US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    4,279
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    It's amazing the loyalty they have to someone that is going to get bent over by SDNY the moment he leaves office.
     
    Thaeon likes this.
  2. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    4,279
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
  3. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    First item your op mentioning memos, in the way it is phrased alludes to it them being Ukrainian in source. Its also worth noting that you didnt read one of the sources you sited. Why would you use something youve never read as a source?

    Second: Given the protections supposedly afforded to the press by the 1st ammendment, they ought to be able to do so with impunity.
    Many have published internal government documents before, not just from the state dept either, DoD documents as well. Pentagon papers anyone?

    https://www.kyivpost.com/article/op...culation-regarding-burisma.html?cn-reloaded=1

    Although an opinion piece there are direct quotes from Ukrainian officials refering to the investigations underway during the time frame.

    You mean to tell me that with 15 seperate investigations into the owner of Burisma, that NO ONE single person at all in the entire Prosecutor Generals Office didnt generate memos on that.

    I do understand actually, because Trump paused aid, to get investigations (that never materialized), released the aid, prior to the deadline to send aid, without investigation being launched. Because he did this and it was against policy set by the previous administration, those in the NSC and state department blew a whistle. The people who had been calling for impeachment since inauguration went ballistic. Cue shit loads of posturing and a botched house investigation and here we are.

    That Biden's actions are "perfectly proper" is simply that he was hiding behind "official policy". That it was policy agreed on by other nations that were not Ukraine, lends no legitimacy to my jaded eyes.
    It does not change the fact it was literally the same action, more blatant if anything. If it is a high crime or misdemeanor for Trump, and there is consistency in our rule of law whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
    The fact that you are arguing it is Ok for Biden to demand an official be fired because official policy. But not ok for Trump (who being head of the executive is supposed to set foreign policy i might add) to pressure for, not demand, an investigation.
    I think both are fucked up actions and both should be punished. The fact that you say its fine becuse it was "Official Policy" backed up by Brussels and London tells me you dont have much consideration for the Sovereignty of the Ukrainians.
     
  4. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    You are indeed a subject of matter.
    Well i am not an expert in the field, however money laundering, and profiting from it is covered. Given that Zlochevsky is currently being charged with embezzling large amounts of government funds, which could easily include foreign aid money we sent them. Then paying a Us citizen, with nepotistic ties to the white house. And suddenly the ban on travel to the US for Zlochevsky, is lifted, while having 23 million frozen in England, for suspected money laundering.
    Yea seems totally legit.
    Ill have to check that out.
    No exposure, if the same thing is going on dig through and burn him if impropriety is found. But that he's not related to the any one in the white house has some effect.

    If anything im more pissed that rule of law isn't being applied more consistently. If Trump (allowed to set foreign policy by the constitution) is found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for the action, of extorting a foreign government, via aid, for investigations into possible corruption (allegations political motive aside). Then why are we not seeking to punish someone who extorted a foreign government, via aid, for firing an official? Where is the consistency? (Never mind the possible nepotism)

    Yes the constitution does have rules on impeachment, and subpoenas, the executive can claim privilege on information or decline to answer (even outside of impeachment hearings). The Congress gets the option of dropping it, or sending it to the Judiciary, where it is ruled on applicable use of privilege or not. Which is what happened with Nixon. Thats the same thing that should happen with anyone who uses executive privilege to deny question from Congress. Dont care if its Nixon, Trump or Eric Holder when asked about fast and furious, if its not challenged in the Judiciary and ruled as not valid a use then its vaild and Congress cant do shit (unless they never sent the challenge).

    I can only personally defend any part of the sentate's vote (I detest party line voting) in that the case was flawed procedurally in ways I have laid out. The short of it is that the house didnt have a minority hearing day, didnt follow proper methods for dealing with difficult witnesses, rushing through at breakneck speed. Then telling them we wont turn articles (passed on partisan line) over till you agree to our terms. Its not hard to see why the Senate wouldnt be happy on decorum reason alone, never mind that its ran by the opposing party.
     
  5. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    This was fun and all but yea i remember why i stepped back last time.

    Got more important stuff to mess with, resoldering multi connectors, maybe run some scales.
     
  6. narad

    narad Progressive metal and politics

    Messages:
    8,394
    Likes Received:
    8,299
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Yea, but it's like the opposite instance of that old Roman general / Marcus Aurelius legend. While the whole world is telling Trump he's an asshole, he has slaves following him everywhere, whispering into his ear, "Remember, you're number 1, the greatest, huuuge"
     
    USMarine75 likes this.
  7. USMarine75

    USMarine75 Plays Authentic ® Contributor

    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    3,390
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Location:
    Middle East
    Appearance of impropriety and nepotism are not federal crimes.

    I’m a 15+ year subject matter expert and you conquered me and shut me down with your internet warrior knowledge. You’re not even willing to listen to anyone else, even someone who clearly knows more on this subject. You so desperately need assertions to be true, so you can ignore and obfuscate what the evidence is clearly telling us.

    You are still failing on several accounts here:

    1. You are equating unequal actions - overt commission of crimes with evidence and witnesses; vs. implication of crime with no actual crime, evidence, or witness to wit.

    2. You constantly defend against all reason with whataboutism - you say what about this, what about that.

    3. You’re searching for evidence to prove your hypothesis is true which is bad science.

    There is no reasoning with you. Because there is nothing sound or cogent about anything you say. You’re the worst version of Occam’s Razor - you heard the sound of hoofbeats, a subject matter expert on horses told you it was definitely a horse, and you said you have no evidence to the contrary except opinion, but “it sure sounds like a zebra to me”.

    I hesitated to post and now I’ll bow out. But I’ll leave you with this... think where you’ll be in 20-40 years. Will you be on the side of right, or will you be downplaying your support for this regime.

    I need to go back to my happy place - watching Andy James and Per Nilsson tear it up at NAMM 2020.
     
    StevenC, BlackSG91, Thaeon and 2 others like this.
  8. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    No but they are great places to start looking.

    Never questioned your expertise, just a quip on a typo. Then defended my position.
    1. By comparing extortion with aid (by the man who sets foreign policy), with extortion with aid (by the right hand man of who sets policy)? Or with the oddities in the Ukraine?

    2. By asserting if guilty nail them both to the wall, the whataboutism in this case is not trying to defend trump AT ALL but wanting reform in government.

    3. Hmmm what does an investigation do? Event happens, evidence collected, hypothesis forms, look for hard evidence that can prove or disprove hypothesis. Repeat ad nauseam.

    I cant be reasoned with because experts are human thus can be wrong. So when an expert says believe me. Is it wrong to say show me with hard evidence?
    To use your analogy, why cant I theorize that its a zebra, until you bring a horse back. You may bring back a donkey and we're both wrong.

    You act as though, someone who 1. Didnt vote for him. 2. Will not vote for him. 3. Knows there is something rotten going on. 4. Believes if that rotten thing is indeed proven to be a High Crime or Misdemeanor, nail him, and anyone else who did the same. 5. Thinks he wriggled out of it because the house screwed the pooch.
    All of that and I support Trump? Really, wow, ok.

    We can at least agree on this much.
     
  9. USMarine75

    USMarine75 Plays Authentic ® Contributor

    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    3,390
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Location:
    Middle East
    Sweet Jesus this is just too much to idiocracy and nonsense to reason with....

    upload_2020-2-14_13-35-50.gif

    Tag @Drew you’re it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
    StevenC and sleewell like this.
  10. wedge_destroyer

    wedge_destroyer SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    477
    Likes Received:
    314
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Location:
    Fort Wasted, Indiana
    I can be reasoned with, its difficult as I only accept facts to alter my position, supported by actual documents, or multiple unconnected sources (I never take one article as gospel [often 3+] unless it gives me unredacted documents and even then). An article from the best news source on the planet, with only the reports of two guys that saw a document. To me is a most likely a trustworthy article (un or lightly slanted journalist trying to honest) about the hearsay from those two guys (who may be accurate or not [innocently or otherwise]), concerning a document they either don't have or won't show me. (Welcome to how an independent, and a skeptic operates in a fake news world. The common thread between left and right sources is both peddle lies albeit often different ones and often by omittion).

    Its also very difficult when you approach anything with me in a partisan manner. Partisan arguments seem and often are tribalistic to be honest. I've no tribe, and detest the existence of both political tribes, so please dont waste both our time with tribalistic arguments, they will find no quarter with me.

    This whole thing is terribly interesting to me because any time i point to something, that Republicans normally point to and they try to say "Biden did it too, and you didnt hang him, so stop trying to hanging Trump." But I'm not a Republican, I point to those same things, and instead say: "if you want to hang trump for this, ok prove the case, and do it. Why dont you want hang people that did the same thing? If its bad enough to hang one out to dry why not the others? Why arent you being consistent?"
    And you guys act like I've a big fat R behind my name.

    As i said before I believe its wrong to violate any country's sovereignty, by invasion, blackmail, or extortion via aid (A.K.A. OUR tax dollars). In both cases it is undeniable that aid was used as leverage over not just another sovereign nation but a sovereign ALLY.

    The why it was carried out by either party that carried it out is of minuscule, nigh microscopic importance to me, skulduggery is skulduggery, extortion is extortion, violating the sovereignty of our allies is violating the sovereignty of our allies, and none of those actions have a legitimate place in any proper government and whomever does so should be punished quickly and severely, when and wherever that behavior is found.
     
  11. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    5,527
    Likes Received:
    2,006
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    We understand what hypocrisy is; but what you don't seem to understand is that it isn't a logical defense. I personally think we should have mandatory minimum sentences for political corruption and clean house Spanish Inquisition style. But when we're talking about Donald Trump, it doesn't matter how hypocritical someone might be for not complaining about the same thing when a democrat did it, it's still not a logical defense of Trump or his actions. An appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy, decidedly. It's a moot point in the context of debate.
     
    StevenC, JSanta and Randy like this.
  12. Aso

    Aso Single Hum Zealot Contributor

    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    500
    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Ordacleaphobia and Randy like this.
  13. Ordacleaphobia

    Ordacleaphobia Shameless Contrarian

    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes Received:
    1,523
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    Chico, CA
    Let me see if I can translate.
    Because it sounds like Biden's actions were above board at the time, as far as policy goes. Even if the why behind the action was shady, the actual action that was done was "innocent."
    The argument is that prodding people to investigate him over an action that was legitimate because "we just know" there was some sketchy reasoning behind it is infringing on judicial process. Something like that wouldn't hold up in court if it were done to you and me, since you had no reason to investigate me. So why should it work for Biden? It's a technicality. I'm sure most people in this thread would like to hold his feet to the fire over that action, but just because we want to doesn't mean we can.

    This is what Randy was referring to in that earlier post about how you can't bounce between 'the law is the law' and 'he did a bad thing and should be punished,' since the action itself was not against the law, even though we all know that if we could peer inside Uncle Joe's head we'd definitely find what we're looking for.

    He isn't trying to defend Trump. The point that he's trying to make is that the Democrats aren't showing any consistency in their actions since they aren't supporting any action against Biden. It's not a "Leave Donald ALONE" post, it's a "Won't somebody please get the pitchforks" post. Which doesn't work, due to that first block of text up there ^.

    Best post in the thread tbh
     
  14. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    21,457
    Likes Received:
    6,136
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    tl;dr - American political leadership do shady shit regardless of party.

    I think the bulk of the resistance you're getting in here is because you frame everything as a "whataboutism", like I'm not allowed to complain about Trump withholding aid to somebody without simultaneously invoking Hunter Biden to make that point. Then you get flabbergasted that somebody would make such a partisan sounding comment, and you go 100% to the opposite side and start arguing that withholding the aid WAS justified because Democrats are shady about Hunter Biden, so Trump legitimately had a reason to ask and was justified in withholding aid because he was legitimately concerned with corruption.

    The whole thing keeps getting spun around in circles. You can't decide if you want to analyze this situation in a totally open analysis or if you want to react (overreact, actually) to everyone else's perceived one-sidedness. It's like as soon as someone says something negative about Trump, you 100% decide that everything they say or think it tribal partisanship, so now you need to argue on behalf of Trump or his position, then you jump back and say "but I'm totally neutral on this".

    It's tiring.

    First of all, not all of us in this thread are entirely one-sided. Drew and I, two of the more vocal liberal posters in this thread, both conceded Hunter Biden's involvement in Burisma looked sketchy. We both even conceded that Hunter Biden's testimony in exchange for others (say, Bolton) should've potentially been on the table, both strategically and because it deserved some answers. @USMarine75 and I used to scrap all the time because he had a different position on stuff like the military and some of the characters involved in the last few elections cycles; he is absolutely NOT a lock step Democrat or liberal, he more than most people I know decides on people case by case.

    So the fact you paint this whole thread and everyone in here as an echo chamber... either your obsession with "both sides-ism" is hobbling your ability to have an objective discussion or you're masking your legitimate intentions as attacks on everyone else because THEY'RE partisan, not you. If you're earnest in wanting an entirely neutral, facts based conversation, you can't do it by jumping straight to the polarized counterpoint that immediately neutralizes any discussion. If anything, the fact that view every action as inherently liberal or inherently conservative is more of a reflection of your own polarized opinions than it is the facts.
     
    BlackSG91, Drew, tedtan and 4 others like this.
  15. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    21,457
    Likes Received:
    6,136
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Thank you.
     
  16. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,467
    Likes Received:
    955
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    This is a big part of the issue others in this thread have had with your arguments: equating Trump's actions and Biden's actions in Ukraine is a non sequitur. Biden DID NOT do the same thing that Trump did; his actions were in support of US (and intentional) foreign policy intended to strengthen anti corruption investigation(s) in Ukraine, whereas Trump's actions were for personal gain. You continue to ignore the why, but it makes for a huge distinction between the two, and is why Biden's actions were legal and Trump's were not legal.

    To equate the two is a republican talking point of late, so if you repeat the talking point, you can expect others to perceive your comments as coming from a republican (whether you are, in fact, a republican, or not).


    You are certainly welcome to your beliefs, but our providing of aid to a foreign entity is not something that that entity is entitled to merely by their existence; it's something that we elect to provide them with, or not. And, like it or not, using it as leverage in order to change their behaviors is absolutely fair game so long as it is done in accordance with the relevant laws and policies. It's only an issue when it is used in violation of those relevant laws and policies, such as Trump's investigation into Biden for personal political gain, which is why trump was impeached and Biden won't be prosecuted.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
    USMarine75, Randy and JSanta like this.
  17. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,348
    Likes Received:
    4,867
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    1) Clearly you didn't click on the links either, because while the WSJ article is behind a paywall, as is the standard for them the first three or so sentences are visible and you have to log in to read beyond them, and that was enough to confirm that they, too, were reporting that the US State Department had become aware that Ukraine was holding internal meetings to discuss pressure from the White House. So, yeah, I read enough of it to determine it was reporting the same news, and passed it along as a second source from a conservative publication that ALSO reported that the Ukrainians were feeling pressure from the White House.

    2) No, you really don't. :lol: Your order of events is wrong. Trump released Ukranian aid after the whistleblower report was filed, and in fact the media first began to suspect it may have something to do with Ukraine when after the story broke that someone had filed a whistleblower report about Trump's interactions with foriegn leaders, a reporter put twoo and two together and noticed that after a lengthy and unexplained block foreign aid to Ukraine had suddenly been released with no explanation shortly after the date the report was filed.

    So, basically, Trump released aid when he realized it was very likely about to become public knowledge why he was holding aid. In plain english, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    And at the end of the day, you're just parroting Trump's impeachment defense here. I provide a source that contradicts your claim that the Ukranians felt no pressure? "Oh, it's not a first-hand source, it's worthless." On whether or not the differences between what Trump did and what Biden did matter? "Oh, well, Biden did it first, and it's Trump's right to set whatever policy proposals he wants for foreign policy, because he's the commander in chief."

    That second claim requires a proper breakdown of why it's bullshit, really.
    1) The oath of office requires Trump to use executive power in the national best interest, to "protect the Constitution of the United States." It does NOT empower him to use executive power to pursue his own personal interests. The presidency comes with a lot of power, but also without a blanket allowance to do whatever you want with that power. For his actions to be constitutional, he would have to have a reasonable basis that Ukraine announcing an investigation of Hunter Biden (not even investigating him, merely announcing that they were going to in public) was in the national best interest. His defense attorneys kind of fell apart on this one, and argued that he believed it was in the national best interest to investigate Biden because he believed his remaining President was in the national best interest and therefore he could take steps whose direct intention was hurting a rival candidate. That's clearly bullshit - simply refusing to cede the office of the president after losing an election or serving two terms would ALSO be constitutional under this argument, which is obviously not the case.
    2) The executive branch has fairly wide authority to set policy - within the constraints above, that it be reasonably believed to be in the national best interest - but has very little authority at ALL to control spending to support those policy goals. Spending is authorized by Congress, and once authorized the President is legally bound to see that it occurs. Congress authorized aid to Ukraine, and by blocking it, he was violating his constitutional duties even before we get into motives. The GAO ruled on this about a month ago, and while the reasons are fairly wonky, concluded that the OMB was already in violation of the Impoundment Control Act by early August, well before the funding was released, for failing to notify Congress as to why the funding was being withheld and formally asking them to rescind it.

    The defense you're trying to make, that anything we don't have a direct firsthand source for should be ignored, that motives don't matter, and if they did the President still could set whatever policy he wants, and if he couldn't then there's no harm because the investigation didn't get announced and the funds were never released, is the same bullshit lines of rapidly retreating defenses the White House tried to make. Though, I'll confess, your sudden concern for the sovereignty of the Ukrainians is a new wrinkle, although it's worth noting that the reason the EU, US, and NATO alliance were pressuring them to do something about corruption was Ukraine was trying to join the EU and NATO, and both organizations have anti-corruption requirements for member states that Ukraine was not meeting.

    And a "flawed House inquiry?" The same House inquiry that the GOP senators ultimately concluded was so thorough that there was no need to call witnesses because all the charges had already been proven?

    Again, you're just parroting Trump's own talking points here, and Trump's arguments are full of shit.
     
    JSanta, BlackSG91, USMarine75 and 2 others like this.
  18. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,348
    Likes Received:
    4,867
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Stop trying your refusal to listen to sources that contradict your own views as some sort of virtue. It's cheap expediency and you know it.

    This is another point that you seem to just not be getting.

    Ukraine was an ally in that they had a loose, non-member affiliation with NATO, but after the annexation of parts of their territory by [strike]Russian forces[/strike] unaffiliated patriotic citizens who were just really pro-Russian and definitely weren't plainclothes militia, Ukraine wanted to become a full member state. With full NATO membership comes member requirements, one of which being certain commitments to anti-corruption, and having a functional prosecuution system. This "attack on Ukrainian sovereignty" you keep going off about is anything but - it's a precondition for membership in a club they wanted very badly to join. Strengthening rule of law was one of the top criteria in Ukraine's Member Action Plan adopted in 2002. So, yes, this was entirely respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty - they chose to apply for NATO membership.

    "I.1.A.8 fight corruption, money laundering and illegal economic activities, through economic, legal, organisational and law-enforcement measures; take the necessary steps to be removed from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) non-compliance list, in particular by passing and implementing law that meets FATF standards;"
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  19. sleewell

    sleewell SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    362
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Location:
    michigan
    i only trust unredacted documents.

    trump will only release redacted documents.


    well that solves it, he must be innocent.
     
  20. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,348
    Likes Received:
    4,867
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    :rofl:

    Seriously, this whole "sovereignty of Ukraine" thing is extra special. For one, if you truly believe that, Trump is running just as ramshod over Ukrainian sovereignty as you think Biden did. And two, if you're going to ask how we would dare to "violate the sovereignty of an ally," well the reason is taking immediate steps to fight corruption was a condition of their becoming an ally. :rofl:
     
    USMarine75, Randy and sleewell like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.