negligence, but not every car wreck is a crime.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2018, 01:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: IIRC, she did break the law. Comey just said there was no intent on breaking the law hence why he didn't think she should be charged.

Yes laws were broken, but the only thing she was guilty of was incompetence. 

[Benton]

(05-23-2018, 03:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Worked for Hills and her emails too. So yeah, some will buy it.

What law did she break?

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 12:27 PM)Benton Wrote: What law did she break?

As I said she didn't break the law (or so Comey concluded) because she was incompetent. What I did say was Laws were broken; The Federal Records Act for one. 

EDIT: I should have said she did not commit a crime, she did break a law or 2

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2018, 03:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Worked for Hills and her emails too. So yeah, some will buy it.

You've violated a number of your own rules for this forum with this post, but I'll ignore that and point out that you're comparing people claiming to not know what their subordinates were doing to someone claiming to not know that the actions they were knowingly taking were, as Comey put it, "extremely careless". 

Two very different things. Fred at least stayed on topic with mentioning a President who did the same thing rather than a Sec of State doing something different, but you achieved your goal. You turned a thread about our President into a thread about someone who isn't a part of our government. 


This is why I don't post much anymore. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2018, 12:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You've violated a number of your own rules for this forum with this post, but I'll ignore that and point out that you're comparing people claiming to not know what their subordinates were doing to someone claiming to not know that the actions they were knowingly taking were, as Comey put it, "extremely careless". 

Two very different things. Fred at least stayed on topic with mentioning a President who did the same thing rather than a Sec of State doing something different, but you achieved your goal. You turned a thread about our President into a thread about someone who isn't a part of our government. 


This is why I don't post much anymore. 

I thought the thread was about with is worse: knowing or ignorance; as we already know every thread is about our President eventually.

I simply provided a recent example of a high level political figure using ignorance for their benefit. My apologies if you found Fred's 40 year old example to be more relevant. It became others who chose to challenge my example so I'm unsure how I turned it onto anything.

Not overly concerned with your posting frequency; however, I will say you generally add something to the discussion. 

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2018, 02:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is it better or worse if turns out all of these meetings and payoffs and everything is true but Trump literally knew nothing about them?

He just happened to be surrounded by people (he hired or family) that made all of these bad (possibly illegal) decisions.

How would that affect your view of the POTUS?  

Would he become a sympathetic person who's image and power was used by others to enrich themselves? Or does he become a lost feckless figure that has no idea what is going on even in his immediate circle all while claiming to be a great leader who hires the best people?

Just curious.

Quick edit:  Obviously it is best for im if there are no crimes found to have been committed and worse if it's proven he knew about actual crimes that were committed.

The calls Jr made to blocked numbers and Trump's comments the day after suggest he knew 100% what was happening... but there's no concrete evidence.

For him, it's much better to be ignorant than an active participant. Being a poor judge of character is better than having poor character yourself (even though he does). 

It doesn't affect my view because my view of him is still very poor regardless and I've already made up my mind regarding his involvement.

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2018, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought the thread was about with is worse: knowing or ignorance; as we already know every thread is about our President eventually.

I simply provided a recent example of a high level political figure using ignorance for their benefit. My apologies if you found Fred's 40 year old example to be more relevant. It became others who chose to challenge my example so I'm unsure how I turned it onto anything.

Not overly concerned with your posting frequency; however, I will say you generally add something to the discussion. 

I appreciate the response and trying to tie it back into Dino's post. 

I made my comments because, to your credit, you've pushed back against off topic responses in the past, but I didn't see an attempt to tie to back to Dino's comments in your exchange with Fred, it just came across as whataboutism that we often see from a variety of posters.

I think pointing out ignorance in the legality of one's actions is important (We're dealing with this in the Board of Ed race I am working on believe it or not) and that itself is certainly something we can discuss, but we also should discuss the OP topic of "organizing your subordinates to do something illegal versus not realizing they are doing something illegal", though I think we all agree it is worse to be the perpetrator than not knowing your team is breaking the law. 

[*PhilHos*]

(05-25-2018, 10:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No she did not break the law.  Either intent, or in this case "gross negligence", is required to break a law.

Every car accident involves some negligence, but not every car wreck is a crime.  

James Comey: "...there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." In other words, there is evidence she broke the law. Even though he follows that statement with "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" doesn't mean she didn't break the law.

(05-25-2018, 12:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes laws were broken, but the only thing she was guilty of was incompetence. 

Who is the individual that broke the law? Hillary, right? Hence, Hillary broke the law.