Trump/Putin disaster summit. And also overseas visit w/ NATO & UK.

[Calthrina950]

This is actually an issue that I agree with Trump on. I don't think it is too unfair to ask all of the various NATO nations to contribute their fair share to the organization's overall defensive budget. Of course, if I were President, I would be making efforts to deal with our national deficit and adjust our own military spending. Yes, the United States should continue in its role as the primary force in this alliance, but asking others to contribute as they should isn't that ridiculous of an idea.

[Calthrina950]

This is actually an issue that I agree with Trump on. I don't think it is too unfair to ask all of the various NATO nations to contribute their fair share to the organization's overall defensive budget. Of course, if I were President, I would be making efforts to deal with our national deficit and adjust our own military spending. Yes, the United States should continue in its role as the primary force in this alliance, but asking others to contribute as they should isn't that ridiculous of an idea.

Except who decides what they should? The US, with its bloated defense establishment, or NATO as a whole?

I would argue NATO as a whole should. I don't think Trump's confrontational style is the best means to approach this, but it is a legitimate issue that should be looked into. And I did mention in my post that if I were in office, I would be taking steps to reorganize our military and to make it more efficient.

[Calthrina950]

Every person who voted for Trump in 2016 and still supports him today despite this event is now a traitor to the country.

This is too extreme. I wouldn't write off every Trump voter like this. To be clear, I don't support how Trump has handled this situation with Russia (and of course, I didn't vote for either major-party candidate in 2016). But to write off people in this manner is over the top in my view.

[Calthrina950]

Every person who voted for Trump in 2016 and still supports him today despite this event is now a traitor to the country.

This is too extreme. I wouldn't write off every Trump voter like this. To be clear, I don't support how Trump has handled this situation with Russia (and of course, I didn't vote for either major-party candidate in 2016). But to write off people in this manner is over the top in my view.

The Republican Party has written off entire swaths of the American voting public since Obama was elected. Most of these Trump supporters deserve to be written off...they could care less about accommodating even the genuine concerns of the other side.

I would agree that many of Trump's supporters cannot be reasoned with, and that many of them buy nonstop into the conspiracy theories and other nonsense that circulates constantly in our political environment. And I am also aware that many in the Democratic base have been, and continue to be, demonized by Republicans. But I don't think applying blanket terms to all of a party's voters is helpful. It only makes things worse.

[Calthrina950]

Every person who voted for Trump in 2016 and still supports him today despite this event is now a traitor to the country.

lol

Yeah, that's quite hyperbolic. The truth is that the blue avatars are vapid, useful idiots... but not traitors.

Agreed. Honestly even though I’m as outraged as he is I’m close to putting Special k on ignore

I'm dismayed by Trump's performance today, and Trump isn't being as firm towards Russia as he should be, but accusing him (and tens of millions of Americans) of treason over this is ridiculous. We are not at war with Russia.

You don't have to be officially "at war" with another nation (like Russia) in order to commit treason.

Treason as defined by the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

This is the strict Constitutional definition, and though I don't approve of Trump's behavior at the meeting with Putin, I think that the claims of him being a traitor are way overblown. Many of the same individuals who are accusing Trump of treason are the same ones who wish for his impeachment. And of course, I am aware that former President Obama had to deal with the same sort of thing from those in the Republican base. But either way, it is overblown and out of proportion to the situation at hand.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1018908769969934336

"Deeply troubled" Republican releases meaningless statement and continues to do absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem, part 9750.

True, she should abandon her beliefs on taxes!!

This. Just because one criticizes Trump or dislikes him does not mean that they should abandon their core political beliefs.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1018908769969934336

"Deeply troubled" Republican releases meaningless statement and continues to do absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem, part 9750.

True, she should abandon her beliefs on taxes!!

This. Just because one criticizes Trump or dislikes him does not mean that they should abandon their core political beliefs.

Doesn't mean she should continue to turn a blind eye to Trump's treason.

What Trump did at the meeting was wrong, but it does not rise to the level of treason. Until we have definitive proof that Trump actively colluded with the Russian Government or did anything else criminal, I will not call him a traitor, nor will I demand his impeachment.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1018908769969934336

"Deeply troubled" Republican releases meaningless statement and continues to do absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem, part 9750.

True, she should abandon her beliefs on taxes!!

This. Just because one criticizes Trump or dislikes him does not mean that they should abandon their core political beliefs.

Where did anyone say anything about "abandoning beliefs on taxes" or "their core political beliefs." The passage is about what trump did today. And the post made by the Atlas member in question, is commenting on attempting to fix (with more vigor from GOP in Congress) that specific problem.

What I said is exactly relevant. Many other posters on here have complained about how Republicans (i.e. Jeff Flake), have criticized much of what Trump has said and done, but have nevertheless voted in line with their party within Congress. This post falls into that general theme. And the responses made to it weren't out of line. I agree that the Mueller probe needs to given as much support as possible, and additional steps taken against Russia. But mocking statements of condemnation, as many have done here, isn't the best way to approach it. Rather then mock on some online forum, people should be petitioning their representatives and organizing.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1018908769969934336

"Deeply troubled" Republican releases meaningless statement and continues to do absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem, part 9750.

True, she should abandon her beliefs on taxes!!

This. Just because one criticizes Trump or dislikes him does not mean that they should abandon their core political beliefs.

Doesn't mean she should continue to turn a blind eye to Trump's treason.

What Trump did at the meeting was wrong, but it does not rise to the level of treason. Until we have definitive proof that Trump actively colluded with the Russian Government or did anything else criminal, I will not call him a traitor, nor will I demand his impeachment.

Take a couple more Happy Pills Calthrina.
No one is forcefully pressing that you "call him a traitor, or demand his impeachment."
Just breath.

Fine. I'm tired of dealing with your mocking attitude. On to my ignore list you go.

[Calthrina950]

https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1018908769969934336

"Deeply troubled" Republican releases meaningless statement and continues to do absolutely nothing to actually fix the problem, part 9750.

True, she should abandon her beliefs on taxes!!

This. Just because one criticizes Trump or dislikes him does not mean that they should abandon their core political beliefs.

Doesn't mean she should continue to turn a blind eye to Trump's treason.

What Trump did at the meeting was wrong, but it does not rise to the level of treason. Until we have definitive proof that Trump actively colluded with the Russian Government or did anything else criminal, I will not call him a traitor, nor will I demand his impeachment.

Jesus.

Are people really being this willfully obtuse?

Not obtuse at all. I've been following the Mueller investigation in the news, but I want to see it proceed through all its work, and for all the facts to come out, before I jump to conclusions. I don't want to be demanding impeachment or calling Trump a traitor until the information has emerged explicitly implicating him in unlawful or criminal activity. I don't agree with what Trump did at the Putin meeting today, but it does not rise to the standard that many on here think it does. Trump is misguided, and I do believe that he is hiding something. But what he said at the conference cannot be construed as treason, as our Constitution defines it.

[Calthrina950]

Every person who voted for Trump in 2016 and still supports him today despite this event is now a traitor to the country.

lol

Yeah, that's quite hyperbolic. The truth is that the blue avatars are vapid, useful idiots... but not traitors.

Agreed. Honestly even though I’m as outraged as he is I’m close to putting Special k on ignore

I'm dismayed by Trump's performance today, and Trump isn't being as firm towards Russia as he should be, but accusing him (and tens of millions of Americans) of treason over this is ridiculous. We are not at war with Russia.

You don't have to be officially "at war" with another nation (like Russia) in order to commit treason.

Treason as defined by the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

This is the strict Constitutional definition, and though I don't approve of Trump's behavior at the meeting with Putin, I think that the claims of him being a traitor are way overblown. Many of the same individuals who are accusing Trump of treason are the same ones who wish for his impeachment. And of course, I am aware that former President Obama had to deal with the same sort of thing from those in the Republican base. But either way, it is overblown and out of proportion to the situation at hand.

Just because some Republicans wanted Obama impeached and now some Democrats want Trump impeached does NOT mean they had equally (in)valid claims for doing so. Whataboutism will only carry an argument so far.

Whataboutism? I was merely stating that both sides have engaged in this kind of rhetoric, and I don't condone such calls until we have legitimate proof that Trump himself engaged in collusion or in unlawful, criminal acts. Yes, many individuals have been indicted, pleaded guilty, or are facing criminal charges. But until it is demonstrably proven that Trump himself committed an impeachable offense, I will not support these calls.

[Calthrina950]

Every person who voted for Trump in 2016 and still supports him today despite this event is now a traitor to the country.

lol

Yeah, that's quite hyperbolic. The truth is that the blue avatars are vapid, useful idiots... but not traitors.

Agreed. Honestly even though I’m as outraged as he is I’m close to putting Special k on ignore

I'm dismayed by Trump's performance today, and Trump isn't being as firm towards Russia as he should be, but accusing him (and tens of millions of Americans) of treason over this is ridiculous. We are not at war with Russia.

You don't have to be officially "at war" with another nation (like Russia) in order to commit treason.

Treason as defined by the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

This is the strict Constitutional definition, and though I don't approve of Trump's behavior at the meeting with Putin, I think that the claims of him being a traitor are way overblown. Many of the same individuals who are accusing Trump of treason are the same ones who wish for his impeachment. And of course, I am aware that former President Obama had to deal with the same sort of thing from those in the Republican base. But either way, it is overblown and out of proportion to the situation at hand.

Just because some Republicans wanted Obama impeached and now some Democrats want Trump impeached does NOT mean they had equally (in)valid claims for doing so. Whataboutism will only carry an argument so far.

Whataboutism? I was merely stating that both sides have engaged in this kind of rhetoric, and I don't condone such calls until we have legitimate proof that Trump himself engaged in collusion or in unlawful, criminal acts. Yes, many individuals have been indicted, pleaded guilty, or are facing criminal charges. But until it is demonstrably proven that Trump himself committed an impeachable offense, I will not support these calls.

Yes, our intelligence agencies' united unswerving opinion that Putin interfered in the US election, the fact our own intelligence agencies uniformly considered him to be compromised by the Kremlin, combined with numerous indictments and guilty pleas from the Mueller investigation, Trump's established covering evidence by demanding "loyalty" from Comey when discussing the investigation, and now his publicly refuting our nation's intelligence agencies in favor of the KGB's assessment, etc. etc. etc. etc. are ABSOLUTELY the same as the "rhetoric" far right wingers raised for impeachment because--well, basically because they didn't like him.

And in your mind because a jury has not yet convicted Trump beyond a reasonable doubt, you find the two "comparable".

Yes, dude, this is the textbook definition of whataboutism. As are a majority of your posts for that matter.

Fine. I don't have to deal with this anymore. I am also adding you to my ignore list. It grows longer and longer.

[Calthrina950]

All of this putting people on ignore is pretty silly.  Man up, people!

When people are insulting you, you shouldn't have to put up with it. And I rather put people on ignore then get into long and drawn out arguments with them. I've had too many of those during my time on the Internet.

[Calthrina950]

I’ve been holding my tongue so, so well for the last 2 years, but that’s it - everyone has to go, down to the local Republican Dog-Catcher.

I wont vote for the GOP candidate in the House this year

but I will vote for them at the Gubernatorial level and Senate Level in 2020(I really dont like Merkley)

So your convictions end at the point you'd have to support a centre-left democrat

Once again, disliking or criticizing Trump does not mean that you have to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

[Calthrina950]

I’ve been holding my tongue so, so well for the last 2 years, but that’s it - everyone has to go, down to the local Republican Dog-Catcher.

I wont vote for the GOP candidate in the House this year

but I will vote for them at the Gubernatorial level and Senate Level in 2020(I really dont like Merkley)

So your convictions end at the point you'd have to support a centre-left democrat

Once again, disliking or criticizing Trump does not mean that you have to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

Never trump means NEVER.

Not in my view it doesn't. Only hard-line ideological extremists (such as many of the users on this website) would adhere to such a stance.

[Calthrina950]

Never trump means NEVER.

Not in my view it doesn't. Only hard-line ideological extremists (such as many of the users on this website) would adhere to such a stance.

I'm sorry, but how is that? If you support the president 50% of the time, you are not a "Never Trump" voter, because you sometimes vote for him. "Never Trump" implies total opposition. That's not extremism; that's what the word "never" means.

If on a regular basis, we saw a significant minority of Congressional Republicans (say 30-40%) breaking ranks to vote against the administration on key issues, then maybe you could make the argument that voting to reelect Republican Congresspeople is not incompatible with the "Never Trump" label. The issue is, we don't see that. On each of the landmark votes of this presidency, there has never been any question that all but a handful of Republicans will vote with the administration—AHCA failed by one vote in the Senate, with 49 of 52 Republican Senators voting in favor. With a tiny handful of exceptions, Congressional Republicans aren't calling for the ouster of the leadership or general opposition to the administration as a matter of principle. They may have a few quibbles with this or that policy, but it's clear that for them, the benefits of having Trump in the White House outweigh the costs. Ergo, if you're voting for a Republican candidate for House or Senate this fall, in all probability that candidate is going to vote with the administration 90% of the time, whatever personal problems they may have with the president or his rhetoric.

Simply put, there is no anti-Trump caucus within the Congressional GOP when it comes to policy or official action. A handful of Republicans have said or implied that Trump is unfit to continue as president; most either embrace him, or continue to support him despite his being 'rough around the edges.' If being "Never Trump" doesn't mean voting against the administration, what does it mean? Making a strongly-worded statement when he cozies up to the Russians? Expressing disapproval at a healthcare bill you ultimately vote for? If your distaste for Trump is personal rather than political, that may be perfectly reasonable—but then you're not "Never Trump," you're "Sometimes Trump." Those are not the same thing.

It seems by their actions that the vast majority of Republicans actually do agree with Trump on the vast majority of issues—in which case it makes perfect sense to continue to vote for and with him on those issues. If you look at his dealings with Russia, his policies on immigration and national security, and his actions on financial and environmental deregulation and see nothing wrong, great: continue to vote for Republican candidates and vote to reelect him in 2020. But if you actually believe his presidency is a threat to American democracy, if you actually believe his continued presence in office does lasting harm to our republican institutions, then voting to reelect a Congressional majority that has demonstrated it will do nothing to oppose that beyond the occasional strongly worded statement betrays either a weakness of conviction or an absence of principle.

In 1864, War Democrats broke ranks with their party to vote for Abraham Lincoln—a man with whom they had significant political differences on race, slavery, and economic policy—because they believed his opponent's election posed an existential threat to American democracy. That is what a "Never ____" movement looks like. If you're not willing to break ranks and vote for a candidate you might be less than happy with to oppose the administration, then you have clearly decided the benefits of that administration's conduct outweigh the costs. Again, that's fine if that's what you believe—but don't then call yourself a "Never Trump" voter, because that's not what you are.

Some of the other posts made in response to this did a good job of expressing what my response would be. My view is that just because you oppose Trump himself, or dislike him, does not mean that you should abandon your political beliefs or your ideological principles. You can still be a conservative Republican and not be a full-throated acolyte or supporter of his. What you and many of the other Democrats on this forum seem to want is for every "Never Trumper" to completely abandon the Republican Party, to become registered Democrats, and to completely shift their ideological views on every issue.

Why should that be a necessary move to take? That one must go from being a conservative Republican to a liberal Democrat, espousing viewpoints and supporting policies that are completely opposite to what you previously believed, just because of one President? The Democratic political view is not the only view that one must adhere to, but unfortunately, many of the people on this forum seem to think that anyone who is not in complete favor of that view is somehow evil.