• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has a Single Trump Supporter on this Site Revoked their Support? Sound Off

jimithyashford said:
Just a few points of clarification:

"What I support is the President of the US." regardless of who it is? I mean, I support the office of the presidency too, I think it's important for that office to have respect and authority and a moral highground. Which is all the more reason to be angry at a person occupying that position and dragging it through the mud.....if you ask me.


"What I do argue about is what I consider the unfair, biased and downright vicious attacks on Trump by the MSM and the Left."

So these attacks are only unfair and biased and unjustly vicious if they are untrue...right? If these claims are true, then the viciousness is appropriate. If these claims are true, then it's not bias that there is so much criticism, there just really is that much to criticize.

I assume by calling the attacks vicious and biased you are presupposing they are untrue. Because, again I assume, you would support raking a president who had actually done those things over the coals.
Click to expand...

If they are proven to be true, yes. Which is why I will support our President until the investigation is over.
 
Lutherf said:
Obama was given a fair shake on damned near everything and that includes the ACA. The problem with that came when the Democrats decided that a fair shake wasn't enough and that they were going to cram it down our throats whether we wanted it or not.
Click to expand...

Obamacare was one of the campaign's main themes and he won a strong victory. Who is getting what crammed down their throat?

I mean, if you want to act like Trump has a mandate and people are being meanyheads, you have to confront the fact that Obama tried to do what he was elected on. That has nothing to do with throat occupation fetishes.




His main error was not having a ready to go plan, and instead asking congress to have something on his desk. Also, dropping the public option was weak. But no, there was no throat-ramming, not unless we want to take the position that election margins have no bearing on mandates.
 
jimithyashford said:
I do have a question for you, when you say "However, if anything this Russia exercise has actually made me more sympathetic to him..." are you saying that the kinds of things he and his administration and campaign are accused of are NOT things you find concerning or worth ire even if they are true, or are you saying that while yes those are all concerning things, you don't believe they are true, or both, you don't believe they are true and even if they were they aren't that concerning?

Just trying to clarify.
Click to expand...

I believe the claims are dubious. No one has yet put forth any proof of collusion. Even if true, I place no importance on this.

Trump has more than enough flaws to fail on his own. I think it speaks ill of his detractors if THIS is the thing they think is the most important to talk about.
 
Lutherf said:
Obama was given a fair shake on damned near everything and that includes the ACA. The problem with that came when the Democrats decided that a fair shake wasn't enough and that they were going to cram it down our throats whether we wanted it or not.
Click to expand...

I am sorry sir, but you cannot simply make up history. The congress under obama was, by virtually any measure you can possibly use, the most obstructive congress in at least a century of US politics. Please recall the Mitch McConnel said, as leader of the senate, after the GOP took the midterms in Obama's first term, that none of Obama's legislation would pass, none, regardless of the content, and the party controlled the congress and kept that promise almost to a T, only allowing the bare minimum necessary or most meaningless legislation to pass and full on locking down congress for damn near half a decade.

That DID happen, and that was not politics as normal, nothing like that had happened in this country since the 1800s.

And Fox news ran wall to wall Obama criticism over the most ridiculous and petty things for 8 strait years (remember when they made a big deal for days on end about Obama eating Dijon rather than regular yellow mustard on his hot dogs. Remember when they criticized him every single time he took a vacation day even though he took far fewer than the four previous presidents had)

That is not a "fair shake" by any reasonable means. Did you just forget about all of that?
 
Mr Person said:
Do you claim to care about America?

I ask because it's rather absurd for anyone to answer that question in the affirmative and to like a candidate simply because the people he spent his whole campaign insulting. Given the volume of unfair disgusting things said about Obama - secret muslim, hates America, racist against white people, wants to destroy America, socialist, etc etc etc - your seeming principle of liking people who don't get a "fair shake" would compel you to defend Obama.
Click to expand...

Obama is, generally speaking, a socialist and there is ample evidence that he has a bias against Whites, especially with regard to law enforcement. While I don't necessarily think that he "hates America" his own words indicate that he's generally opposed to the principles on which this nation was founded and believes that the Constitution stands in the way of what he considers "good government".
 
Didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary. Both were terrible options.

Was willing to give Trump a fair chance after the election. But he lost me entirely when he compared our intelligence community to Nazis.

Trump again threw the US intelligence community under the bus with his remarks in Warsaw.
 
holbritter said:
If they are proven to be true, yes. Which is why I will support our President until the investigation is over.
Click to expand...

Now most people would consider three of his primary campaign runners meeting with a Russian for the expressly and clearly stated purpose of wheeling and dealng in dirt on Hillary, while another major member of his campaign worked with a GOP operative to recruit aid from Russian hackers in getting ahold of Hillary's emails.....most people would probably consider that to be unsavory and secretive collusion with foriegn powers to win an election. Setting aside completely for a moment the question of whether its technically illegal or not, those things DID happen, and I have to imagine if I asked someone back say, two years ago what they would think of hypothetical president who's campaign had done those things, most people would probably have an extremely negative view of that hypothetical candidate and say they would never support such a person.

So again, completely setting aside whether this was technically illegal or not.....these things DID happen, they are proven, they are no longer even denied by the administration. Soooo.....do you not have the proof you need of the kinds of actions that should lose your support?
 
jimithyashford said:
I am sorry sir, but you cannot simply make up history. The congress under obama was, by virtually any measure you can possibly use, the most obstructive congress in at least a century of US politics. Please recall the Mitch McConnel said, as leader of the senate, after the GOP took the midterms in Obama's first term, that none of Obama's legislation would pass, none, regardless of the content, and the party controlled the congress and kept that promise almost to a T, only allowing the bare minimum necessary or most meaningless legislation to pass and full on locking down congress for damn near half a decade.

That DID happen, and that was not politics as normal, nothing like that had happened in this country since the 1800s.

And Fox news ran wall to wall Obama criticism over the most ridiculous and petty things for 8 strait years (remember when they made a big deal for days on end about Obama eating Dijon rather than regular yellow mustard on his hot dogs. Remember when they criticized him every single time he took a vacation day even though he took far fewer than the four previous presidents had)

That is not a "fair shake" by any reasonable means. Did you just forget about all of that?
Click to expand...

Debate and opposition to proposed policies are part of getting a fair shake. Being accused of criminal acts, and being raked over the coals because of those accusations, while no evidence of a crime has been presented after 8 months is not getting a fair shake.
 
Lutherf said:
Obama was given a fair shake on damned near everything and that includes the ACA. The problem with that came when the Democrats decided that a fair shake wasn't enough and that they were going to cram it down our throats whether we wanted it or not.
Click to expand...

Also, Obama won by a wide margin while campaigning strongly on that issue and passed with with the majority vote in congress after many months of repeat hearings and committees and re-writes.....by what possible definition is that "rammed down your throat"? That is a completely fair and solid and as-intended way to democratically pass a bill....That is the system working as intended
 
Mr Person said:
Obamacare was one of the campaign's main themes and he won a strong victory. Who is getting what crammed down their throat?

I mean, if you want to act like Trump has a mandate and people are being meanyheads, you have to confront the fact that Obama tried to do what he was elected on. That has nothing to do with throat occupation fetishes.




His main error was not having a ready to go plan, and instead asking congress to have something on his desk. Also, dropping the public option was weak. But no, there was no throat-ramming, not unless we want to take the position that election margins have no bearing on mandates.
Click to expand...

Obama and the Democrats totally cast aside any and all Republican input to the ACA and then even went so far as to coerce their own people just to pass that thing. There were zero Republican votes in either house and that was because Republicans were actively denied any input whatsoever. The passage of the ACA the single most disturbing act of legislation I have ever witnessed.
 
Mr Person said:
Do you claim to care about America?

I ask because it's rather absurd for anyone to answer that question in the affirmative and to like a candidate simply because the people he spent his whole campaign insulting. Given the volume of unfair disgusting things said about Obama - secret muslim, hates America, racist against white people, wants to destroy America, socialist, etc etc etc - your seeming principle of liking people who don't get a "fair shake" would compel you to defend Obama.
Click to expand...

Lutherf said:
Obama is, generally speaking, a socialist and there is ample evidence that he has a bias against Whites, especially with regard to law enforcement. While I don't necessarily think that he "hates America" his own words indicate that he's generally opposed to the principles on which this nation was founded and believes that the Constitution stands in the way of what he considers "good government".
Click to expand...



To be clear, I'm not accusing you of personally saying any such thing about Obama. But I've seen it splattered across forums, across comments sections, across pundits. There was a ton of awful stuff said about him.

Also, no, he's not a socialist, if we stick with the actual meaning as described by the persons who thought it up: government ownership of the means of production. The closest anyone has gotten to a socialist economy is the U.S.S.R, which wrongly said it was "communist" (wrongly, because communism is supposed to result from socialism being so awesome that government largely or entirely dissolves).

The closest he got was, and this is a guess, secretly wanting single-payer. But even that wouldn't be pure socialism, because the government would still be buying medical supplies, etc. I'll grant that it's close, though.

But really..."socialist"? No. Not if we respect the meaning of the term. The problem is that people keep using "socialist" to describe people who advocate legislation or agency rules that amounts to, loosely, more regulation.




But that's all beside the original point, which was that I objected to this portion of your comment:

Lutherf said:
Just the opposite.

I voted for the guy SOLELY because of SCOTUS appointments but the absurd poutrage since 11/9/16 has turned me to a supporter. I don't agree with everything the guy does or says but he's not getting anything like a fair shake from the Democrats, the media or even the McCain faction of the GOP. That's intolerable.
Click to expand...

I think that's one of the worst possible reasons to support someone.
 
jimithyashford said:
Now most people would consider three of his primary campaign runners meeting with a Russian for the expressly and clearly stated purpose of wheeling and dealng in dirt on Hillary, while another major member of his campaign worked with a GOP operative to recruit aid from Russian hackers in getting ahold of Hillary's emails.....most people would probably consider that to be unsavory and secretive collusion with foriegn powers to win an election. Setting aside completely for a moment the question of whether its technically illegal or not, those things DID happen, and I have to imagine if I asked someone back say, two years ago what they would think of hypothetical president who's campaign had done those things, most people would probably have an extremely negative view of that hypothetical candidate and say they would never support such a person.

So again, completely setting aside whether this was technically illegal or not.....these things DID happen, they are proven, they are no longer even denied by the administration. Soooo.....do you not have the proof you need of the kinds of actions that should lose your support?
Click to expand...

No. Because as it stands right now, it is not any different than what Clinton's campaign people did with Ukraine, and what candidates for years have probably done. Getting damaging information from whomever is the way they run their campaigns. This is only becoming such an OMG! I can't believe it! is because it is Trump.
You cannot deny that this did not happen when with Ukraine dossier, paid for by the DNC, came out.
 
jimithyashford said:
so you seem to be saying that yes, all of the things claimed about Trump would be quite alarming if they were true, but you have no way of telling if it's true or not, so you are defaulting to assuming his innocence until it is proven to be true. Which make a certain kind of sense. What I don't understand is the "boy who cried wolf" thing.

Boy Who Cried Wolf is a parable about a boy lying about a wolf so many times that nobody believes him when there really is a wolf. But that is not what we are seeing here. This isn't a care of the Dems yelling over and over about things that have proven to be false, they have been yelling over and over about things that are still currently being investigated and while slowly more and more are revealed to be at least partially true. Dems yelled that the Russians interfered with the election on a large scale. That has turned out to be true. Dems yelled that Trump had business ties to russia and would not put his business in a blind trust, both of this are true. Dems yelled that Trump would be terrible at diplomacy and make us look like dolts to the rest of the west, that is most certainly true. Dems yelled that that the Trump campaign and administration had meetings with and solicited the help of russians in the election, which has now been shown to have actually happened on some level.

I mean....as far as I know the Boy has been crying wolf and while the townfolk havn't actually found the wolf yet, looking around the field they have found wolf prints and wolf stool, and a few half eaten sheep.

That sir, is NOT the boy who cried wolf scenario.
Click to expand...

You're right in that I prefer to wait and see. I've been around so long that I know all politician exaggerate, use half-truths and things out of context, most say humongous lies to get their legislation passed or to get elected or re-elected, to gain power. So yes, I am taking all of this with a grain of salt until either proven or just political propaganda rhetoric. No one can be sure of which one it is.

I worked for Ross Perot who also was a businessman. Having business ties with other countries is normal. Trying to portray that in an evil manner or way doesn't seem kosher to me. What bothered me more was selling our uranium to Russia sanctioned by then Secretary of State Clinton. I don't care if Trump, Perot, Bill or Hillary have a hotel in Russia, Iran, Germany or Timbuktu. His diplomacy does suck. He isn't a politician and apparently has no use for diplomatic speak. I think he ought to refine that, be more tactful, he is one obnoxious brute for sure. Perot spoke his mind also, but did so in a much more refined way, staying away from name calling like a spoiled six year old.

I also seen how each party uses opposition research to tarnish, tarnish is too nice a word, gather information to personally attack their opponents. I've seen way too much of this if I do it, it is fine and okay, good. But if the other party does the same thing, it is bad, not right, ought to be punished.

I hate that. It just seems to me that the Democrats are out to destroy Trump just because he beat Clinton in last years election. That has been my mindset since the day after the election. But I am open to Mueller and I will await Mueller findings. If he says Trump is Guilty of such and such, I will back his findings. I will also back his findings if he says there is nothing there. Will you?
 
holbritter said:
No. Because as it stands right now, it is not any different than what Clinton's campaign people did with Ukraine, and what candidates for years have probably done. Getting damaging information from whomever is the way they run their campaigns. This is only becoming such an OMG! I can't believe it! is because it is Trump.
You cannot deny that this did not happen when with Ukraine dossier, paid for by the DNC, came out.
Click to expand...

Ok, I am confused. Earlier you said that these things, if there were true, WOULD cost Trump your support, then I point out that the question is no longer IF they happened, but only whether they were technically criminal, and now you're saying that ISN'T enough to cost Trump your support.

So I will have to ask you to clarify, what kind of scenario or information exchange or collusion of this nature WOULD it take to cost Trump your support?

And, for the Record, meeting with some russian lady for dirt alone probably would piss a few people off, but would not be a national scandal. Imagine if you will that Hillary had met with Ukranians for information and the Ukranians were also lauching a massive information war and hacking campaign to skew the election in her favor at the same time....does that not rather change the context some?
 
JamesBY said:
Donald Jr and Manafort and Jared were in bed with the Russians, volsrock.

The Mueller Express is coming even harder now as the WH is reported as "paralyzed" by Junior's criminal stupidity.
Click to expand...

Ryan/Chaffetz would have already impeached Clinton months ago and McConnell would have created a constitutional crisis in the senate, halting any action on anything meaningful .
 
Perotista said:
I worked for Ross Perot who also was a businessman. Having business ties with other countries is normal. Trying to portray that in an evil manner or way doesn't seem kosher to me.
Click to expand...

For the record, nobody cares the Trump has business ties all over. Almost all of our presidents have been independently wealthy businessmen prior to becoming president with all kinds of ways their business could be enriched by their office. That is normal. We don't criticize anyone for that. That is why we have the long running tradition of President's releasing their tax returns to show they have no unsavory sources of income and then putting their business in a blind trust.

Nobody cares that Trumps has a sprawling business, what they care about is his utter refusal to comply with the long standing ways disconnect from that business during your time in office and ensure no conflicts of interest.


Perotista said:
I hate that. It just seems to me that the Democrats are out to destroy Trump just because he beat Clinton in last years election.
Click to expand...

So all of it is pure political vendetta, absolutely NONE of the ire directed at him is valid and deserved because he really is a trainwreck of a leader? It is just not possible that he really is deserving of that criticism, it much be partisan vitriole?
 
Lutherf said:
Just the opposite.

I voted for the guy SOLELY because of SCOTUS appointments but the absurd poutrage since 11/9/16 has turned me to a supporter. I don't agree with everything the guy does or says but he's not getting anything like a fair shake from the Democrats, the media or even the McCain faction of the GOP. That's intolerable.
Click to expand...


And yet Trump going birther and making fun of handicapped is okay with you yeah we see what you're made of
 
katzgar said:
And yet Trump going birther and making fun of handicapped is okay with you yeah we see what you're made of
Click to expand...

I could care less about birther anything and he didn't make fun of anyone handicapped.
 
I did not in any way support Trump before the election. I thought his behavior was despicable, his understanding of the law and Presidency was completely inadequate, and his policy proposals were pure populist reactionary garbage, often not even based in reality. When he was elected, I said "Well, I will support him and hope all the opposition's criticism to him was just overblown worrying because of his non traditional style and policy suggestions."

Annnd then he got into a twitter fight with the media about the size of his inauguration crowd and sent a steaming Sean Spicer out to defend his totally false claim that he had the biggest crowds. My 2 months of being okay with Trump ended there.
 
jimithyashford said:
Ok, I am confused. Earlier you said that these things, if there were true, WOULD cost Trump your support, then I point out that the question is no longer IF they happened, but only whether they were technically criminal, and now you're saying that ISN'T enough to cost Trump your support.

So I will have to ask you to clarify, what kind of scenario or information exchange or collusion of this nature WOULD it take to cost Trump your support?

And, for the Record, meeting with some russian lady for dirt alone probably would piss a few people off, but would not be a national scandal. Imagine if you will that Hillary had met with Ukranians for information and the Ukranians were also lauching a massive information war and hacking campaign to skew the election in her favor at the same time....does that not rather change the context some?
Click to expand...


I was referring to the collusion with Russia claim, the obstruction of justice claim and other accusations since he was elected. I should have been clearer.

For the record also, Trump did not meet with a russian lady, his people did. And it is being portrayed as a national scandal.
Hillary did not meet with Ukranians either, her people did.

As far as Russia's attempt to interfere in the election, I do not blame either of them for Russia's actions. The same way I do not blame other foreign candidates for our government officials for trying to interfere in their country's elections. Except for the alleged hacking attempts (not the wikileaks emails, which by the way everyone ignores their content) but the "election hacking" being thrown around, Russia has done nothing uncommon.
 
I wake up each morning with the odd mix of sickness in my stomach at the thought of our country picking someone like Trump to be president followed by relief that the country wasn't stupid enough to pick Hillary.
 
jimithyashford said:
Did not getting a fair shake turn you into an Obama supporter? Just curious if this attraction to candidates who don't get a fair shake from the opposing party is a general tendency of yours or something that sort of arose just for Trump.
Click to expand...

Criticism for O'Bama was legit. No thinking person would ever support the un-American Marxist POS.
 
JamesBY said:
Donald Jr and Manafort and Jared were in bed with the Russians, volsrock.

The Mueller Express is coming even harder now as the WH is reported as "paralyzed" by Junior's criminal stupidity.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of why leftist loonery has no effect on thinking people. Thanks for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom