How so, if they have said?
Would they not vote, switch party, or what?
The trade war already pissed them off. Most of them also lived through the Cold War so the Russia stuff made them uneasy from day one, but they’d swallow it. This Ukraine stuff is really just a tipping point I feel. The more he reinforces the view of the big city asshole who breaks the rules knowing he’s immune to him, the more he cements himself as establishment.
It doesn’t help that I keep asking them, if they were in Trump’s shoes, what reasons would stop them from releasing a real transcript that would clear him. None of them seem good.
They’d not vote. I’d bet my life that many of them wouldn’t pull the lever for a Democrat even if Trump showed up at their houses and kicked their dog.
Fwiw, they buy into basically all of the GOP fear mongering. So I have little doubt most of them will still pull the lever for Trump once everything kicks in.
Makes sense. I know when I hear a President may have withheld aide to a foreign country in the hopes that they would investigate his political opponent my first thought is to give up a paycheck for him.
1 Like
It’s the saturation. My coworker who gets the Trump survey texts said he’s been averaging 4-5 emails a day asking for donations.
Is that what Trump is supposed to have done?(Serious question. I have no clue, won’t let it change my vote, and assume almost every other politician is as bad or worse.) That’s great! While we shouldn’t be giving aid to any country, at least that’s asking for something in return.
Like I said it’s hardly the first time he’s asked for a foreign country to interfere in our election process. Just another typical day in undermining democracy.
How is that asking a foreign country to interfere in our election process?
You don’t call asking for Russia to find emails from an opponent or asking (allegedly) to dig up dirt on a political opponent from another country interference?
Hey other country help me get or stay in power by doing this seems like it fits the definition.
I suppose we could simply call it unethical. But it’s Trump so who cares at least he doesn’t speak like a politician!
No. I also don’t think it was “interference” when women made claims about Roy Moore before Alabama’s election. I don’t think it’s interference when a newspaper openly supports one candidate or another, etc.
Edit: If you’re talking about Trump’s “Russia, if you’re listening…” statement, I think it was obviously a joke. I understand Progressives have no sense of humor, but that was OBVIOUSLY said jokingly. It wasn’t a politically intelligent move, obviously…but what is, other than submitting to EVERYTHING Progressives want?
That’s fine. It’s just not the way most people view it.
Do you think any limit should exist to Trump asking foreign countries for help against those he runs against? Or is it all good?
That’s fine. I assume you(and they) also believe the women that talked about Roy Moore interfered in that election.
Do I? No. I also think the rest of the country should be able to secede from Trump, if it wishes.
As it is? I think a President(or Congress) should be able to threaten to withhold foreign aid for any reason, and I support doing so. I support actually withholding said aid even more.
Well let’s hope that doesn’t catch on. I’d hate to see it become the norm for Presidents in power to pay other countries with tax payer money to help them get re-elected.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. Obviously Republicans do plenty of politically intelligent moves as they hold the senate and presidency.
In exchange for something in the public interest? Sure. In exchange for a personal benefit? No.
The problem isn’t that Trump asked for something per se - it’s that he asked for something that was wholly a personal benefit using the power of his office and taxpayer dollars.
1 Like
Why? It’s become the norm to send U.S. cash and manpower all over the world for nothing. Why not use it to dig up dirt? I’d like to know any dirt I can in all politicians. I don’t really care who gives up the information.
He didn’t ask for cash, or violence on his behalf…or anything like that.
Is dirt of wholly personal benefit? Is it not much to the benefit of the electorate that all(as much as possible) dirt on political candidates is known?
Well I don’t want us to send that stuff for nothing but why would I need my tax dollars to pay for his campaign? If I want to give him money I already can of my own free will.
Let me know when he decided to use his power to get dirt on himself. Sounds like personal benefit.
1 Like
Since when did that become the exhaustive list of personal benefits?
Sure it is - and we know this because he tasked his private representative to make the ask of a government official. He was pursuing his personal interests and bartering the public’s money in attempting to do so. If you want to argue there is incidental benefit in all of us knowing more dirt on a politician, go for it - but it’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is intent.
Well, sure. That could be said for anything any government does. Good luck with that argument! Maybe try Somalia.
Why would that be necessary? He knows any dirt on himself. Now, if he uses (other people’s) tax money to keep his own dirt covered, that’s a problem.