Whistleblower identified

[Cow Poke]

If calling out the lawbreaking Trump has engaged in is actually encouraging more people to vote for him, then we are in big trouble as a country.

I don't think it's "the calling out", Jim. I think it's the entire manner in which the Democrat politicians have gone about this. They seem to be shooting themselves in the foot at every turn.

[One Bad Pig]

Besides, we're not a democracy.

As you are well aware, our national elections are geared toward electoral college votes, not the popular vote. Both sides campaigned precisely that way.

If the election were to have been based on popular vote, no doubt both sides would have run their campaigns accordingly.

What are you doing nattering on about FACTS?!? There's a narrative to support!

[Cow Poke]

Isn't this 'requirement' just you demanding I prove to you that you have some part in this? Doesn't that basically just make my point?

No, Jim, it's not a 'requirement' - or a demand -- it's a request. Perhaps I should have said "please".

You made an accusation, and I asked you for an example - my intent was to see if I, indeed, had distorted your words, in which case I need to, and would, apologize.

If you don't want to work through this, I'm good with that.

[Cow Poke]

What are you doing nattering on about FACTS?!? There's a narrative to support!

I believe this is the very first time in my entire life I have ever been accused of "nattering".


give me a moment, please

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, I believe that was one poll, and it's a bit out of date now. As of today, according to FiveThirtyEight, it's actually less than half...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41207[/ATTACH]

Besides, we're not a democracy.



As you are well aware, our national elections are geared toward electoral college votes, not the popular vote. Both sides campaigned precisely that way.

If the election were to have been based on popular vote, no doubt both sides would have run their campaigns accordingly.

That is something I know and took into account before I made the comment. The point is that Trump has never had the majority of the population for him. He is not a person most people in this country want to be running this country. And that is still the case.

So here we could touch a bit on the element of honesty. Can you admit that the majority of the people in this country that voted in 2016 did not want the man to be president? To me, admitting that before posting a counter point is a big part of being honest. Not acknowledging that truth before bring up the EC exception is at least in part dishonest in that it does not acknowledge the correctness of the point itself. And my point has to do with the fact MM is carrying a lot of confidence about a man that is, in the real, someone most people in this country would rather see go away than continue in his current role.

[lilpixieofterror]

That is something I know and took into account before I made the comment. The point is that Trump has never had the majority of the population for him. He is not a person most people in this country want to be running this country. And that is still the case.

So here we could touch a bit on the element of honesty. Can you admit that the majority of the people in this country that voted in 2016 did not want the man to be president? To me, admitting that before posting a counter point is a big part of being honest. Not acknowledging that truth before bring up the EC exception is at least in part dishonest in that it does not acknowledge the correctness of the point itself. And my point has to do with the fact MM is carrying a lot of confidence about a man that is, in the real, someone most people in this country would rather see go away than continue in his current role.

California didn’t want him. Thank God for the EC since my state’s destruction can be contained within the state.

[Cow Poke]

That is something I know and took into account before I made the comment. The point is that Trump has never had the majority of the population for him. He is not a person most people in this country want to be running this country. And that is still the case.

Nevertheless, Jim, he was elected by the same process by which all US Presidents are elected. This is not "majority rule". That's against our Constitution.

So here we could touch a bit on the element of honesty.

Ah, still seeing me as a liar?

Can you admit that the majority of the people in this country that voted in 2016 did not want the man to be president?

That's an odd way of looking at it, but, technically, sure!

To me that is being honest.

Ya lost me --- I have never said, nor indicated, that the "popular vote" was in Trump's favor.

Not acknowledging that truth before bring up the EC exception is dishonest in that it carries with it the implication the point itself was not correct.

Wow. Jim, it appears you're LOOKING for opportunities to see me as dishonest. I didn't "bring up that truth" because everybody KNOWS Hillary won the popular vote. I've brought it up NUMEROUS times.

Hillary won the popular vote. The entire election is geared toward the electoral college - both sides played it that way.

Jim, I've acknowledged that REPEATEDLY, with the caveat that it's like a baseball team claiming they got cheated out of the World Series because they had the most hits or runners on base even though the other team actually scored more runs.

[Cow Poke]

I see you edited your post after I responded to it (or perhaps during)....

... And my point has to do with the fact MM is carrying a lot of confidence about a man that is, in the real, someone most people in this country would rather see go away than continue in
his current role.

Jim, this is one of the areas where you and I could have a whole lot better relationship if you didn't keep lumping me in with "others". I agree with MM when I think he's right about something, but I'm not him and he is not me.

Addressing your point, though --- we have a legitimate means by getting rid of a President we don't want. It's called an election, which is coming less than a year away.

The other legitimate means is impeachment, which, IMOHBAO, the Democrats are botching big time. There is a way in which they could have handled this that would probably have gained YUGE support of the American people -- more than just the current 48% or whatever it is.

[Sparko]

Sparko - honestly, the only difficulty anyone has with me is after they go nutso bonkers attacking me personally. Most people here go nutso bonkers when I say things they don't like about Trump and they turn their anger on me rather than just discussing the issues. And it boggles my mind that you and others actually take the tack that somehow that is my fault. But it is consistent. I keep asking people to take a step back and ask themselves the question. But I'm going to ask you. Would you please just look at the last 6 pages and the responses that have come my way. Heck, just look at mossross's off the rails response to me in my post in her thread. I didn't attack her. I didn't attack any person in the thread. I simply said I thought the article she posted was a trash piece against Thunberg, and for that she asked me to leave her thread.

This is NOT rational. There is a general intolerance here of any words that I write, and IF I happen to say something negative about a person after being railed three or four posts in a row, THAT comment is taken as justification that the problem is in me.

So if you actually consider yourself a friend of mine, I am asking you. Will you please look at how the conservative people in this forum are responding to my posts and ask yourself if their responses have even a 10% correlation in terms of the amount if personal attacks sent my way with what I actually said in the post itself. And look at it over all, not just a single post after I've been pushed around enough that I respond in kind.

Every single time I post on a new topic, I try to ensure there are NO personal attacks of any kind. Like I said, I did not even get one post in mossy's thread before she lost it. And for nothing, she just didn't like my opinion. Read it, look it over. not one word against any person on this site.

What I see is some people attacking you. Yet you seem to see it as everyone attacking you. THEN you complain about them attacking you while you are calling them names, impugning their integrity and honesty and you perpetuate the cycle. Is that how Jesus wants you to respond? I only ask because you have used that tact in questioning my behavior in the past.

civics is a pretty intense area, where people have strong opinions and will use harsh language, insults, etc. You do it too - that's all I am saying. So just embrace it. Or stop doing it yourself. Because as long as you keep doing it in response, all the while complaining about others attacking you, you sound like a hypocrite and it just ticks people off further, and the cycle continues.

[Mountain Man]

And my point has to do with the fact MM is carrying a lot of confidence about a man that is, in the real, someone most people in this country would rather see go away than continue in his current role.

And yet it's Trump and the Republicans who are breaking fundraising records while the Democrat party is literally bankrupt.

[Cow Poke]

If you can actually demonstrate where I have been hypocritical, Jim, please do so.

ETA: However, I'm sure this just more of your immature goading, trying to provoke an unkind response.

Like I said there's that log thingie. You're criticizing Jim for getting personal, when you do it yourself all the time. As far as I can see, Jim works real hard to restrain himself, much harder than you or I do.

Jim,

For future reference "Hypocrite" actually has a dictionary definition that's not consistent with your petty little accusation:

Definition of hypocrisy

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters. especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion our conventional morality often serves as a cover for hypocrisy and selfishness — Lucius Garvin

It's not about accusing somebody else of doing what you're doing - it's about claiming to be something, and doing something else entirely.
I have never claimed to be "genteel".

[oxmixmudd]

What I see is some people attacking you. Yet you seem to see it as everyone attacking you. THEN you complain about them attacking you while you are calling them names, impugning their integrity and honesty and you perpetuate the cycle. Is that how Jesus wants you to respond? I only ask because you have used that tact in questioning my behavior in the past.

civics is a pretty intense area, where people have strong opinions and will use harsh language, insults, etc. You do it too - that's all I am saying. So just embrace it. Or stop doing it yourself. Because as long as you keep doing it in response, all the while complaining about others attacking you, you sound like a hypocrite and it just ticks people off further, and the cycle continues.

Thanks for the objective look.

[oxmixmudd]

I see you edited your post after I responded to it (or perhaps during)....



Jim, this is one of the areas where you and I could have a whole lot better relationship if you didn't keep lumping me in with "others". I agree with MM when I think he's right about something, but I'm not him and he is not me.

I can try to avoid that and see it makes a difference. You need to be careful though - sometimes you assume I'm 'lumping you in with others' even when I'm not.

Addressing your point, though --- we have a legitimate means by getting rid of a President we don't want. It's called an election, which is coming less than a year away.

The other legitimate means is impeachment, which, IMOHBAO, the Democrats are botching big time. There is a way in which they could have handled this that would probably have gained YUGE support of the American people -- more than just the current 48% or whatever it is.

Maybe, maybe not. We will likely never know. OTOH, I've looked at the evidence, and I've watched the 'pro-Trump' responses to it as evidenced on fox and those posting here (and the articles they reference) and there is nothing I can see from the pro-Trump response side that looks like a rational response to the evidence we've seen so far.

I was listening in a bit on the testimony of the panel of PhD's being interviewed today. And honestly, I don't see how anyone can draw any conclusions other than that he needs to be impeached from the evidence and the historical context in which the impeachment clauses where written and what the terms mean and how they should be understood. So I watch the conclusions drawn by various people on this website as they've posted them and what I see greatly saddens me. There is a massive logical disconnect happening on these pages, but I have no idea how to explain it or correct it.

[oxmixmudd]

And yet it's Trump and the Republicans who are breaking fundraising records while the Democrat party is literally bankrupt.

That is nothing I know much about at this point (how much money is being raised). But fundraising goes to who has the money, and who is motivated to see their ideas win in the next election, not necessarily what the percentage of the voters is.

I would note - however - that conspiratorial thinking and paranoia are great motivators, and there is tons of that on the pro-Trump side of the world.

And on the other, the Democrats are divided and foolishly trying to leverage Trump's insanity as a means to promote their own - Nullifying their intrinsic advantage.

[oxmixmudd]

Nevertheless, Jim, he was elected by the same process by which all US Presidents are elected. This is not "majority rule". That's against our Constitution.



Ah, still seeing me as a liar?

I would point out this is one of the places you are complicit in poisoning the discussion. I clearly did not call you a liar. My point is that there is more to being honest in a discussion that simply 'not lying', and I was trying to give you an honest window into how I use the term and the sorts of omissions that poison a discussion, all in a spirit of good will and good intent. For you to reply as you did above is destructive and contributes not to understanding but to further breakdown of communication.