Ukrainegate - Page 37 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15043689
SpecialOlympian wrote:What a shit show this is going to be. Impeachment doesn't even need to happen, because the investigation itself has the intended effect: it will cripple Trump's administration by ensuring nobody who can actually accomplish anything will work for him. Beautiful.


Actually, exactly the opposite will occur.

Trump will be impeached by the idiot left in the House. That's a given.

When it gets to the Senate, though, they will fall far short of the 2/3 majority required to remove him from office, effectively giving him an acquittal. They're going to hand him a win, and he's going to ram that win up the collective ass of the left in this country with his re-election in 2020.

Idiot libs are too fucking stupid to understand that impeachment is pretty fucking meaningless without a conviction in the Senate...
User avatar
By Rancid
#15043692
blackjack21 wrote:As far as Trump profiting mightily from it? No. Do you? Do you have a problem with it symbolically?


Yes, generally, the president to should gain personally for the power that his office gives him/her.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15043695
Rancid wrote:Yes, generally, the president to should gain personally for the power that his office gives him/her.


That's not even a real sentence...
User avatar
By Rancid
#15043697
BigSteve wrote:
That's not even a real sentence...


Haven't had my coffee.

Anyway.

Yes, generally, the president should not gain personally from the power his office give him/her.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15043704
Rancid wrote:Haven't had my coffee.

Anyway.

Yes, generally, the president should not gain personally from the power his office give him/her.


Agreed.

With something like the G8, i's going to be under such close scrutiny that there's no way he'll profit from that.

Besides, it'll give the idiot left something new to investigate once all of their prior investigations fall flat...
User avatar
By Rancid
#15043710
BigSteve wrote:With something like the G8, i's going to be under such close scrutiny that there's no way he'll profit from that.


With a position as important as the presidency, the responsible thing to do is to not even create the possibility of impropriety by hosting things in places your family owns (that's banana republic stuff right there). A responsible White House should know this. This isn't too different from Biden. He should have known that his son shouldn't be dealing with countries Biden is personally dealing with on a geopolitical level.

Anyway, the white house announced they will not be hosting the G7 (it's not the G8, Russia will not be a part of it this time around) in Miami/Doral. Finally they figured out what the right thing to do here is, so that's great.

With respect to your last comment about the idiot left. Sounds like you are just bitching and whiny.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15043721
Rancid wrote:Anyway, the white house announced they will not be hosting the G7 (it's not the G8, Russia will not be a part of it this time around) in Miami/Doral. Finally they figured out what the right thing to do here is, so that's great.


When did they announce that? I'm finding conflicting stories...
User avatar
By noemon
#15043722
Admin Notes: Both BigSteve and Godstud have been banned for 24 hours.
This thread will be cleaned up later.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15043725
The face of America toward the rest of the world. Sad...…. embarrassing:

“Syria may have some help with Russia, and that’s fine,” Trump insisted. “It’s a lot of sand. They’ve got a lot of sand over there. So there’s a lot of sand that they can play with.”

A friend who has lived abroad for the past 26 years has described to me the impression toward Americans by foreigners as "assholes" that he has seen as he has traveled.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15043735
Rancid wrote:Yes, generally, the president should not gain personally from the power his office give him/her.

That's an interesting response. In the United States, the presidents who have benefited the least from their office are named Carter, Reagan, Bush and Trump. Carter is the more virtuous of them. Trump has actually lost money. Reagan and the Bushs have had some cashing in events, but weren't out to build fortunes. The Clintons, by contrast, have amassed a fortune of well over $100M trading on office. They even devised a scheme to finance their influence peddling Clinton Foundation with Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State--donations collapsed after she lost her bid for the presidency. The Obama's have made a similar fortune on book advances--no telling if anyone has actually purchased or read their books. I bought George W. Bush's book. It was a dead bore. I recall a friend of mine's father was a significant behind-the-scenes force in the Democratic Party having stacks of Bill Clinton's book. It was my first realization that post presidential books were in fact deferred bribes.

BigSteve wrote:With something like the G8, i's going to be under such close scrutiny that there's no way he'll profit from that.

He's already moved on. No sense in losing money and having to deal with the press. Taxpayers can just pay more for their virtue signaling

Rancid wrote:With a position as important as the presidency, the responsible thing to do is to not even create the possibility of impropriety by hosting things in places your family owns (that's banana republic stuff right there). A responsible White House should know this. This isn't too different from Biden. He should have known that his son shouldn't be dealing with countries Biden is personally dealing with on a geopolitical level.

It occurs to me that Trump pushed the issue to illustrate that although he's not profiting from it personally, the apparent conflict of interest is enough to get the Democratic party and a compliant media into a dither. Now they need to explain why they ignored a far worse situation with Joe and Hunter Biden, or the Clinton Foundation for that matter. This won't get covered in the press, but Trump will hammer that point home on the campaign trail.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15043740
blackjack21 wrote:That's an interesting response.


Why is this an interesting response? Do you disagree with the statement or not?

blackjack21 wrote:, the apparent conflict of interest


This is why it should not be hosted there. That's it that's all. Everything else you said is just noise. Ultimately, I don't care about political parties like you do.
Last edited by Rancid on 20 Oct 2019 17:37, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15043741
blackjack21 wrote:a far worse situation with Joe and Hunter Biden, or the Clinton Foundation


Here it is again …… over and over and over ….. :lol:

"Obese Donald is allowed to do anything he wants to because (fill in the blanc with either Hillary, Biden ,Obama or Al Capone) are worse ……."

Like Obese Donald himself this simple minded shit has worn thin a long time ago.

"He's already moved on." BJ #21…….. WOW! what a leader ….. a real man :eek:
By Hindsite
#15043788
SpecialOlympian wrote:Good thing Trump was dumb enough to fire everyone he could give executive privilege to lmbo. And now because he can only attract the dumbest, most short sighted people to work for him like Mulvaney, who literally admitted to quid pro quo, he has only idiots to work with.

All Mulvaney admitted to is what the U.S. government has been doing in foreign policy for many years. The Democrats were okay with it when they were in power. However, he later clarified that there was no quid pro quo in relation to Trump requesting a favor from Ukraine. In fact, the President of Ukraine has said that he did not know that any aid had been held back or delayed at the time. Therefore, there could not have been a quid pro quo for that.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15043811
Rancid wrote:Why is this an interesting response? Do you disagree with the statement or not?

I think it's a question of degree, and that's why it has never been regulated. Until the Clintons, nobody had ever tried to turn a post presidency into an influence peddling business with an elaborate legal defense for the purpose of making tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, that was why they ended up creating a nice stipend for ex presidents, as I think some ended up in financial trouble--e.g., Harry Truman being the most recent. As for the Bidens, it's not clear how you would regulate something like that. It's not the clear case of nepotism that appointing your family member to a government post would indicate. Yet, there is a clear case of Biden family members profiting from a public office held by Joe Biden. This is why I think politicians of all stripes are uncomfortable with what Trump is doing in investigating Biden: more specifically, I think there are a lot of politicians in Washington whose children profit from a public office they hold. So you get highly partisan charges from people like jimjam who are certain in spite of a lack of evidence that Trump is lining his own pockets or that of his family without a shred of evidence to support it--innuendo or the appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient proof to establish guilt with the likes of jimjam; yet, when people start taking that type of charge seriously in the abstract and applying it generally to all politicians, suddenly what Trump detractors are attempting to charge Trump with in hopes of undermining public support for him are actions that they take for themselves in their day-to-day lives for the benefit of their own families. So when Trump starts applying the types of charges applied to him to other Washington pols, suddenly everyone in Washington gets decidedly uncomfortable. When you see how someone like Romney behaves towards Trump, doesn't it get you thinking that maybe Romney has helped his kid along in some way that may be improper or he's just trying to further his own political fortunes and that he's not altogether serious about the latest iteration of the establishment coup against Trump? After all, isn't Mitt Romney the son of George Romney, as George W. and Jeb Bush are of George H.W. Bush, and Prescott Bush is the son of Jeb Bush, and Patrick Kennedy is the son of Ted Kennedy, or Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of Thomas D'Alesandro? Do you see why people are uncomfortable with what Trump is doing to Biden and why they speak of impeaching Trump in spite of the complete lack of a crime?

Rancid wrote:This is why it should not be hosted there. That's it that's all.

That's fair enough. However, no law is broken here, so it's a judgement call. Trump isn't breaking the law, but he's tweaking the establishment to no end. Do you have no problem with George H.W. Bush being the son of Senator Prescott Bush, and his son's being president of the United States and governor of Texas and Florida, and his grandson holding statewide office in Texas? That's four generations. It starts to smell a lot like royalty doesn't it? The difference is that they assign other political allies to profit from their offices, not handing things off to their own enterprises at cost. Trump is exposing that sort of thing, which is why I like him. It's not that I think he's the new Emily Post for a new type of etiquette.

Rancid wrote:Ultimately, I don't care about political parties like you do.

What makes you think I care about political parties? I've been cheering Trump along since 2015 from the inception to fuck over his own political party--people like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and people who have had generations of their families in politics. Do you really think I give a fuck about the Republicans or Democrats? I don't like Trump for who he is. I like Trump for who he is not. So if I'm going to get interested in politicians self dealing, I will always focus on the establishment first. Hell, I cheered on AOC for the same reason--she's completely fucking over the Democratic party establishment. This is my payback for illegal immigration and bailing out Wall Street at middle class expense. As Trump himself said to the effect, "If I shot someone on fifth avenue, it would have no impact on my support." If he shot some nondescript person who didn't have it coming, I would no longer support Trump. If he shot someone like Hillary Clinton, I would just laugh. I would even drop support for Trump if he shot AOC. It's the establishment I don't like anymore. Hillary Clinton calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset is the sort of thing that makes me despise the establishment and the deep state. John McCain, son of John McCain, etc., etc., etc. I'm very copacetic with Trump hammering these people. I find it very refreshing and entertaining.

jimjam wrote:"Obese Donald is allowed to do anything he wants to because (fill in the blanc with either Hillary, Biden ,Obama or Al Capone) are worse ……."

Trump hasn't committed a crime, yet he has been investigated for crimes alleged by people who have committed them who themselves have not been prosecuted--even when they are dead to rights. Trump can do what he likes, provided it's not criminal. Clinton can do what she likes if it's criminal or not, because the deep state protects her when she commits crimes. Biden may have committed a crime too, but we won't know until investigations are undertaken. His conflict of interest is obvious for everyone to see. So is Trump's. However, Trump removed his firms to a revocable trust and has profits from government-related business donated to the treasury. Conflict resolved. We don't see that type of behavior from his detractors. Similarly, we don't see Don Jr. or Eric Trump getting billions of dollars from the Chinese or sitting on the board of companies in countries where his father is affecting foreign policy decisions. Trump's body-mass-index has nothing to do with this either.

Hindsite wrote:All Mulvaney admitted to is what the U.S. government has been doing in foreign policy for many years. The Democrats were okay with it when they were in power. However, he later clarified that there was no quid pro quo in relation to Trump requesting a favor from Ukraine. In fact, the President of Ukraine has said that he did not know that any aid had been held back or delayed at the time. Therefore, there could not have been a quid pro quo for that.

A quid pro quo of an official act for an official act isn't criminal anyway. So it wouldn't matter if there were a quid pro quo. Biden's quid pro quo is not criminal by itself. It's the fact that the prosecutor was investigating his son's company that puts the official act into question. "Collusion" is not a crime itself either, as was detailed in the Mueller report. If Trump had commissioned the Russians to hack email servers, that would have been criminal. However, there is absolutely no evidence that he did. There is evidence that insiders did it, such as Seth Rich--i.e., Bernie Sanders acolytes.

It's kind of interesting watching Trump detractors now, because they still seem to think collusion is some sort of crime (or they want us to believe it, but only as it applies to Trump), and yet are deathly afraid of Trump exposing their collusion. It's patently obvious that Washington is a cesspool of interbred multi-generational pols who cover for each other across party lines due to their inter-marriages, private fraternal memberships, and the like. It's becoming patently obvious why the United States had no peer competitors in when George H.W. Bush was in office, and the establishment sold out the United States over the last 30 years to a communist dictatorship. To hell with the lot of them.

Totally unrelated sidenote: I saw Joker today. I wonder if they picked up on my midget meme. He he he.
By Hindsite
#15043813
blackjack21 wrote:A quid pro quo of an official act for an official act isn't criminal anyway. So it wouldn't matter if there were a quid pro quo. Biden's quid pro quo is not criminal by itself. It's the fact that the prosecutor was investigating his son's company that puts the official act into question. "Collusion" is not a crime itself either, as was detailed in the Mueller report. If Trump had commissioned the Russians to hack email servers, that would have been criminal. However, there is absolutely no evidence that he did. There is evidence that insiders did it, such as Seth Rich--i.e., Bernie Sanders acolytes.

Yeah, but the Democrat fake news media have propagandized their viewers into believing President Trump committed an impeachable crime by colluding with the Russians and using a quid pro quo to gain a personal political favor. So admitting to a quid pro quo strengthens their propaganda message.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15043844
blackjack21 wrote:I think it's a question of degree,

So you don't agree with the statement?

blackjack21 wrote:However, no law is broken here, so it's a judgement call.

What's the right judgement here?
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15043854
blackjack21 wrote:I think it's a question of degree, and that's why it has never been regulated. Until the Clintons, nobody had ever tried to turn a post presidency into an influence peddling business with an elaborate legal defense for the purpose of making tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, that was why they ended up creating a nice stipend for ex presidents, as I think some ended up in financial trouble--e.g., Harry Truman being the most recent. As for the Bidens, it's not clear how you would regulate something like that. It's not the clear case of nepotism that appointing your family member to a government post would indicate. Yet, there is a clear case of Biden family members profiting from a public office held by Joe Biden. This is why I think politicians of all stripes are uncomfortable with what Trump is doing in investigating Biden: more specifically,I think there are a lot of politicians in Washington whose children profit from a public office they hold. So you get highly partisan charges from people like jimjam who are certain in spite of a lack of evidence that Trump is lining his own pockets or that of his family without a shred of evidence to support it--innuendo or the appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient proof to establish guilt with the likes of jimjam; yet, when people start taking that type of charge seriously in the abstract and applying it generally to all politicians, suddenly what Trump detractors are attempting to charge Trump with in hopes of undermining public support for him are actions that they take for themselves in their day-to-day lives for the benefit of their own families. So when Trump starts applying the types of charges applied to him to other Washington pols, suddenly everyone in Washington gets decidedly uncomfortable. When you see how someone like Romney behaves towards Trump, doesn't it get you thinking that maybe Romney has helped his kid along in some way that may be improper or he's just trying to further his own political fortunes and that he's not altogether serious about the latest iteration of the establishment coup against Trump? After all, isn't Mitt Romney the son of George Romney, as George W. and Jeb Bush are of George H.W. Bush, and Prescott Bush is the son of Jeb Bush, and Patrick Kennedy is the son of Ted Kennedy, or Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of Thomas D'Alesandro? Do you see why people are uncomfortable with what Trump is doing to Biden and why they speak of impeaching Trump in spite of the complete lack of a crime?


That's fair enough. However, no law is broken here, so it's a judgement call. Trump isn't breaking the law, but he's tweaking the establishment to no end. Do you have no problem with George H.W. Bush being the son of Senator Prescott Bush, and his son's being president of the United States and governor of Texas and Florida, and his grandson holding statewide office in Texas? That's four generations. It starts to smell a lot like royalty doesn't it? The difference is that they assign other political allies to profit from their offices, not handing things off to their own enterprises at cost. Trump is exposing that sort of thing, which is why I like him. It's not that I think he's the new Emily Post for a new type of etiquette.


What makes you think I care about political parties? I've been cheering Trump along since 2015 from the inception to fuck over his own political party--people like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and people who have had generations of their families in politics. Do you really think I give a fuck about the Republicans or Democrats? I don't like Trump for who he is. I like Trump for who he is not. So if I'm going to get interested in politicians self dealing, I will always focus on the establishment first. Hell, I cheered on AOC for the same reason--she's completely fucking over the Democratic party establishment. This is my payback for illegal immigration and bailing out Wall Street at middle class expense. As Trump himself said to the effect, "If I shot someone on fifth avenue, it would have no impact on my support." If he shot some nondescript person who didn't have it coming, I would no longer support Trump. If he shot someone like Hillary Clinton, I would just laugh. I would even drop support for Trump if he shot AOC. It's the establishment I don't like anymore. Hillary Clinton calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset is the sort of thing that makes me despise the establishment and the deep state. John McCain, son of John McCain, etc., etc., etc. I'm very copacetic with Trump hammering these people. I find it very refreshing and entertaining.


Trump hasn't committed a crime, yet he has been investigated for crimes alleged by people who have committed them who themselves have not been prosecuted--even when they are dead to rights. Trump can do what he likes, provided it's not criminal. Clinton can do what she likes if it's criminal or not, because the deep state protects her when she commits crimes. Biden may have committed a crime too, but we won't know until investigations are undertaken. His conflict of interest is obvious for everyone to see. So is Trump's. However, Trump removed his firms to a revocable trust and has profits from government-related business donated to the treasury. Conflict resolved. We don't see that type of behavior from his detractors. Similarly, we don't see Don Jr. or Eric Trump getting billions of dollars from the Chinese or sitting on the board of companies in countries where his father is affecting foreign policy decisions. Trump's body-mass-index has nothing to do with this either.


A quid pro quo of an official act for an official act isn't criminal anyway. So it wouldn't matter if there were a quid pro quo. Biden's quid pro quo is not criminal by itself. It's the fact that the prosecutor was investigating his son's company that puts the official act into question. "Collusion" is not a crime itself either, as was detailed in the Mueller report. If Trump had commissioned the Russians to hack email servers, that would have been criminal. However, there is absolutely no evidence that he did. There is evidence that insiders did it, such as Seth Rich--i.e., Bernie Sanders acolytes.

It's kind of interesting watching Trump detractors now, because they still seem to think collusion is some sort of crime (or they want us to believe it, but only as it applies to Trump), and yet are deathly afraid of Trump exposing their collusion. It's patently obvious that Washington is a cesspool of interbred multi-generational pols who cover for each other across party lines due to their inter-marriages, private fraternal memberships, and the like. It's becoming patently obvious why the United States had no peer competitors in when George H.W. Bush was in office, and the establishment sold out the United States over the last 30 years to a communist dictatorship. To hell with the lot of them.
Totally unrelated sidenote: I saw Joker today. I wonder if they picked up on my midget meme. He he he.


Don't forget Jimmy Carter Blackjack, the Georgia Peanut Farmer Democrat ex Naval officer was in deep financial troubles post 1981.

The USA political scene is very bad Blackjack. But they are following their lousy values. Which is, don't respect anything that is not about selfish enrichment, selfish service, and selfish gain. The number one rule being that those with the money make the rules, and secondly, who cares where they come from and what kinds of backgrounds or nationalities that green money comes from? The bottom line is me, and my ability to live well, and go where I please. To hell with obligations and loyalties, the moolah is all that matters in the world. And doing what I like, and not having to follow laws or rules that don't respect power and money. I got the power and the money and I make the rules and everyone else to hell with sacrifice, responsibilities to my fellow Americans and so on...that shit is for chumps.

I would say it serves the USA right Blackjack. Most governments deserve the governments they get. They are results of the action or lack of actions those citizens allow to happen.

People ask me all the time about my own people's government. I say to them the same....you allow other nations to rule you? You don't confront them and give them hell? You allow abusive governments to go in there and manipulate? You are not willing to die and fight and keep fighting to change things? You deserve the shit that happens. Freedom and justice and internal independence and honest government is not something that just happens. You got to make it happen.

You sit back and do nothing? The pigs will take over. Like bad bacteria or viruses. That is life.

I think apathy and a lack of action kills more democracies than all the money in the world Blackjack. I do.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15043856
Tainari88 wrote:I think apathy and a lack of action kills more democracies than all the money in the world Blackjack. I do.


Yea, that's a good point. Basically blackjack is displaying apathy by being totally cool with all these potential conflicts of interest. Rather than standing on principle and condemning it on all sides, he deflects with the classic "Well, the democrats did it! so republicans should do it too!"

This is a recipe for decline. A race to the bottom.
  • 1
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 60

But, they killed millions of their own citizens! […]

@late , Your reply is so nonsensical that I c[…]

What is happening in Iran?

I think that this thinking is pretty one sided. A[…]

It is known that the Asia-Pacific region has alway[…]