A Call to Trumpers/MAGA/Conservatives

[mossrose]

Trump surrounds himself with "yes men" and "sycophants." This is pretty well established. He demands loyalty to himself, not the country or the constitution. That is an observation about Mr. Trump and the people he surrounds himself with.

Or are you suggesting that a negative comment about Mr. Trump and those who surround him somehow means I am insulting you?

You aren’t insulting me at all, because I don’t live in the States and nobody there will ever be "my President". I have enough troubles with my own leader.

However, your language in your op is not conducive to your somewhat feeble attempt to strike some semblance of unity among your fellow Americans. Using the wordage you did suggests that you view everyone who votes for Trump as simple bootlickers and yes men. You don't seem to understand that a lot of people will see how much better thing were when Trump was president than they are now, and even if they don’t like him as a person, they choose him as the far lesser of the evils.

And if Christians have the slightest inkling that Biden's policies are better, then there is something seriously wrong with them.

[Mountain Man]

I think we also need to remember that Mr. Trump himself has engaged in a delaying action, pushing the trial off with the hopes of pushing them past the November election. The timing is strongly influenced by those choices on his part.

President Trump hasn't delayed anything. Judge Cannon made the decision to suspend the trial indefinitely while she sorts out a number questionable actions by Jack Smith and his team.

[carpedm9587]

For those looking to find a way to reduce the "my enemy" attitude, this is an excellent resource:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGwGDOemWPo

https://braverangels.org

I just joined. I like their commitment to bipartisanship in their governance and their overall approach.

[CivilDiscourse]

Actually, there have been multiple cases in NY in which business fraud of this type was charged. What makes the Trump case a bit unique is that, in all of the other cases, the criminal act that made the business fraud also criminal was also being charged. Here, the criminal act (an election violation) is not being formally charged, presumably because it lies outside Bragg's jurisdiction? I'm not sure on that one - not being a lawyer.

That alone makes it rather unique.

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-indictment-alvin-bragg-stormy-daniels-1234702199/

But skepticism of the case — and whether it could ultimately hold up — isn’t limited to Trump’s legal cronies: Some lawyers with no love for Trump still think the case is shaky. Among strong skeptics of the case is Randy Zelin, an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School who has practiced criminal defense for 32 years and worked as a prosecutor for three prior to that.
As I said above, the fact that they are stretching this Misdemeanor into a felony, using a crime that the original jurisdiction didn't find worth pursuing, really suggests that this was a prosecution in search of a crime.

“I do not believe, based upon what we know, that the felony charge will stick,” Zelin, who’s neither a Trump fan nor supporter of his policies, tells Rolling Stone.

“What you need to do to elevate the misdemeanor falsification of business records to a felony simply is this — [show] that the act of falsifying the business records was done in furtherance of another felony, another crime, that’s it,” Zelin explains.

But, “it would have to be a New York state crime.” The fact that whatever alleged campaign-finance misconduct took place involved a federal election means that it’s very iffy that prosecutors could actually operate on this legal theory: “You have all of these potential potholes that are going to sideline the district attorney’s vehicle here with a blowout on these little technical violations,” Zelin says.

“I think that the district attorney’s office in New York County is running a great risk of diluting the strength of other potential cases brought by other prosecutors, because this is a weak case — legally, it is a weak case.”

“Practically, it is really more or less a victimless crime, unless you believe that the election was truly influenced by the fact that people didn’t know about the hush-money payments,” Zelin says. “And with all of the stuff that he has said, does anyone really believe that if it got out that he paid Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, that it would have changed the election? Probably not.”

Peter Brill, a longtime New York defense attorney who has no love for Trump, voices similar sentiments. “I think that the basis for the felony, linking it to campaign-finance declarations … it’s a strange way to get to an indictment, especially in a falsifying-business-records situation that’s often charged as a misdemeanor,” Brill says. “On the one hand, the facts seem fairly damning, but the foundation that they’re built on is weaker than I would hope for in the first criminal indictment or criminal charge [against] Trump.”

© Copyright Original Source

I don't really know if the case for election fraud can be made. I do know that everything that is coming out in the case in NY stinks to high heaven. The documentation and cross witness corroboration tell the story of a very sick, entitled man squirming to avoid a nasty story getting out and alienating his "base." Most of what has come out (catch/kill, payment, the multiple accusations of sexual infidelity and predation, etc.) would kill the political career of any other person.

There are alot of words I would use to describe Trump. Entitled is one of them, disgusting, narcissistic, are others. I've refused to vote for him the last two elections, I'll make this one a trifecta of not voting for him.

Not Mr. Trump. His cult of personality stands strong - and I am beginning to think there is absolutely nothing he can do, nothing that can be revealed, that will ever alienate them from him.

He was probably right: he could kill someone in Central Park and his base would find a reason to excuse it and stick with him.

Here is where you want to remind yourself about not treating the other side as an enemy. This comment was uncalled for if you are REALLY interested in a fair exchange of ideas. You can't go around making accusations like this while saying "Don't treat me like the enemy!" If you don't want to be treated like the enemy, don't act like the enemy.

[carpedm9587]

You aren’t insulting me at all, because I don’t live in the States and nobody there will ever be "my President". I have enough troubles with my own leader.

However, your language in your op is not conducive to your somewhat feeble attempt to strike some semblance of unity among your fellow Americans. Using the wordage you did suggests that you view everyone who votes for Trump as simple bootlickers and yes men.

Where, exactly, did you get "everyone who votes for Trump as simple bootlickers and yes men" from my post?

You don't seem to understand that a lot of people will see how much better thing were when Trump was president than they are now, and even if they don’t like him as a person, they choose him as the far lesser of the evils.

I am absolutely clear that a lot of good people are voting for Mr. Trump are doing so because they see him as the "less of two evils." I think they are wrong, and have every intention of doing everything I can to make that case. I believe Mr. Trump is an existential danger to this country, and I would be failing to act as a citizen of this country if I didn't take up the cause and try to convince my fellow citizens. I have said, several times, that the "Trumpers" I have met in my travels are, almost universally, good people - and I struggle to reconcile that goodness with their support for Mr. Trump.

And if Christians have the slightest inkling that Biden's policies are better, then there is something seriously wrong with them.

So, in your opinion, Mr. Trump's policies are somehow more "Christian" than Mr. Biden's?

[carpedm9587]

President Trump hasn't delayed anything. Judge Cannon made the decision to suspend the trial indefinitely while she sorts out a number questionable actions by Jack Smith and his team.

Again, this statement is false. The Trump legals teams have been playing a delaying game with the courts for months and months now, filing objection after objection, petitioning for relocation, appeal every decision to high courts, and doing everything legally possible to keep the trial from beginning before the November election. This is, of course, their right to try to do, and Mr. Trump has played the game masterfully - as he has done throughout his career.

It simply seems a bit disingenuous to then blame the "timing" on "the left" or "Biden" or someone other than Mr. Trump's delaying tactics. He has been successful for most of his trials. He was not successful with the NY trial, putting it where it is now.

[One Bad Pig]

Trump surrounds himself with "yes men" and "sycophants." This is pretty well established. He demands loyalty to himself, not the country or the constitution. That is an observation about Mr. Trump and the people he surrounds himself with.

Your recollection is rather different than mine. I seem to recall a large amount of turnover at the top of the Trump administration. That indicates to me there was rather more give and take than sycophancy.

[One Bad Pig]

For those looking to find a way to reduce the "my enemy" attitude, this is an excellent resource:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGwGDOemWPo

https://braverangels.org

I just joined. I like their commitment to bipartisanship in their governance and their overall approach.

"Braver Angels"? Sounds like a group of people busy huffing their own farts. Sorry.

[EvoUK]

So, in your opinion, Mr. Trump's policies are somehow more "Christian" than Mr. Biden's?

I imagine because he's ostensibly anti abortion. Plus the usual smattering of culture war bits.

Also maybe 'something something, open boarders, something something '. Not sure how that's Christian, but the venn diagram looks a bit like a circle among the evangelical base.

[Mountain Man]

Again, this statement is false. The Trump legals teams have been playing a delaying game with the courts for months and months now, filing objection after objection, petitioning for relocation, appeal every decision to high courts, and doing everything legally possible to keep the trial from beginning before the November election. This is, of course, their right to try to do, and Mr. Trump has played the game masterfully - as he has done throughout his career.

It simply seems a bit disingenuous to then blame the "timing" on "the left" or "Biden" or someone other than Mr. Trump's delaying tactics. He has been successful for most of his trials. He was not successful with the NY trial, putting it where it is now.

When you say, "This statement is false," what you really mean is, "I am uninformed." There are currently two threads in the forum discussing malfeasance by Jack Smith and his team which has compelled Judge Cannon to indefinitely suspend the Mar-a-Lago documents case while she sorts out a number of important legal issues:

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...ng#post1581898
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...es#post1582051

It is very likely that Jack Smith will be adding yet another mistrial to his ignominious resume.

[Diogenes]

"Braver Angels"? Sounds like a group of people busy huffing their own farts. Sorry.

Directly funded by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and the Pathnote Foundation (which also donates to the SPLC).

[carpedm9587]

That alone makes it rather unique.

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-indictment-alvin-bragg-stormy-daniels-1234702199/

But skepticism of the case — and whether it could ultimately hold up — isn’t limited to Trump’s legal cronies: Some lawyers with no love for Trump still think the case is shaky. Among strong skeptics of the case is Randy Zelin, an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School who has practiced criminal defense for 32 years and worked as a prosecutor for three prior to that.
As I said above, the fact that they are stretching this Misdemeanor into a felony, using a crime that the original jurisdiction didn't find worth pursuing, really suggests that this was a prosecution in search of a crime.

“I do not believe, based upon what we know, that the felony charge will stick,” Zelin, who’s neither a Trump fan nor supporter of his policies, tells Rolling Stone.

“What you need to do to elevate the misdemeanor falsification of business records to a felony simply is this — [show] that the act of falsifying the business records was done in furtherance of another felony, another crime, that’s it,” Zelin explains.

But, “it would have to be a New York state crime.” The fact that whatever alleged campaign-finance misconduct took place involved a federal election means that it’s very iffy that prosecutors could actually operate on this legal theory: “You have all of these potential potholes that are going to sideline the district attorney’s vehicle here with a blowout on these little technical violations,” Zelin says.

“I think that the district attorney’s office in New York County is running a great risk of diluting the strength of other potential cases brought by other prosecutors, because this is a weak case — legally, it is a weak case.”

“Practically, it is really more or less a victimless crime, unless you believe that the election was truly influenced by the fact that people didn’t know about the hush-money payments,” Zelin says. “And with all of the stuff that he has said, does anyone really believe that if it got out that he paid Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, that it would have changed the election? Probably not.”

Peter Brill, a longtime New York defense attorney who has no love for Trump, voices similar sentiments. “I think that the basis for the felony, linking it to campaign-finance declarations … it’s a strange way to get to an indictment, especially in a falsifying-business-records situation that’s often charged as a misdemeanor,” Brill says. “On the one hand, the facts seem fairly damning, but the foundation that they’re built on is weaker than I would hope for in the first criminal indictment or criminal charge [against] Trump.”

© Copyright Original Source

There are alot of words I would use to describe Trump. Entitled is one of them, disgusting, narcissistic, are others. I've refused to vote for him the last two elections, I'll make this one a trifecta of not voting for him.

Obviously - I applaud that decision.

Here is where you want to remind yourself about not treating the other side as an enemy. This comment was uncalled for if you are REALLY interested in a fair exchange of ideas. You can't go around making accusations like this while saying "Don't treat me like the enemy!" If you don't want to be treated like the enemy, don't act like the enemy.

CD, Members of the Trump base have stuck with him through sandals that would have (and have) sunk ANY other politician. The Access Hollywood tape should have sunk him. It was dismissed as "locker room talk." The Stormy Daniel story should have sunk him. They even have the check! It was dismissed as a witch hunt. Family separation should have sunk him; it was excused away. Jan 6th should have sunk him. Now those who broke into the capital are being lauded as "patriots" and Trump is promising to pardon all of them. Inviting international dictators for sit downs at Mar-a-Lago should be cause for concern; it is applauded instead. Intentionally keeping classified materials, even after being asked to return them, should have sunk him. It was dismissed and called a witch hunt. The list just goes on and on and on.

Trump followers are not my enemy. They are my fellow citizens and entitled to their views. That does not mean I sit back and do not call those views out for what they are. "Not my enemy" does not mean I cease to point out flaws in reasoning, lack of evidence for claims, or any of the other things that constitute debate, discussion, and discourse. It means I do not see you, or any Trump citizen, as any less an American than I am. It means I respect their right to HAVE their views - it does not mean I have to agree with them, or to hold those views in respect.

When AOC was first elected, she too developed a "cult of personality." Bernie Sanders developed a "cult of personality." None of those were healthy for our country, IMO. Neither of them had Mr. Trump's dangerous personality flaws, but it still was not healthy. Mr. Trump's "cult of personality" is likewise not healthy - and because of the nature of Mr. Trump - it is dangerous to our democracy. It needs to be pointed to and named for what it is, in the hopes that those who are part of that cult will come to their senses before it is too late.

Or do you think otherwise? What exactly does "not my enemy" mean to you?

[CivilDiscourse]

CD, Members of the Trump base have stuck with him through sandals that would have (and have) sunk ANY other politician. The Access Hollywood tape should have sunk him. It was dismissed as "locker room talk." The Stormy Daniel story should have sunk him. They even have the check! It was dismissed as a witch hunt. Family separation should have sunk him; it was excused away. Jan 6th should have sunk him. Now those who broke into the capital are being lauded as "patriots" and Trump is promising to pardon all of them. Inviting international dictators for sit downs at Mar-a-Lago should be cause for concern; it is applauded instead. Intentionally keeping classified materials, even after being asked to return them, should have sunk him. It was dismissed and called a witch hunt. The list just goes on and on and on.

Trump followers are not my enemy. They are my fellow citizens and entitled to their views. That does not mean I sit back and do not call those views out for what they are. "Not my enemy" does not mean I cease to point out flaws in reasoning, lack of evidence for claims, or any of the other things that constitute debate, discussion, and discourse. It means I do not see you, or any Trump citizen, as any less an American than I am. It means I respect their right to HAVE their views - it does not mean I have to agree with them, or to hold those views in respect.

When AOC was first elected, she too developed a "cult of personality." Bernie Sanders developed a "cult of personality." None of those were healthy for our country, IMO. Neither of them had Mr. Trump's dangerous personality flaws, but it still was not healthy. Mr. Trump's "cult of personality" is likewise not healthy - and because of the nature of Mr. Trump - it is dangerous to our democracy. It needs to be pointed to and named for what it is, in the hopes that those who are part of that cult will come to their senses before it is too late.

Or do you think otherwise? What exactly does "not my enemy" mean to you?

It's plain and simple. Drop the hyperbole. Don't use words like "cult". You do that when you are trying to "score points" against the other side. Instead of spending your time trying to point out the flaws of the other side, look for points of agreement. Actually TRY to understand the other side's point of view.

To be blunt, your posts come across as someone who's convinced that they are perfectly right, and the 'other side' just needs to walk over to your side to make everything better. There doesn't seem to be any consideration that, perhaps, there are reasons that people don't want to buy what you are selling, and are willing to stick by someone that many of them, frankly, can't stand. If you actually look at what people like Cow Poke, Rogue, Sparko say, you'll not find alot of love for Mr. Trouble with Tribbles Toupee. You do have some hard core devotees like MM and Seer, but they aren't actually the majority.

[seer]

You do have some hard core devotees like MM and Seer, but they aren't actually the majority.

What do you mean hard core? I didn't even support Trump in either primary. And I made it clear on these boards that I did not want Trump to run this time around.

[seer]

When AOC was first elected, she too developed a "cult of personality." Bernie Sanders developed a "cult of personality." None of those were healthy for our country, IMO. Neither of them had Mr. Trump's dangerous personality flaws, but it still was not healthy. Mr. Trump's "cult of personality" is likewise not healthy - and because of the nature of Mr. Trump - it is dangerous to our democracy. It needs to be pointed to and named for what it is, in the hopes that those who are part of that cult will come to their senses before it is too late.

Or do you think otherwise? What exactly does "not my enemy" mean to you?

So basically this was all bull crap:

We need to exchange views. We need to talk, debate, even argue. Then, when the time comes to make a decision, we need to arrive at a reasonable compromise. If we don’t, then one of us will get everything we want and the other will get nothing. A compromise is better. For any issue, do you want to lose it completely? I certainly don’t. I’m willing to give ground if we can find a path.