Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
My transition from supporting Obama to Trump (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NorvilleBarnes
- Start date
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
This is about it for me as well.
All the ugly I saw from the right during Obama's tenure is reflected in the left for Trump these days.
Was a disheartening epiphany.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Thats an odd way of admitting you made a false assertion.Sorry, the guy they were crying about not testifying in the Senate (Bolton) they didn't even subpoena in the house.Schiff blew it big time and he is the hero of the Dems!
boots11234
Footballguy
Fascinating stuff. I for one am interested in learning more about this hot girlfriend. Did it end because of your change? Was she perhaps on the right and you the left?
Regardless, welcome to the winning side.
Regardless, welcome to the winning side.
The General
Footballguy
The House investigators did ask Bolton to testify and he declined as instructed by the WH.Sorry, the guy they were crying about not testifying in the Senate (Bolton) they didn't even subpoena in the house.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Claim...dems didn’t subpoena key people...link (you know a source proving a claim...you should try providing this some tome) provided showing they did. Care to try again?
James Daulton
Footballguy
So the dems wanted to impeach Trump since day 1, yet did not during or after the Mueller report and only did so after he tried to extort a foreign country for dirt on main political rival. He prevented all key witnesses from testifying, going through the courts would have taken us past the election, and this "impeach since day 1" was never a talking point until he was actually impeached.
Everything that happens to Trump is spun to be the fault of those who hate him and want him out. Everything bad about the country Trump blames someone else, everything good he takes credit for.
Is that really the kind of person you want leading the country and being a role model for your children?
I honestly can't understand how one can see all this from Trump and be like "yea, that's how I want my president to act."
And now he's attacking supreme court justices. Yea, just what I want for my kid's president.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've actually gone in the other direction than OP. I was a Republican for most of my early life, but around 2008, I grew disillusioned with them. I saw that they weren't really trying to help people, just acting like it. No real environmental policies, no trying to help the poor and needy, just hollow words.
Then they nominated Trump. I knew that he was a charlatan from the moment I saw him on TV, now he's the face of the party? A conman, a philanderer, and a guy who makes C. Montgomery Burns look like he's not trying hard enough? He lost the popular election to Hillary Clinton, but won electorally, and I liked Hillary even less, but wanted to give him a chance to do what's right for the country. What we got was not that.
Now, I'm not waving a flag for the democrats, I hate abortion, I can't get excited for hugging trees, and I enjoy the smell of gunpowder, but I will not vote for Trump at all.
Then they nominated Trump. I knew that he was a charlatan from the moment I saw him on TV, now he's the face of the party? A conman, a philanderer, and a guy who makes C. Montgomery Burns look like he's not trying hard enough? He lost the popular election to Hillary Clinton, but won electorally, and I liked Hillary even less, but wanted to give him a chance to do what's right for the country. What we got was not that.
Now, I'm not waving a flag for the democrats, I hate abortion, I can't get excited for hugging trees, and I enjoy the smell of gunpowder, but I will not vote for Trump at all.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Sure. Apologies for coming off strong although I was replying to someone else saying "Not sure what you are saying but I am sure you are wrong" when i gave a link with details. I think it's perfectly reasonable to respond to them with "I would be happy to discuss any item in the timeline in the link you didn't read if you are interested in discussing them but you're not because you're certain I'm wrong without actually trying to learn about what you're talking about" because I would be happy to discuss it, and they did say they weren't sure what I was talking about but they were sure i was wrong.
I made a similar comment to you
And i mean it. I don't know if you want to have a good faith discussion about it. You started the thread a week ago.
bostonfred
Footballguy
So here's the good faith conversation about it.
1) They did call the witnesses. Trump refused to let them testify, claiming executive privilege. He then tied them up in court long enough that the impeachment would not occur during his term. I don't think that's unethical or illegal, he's allowed to mount a defense. But the context of his refusal to allow witnesses means you can't dismiss the claim against him because there weren't witnesses. There were and they gave a clear timeline of what happened.
2) Dismissing this as political theater is dangerous. This was not a run of the mill scandal.
This was the President of the United States withholding congressionally approved military aid from an ally for a political favor. The same president also got political favors from Russia and appears to have taken pro Putin stances, and we are learning more about the favors he got from Saudi and the pro Saudi stances he's taken.
In other words, this wasn't just an isolated incident but a pattern of behavior.
3) What he did is really scary when you consider that Khashoggi got tortured and murdered, and it appears Kushner signed off on it. Trump has also changed decades of our country's foreign policy related to countries that benefited him directly. Reasonable people can argue about those changes on ideological grounds but we don't know the full details of what he's doing or what he's promised to get that support.
We do know that he's withheld aid from an ally - who happens to be at war with Russia - and that he did it to benefit himself personally and help a country that he asked on national television to interfere in our elections.
4) If he was investigating corruption, as he claims, then why did the aid get released once the whistleblower report became public? What was the outcome of that investigation into Hunter Biden that allowed the aid to be released? Why did the Ukrainian president cancel his CNN appearance where he was expected to announce the investigation on American television? Why did the Ukrainian president plan to appear on American television to announce anything in the first place?
It happened immediately after Biden started polling well, and guess what - Biden is not polling well anymore. So already Trump has been rewarded for this and faced no real consequences, which calls into question what else he will do.
5) But even if you believe he's a great guy, or the right guy for the job, or just better than the Democrats this time around, the real concern is the long term impact on the presidency. Trump has consolidated power in the executive branch while McConnell has done the same in the Senate. The continued growth of executive orders and interim cabinet appointments - which is not unique to the Republicans, and started its current rapid growth under Obama - means that the president has more power. But the claim of executive privilege during an impeachment and the precedent of the House being unable to enforce their subpoena of witnesses while the Senate refuses to have them at all means that the president has no checks and balances anymore. That's not something that goes away when trump leaves office. And the precedent that accepting foreign election interference and getting caught red handed in corruption is not enough to remove the president means that no future president will have a reason to not be corrupt as long as their party controls either the House or Senate.
Voting to reelect him is approval of this. The Republicans even said so repeatedly. They said let the people decide and they acquitted him and put him up for reelection without contest and left it up to you to decide whether criminal behaviour is disqualifying.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
It's about as optional as when there's a police cruiser behind you with the lights on. Go ahead, dont pull over. The police are going to enforce it the same way they would a subpoena. At least for those of us who aren't royal subjects.
Here is your problem. You say the Dems screwed up the impeachment. But what were they supposed to do? President Trump prevented anything and outside of going to courts which would of been years to get a result. Are you ok with a President blocking and preventing a equal part of the government from doing its job? Because your post says you are ok with the President being a king and having all the power. There has to be checks and balances that the President has to follow. Even Republicans say the President did things that were wrong. (You have even said that). Yet you like other that follow Trump, just give President Trump a pass.
You say you love this country, but if you do, then how can you approve of how President Trump has acted. You should ask yourself this question why does Trump just have "Acting __________" and not confirmed by Congress on his staff. President Trump demands loyalty to him.. not to the United States . If you really think about it America is a lot weaker today than when President Trump took office. We have lost a lot of great service men and woman in both the private and military, which is not a good thing. How do you explain that he is going after Hunter Biden, when his children are just as guilty of doing the same thing if not worse.
But the economy is going great, except its really not... for the majority of Americans. Yes more Americans are working, but are they working at jobs that have the same benefits that were offered even 10 years ago... The answer is mostly likely NO!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred
Footballguy
So there's a few things here to discuss.
First, the question of whether he committed a crime is completely separate from any of this. Either he committed a crime or he didn't. The bgs want to distract people from this by talking about the Democrats or Biden or any number of things but I have yet to see anyone defend trump by saying "he did nothing wrong" and actually give a clear exploratory timeline. It simply hasn't happened. Which means we all agree that he did something wrong.
But you seem to be arguing that he did something wrong, but that it wasn't that big a deal. I just made my case in my last post about why it not only is a really big deal, but part of a pattern of behavior that will permanently impact corruption in this country. But I want to address some of the reasons you say it's not a big deal.
1) Because the Democrats wanted to impeach him from day one. That's true, but it's because he actually did ask for Russian interference in the election on national television, and he actually got it, and according to a years long report that clearly documented the interference, he repeatedly obstructed the investigation, possibly criminally.
The Mueller report clearly states that they declined to prosecute behavior which is illegal because the defense could argue that, for example, Kushner did something wrong, but they wouldn't be able to prove he kmew it was illegal, and the law uses the word "knowingly". That doesn't mean that trump or his team did nothing wrong.
Regardless of your opinion of the end results it's clear that this wasn't a frivolous investigation.
It's disingenuous to defend the president on the Ukrainian corruption because the Democrats wanted to impeach him from day one if there was a legitimate criminal investigation into his activity during the campaign.
2) You keep saying that the Democrats were the first party to discuss impeachment from day one. That is demonstrably false. The party that actually impeached Clinton started talking about impeaching Obama from day one too. And trump was personally calling for it. Do you remember the birther controversy?
So the last two Democrat presidents have heard calls for impeachment for reasons that are apparently frivolous. And i think we can say that the Clinton impeachment was frivolous now although I would be happy to debate with anyone who supports trump in 2020 but thinks that Clinton lying under oath is impeachable. I doubt that includes you.
3) The idea that the impeachment precedent diminishes the meaning of impeachment is fair. It's completely meaningless that trump was impeached if the Senate majority leader brags that he doesn't plan to hold a fair trial and he's the party's nominee the next year. There was no consequence to his action except in the opinion of the American people.
In fact, many Republicans argued that the people should decide whether Trump should stay in office during the election.
They told you that the question isn't whether he was impeached or acquitted but whether you believe he should be removed. And now it's your job to decide.
4) you then defend it by saying that "Every President has engaged in bad actions." That's probably true. And many have been caught, and when they were caught they faced consequences for those actions.
The Republicans literally just acquitted him while using the argument that it's up to the American people to decide if he should face consequences for his bad actions.
If you vote to reelect him you are not only accepting that he faces no consequences during his term for bad actions that we know about, but rewarding him with another term.
What motivation would any future president have to avoid bad actions in the future if they can ignore house subpoenas, get acquitted along party lines and the people don't hold them accountable in the next election?
By putting this issue on the voters, the Republicans asked you to decide whether you support foreign influence in the elections, and for the president to give favors to countries that help them get elected, and for countries that didn't interfere on the current president's behalf to lose congressionally approved aid.
Now they're already arguing that the impeachment was a sham, and the Democrats wanted impeachment from day one, and do anything they can to change the narrative that they just used last month to acquit him. But this was their choice. They said that you have to decide whether trump should be removed for his actions.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
James Daulton
Footballguy
Anyone who uses the phrases witchhunt, wanted Trump impeached since day 1, dems didn't do their jobs in the house, etc are never ever going to engage in a reasonable discussion.
The simple fact that they'll claim Trump released the money and that Ukraine said it wasn't extorted as "proof" that Trump did no wrong tells you everything you need to know.
And of course the dems could have used the courts to force witnesses that Trump withheld. The fact that that would have taken past the election is irrelevant to them. As is the fact that Trump withheld all witnesses in the first place.
You'll never ever get a reasonable discussion.
The simple fact that they'll claim Trump released the money and that Ukraine said it wasn't extorted as "proof" that Trump did no wrong tells you everything you need to know.
And of course the dems could have used the courts to force witnesses that Trump withheld. The fact that that would have taken past the election is irrelevant to them. As is the fact that Trump withheld all witnesses in the first place.
You'll never ever get a reasonable discussion.
Sweet J
Footballguy
I appreciate what you are saying, but I've got to push back on this. Let me try an example. Please let me know your thoughts:
Your buddy marries a skank. You tell him "Don't get married. She's nasty and will cheat on you. She's a hoor. She'll be running around with other guys. You need to get this thing annulled now." Etc. etc.
During the first year or two, you try to point out all the ways she is doing him dirty. But he says that there is no definitive proof. And you are just out to get her because you hate her.
The third year, you have pretty dependable proof that she is cheating on him. It's a little confusing, but for anyone taking the time to look at it, it's there.
If you present this proof to him that she is cheating (witnesses, audio, even her kinda-sorta admitting it on tape), and he said: "I'm discounting all your proof because you had it out for her from the beginning." You would think he's a lost cause, right?
"I'm not going to believe these pictures of her cheating because you always hated her" would be the craziest response ever. That's what this excuse for Trump sounds like.
You can say: "I don't believe your proof." Or even: "I believe your proof but I don't think it rises to the level of impeachment." But: "I'm not going to address your proof at all because you never liked him from the beginning" is . . . I don't know, man.
Skoo
Footballguy
Funny that you put those two thoughts together, you know considering the Dems DIDN'T impeach over Russia.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I'd also like to push back on "the Dems wanted him out from day one" stuff too. If that were true they'd have brought charges against him for the Stormy Daniels stuff. They'd have brought charges against him for a myriad of things Mueller left in his report. They didn't. Nancy Pelosi was brought along kicking and screaming. They'd continue today and go after him for breaking the laws around rules of engagement etc. They haven't done any of that. It's true that there are certainly pockets of the Dem establishment who have been talking about these things since day one. This is a pretty clear example of "talk is cheap" as best I can tell. They can 
all they want. Their actions tell a different story.
all they want. Their actions tell a different story.
sho nuff
Footballguy
So Bolton is the only key person? You see, that wasn't your original claim. This is what is called moving the goalpost.
So we're ignoring the fact that there were GOP members wanting Obama impeached even before he took office in this?
sho nuff
Footballguy
By they, you mean a fringe group...because no, the majority of democrats and leadership did not want to or talk about it then nor when he was elected. Pushing the narrative that it was some big movement to impeach is just flat out bogus.
dkp993
Footballguy
This is where rational people like yourself go off the rails. This talking point has been repeated over end over and over again as if it means something. This statement is made like every Dem in Congress got up on stage in unity and called for his impeachment the day after the election. That’s simply not the case. A few people said some stupid ####, specifically a freshman congresswoman. That does not at all represent what you and others are trying to claim.
dkp993
Footballguy
Interesting, as the person who leads the Dem’s in the Senate said the exact opposite....
“Pelosi repeated her opposition to impeachment in a Washington Post magazine interview in March, words that Republicans have repeatedly pointed to in the months since. She said that "unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," adding of Trump, "He's just not worth it." “
James Daulton
Footballguy
Ah but it gives Trump supporters JUST ENOUGH rope to hang onto. I think in their minds they do believe that the dem congress was acting to get him impeached from day 1. Even though it took his attempt at extorting another country to actually bring it about almost 3 years into his reign.
joffer
Footballguy
if you want to actually understand what the Ds were thinking through the whole process. Preet Bhrara's Stay Tuned podcast with Ron Goldman is very good and explains it all. obviously it's from his perspective, but you will understand why they did what they did. Just FYI.
dkp993
Footballguy
Ok, so this quote from the leader of the party and zero impeachment proceedings until 3 years in mean nothing. But your not involved and clearly not biased opinion (
) is more accurate. 
Also on a side note, you take issues with lying?
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
And you don’t do anyone any favors by pushing bogus conspiracy theories that Pelosi was lying (not a shred of proof she was) and the Dems were trying to impeach from day one.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Donald Trump gave us decades of indications that he was unfit for the office he was running for. Do you Trump supporters think the clock was supposed to magically reset on election day, 2016, and that none of that stupid and hateful stuff he did mattered any more?
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
That it’s your opinion, no. I’m quite sure it is
And no I do not believe she was lying or caved. I’m also not a Democrat or fan or defender of hers.
I’ve said since the start of the Ukraine call that it was a lose/lose situation for the Dem’s. I believe the call and evidence was enough to impeach but also knew it would never result in his removal.
Van Dyman
Footballguy
A poster has demonstrated in this thread a pattern of intellectual dishonesty. I believe we have been asked to stop engaging people who do that. You're not going to "get through" to him with reason or information. He's not here to help anyone or himself understand the topic better. He's here to clutter it up with nonsense and to distract from an otherwise very good thread.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I liked this post, but that's based on the assumption that the intellectually dishonest poster isn't me.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
I’m assuming I’m in the responder group only because I’ve never been referred to engaging in anything “intellectual” before.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
So I've got some catching up to do and I'll respond to most questions. My purpose isn't to keep bumping this thread just to see "my thread" on the first page. I'm a little surprised is hasn't sunk to oblivion, but I'll answer direct questions or comment on interesting points. Just a couple reminders:
- This thread was mostly in response to the one about the person attending a Trump rally and I was a little disappointed she was so focused on "good" and "bad" people that seem to be more a liberal preoccupation. "OMG I thought they were horrible people but it turns out they were good people!" It reminded me of my reaction to visiting a Raider bar in Oakland.
- I apologize in advance if I frustrate anyone by not having perfect information or fully thought out positions on every question that interest you. I'm paying pretty close attention to things but I don't have any inside info and I'm not a constitutional lawyer or anything.
- I am conservative but I'm not a lifelong Republican or lifelong conservative. Technically I'm an "unreliable voter" because I didn't vote in 18 or 16, and I've voted for both Rs and Dems in the past. I like the idea of neither party being able to "rely" on my vote. I know that's not for everyone. This election will probably bring out a lot of unreliable voters and "non-voters" (people registered to vote but have not in more than the past 2 elections)
- Like my analogy before where some people are saying blue and yellow make green, and that's true, and some people are saying 2 plus 2 is 4 and that's true, the green people are probably going to be frustrated with the numbers and math people for not being interested in discussing colors. That doesn't mean the math people are dishonest, or just repeating "talking points". It simply means they have a different set of criteria. The people saying Trump is "bad", and "not a good example" cannot understand how people support him. But many of the Trump supporters are simply using different criteria. Inevitably the color people will be caught mixing blue and red and the math people will point out they're not getting green. To which the color people will predictably respond "I thought you didn't care about color! NOW you care about color." And the math people will say "I'm not point out the lack of green because it's important to me, but because you've claimed it was important to you." Everyone ends up talking past each other and accusing the other of dishonesty because it seems dishonest by their own criteria and not the others criteria.
- Please don't get yourself banned. I'm not worth it. There's so much good stuff to talk about this election cycle I'm almost giddy. I dish it out and I can take it, jump in, give me your counter-arguments, refute my points, whatever, but don't think for a minute I'm trying to bait anyone into losing their composure and getting a timeout.
Cheers.
- This thread was mostly in response to the one about the person attending a Trump rally and I was a little disappointed she was so focused on "good" and "bad" people that seem to be more a liberal preoccupation. "OMG I thought they were horrible people but it turns out they were good people!" It reminded me of my reaction to visiting a Raider bar in Oakland.
- I apologize in advance if I frustrate anyone by not having perfect information or fully thought out positions on every question that interest you. I'm paying pretty close attention to things but I don't have any inside info and I'm not a constitutional lawyer or anything.
- I am conservative but I'm not a lifelong Republican or lifelong conservative. Technically I'm an "unreliable voter" because I didn't vote in 18 or 16, and I've voted for both Rs and Dems in the past. I like the idea of neither party being able to "rely" on my vote. I know that's not for everyone. This election will probably bring out a lot of unreliable voters and "non-voters" (people registered to vote but have not in more than the past 2 elections)
- Like my analogy before where some people are saying blue and yellow make green, and that's true, and some people are saying 2 plus 2 is 4 and that's true, the green people are probably going to be frustrated with the numbers and math people for not being interested in discussing colors. That doesn't mean the math people are dishonest, or just repeating "talking points". It simply means they have a different set of criteria. The people saying Trump is "bad", and "not a good example" cannot understand how people support him. But many of the Trump supporters are simply using different criteria. Inevitably the color people will be caught mixing blue and red and the math people will point out they're not getting green. To which the color people will predictably respond "I thought you didn't care about color! NOW you care about color." And the math people will say "I'm not point out the lack of green because it's important to me, but because you've claimed it was important to you." Everyone ends up talking past each other and accusing the other of dishonesty because it seems dishonest by their own criteria and not the others criteria.
- Please don't get yourself banned. I'm not worth it. There's so much good stuff to talk about this election cycle I'm almost giddy. I dish it out and I can take it, jump in, give me your counter-arguments, refute my points, whatever, but don't think for a minute I'm trying to bait anyone into losing their composure and getting a timeout.
Cheers.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I find myself still wondering what exactly it is that drew you to Obama, what draws you to Trump, and what the intersection of those considerations are.
From what I've seen in this thread, you're anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-undocumented immigration, and after that I'm not sure what policies are important to you.
Outside of policy, what aspects of the people themselves appeal to you - their character, personal accomplishments, presentation style, attitude, overall message, something else?
It's hard to understand your path without getting a better read on the specifics that took you where you are. Or maybe your opinion isn't quite so calculated, but just sort of a gut instinct?
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Not sure the best format for responding to all these are but I'll go with matching numbers for now.
1) Nothing was dismissed. Even without the witnesses the House Dems moved forward and voted to impeach. Obviously the lack of witness testimony wasn't prohibitive. I only state that the Dems can't complain that the Senate didn't do their job for them. Schiff was running the show in the house, not the elephants.
2) 100.0% pure political theater. If you think it was bi-partisan or non-partisan, good for you. I couldn't disagree more.
3) If Kushner signed off on torture and murder of an American journalist that would be a huge problem and I would be against it. I know that sounds like "I would be very put out." but I'm saying I agree with you on this.
4) I think you answered your own question - it was because it became public. I think he knew the Bidens were dirty and I believe he thought he could find something to connect the dots. Does anyone really think Hunter Biden earned his spot on the Burisma board?
5) I agree with the first part, there's an increase in the growth of executive orders. But I completely disagree with the loss of checks and balances. It's still an elected office. If you truly believe Trump is so corrupt, vote him out. If the Dems truly cared they would have let the courts rule on Trumps challenges. But that would have taken too long and that's not what the impeachment was all about. I think a big problem is the political partisan gridlock and Presidents (on both side) use executive orders to actually get things done.
"Voting to reelect him is approval of this" Hey not even Bernie believes this.Voting for anyone is not necessarily approval of anything they've said or done.
shadrap
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I'm not on board with the future tense and past tense in your examples. Democrats were saying they were going to impeach him from day one. They weren't saying "Don't vote for Trump, he's going to engage in "high crimes and misdemeanors" I just know it. We're going to watch him very closely. They were going after impeachment from the start. It was a done deal. Pelosi almost had a mutiny on her hands after the Mueller investigation. This isn't ancient history - it just happened.
Also, just can't stop laughing at your analogy "She's a hoor"
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I'm off the rails? Yes people said what I'm saying they said. But it doesn't mean what I'm trying to claim?
I never claimed every Dem got up on stage in unity.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I don't think there were wide spread calls for impeachment immediately, not from Democratic leadership. Can you provide links showing how you gained this impression with direct sourcing of such statements?
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
<_< Maybe later if I'm bored. It's all out there and you can google it. It's not really the point of this thread. Honestly I feel like If chased down examples people would just find something about them to dismiss.
If you truly don't recall any impeachment talk, great. If you truly believe there was bipartisan work going on until suddenly one day a "whistleblower" blew his whistle, good for you.
dkp993
Footballguy
Sure, I was making a point. But when you (or others) say the Democrats were out to impeach Trump from the beginning that’s a very misleading statement. Unless of course you were not claiming the Dems as a collective, then you are correct. But under those conditions basically any statement ever made by 2 people is correct.
The point is, whenever this talking point is put out there, and it is a lot, it’s done with the intention to imply the moment Trump got an office the Dem’s we’re trying to impeach him. That’s simply not true. Maybe that wasn’t your intention and if not I sincerely apologize, I’ve just seen this narrative a lot and usually that is the intention.
Similar threads
