Assuming anyone in office is going to screw you huh, while railing against ( and counseling to take a second look ) those that have learned to take for granted certain people in office are as crooked as the day is long
Gotcha
I strongly disagree with my Representative and suspect he is uncomfortable with the leader of his party while doubting he will stand up to him.
Yet, I really don't think he is out to screw me . Just not smart or savvy enough to get in the front of the herd
And what you call assumptions regarding Trump are more a learned response.
Someone once opined "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on -shame on - wont get fooled again"
Wondering aloud, what has he ever told the truth about? For lords sake, with his "university" he bilked returning vets to the $25M.
He is not allowed to run charity foundations in his home state.
" Assumptions lead to poorly reasoned positions " might in the case of DJT been a viable sentence circa 2012.
What I read you write is giving at every turn DJT the benefit of the doubt.
In a rapid response mode that would bring a smile to Roger Stones face
You can take for granted Trump is crooked if you'd like. That's certainly a legitimate conclusion that can be drawn from available evidence. What I caution against is automatically assigning nefarious intent to everything he does regardless of the available evidence. No one is nefarious in everything they do.
That sheet of paper you posted is a good example. There's nothing about it that indicates any nefarious or honest intent. It's a single data point. Assuming it's innocent is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming it's nefarious is based on nothing other than Trump being involved. Both are poorly reasoned. There's no reason to draw any conclusion. Just file it away as a date point for later reference when more data has been extracted.
As for your rep, he's not out to screw you. He just doesn't care if you get screwed. Almost all holders of public office in DC care only about holding onto their office and expanding their influence. To do this they ally themselves with party leaders and cater to wealthy donors or other special interest groups that can help them. The end result is usually you getting screwed. It's not personal, it's just that your representative would probably sell you as a sex slave to Epstein's ghost if it guaranteed a one point bump in his next election.
You seem to think I'm a fan of Trump who gives him the benefit of the doubt overall. I'm not and I don't. I personally dislike Trump. I think he's a lousy human being and a poor leader. However, I don't let that conclusion I've drawn about him in general lead me to make poorly reasoned conclusions in every issue to do with him. Trump's character is simply one factor to weigh in drawing conclusions.
Also, you seem to think I'm carrying water for Trump. I'm not. But I think this conclusion is symptomatic of what's wrong with American politics. People generally think there are two sides, their side and the wrong side. Once you realize different people have different priorities, motivations, histories, biases, etc, you see that it's more of a spectrum and that very little is black and white.
Let's look at impeachment for example. Many act as if there are only two sides. On the one side you have to believe that Trump did everything alleged for purely evil intentions and should be removed from office. The other side is that Trump is totally innocent and is the greatest President ever. And there is no space between those viewpoints.
My position is more nuanced than that. I currently oppose impeachment but it's not because I'm a Trump fan or am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I believe Trump tried to leverage the Ukraine to investigate and announce it publicly and that this was likely motivated by a desire to get an advantage in the election and harm a political opponent. That fits with what I know of Trump. I also believe Trump held a sincere belief that Biden was corrupt in pressuring the Ukraine to fire that prosecutor. Holding beliefs that benefit him also fits what I know of Trump.
Ultimately, I currently oppose impeachment for several reasons. First, I think if Trump sincerely believed Biden was corrupt, then I don't think he did anything impeachable. A President can leverage foreign powers to investigate corruption. It might be reprehensible how he was trying to turn it to his advantage but I'm very, very hesitant to set a precedent of impeaching a president for that. A president's foreign policy powers are vast and for good reason. I don't want to tie the hands of future Presidents or cause them to hesitate because they're afraid of giving the appearance of personal gain being a motivation for their actions.
If someone from his inner circle defects and reveals it was all purely an attempt to (no pun intended) trump up a bogus investigation to harm Biden, my view may change. But Trump for me, believing that Biden was actually corrupt would be sufficient to reduce this to non-impeachable.
Next, impeaching Trump and failing to remove him from office will further degrade impeachment as a legitimate check on the President's power. I loathe the idea of reducing one of the few legitimate checks on a president to a political tool. The Republicans did ii against Clinton and it was a huge mistake no one has been stupid enough to repeat. I want impeachment as a live threat, not as something that is leveled against a President anytime the opposing party controls the house.
Also, impeachment is an extreme remedy. It's Congress usurping the results of the election system. You don't fire this bullet haphazardly.
If nothing new and crazy emerges from all of this, I think the House should formally censure Trump. Moving forward with impeachment would do nothing but leave Trump in office, further diminish impeachment as a check, and set bad precedent.
