Sunshine Jesse

Fact check on your own and don't rely on a site for it. You're not going to convince anyone otherwise because nobody that needs convincing trusts any of the websites involved. ...and for good reason, honestly.

Unless he actually thinks he can do this, it just seems like pandering. It's almost as if he doesn't realize how divisive he really is. There's no way this would sit well with people who aren't already supportive of it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm content not knowing for sure. Trying to figure it out on my own is much more fun these days, especially given who it's from. thanks umineko

Senpai in the streets, kawaii in the sheets.

I have questions I want to answer and answers I don't want to question

This is great until you realize that he's under no obligation to be fully honest. There's almost no chance that Trump wouldn't be able to be nailed for perjury if he's ever put in a situation where he could due to how bad he is with deflecting blame.

I don't know why you found this necessary, but I appreciate your bravery if nothing else.

Vla1ne got to it first so I'll try to get the threads merged. I didn't refresh the page lmao I'm not expecting YCM to actually give me a decent discussion on this, but it's worth a shot.

There's nothing saying you have to believe in the morality you leverage. There's nothing wrong with leveraging it for the sake of victory, because winning is all that matters in the end. Republican politicians do it all the time and built their whole party on it to great success. The problem is when that lack of true belief makes you unable to properly argue for it, rendering you unable to convince anyone on the fence. Why is this so important, you may ask? And why do Republicans get to operate under such a different standard? I'll explain: Republicans have tethered their party to religion (...and abortion), giving them an "easy out," as (both) are things people can believe strongly in. Democrats have no such luxury. Their party has no true moral foundation that's "easy" to believe in strongly like religion is. The party is almost entirely powered by short-sighted compassion and guilt. Religion is tried and true, and has (in broad strokes) withstood the test of time as something people can believe in. As a result, anything a Republican politician fails at is just (supposedly) a failing on the end of the person, not the set of standards they're supposed to adhere to. Anything a Democrat fails at weakens the (nonexistent) Democratic "ideology" in general, because it shows that said ideology offers no real guidance and can't be relied upon. Morality is nothing more than a set of goals and standards one adheres themselves to. It's a kind of "higher power" that gives people guidance. The collective, abstract "America" no longer offers such guidance, so people on the fence will vote for whoever promises that guidance, whether it's right or wrong. To put it as simply as I can: Religion= Defined, "trustworthy." Offers guidance. Not-religion= Not defined. No evidence to suggest it offers guidance. Needs to be adhered to in order to convince people it does. Ergo: Republicans= Strong. Democrats= Weak. This is why having the moral high ground is important in politics. It's not the only factor, but it's a hell of a lot bigger than people like to give it credit for. It's not more important than winning. It's a useful tool to aid in victory when properly utilized alongside other ones.

A lot of people lack confidence in ideas (in general, not just their own) and tether their support to morality as a result. It's important to appeal to these people as long as their opinion matters. Republicans have a natural advantage at that due to how deeply intertwined religion is into the general framework of the party, giving people inherent incentive to follow them- even at the expense of morality in other aspects- so Democrats need to pick up the slack in other areas. It's not actually a losing strategy as long as Democrats can display a consistent morality, but uhhh... they certainly haven't lately, to say the least.

I'm going to speak in more abstract terms, so forgive me if I stop making sense somewhere along the way. While whoever makes up the "majority" and the "minority" does make a pretty big difference, the American political system (or Democracy in general I guess) is just a game between x number of groups to convince the uncertain that one side is the correct one. Or, more accurately, it's a game to solidify the abstract into something that the masses can have faith in (for some perspective, this is something that religion has already succeeded at). Anyone who doesn't realize this isn't fit to lead in a Democratic society. The Russia investigation is just another play in that game, and i don't think it's doing the job it needs to do. It's the kind of play that only works from a position of strength, and the Democrats have done nothing but weaken themselves thanks to things like the DACA fiasco. The Democrats need to make moves that work from a position of weakness, and that people can immediately relate to and understand. This is not one of those plays. Impeachment on a figure as strong as Trump is an action that only the truly apathetic can't form an opinion on, and it's an action that doesn't truly affect anything that the common man cares about. The truth has become muddled, vague, and at times, incoherent, and the Russia investigation, so far, is not clear enough to be a beacon for anyone who wasn't already looking in its direction. It's not an anchor that drags people towards the "correct" decisions. It might win the Democrats a lot of seats, but it still won't make them strong enough (in the abstract sense, not the political one) to properly act without tipping the uncertain over the edge. Tipping people over the edge is exactly what leads people to political extremism, because it causes them to define truth in absolutes rather than maybes, and extremism is counterproductive in a Democratic society. The masses lack the perspective needed to handle extremism with the care it deserves, because extremism becomes dangerous the moment you don't have the ability to view things from enough differing perspectives. We'll get extremes on one side, extremes on another side, and a bunch of people who don't give a sheet as the only ones left to vote. It's not worth it. Also, for some perspective, Trump's mindless sycophants are only like that because they've lost their faith in America and are desperately looking for someone to restore it, so they've placed their faith in someone who clearly defined truth for them (whether it was the actual truth or not). I'd advise treating them with a little more respect, because people like us have done nothing but shake that faith ever since the last election season started. You're not arguing in a way that's conductive towards allowing or encouraging people to find the actual truth on their own, which is the only way they can grasp it. You're arguing in a way that forces them to define it before they're truly ready. I don't think you view the law in the same way I (or a lot of people in politics) do. It's an abstract concept, not an objective standard. It's something that only works if people have faith in it and its interpretation. They attach the truth of the law to whoever makes it most clear to them, and attacking that person does more harm than good. The idea of the law has become so weak in the eyes of American citizens that there's no value in enforcing it outside of raw pragmatism anymore.

Alright. Since you have an okay enough basis for this, I'm going to dig a bit deeper and tell you what I actually think. I do think there's cause to impeach Trump. My argument doesn't come from what's "right." My argument is that it's not pragmatically justifiable to impeach him. If it wasn't truly about pragmatic justification, the Democrats could've attempted to impeach him over the Emoluments Clause shortly after he entered office, then obstruction of justice, and knowing Trump, he's going to perjure himself if he ever talks to Mueller. They would've failed, but they absolutely had reason to attempt it back then. The problem is that none of those were a strong enough argument to sway the common man because they don't give a sheet about that, and neither is this. The country is so divided that impeaching him over something so nebulous would do far more harm than good, as there's an inconsistent narrative surrounding it that makes it easy for a reasonable person to deny. We need something so huge and critical that it sways every reasonable person, so that it's actually justifiable to said reasonable people to use force to crack down on anyone who tries to retaliate. Trump is absolutely that polarizing. There are a lot of people that support him strongly enough that they place more faith in him than anyone else's interpretation of the law, and even more people that are confused enough to kind of buy those who do. If the confused people aren't swayed, they're more likely to shift in the direction we don't want them to, which could be very, very bad if people are even half as energetic towards him as Fox News loves tell us. If it doesn't get violent (it probably won't), it's still incredibly likely to cause a massive political shift in an even more extreme direction. More and more people are growing sick of the system in general (instead of just the people who run it), so they're much more likely to retaliate against the whole thing. And I don't think America (or the world) is actually ready for either extreme of the political spectrum to be applied to us given our current political and cultural mindset, where we're both immensely divided and don't truly value critical thought or success beyond short term gains. I know this is veering into tinfoil hat territory but I think it's the kind of thing that's too likely to risk happening. or maybe i'm vastly overestimating how divided we are lol

Okay Roxas, I'm going to reach for the stars and try to redpill you in a single sentence: Collusion with someone who isn't explicitly defined as an enemy isn't illegal, most forms of financial corruption aren't illegal (shoutouts to Saudi Arabia and Israel), and election meddling is something that we, as a country, do on the regular and have no moral high ground to judge people based off of. What's there to nail Trump for, again? And what would the point even be?

There's very likely financial corruption that leaves Trump beholden to Russian oligarchs, but such things are so pervasive throughout politics that it's pointless to even try to nail him for it. Sure, it's bad, but he's just a figurehead for the country, and the true problem lies in congress doing such things. I just want this investigation to end already. It's not going to get anything productive done unless something legitimately huge is discovered.