State of the Union

[waltworks]

The thing is, the constant carping on the Mueller investigation, or complaining about spineless GOP leaders... it reminds me of the days when everything was Obama's fault.

I don't like Trump, but I really dislike whining. The Mueller thing is over. The impeachment is over. Stop talking about them and concentrate on beating Trump by actually making a case that we can/should collectively do better.

I know plenty of Trump skeptical folks who will probably vote for him just because of some of the insufferable smug knee-jerk liberals they interact with.

My prediction is that Trump wins handily. I'm not happy about it, but that's how I see it.

-W

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Using the narrow definition understood by Mueller (and ignoring the multiple documented attempts by the Trump administration to obstruct the investigation), no co-ordination was proven.

Robert Mueller expressly did not investigate collusion.

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion'. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word 'collud[e]' was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."

The Trump team was shown to have met secretly with Russian agents on more than 100 separate occasions, but since they didn't agree to talk about what was said during those meetings I guess we'll never know exactly what happened.  Was there collusion?  Seems quite likely . . . but Mueller didn't investigate that.

I am close to howling laughing at this point.

Everything you think Trump is guilty of -- "abuse of power," "obstruction of congress," and "collusion" -- has absolutely no basis in law.  They are vague terms that are intentionally deployed by Democrats because these terms knowingly come up short of actual criminal conduct that has a basis in law.

The FBI did not choose the term "coordinating" or "conspiracy" lightly.  The FBI's words are intentionally used because they actually have a basis in law.

It's also no coincidence that Democrats have been harping about COLLUSION, as if that meant anything. 

This is the shell game that Dems are playing.  What they are saying does not have any basis in law.  I wish I posted in these threads sooner, because the term "collusion" was always a blazing red siren signalling, "We don't have the goods."  I doubted it from the beginning even though I was weeks out from hating Trump and voting for Hillary. 

It wreaked of a shell game then and it's even worse now after the articles of impeachment, which imposed the same BS tactics.

[GuitarStv]

Using the narrow definition understood by Mueller (and ignoring the multiple documented attempts by the Trump administration to obstruct the investigation), no co-ordination was proven.

Robert Mueller expressly did not investigate collusion.

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of 'collusion'. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word 'collud[e]' was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."

The Trump team was shown to have met secretly with Russian agents on more than 100 separate occasions, but since they didn't agree to talk about what was said during those meetings I guess we'll never know exactly what happened.  Was there collusion?  Seems quite likely . . . but Mueller didn't investigate that.

I am close to howling laughing at this point.

Everything you think Trump is guilty of -- "abuse of power," "obstruction of congress," and "collusion" -- has absolutely no basis in law.  They are vague terms that are intentionally deployed by Democrats because these terms knowingly come up short of actual criminal conduct that has a basis in law.

Can I have the source of your information proving this?  Asking because there's plenty of evidence publicly available that Trump ordered obstruction of justice when he ordered people not to cooperate with congress.

The FBI did not choose the term "coordinating" or "conspiracy" lightly.  The FBI's words are intentionally used because they actually have a basis in law.

It's also no coincidence that Democrats have been harping about COLLUSION, as if that meant anything. 

This is the shell game that Dems are playing.  What they are saying does not have any basis in law.  I wish I posted in these threads sooner, because the term "collusion" was always a blazing red siren signalling, "We don't have the goods."  I doubted it from the beginning even though I was weeks out from hating Trump and voting for Hillary. 

It wreaked of a shell game then and it's even worse now after the articles of impeachment, which imposed the same BS tactics.

Please note, I only mentioned 'collusion' because you brought it up when you said that there was no evidence of it:

The third question was the most important -- was there collusion or coordination?  This was the main line thrust by politicians and the media, and the answer was an emphatic "no."

You appear to be interested in legal definitions.  What legal definition of collusion (not "vague terms that are intentionally deployed by Democrats") were you referring to in this post that Mueller cleared Trump of?

[Sanitary Stache]

I definitely appreciate @ReadySetMillionaire articulating the pro Trump viewpoint.
It's a lot to chew on to try to view events from this perspective.

I didn't watch the State of the Union.  I used to get so worked up about G.W. and Obama bending the truth that I thought it better to avoid Trumps straight up fantasy.

[js82]

I know plenty of Trump skeptical folks who will probably vote for him just because of some of the insufferable smug knee-jerk liberals they interact with.

Not to say that these people don't exist, but the insufferable liberal is to a substantial extent, a caricature produced by the right-wing media complex(Rush, Hannity, Fox et. al.)

Let met put it this way: The number of "insufferable smug knee-jerk liberals"/stereotypical social justice warrior types on my facebook feed is substantially less than the number of right-wingers parroting the latest "OMG liberals are hypocrites" meme from their favorite right-wing media personality.

[Hotstreak]

There's a big difference between ranting on twitter (powerless blowhard activity) versus an organized campaign of i) falsely blaming Trump for the Russian election interference and ii) attempting to remove the president from office for unconvincing reasons.  These are activities with potential serious consequences, beyond the sort of hurt feelings that follow Trump's twitter use.  To put it another way: if you lose and talk trash that's one thing, but if you start taking these sorts of partisan actions against the winner, you are a true sore loser.


As to your list of 1) 2) and 3), I would add 4) accomplished several major conservative objectives including tax reform & federal/supreme court judges.  A lot of people are happy with his foreign policy too, and appreciate that he stands against the socialist surge in the Democratic party. 

I don't like whiney crybabies either.

This is...confusing, particularly after 3 years of increasingly unhinged Twitter rants that rival my niece's and nephew's toddler tantrums in terms of rationality and coherence and suggest that the president spends more time whining on social media than actually doing his job.

I'm so glad my tax dollars are supporting him in 1) spending most of his time on social media and watching Fox News, 2) playing golf at his private clubs, and 3) propping up his cronies. Such good American values and a truly exemplary work ethic [/sarcasm.]

I am the most fabulous whiner.

(Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-whiner-whining-president-2015-8

[ender]

I did not vote for Trump previously nor do I plan to if he runs in 2020 but I still find the entire Russian collusion thing to have been a pretty desperate smear campaign.

Especially given how hypocritical it feels for me for Americans as a whole to even care about other countries interfering in elections at all, given our history of such things.

I don't know what people on the sidelines think but someone who considered voting for Trump seems unlikely to be phased by his now years of antics (pre/post election). Perhaps something like the collusion campaign could influence them towards Trump? I have a hard time empathizing this perspective given how little I like Trump myself.

[dang1]

trump SOTU? didnt waste my time on it. more like that trump should STFU

[former player]

To keep it as broad as possible, the answer for me is two-fold: (1) I support a lot of Trump's biggest accomplishments, and (2) the Democrats have acted like childish pigs since 2016.

On the first point:

(A) Tax cuts have been a huge boon for my family and a lot of people I know (accountant estimates we saved $6,000).

(B) I support his judicial nominees (also supported Kagan, Sotomayor, Garland...my bar here is not political).

(C) I support his (and the R) position on immigration and healthcare, although not every way they've gone about it.  But it's better than what Democrats offer on these issues.

You support his judicial nominations?  All of them?

What about Kobes ? Appointed to the Appeals Court having ever tried only 6 straightforward court cases?  I tried more cases than that as a trainee lawyer.


What about Vandyke , of whom the ABA said "Mr. VanDyke would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community"?  You think that's a good reason to support Trump?

There's a long list of Trump appointees considered unqualified by the ABA, for good reasons.  And you still think that his judicial nominations are a reason to support Trump?

[sixwings]

I realize there are more people like you, and that's exactly why I'd like to understand your reasoning.

Lots of those same people criticize Democrats and liberals for not understanding and ignoring their concerns, but when someone tries to understand and ask what they want done differently they get defensive and shut down the conversation.

Against my better judgment, I'll take a stab at this. I am definitely not certain to vote for Trump in 2020, but four years ago, I would not have voted for him in a million years.  Yet here I am seriously contemplating it, although it is too early because we don't know the Dem nominee.

To keep it as broad as possible, the answer for me is two-fold: (1) I support a lot of Trump's biggest accomplishments, and (2) the Democrats have acted like childish pigs since 2016.

On the first point:

(A) Tax cuts have been a huge boon for my family and a lot of people I know (accountant estimates we saved $6,000).

(B) I support his judicial nominees (also supported Kagan, Sotomayor, Garland...my bar here is not political).

(C) I support his (and the R) position on immigration and healthcare, although not every way they've gone about it.  But it's better than what Democrats offer on these issues.

Onto the second part:

(A) The Russia hsysteria was the new Red Scare, as Democrats needed a "big" answer to explain such a monumental defeat (as opposed to their laughable and pathetic incompetence).  This was an intentional attempt to not accept the results of the election -- something Dems swore they would not do. 

(B) As soon as the Russia hsyteria was finally put to bed by Mueller, Democrats dragged us through a BS political impeachment instead of actually bringing the crimes that they were alleging.

(C) Sandwiched in between A and B is the Kavanaugh confirmation, which I think is the lowest point in the history of the United States Senate.  It was absolutely disgusting and you are never going to convince me otherwise.

***

Basically, I agree with every big thing Trump has done, but probably more important is that Dems' biggest fights and obstructions were largely conspiratorial in nature, baseless, made in bad faith, etc.  It's been a disgusting three years from them.

I'm not seeking to argue on any of these points individually, because each are the topic for another thread.  Just explaining why it's possible for me to switch from Hillary to Trump in 2020.

Whats the healthcare position you like that R's propose? Because from my perspective they don't seem to have one anymore except "NOT SOSHIALISM"

What are your thoughts on Trumps environmental record? Do you think he's setting America up for a sustainable future for your children?

[scottish]

I definitely appreciate @ReadySetMillionaire articulating the pro Trump viewpoint.
It's a lot to chew on to try to view events from this perspective.

I didn't watch the State of the Union.  I used to get so worked up about G.W. and Obama bending the truth that I thought it better to avoid Trumps straight up fantasy.

Yeah me too.   I have such a visceral dislike of Trump that I've never been able to understand what Trump supporters see in him.   Thanks for that ReadySetMillionaire.