Why Trump base do not think Trump is corrupt

[bb303034]

All the whining of the Trump trash base does not change

(1) Manafort was convicted in federal court on 8 counts;

(2) and Cohen has pled guilty.

Dershowitz, Azogthedefiled, and the rest simply don't matter.

I wasn't whining if you are referring to my post. I was actually trying to help you out and let you know how the swing voters you are trying to coral feel. Basically was telling you what we swing voters see/feel about both political parties and their crazies. All either group does is point the finger at the other and defend their own regardless of the circumstances.

Congrats, your reading comprehension is about as solid as a dyslexic walrus. Or, as I hope for your sake, you read the first line and quit reading. Try going back and reading through it. You may just learn something and realize you are doing your political party no favors by blatantly turning a blind eye to your perspective candidates and their indiscretions while demonizing the other side for theirs and vice versa, both parties are guilty of doing the same thing.

The hypocrisy from both sides is pretty pathetic and really reveals a lot about both.

 

[Penelope]

Oh we can get him on obstruction of which he is guilty, and when he is out of the WH they can indict him for money laundering.

 

[bb303034]

From Dershowitz:

A candidate can spend as much of their own money as they want to—even if it was a campaign-related expense. You have to show that it’s a crime, it’s “not a crime” for a candidate like Trump to contribute to his own campaign, and probably not even a crime to direct someone else to contribute if he plans to pay that back. Further, Dershowitz said, “The only evidence that the president did anything that might be unlawful … comes from a man who’s admitted to be a liar.”

It is profoundly ironic, astronomically ironic, gut-bustingly hilariously ironic, that any supporter of Trump would point the finger at someone else and call them a liar.

You are actually in danger of creating a vortex of irony which could end the Universe.

Pot calling the kettle black...It is even more ironic that a lefty would be telling a righty that it is ironic that one would call the other a liar.

I really think both groups have started lying so much that each truly believes their lies and or does not realize they are lying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All the whining of the Trump trash base does not change

(1) Manafort was convicted in federal court on 8 counts;

(2) and Cohen has pled guilty.

Dershowitz, Azogthedefiled, and the rest simply don't matter.

I wasn't whining if you are referring to my post. I was actually trying to help you out and let you know how the swing voters you are trying to coral feel. Basically was telling you what we swing voters see/feel about both political parties and their crazies. All either group does is point the finger at the other and defend their own regardless of the circumstances.

Congrats, your reading comprehension is about as solid as a dyslexic walrus. Or, as I hope for your sake, you read the first line and quit reading. Try going back and reading through it. You may just learn something and realize you are doing your political party no favors by blatantly turning a blind eye to your perspective candidates and their indiscretions while demonizing the other side for theirs and vice versa, both parties are guilty of doing the same thing.

The hypocrisy from both sides is pretty pathetic and really reveals a lot about both.

The swing voters (the GOP mainstream, the antiTrump GOP, the independents) are watching open mouthed in amazement at the silliness of Trumpers like you trying to tell them they are feeling different than what they are feeling.

Hillary, Bill, Obama, etc., don't mean a thing when it comes to Trump and what he is doing.

You are going to learn that.

 

[g5000]

Trump hired and used a professional liar for ten years! You can't trust him! Bleev me...bleev me...bleev meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

 

[JakeStarkey]

bb303034, you are noob honestly here or from Trump Trash Central or Putin Plazabot Quarters, and none of that matters.

Trump's ass is in the bear trap, and he did it himself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

pwease . . . beweeve me . . . if we have to go back to Trump Towewh . . . Melania going to kick my butt

 

[bb303034]

bb303034, you are noob honestly here or from Trump Trash Central or Putin Plazabot Quarters, and none of that matters.

Trump's ass is in the bear trap, and he did it himself.

Didn't actually vote for Trump... Not sure what being a "noob" has to do with me being a swing voter and letting you know how both parties look. I guess it's easier to deflect rather than have an actual discussion/explain to me why my viewpoint may be flawed.

So what is it, are you a means to an ends kind of person dependent on which candidate/politician is the means or are you truly a moral person? From the looks of it and from your response I gather that you could care less what a democratic candidate has done morally speaking but hypocritically want to throw the book at anything republican.

Or are you actually naive and truly believe no democratic politician has ever done anything morally wrong?

Try actually having a discussion about something. Instead of just putting up a wall when something doesn't jive with your outlook/worldview and we may actually get somewhere.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bb303034 is speaking nonsensically.

What is there to understand about Trump's criminality, BB?

What don't you get?

If the GOP dump Trump tomorrow and Pence elevates to the Presidency, that is good by me.

What about you?

 

[night_son]

Jason Stanley is correct, I believe, in defining corruption in Trumpian far right base terms.

The Trump voter is not worried about law but rather about our traditional national identify argues an article in The Atlantic. Why Trump Supporters Don’t Care About Cohen’s Admission - The Atlantic

"In a forthcoming book titled How Fascism Works, the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley makes an intriguing claim. 'Corruption, to the fascist politician,' he suggests, 'is really about the corruption of purity rather than of the law. Officially, the fascist politician’s denunciations of corruption sound like a denunciation of political corruption. But such talk is intended to evoke corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order.'”

IOW, Trump calls to the "good old days," evokes images of the fifties, he denounces peoples of color, he calls women dogs and says he can grab them by the pussies.

The quickly changing demography of the electorate, and the outrageous talk and behavior by the President this week and last, and the blows delivered by Mueller in the Manafort and Cohen cases, may end any effective Presidency by the midterms in ten weeks.

Read it all, please. I promise it's not entirely hostile.

Despite your professor's reassurance that morality can be dissected, catalogued historically in situ and endlessly analyzed for infinite interpretations, he or she mislead you from the path of primeval normative human nature. Humans can pull themselves up out of the primordial swamp, not by the hair of our heads, (sorry Nietzsche), but rather damn well for sure by exercising personal responsibility.

Right and wrong--morality--is self evident and wholly without the need for further interpretation than observable in primal human nature and instinct (Perspectivism working against civilization) . Now, when moral reasoning is applied by political theory within the borders of any nation, the waters become murkier than the fundamental moral fact of good or bad self-applicable to individual human behavior without inane epistemological loops of infinite skepticism. Enter laws to assist us oh so gently in editing our own behaviors to fit within their legal limitations.

Question, Jake. Are laws always moral? In my opinion and in that of many others, the answer is: no. See, my recently unignored fellow USMB forum member, the law (by adjudication, mostly) is where the radicalized, cultural revolutionary Left is able to redefine what is right, what is wrong for the rest of America without their due suffrage or permission; and further-- what is natural and what is unnatural, morally acceptable.

Through legal decisions your "evolved" radical pals and you have even begun to redefine human nature through its ideological designation as a social construct. Right? Well hell. If human nature is a social construct, and can be socially reconstructed to suit any ideology or political-cultural cause--like you might wrongly blame the Western patriarchies for doing all along, then what else can be reconstructed? Redefine any fact you need to. Right? That, Jake, is the ethos of your ideology and the postmodern Age into which your ilk wants to transition America.

If you're a student of distant history, then you're aware of a very ancient civilizational cycle cycling over and over--down through the Ages since, well, since human forever. The cycle is as follows. A civilization--through governmental and religious and epistemological interpretive hells in every form imagined--oppresses the shit of its citizens. The citizens reaction is then to breed philosophers and professors and artists and counter-dogmacists who first, challenge intellectually the traditional, iron fisted ruling class, and then, form small revolutionary groups seeking to liberate the people morally and legally from associated societal restrictions and burgeoning cultural taboos. They succeed eventually in either cultural or full scale civilizational revolution, to a much freer, morally liberated state of individual and societal existence.

What happens next is, the revolutionaries (who think their ideas are unique in human history) take their relaxed moral, cultural and social freedom too far out onto the brink where anything goes and the practice of ultimate freedom removes freedom from fellow citizens who want no part in their debauchery and destruction of tradition.

Next up, the rest of the citizenry voluntarily call for and put into place an authoritarian regime which promises to force a return to the "old ways". And then, the new authoritarian regime (much like the one which originally existed in the cycle's first phase earlier generations of citizens revolted against to escape) does just that. It stamps out by sword point the revolutionary element. Finally, the people realize what ancient oppressive horror they have welcomed back into their lives. Now, they are stuck--once again, as were their ancestors--living life under totalitarian rule.

The cycle begins anew.

Listen, Jake, regardless of what you might think, fellow Americans like myself and others do not hate Americans such as yourself who seek ultimate freedom from the shackles of ancient tradition. Not at all. What we do think about you is, is we wonder how in the hell the thirst for unlimited individual moral freedom has made you so drunk on the idea of it, that you can no longer see the obvious danger of its unrestricted practice or historical implications.

Truth is, out of respect for the possibility of a real Aristotelian dialectic with you, none of the cultural or sexual revolution based "social evolutions" you seem to define as such--as an escape from 1950's moral codes and taboos, are historically new. They have all been seen and practiced before in human history by ancestors near and far.

Let's talk further specifics in euphemisms-- in the spirit of PG-13 political forum posting guidelines. Your "people" want to have their cake, dig? Even though they want to have their cake more than anything else in the whole damn world, and having said cake is perfectly acceptable culturally and legally, well, they want to eat their cake too, in front of everyone else. Having and eating their cake publicly is legally questionable and morally and culturally and socially unacceptable for the rest of us.

Final question.

Is having and eating your cake so very important to you, that you would risk the destruction of our country, and civil war with your fellow countrymen, or, can we agree that you can have your cake, okay have it, but, if we concede to you that if we cannot regress America back to the 1950's (I do not desire such anyway) and will stop efforts to do so, you must then agree to have your cake in private, far from the sight of our children's minds eyes, and you will stop trying to eat it in public?

Thanks

Night_Son

 

[gipper]

Jason Stanley is correct, I believe, in defining corruption in Trumpian far right base terms.

The Trump voter is not worried about law but rather about our traditional national identify argues an article in The Atlantic. Why Trump Supporters Don’t Care About Cohen’s Admission - The Atlantic

"In a forthcoming book titled How Fascism Works, the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley makes an intriguing claim. 'Corruption, to the fascist politician,' he suggests, 'is really about the corruption of purity rather than of the law. Officially, the fascist politician’s denunciations of corruption sound like a denunciation of political corruption. But such talk is intended to evoke corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order.'”

IOW, Trump calls to the "good old days," evokes images of the fifties, he denounces peoples of color, he calls women dogs and says he can grab them by the pussies.

The quickly changing demography of the electorate, and the outrageous talk and behavior by the President this week and last, and the blows delivered by Mueller in the Manafort and Cohen cases, may end any effective Presidency by the midterms in ten weeks.

Did Obama’s base think he was corrupt?

 

[Toro]

Because he is Orange Jesus. And by definition, Jesus isn't corrupt.

 

[Harry Dresden]

There has always been to sets of laws. One for the rich and one for the rest of us. Look at the financial crisis. No one went to jail. Politicians rarely have to answer for their crimes. We have now seen that actions that would get most of us fired at our regular jobs are acceptable at the upper levels of law enforcement. This is nothing new. Just try to get a good Federal or State job without connections.

got mine without connections....just went down and applied and took the Civil Service Exam.....

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

From Dershowitz:

A candidate can spend as much of their own money as they want to—even if it was a campaign-related expense. You have to show that it’s a crime, it’s “not a crime” for a candidate like Trump to contribute to his own campaign, and probably not even a crime to direct someone else to contribute if he plans to pay that back. Further, Dershowitz said, “The only evidence that the president did anything that might be unlawful … comes from a man who’s admitted to be a liar.”

It is profoundly ironic, astronomically ironic, gut-bustingly hilariously ironic, that any supporter of Trump would point the finger at someone else and call them a liar.

You are actually in danger of creating a vortex of irony which could end the Universe.

Dershowitz voted for Clinton and is a life long Democrat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is important is removing a criminal president from office.

Next.

 

[Crixus]

Jason Stanley is correct, I believe, in defining corruption in Trumpian far right base terms.

The Trump voter is not worried about law but rather about our traditional national identify argues an article in The Atlantic. Why Trump Supporters Don’t Care About Cohen’s Admission - The Atlantic

"In a forthcoming book titled How Fascism Works, the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley makes an intriguing claim. 'Corruption, to the fascist politician,' he suggests, 'is really about the corruption of purity rather than of the law. Officially, the fascist politician’s denunciations of corruption sound like a denunciation of political corruption. But such talk is intended to evoke corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order.'”

IOW, Trump calls to the "good old days," evokes images of the fifties, he denounces peoples of color, he calls women dogs and says he can grab them by the pussies.

The quickly changing demography of the electorate, and the outrageous talk and behavior by the President this week and last, and the blows delivered by Mueller in the Manafort and Cohen cases, may end any effective Presidency by the midterms in ten weeks.

So Cohen named trump specifically or was it Lanny D?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You gonna find out, Crixus

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You gonna find out, Crixus

We have due process in this country. Google it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Crixus does not understand the law. OK. He will learn.

 

[RDD_1210]

Jason Stanley is correct, I believe, in defining corruption in Trumpian far right base terms.

The Trump voter is not worried about law but rather about our traditional national identify argues an article in The Atlantic. Why Trump Supporters Don’t Care About Cohen’s Admission - The Atlantic

"In a forthcoming book titled How Fascism Works, the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley makes an intriguing claim. 'Corruption, to the fascist politician,' he suggests, 'is really about the corruption of purity rather than of the law. Officially, the fascist politician’s denunciations of corruption sound like a denunciation of political corruption. But such talk is intended to evoke corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order.'”

IOW, Trump calls to the "good old days," evokes images of the fifties, he denounces peoples of color, he calls women dogs and says he can grab them by the pussies.

The quickly changing demography of the electorate, and the outrageous talk and behavior by the President this week and last, and the blows delivered by Mueller in the Manafort and Cohen cases, may end any effective Presidency by the midterms in ten weeks.

You are seriously one of the dumbest posters here. I am sorry but you are. Or you are a troll. So lowering taxes for corporations, significantly reducing corporate inversions, increasing military spend and innovation, securing the border, making other countries respect our might again is bad how? LOL

Go back to your safe space, jabroni.

You've posted here 735 times in just 19 days since you've joined.

Paid shill or unemployed and on government assistance?