President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.

POLL: What do you think about the Trump presidency so far?

 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23813
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by Josh »

Bootstrap wrote:
Josh wrote:Good grief. Bork?

Can you guys ever let anything go?
Josh, could you please stop this whole "you guys" thing? I supported Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, I gather you did too. It sounds like Bork is an emotional issue for you, but I assume that's because his nomination was rejected. That's not what we are discussing in this thread. I feel like you keep responding by ignoring what I said, picking out some word or phrase, and using it as a red flag to tell people I am the wrong kind of person. I wish you would stop doing that. I don't demand that you reveal your voting record or paint you as a political extremist, and I try to respond to what you say, I wish you would return the favor.

I was writing about Nixon, who wanted to fire Archibald Cox when when Cox issued a subpoena of White House tapes. To me, that rhymes with Trump saying he would fire Mueller if Mueller investigated his finances in an investigation where financial transactions may well be the most important kind of evidence. Nixon used the same kind of power tactics to try to control the investigation that Trump is using now. The reason I used Bork's version of the story is that Bork was there and wrote a book telling us what happened. I trust Bork's account on this.
I stand corrected, Boot. It’s not that it’s emotional for me, but it’s that I hear a lot of left wing dog whistling from you. I’m probably more sensitive to it since I used to be in that wing.

I feel like I’m creating more heat than light in this thread. For someone who doesn’t vote and who spends a lot of time trying to build bridges with left wing leaning people, I don’t feel like I’ve accurately represented my values or goals here at all.
0 x
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by Dan Z »

Nice correction there Josh.

Actually, I think we've all done pretty well in this thread so far...including you. I know sometimes it gets frustrating when others just don't get what we get, but if we can't talk to people of other perspectives on MN, where can we?

I see the poll is almost completely balanced now. In some ways I like that. Honestly, it is helpful to hear each other out with open hearts and minds, even if in the end we remain unconvinced. I believe it is important that we as followers of Jesus at least understand each other - especially since our commitment to Christ is our common ground and our highest allegiance. And by communicating openly, and honoring the perspectives of our brethren, we open the door to personal enlightenment, and to growing closer to each other - which is part of what being the body of Christ is all about.
  • Eph 4:2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16275
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by temporal1 »

one thing i hope to witness in my lifetime:
retiring the present “game” mentality of “winning” by a point, or a few.
for basketball, ok. whatever.

but, in politics, in my view, it needs to end.

“winning” by such small margins is not much of a win.
basically, it means, approximately HALF did not vote for you.
when margins of error are considered, AND, people changing their minds, what, exactly, have you won?

in the past, there was emphasis on, “the election is over, now, i must represent ALL the people.”
this was key to what made the U.S. a good place to be. when obama was first elected, a statement like this was in his first speech. i had faith in him to abide by that. over years, i was disappointed.

i have no idea if this change will happen.
i pray so.
i believe Trump grasps the importance, altho, this is never acknowledged in biased media.
will he be successful in bringing much needed balance to reporting?
i pray so.

he’s certainly got a lot of people in agreement, and, it’s nothing new!

i recall my parents grumbling about media opinions in the 50-60’s.
they often looked at the TV, saying, “just air the speech!” WE will decide what we think he’s saying! WE do not want you to tell us what to think!

from that, now we have 24-7 opinions, speculation, accusations, name calling, threats, scare tactics, you name it! - none of which are news. it’s not possible to discern news from entertainment.

but, this notion of “winning” by 1 point. no.
when it’s so close, nothing has been decided. ignoring that will not work for very long.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by Robert »

Dan Z wrote:I see the poll is almost completely balanced now.
After the state of the union address last night, I voted mostly positive, so your balance is off again.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by haithabu »

My concern about the Mueller investigation is that its origins appear to be specious, its mandate open-ended and its purpose suspect. It may be that its members are operating professionally, without fear or favour and without any bias or expectation as to the outcome - but if they are, they must be the only Democrats in the country who don't see it primarily as a tool to bring the Trump administration to a premature end.

Boot, you say that there is enough smoke that there should be an investigation as to whether there is a fire. Fair enough, but I have to say that I see an awful lot of smoke machines working away in the media and among leakers in the State/DoJ/FBI departments, not to mention Democratic politicians. The "dodgy dossier" is a good example of the manufactured smoke, and it appears to be the original sin that first gave the Russian collusion narrative legs and even now continues to be at its centre. Partisan animosity against Trump, both within the intelligence community and without it, has done the rest.

So we may agree that there is likely a fire beneath the smoke, but we differ as to the nature of the fire. A good dose of sunlight and transparency is called for, and a stiff wind to clear away the smoke. Maybe we'll know more tomorrow.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by Bootstrap »

haithabu wrote:My concern about the Mueller investigation is that its origins appear to be specious, its mandate open-ended and its purpose suspect. It may be that its members are operating professionally, without fear or favour and without any bias or expectation as to the outcome - but if they are, they must be the only Democrats in the country who don't see it primarily as a tool to bring the Trump administration to a premature end.
Bob Mueller was appointed by the Trump Administration. So were Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray. James Comey was a lifelong Republican who was appointed Deputy Attorney General by the Bush Administration, but he withdrew from the Republican party and became an independent some time in 2016. Who are these Democrats you are talking about?

Do you trust Trump-appointed officials to conduct this investigation? I think we should let them do their work.

As far as I can tell, the "origins" of the Russian investigation started with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who was drinking with an Australian diplomat in London and May 2016 and bragged that Russia had dirt on Clinton. It's not clear whether he mentioned the Clinton emails or not, but he had been told that the Russians had them. British intelligence informed the FBI. That led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016, looking at Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Trump's associates conspired with them.

Trump appointee Christopher Wray testified before the House Judiciary Committee, which asked him about this, said things like this:
There is no finer institution than the F.B.I. and no finer people than the men and women who work there.
I am emphasizing in every audience I can inside the bureau that our decisions need to be made based on nothing other than the facts and the law and our rules and our processes and our core values and not based on any political considerations by any side of the aisle


When invited to attack Mueller and Comey, he did not. Instead, he said this:
My experience has been that Director Mueller is very well respected within the F.B.I.
I don't remember anybody claiming that the FBI was a liberal institution before this investigation. Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies usually skew conservative. There was a paper on this in 2014, where the researchers asked federal executives to rate the agencies they work with the most, asking them this question:
In your opinion, do the policy views of the following agencies tend to slant liberal, slant conservative, or neither consistently in both Democratic and Republican administrations?
The FBI was one of the 10 most conservative agencies in government, not much different from the CIA, a little more conservative than Customs and Border Control. Here are the 10 most liberal and 10 most conservative:

Image
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by Bootstrap »

haithabu wrote:Boot, you say that there is enough smoke that there should be an investigation as to whether there is a fire. Fair enough, but I have to say that I see an awful lot of smoke machines working away in the media and among leakers in the State/DoJ/FBI departments, not to mention Democratic politicians. The "dodgy dossier" is a good example of the manufactured smoke, and it appears to be the original sin that first gave the Russian collusion narrative legs and even now continues to be at its centre. Partisan animosity against Trump, both within the intelligence community and without it, has done the rest.

So we may agree that there is likely a fire beneath the smoke, but we differ as to the nature of the fire. A good dose of sunlight and transparency is called for, and a stiff wind to clear away the smoke. Maybe we'll know more tomorrow.
I can't comment on the memo until it comes out, and I'll probably give it time to hear people across the political spectrum weigh in before I say anything about it.

But Trump-appointed FBI director Christopher Wray has seen the memo, and he issued this statement:
The FBI takes seriously its obligations to the FISA Court and its compliance with procedures overseen by career professionals in the Department of Justice and the FBI. We are committed to working with the appropriate oversight entities to ensure the continuing integrity of the FISA process.

With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.
So Trump's FBI director is calling the memo a lie, Trump's Justice Department is saying that releasing it is extremely reckless, and Trump himself decides to release it? If you don't trust the Department of Justice, the FBI, or the State Department, then who should investigate to see whether these allegations are true? If you don't trust the Trump appointees leading these agencies, do we simply have to believe whatever the president says?

The memo was released by the House Intelligence Committee, where only two members were able to see the underlying intelligence, which is classified. One of them was Devin Nunez, who wrote the memo, and who had to recuse himself last year after being caught working closely with the White House, introducing "intelligence" that the White House gave him, and was investigated by the House Ethics Committee for this. The other was Adam Schiff.

The memo is not yet public, but the meeting that voted to release it has transcripts that are worth reading. Here's what Schiff said:
Adam Schiff wrote:I want to begin by expressing my alarm at where we are in this committee.
I have served on the committee for 10 years now. This is the first time we have sought to declassify highly sensitive information for a political reason. It is, I think, a terrible line to cross.
Do you really consider Devin Nunez a neutral party in this who should be trusted instead of the Trump-appointed officials who are conducting this investigation? He was caught working closely with the White House to influence the investigation a year ago, was investigated by the House Ethics Committee, and had to temporarily recuse himself. He refused to answer whether he had worked with the White House on this memo.

The Trump Administration appointed Bob Mueller, let him conduct his investigation. It's called the rule of law. Even the president is subject to the law, and even the president can be investigated.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by Bootstrap »

OK, the memo is out. My first response? I think Benjamin Wittes got this right:
@benjaminwittes wrote:Buckle up folks: It's going to be a very long day. Remember to love your neighbor, particularly the one you are most inclined to hate.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by haithabu »

Bootstrap wrote:
haithabu wrote:Boot, you say that there is enough smoke that there should be an investigation as to whether there is a fire. Fair enough, but I have to say that I see an awful lot of smoke machines working away in the media and among leakers in the State/DoJ/FBI departments, not to mention Democratic politicians. The "dodgy dossier" is a good example of the manufactured smoke, and it appears to be the original sin that first gave the Russian collusion narrative legs and even now continues to be at its centre. Partisan animosity against Trump, both within the intelligence community and without it, has done the rest.

So we may agree that there is likely a fire beneath the smoke, but we differ as to the nature of the fire. A good dose of sunlight and transparency is called for, and a stiff wind to clear away the smoke. Maybe we'll know more tomorrow.
I can't comment on the memo until it comes out, and I'll probably give it time to hear people across the political spectrum weigh in before I say anything about it.

But Trump-appointed FBI director Christopher Wray has seen the memo, and he issued this statement:
The FBI takes seriously its obligations to the FISA Court and its compliance with procedures overseen by career professionals in the Department of Justice and the FBI. We are committed to working with the appropriate oversight entities to ensure the continuing integrity of the FISA process.

With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.
So Trump's FBI director is calling the memo a lie, Trump's Justice Department is saying that releasing it is extremely reckless, and Trump himself decides to release it? If you don't trust the Department of Justice, the FBI, or the State Department, then who should investigate to see whether these allegations are true? If you don't trust the Trump appointees leading these agencies, do we simply have to believe whatever the president says?

The memo was released by the House Intelligence Committee, where only two members were able to see the underlying intelligence, which is classified. One of them was Devin Nunez, who wrote the memo, and who had to recuse himself last year after being caught working closely with the White House, introducing "intelligence" that the White House gave him, and was investigated by the House Ethics Committee for this. The other was Adam Schiff.

The memo is not yet public, but the meeting that voted to release it has transcripts that are worth reading. Here's what Schiff said:
Adam Schiff wrote:I want to begin by expressing my alarm at where we are in this committee.
I have served on the committee for 10 years now. This is the first time we have sought to declassify highly sensitive information for a political reason. It is, I think, a terrible line to cross.
Do you really consider Devin Nunez a neutral party in this who should be trusted instead of the Trump-appointed officials who are conducting this investigation? He was caught working closely with the White House to influence the investigation a year ago, was investigated by the House Ethics Committee, and had to temporarily recuse himself. He refused to answer whether he had worked with the White House on this memo.

The Trump Administration appointed Bob Mueller, let him conduct his investigation. It's called the rule of law. Even the president is subject to the law, and even the president can be investigated.

You have made what I believe are some errors in fact in your post. I have put them in bold.

You ask whether you should trust your elected representatives who have been given oversight over the intelligence community as against the intelligence community itself?

In a democracy there is only one proper answer to that question.

As I said earlier, we need much more disclosure and transparency in this whole matter. The FBI has not impressed me with its active opposition to the process.
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: President Trump: A MennoNet Poll

Post by Wayne in Maine »

There's nothing like a discussion of global warming or Donald Trump (and formerly, Barak Obama) to find out where someone gets their talking points from and where one's heart really is.

Just saying...
0 x
Post Reply