When will the GOP admit to themselves and their voters the truth about Donald Trump a

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-24-2023, 05:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, maybe it is abuse of power, though I would say being outside a norm alone is not the same thing as power abuse. But the main problem with this example is that it does probably not sway an electon or turns Trump doubters into Trump believers. That's just a premise I see unfulfilled.

You're sadly right, this type of backdoor attack on a Constitutional right is not sexy enough to get noticed by most.  Almost certainly why it's being done.

Quote:Well, of course, there are plenty understandable reasons to still vote Trump. I'd still hope that for most people, there are even better reasons to not do so, but it's of course easier to feel that way when one likes left policies.
If things were better, that's probably a matter of perspective. Some people might just feel that things are better now that there's not three asinine presidential tweets a day to talk about. But sure, overall, I understand. Inflation etc. are issues for sure.

It's certainly not just inflation.  I don't know a single person who states the last three years have been enjoyable.  Whether that's Biden's fault or not is certainly up for debate (I don't think all of it is certainly), but we all know the POTUS gets credit for good times that is undeserved and the reverse is equally true.

Quote:I understand why Bragg appears weak. I think it would be fair though to separate the Bragg indictment from the others. I understand that many people are motivated not to do so and to use the possibly weakest indictment to weaken the others. But these are usually the same people that thought the barrel to be rotten to begin with, and just would use any argument to paint it as such. Would the Bragg indictment not exist, I doubt people would view the other indictments any differently. The doubters would just find another reason to doubt. Eg. Luvnit does not need Bragg in his arguments.

I think here is where we differ the most.  In fact, and no offense to him, you using Luvnit as a counter to this argument is actually a point in my favor.  No, Bragg is certainly not a talking point for him.  But we're talking about more moderate people, who otherwise might be swayed.  If you claim Trump is being hounded with garbage indictments, and correctly stating this has never happened to a former POTUS before, and a perfect example of such a garbage indictment drops in your lap it is literal validation of your entire viewpoint.  Bragg pushed more people to the Trump is being persecuted camp than anyone else has, by a huge margin.

Quote:In that sense, I think you're overestimating the importance a bit. And my main reason to say so is that imho an unbiased view can only be that a weak indictment over hush money can not mean a different indictment over pretty blatant insurrection attempts should be declared null and void. I think it's fair to say that and I can't really believe many neutral people would disagree. So I also doubt many people's view actually hinge on the Bragg indictment alone.

Respectfully, I could not disagree more.  He poisoned the entire tree.  All of the fruit from it is now tainted.  For anyone on the fence, and I think you underestimate how many people fall into that category, the Bragg indictment was proof positive that they are going after Trump no matter what.  Americans are naturally distrustful of government, it's a huge part of the national character.  This type of action directly feeds into that character trait.  It's direct proof, for many, that the government is out to get Trump.  Without it you'd have far less ammunition to make this claim.

Quote:I just checked, surveys say folks are actually not happy there. So yeah, I get the point.

Dude, I cannot say this strongly enough, it is a disaster here.  I have friends or family in both Portland and Seattle, and it may be even worse there.  It's brazen lawlessness in ways I would never have thought possible in this country.  The nice neighborhood I lived in for over a decade is now unrecognizable.  It sincerely pains me to see it.

Quote:Only thing I'd disagree with is that Trump has the best shot. Someone posted the numbers somewhere, but it seems any candidate would fare just as well as Trump against Biden. And imho that makes sense. And unlike Trump, a slightly less extreme personality might just bring those suburbians back, while Trump has pretty much set his limit. He appears to be the candidate who is among the least likely to beat Biden and strategic primary voters might acknowledge that.

It's not whether you think he has the best shot, it's whether the people who vote for him do.  Plus, we need to all acknowledge the Dem push to keep Trump as the frontrunner, for reasons you just expressed.  The left cannot simultaneously decry Trump being the frontrunner while simultaneously doing everything they can to ensure that remains the case.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-25-2023, 12:06 AM)GreenDragon Wrote: This is for Conservatives / GOP / whatever you want to call them. What will it take for your side to admit the truth about Trump? Period. I see too much cognitive dissonance around and that shite is getting old. 

The divisiveness is to strong in the US political world, it's been past the point of people being rational for a long time now. 
Even if he's indited many will still feel it's nothing more than a political attack to prevent him from running in 24.

[hollodero]

(08-25-2023, 12:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's certainly not just inflation.  I don't know a single person who states the last three years have been enjoyable.  Whether that's Biden's fault or not is certainly up for debate (I don't think all of it is certainly), but we all know the POTUS gets credit for good times that is undeserved and the reverse is equally true.

Sure. Corona was not Trump's fault, but it might have cost him the election nonetheless. I'm far removed from thinking Trump stands no chance this time, especially since many economic factors (not all of them, see unemployment) are rather grim.

(08-25-2023, 12:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think here is where we differ the most.  In fact, and no offense to him, you using Luvnit as a counter to this argument is actually a point in my favor.  No, Bragg is certainly not a talking point for him.  But we're talking about more moderate people, who otherwise might be swayed.  If you claim Trump is being hounded with garbage indictments, and correctly stating this has never happened to a former POTUS before, and a perfect example of such a garbage indictment drops in your lap it is literal validation of your entire viewpoint.  Bragg pushed more people to the Trump is being persecuted camp than anyone else has, by a huge margin.

But if you think Trump is haunted by garbage indictments, you're already not fair-minded about it. Most people would agree that being wrongfully accused of something does not mean one can now get away with murder by pointing to that instance, to use that figure of speech for drastic effect. It's a counterpoint I think can be valued as being just as fair as the one calling the Bragg indictment itself bogus.

Not to be misunderstood. I understand full well why the Bragg indictment might be detrimental. I wished it did not exist and said so from the very start. I don't deny it's a somewhat usable talking point for the Trump defense. At the same time, Mr. Smith has nothing to do with Mr. Bragg. Hence calling the entire tree poisoned now, to me, is not a reasonable viewpoint. And so to me most people who can not separate those indictments have a certain desired viewpoint from the start, like is often the case.

But sure, I might just as well be wrong about that. To quote a famous statesman, all I know is what's on the internet. From there, it seems no one is swayed about Trump any more, in one direction or the other. Your viewpoint, as comprehensible as it is to me (well, in parts at least), does not seem to be that common.

(08-25-2023, 12:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not whether you think he has the best shot, it's whether the people who vote for him do.  Plus, we need to all acknowledge the Dem push to keep Trump as the frontrunner, for reasons you just expressed.  The left cannot simultaneously decry Trump being the frontrunner while simultaneously doing everything they can to ensure that remains the case.

Sure, there just seems to exist little rational reason to believe Trump, the one guy that already lost to him before, has the best shot against Biden. Sure folks might still believe it, but folks are also probably wrong then.
I am not aware of significant Dem pushes to keep Trump as frontrunner. That being said, I also am not surprised. The Dems did financially support radical GOP candidates in primaries before, a move I find abhorrent, unprincipled, sleazy and dishonest. I feel I need to stress how little sympathy I have left for this sorry democratic party at this point.

[XenoMorph]

(08-23-2023, 04:22 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: Question for the "conservatives" here:
When will the GOP admit to themselves and their voters the truth about Donald Trump and his crimes?
What's it going to take? I really want to know.

Whats funny is Trump attacked the Swamp and now we see the Swamp fighting back 

Never have i ever thought to find Swamp supporters.

[Dill]

(08-25-2023, 08:45 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Whats funny is Trump attacked the Swamp and now we see the Swamp fighting back 

Never have i ever thought to find Swamp supporters.

Right now the SWAMP just looks like ordinary Americans who still want democracy.
That's whom he has attacked, anyway.

So serious question:

Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by "Trump attacked the swamp"? 

He passed tax cuts for the rich, pulled out of the Iran Deal and the TPP,
placed tariffs on Chinese goods which raised prices for Americans. He went
around the AFghan gov. to negotiate with the Taliban, released 5,000, which
set the stage for government collapse there on Biden's watch. 

The one point a right-leaning person might legitimately love is that rolled back
environmental legislation and increased fracking. 

What is the "swamp" that he attacked? Can you give an example of an attack? 

[basballguy]

(08-26-2023, 01:25 PM)Dill Wrote: He passed tax cuts for the rich, pulled out of the Iran Deal and the TPP,
placed tariffs on Chinese goods which raised prices for Americans. He went
around the AFghan gov. to negotiate with the Taliban, released 5,000, which
set the stage for government collapse there on Biden's watch. 

The one point a right-leaning person might legitimately love is that rolled back
environmental legislation and increased fracking. 

He passed tax cuts for everyone, not just the rich.  

Why is pulling out of the TPP bad?  If it was so necessary why hasn't Biden reapplied on behalf of the US? (I don't know how it works so i'm just guessing that's what would need to happen)

According to the below site, those tarrifs cost the average american an extra 12 dollars a month......are people really upset about this?  

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/china-tariffs-costs-importers-and-consumers/640969/#:~:text=Academic%20research%20has%20also%20found,household%20at%20least%20%24145%20year.

Interesting spin on the Afghan withdrawal.  

[Dill]

(08-26-2023, 01:41 PM)basballguy Wrote: Why is pulling out of the TPP bad?  If it was so necessary why hasn't Biden reapplied on behalf of the US? (I don't know how it works so i'm just guessing that's what would need to happen)

According to the below site, those tarrifs cost the average american an extra 12 dollars a month......are people really upset about this?  

People should be upset if they thought they were punishing China and ended up subsidizing the difference in the cost of Chinese goods on behalf of China. 

The TPP only seems "necessary" to someone who recognizes that China is a full spectrum adversary, seeking to replace the U.S. led liberal international system with its own. E.g., China is seeking to reorder the trade relations among countries of the Far East Pacific Rim to benefit its own power. Most of the TPP countries--originally Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, then Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam--view the U.S. as a counter balance to China. After 2008, another group of countries signaled interest, among them Cambodia, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines. With the addition of the U.S., the TPP would have knit those countries together as trading partners with a better chance of standing up to China and of resolving their own grievances against one another, and China, equitably. Further, Obama's initiative was to expand the TPP to include Canada and Central and South  American countries, like Mexico and Peru. This would have boosted trade and created jobs in the U.S. The signatories would set, among their goals, the phasing out of all tariffs between them, and strict environmental and human rights monitoring. 

But the international system abhors a vacuum. The US pull out of the TPP created one. China is filling it right now, extending its economic power to set norms for other countries, via the Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership, a 2020 ASEAN imitative which seems to have displaced the TPP residue, along with all pressure for human rights and environmental monitoring. So we haven't rejoined the TPP because it is gone. The CREP now includes most of the original TPP members, so what's their incentive to continue with the second iteration of the TPP?  And the US is not part of the "Region" so it can't join, as I understand it. Advantage China. 

My interest in the TPP was always more about national security, not Trade. Pulling out ceded a huge trunk of Pacific trade leverage to China. But AMERICA FIRST! right? 

(08-26-2023, 01:41 PM)basballguy Wrote: Interesting spin on the Afghan withdrawal.  

I can add that the Trump administration also held up applications for immigration to the U.S., which mostly would have gone to people who had helped the U.S,. in Afghanistan. The bottleneck would seem particularly acute after the gov. there collapsed and people where flooding airports to get out. "Why didn't Biden do more to get these people out!?!" 

(08-26-2023, 01:41 PM)basballguy Wrote: He passed tax cuts for everyone, not just the rich.  

I want to concentrate on the other questions, so I'll let Sawhill and Puliam answer this one
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-middle-class-needs-a-tax-cut-trump-didnt-give-it-to-them/

[Lucidus]

(08-25-2023, 08:45 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Whats funny is Trump attacked the Swamp and now we see the Swamp fighting back 

It's very Tyler Durden, in that it turns out he's the very thing he imagined himself to be fighting. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2023, 04:16 PM)Lucidus Wrote: It's very Tyler Durden, in that it turns out he's the very thing he imagined himself to be fighting. 

Sorry, as a huge fan of the book and movie I have to point out this is inaccurate.  Durden was never what he was fighting, Durden represented what Jack would be if he could be the person he truly wanted to be without fear of the consequences.  What he was fighting was the emasculation of men and the deterioration of the male place in society.  From his perspective, that is, if you are inclined to disagree with him.

[Dill]

(08-24-2023, 05:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I understand why Bragg appears weak. I think it would be fair though to separate the Bragg indictment from the others. I understand that many people are motivated not to do so and to use the possibly weakest indictment to weaken the others. But these are usually the same people that thought the barrel to be rotten to begin with, and just would use any argument to paint it as such. Would the Bragg indictment not exist, I doubt people would view the other indictments any differently. The doubters would just find another reason to doubt. Eg. Luvnit does not need Bragg in his arguments.

In that sense, I think you're overestimating the importance a bit. And my main reason to say so is that imho an unbiased view can only be that a weak indictment over hush money can not mean a different indictment over pretty blatant insurrection attempts should be declared null and void. I think it's fair to say that and I can't really believe many neutral people would disagree. So I also doubt many people's view actually hinge on the Bragg indictment alone.,

Yes, the bolded.

The central question with Trump concerns whether you think he attempted an insurrection or not. If you do then that even trumps the rape finding. 

If you think Trump attempted to overturn a valid election, and you are "biased" in favor of democracy, there'll be no hedging, no what-if-the-'far-left'-does-X-so-maybe-Trump-is-safer reasoning; you'll not only not vote for him, you'll think he should be disqualified from office and in jail. 

If you don't think Trump attempted to overturn a valid election, then you are not really interested in the "strength" of any case. You don't want Trump convicted of anything, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. You are not "neutral" at all and the Bragg indictment just helps with a story you tell yourself about Trump "persecution" and Dem hyperbole. 

No real independent is going to think, "Sure, Trump attempted an autogolpe, and people died, but I'm really upset that this Bragg guy is attacking Trump's finances. This NY indictment is so obviously political, and I am just so concerned about impartial justice and rule of law, that Bragg is pushing me to vote for the guy who sought to directly weaponize the DoD and DOJ to stay in power, and promises "retribution" if votes like mine return him to power."