More reasons Republicans don't give a crap about trump's crimes

[Craig234]

President is a big role. People get quite invested in a president they support in many cases.

So, when Watergate happened, for a lot of the country, the issue was simply: if you support the country, you support the president. Petty crimes can't begin to be nearly as important as the national issues the country is dealing with. There's the cold war and communist threat, there's the Vietnam war, there are treaties from nuclear arms to biological weapons, and many other important issues.

The country elected Nixon by 49 states to lead the country on these issues, and it would violate the will of the American people on all of them to remove him over some little burglary and maybe covering it up. Overturning that overwhelming election for a break-in.

People often feel that way. I'd say usually even more than trump, but trump also for his supporters who think he's protecting them from threats - deep state, China, immigrants, and so on. And people want to remove him over what tiny things?

These people hear, trump wanted Ukraine to say the Bidens were under investigation to help him win. So what? They don't like the Bidens, think they are corrupt, and don't give a crap trump asked for that.

How about the issue of foreign interference? It was the president ASKING them to do it - hardly their interfering, and it's not like the election will be hugely affected because Ukraine said that, and if it was, it would help their guy win and so that's great. Non-issue.

How about the issue of 'rule of law'? trump has them convinced everything is corrupt and rigged against them and trump already, so if he goes outside the rules, it's only fair and they deserve it. Who cares?

How about the harm to Ukraine of withholding the aid? They don't really give a crap about Ukraine and would probably rather we didn't give them money anyway - American First!

In short, it's a little like asking your dog how he feels about a Game of Thrones plot twist - he doesn't care. He cares about that burger you aren't watching closely enough. And these trump supporters care about 'their side', them and trump, winning against their enemies, and that's about it. The rest is noise.

They're using whatever arguments they're handed to argue, talking points, but they don't care. It reminds me of a mobster who knows he's guilty at trial; he doesn't give a crap, but he'll use whatever arguments help him - discredit this witness, challenge that evidence, try to get off, but he knows he's guilty.

So they'll go on and on saying anything 'but Shifty Schiff didn't go to court' or whatever, as if they're arguing, but they don't give a crap no matter what the facts or impact or constitutional issues or truth is - it's just 'win'. And they have the right Senators for that. And they'll very likely 'win' and be happy with that end of story.

 

[swing_voter]

President is a big role. People get quite invested in a president they support in many cases.

So, when Watergate happened, for a lot of the country, the issue was simply: if you support the country, you support the president. Petty crimes can't begin to be nearly as important as the national issues the country is dealing with. There's the cold war and communist threat, there's the Vietnam war, there are treaties from nuclear arms to biological weapons, and many other important issues.

The country elected Nixon by 49 states to lead the country on these issues, and it would violate the will of the American people on all of them to remove him over some little burglary and maybe covering it up. Overturning that overwhelming election for a break-in.

People often feel that way. I'd say usually even more than trump, but trump also for his supporters who think he's protecting them from threats - deep state, China, immigrants, and so on. And people want to remove him over what tiny things?

These people hear, trump wanted Ukraine to say the Bidens were under investigation to help him win. So what? They don't like the Bidens, think they are corrupt, and don't give a crap trump asked for that.

How about the issue of foreign interference? It was the president ASKING them to do it - hardly their interfering, and it's not like the election will be hugely affected because Ukraine said that, and if it was, it would help their guy win and so that's great. Non-issue.

How about the issue of 'rule of law'? trump has them convinced everything is corrupt and rigged against them and trump already, so if he goes outside the rules, it's only fair and they deserve it. Who cares?

How about the harm to Ukraine of withholding the aid? They don't really give a crap about Ukraine and would probably rather we didn't give them money anyway - American First!

In short, it's a little like asking your dog how he feels about a Game of Thrones plot twist - he doesn't care. He cares about that burger you aren't watching closely enough. And these trump supporters care about 'their side', them and trump, winning against their enemies, and that's about it. The rest is noise.

They're using whatever arguments they're handed to argue, talking points, but they don't care. It reminds me of a mobster who knows he's guilty at trial; he doesn't give a crap, but he'll use whatever arguments help him - discredit this witness, challenge that evidence, try to get off, but he knows he's guilty.

So they'll go on and on saying anything 'but Shifty Schiff didn't go to court' or whatever, as if they're arguing, but they don't give a crap no matter what the facts or impact or constitutional issues or truth is - it's just 'win'. And they have the right Senators for that. And they'll very likely 'win' and be happy with that end of story.

Presidents ask other countries for help all the time.

 

[HumblePi]

Presidents ask other countries for help all the time.

But it's what they expect in return that's the main issue here. For a president to withhold aid in exchange for help for him to win the next election is where the two things divide. That's illegal, the other is not.

 

[mrjurrs]

Presidents ask other countries for help all the time.

Of course they do, but not for their own personal benefit. Let's try this. I accept that the Biden's did everything that djt is saying they did. How does asking Ukraine to investigate benefit America? How does it benefit anus tangerinus? If in fact the US wanted to Ukraine to investigate, there is a treaty that we follow. How did America benefit by the US not following that treaty? How did djt benefit?

 

[Cardinal]

Presidents ask other countries for help all the time.

Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch should have used that type of defense:

"People talk about their grandkids all the time. What's you're problem?"

 

[Napoleon]

Of course they do, but not for their own personal benefit. Let's try this. I accept that the Biden's did everything that djt is saying they did. How does asking Ukraine to investigate benefit America? How does it benefit anus tangerinus? If in fact the US wanted to Ukraine to investigate, there is a treaty that we follow. How did America benefit by the US not following that treaty? How did djt benefit?

How indeed. How does an announcement of investigations in Ukraine benefit DJT?

 

[Cardinal]

How indeed. How does an announcement of investigations in Ukraine benefit DJT?

That is sarcasm, right?

 

[mrjurrs]

How indeed. How does an announcement of investigations in Ukraine benefit DJT?

An announcement of a corruption investigation into one of the opposition party's leading candidates, a candidate that showed in his first poll to be almost 10% ahead of djt in national polling? Why don't you take a guess as to how that benefits djt. Don't worry, we'll grade it on a curve...

 

[Craig234]

Presidents ask other countries for help all the time.

They don't ask for inappropriate help all the time - what if a president said, 'send me a hundred of your pretty young women for sex, and you'll get the aid from the US'? No problem, right? You don't care about any issues here, do you. Just 'win' and 'beat Democrats'.

 

[Napoleon]

That is sarcasm, right?

No. Especially when all “election interference” means in this context is putting information, true or otherwise, in the public domain for the American electorate to ponder and prior to any nomination on the part of the DNC. Is the allegation that there’s someone out there who’s vote would be influenced by a vague announcement about “investigations” conducted by a foreign country? If so, that’s more an indictment of the American electorate than DJT.

 

[Cardinal]

No. Especially when all “election interference” means in this context is putting information, true or otherwise, in the public domain for the American electorate to ponder and prior to any nomination on the part of the DNC. Is the allegation that there’s someone out there who’s vote would be influenced by a vague announcement about “investigations” conducted by a foreign country? If so, that’s more an indictment of the American electorate than DJT.

Your post contained all the information necessary to answer your own question.

 

[Mr Person]

How indeed. How does an announcement of investigations in Ukraine benefit DJT?

That is sarcasm, right?

No. Especially when all “election interference” means in this context is putting information, true or otherwise, in the public domain for the American electorate to ponder and prior to any nomination on the part of the DNC. Is the allegation that there’s someone out there who’s vote would be influenced by a vague announcement about “investigations” conducted by a foreign country? If so, that’s more an indictment of the American electorate than DJT.

Did you or did you not see how Comey's announcement of re-opening into Hillary knocked her down a few precious points in the polls and kept those numbers down until the election?

That's what Trump wanted to happen to Biden. No matter who you think it is more an indictment of, that's how it would benefit DJT.

 

[Napoleon]

Your post contained all the information necessary to answer your own question.

So the answer is that there’s no reason to believe that such a thing would actually be beneficial to DJT.

 

[Mycroft]

President is a big role. People get quite invested in a president they support in many cases.

So, when Watergate happened, for a lot of the country, the issue was simply: if you support the country, you support the president. Petty crimes can't begin to be nearly as important as the national issues the country is dealing with. There's the cold war and communist threat, there's the Vietnam war, there are treaties from nuclear arms to biological weapons, and many other important issues.

The country elected Nixon by 49 states to lead the country on these issues, and it would violate the will of the American people on all of them to remove him over some little burglary and maybe covering it up. Overturning that overwhelming election for a break-in.

People often feel that way. I'd say usually even more than trump, but trump also for his supporters who think he's protecting them from threats - deep state, China, immigrants, and so on. And people want to remove him over what tiny things?

These people hear, trump wanted Ukraine to say the Bidens were under investigation to help him win. So what? They don't like the Bidens, think they are corrupt, and don't give a crap trump asked for that.

How about the issue of foreign interference? It was the president ASKING them to do it - hardly their interfering, and it's not like the election will be hugely affected because Ukraine said that, and if it was, it would help their guy win and so that's great. Non-issue.

How about the issue of 'rule of law'? trump has them convinced everything is corrupt and rigged against them and trump already, so if he goes outside the rules, it's only fair and they deserve it. Who cares?

How about the harm to Ukraine of withholding the aid? They don't really give a crap about Ukraine and would probably rather we didn't give them money anyway - American First!

In short, it's a little like asking your dog how he feels about a Game of Thrones plot twist - he doesn't care. He cares about that burger you aren't watching closely enough. And these trump supporters care about 'their side', them and trump, winning against their enemies, and that's about it. The rest is noise.

They're using whatever arguments they're handed to argue, talking points, but they don't care. It reminds me of a mobster who knows he's guilty at trial; he doesn't give a crap, but he'll use whatever arguments help him - discredit this witness, challenge that evidence, try to get off, but he knows he's guilty.

So they'll go on and on saying anything 'but Shifty Schiff didn't go to court' or whatever, as if they're arguing, but they don't give a crap no matter what the facts or impact or constitutional issues or truth is - it's just 'win'. And they have the right Senators for that. And they'll very likely 'win' and be happy with that end of story.

shrug...

As long as Schiffty continues to make you believe Trump did anything for political purposes, any screed you concoct about Trump is nothing but bull****.

 

[Cardinal]

So the answer is that there’s no reason to believe that such a thing would actually be beneficial to DJT.

Only if you meant the exact opposite of everything you just said in post 10.

 

[Napoleon]

Did you or did you not see how Comey's announcement of re-opening into Hillary knocked her down a few precious points in the polls and kept those numbers down until the election?

That's what Trump wanted to happen to Biden. No matter who you think it is more an indictment of, that's how it would benefit DJT.

I think there’s a very big difference between accusations which have already been investigated domestically with no finding of wrongdoing and ongoing domestic investigations that may or may not involve a crime depending on the DOJ’s interpretation of the law. The allegations against Biden are out there. Do you believe they’re influencing Democratic voters to vote against Biden in the primary?

 

[Mr Person]

I think there’s a very big difference between accusations which have already been investigated domestically with no finding of wrongdoing and ongoing domestic investigations that may or may not involve a crime depending on the DOJ’s interpretation of the law. The allegations against Biden are out there. Do you believe they’re influencing Democratic voters to vote against Biden in the primary?

"Allegations against Biden" =/= launch of an official investigation. I'm not sure what there is left to say if you're going to insist that announcement of an official investigation isn't going to hurt a candidate. Demonstrably, it does.

If it happens now, he has all the rest of the year to play it up to crowds for the general. And if it happens to knock Biden out in the primaries, then Trump just comes up with something new for the eventual candidate. But those are side-considerations. Announcement of official investigations into illegal acts of a candidate will hurt that candidate. I'd bet a foreign country announcing it would hurt even more since someone might reasonably expect Barr to do it just to help Trump. He's already been going for Trump's enemies one by one - a few good threads on that around here.

 

[Obscurity]

Presidents ask other countries for help all the time.

Not like this and you have no evidence to support that claim.

Further, the defence is total garbage.

 

[Napoleon]

"Allegations against Biden" =/= launch of an official investigation. I'm not sure what there is left to say if you're going to insist that announcement of an official investigation isn't going to hurt a candidate. Demonstrably, it does.

That would be impossible to prove and you’re comparing apples to oranges.

If it happens now, he has all the rest of the year to play it up to crowds for the general. And if it happens to knock Biden out in the primaries, then Trump just comes up with something new for the eventual candidate. But those are side-considerations. Announcement of official investigations into illegal acts of a candidate will hurt that candidate. I'd bet a foreign country announcing it would hurt even more since someone might reasonably expect Barr to do it just to help Trump. He's already been going for Trump's enemies one by one - a few good threads on that around here.

You’re talking about an “investigation” conducted by Ukraine into matters that were already investigated and dismissed domestically. Nobody but a partisan who would never vote for a Democrat anyway would care. If DJT wasn’t damaged beyond electability over alleged pee tapes and other kompromat then I highly doubt that Biden’s campaign would be destroyed by a foreign investigation into something that the American government had already found to be so much nonsense.

 

[Mr Person]

That would be impossible to prove and you’re comparing apples to oranges.

You’re talking about an “investigation” conducted by Ukraine into matters that were already investigated and dismissed domestically. Nobody but a partisan who would never vote for a Democrat anyway would care. If DJT wasn’t damaged beyond electability over alleged pee tapes and other kompromat then I highly doubt that Biden’s campaign would be destroyed by a foreign investigation into something that the American government had already found to be so much nonsense.

Either you're arguing for argument's sake or the lean thing isn't entirely accurate.

It is apples to apples, as Hillary's email server was ALREADY investigated to death. 7+ in congress into it despite being billed as "Benghazi", the FBIs. Then Comey announced re-opening of the email investigation. Knocked her down points she didn't regain. Doesn't matter one damn whether those points were lost with "partisans" or whatever other label you might choose. Doesn't matter if it was re-opened to looking into "new" things, since that is invariably what the Ukraine announcement would be had they played ball.

It hurt her. It would hurt Biden. That's why Trump did all this.

:shrug:

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

They're trying to turn impeachment into "a consumer product" and act like they are the political version of Consumer Reports.

 

[Athanasius68]

Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch should have used that type of defense:

"People talk about their grandkids all the time. What's you're problem?"

Mrs. Clinton was under criminal investigation.
That is not the situation presently.

 

[Cardinal]

Mrs. Clinton was under criminal investigation.
That is not the situation presently.

Are grandparents allowed to talk about their grandkids? Yes or no?

 

[j brown's body]

Presidents ask other countries for help all the time.

Personal help? Really?

 

[Athanasius68]

Of course they do, but not for their own personal benefit. Let's try this. I accept that the Biden's did everything that djt is saying they did. How does asking Ukraine to investigate benefit America? How does it benefit anus tangerinus? If in fact the US wanted to Ukraine to investigate, there is a treaty that we follow. How did America benefit by the US not following that treaty? How did djt benefit?

You mean how does providing transparency that the potential #46 is corrupt is NOT beneficial to the country?
Or determining why #44 had thought the future #45 was conspiring with Russia is also not beneficial to the country?

A defense of the investigation into Mr. Trump was that we had to know. Now we don't?
Surely, you jest.