A Letter to Trumps' Critics--with a Psychoanalytic Approach

I'll display my impotence, whatever that is supposed to mean, by quoting Boehner who the day after the Napolitano story came out said it never happened. The only impeachment rules that changed in 2015 was a minor detail something about who could issue subpoenas and how.

Rep. Campbell seems to have the same grasp on things as you do. For one thing the whole House voted to hold an impeachment inquiry three days after Starr delivered his report. There are many other differences but I'll just state that Trump's impeachment is being held with a process that is 180 degrees out of phase of the three previous impeachment inquiries. For just one simple example none of the others held a Star Chamber secret hearing with no opposing witnesses allowed in a locked room in the basement.

And do not ask me for silly-assed links and documents. Verification is readily available to any half-way potent 5th grader.

 

Is that so! Did the House invite Clinton to testify? No, but it is conceivable that he might have accepted except he learned his lesson from his stupidly agreeing to testify before Starr's grand jury. Plus the House then was not grandstanding and frantically searching for something that might look a little like impeachable. Did the House successfully subpoena any of Clinton's inner advisors? For a nickel I'll tell you the answer if you want. Did they even try?

 

You can cling to whatever pretexts you must. The Constitutional process is being conducted in accordance with the rules.

In fact, the same rights accorded to Trump were given to the minority party with Clinton in the late 1990s and Nixon in the mid-1970s. Despite Trumpers lying about it, both the Clinton and Nixon investigations also had a mix of closed and open phases.

The rules that pertained in 2015, when they were modified, still apply.

 

Spin as you must, the reality is that the same rules apply, Trump, given the opportunity, refuses to testify under oath, and he is trying to prevent as many of those closet to him and privy to insider information from sharing what they know.

Will his hiding as much of the truth as he can from those hoping to expose it? We'll have to wait and see.

 

Is it "literally" doing that? claiming -all- criticism of Trump is illegitimate? Of course not, not even close. It is in fact reasonable backlash to all the "Trump cult" BS (irony) you and yours belt out, not just here in the backwater, but in hundreds of MSM outlets. Bet you have no problem with that double standard at all.

What a complete farce. There is a written record of posts here, I've had the dubious pleasure of reading hundreds of yours, yet never once have seen an appeal to lower taxes or spending restraint in -any- of them. Maybe I just missed them, or maybe you are just posturing "fake libertarian" as you do so much of here.

 

Seeing as the letter is addressed to "Trump's critics," yes, it seems to be the case that it is addressed to Trump's critics. And the Trump cult I refer to is not all of Trump's supporters. You can find my posts elsewhere talking about the fact that I don't hold it against anyone for voting for Trump because they saw him as the lesser of two evils. The Trump cult I refer to is the group of Trump's loyalists who try to delegitimize any and all criticism of the man. Your "bets" are of no concern to me.

Your failures at using the search feature are not my responsibility.

You did.

Your lack of understanding of what libertarianism means is not my responsibility.

 

Dodge noted. No reasonable person would interpret the OP as positioned against ALL criticism of Trump. Which makes it understandable that you are attempting and failing that.

Bullshit, they don't exist, or at least not in any measurable proportion to the overwhelming amount of leftist-statist stuff you post daily here.

It sure as F doesn't mean "legalize weed, gambling, etc., but keep government big and strong, taxes high, to pay my benefits."

 

Please learn what "dodging" actually means. I gave the reason for why I interpreted this to be positioned against all criticism of Trump . . . which YOU were actually the one who dodged.

Again, your failures at using the search feature are not my responsibility. The positions I've expressed are perfectly in-line with the LP and with libertarian publications like Reason Magazine. Perhaps you should think more carefully about what words like "leftist" and "statist" mean.

If you would take the time to read my posts, you'd see I haven't said anything about keeping government big, taxes high, or paying my benefits, and I've barely said anything at all about legalizing weed. And I'm pretty sure I've never mentioned legalizing gambling. If you are going to criticize my posts, at least take the time to represent them honestly. The fact that you have to make this stuff up shows why it isn't relevant.

 

Trump is not hiding anything. He simply refuses to play charades with the Gladiators at the gate.

 

You can cling to whatever pretexts you must. The House rules state that closed sessions can be held only if confidential information will be discussed or to protect necessary privacy of witnesses, none of which applied to Schiff's Soviet-style secret inquiry. With Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton the opposing party was freely allowed to call their witnesses (again per the House rules) which neither Schiff nor Nadler will allow per Pelosi's unvoted for change in the House rules..

 

Of course he's trying to hide as much as he can by his weaseling out of testifying under oath and gagging those in-the-know such as Mulvaney, Bolton, Perry, and Pompeo.

If the truths they would reveal were exculpatory, he would be demanding they all appear.

The desperate pretense of indignation is fooling no one but his frantic pom-pom flailers.

 

I know you don't think so, but Trump is nowhere that stupid.

 

Fake Don's phony cry baby defense fails. Whining about the process is an implicit admission that one can't win on the substance.

Inevitably, Democrats will complain about Senate rules if the scandal results in a trial.

“WHAAA!
EVERYBODY” BEING MEAN TO ME!
WHAAA!”
​

TABLOID DEFENSE vs CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE​

The process must be as persuasive as the facts that have been exposed.

Fake Don is running away from his opportunity, gracefully extended, to testify under oath, and he's gagging those in-the-know that have the goods on him, opting to pleasure himself with his cry baby pissy tweets, whilst hist nasty boys Jordan, Collins and Biggs will try their disruptive antics in the hearings.

It is a serious Constitutional matter of national import. but, for RINOs of Trumpery, it is a venue for self-righteous outrage as they will hysterically play the victim card.

Were they able to present a credible defense based upon the testimony of insiders, that is what they would do.


​

 

Obviously, Trump is not so stupid that he would testify under oath or allow his insiders to spill the beans.

Thus, the refusal to participate in the pursuit of truth, and the desperate diversion to process over substance.

When the facts are against you, throw a hissyfit.

 

No they aren't, and no you aren't.

 

Your lack of familiarity with the party, with the philosophy, and with the publication are not my responsibility.

 

You are a big government, tax and spend statist, hundreds or thousands of your posts evidence it, mutually exclusive with either classical liberalism or the Libertarian Party.

 

The dem clown show is using emotion over facts, bypassing process, ignoring their own principles stated publicly, and are rushing this because, as one dem rep said, they can't let the election decide who is President.

 

Lol, if you can't tell the truth about my posts, don't respond. It is getting harder and harder to believe these mistakes are unintentional.

 

Your inability to face and admit the reality of your very well-documented, left-statist-biased posting history here is not my responsibility.

 

The forum's search forum says you are wrong. I just got through looking up every reference I've ever made to taxes or taxation on the forum. Three years ago I mentioned being in favor of employment tax cuts and tax raises on land and natural resources to make up for it. The only instances I've found where I talk about a tax increase is when I'm talking about a tax increase in one area and an accompanying decrease somewhere else. The rest is hundreds of posts that include voicing support for corporate tax cuts, voicing support for tax cuts in general, and arguing against tax increases. The problem I've pointed out with tax cuts is that, while they are great, it is problematic to pair them with spending increases . . . like with Trump.

I can't find anywhere that I've advocated for any significant increase in spending or State power (I've criticized Statism on multiple occasions), and I've repeatedly criticized leftist economics.

Your "documentation" is fake.

 

Well, I appreciate your taking the 30 seconds necessary to find and reread all of them.

 

It takes me more than 30 seconds to read a few hundred posts. Also, your jab makes no sense. First you claim that I've flooded the forums with advocacy for higher taxes, etc., then you say it would only take half a minute to read every post in which I've mentioned taxes. Make up your mind. I'm sorry your argument fell apart under the slightest scrutiny, but maybe just base your argument on facts instead of feels next time and that won't happen.

You can start with the rest of the facts mentioned in the post you just quoted . . . you know, the ones that prove you wrong and that you dodges/are now desperately running away from.

Just try telling the truth about your fellow forumites from here on out instead of spreading easily refutable fabrications. If that is seriously too much to ask, then luckily the forum makes a special ignore button for that kind of factless trolling.

 

No, straw man, I said you are a big government, tax and spend statist, and that your posts evidence that. You are. I have never seen a post of yours advocating for tax cuts on anything or decreasing the size and power of the federal government. If a few exist, they quail in comparison to your near universal record of advocating towards all LW themed posts/threads here and against all nonleft themed posts/threads here.

Here, totally unrelated, I'll just link the urban dictionary entry on "concern trolling" for no reason whatsoever.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern troll

 

My posts demonstrate otherwise.

Reality disagrees.

Then try reading. Start with every single discussion I've ever had about trade, protectionism, and tariffs. Or you can start by doing what I did and using the search function and looking at every mention I've made regarding taxes. I've summarized that for you to try to make it easier, but I guess even the Cliff Notes are too much.

Prediction: you'll run away from the facts in your next "reply" too.

You haven't cited a single example of me advocating for bigger government, more taxes, or more spending.