What line would Trump have to cross for him to be a non-viable candidate?

GreekOrthodox · Jun 3, 2020

RocksInMyHead said:
@hislegacy Seeing as you're one of the more ardent Trump supporters on this site, I'm curious what line he would have to cross for you to disavow him.

Well, Trump did say, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."

hislegacy · Jun 3, 2020

RocksInMyHead said:
@hislegacy Seeing as you're one of the more ardent Trump supporters on this site, I'm curious what line he would have to cross for you to disavow him.

Sure, thank you for asking - in no particular order

Raised taxes
Reinstated Obama Care
Stopped the Border Wall
Re-entered the old trade agreements
Supported Abortion
Stopped supporting the second amendment
reinstituted crushing regulations on businesses
stopped putting America first

IOW reversed the positions where I agree and support him.

hislegacy · Jun 3, 2020

GreekOrthodox said:
Well, Trump did say, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."

All you have to do is present someone better, who stands for things the right supports - got anyone?

GreatLakes4Ever · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
All you have to do is present someone better, who stands for things the right supports - got anyone?

Isn’t there something like 50 or so Senators, around 200 members of the House, and 20 some state governors who supports what the right supports? Are none of them better than Trump?

jayem · Jun 3, 2020

Aryeh Jay said:
Well someone liked him or he would have never been on the $100 bill.

Not to be nit-picking, but Abe is on the $5. And also the penny. Ben Franklin is on the C-note.

Carry on.

Hank77 · Jun 3, 2020

tall73 said:
People should reject both and vote third party.

I did that last time, I won't be doing it this time.

RocksInMyHead · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
Sure, thank you for asking - in no particular order

Raised taxes

Reinstated Obama Care

Stopped the Border Wall

Re-entered the old trade agreements

Supported Abortion

Stopped supporting the second amendment

reinstituted crushing regulations on businesses

stopped putting America first

IOW reversed the positions where I agree and support him.

So, to clarify, your reasons for supporting him are purely policy-based? There is nothing that he could do from a moral standpoint that would change your decision to vote for him? Even to vote for a third party?

SimplyMe · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
if you really feel the need to cuss at us, there can be no civil discourse.

There was no tear gas used,

At least that is what a spokesman for the Park service claims, one that (so far as I can ascertain) was not at the "clearing." At the same time, he did admit that smoke bombs and pepper spray were used, so I think even if they did not use tear gas -- using those other gasses instead -- we can say it is a distinction without a meaningful difference. They used chemical weapons (non-lethal chemical weapons, but chemical weapons) to clear the square.

hislegacy · Jun 3, 2020

RocksInMyHead said:
So, to clarify, your reasons for supporting him are purely policy-based? There is nothing that he could do from a moral standpoint that would change your decision to vote for him? Even to vote for a third party?

A third party, whose candidate supported those policies, and had a chance of winning? Yes, I would consider such a candidate. And yes, I am pretty much policy based.

The moral question - Did Mr. Clinton having sex with a young intern while his wife and daughter slept upstairs change your support for him? Or were you policy based?

Is the President a moral person, not as moral as some make him to be and not as immoral as others make him to be. Do I appreciate and support his actions? Not many, personally (and I have said this since day one), I wish he would just shut up most times. Do I like his womanizing - nope not at all. Was he my first choice? No.

There just isn't anyone better overall. And in my opinion still isn't.

Hank77 · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
Was he my first choice? No.

Who was your first choice?

hislegacy · Jun 3, 2020

Hank77 said:
Who was your first choice?

Ted Cruz

RocksInMyHead · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
A third party, whose candidate supported those policies, and had a chance of winning? Yes, I would consider such a candidate. And yes, I am pretty much policy based.

The moral question - Did Mr. Clinton having sex with a young intern while his wife and daughter slept upstairs change your support for him? Or were you policy based?

Is the President a moral person, not as moral as some make him to be and not as immoral as others make him to be. Do I appreciate and support his actions? Not many, personally (and I have said this since day one), I wish he would just shut up most times. Do I like his womanizing - nope not at all. Was he my first choice? No.

There just isn't anyone better overall. And in my opinion still isn't.

I was 7 the last time Mr. Clinton was up for reelection, so I didn't really have an opinion on the matter.

And I wasn't speaking to my own views or making any judgments, just trying to clarify yours. Like you, I also make my decisions primarily on policy.

Yttrium · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
The moral question - Did Mr. Clinton having sex with a young intern while his wife and daughter slept upstairs change your support for him?

It certainly affected my opinion of him, although I already strongly suspected that he was a womanizer. His lie about it also influenced my opinion of him. Didn't matter though. I never voted for him in the first place, and he wasn't up for re-election.

I certainly respect sticking to your policy standards, and supporting Trump because of that. Trump's positions on most things aren't far off my own. On the other hand, I don't really respect defending Trump's behavior in office, which has generally been reprehensible. (It's a very long list.)

hislegacy · Jun 3, 2020

SimplyMe said:
At least that is what a spokesman for the Park service claims, one that (so far as I can ascertain) was not at the "clearing." At the same time, he did admit that smoke bombs and pepper spray were used, so I think even if they did not use tear gas -- using those other gasses instead -- we can say it is a distinction without a meaningful difference. They used chemical weapons (non-lethal chemical weapons, but chemical weapons) to clear the square.

Democratic leaders on Monday seized on reports the Park Police used tear gas against protesters in Washington D.C.'s Lafayette Square before President Trump walked through the area to visit St. John's Church, but officials said neither the police nor any other law enforcement agency used the chemical. Park Police did acknowledge using smoke canisters and pepper balls on the protesters, which are sometimes more broadly defined as tear gas.

“As many of the protesters became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls when protesters did scatter from the area," the statement said.

"It’s said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on," Trump 2020 spokesman Tim Murtaugh said in a statement. "This tear gas lie is proof of that. For nearly an entire day, the whole of the press corps frantically reported the ‘news’ of a tear gas attack on ‘peaceful’ protestors in Lafayette Park, with no evidence to support such claims. We now know through the U.S. Park Police that neither they, nor any of their law enforcement partners, used tear gas to quell rising violence."

Yttrium · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
Democratic leaders on Monday seized on reports the Park Police used tear gas against protesters in Washington D.C.'s Lafayette Square before President Trump walked through the area to visit St. John's Church, but officials said neither the police nor any other law enforcement agency used the chemical. Park Police did acknowledge using smoke canisters and pepper balls on the protesters, which are sometimes more broadly defined as tear gas.

“As many of the protesters became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls when protesters did scatter from the area," the statement said.

"It’s said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on," Trump 2020 spokesman Tim Murtaugh said in a statement. "This tear gas lie is proof of that. For nearly an entire day, the whole of the press corps frantically reported the ‘news’ of a tear gas attack on ‘peaceful’ protestors in Lafayette Park, with no evidence to support such claims. We now know through the U.S. Park Police that neither they, nor any of their law enforcement partners, used tear gas to quell rising violence."

You know, when you say the press is lying about the tear gas, and that the police used stuff that amounted to the same thing as tear gas, it comes off as quibbling.

SimplyMe · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
Democratic leaders on Monday seized on reports the Park Police used tear gas against protesters in Washington D.C.'s Lafayette Square before President Trump walked through the area to visit St. John's Church, but officials said neither the police nor any other law enforcement agency used the chemical. Park Police did acknowledge using smoke canisters and pepper balls on the protesters, which are sometimes more broadly defined as tear gas.

“As many of the protesters became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls when protesters did scatter from the area," the statement said.

"It’s said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on," Trump 2020 spokesman Tim Murtaugh said in a statement. "This tear gas lie is proof of that. For nearly an entire day, the whole of the press corps frantically reported the ‘news’ of a tear gas attack on ‘peaceful’ protestors in Lafayette Park, with no evidence to support such claims. We now know through the U.S. Park Police that neither they, nor any of their law enforcement partners, used tear gas to quell rising violence."

Thanks for supporting my point that you were wrong, that "Park Police did acknowledge using smoke canisters and pepper balls on the protesters, which are sometimes more broadly defined as tear gas." (per your quote)

So the press accounts that "tear gas" was used is not false, since the smoke canisters and pepper balls are defined as types of "tear gas."

RocksInMyHead · Jun 3, 2020

Yttrium said:
You know, when you say the press is lying about the tear gas, and that the police used stuff that amounted to the same thing as tear gas, it comes off as quibbling.

Especially when the initial reports were coming from the people actually experiencing it. It's not like they could do a detailed chemical analysis of the irritants they were being subjected to. They were subjected to clouds of gas and smoke that made them tear up and cough. Therefore, tear gas.

GoldenBoy89 · Jun 3, 2020

Chesterton said:
Yes. If the president today had the same lax security they had then, Madonna would have already blown up the White House, and Kathy Griffin would have already beheaded him.

What a shame.

lasthero · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
Democratic leaders on Monday seized on reports the Park Police used tear gas against protesters in Washington D.C.'s Lafayette Square before President Trump walked through the area to visit St. John's Church, but officials said neither the police nor any other law enforcement agency used the chemical. Park Police did acknowledge using smoke canisters and pepper balls on the protesters, which are sometimes more broadly defined as tear gas.

“As many of the protesters became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls when protesters did scatter from the area," the statement said.

"It’s said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on," Trump 2020 spokesman Tim Murtaugh said in a statement. "This tear gas lie is proof of that. For nearly an entire day, the whole of the press corps frantically reported the ‘news’ of a tear gas attack on ‘peaceful’ protestors in Lafayette Park, with no evidence to support such claims. We now know through the U.S. Park Police that neither they, nor any of their law enforcement partners, used tear gas to quell rising violence."

Do you even read the things you link?

TOPLINE

After a storm of criticism, the Trump campaign on Tuesday argued that police officers didn’t use tear gas on a group of protesters the day before in Lafayette Square before the president appeared for a photo-op—but that appears to not be false: police did admit to using a pepper irritant, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control classifies as a type of tear gas.

What’s next, you’re going to tell us that the CDC is wrong? Tear gas isn’t tear gas? Please, impress me with your mental gymnastics. You’ve been putting on some good ones, lately.

Hank77 · Jun 3, 2020

hislegacy said:
Ted Cruz

But you wouldn't support Cruz today?

What line would Trump have to cross for him to be a non-viable candidate?

Psalti Chrysostom

Memories pre 2021

Memories pre 2021

Well-Known Member

Naturalist

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Senior Veteran

Memories pre 2021

Well-Known Member

Memories pre 2021

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Independent Centrist

Memories pre 2021

Independent Centrist

Senior Veteran

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

We're Still Here

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads