(THREAD) Here is an experiment that those who are so inclined can try with Trump supporters among their family, friends, or people online. Note: I take no responsibility for lost friendships or family breakups.
1/ Ask them the following.
—- start —
There is a man who is in financial difficulty. He needs to get a loan and can't one. He has worked with a woman and she has become successful. He knows she is very close friends with a decision maker at a bank.
2/ He tells the woman that he wants her to talk to her friend at the bank and get him a loan. The woman knows he is not a good credit risk and that she would basically have to lie to her friend in order for the loan to be granted.
3/ She tells the man that she cannot do what he wants her to do. He then proceeds to try to ruin her life. He stops working with her and tells people who are considering working with her that they shouldn’t. She loses her home and her husband leaves her.
4/ The man takes every opportunity to kick her while she is down and rejoices that he was able to help ruin her life. Over multiple years, he goes out of his way to make her life miserable.
What is your opinion of the man?
-— end —-
5/ At this point things can go multiple ways. Maybe your Trump supporter is a horrible person. Maybe they are generally a good person. Depending on their answer, you could ask whether they would hire a person like this.
6/ Or how they would feel if one of their children did something like the man did. Eventually you can tell them about Trump (or his chosen writer) putting basically this story in one of his books.
8/ People can decide for themselves whether to ask something like this at a family gathering. It could lead to a major fight, so maybe not, but some are braver than others.
9/ My personal experience online is that Trump supporters may realize that the man in the story is a scoundrel, but they don’t care when it turns out to be Trump's story.
10/ Some "Christians" can pretty much find a verse for anything, so they can just find one that says it is great to put scoundrels in charge of countries. Just don’t get them started on scoundrels they don’t like.
11/ They may never stop telling you how bad some of the people they don’t like are, since their pastor and/or Fox News told them so.
12/ I recall seeing a video with @kayleighmcenany from before she became a Trump fan where she was complaining about how reality TV was so bad she couldn't show it to her kids. If she heard this story now, I bet she wouldn't care one iota.
@danielsgoldman I hope people know that this isn’t the first time that Trump has tried to overturn a lawful election through revolution. He did it in 2012, but failed to get anybody killed that time. This time he did get people killed.
That time the “lie” was that Romney won the popular vote:
🔹“We should have a revolution in this country!”
🔹“Let’s fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice!”
🔹“revolution!”
🔹“We should march on Washington and stop this travesty.”
Sick that Republican Senators will help Trump do more.
@danielsgoldman 3/ How many coup attempts is too many for a Democrat? How many coup attempts is too many for a Republican?
Trump has already tried 2 coup attempts (the 1st failing because he couldn’t get it off the ground). How many coup attempts before there should be consequences?
1/ I would love it if the Democratic prosecutors for Trump’s impeachment trial went full bore on offense right out of the gate with something like:
2/ “We will be presenting our case to you, the American people. Technically the jury is in this room, but when this is over you are likely to see that the majority of the Republican Senators here are spineless people who don’t care if Trump is guilty.”
3/ “You, the American people, will get to see the evidence showing that Trump is guilty. If the Republican Senators choose to ignore the evidence and vote to acquit Trump because that is what they would do no matter what, you get to be their jury when they run for re-election.”
A group of rich businessmen are driving through the desert when they happen upon a man dying of thirst.
Some want to leave the man, some want to take him with them and nurse him back to health. but the majority agrees to give him 3 bottles of water.
2/ When the thirsty man hears he is getting 3 bottles of water, and sees them, he knows it isn’t enough, but he is so looking forward to that water, as he had thought he was going to die any minute.
3/ Then 1 rich businessmen decides to upstage the others. He tells the thirsty man that he will get 10 bottles of water, not 3.
2/ @JonathanTurley then took that and decided to make a whole thread attacking @PreetBharara based on Turley cutting off the “reasonable conclusion” and replacing it with his own “now clear”:
3/ Notice that in his 2nd tweet in his thread Professor Turley relies on his apparent lie in his first tweet to do it again, falsely claiming that @PreetBharara declared “Period” with no room for doubt. Clearly not true:
(THREAD) I see that Trumpsters still don’t understand how the OLC memo saying presidents cannot be indicted was relevant to the Mueller Report, or they fake that they don’t understand. I think the report was clear about this for part 2.
1/ Paraphrasing, the explanation in the Mueller Report comes down to:
“If we determine there clearly was no crime we will say so. If there was a crime, we will not say that, because the OLC memo means that we will not determine there was a crime, regardless of evidence.”
2/ That does not contradict Mueller explaining that he was not saying that, but for the OLC memo, they would say Trump committed a crime. The OLC memo created a barrier, such that they would not say Trump committed a crime, even if the evidence was overwhelming.
@SunshineNikki4@RickkidtchThoer 92/ Another example of the kind of people Trump has to get support from. @pax4pax responded (but not directly) to a tweet I made mentioning that there was a quid pro quo by Trump's team, by claiming that this was not reality. I responded here:
93/ That response from me included a pic of Trump ogling a minor child. @pax4pax claims to be a Christian, and they criticize people, yet @pax4pax decided that they wanted to defend Trump's pedophilic actions. That is above my response here:
@pax4pax 94/ Later @pax4pax claimed to be a Constitutionalist, even as they do whatever they can for a guy who falsely claims that article 2 allows him to do whatever he wants. @pax4pax tried similar, claiming that Trump did nothing wrong because he makes policy: