Excellent piece detailing Russian/Trump relationship in Washington Post

[_Chap]

... maybe I'm not sure what it means to "support" an elected official.

I think that for most people we could get what amounts to a meaningful answer to that question by asking them to respond to an enquiry like this, which focuses on the binary choice posed in an election:

"Now you have seen the performance of this person in the office to which they were elected, how would you answer these questions:

(A) If you voted for this candidate, do you now think it would have been better if you had voted for the candidate of the opposing party who presented themselves at that election?

(B) If the answer to (A) was 'No", and knowing what you now do about the person's performance in office, do you think that you might now have voted for the opposition had their candidate been different from the one who actually presented themselves?

(C) Assuming it to be possible, do you think it would be better if the person in office were to leave that office and hand over to the designated successor, either voluntarily or involuntarily?"

[_subgenius]

... maybe I'm not sure what it means to "support" an elected official.

I think that for most people we could get what amounts to a meaningful answer to that question by asking them to respond to an enquiry like this, which focuses on the binary choice posed in an election:

"Now you have seen the performance of this person in the office to which they were elected, how would you answer these questions:

(A) If you voted for this candidate, do you now think it would have been better if you had voted for the candidate of the opposing party who presented themselves at that election?

(B) If the answer to (A) was 'No", and knowing what you now do about the person's performance in office, do you think that you might now have voted for the opposition had their candidate been different from the one who actually presented themselves?

(C) Assuming it to be possible, do you think it would be better if the person in office were to leave that office and hand over to the designated successor, either voluntarily or involuntarily?"

I disagree with all the nonsense you have thrown together here. None of this speaks to supporting or not supporting an elected official....especially the fantasy fortune telling associated with an absurd notion of buyer's remorse.

Voting for Trump does not imply blind allegiance to every policy he proposes. And "support" does not require as much.

[_Philo Sofee]

Subgenius
No, and I can't think of any reason why I would under those circumstances. But the same answer would apply if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump was eating babies...or french kissing Nancy Pelosi.

Well maybe all he was doing was grabbing her pussy. You still support him after he said that on camera? Really? WTF will it take before you see the light about Trump? Just askin.

[_Chap]

... an absurd notion of buyer's remorse.

What is absurd about the idea that a person who has voted for a certain candidate might, having seen the candidate perform in office, think that they would have done better to have voted otherwise?

Voting for Trump does not imply blind allegiance to every policy he proposes. And "support" does not require as much.

Whoever said it did?

Of course, an individual Trump supporter might end up behaving more or less as if that was in fact the case. There do seem to be some people like that around ...

I wonder why subgenius has such a problem about the extremely common and well understood kind of normal political speech that follows the pattern 'X supports candidate/office holder A'. He seems very anxious to avoid using it either positively or negatively in reference to Trump. Why?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is worth the read, to include clicking on the sources.

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... y/drt7it3/

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

A Florida Rep outright called for an ideological purge at the FBI yesterday:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 982610001/

This got a lot of negative press because he actually used the word "purge" while that's left implied by many others. So in an interview with CNN addressing this he double-downed on his comments and called for even assistants and paralegals at the DoJ to be examined for their political beliefs to purge anyone with Democrat sympathies.

Meanwhile, the Trump admin is openly moving to purge the civil service to install loyalists, which is a surefire way to weaponize federal law enforcement to protect cronies and to harass and discredit political enemies. Trump's not even a little bit subtle about openly admiring despots who have done similar things in their countries and his desire to pursue it in ours.

That's bright-line authoritarianism and as sure of a sign as any that the country is falling into illiberalism ala places like Turkey and Poland. It's happening inch by inch.