Where have all of the Republicans gone?

Every accusation you make I've already heard before IN ALL CAPS and nothing came from them. Trump didn't work with or "conspire" with the Russians to do anything. Flynn talked to Russia...so you are accusing him of a Logan Act violation, while the Biden team is doing the same thing right now? Sorry, but following along with this ridiculous conspiracy theory has lead you nowhere, but it's so weird that you conspiracy nuts CAN NOT give it up. There must be interesting issues involved with that.

 

Right here.

 

What accusations? All I did was list a subset of the facts that legitimately aroused suspicions and led to a legitimate investigation. An investigation's legitimacy can't be judged by the end results, it should be judged on the facts available at the time it was initiated.

I didn't assert a "conspiracy theory", I was accurately identifying what Mueller was investigating - he was investigating the crime of conspiracy, not investigating "collusion" (the term you used). I acknowledged that Mueller did not establish that this crime was committed. Nevertheless, Trump (and others in his campaign) did some bad things, some of which were legal and some not. For example,it was not illegal for Stone to coordinate with Wikileaks, but he committed perjury by lying about it. It was illegal for Trump to engage in witness tampering - and the Mueller report lays out this case quite well. And finally, it is absolutely suspicious that Trump would tamper with these witnesses (a crime in itself, and a violation of his oath of office) - why would he do that? I'm not saying this is strong evidence he committed conspiracy, but I don't see how anyone could deny this is suspicious behavior.

 

Witness tampering is a crime, and you claim that the Mueller Report laid out the case and...there was no impeachment or charges by the special prosecutor for witness tampering. Ergo, they did not make their case. This ground has been gone over many times on this forum, and we've ended up with dry hole after dry hole. But keep drilling.

 

Non sequitur. Mueller explicitly stated that he would not make a prosecutorial judgment because 1) he was bound by the OLC memo to not prosecute; and 2) he personally considered it unfair to make a public judgment when Trump would not have his day in court to argue his case. But he also noted that Trump could be prosecuted when he left office. The case is laid out in the report, and over 1000 former prosecutors reviewed it and felt strongly that the evidence was sufficiently strong for an indictment.

The House considered including this in the articles of impeachment, but decided against it. It's just as well, since the jury was not impartial. In a criminal case, partisan jurors would be weeded out.

 

The entire purpose of the Mueller Report was to provide a basis for impeachment charges. The fact that the House didn't decide to impeach on those charges is telling. Of course, if, after the President leaves office, he's indicted for witness tampering, I may reevaluate my opinion, but otherwise, like every other alleged gotcha of the least four years, you got nuthin'.

 

LOL! You are really ignorant of the Mueller investigation. Here's what Rosenstein authorized him probe:

It doesn't tell us there's not a good case. Read the report, and you'll see how strong the case is. Or accept the expert opinion of Over 1000 former federal prosecutors who signed a letter attesting that, "the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."

The point is, you can't refute what I've said, irrespective of whether you choose to believe it. But if you choose to believe Trump is innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty in court, then you should use exactly the same standard when assessing allegations against Democrats. That includes claims of fraud in elections, Biden's firing of Shokin, and all the myriad allegations that have been made over the years against Hillary Clinton.

 

He said respect free speech. See below.
https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf

"While the First Amendment does not apply to
private companies such as Parler, our mission is to create a social platform in the spirit of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

 

Then why does Parler "censor" content too?

 

So you come here cheerleading a side, in order to complain about other people cheerleading for a side ...
Whatever, dude.

 

So you are claiming that no one has been banned or censored on parler? Really?

 

You're correct on one point, no facts will convince you if you really buy into this conspiracy theory. I've been arguing with conspiracy theorists on this forum for years, long before "Russian Collusion" showed up, and if there is one thing I've learned, is that people like you think the burden to disprove their conspiracy theory is on others. Nope, that's not the way it works. The burden is on you.

Like I said in my previous comment, this is testable. If there is actually enough real evidence in the Mueller Report to indict Trump on real felonies, once he is out of office when the guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel is no longer covering him, we'll find out if the DOJ starts their indictments. Although it's telling that a vapidly Trump hating Congress, which did try to impeach him on even more ridiculous charges later, took a pass at all of this "evidence"

As an FYI I do think it's likely that the Southern District of NY, which has an open ended investigation against all things Trump will have an indictment or two once he's out of office, but that's an unrelated witch hunt to the witch hunt you are championing. So stay tuned.

 

What "conspiracy theory" are you claiming I'm buying into? My impression is that you don't read very carefully.

Trump engaging in obstruction of justice doesn't entail a conspiracy, it just entails wrongdoing by Trump. Other than this, I've pointed out that his behavior has been suspicious. I drew no conclusions from this suspicious behavior.

Why do you use the term "witch hunt"? Is it just inconceivable to you that he might have done something illegal?

 

Are you aware that republicans and conservatives like myself are asking the same questions about the democrats we have known in the past?
That they see the loss of principal and character in the democratic party as virtually encompassing it and unlimited?

Honorable people recognize fundamental right and wrong, whether it supports their argument or not. We've been waiting to see that come back for more than four years now, and there is virtually no sign of it. I can't believe that the democrats we used to know have all died or lost their integrity. I can believe that they may well be intimidated by the radicalism that has taken over their party, and fear the consequences of speaking out against what they have to know is wrong.

When one side turns a discussion into an irrational pissing match, only a fool expects the other to help them win by being reasonable in the face of unreasonable attacks on beliefs, standards, reputation, freedom, income and family. The attacks on Trump started when he announced he would run, and have only increased over time. When one failed, another replaced it, each one usually lowering the bar of ethics; increasing the ferocity and aggression.

Conservatives hold the democrats responsible for the conditions which have enabled most of the outrageous conduct we have been seeing all over the nation, for the distortion of justice, the destruction of fundamental values including freedom and democracy that you try to blame on others- things that all of us should strongly support, and more. It's a long list. When people fail to control the way they think and their emotions, their emotions control them and their thinking- and their entire identity changes. Self-respect no longer regulates them, fundamental values no longer regulate them. Worst of all, they sometimes can't see it, anymore than a drug addict sees or understands what has happened to them. Everything is rationalized to protect the righteousness of the emotion.

They are unable to rationally recognize that what they think they see, and what they do - and this is their own choice, not something forced on them. Hate over-rides values and judgement, just as panic does. It doesn't need rational reason, it feeds on itself- and once you buy into a basic premise that someone else is responsible for whatever you don't like or are told you shouldn't like and accept it, it grows like a weed in the spring.

Honorable politicians will not create such an environment. While I've never believed any politician is entirely honorable, there used to be self awareness and limitations that kept them restrained and kept order. That was discarded at the 2016 loss, and the mentality of the worst of the democrats became the mentality of a large percentage of the democrats. It's been as logical as a child's tantrum ever since. IF I were a democrat, I would be absolutely appalled by this, and would be distancing myself from that group as far as possible. I would simply state that I didn't leave my party- they left me.

You don't sound like an unreasonable person- you do sound like you are unable to take an unbiased look at what the democrats have done here, and keep you perspective in balance.
I for one would be happy to see the democrats I've known most of my life return. I'm a man who has always voted for what I believed to be the best man, not the party- I voted for Obama in good faith the first time. I'm not a republican technically, I am a conservative. I don't object to any man having his own opinion and differing. I do object to that being sufficient reason to destroy others, or our national values, our constitutional principles.

IF we can all be reasonable citizens, adult and rational citizens, our differences will never justify that. We can discuss, we can differ, we can compromise, and maintain the integrity of the nation. IF.

 

Do you recognize any wrongdoing by Trump? Do you recognize that congressional Republicans have, by and large, accepted his actions and that this tacitly encourages such behavior?

Indeed. Do you recognize Trump's irrationality? Do you need me to identify some of it? I recognize some unreasonable attacks on Trump, and other Republicans, but no single Democrat has made more unreasonable and irrational attacks, on both people and on the institutions of our democracy, than Trump. Your comment suggests that you should understand why some respond to him the way they do.

I agree with this, and many of the generalities you stated. Further, I'm fine with calling out bad behavior by Democrats. Are you willing to call out nonsense coming from Trump about the election? Is it acceptable for Congressional Republicans to stand by quietly while Trump stirs up his base with false allegations? I've said multiple times that he is within his rights to litigate alleged fraud, and that we should see this through. But the results of the legal process must be respected; our nation depends on it. Don't you agree that calling on state legislatures to ignore the popular vote and appoint Trump electors is destructive to our democracy? Name a single act by a Democratic member of Congress or past President, that you consider on a similar level of destructiveness.

 

I have many, many times stated that Trump has many faults, and that the bulk of his supporters acknowledge that. However saying so to an inquisitor who is on a one-sided vendetta is hardly wise or prudent- because they will say that is evidence supporting what they believe, and continue to reject all evidence that invalidates what they believe. It's the concept of being impartial, being able to see all the aspects and keep things in perspective. While Trump has been abrasive to some, is narcissistic, egotistic, and often exaggerates or makes claims that are mostly conjecture- he's also been right on a great many things, and most importantly, things that matter. The economy under Trump has been incredibly good. The jobs and so many things that directly affect the quality of life have been incredibly good. You may not have noticed that of all the arguments against Trump, virtually none dare tackle those things that matter- because they can't argue with the hard results without looking like fools.

A person lacking the integrity to give credit where credit is due simply ignores those things and make their case on the more petty issues-things that do not have much affect on the actual quality of life. Trump's personality flaws may piss you off, but your emotional issues are YOUR issues; blaming them on anybody else is immaturity at minimum, and may well reflect a dysfunctional condition that exists in all areas of the persons' life. Without question- the personal character and integrity of our people has NOT been improving- it has been declining, eroding, over the last few decades as ideology replaced realistic values and standards. Trumps objectives included reversing that decline.

No nation can be stronger than the people who make it up, thus every person willing to reject his personal responsibility, willing to say I'm acting out because Trump made me do it- chips away at the strength of the nation and becomes a negative factor. The nation does not shape the people- the people shape the nation. Trump was elected by the people who recognized this erosion and incompetence, in an effort to re-direct the focus and- restore what made us great over history. It's amazing that a slogan of "Making America Great" can be so offensive to the people whose very lives depend on the quality of the American way of life.

NOBODY'S perfect. Trump is no exception, but there is a question of intent that matters. Big, big difference in making mistakes or being flawed, and resorting to unscrupulous tricks to destroy someone. I will vote for positive results, long before I will vote for or against personality. Liking a president personally is hardly relevant to your quality of life, only to your personal feelings. However the things that president achieves, the objectives they pursue, do indeed influence the quality of your life- and if you are unable to keep those things in their proper priorities, you become self destructive; like a person who attacks the pilot of the aircraft he is on because he doesn't like his voice or looks.

The dumbest thing of all is to be so intent on getting rid of that person you hate that you will accept virtually anything as a replacement... and there you have today's democratic mentality.
I have no idea where the rational, mature thinking democrats have gone. I see virtually none in congress, and we're not hearing from those citizens who consider themselves democrats. Do they not see what is happening to their party? They cannot all have lost their bearings, but they seem to have lost their voices. It's not the republicans who have initiated, endorsed, tolerated or enabled things like the riots, the de-funding of police, the thugs taking over parts of cities, the destruction of hundreds of national monuments, the rapid increases in violence and crime happening everyday, the incredible practice of cancel culture where people with opposing views have their livelihood attacked and their reputations assaulted; not republicans whose politicians have openly endorsed such things in public speeches. The list of such people should identify those who do this as the ones attacking your freedom and democracy. Why haven't you noticed this blatantly obvious connection? Does it matter, or is getting rid of Trump more important to democrats than the safety of your families and the stability of the economy you depend on? These people have attacked democracy directly- no question. The charge against Trump is based on distortion of secondary effects. When Trump attempted to halt the traffic from China at the beginning of the pandemic, he was accused of discrimination over race. When he enforced the existing laws that Obama created regarding border immigrants, he was portrayed as a monster bent on abusing children. The logic of people obsessed with hate is not logic at all, despite their demands it's rational- it's just hate running what was once a logical mind. I assure you- a large part of the public has grave fears for the future, a reverse from the confidence that existed one year ago. Grave fears.

This barrage of nonsense from the democrats has been a daily experience for the last 5 years. Why on earth would any rational person think that they suddenly found their self-respect again, and would never resort to fraud this time? From the Russian dossier scam to today- the democratic leadership has pulled every trick they could think of, and every one speaks to the lack of integrity and moral values. Fraud is not only possible, it is precisely what you would expect under the circumstances and such desperate people. Whether or not it can be proven is another question- but the probability of and belief that it did happen is very high. Imagine if you can, what the democratic behavior and position would be right now if Trump had won.

Let the investigations run their course- and if you are right, the result would be at least a limited vindication. That would still not mean it didn't happen, only that it wasn't caught. People look for what they expect to see- but are usually fooled by things, methods or tricks that they don't expect to see. This is a game like the lawyers play, where a great many dishonest things can be done either legally or without a means to prove them.

 

Which side do I cheerlead?

 

Illegal speech? Specifics?

 

Time will tell. Gab may be better. I know that illegal speech is not allowed.

 

For "trolling," using bad words, posting pictures of dog poop. No, just not illegal stuff. Some examples:

https://gizmodo.com/parler-ceo-says-hell-ban-users-for-posting-bad-words-d-1844222360
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml

 

Very true

 

For me it was no more Clinton's or Bush's. Period.
And she just wasn't a likeable person. IMO

 

As before, I agree with most of the general principles you mention. I can understand and accept a Republican judging Trump to be right on many things - he did some things that any Republican would do. That I disagree these were good is just normal political differences, and my sense is that you and I could have polite, meaningful discussions about these, and agree to disagree.

I take exception to dismissing Trump's most egregious behavior as some excusable personality flaw. To name just a few: His obstruction of justice in the Mueller probe violated his oath of office, as does his current attack on the legal processes that he is losing. Lots of his supporters accept his characterization that the election is being stolen from him. That is not healthy. Speading conspiracy theories, as he's done throughout his Presidency (and before) is also unhealthy. While that doesn't directly influence policy, it raises questions about his judgment.

Regarding "unscrupulous attempts to discredit someone", do you recognize how much Trump has done that? I can give you a list, if you like.

Finally, please remember that it was you who said, "When one side turns a discussion into an irrational pissing match, only a fool expects the other to help them win by being reasonable in the face of unreasonable attacks on beliefs". Apply it in both directions, or - preferably, denounce irrational reactions on both sides.

 

I would point out that the first stone so to speak that was followed by an endless hailstorm of the same- came when Trump announced his candidacy. Nobody waited until he won, was sworn in, or actually did anything to take issue with; they just began with mockery, insults and character assassinations.
NO president in history has ever been treated with such disrespect and especially before the fact of even being sworn in.

Does Trump have reason to believe the democrats rigged the election? The democrats have gone berserk trying to make the public think he worked with the Russians to win. We know that the essence of that story was contrived and funded by democrats. When that truth became public, how many democratic leaders stood up and spoke to condemn the dossier and it's authors?
Why wouldn't Trump think they may be cheating now? Trump not conceding today is in no way preventing the process from going forward, it's just pissing off the democrats, who think nobody should have been pissed off by the way they have acted for the last 4-5 years. Maybe, what goes around comes around.

I could give you a huge list of "egregious behavior" by democrats. And- I've spoken to lot more issues with Trump than any democrat poster has ever mentioned about the things on that list, which are damn sure documented. Denouncing has become a one sided game for them; they see nothing wrong with a "lets not and say we did" or "Let's do and say we didn't" policy.

Would I like to see the whole game cleaned up? Of course. It takes both sides- and it takes the kind of character that can recognize it's own errors, not one that thrives on denial and hate.
Unfortunately- that is all I've seen out of democratic leaders since this started. Kept hoping that would change, and all the democrats with good values I've known in the past would speak up.
Instead- they have tolerated crap that no honorable person would stand for, and pretended it didn't happen. Years ago, I would have thought that totally impossible.

 

One thing Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge, is that we have 40 years to form an opinion of him. His introduction wasn't the escalator ride.

We watched him marry, have kids, cheat, divorce, scandal, marry, kids cheat, divorce, scandal, marry, cheat, have kid.

We've watched him be a person who seems like he's got neither substance, nor style.

He's gross. Always has been. The 2015 MSM didn't convince me; his previous behavior through the decades convinced me.