Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Trollminator wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

It's very hard to predict. But I believe it's possible we could see more than 17 R's vote guilty and we could get a full conviction.

You have to remember. We haven't seen all the evidence. We haven't heard the witnesses. If we have evidence and testimony that ties Trump even more directly to the capitol riot then conviction becomes likely.

Even if someone just testifies that Trump merely knew the riots might happen then we could get a conviction. Because if Trump knew the danger then he had a responsibility to try to stop it.

Juxtapose that testimony with his words on the morning of the 6th and it becomes very hard to vote "not guilty".

Since when do Rs care about facts and evidence? They will successfully spin away with their base. They will use several "arguments" that will play well with the right and they will not convict. And Mitch saying he has not made up his mind, haha, yeah right.

agip wrote:

nonequals wrote:

A few things:

1) Not sure that there is a lot of ambiguity in the Muslim ban issue.

2) Regarding arguably ambiguous things that any human says, factored into whether or not you want to give them the benefit of the doubt is what you otherwise know about the person. In Trump's case, if you KNOW that he lies like most breath, AND says un-ambiguously bad things on a regular basis, why would you be the least bit inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding arguably ambiguous comments? You wouldn't.

Although, for political purposes, since you have SO MUCH other ammunition on him, it's perhaps best to give him a pass on the more ambiguous stuff, so as to minimize turning off those on the fence (hard left folks neglect such thinking at their peril). But again, logically, not giving him the benefit of the doubt makes ALL the sense in the world.

3) Lastly, and least important for someone as bad as Trump, there is what others have mentioned: He's a public figure and politician. The most important politician in the world. He's responsible for communicating clearly. He didn't and doesn't. OK, maybe he's not good on his feet. He could always come back and CLARIFY. Did he most of the time? No. That strongly suggests that he's not terribly opposed to the negative interpretations.

It's ambiguous. Sure he wanted to ban muslims. But he didn't. Hard to call something a muslim ban when it it no way banned muslims.

as for benefit of the doubt...flip it around. The non-R world is completely ready to believe the worst about DJT. So whenever they say something...at least think over the possibility that the non-Trump world is knee-jerking reaction against trump and assuming the worst. So be careful accepting that consensus as true. It's very clear that Trump said there were fine people, but only in the group peacefully protesting the removal of confederate statues. He very carefully and unambiguously said he wasn't talking about the tiki torch or antifa guys. It's very clear, not ambiguous.

I'll agree that Trump's manner of talking lets the bad elements in America believe Trump is with them.

nonequals wrote:

agip wrote:

It's ambiguous. Sure he wanted to ban muslims. But he didn't. Hard to call something a muslim ban when it it no way banned muslims.

as for benefit of the doubt...flip it around. The non-R world is completely ready to believe the worst about DJT. So whenever they say something...at least think over the possibility that the non-Trump world is knee-jerking reaction against trump and assuming the worst. So be careful accepting that consensus as true. It's very clear that Trump said there were fine people, but only in the group peacefully protesting the removal of confederate statues. He very carefully and unambiguously said he wasn't talking about the tiki torch or antifa guys. It's very clear, not ambiguous.

I'll agree that Trump's manner of talking lets the bad elements in America believe Trump is with them.

First off, again, there is a REALLY good reason (hundreds, thousands of them) to believe the worst about Trump. That's on him, not those who noticed. And you speak of the things that people debate as if the only data that most of us get is what others think about a situation - "the consensus." No, most of the time we know exactly what Trump said and/or did (although I will admit that some folks MIGHT have gotten sloppy with his Charlottesville words; I had the pleasure of being deployed to AFG [under that very fine CinC] at that time, so I'm less literate on those details).

And sure, what media/folks one listens to can certainly impact how one views things. But that's the thing about Trump. As I've said for years, if Trump had been some secretive Cheney-like figure hiding in the depths of the White House saying very little and enacting policies the other side didn't like and the left-leaning media was painting him particularly negatively, sure, easy to believe he might be getting a somewhat unfair deal. And for folks on the right to give him the benefit of the doubt. But it's Trump. Mute the TV. Read no commentary. His tweets. His voice. Watch the mouth move. He was and is horrendous. No discussion or persuasion should have ever been needed!

Trollminator wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I think most R's in the senate want to be rid of Trump and Trumpism.

And nobody knows how powerful Trump will be in two years or four years. So the political calculus for senate R's is impossible to figure. And like I said, when the political calculus can't be computed, politicians often resort to doing the right thing.

Facts will matter more than any time in the last four years.

I think it's very predictable. Look at what many of them are saying publicly and keeping in mind trump got a lot of them elected they will not be betraying him publicly, especially with a conviction meaning they knowingly supported a crook all this time. The only ones who will give in are those in danger of losing their next election in not-so-red states. The GOP has consistently not done the right thing for decades. They will self serve and play the safe card of protecting their own. 74m voted for trump at the end of the day and yes the Trumper Benghazi may have been too much for many of them, but they still think trump was an amazing president and they loved his policies and owning the libs.

The trial is not a court process where facts are critical. Everyone knows what trump did but they will disagree on the punishment and the Rs will use the usual politics to paint the Dems as vengeful monsters who don't want the country to move on and who refuse to call out antifa.

As much as I would love to see the trial as a moment of political unity, come on man!

agip wrote:

nonequals wrote:

First off, again, there is a REALLY good reason (hundreds, thousands of them) to believe the worst about Trump. That's on him, not those who noticed. And you speak of the things that people debate as if the only data that most of us get is what others think about a situation - "the consensus." No, most of the time we know exactly what Trump said and/or did (although I will admit that some folks MIGHT have gotten sloppy with his Charlottesville words; I had the pleasure of being deployed to AFG [under that very fine CinC] at that time, so I'm less literate on those details).

And sure, what media/folks one listens to can certainly impact how one views things. But that's the thing about Trump. As I've said for years, if Trump had been some secretive Cheney-like figure hiding in the depths of the White House saying very little and enacting policies the other side didn't like and the left-leaning media was painting him particularly negatively, sure, easy to believe he might be getting a somewhat unfair deal. And for folks on the right to give him the benefit of the doubt. But it's Trump. Mute the TV. Read no commentary. His tweets. His voice. Watch the mouth move. He was and is horrendous. No discussion or persuasion should have ever been needed!

I'm as anti-Trump as they come.

I am also pro-truth.

And on the muslim ban and the 'fine people' issues, he got a bum rap.

It happens.

On other things he the opposite - he did legit evil things and was barely criticized at all.

Bottom line is that is is important always to look for truth, not what you want to believe or what the mainstream media consensus blares at you.

Fat hurts wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I think it's very predictable. Look at what many of them are saying publicly and keeping in mind trump got a lot of them elected they will not be betraying him publicly, especially with a conviction meaning they knowingly supported a crook all this time. The only ones who will give in are those in danger of losing their next election in not-so-red states. The GOP has consistently not done the right thing for decades. They will self serve and play the safe card of protecting their own. 74m voted for trump at the end of the day and yes the Trumper Benghazi may have been too much for many of them, but they still think trump was an amazing president and they loved his policies and owning the libs.

The trial is not a court process where facts are critical. Everyone knows what trump did but they will disagree on the punishment and the Rs will use the usual politics to paint the Dems as vengeful monsters who don't want the country to move on and who refuse to call out antifa.

As much as I would love to see the trial as a moment of political unity, come on man!

My point is that everyone DOES NOT know what Trump did. I don't know how involved he was in the riots. That has yet to come out.

I'm only saying that if the facts are bad enough it could be enough to flip 17 senators.

nonequals wrote:

agip wrote:

I'm as anti-Trump as they come.

I am also pro-truth.

And on the muslim ban and the 'fine people' issues, he got a bum rap.

It happens.

On other things he the opposite - he did legit evil things and was barely criticized at all.

Bottom line is that is is important always to look for truth, not what you want to believe or what the mainstream media consensus blares at you.

You're not really making any distinction there in your last sentence. Perhaps you're assuming that I'm a left-leaning person, fully in-step with the mainstream media. I'm a conservative who's been annoyed by a left-leaning press for nearly 40 years.

And our exchange would give me no reason to believe that you're pro-Trump. I do, however, believe that in this case you're straining a far too hard to give him a pass. As many other posters have noted - persuasively, I think - he got exactly the rap he should have for his Muslin ban comments/policies.

agip wrote:

nonequals wrote:

You're not really making any distinction there in your last sentence. Perhaps you're assuming that I'm a left-leaning person, fully in-step with the mainstream media. I'm a conservative who's been annoyed by a left-leaning press for nearly 40 years.

And our exchange would give me no reason to believe that you're pro-Trump. I do, however, believe that in this case you're straining a far too hard to give him a pass. As many other posters have noted - persuasively, I think - he got exactly the rap he should have for his Muslin ban comments/policies.

on the muslim ban issue...probably a distinction needs to be made between what trump said...and what the ban did.

trump unambiguously called for a religious ban of muslims

but that is not what went into place, obviously. The ban was a half dozen or so nations. Exlcuding some of the largest muslim nations. And muslims from, say, the UK.

So it depends how much importance you put on what trump says. I don't put much on what he says for legal purposes...but it does reveal what is in his black heart.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

on the muslim ban issue...probably a distinction needs to be made between what trump said...and what the ban did.

trump unambiguously called for a religious ban of muslims

but that is not what went into place, obviously. The ban was a half dozen or so nations. Exlcuding some of the largest muslim nations. And muslims from, say, the UK.

So it depends how much importance you put on what trump says. I don't put much on what he says for legal purposes...but it does reveal what is in his black heart.

The courts disagreed with you. The first two EO's were thrown out because they amounted to a Muslim ban. Also, the courts carefully considered what Trump had said in rendering their verdicts. His words were admitted as evidence. What Trump said was very important for legal purposes.

Intent is important in a court room. And it's certainly important in the court of public opinion.

Trump tried to ban Muslims. It was a Muslim ban. So just call it what it was.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

on the muslim ban issue...probably a distinction needs to be made between what trump said...and what the ban did.

trump unambiguously called for a religious ban of muslims

but that is not what went into place, obviously. The ban was a half dozen or so nations. Exlcuding some of the largest muslim nations. And muslims from, say, the UK.

So it depends how much importance you put on what trump says. I don't put much on what he says for legal purposes...but it does reveal what is in his black heart.

The courts disagreed with you. The first two EO's were thrown out because they amounted to a Muslim ban. Also, the courts carefully considered what Trump had said in rendering their verdicts. His words were admitted as evidence. What Trump said was very important for legal purposes.

Intent is important in a court room. And it's certainly important in the court of public opinion.

Trump tried to ban Muslims. It was a Muslim ban. So just call it what it was.