[Winstonm]

 jjbrr, on 2017-December-07, 12:59, said:

Trump made a campaign promise to be an idiot?

[jjbrr]

 PassedOut, on 2017-December-07, 13:19, said:

I find that folks with weak character tend to express their views indirectly. Your post here seems indirect. A word to the wise.

This post has been on a wild ride

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-07, 09:04, said:

I found the article helpful but troubling.



This reminds me of the message attributed to an aide from George W. Bush era - that when we act we create our own reality.

At least for those who are immersed into the right-wing "community", the quote is accurate, and that is both frightening and sad.

The article uses the term a "real conservative". What exactly does that political ideology entail? And how does that differ from a RINO?

If a Republican compromises with the Democratic Party on important legislation, is he RINO because he isn't an obstructionist going for an all-or-nothing mentality?

We are indeed in the midst of a culture identity and political ideology war. It will get worse as we grind down to a service economy full of lower wage prospects. Financial insecurity and mediocre job prospects for the displaced will cultivate a climate of fear which is great for propaganda.

[Al_U_Card]

In the struggle for power and control, zealotry fueled by polarization is old hat. This thread exemplifies the us/them meme. Issues can only be addressed when common ground and interests are explored and exploited. Castigation and vituperation only serve to exacerbate the gulf that separates us from each other. Do unto others etc.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-07, 15:53, said:

Trump made a campaign promise to be an idiot?

Those who keep their promises and agreements are easier to trust in future dealings, idiots or not. Do you not feel that it is important to keep promises and agreements?

[RedSpawn]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-December-07, 16:28, said:

In the struggle for power and control, zealotry fueled by polarization is old hat. This thread exemplifies the us/them meme. Issues can only be addressed when common ground and interests are explored and exploited. Castigation and vituperation only serve to exacerbate the gulf that separates us from each other. Do unto others etc.

All of this manmade chaos results from our refusal to believe that we all are a part of each other. When a man's ideology or politics differ from his neighbor, he assumes the neighbor has a genetic or mental defect. This labeling and separation heightens the divisiveness and undermines national unity.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-07, 20:49, said:

Those who keep their promises and agreements are easier to trust in future dealings, idiots or not. Do you not feel that it is not important to keep promises and agreements?

So by that logic, it would be wrong for Trump to

1. Pull out of the Paris Climate Accord
2. Break a treaty that the US signed with Iran
3. Pull out of NAFTA
4. Break long standing US policy regarding the status of Jerusalem

It was incredibly stupid of Trump to have ever made this promise to his base.

Once he did so, he put himself in a position of either

1. Breaking his word to his base
2. Breaking the US's commitments to the world

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-07, 21:24, said:

So by that logic, it would be wrong for Trump to

1. Pull out of the Paris Climate Accord
2. Break a treaty that the US signed with Iran
3. Pull out of NAFTA
4. Break long standing US policy regarding the status of Jerusalem

1. First, Trump did not make an agreement to abide by the Paris Climate Accord. In fact I remember that he campaigned against it. Second, although I do not know the details, most such agreements have a process for exiting the agreement. In this case the agreement was never ratified by Congress. Third, do you really subscribe to the notion that a country's leaders are bound by the agreements of previous leaders. If it is not codified into law by the Congress and signed off on by the President, then it is not binding on the US as a nation.

2. I believe that the allegation is that Iran is/was not living up to the agreement. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

3. NAFTA has specific procedures for withdrawing from the agreement, which procedures the US is following. "Pulling out" of the agreement was built into the agreement.

4. Long standing US policy is no justification for continuing a process that is not working. No or very little progress has been made in the peace talks for many years. And the action just implements a law passed by Congress in 1985, I believe. Presidents since then have been promising to take this action but have not had the balls to do so. Apparently Trump does.

Tell me, do you believe in divorce for married couples who no longer get along with each other? Or, having once made the agreement, the couple is stuck for life.

[jjbrr]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
10:31 AM - 14 Jun 2016

Quote

President Trump's press secretary said her boss would have no problem with businesses hanging antigay signs that explicitly state they don't serve LGBT customers.

Tell us more about people of integrity, ldrews.

[Winstonm]

The tactic is lame and getting old: I've heard that he is still beating his wife. Do you have any evidence he's not beating his wife?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-07, 22:05, said:

1. First, Trump did not make an agreement to abide by the Paris Climate Accord. In fact I remember that he campaigned against it. Second, although I do not know the details, most such agreements have a process for exiting the agreement. In this case the agreement was never ratified by Congress. Third, do you really subscribe to the notion that a country's leaders are bound by the agreements of previous leaders. If it is not codified into law by the Congress and signed off on by the President, then it is not binding on the US as a nation.

I consider it far more important that a country live up to its promises than I do any individual president or party.
The US has a change in administration every 4-8 years. One would hope that the country itself would last longer.

Previous Presidents have had the good sense not to randomly contradict long standing US policies in fits of pique.

Quote

2. I believe that the allegation is that Iran is/was not living up to the agreement. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Lets see

A. The Secretry of State is on record as testifing that Iran is meeting its treaty obligations
B. The Secretary of Defense is on record as testifying that Iran is meeting is treaty obligations
C. Various members of the NSC have testified that Iran is meeting its treaty obligations

<And of course, all of the other counter parties to the treaty>

That seems like a really really good start

Quote

3. NAFTA has specific procedures for withdrawing from the agreement, which procedures the US is following. "Pulling out" of the agreement was built into the agreement.

We're arguing about should, not "can"

Quote

4. Long standing US policy is no justification for continuing a process that is not working. No or very little progress has been made in the peace talks for many years. And the action just implements a law passed by Congress in 1985, I believe. Presidents since then have been promising to take this action but have not had the balls to do so. Apparently Trump does.

I want a President with a brain, not "balls"...

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-08, 05:03, said:

I consider it far more important that a country live up to its promises than I do any individual president or party.
The US has a change in administration every 4-8 years. One would hope that the country itself would last longer.

Previous Presidents have had the good sense not to randomly contradict long standing US policies in fits of pique.



Lets see

A. The Secretry of State is on record as testifing that Iran is meeting its treaty obligations
B. The Secretary of Defense is on record as testifying that Iran is meeting is treaty obligations
C. Various members of the NSC have testified that Iran is meeting its treaty obligations

<And of course, all of the other counter parties to the treaty>

That seems like a really really good start



We're arguing about should, not "can"



I want a President with a brain, not "balls"...

You did not answer my question: Do you believe in/support divorce?

[Zelandakh]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-08, 05:03, said:

A. The Secretry of State is on record as testifing that Iran is meeting its treaty obligations
B. The Secretary of Defense is on record as testifying that Iran is meeting is treaty obligations
C. Various members of the NSC have testified that Iran is meeting its treaty obligations

Background links: A, B, C and D (Britain, France, Germany and the IAEA).

It is more than this though. The POTUS is required to report every 90 days on whether Iran is complying with the JCPOA and in the previous reviews (April and July) this was indeed confirmed.

Indeed the compliance is not really at question, with the most being claimed that Iran is not living up to the "spirit" of the agreement, whatever that means. The 90 day report given by the POTUS states that in addition to compliance “suspension of sanctions [is] appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program” as well as “vital to the national security interests of the United States.” This is the area where DT gets enough wriggle room to refuse certification.

Let us keep an open kind though - it might be that Trump is trying to sabotage the JCPOA for the simple reason that Obama signed it, however reluctantly, and it was subsequently seen internationally as somewhat successful. On the other hand there really is some longer-term plan behind the move. If there is and it works out well I will give him credit for the decision; until then the evidence suggests that this is a risky and dangerous move and perhaps something that should have been discussed with other Western allies before committing to it.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-08, 07:05, said:

You did not answer my question: Do you believe in/support divorce?

Conservatives frequently seem to confuse the US government with some kind of family "family"...
This normally happens with the budget process, but here's a bizarre example when you are trying to conflate a divorce with treaty obligations.

So, simply put, I see no point in wasting time answering your question. It doesn't lead anywhere productive.

Why not focus on actual facts instead

You claimed

" I believe that the allegation is that Iran is/was not living up to the agreement. Do you have evidence to the contrary?"

Zelandakh and I posted all sorts of information showing that your "beliefs" are not in accordance with reality.

Does this impact your beliefs in any way, shape, or manner?

[Zelandakh]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-08, 07:05, said:

You did not answer my question:

And you didn't answer my question, twice:

 Zelandakh, on 2017-December-02, 18:20, said:

if I am aware that someone I know has committed a felony and not only choose not to report it but also actively attempt to derail the investigation, that is going to land me in some very hot water. When the POTUS does it, is it just carrying out the duties of the Executive branch?

 Zelandakh, on 2017-December-04, 03:33, said:

I notice he still has not commented on the apparent admission from DT that he knew of Flynn's felony at the time of trying to prevent the investigation. Perhaps he would prefer to take up that theme.

This is not an isolated incidence. Indeed it is so common that I would not normally call you out on it but you seem to be in a mode where you want to call others "evasive". That is hypocritical enough to take the time to look up the previous quotes. I am sure other posters can find half a dozen or more similar cases where you have simply avoided commenting and chosen instead to troll on a different subject.

Sadly Winston is right on this - it is lame and it does get old.

[Winstonm]

Back to the thread....

Regardless of belief to the contrary, Congress doesn't care about what happens to Donald Trump - each individual member only cares about his own re-election and whether or not his party can hold onto power as Republicans or regain power as Democrats. The issue for Congress and Donald Trump is how he will affect the midterms and the 2020 elections. And it is always important to keep in mind that impeachment is a political action that needs no actual criminal statute violation.

This, then, becomes quite relevant information:

Quote

A new national Pew Research Center poll released Thursday shows that President Donald Trump’s approval rating is declining among demographic groups that previously gave him relatively high numbers, particularly among evangelicals.

According to Pew, Trump’s approval rating among white evangelical Protestants dropped 17 percentage points from February to December, down from 78 percent to 61 percent. Eighty-one percent of white evangelical voters backed Trump in the 2016 presidential election, NPR reported.

Though the decline was not as steep, Trump’s approval rating also dropped among adults 50 and older (from 47 percent to 38 percent) as well as among whites (49 percent to 41 percent). As Axios noted, Trump’s approval rating had either remained the same or dropped among every demographic group Pew polled.

The survey was conducted Nov. 29 to Dec. 4 among 1,503 participants nationwide, a period during which Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. According to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll taken in the wake of Flynn’s plea, half of Americans thought the ties between Russia and Trump’s team were a legitimate issue.

Trump’s approval rating has been hitting record lows throughout his first term in office, and Pew’s latest survey is no exception. It found that 32 percent of respondents approved of Trump’s job performance while 63 percent disapproved.

Although this is only one polling service, it does show a troubling trend for a loss of right-wing support of Trump. When these number drop to the point of scaring the bejesus out of Republican incumbents and the RNC, the pressure to oust Trump may overcome the attempts to obfuscate and misdirect. At that point, even Sean Hannity will be impotent.

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-08, 07:05, said:

You did not answer my question: Do you believe in/support divorce?

Perhaps only as a last resort, especially if there are other parties who might be negatively affected. It should not be done capriciously, like to keep a misguided promise.

If we're going to use stupid analogies, how about: If we made "Strangers on a Train" promises to kill each others' wives, would you really fault me for coming to my senses and breaking my promise?

[jjbrr]

 barmar, on 2017-December-08, 10:23, said:

Perhaps only as a last resort, especially if there are other parties who might be negatively affected. It should not be done capriciously, like to keep a misguided promise.

If we're going to use stupid analogies, how about: If we made "Strangers on a Train" promises to kill each others' wives, would you really fault me for coming to my senses and breaking my promise?

Right, a couple might even consider listening to the advice of trained professionals, those who have more experience and a different perspective than the couple, before burying any chance of improving things.

[ldrews]

 jjbrr, on 2017-December-08, 10:41, said:

Right, a couple might even consider listening to the advice of trained professionals, those who have more experience and a different perspective than the couple, before burying any chance of improving things.

I infer that you have not been in a failed marriage. The emotional pain is often so high that the parties cannot listen to anyone no matter how professional. Many times the only way out is to sever the relationship.

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2017-December-08, 10:23, said:

Perhaps only as a last resort, especially if there are other parties who might be negatively affected. It should not be done capriciously, like to keep a misguided promise.

If we're going to use stupid analogies, how about: If we made "Strangers on a Train" promises to kill each others' wives, would you really fault me for coming to my senses and breaking my promise?

Agreed. The point I was trying to make is that even for one of our most sacred agreements we recognize that those agreements don't always work out, and we provide a mechanism for breaking the agreement so that the parties can get on with their lives.

Certainly the same principle applies to international agreements as well. If the agreements don't work out or are no longer providing benefits as perceived by the parties, then it is time to break the agreement and move on. Perhaps to another more suitable agreement, or not.