Trump Thread

[Hooahguy]

H'guy:

My avidly left-wing family and friends (I have a fair number of such, after all I work in academe) would very much want to see/hope to see/expect to see just that from Trump. This is because they have already judged him as guilty since they cannot accept that enough of the American people in the right combination of states would actually vote for this asshat.

This kind of rumor reflects their pre-judgement more than it does any known fact or evidentiary train leading to the Oval. They want the parallel to be true and they're salivating at the thought. They want this 'conspiracy' to be true with the fervor of a Rosswell X-files tinfoil hatter.

Couldnt you say the exact same thing about Republicans about Clinton with Benghazi and the emails and whatnot? Chanting "lock her up" isnt reflecting pre-judgement?

[Montmorency]

Couldnt you say the exact same thing about Republicans about Clinton with Benghazi and the emails and whatnot?

Don't fall into the whataboutist cliche, it muddles what's going on around us.

Either there are crimes, or there are not. Either the Republican Party is a legitimate political organization, or it is a criminal front. Either we are a Republic, or a petty despotism.

[Hooahguy]

Don't fall into the whataboutist cliche, it muddles what's going on around us.

Either there are crimes, or there are not. Either the Republican Party is a legitimate political organization, or it is a criminal front. Either we are a Republic, or a petty despotism.

Well thats a generalization if I have ever heard one, there is a grey area between.

My point is that its a valid tactic to get people into the voting booths. During the Obama years, whipping the base up into a frenzy worked for the GOP to take back the House, and then the Senate. Now look at the Democratic base now. This type of mobilization was not really seen for a non-presidential election race prior to 2016 and so far its working pretty well for Democrats (like in Alabama). Now analysts say that taking back the Senate is actually within reach for Democrats, assuming this furor holds up.

[Montmorency]

Well thats a generalization if I have ever heard one, there is a grey area between.

My point is that its a valid tactic to get people into the voting booths. During the Obama years, whipping the base up into a frenzy worked for the GOP to take back the House, and then the Senate. Now look at the Democratic base now. This type of mobilization was not really seen for a non-presidential election race prior to 2016 and so far its working pretty well for Democrats (like in Alabama). Now analysts say that taking back the Senate is actually within reach for Democrats, assuming this furor holds up.

I don't think there is a gray area. Or, the Democratic Party constitutes the gray area.

You speak as if it's a worthy goal or great achievement in itself to mobilize voters to vote Democratic, just to get those numbers on paper. But you can't lose sight of the aim here, which is to halt the harms of the current government and to clarify just how deep the water we've gotten into is.

This is much more serious than mere partisan politics. As Max Boot says, I hope "every single Republican running for election next November loses".

[Hooahguy]

Of course its serious. I would love it if people were driven to the voting booths by rational policy debates and whatnot. But we as a country are so far past that point that the whole "when they go low, we go high" thing doesnt really seem to work anymore. So I see it as a deal with the devil. Use the same tactics the GOP used during the Obama years to get the Dems back in power. And then when the Trump years are over, try to get the civility back. Of course that is a big if. I honestly dont see this ever happening as both sides realize how profitable this sort of perpetual outrage is. After all, a Fox News host just suggested that Mueller is orchestrating a coup. Its only going to get worse, and we can only hope it will get better.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Couldnt you say the exact same thing about Republicans about Clinton with Benghazi and the emails and whatnot? Chanting "lock her up" isnt reflecting pre-judgement?

Of course you could. If you haven't already guessed from my references to "asshat-in-chief" thus far on divers threads, I am NOT a Trump fanboy. There very much IS a notable slice of the Trump/GOP crowd that is as unthinkingly ant-left as any frustrated communard hanging around the DNC with their 'we-want-Bernie' sign is anti-right.

I am simply, and I think consistently, noting that all of the vitriol and hyperbole dueling isn't substance. If there is a substantive connection between Trump and criminal abuse of the political system during, or obstruction of justice after the election, it eventually will out. Until such time, all of this is just persiflage.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If there is a substantive connection between Trump and criminal abuse of the political system during, or obstruction of justice after the election, it eventually will out.

But what are your reasons for believing this?

Seamus, you must know as well as any honest American in here why the American system has been so resilient for the last 220+ years of American democracy.
We have to be serious that the structural success has been tied to the strength of our American culture towards separation of power and respect for the rule of law.

In other countries where this culture has not been cultivated, primary the Latin American/South American countries, presidents have easily become dictatorships with the support of a politically aligned legislature. The Presidential system by itself cannot be said to be effective at holding off tyranny. We admitted as such when we modeled the Iraqi government under the Parliamentary system, not our own. I have read at times that our Civil War greatly influenced the Australian people to move closer to the Parliamentarian system over the Presidential for their government.

Our own country has been steered away from crucial moments of tyranny, which not talked about too often. Under FDR, we were at risk of a jeopardized SCOTUS by setting the precedent that a popular president with the political clout could stack a hostile court with 5, 10, 15 more sympathetic justices. It was only the individual strength of character by Truman after him, that restored the balance of power by respecting the SCOTUS decision to deny Truman a government take over of striking steel mills during war time (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer).

The past 200 years have been an exercise, not in the strength of American democracy, but in the strength of America's political and moral character. We lionize ideals and expect politicians to uphold them.

When Monty talks about how deep the waters are, it's more salient than many people realize. Yourself included. There is a tacit approval by a large contingent of Americans, who under the influence of Trumpism, follow this administrations cues to demean and smear the character of our existing law enforcement and policy generating institutions. Our president is calling the FBI political hacks, tainted and infiltrated by the 'other'. He has directly challenged the objectivity of the courts.

American history shows here is another moment where our institutions are vulnerable, and our culture is failing. Our only cure has been to stumble into 'Great Men' blessed with the restraint and character to guide us back to Liberal Democracy.

Will our next president be another Truman? Do you believe such a correction with come from the Republican Party in 2020? The Democrats? If you can't say yes to any of these questions, you should be worried. To maintain your cavalier attitude to current events is naive at best.

[Greyblades]

Tell me, without hint of incredulity if you are able, what does history tell you happened when your institutions were worthy of the supposed smear? When your courts were not objective and those protective branches acted political?

[Montmorency]

Tell me, without hint of incredulity if you are able, what does history tell you happened when your institutions were worthy of the supposed smear? When your courts were not objective and those protective branches acted political?

Socialists scared the piss out of the elites and forced a little honesty from them. Before that, violence.

[Greyblades]

Socialists scared the piss out of the elites and forced a little honesty from them.

Seems only the first half of that has happened this time.

[spmetla]

He knows when to use force and when to hold off to get what he wants and he is willing to defer to his advisors, that physical restraint I would say is suprisingly rare in the history of rulers with the level of autonomy of the president.

That would be enough for at least dip and mil 3 if not 4, though I would conceed a +10% mil tech cost trait, as his ability is in terms of capability not theory; he isnt exactly writing doctrine.

In addition he has been exceedingly effective at walking the line between mere outrage and actually insighting action, he has exhausted his opponents chasing red herrings, blown the credibility of formerly respected outlets on increasingly desperate attacks and frankly has defined teflon coated presidency with how few of the scandals have actually changed anything.

We haven't actually seen him use force though. He's made statements about additional bombings in Syria or moving more combat power around but the level or intensity of bombings have NOT changed and the boost to military power in Korea have been scheduled years in advance and had nothing to do with his directing a buildup.
A restraint in using force is actually the norm for the US minus very minor conflicts in our periphery (Grenada, Panama, Haiti). Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are far from the norm for the US but the longlasting cultural, political, and military impacts make them seem as we're a nation at constant war when we aren't (up to the Global War on Terror at least).

I'm certainly no fan of too much restraint which is why I still think Obama was a foreign policy wimp, especially in regard to the Ukraine which merited a strong reversal of our policies in Europe in addition to sanctions.
As for his deferring to advisors, on the face of his administration it seems that he doesn't defer to them. He seems to just have zero interest in the day to day operations in any of the departments and only weighs in on the big issues which would normally be fine but when he weighs in it seems to be in contrast and in ignorance of those day to day policies. A good boss doesn't need to do the small stuff but should at least be aware of what the small stuff is.

As for his walking the line between outrage and action, I think that's primarily because his got the protection of the other two branches of government at the moment. If the Republicans lose the Senate (or the House if things go terrible for them somehow) he will see a lot more action against him for sure just as Hillary and Obama had (bengazi, emails, endless executive orders).

He has maintained such chaos yet suffered little from it and still maintaining the image of an absolute idiot to the point even many of his supporters including myself dont know if it is intentional or some sort of automatic behavior, hence the 4 adm, it'd be a 5 if it was intentional or were doing it without pulling the rug out from under his own staff on occasion.

I'd say he's suffered a lot from it. He's lost a lot of support from on the fence folks. People like myself that were forced to accept that one of two horrible candidates would win are now in the opposition to him.
Maintaining the image of an absolute idiot isn't a win for anyone. If it's intentional, well then perhaps those conspiracy theories about him being a Democratic Trojan horse to discredit and splinter the Republican party are true. The constant crazy and chaotic news cycle that is largely fed by his tweets are draining a lot of support for him. Even people like my brother who voted for him, doesn't read any news but what's shared on facebook are wondering what the heck the POTUS is doing.

If I ever seem hostile, I sincerely apologize. This President exasperates me a lot. The most difficult thing for me to understand with his ardent supporters is how they could also support George W. Bush, or John McCain, or even Bob Dole for those that remember. Trump is the farthest from any of those politicians, he's not a traditional republican in the slightest but my card carrying republican friends are more loyal to the party brand than any of the previous principles (such as free trade, NATO, and fiscal conservatism).

[Greyblades]

Why do you think that diversity of opinion on Trump's character or fitness has merit, rather than being a sign of moral and intellectual defect? Do you actually have anything to offer on the subject besides indistinct contrarianism and water-carrying?

So what?

Diversity of opinion is what keeps you sane, history has shown time and again that excluding those that dont share your consensus results in modes of thought that diverges with reality and an inevitable failure to react once reality doesnt go as expected. It's the same self delusion that every tinpot tyrant of the last two centuries indulged in and thier people suffered for it.

The same mindset has gripped this thread where the most divergeant voice is again seamus and the menagerie have reverted to the pre election dreams of inevitable deliverance. Yet what disturbs me is that such as monty are acting like you are so convinced thar your viewpoint on trump's character or fitness is the only possible one; you think anyone who disagrees is defective.

The more I come here the more it feels that all the posters I used to look up to here have either left in disgust or succumbed to the latest moral panic; you are neither a fool or a provocateur, I have never seen you use such hyperbole before so for someone like you to so dehumanize an entire political subset in apparant sincerity is frankly disheartening.

George W. Bush's tenure is one of the only things keeping Trump from claiming the title of "Worst POTUS".

He long ago claimed "Worst Candidate", however.

This is patently untrue, the fifteen candidates he walked over in victory proves this.

He's instead undermined NATO by reducing his understanding and support to simple transnational accounting.

NATO is an enormous drain on resources the US millitary could be using else where and the urgency for america to garrison the border has become rather thin since '91, why is it so bad that Trump would want to put a fire under the feet of NATO's hangers on? I dont see much cause to believe that they would abandon it, call his bluff perhaps but with the ukranians as example I see little actual risk in this.

Left the TPP which was supposed to help us check China's economic clout.

I think you will find little agreement that it was worth having your government open to being sued by companies for causing lost profits through policy decisions, as well as further exposing america's allready struggling working class to competition by vietnamese sweatshops.

I've heard abouth the revisions that have come with the US leaving it, but I must ask those who would point to them what makes you think an american congress (or more specifically it's lobby) that was ensuring such bad terms remained would allow trump to join it without such conditions?
It is perhaps reminiscient Britain's retreat from the EU, the ideal is forever out of reach for the one nation that was willing to leave over its imperfections.

He openly sides with every autocrat around, has yet to criticize Putin for anything.

The first is definitively false, else Trump'd be siding with him over iran and north korea. The second is somewhat hard to cross with the fact that he didnt hesitate to bomb Putin's pet syrian, broke a deal with the iranian and antagonize the korean.

Additionally both assertions require an agreement that autocracies or putins are never right to side with, which as doctrine is one roundly rejected by many of your cold war presidents and the previous two presidents who divested from Realpolitik are remembered as foreign relation catastrophes by all but thier party.

I dare say trump is finding kinship with putin when both bear the brunt of the democrats attempts to excuse thier electoral performance, an irony that in a way the democrats are doing more to bridge the US-Russia divide by criticism than they ever did during their own attempts at extending the olive branch.

Looking at how his trip to Asia has gone he's made it obvious he's no negotiator or deal maker, he just wants to be courted and feel important.

You'll have to elaborate; as far as I have seen it has been your standard state visit tour, there hasnt been any visible negociation or deals to exhibit competence or lack thereof.

He's made it plain for all to see that he's actually not used to having to do anything. If any legislation requires more than his vocal support he doesn't seem to do anything to push for it's being passed.

I am assuming you are referring to the attempts to replace obamacare, the bills proposed by GOP congressmen that proved to be political poison and that would have actually made things worse?

I suspect he didnt give them much support for a reason.

His threat to democracy is evident in his on going war with the press. Yes, they don't like him. He is however a compulsive liar and his constant contradictions, statements in the realm of fantasy, and undermining of the very people he picked to do his work for him undermine our democracy.

No it doesnt.

Actions that undermine democracy are things that interfere with the voting process, like how democrats bus voters or republicans deny ex convicts the vote, Turkey's use of the coup to rewrite of the constitution or China's state media monopoly actually censoring the press would also count.

I am confused at a definition of undermining democracy that includes verbally chewing out hostile media outlets on twitter and making functionaries lives difficult. Undermining the government's ability to function sounds closer to what you mean but it seems to be silly to be complaining about it now since it had been effectively immobile for just under a decade before trump showed up. As for the tweets, the entirety of thier impact have been entirely on the reaction they entail, typically by those who give those 280 characters far more thought and importance then he did.

He as a key negotiator should know how to schmooze people, instead he feuds with Mitch and Ryan, insults respectable people like Mccain making our system of checks and balances a deadlock instead.

I would say the utility of negociating with Mitch and Ryan are minimal, their relationship with trump is close to that of weak vassals; they are not going to rebel over being berated and frankly thier attempts at shifting the obamacare albatross has justified that public humiliation.

A pundit I follow suspects they have been immobile for so long they have forgotten how to do thier jobs. Regardless they need replacing and Trump's haranging I suspect is effort in that direction.

As for Mccain I think you are overestimating his respectability. His opponents like him more than many of his contemporaries currently whose memories of the old man are tarnished by his 2008 electoral suicide, his constant advocating of each and every opportunity to send america's youth to die.

In the eyes of the Trump supporters the insults are justified blastback for two events: supporting the pissgate dossier of which much time and effort have been wasted with little to no actual incrimination, and that time he actively attempted to commit sedition:



Even the image of the war hero has been tarnished with the fairly recent declassification of audio footage of mccain's tenure as guest of the vietcong, for which he apparantly played tokyo rose.



I dare say the man is only seen as respectable due to ignorance of his mistepps and because the democrats say he is; and they only do that because their capacity to block anything is entirely reliant on his cooperation. To trump mccain is currently a dead man walking in more ways than one and likely was never going to cooperate to begin with.

The disintergration of mccain's reputation has allowed trump to hit the old man ith both barrels without detrimental consequence.

Additionally, his complete and utter lack of understanding of how the rule of law works in this country undermines peoples faith in that branch as well.

He has projected a poor understanding indeed, but I find it a complete and utter lack of understanding does not account for the year long investigation uncovering so little actual ammuntion to use against him.

The man either has just enough understanding to follow the law despite his running mouth, or an excessive understanding that allows him to so effectively cover up his subversion of it while simultaniously outright taunting anyone to catch him.

I am not exactly inclined to believe the latter myself.

How dare his criticize the federal courts and suggest Gitmo and a military tribunal for a terror suspect instead when the last 15 years of war have shown how ineffective Gitmo and tribunals are.

How dare he? Gitmo is the place you send those enemies of the state that cannot be reconciled but whose execution is not desireable, whose best fate is to die of age a hole in the ground. For such a purpose gitmo is eminently suitable and it's criticisms stem not from it's capability but the failures of those who decide who is thrown in that pit. Such concerns however do not apply to Sayfullo Saipov, this is a man whose guilt is undeniable and repentance not forthcoming, prime filler for the pit and one whose entry would be celebrated by those citizens who seek retribution but find death unpalatable.

Perhaps you consider the ongoings of gitmo unconsciable, but I fear at this point I find myself unable to share the sentiment, when everyone in a position of influencing it has no issue using torture I find myself not outraged over the current one not being a rank hypocrite over it, merely exhausted.

Additionally I find the idea of the federal courts being above criticism as equally absurd as the idea of trump holding that privledge, the supreme court may have a good record but the courts underneath them do not. Corruption, conflicts of interest and outright activism are the order of the day in several circuits and with such byzantine difficulty placed between the individual judge and his rightful removal it is a situation I see little improvement possible without reform.

Believe me, I'd love the POTUS to make the economy grow, use a mix of hard and soft power to ensure the stability of the world order. I actually support several of the policies he supposedly is pushing but I've yet to see infrastructure pushed, I've yet to see him be tough of China, I've yet to see sensible immigration that isn't based on religion.

Frustration at a lack of progess is one we share, the results of the tax plan will be the litmus test to see if there truly is is an economic brain under that mop, though finding reliable data on it will for a while be a female dog.

We're going to have to disagree on the last two parts, the dealings with china in regards to north korea have been better than I have seen out of the last three admins, though admittedly that was a low standard to begin with; he's hardly a metternich. As for immigration while attempts have been stymied by the circuit courts you have allready seen a marked decrease in crossings simply from the operation wetback effect.

He's made it evident that the Trump brand is the most important thing to him which is terrible to me because the most important thing should be the brand of the United States which he drags through the mud almost every time he opens his mouth.

His brand survived when he was running his mouth the decade or so before becoming potus.

The US's brand is in no danger from his mouth for the simple reason that the US' brand is not based on approval it is based on power and the willingness to use it.

Contrast the squarking of the european governments (mostly thier media and more vocal minority parties) with the actual action they have taken in regards to the americans: none. They have done nothing, they have backed out of no deals with america over trump's attitude, they havent fled america's umbrella, the only action remotely in kind has been noise over economic tarrifs of which the EU has been thus far reluctant to escalate.

Realpolitik overides all PR, obama might have been the media's darling but that didnt stop the chinese snubbing him on his way out, nor did loutishness stop the chinese laying out the red carpet for trump.

America is king. To all but the marginalized or insane America is feared more than it is hated and as long as america shows willingness to justify that fear noone of consequence will rebel over words as long as that fear outweighs the hate, that is why obama's red line was so damaging and the bombing of syria was so important; force becomes power only when it is willing to be used.

Well if he starts two endless wars and takes a growing economy and puts it into recession then he'd get to take a seat with Dubya as well. This tax plan has me worried because it seems to hinge on rosy economic forecasts which if aren't even close to attain will massively skyrocket the debt even more (to think that George W. inherited an economy with a budget surplus and ruined it still pisses me off).

As I said, it's the test, though I have a sinking feeling that even if it would work congress will panic over some confidence dip and an actual boom will be killed in the crib. Bush wasnt exactly a republican outlier in respect for economic incompetence.

I think his stats are more in the realm of 2/1/1. I've seen nothing that shown him having any military or diplomatic competence, undermining our military alliance and trade agreements wouldn't point to diplomatic skill. The two is really only there from his business experience which would transfer over to EU4's administrative though looking at the amount of unfilled vacancies perhaps that should be a 1 as well. What makes you think he's got military competency? He doesn't even know where his fleets (or should I say Armadas) are sailing though that would be the diplomatic side in EU4.

He knows when to use force and when to hold off to get what he wants and he is willing to defer to his advisors, that physical restraint I would say is suprisingly rare in the history of rulers with the level of autonomy of the president.

That would be enough for at least dip and mil 3 if not 4, though I would conceed a +10% mil tech cost trait, as his ability is in terms of capability not theory; he isnt exactly writing doctrine.

In addition he has been exceedingly effective at walking the line between mere outrage and actually insighting action, he has exhausted his opponents chasing red herrings, blown the credibility of formerly respected outlets on increasingly desperate attacks and frankly has defined teflon coated presidency with how few of the scandals have actually changed anything.

He has maintained such chaos yet suffered little from it and still maintaining the image of an absolute idiot to the point even many of his supporters including myself dont know if it is intentional or some sort of automatic behavior, hence the 4 adm, it'd be a 5 if it was intentional or were doing it without pulling the rug out from under his own staff on occasion.

Spmetla has already explained that maybe Trump is so bad that only very few people like him anymore and most of them aren't here.
Would it make you happy if I posted dissenting opinions about how great Trump is or what do you want?

You seem to be saying that somehow the thread is terrible because everybody in here dislikes Trump. Have you ever considered that maybe the reason this is the only thread where pretty much everyone agrees is that Trump is just terrible or can that not be the case because it does not fit your opinion?

And if you have a differing opinion, why not provide it as Monty says? Don'te be lazy, break up the echo chamber yourself!

What exactly is your point?

It would make me happy if people in this forum didnt keep driving away dissenting voices.

While it certainly doesnt help that the quality of arguments have gone down hill, if intelligence were enough to kill a board this would have been a ghost town years ago. I mean hiding behind another poster and relying on a perception majority agreement to persuade your opponent, it doesnt exactly engender confidence.

However it's been two years since we were on general good terms, you and I were talking fairly civilly over the viability of renewable energy, and coming to a sort of agreement over the viability of hydro electricity.

Since then the tone on this board has gone sour, beyond the customary condescention I have encounterd an increasing number of incidents where disagreement has been treated with hostilty and intolerance, where once at worst we attacked eachother's intelliegence our character has come on the firing line; morality, integrety, sanity.

Attacks not to discredit bad ideas but to demonize for wrongthink. This thread is the worst of it because not only are the tensions high but one side is grossly overrepresented so the cycle of ideological reenforcement has set in such that even our best are beginning to indulge in dehumanizing thier opposition.

The taboo that kept this place civil has been broken by those whose "teams" lost out in 2016 and the resulting downgrade in standards is driving away members and frankly the only think keeping me here has been people like seamus who still is somehow able to refrain from sinking into the depths as I frequently have despite recieving similar provocation.

My point is I wish I was paid by the goddamn russians as it would give me a satisfactory reason for why I keep finding myself drifting back here!

[Husar]

It would make me happy if people in this forum didnt keep driving away dissenting voices.

Indeed, all the left-leaning members who were driven away by the right wing members so that every thread on refugees is now dominated by people talking about how their race ideologies explain why we need ethnic separation. The exodus of left-wing posters is really unbearable, which is why I may have become less nice in my replies. It just costs too much time to explain the same things to three people because they all want their own debate with me and I'm the only communist who still bothers replying in order to prevent the forum from looking like a racist circlejerk.

While it certainly doesnt help that the quality of arguments have gone down hill, if intelligence were enough to kill a board this would have been a ghost town years ago. I mean hiding behind another poster and relying on a perception majority agreement to persuade your opponent, it doesnt exactly engender confidence.

I'm not hiding behind Spmetla, what quality would you gain by reading his exact argument again from me?
Or do I have to find a new bogus argument just to be different?

Since then the tone on this board has gone sour, beyond the customary condescention I have encounterd an increasing number of incidents where disagreement has been treated with hostilty and intolerance, where once at worst we attacked eachother's intelliegence our character has come on the firing line; morality, integrety, sanity.

Indeed, a tragedy how some posters thought belittling others somehow invalidates arguments. Morality is a perfectly fine subject of debate though IMO. If your argument is immoral, I'm going to point that out. If you want a nicer debate, morality is the basis, otherwise it could become hard to define a nicer debate in the first place. If my morality were off, I might think insulting your intelligence is the only moral thing to do since you deserve it.

Attacks not to discredit bad ideas but to demonize for wrongthink. This thread is the worst of it because not only are the tensions high but one side is grossly overrepresented so the cycle of ideological reenforcement has set in such that even our best are beginning to indulge in dehumanizing thier opposition.

Given how many of this board's active members are on the "right" side of politics, the overrepresentation of anti- Trump rhetoric in this thread might just be a hint at how bad he really is, when even a lot of the people you'd expect to support him think he's acting like a buffoon in most of what he does. The overrepresentation of one side in a single thread does not necessarily hint at there being something wrong with the discussion, it might just hint at some kind of bi-partisan consensus. Even though Seamus tries to see the good in Trump, I don't think he's a fan. And when you give your opponents very human traits to show their flaws, it's not dehumanizing. I'm thinking of the dementia talk here for example. On the other hand, the refugee threads with people basically trying to explain to me how refugees were suppeosedly genetically on a lower level than us European Humans....

The taboo that kept this place civil has been broken by those whose "teams" lost out in 2016 and the resulting downgrade in standards is driving away members and frankly the only think keeping me here has been people like seamus who still is somehow able to refrain from sinking into the depths as I frequently have despite recieving similar provocation.

This is demonstrably false as I had several ugly fallouts in refugee threads in 2015 already. And they weren't coming from the side that lost in 2016...

My point is I wish I was paid by the goddamn russians as it would give me a satisfactory reason for why I keep finding myself drifting back here!

This is a tough one. I could now try to drive you off in a selfless effort to increase your happiness. But it would make your point about driving people away true...
Or I could be really nice to you to make you stay here, but actually condemn you to continued misery...
Do you see how the actual result or the public image would always be contrary to the intention?

As for your stance on Trump, your entire argument is based on him being a hidden genius who is actually well-meaning, like a positive conspiracy theory. If that seems plausible to you, then you also have to believe the reports that Kim Jong Un is actually trying to open up North Korea, but has to do the murders and stuff because he is struggling against the NK Deep State. It's interesting how this benefit of the doubt seems to apply to Trump but not to Kim Jong Un. Can the noble Swiss have possibly not raised him well?

And how do you explain that Trump wants to make coal great again when even coal mine owners think it's not going to create any job growth anymore? How is he the peoples' candidate when he placed 4 or more Goldman Sachs people and many, many millionaires and billionaires in his government after blasting Clinton for being too close to Wall Street? How is the tax reform good for workers? Do you still believe in trickle down economics?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bernie did more blasting of Hillary's Wall street support than did Trump

[Kralizec]

As for Mccain I think you are overestimating his respectability. His opponents like him more than many of his contemporaries currently whose memories of the old man are tarnished by his 2008 electoral suicide, his constant advocating of each and every opportunity to send america's youth to die.

In the eyes of the Trump supporters the insults are justified blastback for two events: supporting the pissgate dossier of which much time and effort have been wasted with little to no actual incrimination, and that time he actively attempted to commit sedition:

[youtube video]

McCain was tortured by the North Vietnamese and coerced by his captors to produce propaganda material. This is not news, and neither was his case unique.

That these people are trying to paint this as a wilfull case of collaboration is laughable, he says in the audio recording that he received excellent medical care yet somehow, he returned to the USA as a crippled man.

You are only debasing yourself when you post stupid stuff like this.