Results 1 to 10 of 10
Thanks Tree9Thanks
  • 2 Post By Arkady
  • 1 Post By KnotaFrayed
  • 3 Post By the watchman
  • 2 Post By Dr Sampson Simpson
  • 1 Post By bmanmcfly

Thread: What if Obama or Hillary had done that?

  1. #1
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,263
    Thanks
    12788

    From
    Here

    What if Obama or Hillary had done that?

    In the interest of relativism and trying to identify things like partisanship, populism, political correctness (or being politically incorrect), justice, fairness, honesty, truth and more, I was thinking about a thread to compare the thoughts of those that often refer to those who are no longer or not in any position to effect change versus the current POTUS who holds a fair amount of power in his hands and his statements, with regard to a number things and a number of reasons that could severely and negatively impact the stability of the nation, not just economically, but socially, as well.

    In this interest. Can we begin compiling and discussing those actions and events that one could ask the simple question of, what if HRC or Obama did that, When President Trump does something, in order that we think in terms of our own partisanship and that listed above. This is all to consider not just what people of opposing ideologies do, when considering the same sorts of actions or responses, but how we may tend to give a pass to "our" people even as we try to admonish others, merely because we look for or perceive they "represent" all of an entire ideology or political party, by their actions. This is also to weigh the degrees to which any of those we seem to constantly consider, even though only one person won the election and has any power to sign anything into law, veto proposed law or impose executive orders.

    The format might look something like this:

    What (fill in the blank with the name oof one of the three) did, followed by a description (with evidence to back it up) of an action they did...................

    For example: Trump (did this) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? It was backed and approved or not backed and approved by his supporters.....

    Followed up by:

    What if HRC or Barack Obama did the same? The reaction of Trump's supporters would be what, relative to their reaction to Trump doing the same.

    Then, discuss................

    Feel free to reverse who did what and reactions, but keep in mind that Barack Obama and HRC hold no positions of power in the way the current POTUS does.

    It may take a few posts before we all sort how to work it, but I believe it should lead to some interesting discussion as well as maybe get us thinking about the levels of our partisanship and personal subjectivity versus seeing some things more universally and objectively. Nothing wrong with taking a side, nothing wrong with having personal opinions, but do we apply either or both in a manner that is equitable when it comes to political opponents. For example: If lying is wrong, is it only wrong, when someone we perceive to be ideologically or politically, our opposition or is it wrong for all people to do it?

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,960
    Thanks
    2695

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    In the interest of relativism and trying to identify things like partisanship, populism, political correctness (or being politically incorrect), justice, fairness, honesty, truth and more, I was thinking about a thread to compare the thoughts of those that often refer to those who are no longer or not in any position to effect change versus the current POTUS who holds a fair amount of power in his hands and his statements, with regard to a number things and a number of reasons that could severely and negatively impact the stability of the nation, not just economically, but socially, as well.

    In this interest. Can we begin compiling and discussing those actions and events that one could ask the simple question of, what if HRC or Obama did that, When President Trump does something, in order that we think in terms of our own partisanship and that listed above. This is all to consider not just what people of opposing ideologies do, when considering the same sorts of actions or responses, but how we may tend to give a pass to "our" people even as we try to admonish others, merely because we look for or perceive they "represent" all of an entire ideology or political party, by their actions. This is also to weigh the degrees to which any of those we seem to constantly consider, even though only one person won the election and has any power to sign anything into law, veto proposed law or impose executive orders.

    The format might look something like this:

    What (fill in the blank with the name oof one of the three) did, followed by a description (with evidence to back it up) of an action they did...................

    For example: Trump (did this) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? It was backed and approved or not backed and approved by his supporters.....

    Followed up by:

    What if HRC or Barack Obama did the same? The reaction of Trump's supporters would be what, relative to their reaction to Trump doing the same.

    Then, discuss................

    Feel free to reverse who did what and reactions, but keep in mind that Barack Obama and HRC hold no positions of power in the way the current POTUS does.

    It may take a few posts before we all sort how to work it, but I believe it should lead to some interesting discussion as well as maybe get us thinking about the levels of our partisanship and personal subjectivity versus seeing some things more universally and objectively. Nothing wrong with taking a side, nothing wrong with having personal opinions, but do we apply either or both in a manner that is equitable when it comes to political opponents. For example: If lying is wrong, is it only wrong, when someone we perceive to be ideologically or politically, our opposition or is it wrong for all people to do it?
    For me, the most interesting line of thought, of that sort, regards picturing Obama doing what Trump did with regard to the head of the FBI.

    Just to set the scene, recall that Trump pulled aside the head of the FBI and pressured him to stop investigating one of Trump's political allies, despite the fact (as Trump later admitted) Trump knew at the time his ally was guilty of a federal crime. He also demanded an expression of personal loyalty from him. Then, when the G-man refused to allow the investigation to be obstructed, and refused to pledge his loyalty, Trump summarily fired him. Then he came right out and admitted it was because of "the Russia thing."

    Now, change the scene. Imagine it's 2015 and Obama's not happy with all the scrutiny Clinton's email is getting. So, he pulls Comey aside, tries to force him to pledge his personal loyalty to Obama, and pressures him to back off Clinton..... and imagine if later Obama even admits that he knew Clinton to have been guilty of a federal crime at the time. Then imagine that when Comey refused to let Clinton off the hook, Trump fired him, and publicly admitted it was due to the email investigation.

    I think it's obvious that pretty much everyone acting as an apologist for Trump in our reality, would be screeching for impeachment if Obama had done something similar.

    Similarly, imagine an alternate reality where the head of Clinton's campaign, plus, say, Bill and Chelsea, agree to a secret meeting with people they knew to be working as agents of a hostile foreign government, for the express purpose of getting the foreign government's help in winning the election.... say Iran, for example. If there'd been that kind of secret collusion with Iran to try to take down Trump, the Republicans would not only be calling for impeachment, today, they'd be calling it outright treason.
    Last edited by Arkady; 21st June 2018 at 09:16 AM.
    Thanks from KnotaFrayed and Friday13

  3. #3
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,263
    Thanks
    12788

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    For me, the most interesting line of thought, of that sort, regards picturing Obama doing what Trump did with regard to the head of the FBI.

    Just to set the scene, recall that Trump pulled aside the head of the FBI and pressured him to stop investigating one of Trump's political allies, despite the fact (as Trump later admitted) Trump knew at the time his ally was guilty of a federal crime. He also demanded an expression of personal loyalty from him. Then, when the G-man refused to allow the investigation to be obstructed, and refused to pledge his loyalty, Trump summarily fired him. Then he came right out and admitted it was because of "the Russia thing."

    Now, change the scene. Imagine it's 2015 and Obama's not happy with all the scrutiny Clinton's email is getting. So, he pulls Comey aside, tries to force him to pledge his personal loyalty to Obama, and pressures him to back off Clinton..... and imagine if later Obama even admits that he knew Clinton to have been guilty of a federal crime at the time. Then imagine that when Comey refused to let Clinton off the hook, Trump fired him, and publicly admitted it was due to the email investigation.

    I think it's obvious that pretty much everyone acting as an apologist for Trump in our reality, would be screeching for impeachment if Obama had done something similar.

    Similarly, imagine an alternate reality where the head of Clinton's campaign, plus, say, Bill and Chelsea, agree to a secret meeting with people they knew to be working as agents of a hostile foreign government, for the express purpose of getting the foreign government's help in winning the election.... say Iran, for example. If there'd been that kind of secret collusion with Iran to try to take down Trump, the Republicans would not only be calling for impeachment, today, they'd be calling it outright treason.
    I agree.

    Consider also, the outcry of Bill Clinton (no longer a sitting President at the time) visiting Loretta Lynch for mere minutes on the tarmac in Phoenix and how that "looked", not only in the eyes of "republicans", but some Democrats. Relate that, to any similar outcry from "republicans" about a sitting President, under the circumstances at the time (as you reiterated). Where was it? (the outcries from the same that thought the Clinton/Lynch meeting was "collusion".) Plus, how does one square all those members of the republican party, being for Clinton to the point of giving her preferential "investigative" treatment over Trump? Trump and company appear to be suggesting that not only has their been a conspiracy against them (one that, if true, failed to keep him out of office), but that conspiracy was led, not just by Democrats, but Republicans and it has continued, even under Trump's nominees of Republicans to his cabinet, as the Deputy Attorney General entrusted to make decisions that the Attorney General recused himself from being involved in and who, as Deputy Attorney General, chose Robert Mueller, (another Republican) as Special Counsel, to investigate the Trump Campaign for President into any wrongdoing. An investigation that had already resulted in a number of indictments at the time President Trump spoke to Comey, about Flynn and then fired Comey based on contradictory reasons including the Mueller investigation.

    If either Obama or Hillary Clinton had done the same, how quickly would calls for their impeachment, been made?




    It will be interesting to see where this goes, if anywhere and who participates with honesty and sincerity.

    I believe any society that operates under a premise that it's wrong when they do it, okay, when we do it, is dysfunctional and will remain so, caught in a trap or entanglement of its own making, until it comes clean and becomes honest with itself, at the same time it may believe it is keeping others honest.

    There are no values, unless they apply to everyone equitably. This does not mean exceptions cannot be made (with universal agreement about them) or that discretion is not allowed, but the notion or MO of suggesting something is ONLY wrong, because it was done by a perceived "opponent" ideologically or politically, but okay, when those of one's "own" (including themselves) do the same thing, makes no sense to the point of absurdity and it becomes akin to chasing one's own tail and as one might expect, never catching it.

    If we want to break out of some of the issues we face we, with the exception of agreed to discretion and exceptions, it seems we need see things, less with or totally without, partisan lenses and as things that apply to us as well as everyone else, perceived opposition or not. Otherwise we simply license ourselves to opt out of any rules we wish or demand others adhere to and if we can all do that, there is no means to hold anyone accountable for anything, because they would have the same option, to claim immunity from rules applied to them and rules they want everyone else (except themselves), to adhere to.

    It is perhaps an experiment or an exercise in how conscious any of us might be, with regard to adhering to what we desire or demand others to adhere to. In the case of our society and the leadership of the nation and the powers vested in anyone in those positions, have we become stuck in the rut described and in addition, does everyone recognize the difference between people who no longer are, or were never in, positions equal to a sitting President, in terms of the immediacy of concern for what any of the three mentioned has the current power to do, with regard to impacting the nation and its people? I don't know how many people consider much of this when they are ruled more by partisanship than by critical thinking which involves ethics of reciprocity or essentially walking in someone else's moccasins in order to see more than our own perspective.
    Thanks from Arkady

  4. #4
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    82,061
    Thanks
    44743

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    For me, the most interesting line of thought, of that sort, regards picturing Obama doing what Trump did with regard to the head of the FBI.

    Just to set the scene, recall that Trump pulled aside the head of the FBI and pressured him to stop investigating one of Trump's political allies, despite the fact (as Trump later admitted) Trump knew at the time his ally was guilty of a federal crime. He also demanded an expression of personal loyalty from him. Then, when the G-man refused to allow the investigation to be obstructed, and refused to pledge his loyalty, Trump summarily fired him. Then he came right out and admitted it was because of "the Russia thing."

    Now, change the scene. Imagine it's 2015 and Obama's not happy with all the scrutiny Clinton's email is getting. So, he pulls Comey aside, tries to force him to pledge his personal loyalty to Obama, and pressures him to back off Clinton..... and imagine if later Obama even admits that he knew Clinton to have been guilty of a federal crime at the time. Then imagine that when Comey refused to let Clinton off the hook, Trump fired him, and publicly admitted it was due to the email investigation.

    I think it's obvious that pretty much everyone acting as an apologist for Trump in our reality, would be screeching for impeachment if Obama had done something similar.

    Similarly, imagine an alternate reality where the head of Clinton's campaign, plus, say, Bill and Chelsea, agree to a secret meeting with people they knew to be working as agents of a hostile foreign government, for the express purpose of getting the foreign government's help in winning the election.... say Iran, for example. If there'd been that kind of secret collusion with Iran to try to take down Trump, the Republicans would not only be calling for impeachment, today, they'd be calling it outright treason.
    ha
    here's the funny thing. Of course, what you describe never actually happened where Obama and Hillary are concerned. But, I swear, if you listen to it being told by Hillary and Obama haters it all happened just as you describe. Obama did, in fact, protect Hillary Clinton. Comey was in it on it too. And now, the FBI, Mueller, the entire intelligence community, liberals, the courts, the media, or who ever Trump says, is part of a "deep state" out to bring down this president. Even, the people that Trump, himself, appointed to their positions of power.
    Thanks from Friday13, Arkady and KnotaFrayed

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    22,026
    Thanks
    12276

    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    In the interest of relativism and trying to identify things like partisanship, populism, political correctness (or being politically incorrect), justice, fairness, honesty, truth and more, I was thinking about a thread to compare the thoughts of those that often refer to those who are no longer or not in any position to effect change versus the current POTUS who holds a fair amount of power in his hands and his statements, with regard to a number things and a number of reasons that could severely and negatively impact the stability of the nation, not just economically, but socially, as well.

    In this interest. Can we begin compiling and discussing those actions and events that one could ask the simple question of, what if HRC or Obama did that, When President Trump does something, in order that we think in terms of our own partisanship and that listed above. This is all to consider not just what people of opposing ideologies do, when considering the same sorts of actions or responses, but how we may tend to give a pass to "our" people even as we try to admonish others, merely because we look for or perceive they "represent" all of an entire ideology or political party, by their actions. This is also to weigh the degrees to which any of those we seem to constantly consider, even though only one person won the election and has any power to sign anything into law, veto proposed law or impose executive orders.

    The format might look something like this:

    What (fill in the blank with the name oof one of the three) did, followed by a description (with evidence to back it up) of an action they did...................

    For example: Trump (did this) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? It was backed and approved or not backed and approved by his supporters.....

    Followed up by:

    What if HRC or Barack Obama did the same? The reaction of Trump's supporters would be what, relative to their reaction to Trump doing the same.

    Then, discuss................

    Feel free to reverse who did what and reactions, but keep in mind that Barack Obama and HRC hold no positions of power in the way the current POTUS does.

    It may take a few posts before we all sort how to work it, but I believe it should lead to some interesting discussion as well as maybe get us thinking about the levels of our partisanship and personal subjectivity versus seeing some things more universally and objectively. Nothing wrong with taking a side, nothing wrong with having personal opinions, but do we apply either or both in a manner that is equitable when it comes to political opponents. For example: If lying is wrong, is it only wrong, when someone we perceive to be ideologically or politically, our opposition or is it wrong for all people to do it?

    We know exactly how Trump supporters, and sadly way too many right wingers would act, they would be completely hypocritical and partisan hacks, and have no shame in the idiotic deflections they make. THey would behave like trolls just like Trump
    Thanks from the watchman and KnotaFrayed

  6. #6
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    21,472
    Thanks
    3373

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    I've tried that method a number of times...

    Most are too blinded by bias.

    One time was funny, got all sorts of concessions, then as soon as the name flipped... Oh that's bad now cause trump.
    Thanks from excalibur

  7. #7
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,263
    Thanks
    12788

    From
    Here
    The strange thing is where Trump and where many of his supporters get their information based on their apparent lack of knowledge of basic history and available information that is corroborated many more times than their "information" is. Is there some secret vault of "truth" that only Trumpians and Trumpian state approved media, have access to? Can anyone simply change reality and facts simply because they say so and have we completely dropped any requirements for presenting credibility or is only a one way street when it comes to presenting actual evidence as to why anything, anyone, is "fake" aside from simply saying so? Mr. Trump seems to have this notion and he appears to be supported by a segment of the population that "truth" is whatever he says it is, evidence and proof, need not apply.

    How does this happen and why are some people foregoing an interest in the truth on one side of them while they are trying to strictly hold others to it, on the other side? Similarly, why is an investigation into the campaign of one of the candidates for President, not okay, politically biased or taking too long, yet the podium of the POTUS is being used launch politically partisan attacking tirades at political opponents, calling for more investigations than the years of investigations that have already taken place?

    My concern is the longer this goes on, without being stopped or called into account, the more it becomes normalized and the longer a POTUS can use their podium, less and less as a means to address all Americans and the concerns of all Americans, but as a means to viciously attack and blame his political opponents, then try to suggest it is they, not the POTUS who is politically biased.

    This is Doublespeak and just like people are lured into buying snake oil, falling for shell games and other con artistry. a surprisingly sad number of Americans appear to be taken in, by the very tactics they have been warned about for years, with what should be more than sufficient evidence to alert and caution them.

    That they do not seem to care, is interesting and curious from the standpoint of why. Are the POTUS and his base, exploiting one another in such a way that they don't really care much for one another aside from how they can exploit one another to get what they think they are going to use one another to get? Is it because they have personalities that make them perfect marks (suckers) for snake oil sales people, those who operate shell games, ponzi schemes, phishing scams and other forms of con artistry and scams? Obviously scammers, phishers, snake oil sales people, people who operate shell games, ponzi schemes and all manner of other forms of con artistry and scams find enough marks (suckers/victims), that they keep coming back for more. How is it that Trump can simultaneously bash the "elite" to fire up his base and in the next sentence claim to be the elite of the elites and his base still cheers for him? Is his base paid based on a single rule that says, there is only one thing, they need do in order to get their checks or cash (less traceable) and that is to NEVER ever, no matter how much it might make perfect sense to and no matter how absurd it seems to not challenge so much of what he says, never ever, challenge Trump on ANYTHING he says or does.

    What those Americans who are not in that minority are seeing, might describe it as "Zombie Loyalty". Considering bipartisan agreement that at least one foreign power has severely worked to influence the elections of not only this country, but other nations, is this Zombie Loyalty part and parcel of that, a supplement to it, unwitting harmonic sympathetic symphony with the same? There are just TOO many things going on that beg suspicion and beg connecting of dots, which I have a feeling, there are many people doing the latter as I write this, in official and unofficial capacities.

    Where are Woodward and Bernstein, when you need them.........or their modern equivalents?

  8. #8
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,263
    Thanks
    12788

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    ha
    here's the funny thing. Of course, what you describe never actually happened where Obama and Hillary are concerned. But, I swear, if you listen to it being told by Hillary and Obama haters it all happened just as you describe. Obama did, in fact, protect Hillary Clinton. Comey was in it on it too. And now, the FBI, Mueller, the entire intelligence community, liberals, the courts, the media, or who ever Trump says, is part of a "deep state" out to bring down this president. Even, the people that Trump, himself, appointed to their positions of power.
    The trouble people who have functioning brains have with the scenarios Trump and company want to forward (in the interest of bipartisanship?) is that they don't make much sense when one considers how many of the characters that would have to be in on the "collusion", are some of Trump's nominees, for their positions as well as well respected (before Trump smeared them, from "evidence" that seems to exist in some corner of his mind and narcissistic fantasies) Republicans.....More than just a few are people Trump picked (with with his narcissistic claims that he only picks the best people) and has since, fired or threatened to fire or people that have resigned, with an air about their resignation that suggests they just couldn't deal with Trump and his personality (and all it involves) anymore. Everyone can easily understand that a press secretary is speaking as a fielder for the President, but in the past, few, if any have acted in such a robotic (zombielike) way, as if a clone or shill for a severely partisan President, not as the President's best means of moderating and smoothing their rougher edges. What we have now are people that might just as well be clones of the barking partisan President who seems to believe (or maybe not) people with fully functional minds are somehow going to believe him, merely because he says something.

    One can note how Trump uses ANY publicity and moments in front of the camera to dominate any of that exposure with two things. plugging himself and severely bashing in a partisanship manner, his political opponents, regardless of whether he says something true about them or a total lie. He tries to head off (I suppose for anyone that might actually believe it) his own lies, by preempting any challenges to what he says with the constant calling of the media as "fake".

    This is a form of phishing. Trump may know he is not going to get people with fully functioning minds to believe his absurdities and lies, but he is hoping he picks up, just a few that will. It's really trolling for just a few that will believe his BS and hoping that cumulatively they will be enough to keep him in office.

    Eerily and maybe not just coincidentally, this reflects Hitler's chapter on War Propaganda in Mein Kampf. Whether this is mere coincidence or whether Trump is aware of this (and the reason he is doing it) or whether he is doing it as advised by an adviser that recommended this tactic, who can know for sure, without more investigation, evidence and verification that this is a conscious effort a coincidence due to similarities of personality characteristics of people with the same propensities when it comes to how to gain then assert power.

    Please note, that Hitler stressed and made a point, several times, that the more intelligent people aren't going to buy propaganda, but the lowest common level of intelligence would be most susceptible to it.

    http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

    https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article...uleId=10005202
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 22nd June 2018 at 11:52 AM.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    13,302
    Thanks
    3269

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    In the interest of relativism and trying to identify things like partisanship, populism, political correctness (or being politically incorrect), justice, fairness, honesty, truth and more, I was thinking about a thread to compare the thoughts of those that often refer to those who are no longer or not in any position to effect change versus the current POTUS who holds a fair amount of power in his hands and his statements, with regard to a number things and a number of reasons that could severely and negatively impact the stability of the nation, not just economically, but socially, as well.

    In this interest. Can we begin compiling and discussing those actions and events that one could ask the simple question of, what if HRC or Obama did that, When President Trump does something, in order that we think in terms of our own partisanship and that listed above. This is all to consider not just what people of opposing ideologies do, when considering the same sorts of actions or responses, but how we may tend to give a pass to "our" people even as we try to admonish others, merely because we look for or perceive they "represent" all of an entire ideology or political party, by their actions. This is also to weigh the degrees to which any of those we seem to constantly consider, even though only one person won the election and has any power to sign anything into law, veto proposed law or impose executive orders.

    The format might look something like this:

    What (fill in the blank with the name oof one of the three) did, followed by a description (with evidence to back it up) of an action they did...................

    For example: Trump (did this) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? It was backed and approved or not backed and approved by his supporters.....

    Followed up by:

    What if HRC or Barack Obama did the same? The reaction of Trump's supporters would be what, relative to their reaction to Trump doing the same.

    Then, discuss................

    Feel free to reverse who did what and reactions, but keep in mind that Barack Obama and HRC hold no positions of power in the way the current POTUS does.

    It may take a few posts before we all sort how to work it, but I believe it should lead to some interesting discussion as well as maybe get us thinking about the levels of our partisanship and personal subjectivity versus seeing some things more universally and objectively. Nothing wrong with taking a side, nothing wrong with having personal opinions, but do we apply either or both in a manner that is equitable when it comes to political opponents. For example: If lying is wrong, is it only wrong, when someone we perceive to be ideologically or politically, our opposition or is it wrong for all people to do it?
    Mr. Knot,

    That would have been great if Obama had cracked down on immigration, the trade deficit, attempted to end the war with North Korea, etc.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    21,472
    Thanks
    3373

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    The strange thing is where Trump and where many of his supporters get their information based on their apparent lack of knowledge of basic history and available information that is corroborated many more times than their "information" is. Is there some secret vault of "truth" that only Trumpians and Trumpian state approved media, have access to? Can anyone simply change reality and facts simply because they say so and have we completely dropped any requirements for presenting credibility or is only a one way street when it comes to presenting actual evidence as to why anything, anyone, is "fake" aside from simply saying so? Mr. Trump seems to have this notion and he appears to be supported by a segment of the population that "truth" is whatever he says it is, evidence and proof, need not apply.

    How does this happen and why are some people foregoing an interest in the truth on one side of them while they are trying to strictly hold others to it, on the other side? Similarly, why is an investigation into the campaign of one of the candidates for President, not okay, politically biased or taking too long, yet the podium of the POTUS is being used launch politically partisan attacking tirades at political opponents, calling for more investigations than the years of investigations that have already taken place?

    My concern is the longer this goes on, without being stopped or called into account, the more it becomes normalized and the longer a POTUS can use their podium, less and less as a means to address all Americans and the concerns of all Americans, but as a means to viciously attack and blame his political opponents, then try to suggest it is they, not the POTUS who is politically biased.

    This is Doublespeak and just like people are lured into buying snake oil, falling for shell games and other con artistry. a surprisingly sad number of Americans appear to be taken in, by the very tactics they have been warned about for years, with what should be more than sufficient evidence to alert and caution them.

    That they do not seem to care, is interesting and curious from the standpoint of why. Are the POTUS and his base, exploiting one another in such a way that they don't really care much for one another aside from how they can exploit one another to get what they think they are going to use one another to get? Is it because they have personalities that make them perfect marks (suckers) for snake oil sales people, those who operate shell games, ponzi schemes, phishing scams and other forms of con artistry and scams? Obviously scammers, phishers, snake oil sales people, people who operate shell games, ponzi schemes and all manner of other forms of con artistry and scams find enough marks (suckers/victims), that they keep coming back for more. How is it that Trump can simultaneously bash the "elite" to fire up his base and in the next sentence claim to be the elite of the elites and his base still cheers for him? Is his base paid based on a single rule that says, there is only one thing, they need do in order to get their checks or cash (less traceable) and that is to NEVER ever, no matter how much it might make perfect sense to and no matter how absurd it seems to not challenge so much of what he says, never ever, challenge Trump on ANYTHING he says or does.

    What those Americans who are not in that minority are seeing, might describe it as "Zombie Loyalty". Considering bipartisan agreement that at least one foreign power has severely worked to influence the elections of not only this country, but other nations, is this Zombie Loyalty part and parcel of that, a supplement to it, unwitting harmonic sympathetic symphony with the same? There are just TOO many things going on that beg suspicion and beg connecting of dots, which I have a feeling, there are many people doing the latter as I write this, in official and unofficial capacities.

    Where are Woodward and Bernstein, when you need them.........or their modern equivalents?
    You are probably not aware; but currently there is the greatest open sourcing of classified material that humanity has ever experienced outside royalty.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 6th February 2017, 11:10 AM
  2. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 8th November 2016, 04:15 AM
  3. Hillary & Obama Are Unthinkable As....
    By Migi e! in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 17th April 2008, 04:37 PM
  4. If We Do Have A President Obama or Hillary
    By Migi e! in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 9th April 2008, 05:10 AM
  5. Hillary and Obama
    By gods Messenger in forum World Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 25th October 2007, 08:52 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed