Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[Route 45]

How many people are in jail that responded to an email from a 12 year old girl to hook up that was really an FBI agent are in jail? Your intent was there.

You answer an email from someone saying they are a rep of the Russian gov to influence the election and have a meeting your committing treason.

Well, I don't see Anthony Wiener going to jail, so there's your answer.
You people that think that the rules apply equally to everyone are just adorable.

By the way, on the question of "treason".....

Meeting Russians for dirt on Clinton? It may be immoral but it's not illegal (Opinion) - CNN.com

 

[Route 45]

Actually that's not quite correct. Campaigns are forbidden from taking anything of "value" from foreign nations that would help their campaigns. And the notion of "value," means money spent. If money was spent by the Russians getting the information on Clinton, then there's an issue (of legality) if the Trump campaign took/used that information.

I didn't know that the Olympic Mental Gymnastics competition was in Berlin this year.

 

[jamil]

No, but I think history will show that he's certainly one of the most inept, corrupt, narcisitic, and self serving individuals to ever serve as President of the United States.

I think there's not a rational basis for claiming "most corrupt". Perhaps subjectively you can say "most narcissistic". We don't have all presidents' narcissism rankings available to compare so that's a judgement call. It's probably naive to say he's the most self serving. Plenty of company there. I think I would trade the word "inept" for "ineffective" and then I would agree with that. Much of the ineffectiveness though is because of external forces as well as Trump himself. I think there were far more inept presidents, though I can't think of any who were more publicly crass.

Probably the most accurate statement you could make is he will end up being the president you hate the most. For me, I don't think an emotional judgement of love/hate has much utility. Ultimately in the end it really only matters what he did as president. At the end of his presidency, you can arrive at an objective estimation of his performance by asking yourself and answering this question honestly. Did the things he accomplished or did not accomplish affect your life negatively.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Actually that's not quite correct. Campaigns are forbidden from taking anything of "value" from foreign nations that would help their campaigns. And the notion of "value," means money spent. If money was spent by the Russians getting the information on Clinton, then there's an issue (of legality) if the Trump campaign took/used that information.

Generally that phrase is used in the context of having intrinsic value. Case in point, gold is valuable any way you slice it. I don't care how much you spent on a shovelful of dirt, that does not impart intrinsic value. In this case, no one named Trump could take information regarding Hillary (if it in fact exists) and resell it for cash value.

 

[jamil]

Why the quotes around Russia? Trump Jr released email interactions showing that he was aware that Russia was attempting to help his father's campaign. At this point, we still can't say there was collusion, but what we CAN say, with certainty, is that the Trump Campaign discussed it, were very open to the notion, and have repeatedly lied (or just "forgot") about it.

...and amazingly enough, he still has many people's unwavering support.

Well, the unwavering support is how tribalism works. We pick teams and then we're fiercely loyal to the team no matter what. The same thing happens on the left. Look at the people who made irrational excuses for Hillary. Same concept.

But anyway, I think I'd modify your summary of what happened. The email chain doesn't show Trump was aware that Russia was attempting to help his father's campaign. It shows Trump was aware only of a claim that the intermediary made that Russia was on Trump's side. It's most reasonable to say that because they pulled a bait-n-switch. The actual meeting turned out not to be about any of that. It was a ploy to get the Russian lawyer an audience on a completely different topic.

As far as legality goes though. If what Jr did was illegal, and it's not clear cut that it is, it doesn't matter that they didn't actually discuss any campaign help. It matters what Trump Jr thought the purpose of the meeting was.

Still, it does not look good for team Trump, if for no other reason than it gives the media a plausible reason to say the Russia thing is no longer a nothingburger, even if it ends up being a nothingburger. For now it's not. And all the Dems have to do is keep Trump's approval ratings below 42% to have a shot at swinging the Senate, or maybe even the House, which is what I think is the goal of all the hyperbole. Of course it's also because they're bat**** crazy.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, the unwavering support is how tribalism works. We pick teams and then we're fiercely loyal to the team no matter what. The same thing happens on the left. Look at the people who made irrational excuses for Hillary. Same concept.

I would argue that it is a bit different on the conservative side. For a very long time, the left did this while the right preemptively shot its own wounded and demanded absolute perfection else the 'imperfect' candidate was dropped like a bad habit. I believe that a good many on the right finally figured out that this is why we were getting our asses handed to us in most elections and came to the realization that you aren't going to win if you don't consolidate behind a candidate who can get traction and for the most part represent your views, even if imperfectly.

Most on the left so far as I can tell are just too f***ing stupid to understand reality with a sprinkling of those who I could find common ground with if I believed their ideas could actually be made to work.

 

[jamil]

Actually that's not quite correct. Campaigns are forbidden from taking anything of "value" from foreign nations that would help their campaigns. And the notion of "value," means money spent. If money was spent by the Russians getting the information on Clinton, then there's an issue (of legality) if the Trump campaign took/used that information.

Generally that phrase is used in the context of having intrinsic value. Case in point, gold is valuable any way you slice it. I don't care how much you spent on a shovelful of dirt, that does not impart intrinsic value. In this case, no one named Trump could take information regarding Hillary (if it in fact exists) and resell it for cash value.

I think it depends which side you're on. If you hate Trump then you are prone to stretch the law to whatever it takes to make Trump into the monster you already believe he is. On the other hand, if you're a fiercely loyal Trump supporter, if he did actually break the law, you're prone to compressing the law into such a strict interpretation that Trump couldn't possibly have broken it even if objectively, he did. Personally, I think saying that this "value" fits the purpose of the law is unreasonably stretching it. But there's an earned consequence of taking the public opinion hit for what he did. No doubt about it that it looks bad. It's not an 11 though.

 

[jamil]

I would argue that it is a bit different on the conservative side. For a very long time, the left did this while the right preemptively shot its own wounded and demanded absolute perfection else the 'imperfect' candidate was dropped like a bad habit. I believe that a good many on the right finally figured out that this is why we were getting our asses handed to us in most elections and came to the realization that you aren't going to win if you don't consolidate behind a candidate who can get traction and for the most part represent your views, even if imperfectly.

Most on the left so far as I can tell are just too f***ing stupid to understand reality with a sprinkling of those who I could find common ground with if I believed their ideas could actually be made to work.

Okay, let's work with reality then. What objective reality and facts can we identify with this latest issue? There's a stark line separating what both sides say. Someone's wrong. I'd submit a little of both.

There's a reason why one side sees it one way and the other side sees it the other. It's plausible that it is as you say, that the Trump side is behind him for the reasons you said. But if that's true wouldn't the arguments made on the Trump side be different? I'm talking about belief. The defenders of Trump seem to be extolling their beliefs about what is real, and not just saying, "ya. Trump jr ****ed up. It's kinda bad. Maybe he broke the law. But so what. We don't give a **** because at least Hillary isn't president." If what you say is true I would expect the latter to be the argument made by the pro trump side.

And I can say a similar thing about the anti-Trump side. What leads me to suspect them is that they're irrationally claiming this is more than it is, almost as if they were cheerleaders for Trump's demise when it's not rational to cheer for that, to hope you can find just anything you can pin on him so you get to say, "ah HA! I KNEW Hillary lost because Trump cheated."

 

[Fargo]

Actually that's not quite correct. Campaigns are forbidden from taking anything of "value" from foreign nations that would help their campaigns. And the notion of "value," means money spent. If money was spent by the Russians getting the information on Clinton, then there's an issue (of legality) if the Trump campaign took/used that information.

Can I get a cite to the statute you are referencing? Thx.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Actually that's not quite correct. Campaigns are forbidden from taking anything of "value" from foreign nations that would help their campaigns. And the notion of "value," means money spent. If money was spent by the Russians getting the information on Clinton, then there's an issue (of legality) if the Trump campaign took/used that information.

Kut, you're repeating what the MSM has spouted with regard to the "information" the Russian lawyer/prosecutor feigned to have. I've heard it called "sensitive information", "damaging information", "dirt", etc, etc gathered by the "Russian government".

One thing they don't call it is "Evidence of criminal wrong-doing" from the "Russian Crown (sic) prosecutor's" office (basically the Russian AG) which just doesn't have quite the same ring to it... but it is indeed what she professed to have in order to get the meeting.

 

[indiucky]

I didn't know that the Olympic Mental Gymnastics competition was in Berlin this year.

Kut is running beside the trump Train and just when I think he is going to reach up and grab my hand to let me pull him in he stumbles a bit....I knew it would be tough....I told myself 6 months before the election that it would take at least two years after the election to get Kut on board and his evolution is going on schedule...

"Hold on Kut...I got you brother and fret not...You're never too late to get on this train...We are doing the Reagan 48 State landslide in 2020...."

)

 

[Alpo]

Some light reading while you sit in the boxcar....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-sub-master-universe-090031185.html

One of the better articles I've read by Bai in a while.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Some light reading while you sit in the boxcar....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-sub-master-universe-090031185.html

One of the better articles I've read by Bai in a while.

Hmmm... first he minimizes the Trump kids for not being brash, bold and branching out into regions unknown, not having The Donald's chutzpah... then he bashes them for being brash, bold and reaching out into regions unknown with chutzpah. The "main theme" contradicts itself...

 

[Alpo]

You've injected your own nuance, methinks. Perhaps a reread?

 

[indiucky]

Some light reading while you sit in the boxcar....One of the better articles I've read by Bai in a while.

Thanks Alpo....He sums up what I love about Trump perfectly...And he's got a point that they may (I do not think Ivanka, for whatever reason, is as guilty of this as the boys) fall in to the "Chelsea Trap"....I.E. "I deserve to work for NBC, run for office, help mom's campaign, write a book because, Hey...I am the Clinton's daughter..." Out of all of the kids I see Ivanka as someone we will see more of in the future...She has an ability (I have heard) to come across as genuine with construction workers as she does with wealthy people....She truly comes across as "genuine" (whatever that means) and I think it's real...Someone said when she was a little girl she would hang out on construction sites with the workers and she may have picked up that ability there....I know many don't believe it but Trump has it too....He seems to connect with people....I remember an interview he did years ago when he said he gets along better, with doormen, cooks, cab drivers, firemen, cops etc....Than he does with the NYC elite class..The interviewer asked him if he is bothered by the fact he has never been accepted in the elite social circles in NYC and he answered that way...I remember being impressed a little by that...the fact that it didn't bother him....

And I loved the book but the film version of "Bonfire of the Vanities" was not that good....Wolfe can write for certain...


[FONT=&amp]"Say what you will about President Trump, and I’ve said plenty; you can’t say he ever lacked for what New Yorkers call chutzpah. He had the brass ornaments to risk his modest inheritance, to plow through bankruptcies, to court public humiliation in pursuit of far-flung enterprises. I actually admire that.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]He had the temerity to run for president, which is more than a lot of more able, more qualified politicians will ever be able to say. If our most capable political leaders had half of Trump’s adventurism, he’d probably still be living on Fifth Avenue."[/FONT]

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You've injected your own nuance, methinks. Perhaps a reread?

Here's my recap...

- "Bonfire" crib notes
- The Donald accomplished much through brazen chutzpah
- But the kids don't have his chutzpah, they're pampered and stay in the safe confines of Manhattan penthouses
- Why does Ivanka think she can take dad's chair at G20! What chutzpah!
- How can Kuchner have the chutzpah to jet off to the Middle East and think he's the smartest guy in the room?

I stopped there... I'm all for alternate reality tales as long as they are logically consistent within themselves. This one isn't.

I stopped watching Dr. Who when the 13th Dr. appeared for the same reason...

 

[indiucky]

Okay, let's work with reality then. What objective reality and facts can we identify with this latest issue? There's a stark line separating what both sides say. Someone's wrong. I'd submit a little of both.

LOL...Dude....

"The comic’s protagonist is Zora, a Mexican immigrant who becomes a “resistance army” leader, and Jamil, an “apolitical smuggler.” Together, the two must evade the authorities, while Zora must contend with her own personal desire for revenge."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/07/12/calexit-comic-book-imagines-california-in-full-scale-revolution-against-trump/

 

[SSGSAD]

Actually that's not quite correct. Campaigns are forbidden from taking anything of "value" from foreign nations that would help their campaigns. And the notion of "value," means money spent. If money was spent by the Russians getting the information on Clinton, then there's an issue (of legality) if the Trump campaign took/used that information.

AND, "h" recieved money from ALL OVER the WORLD .....

So please explain why it is ok, for one, and not the other .....

 

[indiucky]

AND, "h" recieved money from ALL OVER the WORLD .....

So please explain why it is ok, for one, and not the other .....

here you go....

[video=youtube;Ex9ldUHSgjs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex9ldUHSgjs[/video]

 

[Dddrees]

AND, "h" recieved money from ALL OVER the WORLD .....

So please explain why it is ok, for one, and not the other .....

Why do you ontinue to justify one wrong because of another wrong? Why can't you just admit any wrong is just plain wrong?