File: 1571186685494.jpg (409.12 KB, 780x438, 130:73, 978ddb59-5d14-4fb2-b620-20….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Any thoughts on the 3rd 4th Democratic debate?
File: 1571231536278.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
i am a very staunch progressive. i was very happy with Sanders and Warren. i felt also impressed by Andrew Yang.
i want to like Biden. But there is no doubt to me that he represents a neo-liberal old guard that represents a war against a Reaganomic regime that has long run its course.
while i strongly dislike how corrupt Trump is, i don't like what seems to me to be apparent corruption in Biden's behavior, either.
File: 1571236923271.png (546.83 KB, 325x325, 1:1, mtr_1567093983997.png) ImgOps Google
>>3573>i don't like what seems to me to be apparent corruption in Biden's behavior, either.
I thought Biden's supposed corruption w.r.t. the Ukraine thing turned out to be a nothingburger? Or are you referring to something else?>>3576
Tulsi is my favorite. I like her stance of ending our perpetual war in the Middle East. And I think she would easily beat Trump in the general election, whereas I'm worried that Warren might be considered too leftist/socialist for many swing voters. And I think Warren's proposed wealth tax would be a bad idea for all the reasons mentioned by Andrew Yang, plus it seems like it would require a Constitutional amendment, which is likely politically infeasible.
File: 1571243217770.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
It is something of a nothing burger, but still gives off vibes of impropriety to me, though of course, the "vibes" is hardly a fair reason to disfavor a candidate
>Beto O'rourke: "They don't want a handout, they don't want a guaranteed job, they just want a shot."
Nah, I'll take the handout, dawg. It's cool. Like I had a shot, I got a job, it's pretty good, but if I lose that job I don't know if anything could actually give me another shot, I'd just have to upend my life and bail. And that's without mentioning all the sort of "jobs" that just don't get paid right now.
>Warren: "Let me finish please."
I like what she (and some others) are saying about a wealth tax. That definitely does more for fixing the situation (at least according to how they view the situation) than just increasing the income tax. Though it's also interesting that Yang's brought up that a bunch of other people have tried it and it didn't actually work. Seems he supports a VAT, instead. I kinda want to hear more about that from him.
We are really jumping all over here, it doesn't always feel very organized.
Biden's dodging questions about sending troops back in again. Everyone is saying some generally good things about how to deal with the situation, but also none of it is all that interesting or unique.
O'Rourke's answer to "how" he'll take away people's guns is that he really wants to take away people's guns, which isn't much use to anyone. No one seems to want to shut up when their time is over, either.
Klobuchar has some good points on not overreaching on gun control. There's a lot of stuff people can all agree on when it comes to gun control, let's stick to that for now.
I love the decriminalization approach of Yang, I think that'd help a lot more than anything else.
>Everyone's super old and unhealthy.
It's a weird thing to have to bring up, but that's what politics look like these days. Almost everyone is ancient. I don't think anyone is so old as to be a problem, but perhaps not everyone agrees, and when nominating a party's candidate that's something you have to think about.
There was a lot to say about big tech companies, but I don't know if there's any strong reason to interfere with what they're doing. Reasonable points to make on all sides, but none that sway me one way or another.
Really like what Mr. Butt is saying in part 4 about depoliticizing the supreme court. That feels really important to me as America seemingly becomes increasingly polarized to the point that every election is just undoing what the other party did after the previous election. That isn't a healthy safe way to run a country, that causes some severe whiplash for people not just within our borders, but also abroad.
Biden's getting double teamed by Bernie and Warren now. Biden is proving more than ever before that he's not got any big plans or visions and seemingly wants to maintain the status quo. Lots of petty jabs going on up there, though.
>Mr. Butt: "If I had a dollar for every time I've seen an argument like this I'd be able to pay for everyone's college myself."
I think I want to side for people with bigger ideas, though. If they hit the oval office and then have to negotiate back a bit instead of getting everything they wanted, that's one thing. But we're talking nominations, and I think the more important thing during nomination is long term vision. I don't want to see what people say they're going to do, I want to see what kind of people they are. I want to try to get a feel for what they'll do instinctively when the questions hit their desk, what they're like on the inside when they don't have to gauge their answers, so I want to see passion and grand visions more than practical solutions right now.
Do Americans want these big upheavals? Do they want them to work? I think to some extent they do. We're often joked about because our country is so far right. We have a right leaning party and a far right leaning party. But I think we're moving left as a country, going forward. I believe that Trump has revealed just how far right people can go and how gross and ugly it looks, and how being that far right doesn't serve our country at any level. So I think the Republican party is due to move to the left themselves, and you can see that in some of the non-Trump candidates. And at the same time the Democrats should be accepting their members that are moving to the left and asking for big left ideas, because otherwise they're not going to be separating themselves from the Republicans to begin with.
And on that note I think it's great that they brought up Ellen and Bush's appearance together and the message Ellen gave to all the people who commented on them being friends. It's important to remember that the two parties don't actually want each other to die, we're not at war. We should all be able to get along and sit next to each other peacefully, understanding that even though we have different ideas for the country, ultimately what we want is for the whole country to succeed.
File: 1571272767481.jpg (30.66 KB, 397x648, 397:648, extremes.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Honestly, I'd consider voting for her, myself. She seems to have some decent ideals. Can't say I agree with her on everything, but, I didn't agree with Trump on everything either.
I'd agree she'd have a much better chance than most the other candidates. >>3588
Extremism only really gets you the votes that are already on your side. Big ideas are all well and good, but, if they aren't bipartisan, you're not really likely to get very far. Turns out you gotta compromise with people of different ideals to you, if you want to get their vote.
You're right that the left's moving further and further to the left, though. I don't think I'd call that a good thing, myself. But, that's the result of differing ideals. My biggest concern there, though, is that we effectively enter a period of a one party system as a result, which would be far from a good thing. I just can't see democrats winning over moderates any more.
>>3589>Extremism only really gets you the votes that are already on your side. Big ideas are all well and good, but, if they aren't bipartisan, you're not really likely to get very far.
It's largely how Trump got elected, so you can't really say it doesn't work. Did all of his big ideas happen? No, certainly not, many of them failed entirely, and many more are hanging on by a thread. But I can't think of anyone that represents extremist partisan ideals more than Donald Trump, and he's currently the president, which at least gives him a chance of pursuing those goals. Maybe if he was willing to compromise more across the aisle he'd be able to check things off his list, so I agree with you there, but again that's more of a "once you're president" thing. At this stage of the election I'm more interested in the grand ideas than how much you'll compromise.>My biggest concern there, though, is that we effectively enter a period of a one party system as a result, which would be far from a good thing. I just can't see democrats winning over moderates any more.
That would definitely not be a good thing. Having multiple voices tugging towards different directions is what makes our democracy function the way it does and keeps us grounded in reality. We need the fair representation of everyone in the country to ensure equality for our citizens. But again, like I said, I think we're moving left as a country, not as a party. New information and experiences in modern times are changing people's minds about topics that in the US might have been considered traditionally left.
Climate change, for example, is a thing that I don't think needs to be partisan, the Republican party doesn't need to firmly deny that climate change exists anymore and push out moderate voters. The conservative approach would be to acknowledge it and try to reign things in towards a small government solution rather than overreaching controls.
Gun control is something else I don't think is really a partisan issue, we just have different ideas of how to handle it. The conservative approach might be to slowly add a few more checks to people purchasing guns rather than banning anything. And certainly there were democrats on that stage thinking the same thing, which some people might see as "too moderate", but I don't think it's unrealistic for someone running for the democratic candidacy to hold some conservative ideals. I feel like very few people, presidential candidates included, are actually going to fall cleanly along party lines. If they did, we'd likely not need candidates in the first place.
But the issue today, I think, is not that democrats are too extreme. There are some examples, there was a literal gun grabber on stage today (who couldn't even explain how he'd go about grabbing said guns), but mostly I think those candidates could absolutely appeal to moderates, and perhaps even some people who lean conservative. The issue today is Trump, specifically, who on issues like immigration defines
what an extremist would be. I don't think Trump is the average when it comes to the Republican party, he's not a good example of a Republican. Most Republicans are absolutely much more moderate and you can see even amongst other Repulican candidates a lot of stuff that moderates and democrats could agree with.
And within the Republican party there's always been a lot of debate about whether they should fall in with Trump and just support him, because theoretically that means they hold more power, or if his extremist views and ideas are going to cause irreparable damage to the Republican party. I think there's a real chance that if the Republican party does decide to side with Trump again it might dangerously redefine what it means to be a Republican and kill the party. There'll be a schism, people will abandon the party out of disgust, and democrats will fully take over because what's left cannot mount any opposition. In the worst case scenario, Trump's voters might then feel so disenfranchised that the US itself undergoes a schism and whatever their party decides to call itself might try to break out of the union.
I am very anxiously watching the impeachment process as it unfolds, because it might mean more for America than anything that has happened in the last century.
Well, I also wouldn't call Trump an extremist. Nor do I consider his ideas very 'big' anyway. Largest was the idea of a boarder wall, which was something even the Democrats were campaigning on before as I recall. Otherwise, it was pretty simple stuff. He didn't seem very partisan to me, either, as he seemed to push for a lot of more general stuff a lot of people wanted on both sides, went against a lot of the typical warhawk Republican positions, and a lot of the more corporate trade deals we had as well.
Add to that, he seems incredibly willing to compromise and negotiate with just about anyone.
Maybe it's a bit of a radically different perspective, we have. I wouldn't, for instance, blame the sudden shift to warhawk stances the Democrats suddenly took as soon as Trump said let's get out of the middle east on Trump. Seems to me to just be "if he says it, we have to be against it".
Immigration was something everyone
ran on before. Now, suddenly, it's an extremist position to say "Hey, let's not flood the country with illegal immigrants". It's a bit backwards.
But, that's why I posted the image in >>3589
It was, as I understand it, from a study about the positions held by the two parties. While republicans mostly stayed the same, the Democrats rather radically pushed further left. So, I guess now that they're farther left that way, what was once relatively light conservationism or even a neutral between the two, is not an 'extreme right wing' position. It's unfortunate.
Personally, the Ukraine thing looks to me like a bigger nothingburger than the Russian nonsense.
Frankly, the idea that the Democrats are going through with this makes me rather distrustful of their party as a whole. It's unfortunate. But if they're so eager to go against the will of the electorate just because a guy said something after someone else brought it up, they're going to really start risking future candidates.
That or a full blown revolution, anyway.
Neither are a good thing. I really wish they'd stop and think about what they're doing.
Is that illegal?
Or even wrong, for that matter?
Though as I understood it, the favor was in regards to working with the investigation on the whole Russia nonsense. Find out what happened there. Biden was just a side matter, which I have to say looks really suspect to me as well.
It's a shame nobody wants to investigate that, despite wasting years investigating a completely fabricated story. Rules for thee, and all that, I guess
File: 1571366023735.png (31.29 KB, 842x344, 421:172, Capture.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>3594>But if they're so eager to go against the will of the electorate
It's probably worth noting that 5/6 of the electorate didn't support Trump. 4/6 of the electorate also didn't support Hillary, granted, but technically speaking, more individuals
supported Hillary. The electorate isn't a monolithic entity that they're betraying by opposing Trump. They're siding with at least 65 million people.
Also technically speaking, regardless of how voting went in 2016, more people seem to support his impeachment than oppose it. It's a slim enough margin that maybe you could argue it's tied, but even if it were flatly even, you can't really say they're working "against the electorate". They're representing a comparatively very large portion of the electorate as they attempt to do this, in fact.
File: 1571366127865.jpg (75.04 KB, 800x773, 800:773, CI6wXK3VAAAPf9H.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3609>Is that illegal?>Or even wrong, for that matter?
Yeah, if a public official gives public money (or any public benefit) to an entity in exchange for the entity bestowing a private benefit on the public official --- that's basically the definition of bribery.
Near as I can tell, that is not at all what has happened.
I think you might be talking about something completely unrelated, honestly. That, or something recent has come up that I've never heard about, but, as far as I am aware, the only quid pro quo bribery going on was with Biden threatening the ukrainians until they fired a prosecutor with a clear conflict of interest given said prosecutor was investigating his son.>>3614
I would have to see the method that they used to pull this information. I would remind you that the polls said Hillary would win, despite that being clearly not the case.
Frankly, I don't really trust any of these polls. Side effect of never getting asked myself, I guess. Nor has, for that matter, anyone I know.
Combined with my own interactions in regards to the impeachment, I do not believe it is the majority in favor of impeachment. near as I can tell, a lot of the people that I talk to are quite upset about the whole fiasco. Many of them weren't Trump supporters, and still aren't, but find the idea incredibly dangerous, and liable to result in a civil war. Can't really blame them, I definitely understand the misgivings.
As to the appeal to voter total numbers, I would simply say there is very good reason we do not run this country on a pure democracy. The main one being that such systems inevitably are run surely by the population centers. Speaking for myself, as somebody not in one of those primary population centers, I would have no reason whatsoever to remain in the Union. Politicians would not cater to my needs, nor would they care about texting me to Oblivion in order to pay for the desires of the metropolitan types.
All this said, though, we had a democratic election, and Trump won. Another election is coming soon, and so I see no reason not to simply let his term follow the course. If you are so confident that the voters are on your side in this regard, surely he wouldn't win.
Personally, I somewhat suspect the whole impeachment thing is specifically because the Democrats do not believe they can. It's a bit of a shame, because I think they could, if they fielded a proper populist candidate. Like I said earlier, I quite like Tulsi Gabbard, minus a few issues, and I wonder if she would actually do pretty well if she managed to win. Unfortunately, near as I can tell, I don't think it's likely to happen.
What I heard is that:
- The US was going to give financial aid to Ukraine.
- Trump withheld the money.
- Trump made clear to Zelensky that he would release the money only if Zelensky opened an investigation into Hunter Biden.
File: 1571369146848.jpg (107.28 KB, 800x947, 800:947, 1502256018940.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3616>Combined with my own interactions in regards to the impeachment, I do not believe it is the majority in favor of impeachment. near as I can tell, a lot of the people that I talk to are quite upset about the whole fiasco. Many of them weren't Trump supporters, and still aren't, but find the idea incredibly dangerous, and liable to result in a civil war.
Luckily the Constitution has rather onerous requirements for removal from office. Impeachment requires a majority of the House (representing roughly 50%+ of population) and conviction requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate. If Trump does get removed from office, I think it would only be with widespread public approval of his removal.
Never heard anything about financial aid, beyond Biden threatening to withhold it unless the prosecutor investigating his son's company was fired.
As I understand, there was talk about some military thing, but, Ukraine never heard about that until well after the call as I understand it.
I can definitely say for certain he never made it clear to Zielinski, though. We have the transcript after all. It does not show such an item, and as far as I am aware, there is no evidence of such.
I would recommend looking up the transcript yourself, and giving it a weed. It isn't too long.
>>3619>Never heard anything about financial aid,
Mick Mulvaney, Trump's acting chief of staff, admitted today that they "held up the money", but he characterized it as only in response to the DNC server investigation, not the Bidens. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/17/mulvaneys-rationalization-ukraine-aid-quid-pro-quo-makes-no-sense/http://archive.is/ABOan>>3619>I would recommend looking up the transcript yourself, and giving it a weed. It isn't too long.
The following parts stand out to me:< I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. ...< Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. ...< The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.
when I say betrayal, I was mostly thinking towards the election result. I think we have a process for a reason, essentially. I think we should honor the people's vote.>>3622
That first link there seems to say he contradicted himself, a moment later.
I am not sure how much stock I'm supposed to put into this. But, like I said, last I had heard, this had being told to the ukrainians well after Trump's call.
The second link seems to suggest, at absolute most, it was a minor facet of Trump's decision, mainly due to supposed to corruption in the area.
Going by that second link, it doesn't look like he's saying it was quid pro quo, but rather, fear of giving a corrupt Nation more money because of what had happened with the DNC and all that Russia nonsense.
I'll try to give a look toward some other source, preferably directly from the guy statements, and to get back to you on this. Unfortunately, due to the conflicting nature of the two articles there, not to mention the nonsense the media gets up to in the past, especially with things like this, like for example the whole "good people on both sides" fake news bit, I'm going to have to approach with a little bit of skepticism. especially since it goes against what I had previously been told oh, and had been reported.>>3621
None of those lines look in any way, shape, or form, that's questionable to me. Frankly, I would be a bit more pressing on it, myself, given what I understand of biden's corruption.
But it's not evidence of quid pro quo. it looks like regular requests for cooperation with an ongoing investigation, of which if you ask me should have been done day one.
honestly, I think that's the biggest problem I have with this whole thing. The Democrats are very very quick to launch into investigations and assumptions and conspiracy theories, whenever it suits them. But it seems like they don't have the principal to maintain that standard to anyone else.
Honestly, if their track record wasn't constant dishonesty, at this point, I probably wouldn't give as much leeway as I do. But I do try to look into this stuff, in any case, then decide for myself ultimately. The problem is how quickly information gets manipulated and it bent out of shape by particularly partisan organizations, especially in the media.
>>3624> I think we should honor the people's vote.
But what if Trump is
guilty of bribery? Then shouldn't he be removed, in accordinance with the Constitution?<The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
If that is the case, I would require them to prove it.
and of course, I would require them to also place Biden in prison as well. As well as any other politicians who's ever done anything along this line, either. Which I understand is quite a few, with some threatening to pull bipartisan support for Ukrainian relief funding.
But, you'd have to prove it, beyond reasonable doubt, first.
and unlike the Russian nonsense, this better be a very open and very transparent investigation. Because otherwise I do believe you run the risk of a civil war. People are not happy, and many people pointed this as a sort of coup, rather than the responsible application of powers granted to Congress. In truth, I'm one of them. It depends on how accurate your particular story is, I'd like I said once I get home I'll try to find the original statements and give it a watch. Although, I point out it's just one guy, and I don't know exactly how much influence he actually has in regards to what had been done.
Still, at the moment, I think you will find public trust is at an all-time low, by pretty much everybody, for pretty much everyone. how many people on the right believe that the Democrats are completely corrupt at this point, actively fighting for deep State interests, rather than the people they're supposed to represent. Many on the left believe that Trump is essentially a maniac at this point, willing to assume he's essentially been paid off directly by Putin himself, in order to destroy the country.
It's a very dangerous time to do anything drastic, and I have to say, my own trust in the system is practically null at this point.
in truth, I am honestly starting to wonder what the point of a federal government is. absolute best I can say is that may provide a military defense, but, in this day and age, invasions are incredibly rare anyway.
Day by day, I'm feeling more and more like a secessionist.
Didn't stop Biden from being blatant about it.
Moreover, frankly, I don't believe Trump has a subtle bone in his body. I don't believe he has a capability to be suggestive that way.
But if we are going to start reading in between the lines, there's a lot of politicians I think you're going to need to arrest.
Hell, I'm not necessarily against it either.
Like I said a moment ago, I'm starting to become more and more of a secessionalist. At this point, the bulk of the politicians being in prison would probably be a good thing. >>3629
Well I'm especially against that, then. I think the standard foolproof should be higher if anything.
especially in this day and age of blatant falsehood in intelligence reporting, media lies, general dishonesty, and deepfakes.
why on Earth is something that could literally turn the entire country into a bloodbath something we do not require quality proof for.
There may not be a rights-based requirement for actual evidence, though I would argue there's a Justice argument for such, but there is certainly a pragmatic argument that pushing a removal without sufficient evidence for an actual conviction in an incredibly politically divisive matter is liable to result an immense civil unrest, if not outright revolution, and so care should be taken in how we proceed with such.
>>3627> absolute best I can say is that may provide a military defense, but, in this day and age, invasions are incredibly rare anyway.
China's current modus operandi
isn't military invasion (at least of non-(Han Chinese) countries), but rather economic and cultural domination until other countries are too weak to resist China. There is a reason why DoD is so worried about supply chain risk w.r.t. electronics manufactured in China. I'm very glad that the US government is able to hold its own weight in the trade war against China.
The China stuff is definitely one of the worst contenders, I think. though I would make the case it's probably less the politicians directly, more corporate lobbyists who take tons of money from the Chinese.
It's why I'm strongly in support of explicitly banning Chinese money from American business. Personally I wouldn't mind just flat-out doing a trade embargo on the country.
I understand that could have major repercussions, though. It might not be a practical idea.
File: 1571373862346.jpg (55.98 KB, 700x526, 350:263, 1441218174934.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3630> but there is certainly a pragmatic argument that pushing a removal without sufficient evidence for an actual conviction in an incredibly politically divisive matter is liable to result an immense civil unrest, if not outright revolution, and so care should be taken in how we proceed with such.
I'm pretty sure that there won't be much unrest if a supermajority believe that there is a preponderance of evidence supporting Trump's guilt (i.e., they believe that it is more likely that Trump is guilty than that he is innocent). I'd say that the more important factor is to convince a large supermajority of the electorate, rather than narrow 51% majority. And that's what the 2/3 Senate supermajority rule effectively does.>>3630>Didn't stop Biden from being blatant about it.
I haven't seen any credible evidence that Biden did anything actually
wrong. I'd say that there was certainly a perception
of a conflict-of-interest, and Hunter Biden exercise poor judgement in not avoiding that perceived COI, but I don't think Joe committed any high crimes or misdemeanors w.r.t. Ukraine. If you have reliable sources to the contrary, please share.
Possibly, but I do not believe even with a supermajority in the senate, the populace proper would accept it. As in the voting public. Especially given the current political lines split.>I haven't seen any credible evidence that Biden did anything actually wrong
If you want to talk about "quid pro quo", he literally directly threatened to withdraw a massive pile of money unless Ukraine caved to his demand.
Surely you can accept that if it's wrong for Trump to do that, it's wrong for Biden.
Also, I have to point out the hypocrisy of saying "read through the lines" when it's about Trump, but immediately abandoning that idea as soon as it's about someone else.
"Rules for thee" and all that.
>>3635>If you want to talk about "quid pro quo", he literally directly threatened to withdraw a massive pile of money unless Ukraine caved to his demand.>Surely you can accept that if it's wrong for Trump to do that, it's wrong for Biden.
Wasn't Biden trying to obtain a public benefit for the United States, not a private benefit for himself? I vaguely remember hearing that timeline decisively disproved the notion that Joe Biden was trying to obtain a favor for his son, because it would have placed the cause temporally after the effect.>>3635>Possibly, but I do not believe even with a supermajority in the senate, the populace proper would accept it.
You think that the senators would vote to convict even if the people whom they represent think that Trump is innocent?
So I managed to find a transcript, here. This is the main bulk statement, with a bit of later stuff. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/17/epic-mick-mulvaney-white-house-press-conference-announces-2020-g7-to-be-held-in-trump-doral/
This just happens to be the only one I found with a transcript, so, I'm assuming the text here is accurate. <----
"MR. MULVANEY: Sure. I’ll — let’s deal with the second one first, which is — look, it should come as no surprise to anybody — the last time I was up here — I haven’t done this since I was Chief of Staff, right? The last time I was up here, some of you folks remember, it was for the budget briefings, right?
And one of the questions y’all always asked me about the budget is, “What are you all doing to the foreign aid budget?” Because we absolutely gutted it, right? President Trump is not a big fan of foreign aid. Never has been; still isn’t. Doesn’t like spending money overseas, especially when it’s poorly spent. And that is exactly what drove this decision.
I’ve been in the office a couple times with him, talking about this. And he said, “Look, Mick, this is a corrupt place.” Everybody knows it’s a corrupt place. By the way, put this in context: This is on the heels of what happened in Puerto Rico, when we took a lot of heat for not wanting to give a bunch of aid to Puerto Rico because we thought that place was corrupt. And, by the way, it turns out we were right. All right? So put that as your context.
He’s like, “Look, this is a corrupt place. I don’t want to send them a bunch of money and have them waste it, have them spend it, have them use it to line their own pockets. Plus, I’m not sure that the other European countries are helping them out either.”
So we actually looked at that, during that time, before — when we cut the money off, before the money actually flowed, because the money flowed by the end of the fiscal year — we actually did an analysis of what other countries were doing in terms of supporting Ukraine. And what we found out was that — and I can’t remember if it’s zero or near zero dollars from any European countries for lethal aid. And you’ve heard the President say this: that we give them tanks and other countries give them pillows. That’s absolutely right, that the — as vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine, they are really, really stingy when it comes to lethal aid. And they weren’t helping Ukraine, and then still to this day are not. And the President did not like that. I know it’s a long answer to your question, but I’m still going.
So that was — those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in pass the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money."<---------
Near as I can tell he's talking specifically about the corruption potential in the region, and them wanting to look in to it. The DNC bit was one of the reasons they believed the area to be corrupt, but, not the reason for holding funds.
What he seems to describe here is not a 'quid pro quo', either, near as I can tell...
He does get caught a bit in a trap somewhat later on, though, I have to admit; However, you'll note he explicitly states that quote " No, the money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden. There’s no question. And that was the point I made to you."
He suggests there was some level of expectation that the Ukrainians would cooperate with the ongoing investigation into corruption in regards to the DNC by the Department of Justice, but, that's it. So, he definitely makes it abundantly clear it's not about Biden, at least. Though, I'd mention I'm not sure how much I'd trust this guy on it. The video I watched briefly seems to make him sound a bit rushed and not really certain. Maybe that's reading too far in to it, though. I'm mostly just not sure if I'd take him as necessarily accurate in his statements, is all. >>3636>Wasn't Biden trying to obtain a public benefit for the United States, not a private benefit for himself?
That's the assumption by people who are quick to make excuses for Biden while refusing to apply the same standard to Trump, yes.
It would contradict the earlier "Read through the lines" aspect. >You think that the senators would vote to convict even if the people whom they represent think that Trump is innocent?
I absolutely do not trust politicians to represent the people who voted for them, no. Most of them seem to represent corporate, party, and state interests far over the common man.
File: 1571376248027.jpg (104.86 KB, 960x960, 1:1, 1517523121031.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
OK, I got this:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/^^Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.^^Shokin's office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau. ^^The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.
I've not heard of any timeline issues, myself. Near as I can tell, it was pretty straight forward.
I mean, as far as I can tell, this is exactly why Hunter was put on the board, despite his complete lack of experience in the field, knowledge of the country, ability to speak the language, or seniority in the company.
It seems incredibly suspect to me. >>3640>purple text
Horribly annoying, but, alright.>Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.
Their link does not seem to go to any actual source or citation for this. All it shows is a link with NABU, not the claim they've given. Given the incredibly partisan nature of this particular article, I'm uninclined to take them at face value without evidence.
Especially since as I understand it the guy who got fired himself directly said he was investigating Burisma at the time. >Shokin's office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau.>The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.
This does absolutely nothing to exonerate Biden.
I'd make the suggestion this is why
they hired Hunter.
Certainly, you don't hire a guy to make your troubles go away before
you have troubles. If anything, this suggests the opposite of what they think it does.
Here's some mention of the particular statement, and here's the statement in full.https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement
According to him, the investigation was ongoing at the time of his removal, and that they had made effort to contact the replacement prosecutor.
Incidentally, that replacement, as I understand it, didn't even have a legal degree, and the law had to be specifically changed in order to bring him on. At least according to the article this guy's video had brought up. I had difficulty trying to hunt it down, though.
Even taken as is, an investigation into corruption within the DNC isn't something the President should be trying to barter for with foreign powers. Even on an assumption that his motivations were somehow completely pure and this wasn't a ploy to improve his chances at reelection, there's just too much room for abuse in that kind of transaction for it to be allowable.
I don't know if it's actually
against anything we've got written down, I'll leave that up to his peers to judge as they've certainly got more experience with it than me, but it's most definitely a bad thing that should not happen.>>3639>>3640>>3641
I know very little about what's going on with Biden and his son, but whether Biden is guilty or innocent of whatever he's accused of seems inconsequential to Trump's impeachment. I don't think it would be out of the question to investigate the Bidens (domestically
, and not just at the behest of Biden's opposition), and by all means if something he's done makes him unfit for office then remove him from the running. But "Biden has also done bad things" is not an actual defense of Trump's actions.
File: 1571377374829.png (213.25 KB, 728x497, 104:71, 3640.png) ImgOps Google
>>3641>>purple text>Horribly annoying
Oh, what theme are you using? It looks good on my machine.
>>3641>I'd make the suggestion this is why they hired Hunter.
Hmm.... that's a good point. It is
awfully suspicious how they ask the son of the VP to join their board.
File: 1571377808481.png (298.94 KB, 1624x368, 203:46, Komando Store purchase.PNG) ImgOps Google
I would disagree. Besides, at that point, I could easily say meddling with foreign prosecution selection is not something a VP should do. >Even on an assumption that his motivations were somehow completely pure and this wasn't a ploy to improve his chances at reelection,
If I'm entirely honest with you, I do not think there is any chance at the moment of him losing
the election. Not unless the Democrats get a solid populist candidate up, which given their treatment of Tulsi, I very much doubt. I don't think I'd accept there's enough cause to try to manipulate.
But, that's more an opinion and speculation, there.
Given the horribly insane waste of time and questionable actions for the whole Russia nonsense, I believe an investigation is completely reasonable. Certainly I'd want an investigation.
If the idea is that such an investigation shouldn't be done because it's towards the democrats, a political adversarial party, surely the investigation into Trump was the exact same kind of impropriety.> But "Biden has also done bad things" is not an actual defense of Trump's actions.
I agree, however pointing to hypocrisy is.
Which is a big part of why I brought it up.
The other aspect is that I believe this is something that should
be investigated. There's not any reason as far as I can see not
to look in to such a thing. Certainly, were I in Trump's shoes, I'd say as much to the Ukranians. >>3644
Dark, as all civilized beings use. >>3645
For what it's worth, this doesn't necessarily mean Biden for sure did anything just because his son used his father's name to secure a job. But, it does put higher pressure on the potential for corruption and conflict of interest.
Personally, I'll say that I'd be happy just to have Burisma investigated and be done with it. I imagine that's all that can be realistically accomplished anyway.
File: 1571377855097.png (658.15 KB, 894x894, 1:1, 1520801135292.png) ImgOps Google
>>3643>whether Biden is guilty or innocent of whatever he's accused of seems inconsequential to Trump's impeachment.
I'd say that it would be a mitigating factor if Trump sincerely (and with due diligence) believed that Biden was guilty. If Trump's goal was trying to uncover the truth, that would be less culpable than trying to spread ungrounded accusations about his opponent.
>>3646>If I'm entirely honest with you, I do not think there is any chance at the moment of him losing the election.
Well, like you said it's very much just an opinion, but I'd say he has a significant chance of losing. I mean, he had a significant chance of losing last time. He still ended up winning, despite predictions, but it seemed unlikely.
This time around it seems even less likely, because for one his opponent won't be Hillary, who was almost completely unlikeable, and also he hasn't really accomplished hardly any of the stuff he set out to do. I think a lot of voters expected stuff from him that didn't pan out and they're going to look for other options. Also, since he wasn't a politician until now, he was kind of an unknown with no history when it comes to foreign policy, but we've seen a lot of questionable decisions on that front that just wouldn't have come up during the previous campaign.
So is he guaranteed to lose? No, certainly not, it's never a gaurantee. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume his administration isn't so optimistic about his chances as to not pursue paths to victory.>Given the horribly insane waste of time and questionable actions for the whole Russia nonsense,
I mean, that's literally what we pay them to do. Having them investigate Biden in a similar manner isn't completely absurd, but also technically speaking I don't think Biden is a public official right now, which does make it sort of a lower priority. Again, I don't work for the federal government, so I have no idea what the workload is over there right now or what the rules are on any of this, or even if there's any leads on what to investigate regarding the Bidens. But if you were to spend resources looking into Biden and then he doesn't even get nominated, much less elected, then that's really the definition of a waste of time. It'd be like looking into Bush's ties to oil companies or something. It's too late to do anything now, he's just sitting in Texas painting and watching football.>>3647
To me, and this is opinion of how things should be and not from a position of knowledge on how things are: I don't think Trump's actual motivations are important to how I feel about his actions. I do not think a president should be able to request investigations into domestic politics from a foreign power. Maybe they've got pure intentions, that's very possible, but I think anyone could claim
they have pure intentions while doing so, which is a very hard thing to examine, and suddenly the whole world is meddling in our domestic affairs to try to get favors from whoever the sitting President is. (More than they probably already do.) There should
be a very hard line ban on something like that just because of the potential for how it could be used.
Thing is, now he's got the incumbent boost, not to mention he's done pretty well, honestly, in regards to the economy and such. Add this to how extreme the Democrats are looking to a lot of moderates or former never trumpers, and I just don't really see it. Maybe if they get a decent moderate in, but, between the impeachment fiasco, antifa, the whole confiscation thing, and plenty of corruption, I just don't see it.
To me, this looks like one of the most clean-cut elections likely to show up.> But if you were to spend resources looking into Biden and then he doesn't even get nominated, much less elected, then that's really the definition of a waste of time.
I'm very much in favor of arresting criminals well after they've committed a crime. It's more about the punishment, than some kind of prevention.
File: 1571380157220.png (1 MB, 700x790, 70:79, 1441830923025.png) ImgOps Google
>>3648> I do not think a president should be able to request investigations into domestic politics from a foreign power.
I disagree. Someone shouldn't be immune to investigation just because he is a politician. But the president should take steps to manage his conflict of interest, such as appointing an independent prosecuter to assess the available evidence and decide whether it would be reasonable to seek foreign assistance. To me, it would have been much different if the request to investigate Biden had come from a consensus of career officials in DOJ instead of from the White House.>>3648>>3649
A strong economy usually heavily favors the incumbent. Unless we have a recession before election day, Trump probably has a strong chance of winning a 2nd term.
Personally, the big thing with any investigation for me is making sure it's very transparent.
Best way to manage potential conflicts and bias is to have everything out on the table, so to speak.
>>3649>It's more about the punishment, than some kind of prevention.
That's an interesting take. Suffice it to say I feel completely the opposite.
Though I think more importantly is I don't know if any of what Biden or
Trump has done is necessarily criminal
so much as something that proves them unfit for office. You're allowed to be unfit for office if you aren't in office.
Though again, I'm unsure about the legality of any of this, I only have opinions about its morality.>>3650>Someone shouldn't be immune to investigation just because he is a politician.>To me, it would have been much different if the request to investigate Biden had come from a consensus of career officials in DOJ instead of from the White House.
Definitely agree, yeah. Trump going directly to Ukraine, which we wouldn't have even known about if not for a whistleblower, isn't okay because it's not going through the proper channels, wherein publically requesting an investigation would be perfectly reasonable.>A strong economy usually heavily favors the incumbent. Unless we have a recession before election day, Trump probably has a strong chance of winning a 2nd term.
Is the economy particularly strong? I thought I'd even heard tell of a recession, but personally I hadn't noticed the last one, so hell if I know what the signs are.
>>3691>Bernie's heart attack makes me wonder if he's physically fit to take the office, in my personal opinion.
Did you watch the debate? It cleared up that question for me. Bernie gave a vigorous performance. I'm more worried about Biden. He seems a little bit senile.>>3691>the last thing we need in the office is another old white guy.
Why do you think his race is relevant? I think we should judge presidential candidates by the content of their character and other relevant job qualifications, not by the color of their skin.>>3691>But I feel like the US, especially the older voting demographics, isn't ready for a gay president.
I disagree. Of the people who would refuse to vote for a gay man, I think few would vote for any other Democrat either.
>>3722>Did you watch the debate?
I did. But one good performance doesn't mean Bernie is fit for the stresses of being the president for 4 years.
I don't think Biden is senile. I think he just has a tendency to ramble on. >Why do you think his race is relevant?
Because race and racism, and reactions to said has been a polarizing issue connected with the current president. I want the next president to have pretty much the opposite opinions and stances to those issues that Trump does. And I feel like a person of color, who has real-world experience with racism and the divisive issues would be a better fit in these polarized times. >Of the people who would refuse to vote for a gay man, I think few would vote for any other Democrat either.
That's a good point. But are you familiar with the Bradley effect?
Vigorous preformances doesn't exactly mean you're healthy. It just means you have conviction for what you believe.
I don't know how bad his heart attack was, though.