ADVERTISEMENT

I Headed the F.B.I. and C.I.A. There’s a Dire Threat to the Country I Love.

I think we were done a long time ago, but your TDS comes shining through with each rant. Go ahead and have the last word...you know you have to.

The real TDS is thinking this is all normal and Trump would have been any different than he has proven himself to be at every step of the way.

Once he’s the nominee he will be different.
Once he is in office he will be different.
Once he has the right people around him he will be different:

etc...etc...etc.

He will never be different. He is incapable of putting the interest of the country over his own personal interests. Sometimes those will go hand in hand, but when they don’t, he becomes an actual threat to our nations interests and security.
 
The real TDS is thinking this is all normal and Trump would have been any different than he has proven himself to be at every step of the way.

Once he’s the nominee he will be different.
Once he is in office he will be different.
Once he has the right people around him he will be different:

etc...etc...etc.

He will never be different. He is incapable of putting the interest of the country over his own personal interests. Sometimes those will go hand in hand, but when they don’t, he becomes an actual threat to our nations interests and security.
I think it was pretty evident that he was never going to change. That’s what him got him elected and what is likely to get him reelected.

TDS Is a term that was an outgrowth of the obsession with everything about Trump and inability to acknowledge that he won the election. It affects someone’s life so that they find a hard time functioning. My sister-in-law is a great example. She can’t even watch the evening news. They can’t discuss a subject involving him rationally and anyone that disagrees with them is a Trump sycophant.

Would love it if he pass the baton to Nikki Haley as the nominee next year. But we know that’s not gonna happen.

And your last sentence is pure opinion. Those are typical CNN talking points.
 
TDS Is a term that was an outgrowth of the obsession with everything about Trump and inability to acknowledge that he won the election. It affects someone’s life so that they find a hard time functioning. My sister-in-law is a great example. She can’t even watch the evening news. They can’t discuss a subject involving him rationally and anyone that disagrees with them is a Trump sycophant.

Merge makes good points but this is also true. He is such a polarizing figure that people can't have a rational discussion about him. Either people despise him or they love everything about him. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. He has done some good for the country (trade, economy, some foreign policy) but his behavior and attempts to enrich himself have taken away from that.
 
Merge makes good points but this is also true. He is such a polarizing figure that people can't have a rational discussion about him. Either people despise him or they love everything about him. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. He has done some good for the country (trade, economy, some foreign policy) but his behavior and attempts to enrich himself have taken away from that.
One thing Trump is an expert that is the media. His success is built on being on the front page every day. His supporters want it and it drives his detractors nuts. Reminds me of George Steinbrenner when he was running the Yankees....didn’t matter if it was positive or negative publicity but it was all about owning the back page of the news.

I think most people that aren’t on those extremes see things the way you have laid them out.

One of the unintended consequences of this trial is that public perception of Congress and the media is even worse than it was before, which was pretty bad.
 
Would love it if he pass the baton to Nikki Haley as the nominee next year. But we know that’s not gonna happen.

And your last sentence is pure opinion. Those are typical CNN talking points.


My sincere hope at this point is that 4 republicans agree to call on Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify and instead of going through the trial which could unearth something bad, Trump is convinced to step down and Nikki Haley runs in 2020.

I would rather be debating policy than debating Trump.

On the last point, it’s my opinion based on what we have seen to date. Imagine the leverage Zalensky has over him for example. He calls Trump and says he will say publicly that Trump was extorting him unless Trump does xyz... he has the power to end Trumps presidency and if that call was perfect, imagine the conversations with Putin.
 
My sincere hope at this point is that 4 republicans agree to call on Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify and instead of going through the trial which could unearth something bad, Trump is convinced to step down and Nikki Haley runs in 2020.
Yes
I would rather be debating policy than debating Trump.

On the last point, it’s my opinion based on what we have seen to date. Imagine the leverage Zalensky has over him for example. He calls Trump and says he will say publicly that Trump was extorting him unless Trump does xyz... he has the power to end Trumps presidency and if that call was perfect, imagine the conversations with Putin.
Merge, you know darn well that the house could’ve worked through the courts to get all of those players to testify. It’s all about the clock right now and that’s all it matters. So it’s politically Hollow now to ask the Senate to do with they wouldn’t have the patience.

And regarding your last paragraph, you are referring to another one of your conspiracy theories.

We have the most polarizing congressional divide and both sides have dug in their heels given the polling results. Ultimately, once again, this will be decided in November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
Merge, you know darn well that the house could’ve worked through the courts to get all of those players to testify. It’s all about the clock right now and that’s all it matters. So it’s politically Hollow now to ask the Senate to do with they wouldn’t have the patience.

And regarding your last paragraph, you are referring to another one of your conspiracy theories.

We have the most polarizing congressional divide and both sides have dug in their heels given the polling results. Ultimately, once again, this will be decided in November.


The house didn’t need them for an indictment. There was enough evidence without them, so why wait months fighting in court? Move it along to the senate where their testimony would be crucial for any potential conviction. If Republicans stonewall them, then this is over. If 4 republicans decide we should hear from Bolton specifically (I don’t think the timing of his resignation right after the whistleblower complaint is a coincidence) then republicans may start to see dumping Trump as the much better option for 2020.

Btw, it’s not a conspiracy theory to believe Trump gave leverage to Ukraine. If Zalensky thought it would benefit him to have Trump out of office, he could come out and say Trump pressured him to create a false story on Biden.
 
The house didn’t need them for an indictment. There was enough evidence without them, so why wait months fighting in court? Move it along to the senate where their testimony would be crucial for any potential conviction. If Republicans stonewall them, then this is over. If 4 republicans decide we should hear from Bolton specifically (I don’t think the timing of his resignation right after the whistleblower complaint is a coincidence) then republicans may start to see dumping Trump as the much better option for 2020.

Btw, it’s not a conspiracy theory to believe Trump gave leverage to Ukraine. If Zalensky thought it would benefit him to have Trump out of office, he could come out and say Trump pressured him to create a false story on Biden.
If there was enough evidence, you would see some Republican House member switch which would put more pressure on the Senate. We all know this was done to beat the clock rather than follow a proper process. It's politics, pure and simple and Democrats see this as the best path to beat Trump in November. I don't see a scenario where four Republicans push for Bolton to testify. It's politics and the shoe is on the other foot now.

Sad we have both parties playing politics.

I'm not buying your conspiracy theory. What's stopping Zalensky from negotiating more aid now in return for him going public with some incriminating information? If he has the goods on Trump, it ensures he gets impeached and he has a spotlight to leverage for aid.

The more likely theory is that the Democrats realize that they have an incredibly weak and uninspiring cast of candidates and the economy will continue to do well through the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
If there was enough evidence, you would see some Republican House member switch which would put more pressure on the Senate. We all know this was done to beat the clock rather than follow a proper process. It's politics, pure and simple and Democrats see this as the best path to beat Trump in November. I don't see a scenario where four Republicans push for Bolton to testify. It's politics and the shoe is on the other foot now.

Disagree completely. Democrats had enough to move this along. No reason for a court battle at all. Yes, part of this is timing in that they want it to move along quickly but why should they wait when they have the votes?

The republican defense has been that this is all hearsay and you don’t see a scenario where there are 4 republican senators want to hear from a fact witness?


I'm not buying your conspiracy theory. What's stopping Zalensky from negotiating more aid now in return for him going public with some incriminating information?

It’s not a conspiracy theory to understand Zalensky has leverage in negotiating with Trump right now. You don’t throw your cards down when you get a winning hand, you play them.
 
Disagree completely. Democrats had enough to move this along. No reason for a court battle at all. Yes, part of this is timing in that they want it to move along quickly but why should they wait when they have the votes?

The republican defense has been that this is all hearsay and you don’t see a scenario where there are 4 republican senators want to hear from a fact witness?




It’s not a conspiracy theory to understand Zalensky has leverage in negotiating with Trump right now. You don’t throw your cards down when you get a winning hand, you play them.
We will have to agree to disagree. I’m sure there are Republicans that want to hear from them, but like I said earlier, it’s only about politics, so they will follow the lead and acquit.

If there is any there, Zalensky has leverage with the U.S., not just Trump.
 
We will have to agree to disagree. I’m sure there are Republicans that want to hear from them, but like I said earlier, it’s only about politics, so they will follow the lead and acquit.

Yep, we shall see soon enough.

it’s easy for Republicans in the house to vote against impeachment since the outcome doesn’t change.

Much different in the senate where if they can’t find 4 senators to call witnesses, they will all be signing off that it is acceptable behavior to hold foreign aid for political help. Between Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Flake, I think it’s about 50/50 that they will get there.
 
Yep, we shall see soon enough.

it’s easy for Republicans in the house to vote against impeachment since the outcome doesn’t change.

Much different in the senate where if they can’t find 4 senators to call witnesses, they will all be signing off that it is acceptable behavior to hold foreign aid for political help. Between Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Flake, I think it’s about 50/50 that they will get there.
Jeff Flake left the Senate in January. We shall see...my money says those others put politics ahead of any concerns.
 
My bad, I meant Sasse.
Throw in “little Marco” as well to that group. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind, though the politics are a bit harsher for him in Florida.
 
I didn't vote for him, but being a conservative lean, I figured that, at best, he could change the face of the SCOTUS. He has done that, and probably would continue to do so, but it's beyond time for Trump to go. I am dismayed at many fellow Catholics who have lined up behind him, because he is willing to do the work that will strengthen the pro-life position (although I don't believe he is in the least concerned about the pro-life movement, aside from what political edge it can provide him). Any conservative should be concerned about the damage he is doing, at the very least, to the Republican party, which risks losing all credibility as we emerge from this mess.
 
I didn't vote for him, but being a conservative lean, I figured that, at best, he could change the face of the SCOTUS. He has done that, and probably would continue to do so, but it's beyond time for Trump to go. I am dismayed at many fellow Catholics who have lined up behind him, because he is willing to do the work that will strengthen the pro-life position (although I don't believe he is in the least concerned about the pro-life movement, aside from what political edge it can provide him). Any conservative should be concerned about the damage he is doing, at the very least, to the Republican party, which risks losing all credibility as we emerge from this mess.

This is where I'm at. I lean right on some issues and I lean left on others, but am pretty much down the middle overall. I gave him a chance, overall he has failed. I think a decent person with his platform would be a wild success as president. Unfortunately, Trump's personality and lack of morals/ethics makes him unfit for the office he holds. I do not think he should be convicted in the Senate, but I do hope he loses the election. I'm not sure the country can handle four more years of this.
 
I do not think he should be convicted in the Senate, but I do hope he loses the election. I'm not sure the country can handle four more years of this.

To follow up on that point, I agree that he should not be convicted based on what we know today. But there is also little doubt in my mind Trump is the kind of guy that would try to hold aid for a political favor.

If we hear additional testimony that confirms that occurred, would you support conviction, or do you think this issue is not worth removal from office?
 
To follow up on that point, I agree that he should not be convicted based on what we know today. But there is also little doubt in my mind Trump is the kind of guy that would try to hold aid for a political favor.

If we hear additional testimony that confirms that occurred, would you support conviction, or do you think this issue is not worth removal from office?

It depends on what comes out in the trial, and I'm not sure it will be fair.
 
It depends on what comes out in the trial, and I'm not sure it will be fair.

That’s fair, just wondering if there was anything that could sway your opinion on removal because of the Ukraine issue or if you think even if there is evidence he held aid just for help in 2020, that wouldn’t be worth removal.

If public opinion doesn’t move much, I don’t think removal would be good for the country. There would need to be a combination of damning evidence in the senate trial and public support for removal to be much higher than it is now.
 
I didn't vote for him, but being a conservative lean, I figured that, at best, he could change the face of the SCOTUS. He has done that, and probably would continue to do so, but it's beyond time for Trump to go. I am dismayed at many fellow Catholics who have lined up behind him, because he is willing to do the work that will strengthen the pro-life position (although I don't believe he is in the least concerned about the pro-life movement, aside from what political edge it can provide him). Any conservative should be concerned about the damage he is doing, at the very least, to the Republican party, which risks losing all credibility as we emerge from this mess.
Excellent take I agree.
 
Merge makes good points but this is also true. He is such a polarizing figure that people can't have a rational discussion about him. Either people despise him or they love everything about him. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. He has done some good for the country (trade, economy, some foreign policy) but his behavior and attempts to enrich himself have taken away from that.


The truth is not in the middle in the case. It's not all bad and I would never argue such. Many on the left have trouble accepting this. I will argue there is more bad than good here by too wide of a margin. Many on the right have trouble accepting this. I'd also argue his conduct absolutely detracts from any positives. People generally don't want to give an a-hole credit.

Anecdotally, I have many rational interactions/conversations on Trump with people, but do recognize it's a touchy subject (politics and religion usually are). I've got friends and family all over the political spectrum and these conversations and plenty of ball-busting will ensue over the next few weeks. I hope my Trumpers enjoy the t-shirts I've bought them.

AFA2020-BLACK-AT.jpg
 
I didn't vote for him, but being a conservative lean, I figured that, at best, he could change the face of the SCOTUS. He has done that, and probably would continue to do so, but it's beyond time for Trump to go. I am dismayed at many fellow Catholics who have lined up behind him, because he is willing to do the work that will strengthen the pro-life position (although I don't believe he is in the least concerned about the pro-life movement, aside from what political edge it can provide him). Any conservative should be concerned about the damage he is doing, at the very least, to the Republican party, which risks losing all credibility as we emerge from this mess.

Your last sentence is a common theme in speaking with my conservative/Republican people. While I joke (not really joking) I have disdain for both sides, I do rely upon them and do align with them both on a variety of issues. I am interested in effective governing and policy regardless of sides/ideologies. I'm not going to get that. In lieu of that, my hope is for the sides to create balance through push and pull, limiting extremism and collaborating/compromising on some solid policy and governing. So, I support moderates and ask them to fight/resist the wackos in the party extremes. I watched in dismay as the minority Tea Party took over too much power within the GOP. I'm watching the dems fight the woke/socialist ding-dongs now. My pronouns are ST/FU if anyone is wondering.

IMO, Trumpism is a whole different ball of wax. It's a steep departure from actual/traditional conservatism and wades into dangerous, crazy-town territory. Don't risk long-term damage at the expense of short-term wins. Hear the thunder folks.

Side note: I'd prefer non-partisan judges who operate with pragmatism above all else. I'm not going to get that one either. Yay for me.
 
I didn't vote for him, but being a conservative lean, I figured that, at best, he could change the face of the SCOTUS. He has done that, and probably would continue to do so, but it's beyond time for Trump to go. I am dismayed at many fellow Catholics who have lined up behind him, because he is willing to do the work that will strengthen the pro-life position (although I don't believe he is in the least concerned about the pro-life movement, aside from what political edge it can provide him). Any conservative should be concerned about the damage he is doing, at the very least, to the Republican party, which risks losing all credibility as we emerge from this mess.

Jeff Flake is on line one for you.


Jeff Flake: The president is on trial. So are my Senate Republican colleagues.
imrs.php

Jeff Flake. (Laura Segall/The Washington Post)
It might not be fair, but none of the successes, achievements and triumphs you’ve had in public office — whatever bills you’ve passed, hearings you’ve chaired, constituents you have had the privilege of helping — will matter more than your actions in the coming months.

President Trump is on trial. But in a very real sense, so are you. And so is the political party to which we belong.

As we approach the time when you do your constitutional duty and weigh the evidence arrayed against the president, I urge you to remember who we are when we are at our best. And I ask you to remember yourself at your most idealistic.

We are conservatives. The political impulses that compelled us all to enter public life were defined by sturdy pillars anchored deep in the American story. Chief among these is a realistic view of power and of human nature, and a corresponding and healthy mistrust of concentrated and impervious executive power. Mindful of the base human instincts that we all possess, the founders of our constitutional system designed its very architecture to curb excesses of power.

Those curbs are especially important when the power is wielded by a president who denies reality itself and calls his behavior not what it is, but “perfect.”

Personally, I have never met anyone whose behavior can be described as perfect, but so often has the president repeated this obvious untruth that it has become a form of dogma in our party. And sure enough, as dogma demands, there are members of our party denying objective reality by repeating the line that “the president did nothing wrong.” My colleagues, the danger of an untruthful president is compounded when the coequal branch follows that president off the cliff, into the abyss of unreality and untruth.

Call it the founders’ blind spot: They simply could not have envisioned the Article I branch abetting and enabling such dangerous behavior in the Article II branch. And when we are complicit, we cede our constitutional responsibilities, we forever redefine the relationship between Congress and the White House and we set the most dangerous of precedents.
My simple test for all of us: What if President Barack Obama had engaged in precisely the same behavior? I know the answer to that question with certainty, and so do you. You would have understood with striking clarity the threat it posed, and you would have known exactly what to do.

Regarding the articles of impeachment, you could reasonably conclude that the president’s actions warrant his removal. You might also determine that the president’s actions do not rise to the constitutional standard required for removal. There is no small amount of moral hazard with each option, but both positions can be defended.

But what is indefensible is echoing House Republicans who say that the president has not done anything wrong. He has.

The willingness of House Republicans to bend to the president’s will by attempting to shift blame with the promotion of bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories has been an appalling spectacle. It will have long-term ramifications for the country and the party, to say nothing of individual reputations.

Nearly all of you condemned the president’s behavior during the 2016 campaign. Nearly all of you refused to campaign with him. You knew then that doing so would be wrong — would be a stain on your reputation and the standing of the Republican Party, and would do lasting damage to the conservative cause.

Ask yourself today: Has the president changed his behavior? Has he grown in office? Has the mantle of the presidency altered his conduct? The answer is obvious. In fact, if the president’s political rally in Michigan on Wednesday is any measure, his language has only become more vulgar, his performance cruder, his behavior more boorish and unstable.

Next, ask yourself: If the president’s conduct hasn’t changed, has mine? Before President Trump came on the scene, would I have stood at a rally and cheered while supporters shouted “lock her up” or “send them back”? Would I have laughed along while the president demeaned and ridiculed my colleagues? Would I have ever thought to warm up the crowd for the president by saying of the House speaker: “It must suck to be that dumb”?

As I said above, I don’t envy you. You’re on a big stage now. Please don’t accept an alternate reality that would have us believe in things that obviously are not true, in the service of executive behavior that we never would have encouraged and a theory of executive power that we have always found abhorrent.

If there ever was a time to put country over party, it is now. And by putting country over party, you might just save the Grand Old Party before it’s too late.
 
Yang summed it up well;

“What we have to do is we have to stop being obsessed over impeachment, which unfortunately strikes many Americans like a ballgame where you know what the score is going to be,” he said, “and start actually digging in and solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected in the first place. ... The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what's going on in our communities and solve those problems.”
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT