No Trump defenders left ...?

[Guest]

The lies are increasing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... a28e2c9fa4

The wall rhetoric becomes more shrill. Lindsay Graham is auditioning for "Trump Whisperer" to calm what was once known as the GOP.

Trump's scared. He should be. The Ds are bringing heat and light.

The cogs of checks and balances the Constitution depends upon will break free from the partisan jamming and begin turning.

David Brooks, Republican, warns:

Trump doesn’t recognize, understand or respect institutional authority. He only understands personal power. He sees every conflict as a personal conflict in which he destroys or gets destroyed.

When the indictments come down, Trump won’t play by the rules. He’ll seek to delegitimize those rules. He’ll seek to delegitimize our legal institutions. He’ll personalize every indictment, slander every prosecutor. He’ll seek to destroy the edifice of law in order to save himself.

We know the language he’ll use. It will be the anti-establishment, anti-institutional language that has been coursing through the left and right for the past few decades: The establishment is corrupt, the game is rigged, the elites are out to get you.

At that point congressional leaders will face the defining choice of their careers: Where does their ultimate loyalty lie, to the Constitution or to their party?

If their loyalty is to the Constitution, they will step back and figure out, in a bipartisan way, how to hold the sort of hearings that Congress held during the Watergate scandal — hearings that inspired trust in the system. They will step back and find men and women of integrity — the modern versions of Archibald Cox, Elliot Richardson and Judge John Sirica — who would work to restore decency amid the moral rot.

On the other hand, if they put party above nation, they will see this crisis as just another episode in our long-running political circus. They’ll fall back in partisan lines. They’ll hurl abuse. Their primary concern will be: How can this help me in 2020?

If that happens, then the roughly 40 percent of Americans who support Trump will see serious evidence that he committed felonies, but they won’t care! They’ll conclude that this is not about law or integrity. It’s just a political show trial. They’ll see there is no higher authority that all Americans are accountable to. It’s just power and popularity straight through.

If that happens, we’ll have to face the fact that our Constitution and system of law were not strong enough to withstand the partisan furies that now define our politics. We’ll have to face the fact that America has become another fragile state — a kakistocracy, where laws are passed and broken without consequence, where good people lay low and where wolves are left free to prey on the weak.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/opin ... ctionfront

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Good luck getting the Cuckservatives to read that article and to understand the real implications it has for our democracy.

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

Good luck getting the Cuckservatives to read that article and to understand the real implications it has for our democracy.

- Doc

It doesn't fit onto a meme. Such is the attention span these days.

[_Markk]

Markk,

You've made it abundantly clear you have intellectual curiosity of an infant. I'm not going to spoon feed you the information that's already been posted on this forum. The fact that you just posted what you posted after I got done mocking you for not even bothering to read the links I just served up to you is pretty much par for the course.

You're fat on Chik-fil-A, bro. The banquet table doesn't interest you, you have no desire to pick up a plate and start taking your pick of all the tidbits, because why would you? You're full. You eat at Chik-fil-A. And you're pointing at the pigs-in-a-blanket telling everyone there's no banquet table, the offerings are garbage, and we're foolish for suggesting the morsels you're looking at are part of a larger spread.

What can I say? You're dull. You're committed. And your shtick is tired.

- Doc

Well Doc, you gave me what you termed as a Smoking Gun, and that is great...so we can discuss it. The affidavit that you used in your smoking gun actually gives a context to Putina's meddling, and does not in anyway tie her to Trump that I can see...if anything it shows that she was trying to get close to the winning candidate who ever it would be. It was written 2 months before the results, which everyone at the time thought would be Hillary.

Should we just ignore that context and the agents words, quoting "US person 1 (erickson?) that read..."unrelated to specific presidential campaigns". I think that is a fair question in that this was 2 months before the election which no one thought Trump had a chance.

If Putina helped Trump personally get in the White House...how does this document show, let alone prove this?

I think we need to also look at Putina's involvement with the Obama White House, so we can see what her agenda was, and where it begin.

We can go one at a time Doc, if you are willing, and see what is left to eat at the table. I know you think I am this huge Trump Supporter, I am not...I like some of the things he has done, very much, but shake my head often at other things, and his behavior is unacceptable...but lets be fair with any facts.

[_Markk]

Let's save the pretense that we're some kind of court. We're an internet forum for Chrissakes.

One by one, people very close to Trump, serving Trump, acting on behalf of Trump, are being exposed as felons, perjurers and possibly worse. And they have common ties to Russians. That's a fact, Markk. Not a conspiracy theory. It's been happening. It will continue. I expect that it will come to his family as well. Coming up with tinfoil hat scenarios will only make the Trumpers and by extension, the conservatives, look more absurd and ignorant. I think that's a disservice to conservatism. Conservatism needs to survive Trump, not become his cult of apologists and Savonarolas. Real conservatism is needed. Demagoguery in service of a dishonest businessman is not conservative, it's insanity.

You can claim there is no collusion. Keep saying that. Do you think it will stop prosecutions and convictions for felonies? Do you think that fixating on a phrase or a term is some magic shield from investigation? Only in the Fox bubble. Only if one's head is stuck in Breitbart.

Really, Markk, you're smarter than this.

LOL... I have never read Breitbart, once as far as I know...I do read wood worker journals and sporting blogs often. But I did read the whole affidavit, original copy, that Doc quoted from and I don't see it as a smoking gun as he claimed. Sticking with Putina, can you tie her to Trump in that document...lets get through this one and then go to the next.

I never claimed there was no collusion Mak...I am asking for some real evidence that ties Trump to it..I have googled it and all I find are rabbit trail opinions when unfolded...if we find evidence I can admit it and Trump should pay. What does not help is the avoidance of actually addressing each accusation with a fair amout objectivity. I understand it is a emotional topic...but fair is fair.

EA is smart, I am sure he can give a small brief type outline in his own words on the evidences that convict Trump in so many others eyes. But using Doc's smoking gun as an example "Putina" I can't convict the man for collusion, like I can for him being a egotistical narcissistic baby when he does not get his way.

Thanks

[_Chap]

No, Markk.

It's too late to play the 'let's start again as if nothing had actually happened' game.

The prosecutions and the plea deals are in full swing, and their momentum shows no sign of diminishing. Your are free to pretend nothing is happening, but Trump certainly doesn't act or tweet as if he shared your view of the way things are. It is obvious that he feels the walls closing in on him and his closest associates.

Enjoy the ride.

[_EAllusion]

After being caught in a lie, then a lie about the lie, then a lie about the lie about the lie with respect to the Trump Tower meeting, the current Trump team defense of their behavior there is that they would've conspired with Russia to accept ill-gotten opposition material on Clinton if they could because that's smart, but they didn't, so it's fine. Also, Donald Trump's top campaign officials held the meeting in Trump Tower and made heretofore unknown contacts about it within Trump tower right after, and Donald Trump almost immediately after discussed getting explosively damning material on Clinton, but Donald Trump didn't know anything about it. The same Donald Trump who was caught lying about his involvement in crafting the initial dishonest characterization of the meeting. The same one who encouraged Russian espionage against Clinton on live TV. That one.

This is all asphyxiation levels of smoke already, but it really does a disservice to the totality of evidence to lead with something like this and say, "see this right here: this is the evidence." It's a pretty darn suggestive part of the picture, no doubt, but the real case is stacking up an array of corresponding information rather than one thing.

[_subgenius]

Good luck getting the Cuckservatives to read that article and to understand the real implications it has for our democracy.

- Doc

Ooh la la, apocalyptic op-ed pieces from the Post and Times...what shall we ever do?

You guys inflate speculation to hysteria, call it fact, and then wring your hands, gnash your teeth, and on and on.

Truth is, without Trump Democrats are without an identity.

But hey, keep the faith alive amiright?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Markk. It's Butina. Not Putina. I mean, Jesus Christ man. You're so inattentive to the first thing I gave you, so unknowing about her as a person, that you misspell her name. You know what that indicates to me? It means attempting to to explain who each person is, what their relationship with Russia is, what their role with the US is, and finally how they exercise influence over the GOP and by extension the Trump administration is akin to trying to dumb down cooking an egg to a moron.

Cooking an egg ought to be easily ascertained. There's an egg. There's a pan. There's heat. There's a utensil.

And then you have a moron who just keeps screaming something about pancakes and crapping his pants.

I wouldn't know how to teach that moron how to cook an egg any more than teaching you to see what's obvious despite having told you you're in a kitchen, there's an egg, a pan, some heat, and a utensil available to you.

So. Enjoys your pants, genius.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Good luck getting the Cuckservatives to read that article and to understand the real implications it has for our democracy.

- Doc

Ooh la la, apocalyptic op-ed pieces from the Post and Times...what shall we ever do?

You guys inflate speculation to hysteria, call it fact, and then wring your hands, gnash your teeth, and on and on.

Truth is, without Trump Democrats are without an identity.

But hey, keep the faith alive amiright?

This, right here, is why I think abortion ought to be legal, and a damn shame when it's not exercised.

- Doc