TerraPrime Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 [mod hat] Let's take the protracted discussion on gun control in the U.S.A. to another thread and keep this focused on current politics. Thank you. [/mod hat] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 Ok, I'm avoiding further discussion on gun control or the 2nd amendment and focusing on hypotheticals regarding Trump supporters. 41 minutes ago, Altherion said: I would not, but whether there would be a substantial number of people who would is a really interesting question. I do not believe that there is anything the mainstream media or the government can say or do to make the most diehard of Trump's supporters believe that he has been colluding with Russia. In fact, I do not believe even his mainstream supporters can be convinced of this. Keep in mind that they're reading an entirely different narrative that is presented by CNN, NYT, etc. For example, consider this Breitbart article (which I selected simply because it was the top one on their main page right now) as well as the comments to it. Does that look like people who are open to the idea that Trump is a Russian plant or, really, that anything negative about Trump being promulgated by the Democrats and the mainstream media is true? You make a good point. But you took this a step further by saying that the mere possibility of some Trump supporters taking arms to defend their champion may prevent some people or organizations from moving against Trump. You even suggested it is what prevents some people or organizations from acting illegally to hurt Trump. This I do not buy. Anyone who would be willing to throw away any kind of respect for the law or the constitution to remove Trump would not see the fact that many of his supporters have guns as a deterrent. Arguably, anyone that cynical might conceivably welcome a civil war. Besides which, if Trump was ever to spark of even condone any kind of armed uprising in the US for his personal benefit... What would that say about him? I have little respect for the man, but I don't see him as being that crazy just yet. After all, our lives all depend on the US CIC having at least a shred of sanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 How are Republicans not jumping all over this Sessions thing? It feels like the domino that could flip the rest of them quickly, particularly if the Republican Congress gets on board and condemns things. I mean, they still have both chambers of the house and the White House. Is Pence just that toxic to them? I know if Trump did go down, having Pence go along with him would be wonderful, but that just puts Ryan in the WH. Are they that afraid of Trump's base? You'd think they'd want the seeming comfort of trying to destroy the country with their policies without the circus distractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, Rippounet said: You make a good point. But you took this a step further by saying that the mere possibility of some Trump supporters taking arms to defend their champion may prevent some people or organizations from moving against Trump. You even suggested it is what prevents some people or organizations from acting illegally to hurt Trump. This I do not buy. Anyone who would be willing to throw away any kind of respect for the law or the constitution to remove Trump would not see the fact that many of his supporters have guns as a deterrent. Arguably, anyone that cynical might conceivably welcome a civil war. Besides which, if Trump was ever to spark of even condone any kind of armed uprising in the US for his personal benefit... What would that say about him? I have little respect for the man, but I don't see him as being that crazy just yet. After all, our lives all depend on the US CIC having at least a shred of sanity. I do not believe that any part of our establishment is overly concerned with respect for the law or the Constitution. That is, individual members may genuinely believe that they respect the Constitution, but they respect their own version of it which may or may not resemble anything like the common interpretation and allows for things such as torture, secret orders issued by secret courts and many others. Their primary motivation is their own power and wealth and to further those ends, I am sure they will manage to justify just about anything. The deterrent is that the people leading and financing the drive against Trump (i.e. not the "useful fools" seen at most protests, but the owners of the media, the Congresspeople, etc.) are very well off and, as such, are extremely hesitant to precipitate a chaotic situation because it's not obvious that they will come out of it as well off as they currently are. Trump is not fundamentally different from the rest of the establishment, but he has allied himself with the gun owners and thus has additional options as well as a higher tolerance for chaos -- probably not high enough to use it offensively, but possibly enough to use it as a last-ditch defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said: How are Republicans not jumping all over this Sessions thing? It feels like the domino that could flip the rest of them quickly, particularly if the Republican Congress gets on board and condemns things. I mean, they still have both chambers of the house and the White House. Is Pence just that toxic to them? I know if Trump did go down, having Pence go along with him would be wonderful, but that just puts Ryan in the WH. Are they that afraid of Trump's base? You'd think they'd want the seeming comfort of trying to destroy the country with their policies without the circus distractions. Assuming for a second that Sessions even did anything illegal here, and that if he did it could be proven, Sessions is not Trump. So you're taking some pretty profound leaps here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Altherion said: Trump is not fundamentally different from the rest of the establishment, but he has allied himself with the gun owners and thus has additional options as well as a higher tolerance for chaos -- probably not high enough to use it offensively, but possibly enough to use it as a last-ditch defense. Isn't that every elected Republican everywhere? What's unique about Trump's association with gun owners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 News just dropped that Sessions used Trump's campaign money to pay for the trip to meet the Russian liaison. So... now there's a direct link between Trump and Russians now. Sessions is not Trump. But *if* these news prove to be valid, we have a pretty serious problem of a Presidential candidate communicating with a foreign power with frequent opposition to U.S. foreign policy goals (Syria, e.g.), apparently coordinating efforts to defeat his opponent. Not to mention, this is such a huge trove of information from multiple news sources, each providing one of the pieces. It would extremely shocking if ALL of them were wrong, at the same time. This story has legs. I just don't know yet if it will have solid enough links to Trump's campaign, or if there's going to be a fall-guy, like Bannon, who will take the sword to protect Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 27 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Assuming for a second that Sessions even did anything illegal here, and that if he did it could be proven, Sessions is not Trump. So you're taking some pretty profound leaps here. Yup. E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy weren't Nixon either...but really what you took from my ramble wasn't exactly the point I wanted to make. I wanted to wonder if Pence is that toxic to Ryan and other Republican leaders that they're not using Sessions and the growing Russian smoke to actually break with Trump and let him be taken down. Republicans still control Washington and they shouldn't care who's sitting in the Oval Office. And someone less controversial means they could be doing things much more quietly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 24 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Isn't that every elected Republican everywhere? What's unique about Trump's association with gun owners? Not exactly. It is true that nearly all Republicans are supporters of Second Amendment rights, but I have not seen the kind of comments made regarding Trump made about any other Republican nor have I seen other Republicans speak the way Trump does (recall his joke about rigged elections and Second Amendment people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 11 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: Yup. E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy weren't Nixon either...but really what you took from my ramble wasn't exactly the point I wanted to make. I wanted to wonder if Pence is that toxic to Ryan and other Republican leaders that they're not using Sessions and the growing Russian smoke to actually break with Trump and let him be taken down. Republicans still control Washington and they shouldn't care who's sitting in the Oval Office. And someone less controversial means they could be doing things much more quietly... Republicans will break when there is solid proof that a crime has been committed. For now, it's a lot of smoke and coincidences that likely adds up to something but still not proven. Have to remember that Trump has only been President for 6 weeks and all of these fuckers stood by him after Russian hacking, 12 sexual assault accusations, a tape saying he sexually assaults women because he's famous, attacking a gold star family, attacking a judge because he's Mexican, being sued for a fraudulent university and violating laws with his foundation. Don't think it's all that easy for the Republicans Ronnie take the high ground without solid proof of criminal wrongdoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.