Rancid wrote:You didn't have a problem with Trump's conflict of interest, but you do with Biden's.
A conflict of interest is not criminal in itself, as I noted. If you looked closer into Trump's goals, he was not trying to fleece governments to line his own pockets. He checks out. Biden's conflict of interest is not necessarily criminal; however, the Democratic party's attempt to impeach Trump over Trump's non-criminal action to review Ukraine's investigative findings, along with Biden's son's company being a direct beneficiary of Biden's action, suggests that there may be some wrongdoing here. People who want to condemn people for conflicts of interest are overplaying their hand. I think suggesting that conflict of interest for commenced actions constitutes probable cause for a criminal investigation is a fair standard for politicians. Do you agree with that?
Rancid wrote:The inconsistency is manifested because of your biases. Ultimately it say's you have no principles, or honor.
It says that I don't convict people for crimes they have not committed. It's perfectly reasonable to investigate people for conflicts of interest. It's not perfectly reasonable to assume that they have committed a crime in the absence of evidence. Perhaps you think charging people with crimes in the absence of evidence or convicting people of crimes they have not committed is reasonable. I do not.
BigSteve wrote:Personally, I don't know why it's just not going to be held at Camp David. That would make the most sense to me...
I would just hold it in a military barracks and require that they all come over on one plane to reduce CO2 emissions.
Rancid wrote:If we can trust Trump to not make a profit on this, can we trust the government in other areas though? why or why not?
Why should you trust the government? Why would you want to?
late wrote:Places like Doral are typically close to empty in summer. Hosting that conference would benefit Trump in several ways, even if you accept the idiotic idea that it would be at "cost".
Trump doesn't have to avoid benefitting from something. He has to avoid violating the emoluments clause.
Rancid wrote:Even if it's 100% verifiable that it's a loss for him, this should still not be done. The optics are bad.
It sets a bad precedent for future presidents, etc. etc.
Explain why. Why do you think it looks bad? What precedent would it set? What if he decides to hold the meetings at his home in Trump tower free of charge, but world leaders stay in their own hotels in NYC? Does that look bad to you? If so, why? What would be a universal principle that we can all agree on here? Should we tell the Queen of England that there are to be no more state dinners in Buckingham Palace, because she owns it and it looks bad? Should they just hold UK state dinners at the Savoy instead to avoid the conflict of interest?
Rancid wrote:the fact you guys can't see this verifies my theory that guys like you really want the USA to turn in Mexico.
It already has to a significant degree.
late wrote:It's part of a pattern of self dealing.
As @BigSteve pointed out, Trump doesn't even take a salary. You aren't able to establish self-dealing for any demonstrable gain. On the contrary, Trump is voluntarily accepting losses and saving taxpayers money.
late wrote:They can't bring themselves to deal with actual problems, so they come up with random responses that almost invariably make matters worse.
The only potential "actual problem" in the Ukrainegate story is Biden may have used his official position to get one prosecutor fired--not more than one, but just the one looking into a company where his son was working--and that may constitute a bribe under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. What Ukrainian laws may have been violated is beyond the scope of my expertise. Beyond that, there is no allegation of criminal wrongdoing being discussed.
Finfinder wrote:This is the second time in a row now, Trump called the lefts bluff, the phone transcript was released and proved the whistle blower was a set up yet they couldn't let it go and now this.
It's so preposterous they have to hold their meetings about it in secret to avoid the ridicule they will face for such an obvious farce.
Rancid wrote:It really isn't that hard to see what's logically and ethically right here.
Ok. So let's take the thought exercise away from the United State and away from Trump. Is the Queen of England inherently unethical if she holds a state dinner at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle for example? She owns them. Taxpayers have to fund them. Isn't this a conflict of interest? Does it look bad? If the Queen were charging extortionate prices to people to attend a state dinner at one of her personal properties, I could see the problem with that. However, I fail to understand this notion of "optics" and "looks bad." Please explain why it "looks bad", to whom it looks bad, and why.
Rancid wrote:However, there's a larger pattern of behavior that indicates he's not fit for the office.
That's a political question resolved at the ballot box, not a criminal question resolved by impeachment.
Rancid wrote:Anyone with basic ethics understanding would know not even to conceive of hosting that thing at his property. ... Again, he's basically a Mexican politician.
Well, well, well... So Mexican politicians aren't "anyone"? Or is it that Mexicans don't understand basic ethics? If Mexicans are so bad, wouldn't it make sense for the US to want to keep Mexicans out of the US? Maybe we should build a wall...
Rancid wrote:Most of this would be happening even if Hillary were president. Except the China trade war.
It was Killary's plan to fund ISIS using weapons from Libya to overthrow Assad, and the entire thing has been a monumental cluster fuck. I rather doubt that Syria would be quiescent with Hillary at the helm.
Rancid wrote:I do not 100% disapprove of everything, however, I disapprove enough of it to believe Trump is not fit for president.
So vote for someone else. Trying to pretend that he's committed some impeachable offense is just ludicrous.
Rancid wrote:It isn't his policy either, it's how much he's tarnishing the office itself.
By doing what? Getting blow jobs from interns (Clinton)? Getting blow jobs from Muslim dudes (Obama)? Getting hundreds of thousands of people killed (Bush and Obama)? Displacing millions of people (Obama)? Or is it calling impeachment efforts and asinine investigations launched by the deep state "Bullshit!" in his campaign speeches? Or is it something else? Please explain to us what "looks bad" about Trump being president that doesn't "tarnish" other presidents who have killed and disrupted the lives of so many people...
Rancid wrote:If you look back at my previous posts, I said Biden should be investigated as well.
Yes, and the Democrats are trying to impeach him for that... and not even all Democrats, which is why they won't take a vote on it.
Tainari88 wrote:You are far right and you made me smile with your profile self describers of being a "centrist". Nothing centrist about you at all Senor Blackjack21.
That comes from the political compass test. My answers drop me write down the zero line of the y-axis and one tick to the libertarian side on the x-axis.
Tainari88 wrote:You don't like Mitt Romney because he is a compromiser as well.
I think Romney is a fraud. In fact, I think Trump has far more integrity than Romney. Romney is one of those guys that fools people with infallible manners. Trump is someone who puts people off for the exact opposite reason. Yes, Trump sounds like he's full of shit when he talks in superlatives, but he's one of the few politicians that if you ask him a question he gives you a straight answer. That's why I liked Dick Cheney, even though I can't say I agree with him on everything. Cheney just tells you what he thinks and why. People react to what he thinks and say he's an awful person. Fair enough. At least you know why though. What does Romney really think? He's an "extreme conservative" as he said in his failed run for president in 2012? Really?
Tainari88 wrote:That is the smart way to do it Blackjack. Waco showdowns with marginalized power obsessed people is not the answer...they are like cornered rats. They kill when attacked. And they are not poor and unarmed. Keep the fire fights off the streets. I agree.
Fair enough. However, legally it amounts to going back to the 19th Century and declaring people "outlaw" in absentia. Modern lawyers don't like it, but I think for organized crime and terrorists it is a necessity.
JohnRawls wrote:It will be presented as a partisan issue, in a sense, republicans know that Trump needs to go but are unwilling to go through with it because he is a republican.
It has nothing to do with party loyalty. It has to do with the fact that they be thrown out of office. Romney is the only one publicly toying with the idea, and some Congressman in Florida who Laura Ingraham called out for having financial interests in the war machine and his bemusement at Trump trying to stop wars.
JohnRawls wrote:Basically an issue of partisanship of the country where the Rs cant put the future of the country before the party.
It's an existential issue with them. Trump is showing them by holding rallies, which are far far bigger than any of them could draw. Trump is far more popular than the media and polls would have you believe. They know this, and they know that removing Trump from office is the kiss of death for them.
Rancid wrote:Republicans have always been WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better at sticking together when compared to Democrats.
Tell that to Richard Nixon...
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
"Folks, I can tell you I've known eight presidents, three of them intimately."
-- Joe Biden