What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

A hostile foreign power has clearly involved itself in our elections, and your response is to post whatever alt right meme tickles your fancy that day. The idea that that is a response that is in any way just "having some fun" lost its currency a long time ago.

There are different versions of how Russia involved itself. If it did so by coordinating with the Trump campaign, then I agree that is a major problem that can not be overstated and if there is any sanity will result in the impeachment of Trump.

Agreed, and that isn't likely. It is likely however that there was a bit of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" going on. In fact, the wink wasn't even hidden. Trump invited a foreign powers intelligence apparatus to engage in espionage, if you recall.

Which spicey of course was all AWXOMZORS about because EMAILKILLARYBEGHAZI.

Which is why he cannot really say anything differenct now - this isn't any real surprise. Trump was encouraging this, praising Putin, accepting Putin's praise, etc., etc.

But if it is just that they hacked/spied on the DNC and related entities and released that information to aid Trump?

What is interesting is how far our standards have fallen.

Pre-Trump, even the suggestion that they did this would result in vehement disavowal by any credible Republican candidate. Even the suggestion that they were being aided by Valdimir Putin would be *much* more damaging than any amount of actual aid they would get, and hence they would speak out strongly to disavow that aid.

Could you imagine what McCain would say in Trump's place? He would not respond to clear evidence that Putin is hacking government servers in order to damage a political figure by verbally blowing Putin.

We involve ourselves in the democratic process of other countries. For example, Obama comments in the leadup to Brexit. We also spy on other countries. I don't know of cases that we used the output of spying just to influence an election, but it wouldn't be surprising considering we've backed coups of democratically elected leaders. I wouldn't even be surprised if we have used intelligence from spying to try to undermine/embarrass Putin. Heck, I remember back in the days of the Bush steel tariffs, the EU retaliated by specifically targeting goods produced in states critical to Bush's electoral college majority (such as Ohio).

Just because it is not unusual for ogvernment to interfere with each other doesn't mean we should be ok with it happening, and in fact encourage it.

If we find out that the USSR was spying on us and compromising our scientists, for example, we don't say "OH well, we do the same! Don't do anything to stop it! And lets use it to our poltiical advantage, and even ask them to do it some more!"

No, we send in our own services to combat it, and work hard to minimize their ability to effect us, even while we try to effect them.

I am not pissed off at Putin, I am pissed off at Americans whose sense of loyalty and patriotism is so thin that they are willing to actually support our enemies over fellow Americans because they have fallen for the hate message of the right so thoroughly.

[viper37]

Gentlemen how can we sit here and bicker amongst ourselves when we should be uniting against the common enemy?

You're absolutely right.  But we can't seem to agree on who's our common ennemy...

[Valmy]

there's no point of me, for example, posting a frown face re: sessions, because everyone else is doing it and it's no fun. if everyone loved trump, I'd probably post about sessions.

So basically you would be raising these obnoxious contrarian ideas regardless of how we felt about Trump

[LaCroix]

of course not

[Valmy]

of course not

You just said that if we loved Trump then you would pivot and start attacking him.

[viper37]

Gentlemen how can we sit here and bicker amongst ourselves when we should be uniting against the common enemy?

The Judean People's Front?

That's actually a pretty good idea.  Contrary to other groups, if it's one thing Jews are good at, is constantly being blamed for everything wrong in a country.

[alfred russel]

What is interesting is how far our standards have fallen.

Pre-Trump, even the suggestion that they did this would result in vehement disavowal by any credible Republican candidate. Even the suggestion that they were being aided by Valdimir Putin would be *much* more damaging than any amount of actual aid they would get, and hence they would speak out strongly to disavow that aid.

Could you imagine what McCain would say in Trump's place?

But should it? The US is internationally relevant--presumably almost every country on earth perceives some interest in one candidate or the other being elected. A lot of countries probably wanted Hillary to win. If it comes out Egypt and Mexico planted stories obtained through covert means to harm Trump, should that have damaged Hillary? My pov--no.

He would not respond to clear evidence that Putin is hacking government servers in order to damage a political figure by verbally blowing Putin.

Well that is the problem with taking the side of Trump in any discussion. He seems to work so hard to make any defense of him untenable.

I am not pissed off at Putin, I am pissed off at Americans whose sense of loyalty and patriotism is so thin that they are willing to actually support our enemies over fellow Americans because they have fallen for the hate message of the right so thoroughly.

So if a voter was inclined to vote for Trump, they should have voted for Clinton because Putin hacked the DNC and had embarrassing stuff sent to Wikileaks? I don't get it.

[viper37]

It's like Berkut knows my thoughts before I even think them

What if you clarified your thoughts on Trump's future government instead of letting Berkut (and others) define it for you?

You think it will be a net positive for America?  A net negative?  A great long term boost to your economy?  What do you think is the direction America should be headed toward to?  I mean, specifically, not just "cut services and lower taxes".  It seems to me, in the past, you cheered for Republicans when balancing the budget and paying the debt seemed the absolutely most important thing do to do, but now, the candidate your party has chosen is proposing to massively increase the US debt with public spending and a reduction of exports and that seems totally fine by you.

I am a tad confused.  And always willing to engage in political dialogue with non crazy opponents.

[Eddie Teach]

of course not

You just said that if we loved Trump then you would pivot and start attacking him.

He's so contrarian he's not even willing to agree that he's being contrarian. 

[Admiral Yi]

So basically you would be raising these obnoxious contrarian ideas regardless of how we felt about Trump

Accusing others of overegging the pudding is a defensible point of view.

[Valmy]

So basically you would be raising these obnoxious contrarian ideas regardless of how we felt about Trump

Accusing others of overegging the pudding is a defensible point of view.

It is contrarian and impossible to counter or address unless he makes points we can talk about. The vague 'oh but you need to to give him a chance' 'I agreed with you but now that Trump has won we all need to be different' just seems like it is designed to shut us up rather than give us anything interesting to think about.

In what way should we be giving him a chance? He has a chance. We are only talking about what he was already done. If he has a differing view on those things Trump has done then great, that would actually stimulate discussion not shut it down.

[Admiral Yi]

It is contrarian and impossible to counter or address unless he makes points we can talk about. The vague 'oh but you need to to give him a chance' 'I agreed with you but now that Trump has won we all need to be different' just seems like it is designed to shut us up rather than give us anything interesting to think about.

In what way should we be giving him a chance? He has a chance. We are only talking about what he was already done. If he has a differing view on those things Trump has done then great, that would actually stimulate discussion not shut it down.

Sure, his language and his thinking often lack precision.  He is from North Dakota.

[Berkut]

What is interesting is how far our standards have fallen.

Pre-Trump, even the suggestion that they did this would result in vehement disavowal by any credible Republican candidate. Even the suggestion that they were being aided by Valdimir Putin would be *much* more damaging than any amount of actual aid they would get, and hence they would speak out strongly to disavow that aid.

Could you imagine what McCain would say in Trump's place?

But should it? The US is internationally relevant--presumably almost every country on earth perceives some interest in one candidate or the other being elected. A lot of countries probably wanted Hillary to win. If it comes out Egypt and Mexico planted stories obtained through covert means to harm Trump, should that have damaged Hillary? My pov--no.

If on finding out that Egypt engaged in illegal espionage in the US with the intent on helping Clinton, Clintons response was to remark on how smart they are, and suggest some more good targets for their espionage, and then followed it up bvy hiring someone who was best friends with the leaders of Egypt and has spoken out against sanctions on Egypt and in support of ending those sanctions....then surely that might suggest that it should maybe possibly be damaging to Clinton amongst people who actually give a shit about America more than Egypt?

He would not respond to clear evidence that Putin is hacking government servers in order to damage a political figure by verbally blowing Putin.

Well that is the problem with taking the side of Trump in any discussion. He seems to work so hard to make any defense of him untenable.

That is because defending him IS untenable. He is in fact a complete and total douchebag, and without question the worst human being to ever get near the White House.

He is a despicable human being. Forget what kind of President he might be for the moment. He is the kind of man you would not want anywhere near anyone you cared about.

I don't even understand the *desire* to defend a man who thought he was pretty awesome for being allowed to walk into teenaged girls dressing rooms while they were undressed because it was his pageant.

I am not pissed off at Putin, I am pissed off at Americans whose sense of loyalty and patriotism is so thin that they are willing to actually support our enemies over fellow Americans because they have fallen for the hate message of the right so thoroughly.

So if a voter was inclined to vote for Trump, they should have voted for Clinton because Putin hacked the DNC and had embarrassing stuff sent to Wikileaks? I don't get it.

They should vote for Clinton because Trump ASKED Putin to hack the DNC and was perfectly willing to use foreign intelligence services for his own political ends.

And if they had decided that Clinton having her own email server was so bad that they should vote for Trump anyway, they should recognize after the fact that Trump refusing to listen to his own intelligence agencies and deciding that no evidence possible would be enough to convince him of the truth outside what is most convenient for him to believe is a good indicator that that was a pretty terrible mistake.

[Eddie Teach]

Sure, his language and his thinking often lack precision.  He is from North Dakota.

Wasn't that fancy law degree supposed to fix that though?

[LaCroix]

Sure, his language and his thinking often lack precision.  He is from North Dakota.

Wasn't that fancy law degree supposed to fix that though?

with posts on an internet board, I'm more likely to fire off a post without carefully examining its language 

valmy, I don't intend to shut down conversation. but if explaining why tillerson might not be a sleeper agent shuts down conversation, then the conversation prob wasn't worth having in the first place