Continuing with my perplexed series of posts, the two different camps, Trump’s supporters and those opposing him, are living in two completely different worlds. For his opposers, he’s about to be impeached, rightfully, by the House while the Senate will clear him for purely political reasons. For his supporters, the House is engaging in a purely political exercise and Trump will be acquitted by the Senate. For his opponents Trump has been engaged in treasonous or, at least, damaging activities since before his election. For his supporters, partisan Democrats within government have been undermining Trump’s presidency since before Trump’s election. For Trump’s supporters the soon-to-be-released Department of Justice Inspector General’s report will reveal the truth about the Deep State conspiracy. For his opponents it’s all a bunch of nothing.
They hate each other.
I don’t know who is right and who is wrong or if they’re both wrong or both right.
And much of the rift is about personality, not policy. If Bill Clinton or Barrack Obama held the same policies, they would be mostly approved by Democrats.
But the Democratic candidates running today espouse policy that is downright scary, that is until you remember those (wealth taxes, MFA, carbon emission bans, gun bans, open borders, non citizen voting rights, plastic straw bans) will not become law anyway.
As to Trump’s abrasive personality, he’s being attacked on many fronts and believes he must fight or fall, I believe that’s exactly correct. Everyone knows the impeachment hearings are an effort to bring his poll numbers down to the point R’s start to doubt and defect. But a lot of voters are too busy working to sit and watch MSNBC’s agitprop.
“But the Democratic candidates running today espouse policy that is downright scary,”
What policy they have actually proposed as a law is scary? As to Trump’s policies, I dont really see Dems supporting tax cuts for the wealthy, promoting air pollution, allowing Iran to make nukes if they want, stupid immigration efforts like a wall. The one exception is that they might have supported tariffs, though it would have been done more competently.
“I don’t know who is right”
Follow the facts. In Trump’s own words he asked for a personal favor and it has been confirmed by multiple Trump appointees, not Democrats out to get him or Never Trumpers, actual Trump appointees.
As to the Trump DOJ and their investigation, the Republicans have run essentially non-stop investigations since Obama took office trying to prove some conspiracy and they have found nothing. In the IRS investigation the Trump DOJ eventually didnt even bring any charges against Lerner, forget about linking the Obama admin to anything. 8 Benghazi investigations, in case anyone forgot, and they didnt find anything. So please, tell me why I should be anything other than skeptical that this time they will find anything? As always, I think we should wait to see the results of said investigation but if the past is any measure I am not expecting much to come from it.
Steve
They found a murdered U. S. Ambassador whose request for help from his President went unanswered.
But…..whatever…..
“What policy they have actually proposed as a law is scary?”
Green new deal. Medicare for all. Health care for illegals. Wealth tax.
“I don’t know who is right and who is wrong or if they’re both wrong or both right.”
I suppose we could start with the facts The initial claims, bolstered by Schiff and Dems, was that there was absolute, incontrovertible evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians. The Mueller report would tell all. Schiff lied. Fail.
Not to worry. Now we have a phone call. The transcript is there for all to see and read. Assertions of impeachable offenses have yet to be identified. What we do have is a series of people who express their opinions, mostly based upon mind reading as best I can tell. Biased people. Opinions, not facts. Opinions. (BTW – in my opinion steve is an ax murderer and should be immediately incarcerated. Prove me wrong.)
You may disagree, Dave, but I find the “who knows?” stance to be immoral and intellectually light. We know from media and email records that the effort to impeach began within days of the inauguration. The current process is an absolute farce. This is not good context for hiding behind intellectual detachment.
Perhaps more importantly, I wonder if people started posting bills with your face on them in your neighborhood, in local retail establishments and in local papers plus the Trib saying “Warning!! Dave Schuler doesn’t pay his taxes, beats his wife, defrauds his customers and watches child porn in his house” if you’d react with a detached “hey, maybe, who knows?” let’s just see what an investigation says. Only absurd people traffic in absurdities.
You and steve are illustrating my very point. I have considerable respect for each of you but steve thinks that Trump’s guilt is self-evident and you think the opposite. Reconciling those positions is beyond me.
Andy thinks Trump’s guilt is obvious based on the Ukraine phone call’s published transcripts. I thought they were basically ordinary politics as usual. Not inoffensive but not particularly shocking, either. I would be greatly surprised if any president of my lifetime hadn’t tried to get domestic political mileage from foreign policy. I can’t reconcile those points of view, either. I’m confused.
I think the transcript provided enough evidence of guilt, but even if I thought GOP Senators were persuadable, they are not, I wouldn’t have tried to impeach based solely upon that. I would want confirmation, especially from Trump appointees. It sounds like we have that. WE can wait to have the public hearings but based upon what has been released Trump appointees have confirmed that Trump was holding back arms in return for investigating Biden.
As far as the Dems being out to impeach Trump, not sure how we avoided an investigation on Trump’s dealings with Russia. What other presidential candidate publicly appealed for help from another country? No precedent for that which I can remember. Besides which, as I noted before, the hallmark of the GOP Congress has been non-stop investigations of Democrats. They are doing it again. Did they really think they wouldn’t see this tactic used against them? That is why I keep calling them a bunch of pussies. They investigate Democrats. They actually impeached a Democratic POTUS over lying, about sex. Their guy gets investigated and non-stop whining.
Steve
“Green new deal. Medicare for all. Health care for illegals. Wealth tax.”
I said proposed as a law. Feel free to show me what bill these were put into and brought up for debate and a vote. These are just as likely to be proposed as a law as we will see Mexico paying for a wall. Or having health care for everyone that will be cheaper and better, and easy!
“They found a murdered U. S. Ambassador whose request for help from his President went unanswered.”
The stupid stuff I expect to hear from people who never served in the military or bother to learn how things work, but anyway, we had 8 investigations. They didnt have 8 investigations to learn more about the people who got killed. It was all about trying to prove there was a conspiracy to cover up. To find some scandal some scandal to pin on Obama (and Clinton). They tried 8 times and couldn’t do it.
Steve
S.1129
H. R. 109
I don’t believe that either has come to the floor or been voted on as of yet.
The New Green Deal thing is a non binding resolution, not a bill that would put into law any actions. M4A is DOA. That is Sanders not the Democratic party.
Steve
“Andy thinks Trump’s guilt is obvious based on the Ukraine phone call’s published transcripts. I thought they were basically ordinary politics as usual.”
I might be misremembering, but I think I had an “if the allegations are true” caveat. Regardless, at this point, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that my first impressions were accurate and that President Trump used military aid to coerce Ukraine, purely for his only domestic political benefit. As I’ve maintained all along, I think that is clearly impeachable conduct.
That previous Presidents may or may not have done similar actions is irrelevant – any that did were just lucky or smart enough to not get caught.
Steve,
“I said proposed as a law. ”
You can’t have it both ways. You and other Democrats have repeated the argument that the ACA was a “Republican” idea and noted that there was even a bill introduced for it, suggesting it’s hypocritical that any Republican should oppose what they supposedly supported in the 1990’s.
But the single GoP bill that was somewhat similar to the ACA is just like Sander’s M4A or any number of other Democratic bills that are introduced but never go anywhere. That’s what happened to the GoP bill – it never had a constituency and never was debated or brought up for any vote, even in committee. Yet you and many other Democrats have hung that around the GoP’s neck for a decade. Well, turnabout is fair play.
“different camps”
After more consideration, I believe it’s nationalism involved.
One side, (mine), believes that the USA is unique because of it’s bill of rights.
The other side, which seems to me, to believe those right are causing damage to the planet, and to people of color, and must be subservient to world bodies, such as as the IPCC, IE: (The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say – The Washington Post).
That the USA was founded in unforgivable sin, is the problem in the world, that the CCP’s social programs are no worse than ours, Islam is a religion of peace and the u-tube protesters in Benghazi were entitled to their actions.
No, Steve, I’m not a war hero. And not a flaccid Nobel Peace Prize winner either.