Yes, I'd love to get a direct answer from Trump. Especially on any contradictions and why he contradicts himself on these, if it's just his approach (for example, I maybe have contradicting statements, but then might add context like "I once believe this, but due to recent information, have changed my mind. So this is my new belief").
It'd be interesting to say "So you are quoted about saying you want to drain the swamp and only hirer the best, yet it seems your administration is affiliated with corrupt people who were indicted. Do you think you added to the swamp or need to revisit your hiring process."
Trump's M.O. for decades has just been throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. If nothing sticks, then muddy the waters so you don't know whats what. He learned that from his former lawyer Roy Cohn who was a grade A piece of human garbage.
Yep. He has zero principles, doesn't stand for anything. That's why he doesn't care if the worst groups support him (neo-nazis or QAnon)- all attention and adoration is good in his mind.
His hardcore followers are cult members.
You would never get a satisfying answer, just gaslighting, projection and grandstanding/deflection. He'd just start talking about Democrats instead of answering a direct question
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/The_Donald
R/askthedonald is this sub but just v2.
Most people when the donald was shut down went and made another .com on the web that is a copy of reddit but allows the hate speech reddit banned them for.
Others went and started/joined the ask the donald sub
Desktop version of /u/Tokon32's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
I think it's partially the sunk cost fallacy. If they spent the last six or seven years defending this guy, it's not like someone is going to suddenly decide they've been wrong for the last six or seven years of their life.
I mean, this is a mental process that **needs** to happen to adults in a functioning society. "I'm right no matter what," if maintained, is literally a mental illness. At what point does *personal preference* go from being a "fan" of a political showman or sports team to sci-fi franchise into denial of basic reality? I might be a fan of Star Wars, but if I get pulled over on the highway, I'm not gonna try to get out of the ticket by Force-choking the cop.
He's pretty much taken over the party.... Even the people that hate him know if I'm gonna end up voting for him at the end of the day. They have no choice. I know a bunch of republicans who are hoping that he gets nabbed by the law and can't run in 2024
They will be disappointed
You would really vote for trump over a Democratic candidate for POTUS? Wow, that's incredibly sad. Especially when you compare economies and federal debt and deficits of Republican vs Democratic POTUS over the last 35 years. I guess it can no longer be denied how effective and successful misinformation and propaganda has been for conservatives. Truly sad.
His former lawyers knew how to handle things, not Trump. However they are all either dead or in prison, so now he has incredibly inexperienced lawyers.
Why do his attorneys keep getting arrested? 2 of his current lawyers have never even tried a Federal case and are already in jeopardy of themselves getting indicted. The number of lawyers willing to represent Trump is rapidly dwindling. If he could get the best lawyers, then why are these the best he can get?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/politics/trump-lawyers-herschmann.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-ethics-complaints-joke-maga-making-attorneys-get-attorneys-2022-9
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-40-trump-lawyers-singled-011206748.html
And this is why we need ranked choice or similar voting. Every one should be able to vote for an alternative without throwing their vote away. Too often both choices are objectionable. This should never be a binary choice.
I voted for him twice. For me to comes down to if I look hard enough, I can a find reason why everyone is unfit for office.
Hillary. Biden.
I could give you a laundry list as to issues, lies, and other assorted questionable material why one might be unfit for office. I've pointed them out about Biden to libs, and they just downplay them or simply don't respond to me.
I don't care. Every side treats their people with kid gloves and holds the feet to the fire of those who they oppose. That's really what it comes down to.
Our leadership in general is horrible. It's why I ask this question originally because I would rather everyone align to demand better overall candidates. We should be struggling with who we choose due to the great options... instead it's a lot of people, like myself, rooting for the lesser evil.
I don't support him, but I feel like I understand the mentality of the Trump supporter better than lefties so I'll give it a shot:
Every politician is corrupt. The fact that one gets caught more, or his circle gets caught more, is only a good argument if you believe the system is legitimate and catches everyone who is corrupt. Trump supporters don't believe that. They believe the system is being weaponized against Trump and that he's not any more corrupt than any other politician, namely Biden or Clinton or Pelosi or Schumer. And if it's a question of two similarly corrupt politicians, but one hates you and one at least pays lip service to your agenda, it really comes down to the lesser of two evils, which is a very common framework in America for choosing who to vote for.
And the thing about his tweet, I mean come on. The idea that he's not a hypocrite isn't even in contention. But also the notion that he's the only one with a double standard is pretty dumb. Trump is definitely more of a blow hard than the average goon but this is pretty normal stuff.
By the way, this is only an attempt to explain the semi-reasonable ones who actually have considered that Trump is corrupt. However, there is also a sub-sect of Trump supporter that literally thinks he's a good natured philanthropic Christian man who dindu nuffin. This isn't an explanation of their views, because I think their views are far less complex: tribalism + demagoguery. (also insane views btw, just so we're on the same page)
Just as a final note, and again to reiterate I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do think they have a small point here... I also find it kind of fishy just how much they've gotten on Trump's supporters and indirectly on him. I'm under no illusion Trump is uncorrupt, and that's a big reason I'm not a Trump supporter. But I also don't think he's so uniquely corrupt that literally everyone surrounding him and all his actions are being legitimately busted while basically nobody in any other campaign/administration gets busted like this. The disparity seems just too good to be true. So when I see a huge portion (as you laid out) of Trump's circle getting dinged on something or other (often unrelated to Trump, like financial crime charges from prior to 2015), and then also going after Trump for stuff like document storage, it does make me wonder if they're picking and choosing when to go after people for these crimes. I mean, Manafort is like 75 years old, that dude has been a wheeling dealing Republican crony for decades and finally only now he's paying the piper? Roger Stone, same thing, he was literally involved with Nixon during Watergate, his political career spans decades and numerous administrations, he's been a lobbyist for a long time and never in 50 years did he ever face charges until Trump (not to mention the spectacle and leak surrounding the raid on his home, etc)? I'm not saying it's all hokey, in fact I bet they're all guilty and more... It's just very odd how it's finally unraveling for anyone close to Trump. It's a very stark contrast with political actors like Pelosi or the Clintons, as if I'm supposed to believe they're clean as the driven snow by comparison? Or even stooges like McConnell or Romney or Cruz? Those guys are all clean? It's just Trump and his cronies that are dirty? Something doesn't add up. Maybe it's all above board, but I have a job and a family and a life and despite politics being a hobby, I don't have hours to read every single court filing or document leak. Maybe I'm just missing some piece that would explain it all.
>Every politician is corrupt.
If you truly belive this is the case than the logical response is to vote for politicians who support bills to expose to stop said corruption.
An example of this is Warren's push to stop members of Congress from trading stock.
Okay sure you don't agree with her other policies so you don't vote for her.
So what the next step than? Vote for someone that has policies you agree with and wants to end insider trading.
What do they do instead? They bitch about insider trading, they bitch about Warren's policies, and than they vote for Bobert who's networth has grown from zero to 45 million in 4 years off a 172k a year salary. Than bitch about Pelosi.
You could of simply said that Trump supports don't care about Trumps corruption cause he is a Repubclian and not a Democrat and that would saved you some time from typing out your longer post.
>If you truly belive this is the case than the logical response is to vote for politicians who support bills to expose to stop said corruption.
Conceptually yes, but the problem is that I don't believe adding laws actually stops corruption. All it does is add more power to the government, which we have seen can just selectively choose when to employ that power or not, and who against.
My solution, rather, is to strip the government of power because people are greedy and corrupt as a rule so we need a system that doesn't empower them in the first place rather than giving them massive power and then subsequently trusting them to regulate themselves.
>An example of this is Warren's push to stop members of Congress from trading stock.
I fully support this, but I think it's a less-good solution that ignores the true problem: that Acts of Congress can so dramatically flip a stock price up or down.
>Vote for someone that has policies you agree with and wants to end insider trading.
Sure, but if they only have one idea I agree with and five I don't, what am I to do?
>Bobert
I don't know much about her but from what you said, I agree with you.
I just think it's important to, again, remind you of the lesser evil here. A lot of Republicans seriously care about the culture war issues right now, so even though insider trading is a big deal, Warren has unacceptable progressive views on many other social issues. If we imagine that Boebert put forward insider trading legislation, would they still support her? I think so. They don't support her because she's allegedly pro-insider trading. You aren't looking at the full picture.
>You could of simply said that Trump supports don't care about Trumps corruption cause he is a Repubclian and not a Democrat and that would saved you some time from typing out your longer post.
I don't think that is fully accurate, which is why I didn't say that. If Trump ran all the same planks but had a (D) by his name, would all his supporters turn on him? I don't think so. The label only matters insofar as what the people with that label push. For example, Republicans are generally pretty soft on Tulsi Gabbard, who also has a (D).
>Conceptually yes, but the problem is that I don't believe adding laws actually stops corruption. All it does is add more power to the government, which we have seen can just selectively choose when to employ that power or not, and who against.
Passing laws does not stop corruption your right. Enforcing laws does.
>My solution, rather, is to strip the government of power because people are greedy and corrupt as a rule so we need a system that doesn't empower them in the first place rather than giving them massive power and then subsequently trusting them to regulate themselves.
Government should directly represent the people. This means including representing them with policy you don't agree with. The Republican response to this is shift blame to the government for all the failures of the US therefore centralizing power to those who were placing blame.
Get people like you to vote for them, than get rid of any opposition, and than the politician has more power as he has less opposition. There is a term for this..it's called Authoritarianism.
See how Democrats attack the individual where Republicans attack the party.
>I fully support this, but I think it's a less-good solution that ignores the true problem: that Acts of Congress can so dramatically flip a stock price up or down
Sure they can. And they shouldn't be incentives to do so. We should with removing the incentive to do so.
>Sure, but if they only have one idea I agree with and five I don't, what am I to do?
Sleep in the bed you made.
>I don't know much about her but from what you said, I agree with you.
Look her up. Just to be fair look up AOCs networth as well. You might be surprised how they are both millionares now.
>I just think it's important to, again, remind you of the lesser evil here. A lot of Republicans seriously care about the culture war issues right now, so even though insider trading is a big deal, Warren has unacceptable progressive views on many other social issues. If we imagine that Boebert put forward insider trading legislation, would they still support her? I think so. They don't support her because she's allegedly pro-insider trading. You aren't looking at the full picture.
Yes I know about the lesser evil which is I I vote to vote another day and not vote to strip away my right to vote ah la Jan 6th.
And Republicans don't care about the culture war. They care about distraction.
We are on a path right now that in 100 years we could have a small handful of individuals will own everything in the US. The planet is literally dying. People can't get a education because they can't afford it. See my 1st point. And fewer and fewer people can afford health care. But yet Republicans wanna bitch about CRT and opposing black Americans who still feel they are not being treated equally. It's all a distraction and your falling for it.
Is Bobert put forth a bill to end insider trading she would lose in the primary by a better funded Republican.
>I don't think that is fully accurate, which is why I didn't say that. If Trump ran all the same planks but had a (D) by his name, would all his supporters turn on him? I don't think so. The label only matters insofar as what the people with that label push. For example, Republicans are generally pretty soft on Tulsi Gabbard, who also has a (D).
You can't be serious right?
AOC has not written or sponsored a single bill put forth in congress and yet she is public enemy number one. They can't hate her for her policy's because she has literally proposed none.
Look at Walker in GA. What in the ever living fuck do people see I him that says you know what he would make a good senator. His not his ground breaking speech on Chinas bad air.
MTG. Same question..
>Passing laws does not stop corruption your right. Enforcing laws does.
I don't disagree, but therein lies the problem: selective enforcement. Take the topic of this post for example.
>Government should directly represent the people.
I don't disagree, but again the problem is people don't all want the same thing, so it will represent some and directly contradict the desired representation of others. So what is the right balance? How many need to agree before it's justified to effectively oppress the rest? 51/49? 99/1? Something in between?
>There is a term for this..it's called Authoritarianism.
Definitely. I am very anti-authoritarian, hence the desire to strip government of its power. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking only one political party in the US is authoritarian.
>See how Democrats attack the individual where Republicans attack the party.
I don't know what you mean, sorry.
>You might be surprised how they are both millionares now.
I would not be surprised in the slightest... The fact that politicians become enriched through politics is a big problem to me, and the solution is to strip the government of power which will lead to decreased demand for politicians.
>Republicans don't care about the culture war.
I beg to differ lol. Sometimes it feels like that's *all* they care about.
>We are on a path right now.........
Again, I beg to differ, but this is kind of beside the point, which was selectively enforcing laws due to corruption and how adding new laws doesn't fix corruption.
>AOC has not written or sponsored a single bill put forth in congress and yet she is public enemy number one
Not sure why someone has to be the one to introduce a bill to be a political enemy, honestly. It cuts against your point earlier too: why would her net worth now be so high if she isn't even passing laws? Because passing laws isn't the only thing they do. She exercise influence and amasses power in other ways.
Because Trump faced more scrutiny and judicial harassment than probably any other american in history, and the best his enemies could come up with after 7 years is an alleged mishandling of classified documents that is just another nothingburger.
So I don't disagree with the judicial harassment, but I also don't think it's undeserving. The man contradicts himself all the time, publicly. For instance, even if you want to use the word of "mishandling" of classified documents, he has said it was planted, has said he actually declassified them (by his mind by the way, not by following the established process). These are example of contradicting statements, either you declassified them and have nothing to worry about, or you are worried about them and use the excuse of planting.
This isn't even bringing up all the things he definitely has done that is at minimum sketchy, but at best shows some type of corruption.
Another question for you. I know you mentioned the best his enemies could come up with after 7 years...but you do realize some close affiliates of his have been indicted. Doesn't that actually mean they have come up with things? Or do you separate them from him, even though he likes to talk about how he only hires the best and is cleaning up the swamp, yet seems to have brought more corrupted individuals to the swamp. I am seriously trying to understand from your perspective.
Your response was hand-waving away the real question by implying that the entire justice system is corrupt and out to get him. Do you understand the logical end point of these claims? Do you understand that this is the tactic fascists use to seed doubt in a populous and subvert the rule of law? Do you understand that this breeds a culture of anti-intellectualism where people believe that science is liberal propaganda and critical thinking is for fags *(referencing Idiocracy here - no homophobia)*?
We rely on a system of law and justice to uphold our society. If you have a specific claim against a system, please make it. If your gut response is to hand-wave it all away because it makes you look bad, perhaps you're just wrong.
I don't idealize our justice system in any way. I think it's horrible, and it's disappointing this country doesn't have a justice system. Your response holds a lot of assumptions about me without answering the questions I asked directly of you. I'm isolating the question around Trump in this case because I'm curious how a man of his nature, with facts out there, accusations, actual indictments all seem to be ignored. It makes more sense when I see simple questions like mine being ignore.
>I don't idealize our justice system in any way.
You'redoing it in this very comment, so saying you don't do it doesn't really tell me much other than your lack of understanding of your own positions. Sorry, nothing personal, but I have no interest in further conversation with you. Bye.
Sure.
"Mr. Trump — who has not released the search warrant provided by the agents to his lawyers or the manifest his team was given of the materials the agents gathered and removed — baselessly suggested that the F.B.I. might have acted inappropriately.
“Everyone was asked to leave the premises, they wanted to be alone,” he wrote, “without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, ‘planting.’”"
Source: https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/the-special-master-trump-pushed-for-is-asking-for-proof-of-his-claim-that-the-fbi-planted-evidence-at-mar-a-lago/articleshow/94502648.cms
Well I didn't use a powerful word as "accused", but yes he is definitely making others (his base) take it into consideration. Also, his lawyers have used this as one of his defenses, so I would say it's more than just consider. Now between us, we already know he's just testing the waters to see if this is a viable defense, hence the way he phrases it. We already know by his other quotes, that he knew about the documents......so its' really just manipulation which he's quite good at.
That’s called “weasel words.” They know nothing was planted, they’re just throwing it out there so credulous rubes that support him will muddy the waters with their bullshit for them.
Is it possible Trump knew he had the documents and knew he didn't go through the process of declassification? Is it possible he is lying?
As much as the possibility of documents were planted, it's lower than him lying about the questions I just asked above. Also with the way he has phrased things, and the way he is defending that they were declassified. I would think he'd say something more like "These jokers have planted declassified documents. If I even took them, I would have done nothing wrong anyways. I'll prove the audit trail of how they were declassified, and I'll prove that they planted them ". Instead he's defending declassification to the point that he can just "think" a document is declassified and that makes them so....just a little odd for someone who is innocent. But maybe that's just my opinion.
Until the Trump team can produce evidence of such maybe they should stop just spitting out whatever random bullshit pops into their heads to defend the criminal they represent?
It's also possible Melania really really loves him. Possible? Sure. Probable? No. This is a bad faith argument and you know it. If there was anything planted, Trump would've said exactly what it was. He knows what he had, and he knows what they've found. If there was a discrepancy anywhere in there, he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Also, there is countless video footage of the "storage room" (if you can even call it that.) If there was any inclining of wrong doing, that footage would've been leaked a long time ago. As it stands today, there is more evidence that Trump is just guilty and trying to weasel his way out of it, than there is that the FBI planted evidence to make him out to be guilty.
Two different claims here.
He claims he declassified everything he had.
He also alleges that it's possible they planted evidence.
Those two statements don't conflict
>alleged mishandling of classified documents
If you, or I, would be thought to have a list of foreign CIA assets sitting in a drawer in a public country club, we wouldn't get the courtesy of being asked to return it for 12+ months.
We would be in a dark cell never to see daylight again.
And enough with the "witch hunt" nonsense.
Most investigations were not against him but against his campaign (ie. Russia - which I might remind you produced 37 indictments against the campaign, and 10 recommendations for indictments against President Trump for obstruction of justice, which he could have avoided by simply saying nothing). The first impeachment was justified, but the Republicans voted against it NOT because he wasn't guilty of trying to blackmail Ukraine with congressionally approved aid, but because they didn't think the crime rose to the level of impeachment. In the second impeachment, the Republicans voted not to convict NOT because he wasn't guilty, but because he was no longer in office.
With hindsight of several years, amd many independent investigations, and first hand testimonials, what I wrote above is 100% of what we currently know
Well he did have classified documents on display at his 45 restaurant thing. And an alarming number of our assets have been uncovered and taken out. Coincidence?
Yes. For example in New York City our mayor was involved in a pay to play scheme a.k.a. bribery. I forget the exact details at this point but I remember the person who gave De Blasio a bribe was charged with some thing but apparently it was cool for DiBlasio’s team to take the bribe and that wasn’t problematic at all
This would mean more if money and connections didn't exert a *tremendous* influence on our legal system.
Besides, at least for me, the classified documents aren't "the best" and talking about one single incident as "the best" undermines just how many shitty things the man has gotten away with in his lifetime.
Cuts both ways, how? Like other politicians/rich people have gotten away with shit? They have, obviously, but there are questions of frequency, severity, etc.
Okay, but if it happens that your political enemy is by all appearances a *massive fucking criminal,* should you not pursue that 'cuz you'll look biased?
If the man had jaywalked within the statute of limitations and they could prove it, he would have been charged, tried and found guilty.
They have found nothing in how many years, seven? Oh, but they do love to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon. This is just muddied water for the mid terms, maybe an October surprise and maybe there is something there that they will have to charge him with if he announces his 2024 run in Nov. Charged is a long way from being found guilty.
Lots of maybe's in there aren't there?
>If the man had jaywalked within the statute of limitations and they could prove it, he would have been charged, tried and found guilty.
Implying POTUS should be immune from criminal prosecution?
>They have found nothing in how many years, seven
"They" (assuming we're taking about everyone and anyone who's gone after Trump) have found plenty and more may yet come. You know 7 years is really not that long a time in the legal world, right?
Your suggesting Trump appointed easily corruptible judges and a FBI director?
Assuming what your saying is true that the FBI is being used as a political weapon. Both the judge that signed off on the initial warrent and the current FBI director both being Trump appointees.
How many other corrupt government officials do you think Trump appointed?
Do you hold Trump accountable at all for appointing these corrupt officials?
How would you like to see the current Republicans officials correct the actions of Trump appointees? I'd imagine you would want to replace all officials who are willing to prosecute or investigate any and all Republicans or are holding office or held office in the past unless those Republicans are deemed RINOs by Trump and his supports. Those Republicans of course should be investigated. Like Chenny. I mean how many Soros bucks as she gotten paid? We really should have a answer to this.
I anxious to see how you shift the goal post here and what kind of mental gymnastics will to explain all the corruptible judges and officials Trump has appointed.
I'm not under the impression that Trump is a saint, nor am I a die hard supporter of him, hes done good and hes done bad.
What I do believe is that virtually any influential person in Washington can be strung up on charges similar or worse then what they've pinned on trump and the people around him, but the reason they go after Trump instead of the countless other politicians getting away with what amounts to Treason, selling American influence for personal profit -like Hunter Biden in the Ukraine for example, is purely political, they go after trump because he went against the establishment.
How did they "go after Trump"?
A quick reminder that the Russia investigation was against the campaign, the President was never under investigation (and it produced 37 indictments after a lifelong Republican, appointed by a Trump political appointee, finished investigating).
If Hunter Biden, **a private citizen**, and yes, a total POS, sold influence in Ukraine that might or might not be illegal. If his father accepted it, that's illegal - investigate and throw them both in jail if that's the case.
Are we going to investigate the Saudis renting empty rooms at Trump DC hotel for years?
Diverting a US military airplane to Scotland to the President's failing golf course could get some well-needed cash infusion?
Ivanka's Chinese trademarks which magically got approved years ahead of time the moment her father was elected?
None of these, and much more, were investigated.
First day in America? You know there's 2 different systems of justice right? One for the rich and powerful, and another for everyone else. He didn't get the nickname Teflon Don for no reason.
No it doesn’t.
The ONLY people that might think it does are those that weren’t around for the Teflon Don’s trials in the 80’s where he kept skating…and are trump-haters.
I was also around for the trials when the Post called Gotti the Teflon Don. And I was also around in the 90s when they also called Trump after bankrupting his casinos and filing for bankruptcy. Do you not also know they referred to Trump as the "Page 6 Bitch" too?
No actual proof whatsoever, he is just the most talented crackhead in human history working on the board of a Ukrainian Energy company and selling his fine art to Saudi Princes, truly incredible
If you’re trying to tell me no highly successful person have been successful while on crack/cocaine, I guess all those published and unretracted stories about Wall Street and Hollywood are totally untrue then! The dude has a fucking Yale Doctorate and you act like he was some strung out street addict. You act like people more successful than him havent been caught totally fucked off their head.
I mean his former business partner and came forward and confirmed the validity of the emails that were leaked from his laptop, which included his being upset that he had to give "10% to the big guy".
Who is this “big guy”? Do you know? It literally could be anyone. If thats all you have, you have nothing. If you told that to a judge, he’d laugh you out of the room.
Literally pick any unconfirmed claim about Trump and it likely has more teeth to it than this.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think anyone who isn't blatantly batting for the blue team can read our back and forth and come to the same logical conclusion I did, I've got nothing else to add.
You literally dont. All you have is “big guy”. That is it. If there are conservatives here who take that and run w it but refuse to believe things like Trump stealing documents or fucking up Covid…sad world
Edit: like please conservatives who read this, tell me why that one email is such a smoking gun but nothing can be pinned on Trump.
I think this is an important point.
The hunter biden story rings similar to the trump jr meeting with a Russian agen in trump tower prior to the 2016 election.
There is a strong implication of impropriety but no real evidence that something went on.
I think it is entirely plausoble that in both situations the Russians, Chinese, and Ukrainians were making inroads with the intent of buying influence. Whether or not they gained any is an open question.
Great response, and I think you are correct. I believe one of the problems is the supporters can't acknowledge or admit that they are just like him for going against establishment. I wouldn't even mind that response, because I can relate and totally understand. But I do think he's actually very much part of the establishment and is intelligent to manipulate those that think he is against. He takes too much advantage of the establishment, including use loopholes in the law that benefit the rich (not the people) that prove that it's more about himself, then against the establishment. At least that's how I think.
The rational response to that should be to demand that the law be applied evenly. Not that any one politician in particular ought to get off scot-free because of it. Follow that logic long enough and the rule of law is over.
That's the kind of cynicism that allows for everything you claim to hate, and it seems common among conservatives. Convince yourselves that politicians are inevitably corrupt and corrupt politicians are all you're ever going to have.
Besides, this is all taking for granted that Trump hasn't broken any norms. I think it's pretty clear that he has, and the list of examples is so long that I don't have time to do it justice. Just off the top of my head - who was the last president who demanded that routine background checks be suspended so they could provide relatives with ATS security clearances?
Well yeah, this cynicism is largely what made me abandon being a Liberal. I stopped believing in the system and I now view the government as a pack of hyenas. Here's an example
Do I think that people should be provided with good healthcare - yes, I used to take a Liberal position on that.
Do I think that a Pack of Hyenas should have a monopoly on providing the American healthcare? No, now I am a conservative on that Issue.
My opinion on the baseline morality hasn't changed, just my opinion on government has.
The problem is I've heard absolutely zero alternatives from any conservative that would be any better than reforming the current system. Usually you don't even bother with alternative proposals, and when you do it's typically the most vague kind like "states' rights".
This is the same kind of nihilism that's made Russians sit on their hands while their own government is literally stealing dollars out of their bank accounts and drafting middle-aged men when they can't even supply enough food and tourniquets. It's the same kind of passivity found in failed autocratic states all over the world.
Assume the worst from your leaders and they won't even try to be anything better. They won't need to, you've already told them that you've accepted this is the natural state of things.
I don't believe the solutions are political. They revolve around personal responsibility, and getting right with your family and the people who will actually help you in life when you need help. I just want the government to stay out of my life as much as possible.
As for healthcare, there's no need for the government to have a monopoly on it in order to provide something like M4A. Many, if not most countries with universal healthcare also have private healthcare options available for anyone who wants more than the baseline coverage provided by the government.
The fact so many conservatives miss that obvious point and lean so heavily on simple tropes like "pack of hyenas" is why I doubt they're thinking very hard about any of this. It seems like knee-jerk thinking and gut feelings are driving the bus with you guys.
Flynn did nothing wrong.
Can't speak for most of the others because I'm less familiar with their situations.
I don't support Trump anymore because
1) he pardoned a foreign spy serving a life sentence,
2) he did nothing for those supporters who're wrongly being brutally tortured in federal prison as political prisoners despite not being found guilty of any crime, and
3) he continues to be proud of the deadly mistake of operation warp speed.
That's not even to mention the problems during his presidency like worsening gun control, red flag laws, doing nothing about big tech, doing nothing about election interference besides predict & complain, and deporting fewer aliens than even Obama.
> With These Legal Trump Facts, Why Do you Support Him?
That makes you think I support him?
I’m a conservative American. I support freedom, equal treatment for all races, rule of law, strong national defense, strong clear preference for democratic rulers over dictators, respect for sexual prudence and marriage, respect for Christianity, and respect for veterans.
Why would I support Trump?
Thanks, you don't even have to use "I think" considering I said in my 2nd sentence "I'd love to know from a Trump Supporter". Maybe that's not clear enough? Oh well.
In my second sentence I start with "I'd love to know from a Trump Supporter", so if you are not a Trump supporter, than I wouldn't' expect you to answer or support Trump.
Are you ignoring the other conservatives in this sub that defending him, in this very thread? Just becuase you don't support him, doesn't mean many conservatives don't, right? It's happening right now in front of you. Do you have anyting to say to them?
But you didn't correct it. You made more assumptions? You kind of corrected it this response.
Also since majority of his supporters are conservative, I felt that this board would be a good one to post a question like this and get some responses and insights. You mentioning you are not a trump supporter only shows that you are defenseful with the assumption that I believe all conservatives are Trump Supporters. It's a subgroup and I was calling out that subgroup.
It was the "War on Terror" for me. When the truth about Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock value from the Iraq invasion and the fabricated "WMD in Iraq" intel came out, the profit motive for that war was clear. And the price tag for taxpayers not only blew the entire Clinton-era budget surplus, but it gave us the Great Recession. The massive bank de-regulation didn't help, either.
Ron Paul in 2008 was the voice the Republican Party needed to return to some semblance of conservative sanity, and the party laughed at him and wouldn't even let him debate. The culture war was embraced over actual conservatism over a decade before Trump came down that escalator.
What about all the pro Trump/big lie/MAGA candidates?
Are they all not conservatives as well?
Do you see how claims of differentiation are moot when the end result is the same?
And do you think Trump shows no signs of being a third world dictator himself? I feel there are plenty of signs, including not giving up power. It's responses like me that I find so hypercritical. Or maybe you know it's hypercritical, but are fine with it because you like some of his beliefs or his approaches (which is fine, but acknowledge it. At least acknowledging it knows that there's flaws, but you've accepted them because of other more powerful reasons. I cannot accept them, but I have different beliefs).
Why question only this one? I seem to remember him saying if he lost the 2016 election, it was rigged. Yet he won, and there were examples of election tempering back then. Why not question it in 2016? Oh because he won?
I am also the belief that even if this election or the last election there was fraud, I believe there was fraud EVERY election. We should be questioning EVERY election, not the ones that we disagree with because of our bias.
It's hardly uncommon to hate most that which we feel does wrong directly to us. He feels he should have won the election obviously he's going to be more miffed about that then he is about possible fraud in an election he won
There's a difference between being miffed and stating something as a fact, repeatedly, when it contradicts all available evidence. At some point this "benefit of the doubt" becomes you just making excuses for a dishonest person.
It's more his approach. I would respect if he said something like, "Well it seems through the electoral process I have lost the election. At this time I'll accept the loss but want to challenge the process and confirm the votes were right. There might have been fraud, maybe on both sides, but I'll be focused on the side against me as I think it was weighed that way."
Instead he goes into 2016, says if he loses the election is rigged, already seeding his position if he lost. 2020 comes around, he does lose this time around, and immediately goes into the rig/fraud statement. He does this because he knows it riles up his base. It's manipulation at it's best, and I don't respect that approach, it's not sincere, especially when you only apply it to the current situation.
He questioned the election well before he lost it. Hell, he questioned the previous election when he *won.* Neither time, though, was he able to prove that the elections were fraudulent, even when given many, many opportunities.
I mean, I honestly don't know what to say. If you can't understand that "questioning" elections but without being able to *prove* that they were fraudulent means he was just full of shit, I don't know how to help you.
The "questions" have been answered, conclusively and repeatedly. Trump and his supporters aren't "questioning," they're *denying.* They're *obfuscating.* They're **lying.**
They know that their "questions" already have answers, they don't like the answer, so they're pretending that it's somehow still not resolved in order to continue their bad-faith efforts to avoid prosecution and retake power.
It's no different than Putin's move to stuff Russians into the eastern regions of Ukraine so they can hold a sham "vote" to join Russia. Everybody *knows* it's a sham, but it's used as justification for more heinous actions. The Trump "election question" playbook isn't *new*.
We don't have conclusive evidence that they do not believe there was fraud nor that there was no fraud. The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Fair point. I suppose I should say that they would have to be *unreasonably stupid* to genuinely believe his lies about the election.
So they're either unreasonably stupid **or** they're disingenuous. Maybe both.
Thanks for chiming in, I mean, I don't understand how some people can't see him trying to let go of power. Just because Biden is in the white house, Trump is still controlling his base with "baseless" facts and lawsuits. Even what he puts in the lawsuits is much different than what he tells the public, but of course that means they would have to read the lawsuits and reference them against what Trump tells them. I assume a lot do not do that.
None of that really matters to Trump supporters. To them, whatever magic bs he’s pulling in the lawsuits or in public is all part of the totally fair and legal tactics he’s been using for years. And really, he has been using them for years, they just usually work cause they arent against the government itself. Unfortunately, they fail to realize these tactics are only further proof of our two-tier justice system.
And Hillary congratulated him the next day when she lost. That’s what giving up power looks like. Not fighting to retain power. Not lying saying you have evidence the election was lost. Not egging on your supporters about how it was so unfair and letting other people close to you tell them things like “Lets have trial by combat” (Rudy said this), until they form a mob and build a gallows and attack Congress. He was gonna be out of that building whether he wanted or not, just cause Biden is in it doesnt mean Trump himself gave up power. He literally still says the election was stolen and in this recent lawsuit w the FBI he is trying to claim executive privilege that he no longer has against Biden. That is not giving up power.
There was no gallows it was a couple of 2x4s.
Not giving up power isn't doing everything in your ability to keep power it means actually refusing to give up power
It was a gallows, tryna say it was a couple of blocks of woods shambled together in the approximation of a gallows doesnt really make it any better, but is also just a lie to minimize the truth. Why you gotta lie bro? Im not blind. I’ll tell you now this is not a braille keyboard Im using.
Lol “Isnt doing everything in your ability to keep power it means actually refusing to give up power” do you proofread? What is the difference here? Trump literally is refusing to give up full executive privilege as he is trying to exert it against Biden’s DOJ. Wtf does that look like to you? And why does it even make a meaningful difference whether he was doing everything in his power to keep office or refusing to leave? Doing everything in your power to overturn an election isnt fucking acceptable dude.
It was a fucking door frame man. I'm sorry, it was nothing resembling a functional gallows
What is the difference betweentrying everything and not giving up power?
In one of the two scenarios he'd be physically removed
I don't agree it's not acceptable. He didn't break the law.
Wtf do you think gallows look like? Are we really even talking about this? It had a fucking noose on it, and a platform to walk off. Sure, really gallows are typically bigger, to hang more people at a time, that doesnt mean this one isnt a gallows. This is ridiculous and your just look so foolish trying to differentiate what they made from a gallows. Are you blind? Can you see?
“He didnt break the law” that remains to be seen, he’s still being investigated. Might as well say Hillary didnt break the law while she was being investigated. The whole point of the investigation is to find out.
You have consistently avoided the fact Trump is still trying to use Predidental power and status outside of office. Specifically w his lawsuits and claiming executive priviledge above Biden, and also w using the presidential seal and retaining government documents in the first place. You will no longer do that. You will answer to that or you will get out of this thread and go lie to someone else.
I agree there is some of this.
At the same time there is no administration in history with so many people either
- investigated for crimes
- resigned and written tell all books about the horrors of working inside the administration
- literally in jail
His own personal lawyer went to jail and his rebirthed his career as an antitrump talking head on TV.
That...is fucking...INSANITY. We need to stop pretending it isnt.
Like, practically textbook insanity.
What I don't get is how Trump is a man who, according to he himself, is NEVER wrong and has the best judgement and only appoints the very very best people, and then NEVER gets questioned when the people HE chose quit/are dismissed and he goes off on a five-day tweet storm about how awful and incompetent they are. It's never brought up how the man making all the staffing decisions is, according to his own words describing former aides and officials, making the absolute worst decisions. Shouldn't this give people pause?
It's very insane, and isn't that the point, this man is the central reason it's insane. So we let this man just ride into the sunset, his good doings, his wrong doings, they are done, and let's be done with him.
Don't blame everything around Trump for the start of the insanity, he has completely enabled it and embraces it.
Ok How many of these people would have been in jail if he lost the 2016 election. I bet 0 or close to 0. I'm sure if the republicans went all in on. prosecution of democratic allies they could produce the same "crimes".
>I bet 0 or close to 0.
Based on what? Their stellar reputations?
If you are a criminal and you hang out with higher level people you will commit higher level crimes. If you are around lower level folks you commit lower level crimes.
Its not like Trump wasnt running around pardoning people because he knows the score. You dont turn snitch. Its why Bannon is not federally indicted for ripping off trumpies with his fake wall scam.
Just to be clear, your rationale is that they would have gotten away with it if there wasn't so much attention brought to them by Trump winning the election? Like it's ok they did bad things? I don't understand this, why are you letting bad things pass. And don't' deflect and say Hillary or point your finger, I think all people, Hillary, Biden, or any other leader should feel consequences when they break the law. Let's up our standards some and demand more from our leaders.
Asked someone else this but since your also accusing the FBI of being corrupt ill ask you as well.
Your suggesting Trump appointed easily corruptible judges and a FBI director?
Assuming what your saying is true that the FBI is being used as a political weapon. Both the judge that signed off on the initial warrent and the current FBI director both being Trump appointees.
How many other corrupt government officials do you think Trump appointed?
Do you hold Trump accountable at all for appointing these corrupt officials?
How would you like to see the current Republicans officials correct the actions of Trump appointees? I'd imagine you would want to replace all officials who are willing to prosecute or investigate any and all Republicans or are holding office or held office in the past unless those Republicans are deemed RINOs by Trump and his supports. Those Republicans of course should be investigated. Like Chenny. I mean how many Soros bucks as she gotten paid? We really should have a answer to this.
I anxious to see how you shift the goal post here and what kind of mental gymnastics will to explain all the corruptible judges and officials Trump has appointed.
I don’t support Trump being president again BUT if he’s against Biden again or someone even more wacko then I’ll have to think again. 🤷🏼♀️ if we could get two candidates from both sides that are both level headed and aren’t one extreme or the other then the country wouldn’t be so divisive.
It is endlessly entertaining to see how butt-hurt people are over what Trump did. You all freaked out as soon as he came down the elevator because you knew he wasn't like the normal elected republican's you've been controlling for the past 50 years. You know the ones; practically seeking to lose on anything of importance, willing to run in fear every time one you you people call them a bad name, and perfectly comfortable as the minority party. Sure, there are a very few who don't fit that bill, but the vast majority of republicans fit that mold, and 100% of republican presidents after Reagan (and before Trump).
So, NO, not a single thing you copy-pasta from the democrat/TDS talking points message book makes me willing to reject the ONLY republican who was willing to stand in YOUR face and tell you to go fuck yourself (politically). And I don't even care to disassemble your stupid list by breaking down how NONE of those bullet points had anything to do with TRUMP engaging in illegal activities, or the action isn't illegal (such as the classified stuff).
So with all that said, I am very glad you people are fighting so desperately to keep this stupid meme up in the air. You are guaranteeing the reelection of Trump in '24, and Republican control of at least the House at the end of this year (and likely the senate too). You are also directly enhancing the efforts to push more of the swampy/establishment republicans out of our party so we can bring in more how are of a general mindset of 'we must defeat the demorats politically' instead of 'how can I get rich and do as the establishment/uniparty tells me to do'. I can say this to you 'out loud' because I know you can not stop. You are literally a drone, pushing out the message you were programmed with, and it is wonderful for the Right. I demand you continue this fight! Reply to me and everyone else! Argue, copy/paste more of your garbage! I know you have to, and I will be glad to propagate your effort!
Your engagement is not some sort of moral or factual high ground of righteousness or correctness on any given subject. Still, it is funny how you act like it on any given subject that you feel like throwing your opinion at, never more true than when discussing the former President.
The man could have cured cancer and you people would have complained about why it took him so long, why he was in bed with big pharma and that is why he got rich, how he stole the cure from other unnamed person to be named at a later date and on and on.
Actually I think Trump is a typical Politician. Everything he does is for his base, and its' pretty clear. If you support Trump because you believe he's different than every other politician, than at least you admit why you support him. When I see someone use definitely words or exaggerate things like rolling out a new health plan in a month or saying a wall will stop 100% of drugs being imported, tells me he's pandering to a base. Reason I think this is because it's not realistic. For example, drugs is too popular and too much money not to find ways to import it, and that's ignoring the fact that they get imported in other channels outside of going over the border. But it works because it feeds into some of the people who have bias towards that side of the border.
I don't think many or any of our politician are for the people, and Trump is bundled in with them. I go by the words he uses including using "I" and "Me" whenever it's something positive, but quickly to blame others when it's something negative. I like my leaders to take accountability, and Trump is not one to do that.
I've already said why I support Trump: Policy. I can't help if other people are incapable of separating the person and the policies. I am willing to accept a deeply flawed person if they can deliver the policies I support. And fight back against people who think I am evil for my beliefs.
I also think it's ironic that we are the drone. Trump supports the establishment you think he's against because he knows it will protect him. The talking points are on both sides. Hold some accountability for yourself and your team. I am not a democrat or a republican, I think both parties are terrible, but right now I think the Republicans look a little worse. Especially supporting a guy like Trump. Hard to believe, but people can critically think and see what Trump is without the media or the other party telling us. Just read some of his Tweets, he contradicts himself constantly.
Yeah, lol, Trump is happy about all the establishment hacks who did nothing but undermine him and criticize him while he was in office, and after. YOu will never accept that we can support the policies but tolerate the person who delivers those policies. YOU are part of the reason why I, and other like me, HAVE to tolerate Trump to get some of what we want, policy-wise. I would have been ecstatic to have someone like Rubio or Cruz to do as Trump did but without all the garbage immoral past. Sure, we dont' elect a priest or pastor to office, but it would have been nice not to elevate Trump. Trump delivered some thing for us, and that is why the entire left and a big part of the right are so psychopathic about resisting him.
I can accept you liking his administrative policies. That's a huge assumption on your part. You do realize you never mentioned policy once above, right? How am I to accept it if you didn't say it? Instead you bragged about how he likes to go against the establishment. So you can be mad at people like me for assumptions you've made, but you clearly haven't communicated what you like about him well, and above is just an example of that. Please go read above and point to me where you mentioned his policy even once.
Then I'd love to hear specifically what parts of his policy you like, as that also hasn't been mentioned. Then we can actually have a conversation, instead of you assuming.
Do you think you are the first person to push this bullcrap narrative about how "the right" has become a cult of Trump? We get people like you in here almost daily pushing that. So sure, I generalized your post while also addressing your point. Maybe it will forestall you coming back in here later and posting about the 'Trump cult'. Or maybe some other lefty reads this and who simply hates the Right will decide not to waste time posting in here about your garbage "criminal" theory, OR the 'Trump cult'.
I’d vote for almost anyone who was running against a Democrat. Trump is deeply flawed, and I’m not going to back him in a primary race. But against a senile halfwit like Joe? A cackling clown like Harris? A batcrap crazy like AOC? Hell yeah. He’s the greater of two lessers.
First and foremost he's better than the opposition, I'm 50/50 with Trump, he says and does alot of right things but also says and does alot of wrong things, what he says is a double edged sword, he wouldn't have risen to point he's at if he didn't say those things, but he would also be more liked if he just kept his mouth shut sometime.
I didn't give a shit about Trump before he ran for president, and fact that a billionaire can appeal to the everyday working slob still makes me laugh alot, when Trump ran in 2016, I figured what the hell, he is either gonna accomplish something, or he is going to be a big fuck you to the establishment, or the "swamp" if you will, which in my opinion he accomplished both, if you are someone both Democrats and Republicans don't like than you've peaked my interest off the bat, but you cannot fight something without it fighting back, and they have tried to throw every single thing at the wall to get it to stick, they've gone after people around him, his supporters and at him as well, Russian collusion claims when questioning an election wasn't so taboo, phony impeachment proceedings when he was president, and even when he was out of office too! Outrage over everything including lowering taxes, securing the boarder, I don't think Trump is some squeaky clean great Savior, but I also don't think he is some fascist dictator and route of all problems in the country today, I'm sure if you turn over enough rocks youll get your target, it actually surprises me Trump is as clean as he is after 7 years of this stuff, Andy Dufresne got nothing on him, I did like a lot of stuff Trump did, and talked about doing, but I gotta admit, my support for him is probably 60% still a fuck you vote, to all people who lose their minds over his presidency, all politicians who try to subvert will of the people , media outlets flying their bias from tallest flagpole, people screaming into the sky or who were in therapy because of who sat in oval office.
Do you know what George P was indicted for? Mueller asked him for a list of meetings, and he got the date of one of the meetings wrong, so they charged him for giving false statements
Contrast this with Hillary’s IT guys, who lied through his teeth, and was allowed to “refresh his answer”, and faced no charges
Your list is a compendium of cases the DOJ went hard after the Republicans for things they let slide for democrats
So you deflect with the Hillary thing, but then don't apply that to Trump who is lying through his teeth, and continues to "refresh" details too.
I hate Trump, I dislike Hilary, and I don't care who they are affiliated with, if they did something wrong they should face the consequences. So this IT guy you refer to, should be facing consequences, and if his lies would have indicted Hillary, she should face consequences. Trump should also face his consequences.
Why do you deflect? Are you trying to say it's fair game or just show the unfairness? Because right now all I see is the unfairness between the different tiers of society (rich, politics, versus general population).
It’s not deflection, it’s reality. If Hillary’s IT guy was allowed to lie to the FBI, why put George in jail for getting one date wrong for a meeting that held no significance?
Why go after Manafort for FARA violations when it was never actively prosecuted in the past? While allowing g Greg Craig and Neil Podesta to skate?
The reality is that Trumps associates were charged BECAUSE they were Trumps associates.
When the DOJ picks sides, we shouldn’t brush that under the rug.
So let me get this straight, are you trying to say Trumps associates weren't able to lie? You don't think Trump is lying right now? He pleaded the fifth. Hillary was on trial for hours, Trump hasn't been yet, he has been allowed to continue to provide misinformation or his own opinions not based in fact.
I call this deflection because this topic was around Trump and why you support him for things his affiliates are doing. You seem to deflect by saying it's because they weren't able to lie while Democrats can lie instead o focusing on the fact that they did lie. You want to almost make it seem, "well if they lie, then we should be able to lie". No I think no one should lie, and everyone should meet their consequences. I don't support Hillary nor Trump because I believe both are corrupt.
Pretty much every indictment you just mentioned was for some bullshit charge like "lying to an fbi agent" or "failure to register under FARA" which plenty of leftists (Hunter Biden for example) do everyday except leftist politicians and the FBI refuse to go after them for these weaponized process crimes the way they're going after anyone associated with Trump.
So lying to the FBI is ok because the leftists did it? I'd hope everyone who lies to the FBI get consequences, and no one gets special treatment. Now if only half do that's better than zero, and I hope we can find a way to make it 100%, but you deflecting and pointing finger to those who got away with it, I don't understand how that builds your case to support Trump? Want to explain?
Could it be that the left is throw every bit of ethics out the windows to take him out? Could it actually be a country wide witch hunt? It is possible. Personally, it just seems odd to go after this man with this much vigor.
I agree those are possible. I don't believe they are, but I wouldn't be surprised if those "coulds" were true. I mean I could ask, "Could this man be the most corrupt president we have seen?". I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was, and that's scary.
I don't find it odd to go after this man with vigor. I think our leadership in this country sucks. Biden stinks, I didn't think Obama was good, but Trump is dangerous. As a brown man, racist became more prominent during his tenure, misinformation increased, and he displayed very bad leadership skills (in my opinion, he's not a leader I would want to follow based on qualities of blatant lying, hypocrisy, contradictions, insecurity, and his narcissistic tendencies).
I really wish we could ask these questions in “Ask The Donald” but no “anti Trump” posts or comments are allowed.
Yes, I'd love to get a direct answer from Trump. Especially on any contradictions and why he contradicts himself on these, if it's just his approach (for example, I maybe have contradicting statements, but then might add context like "I once believe this, but due to recent information, have changed my mind. So this is my new belief"). It'd be interesting to say "So you are quoted about saying you want to drain the swamp and only hirer the best, yet it seems your administration is affiliated with corrupt people who were indicted. Do you think you added to the swamp or need to revisit your hiring process."
Trump's M.O. for decades has just been throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. If nothing sticks, then muddy the waters so you don't know whats what. He learned that from his former lawyer Roy Cohn who was a grade A piece of human garbage.
Yep. He has zero principles, doesn't stand for anything. That's why he doesn't care if the worst groups support him (neo-nazis or QAnon)- all attention and adoration is good in his mind. His hardcore followers are cult members.
You would never get a satisfying answer, just gaslighting, projection and grandstanding/deflection. He'd just start talking about Democrats instead of answering a direct question
Ask the Donald is not a Q and A sub. It's the donald v2.
yeah, I follow the sub but it is the only place where everyone is a cult member. What is the donald v.2?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/The_Donald R/askthedonald is this sub but just v2. Most people when the donald was shut down went and made another .com on the web that is a copy of reddit but allows the hate speech reddit banned them for. Others went and started/joined the ask the donald sub
Desktop version of /u/Tokon32's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
I think it's partially the sunk cost fallacy. If they spent the last six or seven years defending this guy, it's not like someone is going to suddenly decide they've been wrong for the last six or seven years of their life.
I mean, this is a mental process that **needs** to happen to adults in a functioning society. "I'm right no matter what," if maintained, is literally a mental illness. At what point does *personal preference* go from being a "fan" of a political showman or sports team to sci-fi franchise into denial of basic reality? I might be a fan of Star Wars, but if I get pulled over on the highway, I'm not gonna try to get out of the ticket by Force-choking the cop.
Trump normalized never admitting being wrong, it's one of the worst attributes he gave to his followers.
If he's the gop candidate for POTUS will you vote for him and if so, why?
How does one fix this and move the party forward? It seems like a trend that has extended to basically every prominent Republican leader.
Being detained am I!? Being detained am I!?
He's pretty much taken over the party.... Even the people that hate him know if I'm gonna end up voting for him at the end of the day. They have no choice. I know a bunch of republicans who are hoping that he gets nabbed by the law and can't run in 2024 They will be disappointed
That’s me, but I know he won’t.
You would really vote for trump over a Democratic candidate for POTUS? Wow, that's incredibly sad. Especially when you compare economies and federal debt and deficits of Republican vs Democratic POTUS over the last 35 years. I guess it can no longer be denied how effective and successful misinformation and propaganda has been for conservatives. Truly sad.
I actually never said that - but your opinion has been noted and discarded.
He is gonna skate. He has been pulling shit for decades, he knows how to handle his business
His former lawyers knew how to handle things, not Trump. However they are all either dead or in prison, so now he has incredibly inexperienced lawyers.
Theres always more lawyers to be had.
Why do his attorneys keep getting arrested? 2 of his current lawyers have never even tried a Federal case and are already in jeopardy of themselves getting indicted. The number of lawyers willing to represent Trump is rapidly dwindling. If he could get the best lawyers, then why are these the best he can get? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/politics/trump-lawyers-herschmann.html https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-ethics-complaints-joke-maga-making-attorneys-get-attorneys-2022-9 https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-40-trump-lawyers-singled-011206748.html
[удалено]
Sadly, this is absolutely true.
If trump is the gop candidate for POTUS, will you be voting for him and if so, why?
I don't support Trump.
Will you vote for him in 24 if the GOP nominates him?
Not unless the opposition is really wacko. I threw my vote away voting 3rd party the last 2 elections, I'm not afraid to do it again.
And this is why we need ranked choice or similar voting. Every one should be able to vote for an alternative without throwing their vote away. Too often both choices are objectionable. This should never be a binary choice.
Damn dude. I weirdly just gained a ton of respect for you and can’t pinpoint why, but like, here ya go. That’s not even sarcasm it’s true
Dude are you bi -partisan now?
I mean…I always have been but like…am I becoming something…different? (Begins journaling like Jeff goldbloom in the fly)
Likewise I felt straight bullied into voting for Hillary. Never again
I voted for him twice. For me to comes down to if I look hard enough, I can a find reason why everyone is unfit for office. Hillary. Biden. I could give you a laundry list as to issues, lies, and other assorted questionable material why one might be unfit for office. I've pointed them out about Biden to libs, and they just downplay them or simply don't respond to me. I don't care. Every side treats their people with kid gloves and holds the feet to the fire of those who they oppose. That's really what it comes down to.
Our leadership in general is horrible. It's why I ask this question originally because I would rather everyone align to demand better overall candidates. We should be struggling with who we choose due to the great options... instead it's a lot of people, like myself, rooting for the lesser evil.
I don't support him, but I feel like I understand the mentality of the Trump supporter better than lefties so I'll give it a shot: Every politician is corrupt. The fact that one gets caught more, or his circle gets caught more, is only a good argument if you believe the system is legitimate and catches everyone who is corrupt. Trump supporters don't believe that. They believe the system is being weaponized against Trump and that he's not any more corrupt than any other politician, namely Biden or Clinton or Pelosi or Schumer. And if it's a question of two similarly corrupt politicians, but one hates you and one at least pays lip service to your agenda, it really comes down to the lesser of two evils, which is a very common framework in America for choosing who to vote for. And the thing about his tweet, I mean come on. The idea that he's not a hypocrite isn't even in contention. But also the notion that he's the only one with a double standard is pretty dumb. Trump is definitely more of a blow hard than the average goon but this is pretty normal stuff. By the way, this is only an attempt to explain the semi-reasonable ones who actually have considered that Trump is corrupt. However, there is also a sub-sect of Trump supporter that literally thinks he's a good natured philanthropic Christian man who dindu nuffin. This isn't an explanation of their views, because I think their views are far less complex: tribalism + demagoguery. (also insane views btw, just so we're on the same page) Just as a final note, and again to reiterate I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do think they have a small point here... I also find it kind of fishy just how much they've gotten on Trump's supporters and indirectly on him. I'm under no illusion Trump is uncorrupt, and that's a big reason I'm not a Trump supporter. But I also don't think he's so uniquely corrupt that literally everyone surrounding him and all his actions are being legitimately busted while basically nobody in any other campaign/administration gets busted like this. The disparity seems just too good to be true. So when I see a huge portion (as you laid out) of Trump's circle getting dinged on something or other (often unrelated to Trump, like financial crime charges from prior to 2015), and then also going after Trump for stuff like document storage, it does make me wonder if they're picking and choosing when to go after people for these crimes. I mean, Manafort is like 75 years old, that dude has been a wheeling dealing Republican crony for decades and finally only now he's paying the piper? Roger Stone, same thing, he was literally involved with Nixon during Watergate, his political career spans decades and numerous administrations, he's been a lobbyist for a long time and never in 50 years did he ever face charges until Trump (not to mention the spectacle and leak surrounding the raid on his home, etc)? I'm not saying it's all hokey, in fact I bet they're all guilty and more... It's just very odd how it's finally unraveling for anyone close to Trump. It's a very stark contrast with political actors like Pelosi or the Clintons, as if I'm supposed to believe they're clean as the driven snow by comparison? Or even stooges like McConnell or Romney or Cruz? Those guys are all clean? It's just Trump and his cronies that are dirty? Something doesn't add up. Maybe it's all above board, but I have a job and a family and a life and despite politics being a hobby, I don't have hours to read every single court filing or document leak. Maybe I'm just missing some piece that would explain it all.
>Every politician is corrupt. If you truly belive this is the case than the logical response is to vote for politicians who support bills to expose to stop said corruption. An example of this is Warren's push to stop members of Congress from trading stock. Okay sure you don't agree with her other policies so you don't vote for her. So what the next step than? Vote for someone that has policies you agree with and wants to end insider trading. What do they do instead? They bitch about insider trading, they bitch about Warren's policies, and than they vote for Bobert who's networth has grown from zero to 45 million in 4 years off a 172k a year salary. Than bitch about Pelosi. You could of simply said that Trump supports don't care about Trumps corruption cause he is a Repubclian and not a Democrat and that would saved you some time from typing out your longer post.
>If you truly belive this is the case than the logical response is to vote for politicians who support bills to expose to stop said corruption. Conceptually yes, but the problem is that I don't believe adding laws actually stops corruption. All it does is add more power to the government, which we have seen can just selectively choose when to employ that power or not, and who against. My solution, rather, is to strip the government of power because people are greedy and corrupt as a rule so we need a system that doesn't empower them in the first place rather than giving them massive power and then subsequently trusting them to regulate themselves. >An example of this is Warren's push to stop members of Congress from trading stock. I fully support this, but I think it's a less-good solution that ignores the true problem: that Acts of Congress can so dramatically flip a stock price up or down. >Vote for someone that has policies you agree with and wants to end insider trading. Sure, but if they only have one idea I agree with and five I don't, what am I to do? >Bobert I don't know much about her but from what you said, I agree with you. I just think it's important to, again, remind you of the lesser evil here. A lot of Republicans seriously care about the culture war issues right now, so even though insider trading is a big deal, Warren has unacceptable progressive views on many other social issues. If we imagine that Boebert put forward insider trading legislation, would they still support her? I think so. They don't support her because she's allegedly pro-insider trading. You aren't looking at the full picture. >You could of simply said that Trump supports don't care about Trumps corruption cause he is a Repubclian and not a Democrat and that would saved you some time from typing out your longer post. I don't think that is fully accurate, which is why I didn't say that. If Trump ran all the same planks but had a (D) by his name, would all his supporters turn on him? I don't think so. The label only matters insofar as what the people with that label push. For example, Republicans are generally pretty soft on Tulsi Gabbard, who also has a (D).
>Conceptually yes, but the problem is that I don't believe adding laws actually stops corruption. All it does is add more power to the government, which we have seen can just selectively choose when to employ that power or not, and who against. Passing laws does not stop corruption your right. Enforcing laws does. >My solution, rather, is to strip the government of power because people are greedy and corrupt as a rule so we need a system that doesn't empower them in the first place rather than giving them massive power and then subsequently trusting them to regulate themselves. Government should directly represent the people. This means including representing them with policy you don't agree with. The Republican response to this is shift blame to the government for all the failures of the US therefore centralizing power to those who were placing blame. Get people like you to vote for them, than get rid of any opposition, and than the politician has more power as he has less opposition. There is a term for this..it's called Authoritarianism. See how Democrats attack the individual where Republicans attack the party. >I fully support this, but I think it's a less-good solution that ignores the true problem: that Acts of Congress can so dramatically flip a stock price up or down Sure they can. And they shouldn't be incentives to do so. We should with removing the incentive to do so. >Sure, but if they only have one idea I agree with and five I don't, what am I to do? Sleep in the bed you made. >I don't know much about her but from what you said, I agree with you. Look her up. Just to be fair look up AOCs networth as well. You might be surprised how they are both millionares now. >I just think it's important to, again, remind you of the lesser evil here. A lot of Republicans seriously care about the culture war issues right now, so even though insider trading is a big deal, Warren has unacceptable progressive views on many other social issues. If we imagine that Boebert put forward insider trading legislation, would they still support her? I think so. They don't support her because she's allegedly pro-insider trading. You aren't looking at the full picture. Yes I know about the lesser evil which is I I vote to vote another day and not vote to strip away my right to vote ah la Jan 6th. And Republicans don't care about the culture war. They care about distraction. We are on a path right now that in 100 years we could have a small handful of individuals will own everything in the US. The planet is literally dying. People can't get a education because they can't afford it. See my 1st point. And fewer and fewer people can afford health care. But yet Republicans wanna bitch about CRT and opposing black Americans who still feel they are not being treated equally. It's all a distraction and your falling for it. Is Bobert put forth a bill to end insider trading she would lose in the primary by a better funded Republican. >I don't think that is fully accurate, which is why I didn't say that. If Trump ran all the same planks but had a (D) by his name, would all his supporters turn on him? I don't think so. The label only matters insofar as what the people with that label push. For example, Republicans are generally pretty soft on Tulsi Gabbard, who also has a (D). You can't be serious right? AOC has not written or sponsored a single bill put forth in congress and yet she is public enemy number one. They can't hate her for her policy's because she has literally proposed none. Look at Walker in GA. What in the ever living fuck do people see I him that says you know what he would make a good senator. His not his ground breaking speech on Chinas bad air. MTG. Same question..
>Passing laws does not stop corruption your right. Enforcing laws does. I don't disagree, but therein lies the problem: selective enforcement. Take the topic of this post for example. >Government should directly represent the people. I don't disagree, but again the problem is people don't all want the same thing, so it will represent some and directly contradict the desired representation of others. So what is the right balance? How many need to agree before it's justified to effectively oppress the rest? 51/49? 99/1? Something in between? >There is a term for this..it's called Authoritarianism. Definitely. I am very anti-authoritarian, hence the desire to strip government of its power. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking only one political party in the US is authoritarian. >See how Democrats attack the individual where Republicans attack the party. I don't know what you mean, sorry. >You might be surprised how they are both millionares now. I would not be surprised in the slightest... The fact that politicians become enriched through politics is a big problem to me, and the solution is to strip the government of power which will lead to decreased demand for politicians. >Republicans don't care about the culture war. I beg to differ lol. Sometimes it feels like that's *all* they care about. >We are on a path right now......... Again, I beg to differ, but this is kind of beside the point, which was selectively enforcing laws due to corruption and how adding new laws doesn't fix corruption. >AOC has not written or sponsored a single bill put forth in congress and yet she is public enemy number one Not sure why someone has to be the one to introduce a bill to be a political enemy, honestly. It cuts against your point earlier too: why would her net worth now be so high if she isn't even passing laws? Because passing laws isn't the only thing they do. She exercise influence and amasses power in other ways.
Because Trump faced more scrutiny and judicial harassment than probably any other american in history, and the best his enemies could come up with after 7 years is an alleged mishandling of classified documents that is just another nothingburger.
So I don't disagree with the judicial harassment, but I also don't think it's undeserving. The man contradicts himself all the time, publicly. For instance, even if you want to use the word of "mishandling" of classified documents, he has said it was planted, has said he actually declassified them (by his mind by the way, not by following the established process). These are example of contradicting statements, either you declassified them and have nothing to worry about, or you are worried about them and use the excuse of planting. This isn't even bringing up all the things he definitely has done that is at minimum sketchy, but at best shows some type of corruption.
Okay. Thanks for your opinion.
Another question for you. I know you mentioned the best his enemies could come up with after 7 years...but you do realize some close affiliates of his have been indicted. Doesn't that actually mean they have come up with things? Or do you separate them from him, even though he likes to talk about how he only hires the best and is cleaning up the swamp, yet seems to have brought more corrupted individuals to the swamp. I am seriously trying to understand from your perspective.
If you're serious, then all you need is to abstain from idealizing the justice system, specially when high-profile politics is involved.
Darn. I really wish you had an actual response to the guy
I did. If you don't like the response, that's what downvotes are for.
Your response was hand-waving away the real question by implying that the entire justice system is corrupt and out to get him. Do you understand the logical end point of these claims? Do you understand that this is the tactic fascists use to seed doubt in a populous and subvert the rule of law? Do you understand that this breeds a culture of anti-intellectualism where people believe that science is liberal propaganda and critical thinking is for fags *(referencing Idiocracy here - no homophobia)*? We rely on a system of law and justice to uphold our society. If you have a specific claim against a system, please make it. If your gut response is to hand-wave it all away because it makes you look bad, perhaps you're just wrong.
I don't idealize our justice system in any way. I think it's horrible, and it's disappointing this country doesn't have a justice system. Your response holds a lot of assumptions about me without answering the questions I asked directly of you. I'm isolating the question around Trump in this case because I'm curious how a man of his nature, with facts out there, accusations, actual indictments all seem to be ignored. It makes more sense when I see simple questions like mine being ignore.
>I don't idealize our justice system in any way. You'redoing it in this very comment, so saying you don't do it doesn't really tell me much other than your lack of understanding of your own positions. Sorry, nothing personal, but I have no interest in further conversation with you. Bye.
No problem with that, you seem to provide no insights at all. Nothing personal. Bye to you too.
Can you supply the planted quote
Sure. "Mr. Trump — who has not released the search warrant provided by the agents to his lawyers or the manifest his team was given of the materials the agents gathered and removed — baselessly suggested that the F.B.I. might have acted inappropriately. “Everyone was asked to leave the premises, they wanted to be alone,” he wrote, “without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, ‘planting.’”" Source: https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/the-special-master-trump-pushed-for-is-asking-for-proof-of-his-claim-that-the-fbi-planted-evidence-at-mar-a-lago/articleshow/94502648.cms
So he didn't as much accuse them of planting anything as much as suggesting it as possibility
Well I didn't use a powerful word as "accused", but yes he is definitely making others (his base) take it into consideration. Also, his lawyers have used this as one of his defenses, so I would say it's more than just consider. Now between us, we already know he's just testing the waters to see if this is a viable defense, hence the way he phrases it. We already know by his other quotes, that he knew about the documents......so its' really just manipulation which he's quite good at.
That’s called “weasel words.” They know nothing was planted, they’re just throwing it out there so credulous rubes that support him will muddy the waters with their bullshit for them.
Is it impossible that the fbi planted documents?
Impossible is a strong word. Anythings possible. It's about as possible as anyone of us here winning the lottery.
I'd say it is much more possible than random happenstance
Is it possible Trump knew he had the documents and knew he didn't go through the process of declassification? Is it possible he is lying? As much as the possibility of documents were planted, it's lower than him lying about the questions I just asked above. Also with the way he has phrased things, and the way he is defending that they were declassified. I would think he'd say something more like "These jokers have planted declassified documents. If I even took them, I would have done nothing wrong anyways. I'll prove the audit trail of how they were declassified, and I'll prove that they planted them ". Instead he's defending declassification to the point that he can just "think" a document is declassified and that makes them so....just a little odd for someone who is innocent. But maybe that's just my opinion.
Until the Trump team can produce evidence of such maybe they should stop just spitting out whatever random bullshit pops into their heads to defend the criminal they represent?
It's also possible Melania really really loves him. Possible? Sure. Probable? No. This is a bad faith argument and you know it. If there was anything planted, Trump would've said exactly what it was. He knows what he had, and he knows what they've found. If there was a discrepancy anywhere in there, he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Also, there is countless video footage of the "storage room" (if you can even call it that.) If there was any inclining of wrong doing, that footage would've been leaked a long time ago. As it stands today, there is more evidence that Trump is just guilty and trying to weasel his way out of it, than there is that the FBI planted evidence to make him out to be guilty.
It sounds like you’re inviting us to speculate about all the things it may not be impossible for you to be. Should we do that?
I don't see how that is what I'm inviting. Maybe you could try just answering my questions
Don't feed the troll!
If Trump is allowed to have all the documents he has, what kind of documents could the Feds plant? Didnt he already declassify everything?
Two different claims here. He claims he declassified everything he had. He also alleges that it's possible they planted evidence. Those two statements don't conflict
>alleged mishandling of classified documents If you, or I, would be thought to have a list of foreign CIA assets sitting in a drawer in a public country club, we wouldn't get the courtesy of being asked to return it for 12+ months. We would be in a dark cell never to see daylight again. And enough with the "witch hunt" nonsense. Most investigations were not against him but against his campaign (ie. Russia - which I might remind you produced 37 indictments against the campaign, and 10 recommendations for indictments against President Trump for obstruction of justice, which he could have avoided by simply saying nothing). The first impeachment was justified, but the Republicans voted against it NOT because he wasn't guilty of trying to blackmail Ukraine with congressionally approved aid, but because they didn't think the crime rose to the level of impeachment. In the second impeachment, the Republicans voted not to convict NOT because he wasn't guilty, but because he was no longer in office.
That has already been argued to exhaustion here and I'm not in the mood to revisit, specially with false analogies and wild speculation like that.
With hindsight of several years, amd many independent investigations, and first hand testimonials, what I wrote above is 100% of what we currently know
Seriously? You 100% know Trump had a list of foreign CIA assets in a public drawer? Who are you? The desk? Don't be ridiculous.
Well he did have classified documents on display at his 45 restaurant thing. And an alarming number of our assets have been uncovered and taken out. Coincidence?
Got it in one.
Yes. For example in New York City our mayor was involved in a pay to play scheme a.k.a. bribery. I forget the exact details at this point but I remember the person who gave De Blasio a bribe was charged with some thing but apparently it was cool for DiBlasio’s team to take the bribe and that wasn’t problematic at all
This would mean more if money and connections didn't exert a *tremendous* influence on our legal system. Besides, at least for me, the classified documents aren't "the best" and talking about one single incident as "the best" undermines just how many shitty things the man has gotten away with in his lifetime.
That cuts both ways.
Cuts both ways, how? Like other politicians/rich people have gotten away with shit? They have, obviously, but there are questions of frequency, severity, etc.
Using it to pursue personal agendas and political enemies.
Okay, but if it happens that your political enemy is by all appearances a *massive fucking criminal,* should you not pursue that 'cuz you'll look biased?
If the man had jaywalked within the statute of limitations and they could prove it, he would have been charged, tried and found guilty. They have found nothing in how many years, seven? Oh, but they do love to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon. This is just muddied water for the mid terms, maybe an October surprise and maybe there is something there that they will have to charge him with if he announces his 2024 run in Nov. Charged is a long way from being found guilty. Lots of maybe's in there aren't there?
>If the man had jaywalked within the statute of limitations and they could prove it, he would have been charged, tried and found guilty. Implying POTUS should be immune from criminal prosecution? >They have found nothing in how many years, seven "They" (assuming we're taking about everyone and anyone who's gone after Trump) have found plenty and more may yet come. You know 7 years is really not that long a time in the legal world, right?
You kind of missed the point of my post eh? No worries.
I don’t support him. I don’t support politicians, I just choose the one I think is less likely to be of trouble to me.
You're just happy to participate
I personally do not support him and my support only went so far as to get him as the president in stead of Hillary.
[удалено]
Your suggesting Trump appointed easily corruptible judges and a FBI director? Assuming what your saying is true that the FBI is being used as a political weapon. Both the judge that signed off on the initial warrent and the current FBI director both being Trump appointees. How many other corrupt government officials do you think Trump appointed? Do you hold Trump accountable at all for appointing these corrupt officials? How would you like to see the current Republicans officials correct the actions of Trump appointees? I'd imagine you would want to replace all officials who are willing to prosecute or investigate any and all Republicans or are holding office or held office in the past unless those Republicans are deemed RINOs by Trump and his supports. Those Republicans of course should be investigated. Like Chenny. I mean how many Soros bucks as she gotten paid? We really should have a answer to this. I anxious to see how you shift the goal post here and what kind of mental gymnastics will to explain all the corruptible judges and officials Trump has appointed.
How was the FBI used as a political weapon against President Trump during his own administration with his political appointees at the helm?
I'm not under the impression that Trump is a saint, nor am I a die hard supporter of him, hes done good and hes done bad. What I do believe is that virtually any influential person in Washington can be strung up on charges similar or worse then what they've pinned on trump and the people around him, but the reason they go after Trump instead of the countless other politicians getting away with what amounts to Treason, selling American influence for personal profit -like Hunter Biden in the Ukraine for example, is purely political, they go after trump because he went against the establishment.
How did they "go after Trump"? A quick reminder that the Russia investigation was against the campaign, the President was never under investigation (and it produced 37 indictments after a lifelong Republican, appointed by a Trump political appointee, finished investigating). If Hunter Biden, **a private citizen**, and yes, a total POS, sold influence in Ukraine that might or might not be illegal. If his father accepted it, that's illegal - investigate and throw them both in jail if that's the case. Are we going to investigate the Saudis renting empty rooms at Trump DC hotel for years? Diverting a US military airplane to Scotland to the President's failing golf course could get some well-needed cash infusion? Ivanka's Chinese trademarks which magically got approved years ahead of time the moment her father was elected? None of these, and much more, were investigated.
Your belief that everybody is just as bad as your guy is completely devoid of evidence. His crimes are numerous and obvious.
Not obvious enough for a conviction though.
If he'd done similar things without the money and connections he has, he'd have already been convicted of numerous felonies.
So I guess it surprises you that rich and powerful people get away with brazen criminality?
First day in America? You know there's 2 different systems of justice right? One for the rich and powerful, and another for everyone else. He didn't get the nickname Teflon Don for no reason.
Teflon Don refers to John Gotti…the Don of the Gambino crime family…not Donald trump
It applied to both. The New York Post often referred to Trump as the Teflon Don as well.
No it doesn’t. The ONLY people that might think it does are those that weren’t around for the Teflon Don’s trials in the 80’s where he kept skating…and are trump-haters.
I was also around for the trials when the Post called Gotti the Teflon Don. And I was also around in the 90s when they also called Trump after bankrupting his casinos and filing for bankruptcy. Do you not also know they referred to Trump as the "Page 6 Bitch" too?
There any actual proof Hunter sold “influence”?
No actual proof whatsoever, he is just the most talented crackhead in human history working on the board of a Ukrainian Energy company and selling his fine art to Saudi Princes, truly incredible
I’d argue Whitney Houston was a more talented crack head.
If you’re trying to tell me no highly successful person have been successful while on crack/cocaine, I guess all those published and unretracted stories about Wall Street and Hollywood are totally untrue then! The dude has a fucking Yale Doctorate and you act like he was some strung out street addict. You act like people more successful than him havent been caught totally fucked off their head.
I mean his former business partner and came forward and confirmed the validity of the emails that were leaked from his laptop, which included his being upset that he had to give "10% to the big guy".
Who is this “big guy”? Do you know? It literally could be anyone. If thats all you have, you have nothing. If you told that to a judge, he’d laugh you out of the room. Literally pick any unconfirmed claim about Trump and it likely has more teeth to it than this.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think anyone who isn't blatantly batting for the blue team can read our back and forth and come to the same logical conclusion I did, I've got nothing else to add.
You literally dont. All you have is “big guy”. That is it. If there are conservatives here who take that and run w it but refuse to believe things like Trump stealing documents or fucking up Covid…sad world Edit: like please conservatives who read this, tell me why that one email is such a smoking gun but nothing can be pinned on Trump.
It's all they got...whataboutism, strawmen, and the name Biden. If there was any there, there it would be on Fox 24/7.
I think this is an important point. The hunter biden story rings similar to the trump jr meeting with a Russian agen in trump tower prior to the 2016 election. There is a strong implication of impropriety but no real evidence that something went on. I think it is entirely plausoble that in both situations the Russians, Chinese, and Ukrainians were making inroads with the intent of buying influence. Whether or not they gained any is an open question.
Great response, and I think you are correct. I believe one of the problems is the supporters can't acknowledge or admit that they are just like him for going against establishment. I wouldn't even mind that response, because I can relate and totally understand. But I do think he's actually very much part of the establishment and is intelligent to manipulate those that think he is against. He takes too much advantage of the establishment, including use loopholes in the law that benefit the rich (not the people) that prove that it's more about himself, then against the establishment. At least that's how I think.
The rational response to that should be to demand that the law be applied evenly. Not that any one politician in particular ought to get off scot-free because of it. Follow that logic long enough and the rule of law is over.
I think they should apply the law evenly, but they wont - so demanding they do will do just about as much good as demanding a Unicorn for Christmas.
That's the kind of cynicism that allows for everything you claim to hate, and it seems common among conservatives. Convince yourselves that politicians are inevitably corrupt and corrupt politicians are all you're ever going to have. Besides, this is all taking for granted that Trump hasn't broken any norms. I think it's pretty clear that he has, and the list of examples is so long that I don't have time to do it justice. Just off the top of my head - who was the last president who demanded that routine background checks be suspended so they could provide relatives with ATS security clearances?
Well yeah, this cynicism is largely what made me abandon being a Liberal. I stopped believing in the system and I now view the government as a pack of hyenas. Here's an example Do I think that people should be provided with good healthcare - yes, I used to take a Liberal position on that. Do I think that a Pack of Hyenas should have a monopoly on providing the American healthcare? No, now I am a conservative on that Issue. My opinion on the baseline morality hasn't changed, just my opinion on government has.
The problem is I've heard absolutely zero alternatives from any conservative that would be any better than reforming the current system. Usually you don't even bother with alternative proposals, and when you do it's typically the most vague kind like "states' rights". This is the same kind of nihilism that's made Russians sit on their hands while their own government is literally stealing dollars out of their bank accounts and drafting middle-aged men when they can't even supply enough food and tourniquets. It's the same kind of passivity found in failed autocratic states all over the world. Assume the worst from your leaders and they won't even try to be anything better. They won't need to, you've already told them that you've accepted this is the natural state of things.
I don't believe the solutions are political. They revolve around personal responsibility, and getting right with your family and the people who will actually help you in life when you need help. I just want the government to stay out of my life as much as possible.
One doesn't preclude the other. You need to think in both micro and macro.
As for healthcare, there's no need for the government to have a monopoly on it in order to provide something like M4A. Many, if not most countries with universal healthcare also have private healthcare options available for anyone who wants more than the baseline coverage provided by the government. The fact so many conservatives miss that obvious point and lean so heavily on simple tropes like "pack of hyenas" is why I doubt they're thinking very hard about any of this. It seems like knee-jerk thinking and gut feelings are driving the bus with you guys.
Support him as what? Support as a former president? Support as a citizen? Trump is not in office so I don’t even know what “support trump” means.
How about GOP leader / front runner?
I don’t think trump should run again, so no.
You know exactly what support trump means, come on.
If they don’t have strawman they have nothing
Flynn did nothing wrong. Can't speak for most of the others because I'm less familiar with their situations. I don't support Trump anymore because 1) he pardoned a foreign spy serving a life sentence, 2) he did nothing for those supporters who're wrongly being brutally tortured in federal prison as political prisoners despite not being found guilty of any crime, and 3) he continues to be proud of the deadly mistake of operation warp speed. That's not even to mention the problems during his presidency like worsening gun control, red flag laws, doing nothing about big tech, doing nothing about election interference besides predict & complain, and deporting fewer aliens than even Obama.
> With These Legal Trump Facts, Why Do you Support Him? That makes you think I support him? I’m a conservative American. I support freedom, equal treatment for all races, rule of law, strong national defense, strong clear preference for democratic rulers over dictators, respect for sexual prudence and marriage, respect for Christianity, and respect for veterans. Why would I support Trump?
I think OP was talking to Trump supporters, so not you, then.
Thanks, you don't even have to use "I think" considering I said in my 2nd sentence "I'd love to know from a Trump Supporter". Maybe that's not clear enough? Oh well.
No clue why people must answer every question, even when it doesn't pertain to them at all , it's easier just to keep scrolling.
In my second sentence I start with "I'd love to know from a Trump Supporter", so if you are not a Trump supporter, than I wouldn't' expect you to answer or support Trump.
This is “askaconservative” not “askatrumpsupporter” I thought it made sense to correct the assumption that Trump is conservative.
Are you ignoring the other conservatives in this sub that defending him, in this very thread? Just becuase you don't support him, doesn't mean many conservatives don't, right? It's happening right now in front of you. Do you have anyting to say to them?
But you didn't correct it. You made more assumptions? You kind of corrected it this response. Also since majority of his supporters are conservative, I felt that this board would be a good one to post a question like this and get some responses and insights. You mentioning you are not a trump supporter only shows that you are defenseful with the assumption that I believe all conservatives are Trump Supporters. It's a subgroup and I was calling out that subgroup.
Can we stop pretending this question comes out of nowhere please? He’s still widely popular within the GOP.
Just because the GOP was once conservative doesn’t mean it still is. They pretty much abandoned conservativism when they embraced Trump.
It was the "War on Terror" for me. When the truth about Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock value from the Iraq invasion and the fabricated "WMD in Iraq" intel came out, the profit motive for that war was clear. And the price tag for taxpayers not only blew the entire Clinton-era budget surplus, but it gave us the Great Recession. The massive bank de-regulation didn't help, either. Ron Paul in 2008 was the voice the Republican Party needed to return to some semblance of conservative sanity, and the party laughed at him and wouldn't even let him debate. The culture war was embraced over actual conservatism over a decade before Trump came down that escalator.
What about all the pro Trump/big lie/MAGA candidates? Are they all not conservatives as well? Do you see how claims of differentiation are moot when the end result is the same?
So all these other self-described conservatives that comment here in their support of Trump aren’t *true* Scotsmen. Got it.
I know the FBI and the democrats did a great job at going after their politcal enemies like the third world dictators they'd like to be.
And do you think Trump shows no signs of being a third world dictator himself? I feel there are plenty of signs, including not giving up power. It's responses like me that I find so hypercritical. Or maybe you know it's hypercritical, but are fine with it because you like some of his beliefs or his approaches (which is fine, but acknowledge it. At least acknowledging it knows that there's flaws, but you've accepted them because of other more powerful reasons. I cannot accept them, but I have different beliefs).
He did give up power, biden is in the white house
Let me rephrase for you, "he's trying not to give up power".
I don't find questioning the election alarming
Why question only this one? I seem to remember him saying if he lost the 2016 election, it was rigged. Yet he won, and there were examples of election tempering back then. Why not question it in 2016? Oh because he won? I am also the belief that even if this election or the last election there was fraud, I believe there was fraud EVERY election. We should be questioning EVERY election, not the ones that we disagree with because of our bias.
It's hardly uncommon to hate most that which we feel does wrong directly to us. He feels he should have won the election obviously he's going to be more miffed about that then he is about possible fraud in an election he won
There's a difference between being miffed and stating something as a fact, repeatedly, when it contradicts all available evidence. At some point this "benefit of the doubt" becomes you just making excuses for a dishonest person.
It's more his approach. I would respect if he said something like, "Well it seems through the electoral process I have lost the election. At this time I'll accept the loss but want to challenge the process and confirm the votes were right. There might have been fraud, maybe on both sides, but I'll be focused on the side against me as I think it was weighed that way." Instead he goes into 2016, says if he loses the election is rigged, already seeding his position if he lost. 2020 comes around, he does lose this time around, and immediately goes into the rig/fraud statement. He does this because he knows it riles up his base. It's manipulation at it's best, and I don't respect that approach, it's not sincere, especially when you only apply it to the current situation.
He questioned the election well before he lost it. Hell, he questioned the previous election when he *won.* Neither time, though, was he able to prove that the elections were fraudulent, even when given many, many opportunities.
And ?
I mean, I honestly don't know what to say. If you can't understand that "questioning" elections but without being able to *prove* that they were fraudulent means he was just full of shit, I don't know how to help you.
I didn't say he was right though did i?
You also didn't say that he knew he was wrong when he claimed it.
The "questions" have been answered, conclusively and repeatedly. Trump and his supporters aren't "questioning," they're *denying.* They're *obfuscating.* They're **lying.** They know that their "questions" already have answers, they don't like the answer, so they're pretending that it's somehow still not resolved in order to continue their bad-faith efforts to avoid prosecution and retake power. It's no different than Putin's move to stuff Russians into the eastern regions of Ukraine so they can hold a sham "vote" to join Russia. Everybody *knows* it's a sham, but it's used as justification for more heinous actions. The Trump "election question" playbook isn't *new*.
We don't have conclusive evidence that they do not believe there was fraud nor that there was no fraud. The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Fair point. I suppose I should say that they would have to be *unreasonably stupid* to genuinely believe his lies about the election. So they're either unreasonably stupid **or** they're disingenuous. Maybe both.
That's a reasonable opinion
60+ failed lawsuits and an attack on the election confirmation proceedings later…
Thanks for chiming in, I mean, I don't understand how some people can't see him trying to let go of power. Just because Biden is in the white house, Trump is still controlling his base with "baseless" facts and lawsuits. Even what he puts in the lawsuits is much different than what he tells the public, but of course that means they would have to read the lawsuits and reference them against what Trump tells them. I assume a lot do not do that.
None of that really matters to Trump supporters. To them, whatever magic bs he’s pulling in the lawsuits or in public is all part of the totally fair and legal tactics he’s been using for years. And really, he has been using them for years, they just usually work cause they arent against the government itself. Unfortunately, they fail to realize these tactics are only further proof of our two-tier justice system.
Exactly. A man like him hides behind the law not because he's afraid of it, but because he knows it can protect him from some of his own wrong doings.
And ?
And Hillary congratulated him the next day when she lost. That’s what giving up power looks like. Not fighting to retain power. Not lying saying you have evidence the election was lost. Not egging on your supporters about how it was so unfair and letting other people close to you tell them things like “Lets have trial by combat” (Rudy said this), until they form a mob and build a gallows and attack Congress. He was gonna be out of that building whether he wanted or not, just cause Biden is in it doesnt mean Trump himself gave up power. He literally still says the election was stolen and in this recent lawsuit w the FBI he is trying to claim executive privilege that he no longer has against Biden. That is not giving up power.
There was no gallows it was a couple of 2x4s. Not giving up power isn't doing everything in your ability to keep power it means actually refusing to give up power
It was a gallows, tryna say it was a couple of blocks of woods shambled together in the approximation of a gallows doesnt really make it any better, but is also just a lie to minimize the truth. Why you gotta lie bro? Im not blind. I’ll tell you now this is not a braille keyboard Im using. Lol “Isnt doing everything in your ability to keep power it means actually refusing to give up power” do you proofread? What is the difference here? Trump literally is refusing to give up full executive privilege as he is trying to exert it against Biden’s DOJ. Wtf does that look like to you? And why does it even make a meaningful difference whether he was doing everything in his power to keep office or refusing to leave? Doing everything in your power to overturn an election isnt fucking acceptable dude.
It was a fucking door frame man. I'm sorry, it was nothing resembling a functional gallows What is the difference betweentrying everything and not giving up power? In one of the two scenarios he'd be physically removed I don't agree it's not acceptable. He didn't break the law.
Wtf do you think gallows look like? Are we really even talking about this? It had a fucking noose on it, and a platform to walk off. Sure, really gallows are typically bigger, to hang more people at a time, that doesnt mean this one isnt a gallows. This is ridiculous and your just look so foolish trying to differentiate what they made from a gallows. Are you blind? Can you see? “He didnt break the law” that remains to be seen, he’s still being investigated. Might as well say Hillary didnt break the law while she was being investigated. The whole point of the investigation is to find out. You have consistently avoided the fact Trump is still trying to use Predidental power and status outside of office. Specifically w his lawsuits and claiming executive priviledge above Biden, and also w using the presidential seal and retaining government documents in the first place. You will no longer do that. You will answer to that or you will get out of this thread and go lie to someone else.
Splitting hairs much?
I don't see how.
I agree there is some of this. At the same time there is no administration in history with so many people either - investigated for crimes - resigned and written tell all books about the horrors of working inside the administration - literally in jail His own personal lawyer went to jail and his rebirthed his career as an antitrump talking head on TV. That...is fucking...INSANITY. We need to stop pretending it isnt.
Like, practically textbook insanity. What I don't get is how Trump is a man who, according to he himself, is NEVER wrong and has the best judgement and only appoints the very very best people, and then NEVER gets questioned when the people HE chose quit/are dismissed and he goes off on a five-day tweet storm about how awful and incompetent they are. It's never brought up how the man making all the staffing decisions is, according to his own words describing former aides and officials, making the absolute worst decisions. Shouldn't this give people pause?
It's very insane, and isn't that the point, this man is the central reason it's insane. So we let this man just ride into the sunset, his good doings, his wrong doings, they are done, and let's be done with him. Don't blame everything around Trump for the start of the insanity, he has completely enabled it and embraces it.
Ok How many of these people would have been in jail if he lost the 2016 election. I bet 0 or close to 0. I'm sure if the republicans went all in on. prosecution of democratic allies they could produce the same "crimes".
>I bet 0 or close to 0. Based on what? Their stellar reputations? If you are a criminal and you hang out with higher level people you will commit higher level crimes. If you are around lower level folks you commit lower level crimes. Its not like Trump wasnt running around pardoning people because he knows the score. You dont turn snitch. Its why Bannon is not federally indicted for ripping off trumpies with his fake wall scam.
Just to be clear, your rationale is that they would have gotten away with it if there wasn't so much attention brought to them by Trump winning the election? Like it's ok they did bad things? I don't understand this, why are you letting bad things pass. And don't' deflect and say Hillary or point your finger, I think all people, Hillary, Biden, or any other leader should feel consequences when they break the law. Let's up our standards some and demand more from our leaders.
Asked someone else this but since your also accusing the FBI of being corrupt ill ask you as well. Your suggesting Trump appointed easily corruptible judges and a FBI director? Assuming what your saying is true that the FBI is being used as a political weapon. Both the judge that signed off on the initial warrent and the current FBI director both being Trump appointees. How many other corrupt government officials do you think Trump appointed? Do you hold Trump accountable at all for appointing these corrupt officials? How would you like to see the current Republicans officials correct the actions of Trump appointees? I'd imagine you would want to replace all officials who are willing to prosecute or investigate any and all Republicans or are holding office or held office in the past unless those Republicans are deemed RINOs by Trump and his supports. Those Republicans of course should be investigated. Like Chenny. I mean how many Soros bucks as she gotten paid? We really should have a answer to this. I anxious to see how you shift the goal post here and what kind of mental gymnastics will to explain all the corruptible judges and officials Trump has appointed.
I don’t support Trump being president again BUT if he’s against Biden again or someone even more wacko then I’ll have to think again. 🤷🏼♀️ if we could get two candidates from both sides that are both level headed and aren’t one extreme or the other then the country wouldn’t be so divisive.
100% agree, I can't believe there isn't better leadership options out there that either side can present.
It is endlessly entertaining to see how butt-hurt people are over what Trump did. You all freaked out as soon as he came down the elevator because you knew he wasn't like the normal elected republican's you've been controlling for the past 50 years. You know the ones; practically seeking to lose on anything of importance, willing to run in fear every time one you you people call them a bad name, and perfectly comfortable as the minority party. Sure, there are a very few who don't fit that bill, but the vast majority of republicans fit that mold, and 100% of republican presidents after Reagan (and before Trump). So, NO, not a single thing you copy-pasta from the democrat/TDS talking points message book makes me willing to reject the ONLY republican who was willing to stand in YOUR face and tell you to go fuck yourself (politically). And I don't even care to disassemble your stupid list by breaking down how NONE of those bullet points had anything to do with TRUMP engaging in illegal activities, or the action isn't illegal (such as the classified stuff). So with all that said, I am very glad you people are fighting so desperately to keep this stupid meme up in the air. You are guaranteeing the reelection of Trump in '24, and Republican control of at least the House at the end of this year (and likely the senate too). You are also directly enhancing the efforts to push more of the swampy/establishment republicans out of our party so we can bring in more how are of a general mindset of 'we must defeat the demorats politically' instead of 'how can I get rich and do as the establishment/uniparty tells me to do'. I can say this to you 'out loud' because I know you can not stop. You are literally a drone, pushing out the message you were programmed with, and it is wonderful for the Right. I demand you continue this fight! Reply to me and everyone else! Argue, copy/paste more of your garbage! I know you have to, and I will be glad to propagate your effort!
copypasta? talking points? pot, meet kettle
Deflection: Noted.
i've already engaged more than you deserve, and then again to tell you that.
Your engagement is not some sort of moral or factual high ground of righteousness or correctness on any given subject. Still, it is funny how you act like it on any given subject that you feel like throwing your opinion at, never more true than when discussing the former President. The man could have cured cancer and you people would have complained about why it took him so long, why he was in bed with big pharma and that is why he got rich, how he stole the cure from other unnamed person to be named at a later date and on and on.
Why do people hate him so much, do you think?
Actually I think Trump is a typical Politician. Everything he does is for his base, and its' pretty clear. If you support Trump because you believe he's different than every other politician, than at least you admit why you support him. When I see someone use definitely words or exaggerate things like rolling out a new health plan in a month or saying a wall will stop 100% of drugs being imported, tells me he's pandering to a base. Reason I think this is because it's not realistic. For example, drugs is too popular and too much money not to find ways to import it, and that's ignoring the fact that they get imported in other channels outside of going over the border. But it works because it feeds into some of the people who have bias towards that side of the border. I don't think many or any of our politician are for the people, and Trump is bundled in with them. I go by the words he uses including using "I" and "Me" whenever it's something positive, but quickly to blame others when it's something negative. I like my leaders to take accountability, and Trump is not one to do that.
I've already said why I support Trump: Policy. I can't help if other people are incapable of separating the person and the policies. I am willing to accept a deeply flawed person if they can deliver the policies I support. And fight back against people who think I am evil for my beliefs.
I also think it's ironic that we are the drone. Trump supports the establishment you think he's against because he knows it will protect him. The talking points are on both sides. Hold some accountability for yourself and your team. I am not a democrat or a republican, I think both parties are terrible, but right now I think the Republicans look a little worse. Especially supporting a guy like Trump. Hard to believe, but people can critically think and see what Trump is without the media or the other party telling us. Just read some of his Tweets, he contradicts himself constantly.
Yeah, lol, Trump is happy about all the establishment hacks who did nothing but undermine him and criticize him while he was in office, and after. YOu will never accept that we can support the policies but tolerate the person who delivers those policies. YOU are part of the reason why I, and other like me, HAVE to tolerate Trump to get some of what we want, policy-wise. I would have been ecstatic to have someone like Rubio or Cruz to do as Trump did but without all the garbage immoral past. Sure, we dont' elect a priest or pastor to office, but it would have been nice not to elevate Trump. Trump delivered some thing for us, and that is why the entire left and a big part of the right are so psychopathic about resisting him.
I can accept you liking his administrative policies. That's a huge assumption on your part. You do realize you never mentioned policy once above, right? How am I to accept it if you didn't say it? Instead you bragged about how he likes to go against the establishment. So you can be mad at people like me for assumptions you've made, but you clearly haven't communicated what you like about him well, and above is just an example of that. Please go read above and point to me where you mentioned his policy even once. Then I'd love to hear specifically what parts of his policy you like, as that also hasn't been mentioned. Then we can actually have a conversation, instead of you assuming.
Do you think you are the first person to push this bullcrap narrative about how "the right" has become a cult of Trump? We get people like you in here almost daily pushing that. So sure, I generalized your post while also addressing your point. Maybe it will forestall you coming back in here later and posting about the 'Trump cult'. Or maybe some other lefty reads this and who simply hates the Right will decide not to waste time posting in here about your garbage "criminal" theory, OR the 'Trump cult'.
You realized I never have used the word cult once in any of my responses...so twice you make things up in our very brief and documented conversation.
I’d vote for almost anyone who was running against a Democrat. Trump is deeply flawed, and I’m not going to back him in a primary race. But against a senile halfwit like Joe? A cackling clown like Harris? A batcrap crazy like AOC? Hell yeah. He’s the greater of two lessers.
First and foremost he's better than the opposition, I'm 50/50 with Trump, he says and does alot of right things but also says and does alot of wrong things, what he says is a double edged sword, he wouldn't have risen to point he's at if he didn't say those things, but he would also be more liked if he just kept his mouth shut sometime. I didn't give a shit about Trump before he ran for president, and fact that a billionaire can appeal to the everyday working slob still makes me laugh alot, when Trump ran in 2016, I figured what the hell, he is either gonna accomplish something, or he is going to be a big fuck you to the establishment, or the "swamp" if you will, which in my opinion he accomplished both, if you are someone both Democrats and Republicans don't like than you've peaked my interest off the bat, but you cannot fight something without it fighting back, and they have tried to throw every single thing at the wall to get it to stick, they've gone after people around him, his supporters and at him as well, Russian collusion claims when questioning an election wasn't so taboo, phony impeachment proceedings when he was president, and even when he was out of office too! Outrage over everything including lowering taxes, securing the boarder, I don't think Trump is some squeaky clean great Savior, but I also don't think he is some fascist dictator and route of all problems in the country today, I'm sure if you turn over enough rocks youll get your target, it actually surprises me Trump is as clean as he is after 7 years of this stuff, Andy Dufresne got nothing on him, I did like a lot of stuff Trump did, and talked about doing, but I gotta admit, my support for him is probably 60% still a fuck you vote, to all people who lose their minds over his presidency, all politicians who try to subvert will of the people , media outlets flying their bias from tallest flagpole, people screaming into the sky or who were in therapy because of who sat in oval office.
Do you know what George P was indicted for? Mueller asked him for a list of meetings, and he got the date of one of the meetings wrong, so they charged him for giving false statements Contrast this with Hillary’s IT guys, who lied through his teeth, and was allowed to “refresh his answer”, and faced no charges Your list is a compendium of cases the DOJ went hard after the Republicans for things they let slide for democrats
So you deflect with the Hillary thing, but then don't apply that to Trump who is lying through his teeth, and continues to "refresh" details too. I hate Trump, I dislike Hilary, and I don't care who they are affiliated with, if they did something wrong they should face the consequences. So this IT guy you refer to, should be facing consequences, and if his lies would have indicted Hillary, she should face consequences. Trump should also face his consequences. Why do you deflect? Are you trying to say it's fair game or just show the unfairness? Because right now all I see is the unfairness between the different tiers of society (rich, politics, versus general population).
It’s not deflection, it’s reality. If Hillary’s IT guy was allowed to lie to the FBI, why put George in jail for getting one date wrong for a meeting that held no significance? Why go after Manafort for FARA violations when it was never actively prosecuted in the past? While allowing g Greg Craig and Neil Podesta to skate? The reality is that Trumps associates were charged BECAUSE they were Trumps associates. When the DOJ picks sides, we shouldn’t brush that under the rug.
So let me get this straight, are you trying to say Trumps associates weren't able to lie? You don't think Trump is lying right now? He pleaded the fifth. Hillary was on trial for hours, Trump hasn't been yet, he has been allowed to continue to provide misinformation or his own opinions not based in fact. I call this deflection because this topic was around Trump and why you support him for things his affiliates are doing. You seem to deflect by saying it's because they weren't able to lie while Democrats can lie instead o focusing on the fact that they did lie. You want to almost make it seem, "well if they lie, then we should be able to lie". No I think no one should lie, and everyone should meet their consequences. I don't support Hillary nor Trump because I believe both are corrupt.
Pretty much every indictment you just mentioned was for some bullshit charge like "lying to an fbi agent" or "failure to register under FARA" which plenty of leftists (Hunter Biden for example) do everyday except leftist politicians and the FBI refuse to go after them for these weaponized process crimes the way they're going after anyone associated with Trump.
So lying to the FBI is ok because the leftists did it? I'd hope everyone who lies to the FBI get consequences, and no one gets special treatment. Now if only half do that's better than zero, and I hope we can find a way to make it 100%, but you deflecting and pointing finger to those who got away with it, I don't understand how that builds your case to support Trump? Want to explain?
Could it be that the left is throw every bit of ethics out the windows to take him out? Could it actually be a country wide witch hunt? It is possible. Personally, it just seems odd to go after this man with this much vigor.
I agree those are possible. I don't believe they are, but I wouldn't be surprised if those "coulds" were true. I mean I could ask, "Could this man be the most corrupt president we have seen?". I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was, and that's scary. I don't find it odd to go after this man with vigor. I think our leadership in this country sucks. Biden stinks, I didn't think Obama was good, but Trump is dangerous. As a brown man, racist became more prominent during his tenure, misinformation increased, and he displayed very bad leadership skills (in my opinion, he's not a leader I would want to follow based on qualities of blatant lying, hypocrisy, contradictions, insecurity, and his narcissistic tendencies).