# If you are carrying water for Donald Trump, even now - especially now - kindly go fuck yourself **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 16, 2017, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710 "2017-05-16T02:20:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/face_intentionally_left_blank/32/288_2.png) [@Face\_Intentionally\_Left\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/361 "2017-05-19T00:22:02Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I don’t care if you’re trolling YouTube and Yahoo comments sections or are on Fox News. > > I don’t care if you are literally believing bullshit or just trying to rationalize things to make yourself feel better. > > It means nothing to me whether your attempts to stick up for the piece of shit POTUS are motivated by your being a Republican and he’s on your team and it’s oh so fun stiggin’ it to the Libs or are because you identify as an Independent (that’s a whole other “fuck you” really) who somehow only seems to come out of your cave when it is to defend some bullshit Trump has said or done, or even if you’re a supposed Leftist who _still_ feels that HRC was a much worse choice, even after all of the evidence three-plus months has given us. > > I could care less if you attempt intelligent discussion or if you scream obscenities. > > If you feel the need to defend the actions and words that are commonplace in the Trump administration, you are an asshole. If you try and stick up for them, you are a moron. If you attempt to rationalize that they’re not so bad, you are an idiot. > > Everyone who knows you should mock you for the partisan fool that you are, unable to admit that your vote for Trump or not for HRC was the second biggest mistake of your pathetic life (the first, of course, being your refusal to make that admission even now, especially now). > > Trump is terrible. His administration has been one Constitutional crisis after another. There is no defense here. And if you feel the need to advocate for this piece of shit, then you are a piece of shit. I just picked the OP to quote, as I could not choose from among the many others. Your anger has been somewhat cathartic for me. I’ve longed for access to the people who wrote the dialogue for Deadwood, thinking that only that kind of Shakespearean cursing could come close to expressing my emotions. Lacking that, I’ve thought of marathoning the show and taking copious notes, studying the stunning poetry of curses that flowed from nearly every character. I should anyway, 'cause, you know, it’s Deadwood. Anyway, what you lack in poetry, you make up for with spirit and determination, spewing forth a virtual R-rated Donald Duck fit of frustration and furious anger throughout this thread. Not bad, sir. Thank you. Think I’ll still marathon Deadwood and take notes. Maybe I’ll skip season 3, though. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/362 "2017-05-19T00:50:44Z")
Bricker: > [@](#): > > In my strong opinion, it would not. In Nixon, a unanimous Court observed that: "We think that the word “sole” is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word “sole” appears only one other time in the Constitution—with respect to the House of Representatives’ “sole Power of Impeachment.” And then they went on to say that “sole” meant “functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.” > > It’s true that they were resolving a Senate question, but the method of analysis they used compels the same result with the House. As I see it, the decision addresses the matter of the procedures of an impeachment legitimately entered into (and yes, I agree it applies to the House as well as the Senate), not the requirements for a legitimate impeachment in the first place. Let me ask you, does the “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” clause have any meaning and/or effect whatsoever? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/363 "2017-05-19T01:02:53Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Bricker: > > As I see it, the decision addresses the matter of the procedures of an impeachment legitimately entered into (and yes, I agree it applies to the House as well as the Senate), not the requirements for a legitimate impeachment in the first place. > > Let me ask you, does the “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” clause have any meaning and/or effect whatsoever? In my strong opinion, it’s aspirational (but non-judicially-reviewable) guidance to the House. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/364 "2017-05-19T02:27:37Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Comey doesn’t get to impeach anyone; the public does, acting through their elected representatives. If enough of the public want someone impeached, that person will be impeached, crime or no crime. Now maybe, if that person commits a crime, that’s a hook to get enough of the public to want them impeached. But a crime certainly isn’t a necessary element. Anyone who saw masses of people chanting “lock her up” knows that all that really matters is public opinion. OK, you completely lost me with that one. I think I’ll just agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/365 "2017-05-19T02:29:34Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > John Mace: > > The constitution is clear that the occasions on which the impeachment power can be used are treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Assuming articles of impeachment that do not mention either of the well-defined first two, there could very well be room for Judicial interpretation to clarify the definition of one or both of the latter two. Certainly the Congress would feel they’re on more solid ground if the article contains an actual, on-the-books crime. Except “high crimes and misdemeanors” is undefined, to be defined but the House via their “sole power”. But I’m guessing we’ll never see for sure as I think the odds of such a case going to the SCOTUS is as close to zero as possible. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/366 "2017-05-19T02:52:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, you completely lost me with that one. I think I’ll just agree to disagree. To paraphrase, if a rush of sanity pervades Congress, and they vote to impeach and convict, who’s going to stop them? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/367 "2017-05-19T03:03:12Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > It’s sarcasm combined with an allusion. Sarcasm is a literary device in which something has a contrary connotation from the literal reading of the text. An allusion is a literary device which connects two otherwise-unrelated concepts. > > Perhaps if you had studied harder in college you would recall such things. You’re kind of slow for a lawyer. Have you considered going into politics? I have heard of each of these concepts, but I don’t see how they make sense in this context. When we discuss things like disclosure of classified information, it’s factually true that if the President does it, then it’s not a crime. So when you say, sarcastically, “If the President does it, it’s not a crime,” it seems like you’re trying to _suggest_, by sarcasm, that the claim isn’t true. . . even when it is. But because you’re not making a literal claim, it’s almost impossible to rebut that suggestion. So you simultaneously get to make a suggestion and insulate that suggestion from meaningful critique. Is that that the effect you were seeking? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/368 "2017-05-19T03:19:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > To paraphrase, if a rush of sanity pervades Congress, and they vote to impeach and convict, who’s going to stop them? Oh, I understood what was being said. I just don’t know what it had to do with the discussion we had been having, per my post that was quoted. As for that thought, it’s exactly what I said to **cmkeller** , who thinks the SCOTUS might stop them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/369 "2017-05-19T03:22:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have heard of each of these concepts, but I don’t see how they make sense in this context. > > When we discuss things like disclosure of classified information, it’s factually true that if the President does it, then it’s not a crime. So when you say, sarcastically, “If the President does it, it’s not a crime,” it seems like you’re trying to _suggest_, by sarcasm, that the claim isn’t true. . . even when it is. But because you’re not making a literal claim, it’s almost impossible to rebut that suggestion. So you simultaneously get to make a suggestion and insulate that suggestion from meaningful critique. > > Is that that the effect you were seeking? I think the effect he’s going for is: It’s true, but it shouldn’t be true. So the rebuttal might be aimed at the idea that things would actually be worse if it were not true. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/370 "2017-05-19T10:36:41Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > [Moderating] > Don’t call other posters motherfuckers. > > No warning issued. > [/Moderating] Oh, right. I meant to change that to “disingenuous Trump-garglers” but then I got sidetracked. Damn. That would have been much better. Feel free to make the edit, if you want. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/371 "2017-05-19T10:47:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the thread that’s under discussion is here. This thread here is the \*\*“If you are carrying water for Donald Trump, even now - especially now - kindly go fuck yourself” \*\* thread. Arguments are down the hall. Turning this thread into an exploration of my inner life would be the equivalent of making you barf up the water in your Donald-hump and putting it in my neti pot. Therefore, in the interests of adapting myself to company, kindly go fuck yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/372 "2017-05-19T11:18:39Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > This thread here is the \*\*“If you are carrying water for Donald Trump, even now - especially now - kindly go fuck yourself” \*\* thread. Arguments are down the hall. > > Turning this thread into an exploration of my inner life would be the equivalent of making you barf up the water in your Donald-hump and putting it in my neti pot. Therefore, in the interests of adapting myself to company, kindly go fuck yourself. I’m asking you what you let yourself think about the charge of “carrying water.” It seems to me you’re willing to level this charge against anyone who objects to the truth of attacks against Trump, without concern for whether those attacks are in fact true. The thread subject and your reactions, in other words, are simply unconcerned with the facts: if the truth hurts Trump, you seem to be saying, bring it on, but if the truth doesn’t hurt Trump, it has no place here. So, yes, I’m very interested in your inner thought process as it relates to that framework. Do you let yourself think it? Or just sort of do it, without allowing yourself to examine the equities? ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/373 "2017-05-19T11:21:06Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Ah, A trump supporter you are, kindly read the thread title. Such a poor attitude, that being opposed to an evil bitch automatically implies fealty to a dickhead? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/374 "2017-05-19T11:45:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It seems to me you’re willing to level this charge against anyone who objects to the truth of attacks against Trump, without concern for whether those attacks are in fact true. I am willing to level the charge against the guy who’s working overtime to find excuses for Trump’s mistakes in a thread about excoriating those who excuse Trump’s mistakes. I don’t believe that you care what I’m thinking. I don’t think you’re being honest in your arguments or your actions here, whether it’s insulting me or urging me provide cites about your hijacks or claiming to want to hear an exegesis of my ratiocinations . If I pursue anyone of those discussion branches, then it fulfills your attempt to hijack the discussion away from condemning the people who change the subject You are the one enabling Trump by derailing condemnation with hijacks about stuff like gun control. You’re the living embodiment of the kind of guy the OP was talking about. The only reason I’m spelling this out is because I want everyone here to see you standing there, holding Trump’s dick like a water hose. Piss off, Gunga Din. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/375 "2017-05-19T12:13:29Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > I don’t believe that you care what I’m thinking. I don’t think you’re being honest in your arguments or your actions here, **whether it’s insulting me** or urging me provide cites about your hijacks or claiming to want to hear an exegesis of my ratiocinations. Bolding mine. Has he insulted you? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/376 "2017-05-19T12:15:38Z")
By not agreeing with \*\*Merneith \*\*100% on everything he says, you are in fact insulting him. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/377 "2017-05-19T13:14:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think the effect he’s going for is: It’s true, but it shouldn’t be true. So the rebuttal might be aimed at the idea that things would actually be worse if it were not true. There was alot of give and take at that point, and the thread was moving fast, so I am not sure that Bricker ever saw my reply to that question, especially as it seems that is still an active topic, so I quote myself. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > I was responding snarkily that even if there were rock solid proof of dead girls, live boys, and a give away of the aleutian islands, that he would still be defended under the defense of “it is not illegal if the president does it.” I assume that I am wrong on this point that I made sarcastically, but I actually do fear that I am not. As I said there, I assume that I am not correct on that point, but everytime I hear of a new thing that Mr. 45 has done, I think, “Well, that’s gotta be illegal, right?” and the answer has always been “No, the president has the power to do that.” and I have to wonder what, if any limits, are on that power. Bricker has assured me, I think, that if trumpo were to actually pull off his hypothetical threat of shooting someone dead on fifth avenue, then that would be a power that the president does not have, and that he would in fact get in trouble for that. So, at the risk of sounding dense, I am curious on a list of a couple of things, and whether or not the president can do them. And in these, I am assuming we have concrete proof of these actions, so it is not a matter of whether he did it, just a matter of whether or not he is allowed to do that by law, or at least by practical realities of things that will actually result in impeachment or otherwise removal from office. You can answer with just yes or no, give more explanation on marginal cases if you like, or ignore them entirely. I am just wondering from the aspect of how soundly I can sleep at night. 1. Starts a war with someone in exchange for money from a foreign power. 2. Ends a war with someone in exchange for money from a foreign power. 3. Sells military troop movements to a foreign power. (Convoy routes, active battle plans, etc.) 4. Sells strategic military designs to a foreign power. (Stealth technology, nuclear tech, that sort of thing) 5. Fires the special prosecutor that was just appointed. 6. Jails journalists for what we will call “novel” reasons. (Point is, there are plenty of reasons to jail journalists other than their journalism, for instance if a journalist is a murderer, then I would not count their prosecution, so reasons that have no, or little historical precedent.) 7. Nukes a third party country or city in exchange for money from a foreign power. 8. Instructs the intelligence agencies to investigate or not investigate a particular person or entity, in exchange for money from a foreign power. 9. Refuses to give me a pony. I could rack my head, and try to come up with other marginal cases upon which I would think on first light that would be illegal, but given the unique circumstances, I cannot make that assumption anymore, so if you feel that there are marginal cases that would better describe the limits of the abuses of power that the officeholder of the president of the US, feel free to provide such as an example. If not, I am sure that trump will provide non-hypothetical examples aplenty. > [@Balthisar](#): > > I’m not so sure about that. Hillary lost, after all. > [@Balthisar](#): > > Such a poor attitude, that being opposed to an evil bitch automatically implies fealty to a dickhead? No, but by your own admission, you find Mr. 45 to be more acceptable than Hillary. That by definition, means you are carrying water for trump. I never said you had sworn fealty, just that you are no better than those who did. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/378 "2017-05-19T13:44:04Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, but by your own admission, you find Mr. 45 to be more acceptable than Hillary. That by definition, means you are carrying water for trump. I never said you had sworn fealty, just that you are no better than those who did. He’s actually worse as he carries the water but is too chicken-shit to just admit it. Same as **Bricker** actually though one of them denies with really poor attempts at snark while the other attempts to obfuscate with legal hand-waving. We get it, our scientists thawed you out and our world confuses and frightens you. But make no mistake, both of them are nothing but canteens for the orange menace. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/379 "2017-05-19T13:45:03Z")
Bricker: > [@](#): > > In my strong opinion, it’s aspirational (but non-judicially-reviewable) guidance to the House. That’s an interesting interpretation, especially coming from a dedicated textualist such as yourself. But while your interpretation may very well be valid, it’s hardly a slam-dunk. At this point in time, no one has raised that precise issue, possibly because Congress has not impeached anyone without citing a legally-defined crime. Should the Congress ever impeach someone without there being an act that was already defined as a crime of some sort, I can definitely see the accused feeling like they have some sort of standing to challenge the impeachment in court. John Mace: > [@](#): > > Except “high crimes and misdemeanors” is undefined, to be defined but the House via their “sole power”. The term may be somewhat undefined, but it at least seems to indicate some sort of crime needs to be the basis for impeachment proceedings. As I said to Bricker, it may well end up that if an impeachee for a non-crime challenges the impeachment in court, the court will find your interpretation is the correct one. But I don’t think it’s necessarily the obvious outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710/380 "2017-05-19T16:10:19Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > That’s an interesting interpretation, especially coming from a dedicated textualist such as yourself. > > But while your interpretation may very well be valid, it’s hardly a slam-dunk. At this point in time, no one has raised that precise issue, possibly because Congress has not impeached anyone without citing a legally-defined crime. Should the Congress ever impeach someone without there being an act that was already defined as a crime of some sort, I can definitely see the accused feeling like they have some sort of standing to challenge the impeachment in court. IIRC a Senate trial to remove a President from office is presided over by the Chief Justice. Could the Chief Justice rule that articles of impeachment were invalid because they did not include a legally-defined crime? So the House impeaches Trump for being a bozo, and Trump’s defense attorney stands up at the start of the trial and says “being a bozo isn’t against the law. Move to dismiss” and the Chief Justice rules in his favor. Could the prosecution appeal to the Supreme Court? Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-are-carrying-water-for-donald-trump-even-now-especially-now-kindly-go-fuck-yourself/786710.md?page=20)