It's Draft Time: Impeachment Edition

[hollodero]

(05-11-2017, 04:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It absolutely does, but it also leads me to believe that the firing wasn't motivated by that.  If it was it was so blatantly obvious that a child could see through it.  Trump is not stupid, he is also not surrounded by people who are stupid.  If he was worried about the Russia investigation he could have fired Comey long ago with way more cover for doing so.

(05-11-2017, 04:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The plain truth is that with a guy like Trump it could literally be anything.  Ivanka may have dropped a comment about how Comey should go, or someone else whom he trusts said something.  Trump strikes me as a guy whose opinion of you can change on a dime if the right person pours poison in his ear.  I just think that if Trump were really concerned about Comey's investigation into Russia he would have fired him upon taking office when he had a much better smokescreen for his true motives.  Doing it now, for Russia reasons, would be like declaring it in neon.  It just doesn't make sense.  While Trump is mercurial he's not surrounded by total simpletons. 

I just want to take a minute and think about that these two things are the best "defenses" (explanations for his deed) the US-American president got here. Things like "Ah, you can never tell with this guy" and "ah, he can't be torpedoing the investigation with this, for it would be too obvious a reason". I don't even say the points carry no merit, but still. It's amazing, somehow.
Just to further simple it down, the arguments are

1. Trump is not that stupid (he couldn't have possibly gone with such an obvious motive)
2. Trump is that stupid (he has no motives and does whatever someone tells him to do)

OK, you might argue being easily influenced doesn't equal being stupid, but I strongly disagree with your "not stupid" argument in the first place. Hence, the according argument carries some weight to me. It's true, could have been Ivanka or whoever.
The flaw, as I see it, in your "people around him are not stupid" thesis would be: If people around him aren't stupid and can influence him why did no one just tell him that no matter what, the timing looks horrendous and he'd better not fire Comey right in this very minute. I mean, see it as you will, if he really has completely innocent motives you couldn't plan the firing at any worse point in time. Wait till the investigation is over, maybe. And if it HAS to be now, just get at least a story straight you can tell. They didn't even do that. Now I really don't know what these non-stupid people were actually doing here. If they wanted to sabotage him on purpose, they couldn't have done a better job.

I'd say Trump is stupid (there are some signs for that) and the people around him can't really do much. Maybe someone poisoned his ear, as you suggested one could do with your completely non-stupid president. Could be anyone. Could be someone who is in danger by the investigation. And if so, it could be anyone wanting the investigation to go away. The point you made about his being influenceable really doesn't put away the smell.

(05-11-2017, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you truly believe this, then I must question your judgement. If he would have fired Comey his first day in office, you really don't think there would be just as many people shouting: "He fired Comey without giving him a chance because Comey chose recommended not to pursue charges against Hillary!!"

Now here's a chance to demonstrate your judgement once more:

If he would have waited until after the investigation and if cleared how many people do you think would have suggested: "Comey is in Trump's pocket and it goes all the way back to him reopening the investigation against Hills".

Oh, feel free to question my judgment. I "truly" believe this, within the parameters that there probably will be some kind of backlash on virtually everything the opponent does, I acknowlege that much. But it would not be the same storm, that I believe, although of course that's hypothetical.
About the other side in general, I'm sure they are hysteric often. There's always a fine line between exaggerating and not doing their job as a politician. As politicians, they have to point to the questionable, smelly or damaging things on the other side, or they'd be in the wrong profession. Not that I want to excuse things, just to put them in perspective.
I'd also say, in some instances people's hysteria about the other side's hysteria isn't much less hysteric as said hysteria. If that sounds complicated: You're outraged about other people's outrage. Glasshouse-alert.
And, in the Comey case specifically, I'd say reality doesn't shape your perception, but perception shapes your reality about Democrat behaviour here. (That said reality exists in general, I do not doubt. I'm sure Democrats deserve many of the views you have of them.)