• 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!

Will Trump last his first term?

Will he last?

  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Cardinal said:
There is a segment of Trump’s base that voted for him and continue to support him solely for the trolling and the chaos. We know who those members on this forum are, though it’s basically impossible to tell them apart from Russian trolls.

But there’s another segment of his base who have to keep redefining their ethical code with every development. They do have a code, per se, it’s just that it has to keep shifting.

Trump supporter on day 1: “Asking a foreign country to interfere in our election is bad and nobody should do it.”
Trump supporter on day 2: “Holy cow, Trump just told a foreign country to interfere in our election. And he did it by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in critical aid. That’s not good.”
Trump supporter on day 3: “Siggggh. Well, when you think about it, it’s really not so bad to ask a foreign country to interfere in our election.”

We’ve seen this play out over and over again since he entered office. Their morality has been ground down until there’s almost nothing left, and I think it would be a traumatizing experience to look back on everything they’ve supported and admit they were wrong.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but if your "ethical code" "keeps shifting", it's not an ethical code at all. It's "political expediency". CF the Evangelicals. Need I say more?
 
I haven't a clue what's going to happen. But one thing is certain - it'll be fun to watch.
 
Chomsky said:
Sorry, but if your "ethical code" "keeps shifting", it's not an ethical code at all. It's "political expediency". CF the Evangelicals. Need I say more?
Click to expand...

Moral codes aren’t by strong strong. They can, and often do, stand on an extremely weak foundation. Of course, it’s equally possible that those trump supporters haven’t really grappled with the fact that their moral code is, in fact, Trump himself.
 
Last edited:
BrotherFease said:
Choose your path carefully. Keep in mind, it might not be your exact thoughts, but closest.

PATH A - Trump will survive the current partisan attacks against him, and will get re-elected in December of 2020.

PATH B - Trump will get impeached, but come up short in the Senate. But in the general election, he will lose to Biden/Sanders/Warren/whoever ends up winning the Democratic nomination.

PATH C - Trump will get impeached, but come up short in the Senate. But he will come out against running for re-election.

PATH D - Trump will get impeached, but will resign before the Senate votes.

PATH E - Trump will resign before the congress votes for impeachment.

PATH F - Other.
Click to expand...

G - Trump will be impeached in the House, cancel the election and refuse to leave.
 
Cardinal said:
I’m not going to name names, but there’s a poster here who was utterly shocked by the Helsinki press conference last year in which Trump took the side of Putin over our entire intelligence and law enforcement community. He said (as best as I can remember it): “I agree. Trump is not working for the interests of the American people.” And of course, still being youthful and naive, I thought, “Aha, finally a trump supporter has come around.” Three months or so later, that poster said, in reference to that incident and in a robotic tone, “I do not believe that Trump is working in the interests of Putin over the interests of the American people.” I asked him what changed to cause a 180 degree turn like that. He repeated, “I do not believe that Trump is working in the interests of Putin over the interests of the American people.” I asked him again, and he repeated himself again.

That poster, as I described earlier, was forced to shift his moral code in order to keep supporting Trump, and I do not believe he was happy to do it. In fact, I’d say he was quite miserable about it. But here’s the really scary thing: he knew what Trump did was horribly wrong, but revoking his support for Trump was never on the table. That simply wasn’t an option, and it’s that which I think is the scariest thing of all.
Click to expand...
I see the defense you're trying to present, or perhaps the understanding you're trying to covey.

But once again, if it keeps shifting it's not a "moral code" at all. It is mere political expediency.

This crap has been human nature and going on from time immortal:

"I didn't want to [insert unethical/illegal deed here], but I felt I had to"

"I didn't know"

Go to any court in the country, and when the guilty get caught you'll here variants of these two above ad nauseum.
 
Chomsky said:
I see the defense you're trying to present, or perhaps the understanding you're trying to covey.

But once again, if it keeps shifting it's not a "moral code" at all. It is mere political expediency.

This crap has been human nature and going on from time immortal:

"I didn't want to [insert unethical/illegal deed here], but I felt I had to"

"I didn't know"

Go to any court in the country, and when the guilty get caught you'll here variants of these two above ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn’t call anything I said a “defense.”
 
BrotherFease said:
Choose your path carefully. Keep in mind, it might not be your exact thoughts, but closest.

PATH A - Trump will survive the current partisan attacks against him, and will get re-elected in December of 2020.

PATH B - Trump will get impeached, but come up short in the Senate. But in the general election, he will lose to Biden/Sanders/Warren/whoever ends up winning the Democratic nomination.

PATH C - Trump will get impeached, but come up short in the Senate. But he will come out against running for re-election.

PATH D - Trump will get impeached, but will resign before the Senate votes.

PATH E - Trump will resign before the congress votes for impeachment.

PATH F - Other.
Click to expand...

I chose 'other'. I think it depends upon whether or not the Dems can bring a strong enough case in their impeachment, which will happen, if nothing else but for the record alone. If they can bring a 'beyond reasonable doubt' case, the the GOP will have to vote for his impeachment and removal. If not, then Trump gets a far right feather and his ego will have him run again. He's not going to do a Nixon by any stretch. The Dems though better turn into American prosecutors fighting the likes of ISIS or Trump will win in 2020.
 
jet57 said:
I chose 'other'. I think it depends upon whether or not the Dems can bring a strong enough case in their impeachment, which will happen, if nothing else but for the record alone. If they can bring a 'beyond reasonable doubt' case, the the GOP will have to vote for his impeachment and removal. If not, then Trump gets a far right feather and his ego will have him run again. He's not going to do a Nixon by any stretch. The Dems though better turn into American prosecutors fighting the likes of ISIS or Trump will win in 2020.
Click to expand...

It’s impossible to think that the case is going to get much stronger than it already is. Trump is why impeachment exists in the Constitution.
 
Cardinal said:
It’s impossible to think that the case is going to get much stronger than it already is. Trump is why impeachment exists in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes I think you're right. The question is however, can the Dems formulate the charges in such a way that they have no holes that would cause the average person (juror) to vote guilty on the just the evidence? That's what bothers me about the namby-pamby Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
I really wouldn’t call anything I said a “defense.”
Click to expand...
That's fair. I realize you were trying to promote understanding. The thing is, you can finally hit the point where understanding falls hollow.

I'm to the point (in relation to many Trump supporters), where all I can say is:

"You see what's going on here. So what's the deal?"

You get tired of holding hands, and listening to charades; charades that get more ridiculous, demeaning, and dangerous by the day. I'm finding many Trump supporters values are so different than mine, I can't even relate. You can't argue one's values. but that's what this has finally come down to.
 
jet57 said:
Yes I think you're right. The question is however, can the Dems formulate the charges in such a way that they have no holes that would cause the average person (juror) vote guilty on the just the evidence? That's what bothers me about the namby-pamby Democrats.
Click to expand...
To answer the bolded, I believe they can. Despite the analogy of the the Senate "trial" with the senators acting as the jurors, the real trial is Nov 3rd 2020 with the American people pronouncing the verdict.

If done right, Pelosi will put not just Trump, but the entire Republican Party on trial. It's ingenious, if she can pull it off.
 
Chomsky said:
That's fair. I realize you were trying to promote understanding. The thing is, you can finally hit the point where understanding falls hollow.

I'm to the point (in relation to many Trump supporters), where all I can say is:

"You see what's going on here. So what's the deal?"

You get tired of holding hands, and listening to charades; charades that get more ridiculous, demeaning, and dangerous by the day. I'm finding many Trump supporters values are so different than mine, I can't even relate. You can't argue one's values. but that's what this has finally come down to.
Click to expand...

Well I did say that it may not necessarily be that their moral code is shifting, but that their moral code is trump himself.
 
Chomsky said:
That's fair. I realize you were trying to promote understanding. The thing is, you can finally hit the point where understanding falls hollow.

I'm to the point (in relation to many Trump supporters), where all I can say is:

"You see what's going on here. So what's the deal?"

You get tired of holding hands, and listening to charades; charades that get more ridiculous, demeaning, and dangerous by the day. I'm finding many Trump supporters values are so different than mine, I can't even relate. You can't argue one's values. but that's what this has finally come down to.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's just values alone or do you think that a time has come wherein we all have reached our limit knowing that WE elected a true scoundrel and liar into office and dammit we have to put a stop to it and try and recoup some of the respect that the entire has country has lost as a result of it.
 
jet57 said:
Yes I think you're right. The question is however, can the Dems formulate the charges in such a way that they have no holes that would cause the average person (juror) to vote guilty on the just the evidence? That's what bothers me about the namby-pamby Democrats.
Click to expand...

Republicans have the same information we do. It would be no different if you showed them a video of somebody robbing a bank, killing a clerk, and admit to the crime, and then wonder if it’s possible to “formulate the charges in such a way that they have no holes.”

This isn’t about convincing Republicans that the evidence for impeachment exists, but whether they will agree to convict.
 
Cardinal said:
Well I did say that it may not necessarily be that their moral code is shifting, but that their moral code is trump himself.
Click to expand...
I have no idea, but good enough.
 
jet57 said:
Do you think it's just values alone or do you think that a time has come wherein we all have reached our limit knowing that WE elected a true scoundrel and liar into office and dammit we have to put a stop to it and try and recoup some of the respect that the entire has country has lost as a result of it.
Click to expand...
I hate to do a cop-out, but I'll reply with:

"Both"

But to me, the values & ethics thing runs very high. I'm seeing things from some sections of Trumpville, that I cannot fathom.
 
Chomsky said:
To answer the bolded, I believe they can. Despite the analogy of the the Senate "trial" with the senators acting as the jurors, the real trial is Nov 3rd 2020 with the American people pronouncing the verdict.

If done right, Pelosi will put not just Trump, but the entire Republican Party on trial. It's ingenious, if she can pull it off.
Click to expand...

Ingenious or actually just the right thing to do at the right time? I mean, people HAVE to see what's going on here between people who care about this country and can think critically and objectively, as does Europe, and our other side meaning this radically far right-wing Juggernaut that has an entirely combative, destructive and divisive agenda that is very much creating the atmosphere of the US in 1859: and what's their real end game?
 
There's still possibility for some unexpected info coming up before this impeachment mess is over. Trump can't hold all things together, we will see more resignations and/or firings as long as Trump is still in WH. My wild guess is that Trump will rage more later on and this also loosen his focus on any important matter - when incompetence is reaching critical level (closing to worst possible situation) some odd things can happen. And there is this hasty pull out from Syria, causing massive problems for Kurds - it's mostly on Trump. Trump's new nickname should be Master of Disaster. I think that this last f***-up is big enough to get some people from Republican party to end supporting Trump and move to impeachment wagon. When tide rises against Trump he will know that without support from senate he's not going to hold his presidency and it's also destroying chances to get reelected. In some point Trump will resign and it's going to be messy.

Cult like Trump's base is in trouble, because they can't see Trump as incompetent and/or criminal. Trump is best thing ever for all those Trump cultist and nothing can change it.

With great power comes great responsibility, but Trump don't get it at all - that's main problem with this clown.
 
ocean515 said:
Why wouldn't the President love the poorly educated? Certainly if they are radical liberals, they make the President look so good.

They believe the things they are fed. Like the President would like to get rid of the 22nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
If a metric ton of bronzer and yellow hair dye can't make trump look good - a liberal certainly can't.

Thanks for feeling a liberal could have such incredible power, tho [emoji1782]

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
Republicans have the same information we do. It would be no different if you showed them a video of somebody robbing a bank, killing a clerk, and admit to the crime, and then wonder if it’s possible to “formulate the charges in such a way that they have no holes.”

This isn’t about convincing Republicans that the evidence for impeachment exists, but whether they will agree to convict.
Click to expand...

The top line is on the mark, so no comment needed there, but the bolded line is exactly what I mean about formulating a thesis in such a way that said GOP'ers will - have to vote for removal. Because a lot of what happens from here on out is going to be dependent upon public pressure: watergate was the same, Vietnam was the same: it all depends on what WE do and what we need to overcome in the process. That's why how the Dems handle this is so critical in my view.
 
Chomsky said:
I hate to do a cop-out, but I'll reply with:

"Both"

But to me, the values & ethics thing runs very high. I'm seeing things from some sections of Trumpville, that I cannot fathom.
Click to expand...

I'll accept "no opinion" for now, but I'm intrigued by "sections of Trumpville that you cannot fathom"... can you elaborate?

I've always viewed yourself as much more objective than I am sometimes, so I'm very interested in your opinion of this phenomenon.
 
jet57 said:
Ingenious or actually just the right thing to do at the right time? I mean, people HAVE to see what's going on here between people who care about this country and can think critically and objectively, as does Europe, and our other side meaning this radically far right-wing Juggernaut that has an entirely combative, destructive and divisive agenda that is very much creating the atmosphere of the US in 1859: and what's their real end game?
Click to expand...
I think the bolded is a salient point.

If you go on the Trump media sites, you'll see this is exactly what quite a few of the commenters propose. Hopefully this is merely internet bravado, but it does show insight into the mindset of the more hard-core Trumpers. And while I'm sure we'll have a smooth transition of power should Trump lose the upcoming election, I do very much believe there will be some rogue incidents similar to the D.C. Pizza Parlor incident. Hopefully, they will be minimal.

But I must remind you of this: In 1959 John Brown raided Harper's Ferry! The shoe was on the other foot!
 
jet57 said:
The top line is on the mark, so no comment needed there, but the bolded line is exactly what I mean about formulating a thesis in such a way that said GOP'ers will - have to vote for removal. Because a lot of what happens from here on out is going to be dependent upon public pressure: watergate was the same, Vietnam was the same: it all depends on what WE do and what we need to overcome in the process. That's why how the Dems handle this is so critical in my view.
Click to expand...

Going back to the bank robbery analogy/murder analogy, let’s say you’re a prosecutor and you realize that the jury already believes the suspect is guilty, but needs to be convinced to convict anyway. Basically, the jury is not certain that bank robbery and murder are crimes they should convict for. What you’re left with is a singular problem with no obvious solution, especially when that jury keeps changing the standard for what qualifies as a convictable crime.
 
Chomsky said:
I think the bolded is a salient point.

If you go on the Trump media sites, you'll see this is exactly what quite a few of the commenters propose. Hopefully this is merely internet bravado, but it does show insight into the mindset of the more hard-core Trumpers. And while I'm sure we'll have a smooth transition of power should Trump lose the upcoming election, I do very much believe there will be some rogue incidents similar to the D.C. Pizza Parlor incident. Hopefully, they will be minimal.

But I must remind you of this: In 1959 John Brown raided Harper's Ferry! The shoe was on the other foot!
Click to expand...


Have you heard of Hayward Shepherd?
 
Cardinal said:
Going back to the bank robbery analogy/murder analogy, let’s say you’re a prosecutor and you realize that the jury already believes the suspect is guilty, but needs to be convinced to convict anyway. Basically, the jury is not certain that bank robbery and murder are crimes they should convict for. What you’re left with is a singular problem with no obvious solution, especially when that jury keeps changing the standard for what qualifies as a convictable crime.
Click to expand...

And once again we come right back 'round to how the prosecutor frames his case and what evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is presented in such an ascending way that no juror CAN turn around to compare and contrast. That's what happened in both Watergate and Vietnam. There have to be enough people on both sides that care enough about the welfare and position of this country to see fact as fact and leave everything else behind. That's where we get into scary territory because I think the outcome of all of this will set the pace for things to come in the executive branch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom