Ukrainegate - Page 40 - 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 Finfinder
#15044083
Rancid wrote:Which is great. However, there's a larger pattern of behavior that indicates he's not fit for the office. Anyone with basic ethics understanding would know not even to conceive of hosting that thing at his property. That alone say's a lot about him. Again, he's basically a Mexican politician.

The rest of your post is just emotional ranting. You're all over the place. An indication that you are being emotional and not rational.


What pattern is that? The 50 year low in unemployment, the booming economy, the ending of ISIS getting us out of endless wars, progress in China Korea and the first step act? I'm not emotional I'm laughing my ass off watching Trump endlessly dancing in your head. He won the election get over it because he going to win again.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15044086
Finfinder wrote:What pattern is that?


Obviously, it's clear you're blind to it. Your biases is very strong. It's been pointed out enough times in this thread.

Finfinder wrote: The 50 year low in unemployment, the booming economy, the ending of ISIS getting us out of endless wars, progress in China Korea and the first step act?


Most of this would be happening even if Hillary were president. Except the China trade war. Which I lean towards supporting (I don't blinding go against everything this administration is doing, which is what you are probably assuming about me right now).

Regardless, this doesn't excuse everything else. Again, you're just trying to obfuscate the discussion here by going off on tangents.

Finfinder wrote:I'm not emotional


You are.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15044088
The lazy position is to 100% approve or 100% disapprove everything this administration does. I do not 100% disapprove of everything, however, I disapprove enough of it to believe Trump is not fit for president. It isn't his policy either, it's how much he's tarnishing the office itself. Like i said, he's during the government into another Latin American nation.

The couple of you that keep trying to "debate" me (I'm sure that's what you think you are doing, that's not what you are doing) are failing to think rationally. You are being the most emotional and irrational in this thread.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15044090
Rancid wrote:Obviously, it's clear you're blind to it. Your biases is very strong. It's been pointed out enough times in this thread.


I'll take that as a refusal non answer


Rancid wrote:Most of this would be happening even if Hillary were president. Except the China trade war. Which I lean towards supporting (I don't blinding go against everything this administration is doing, which is what you are probably assuming about me right now).You are.



I agree with that completely except the Impeachment charges against Hillary would be vetted for the public to see and there would be no need to make things up, there is already enough evidence out there in the open. Hillary would probably have been impeached by now and her husband in jail next to Epstein still alive.

As far as the economy that comment make me spit my coffee out. That is funny as hell.

No not emotional at all that is you projecting again, this is fun.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15044091
Finfinder wrote:I'll take that as a refusal non answer


It's been discussed in this thread a lot and in previous threads. It's more about your refusal to read or understand.

Finfinder wrote:As far as the economy that comment make me spit my coffee out. That is funny as hell.


Governments don't control the economy as much as they think they do. Unless they are China anyway. We've discussed all this in other threads as well.

We can rehash all that in other threads.

Anyway, it's clear you are not interested in having a real and objective conversation.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15044093
Rancid wrote:It's been discussed in this thread a lot and in previous threads. It's more about your refusal to read or understand.



Governments don't control the economy as much as they think they do. Unless they are China anyway. We've discussed all this in other threads as well.

We can rehash all that in other threads.

Anyway, it's clear you are not interested in having a real and objective conversation.


Really objective honest debate and conversation about the Ukraine and an impeachment being performed in secrecy yet you don't want to endlessly point out Joe Bidens corruption on a thread called Ukrainegate. More projection. :roll: funny stuff
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15044096
Rancid wrote:I don't even understand this statement.



The opposite of endlessly hashing out a fake whistleblowers account of a phone call, of which the transcript was released proving the setup.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15044097
BigSteve wrote:An unsuccessful attempt to remove the President, which is exactly what we're going to get, is going to serve to bolster the right and, more specifically, Trump. Why? Because Pelosi and Schiff are pursuing it the way they are. The American people don't like being kept in the dark, nd that's what's happening. We're not being allowed to watch the process. When it happened to Clinton, we knew what was happening. When it was about to happen to Nixon we could see it coming. Now, however, shitheads like Schiff and Pelosi expect us to simply believe what they tell us. They'll get mindless, left-wing dipshits to believe them, but thinking Americans aren't buying their bullshit...


Oh hell I actually agree with Big Steve in this. I don't trust all that behind closed door bullshit. It is a way of covering their own dirt and their own two faced shit. I do believe so.

The government in DC is sucking big time.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15044098
Finfinder wrote:The opposite of endlessly hashing out a fake whistleblowers account of a phone call, of which the transcript was released proving the setup.


If you look back at my previous posts, I said Biden should be investigated as well.

What point are you trying to make here?
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15044100
@blackjack21 wrote:

As I said in Election 2020, my main hope is to prevent the rise of a neoliberal/neoconservative. Do you notice that I am as derisive of Mitt Romney as of Hillary Clinton?


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. I happen to think you are inundated with liberals in the Bay Area of Walnut Creek, Tiburon County or wherever you live and you think a cover story will help you out.

I think @late is right about you not being realistic in a certain sense. California being a WASP paradise is a lost cause for sure. That state is the most diverse of all of the states and culturally a multicultural liberal mecca. Gays, and the massive amount of immigrants not from Europe makes California's deep culture have almost zero of Anglo influence. You are effectively a minority in your own state.

California also is the most productive state in terms of agriculture and so on of the fifty states. A cultural producer of film, stories, and so on....deeply rooted in many places....and part of a Pacific Rim sphere of influence.

You don't like Mitt Romney because he is a compromiser as well. You got your principles and you are consistent. I know that about you BJ.

I differ so profoundly from you on the meaning of life and what it is about that I think fundamentally we are about as polar opposites as can be....

I wish you would improve your lack of corazon. Far Right Sage was kind of like you in many ways, but he had a beautiful heart. And because of that his emotional life was quite prosperous.

But I presume. It could be you never cope with emotional content in political fora with strangers. I don't blame you.

I just happen to think all people are emotional in some way in some context. It is impossible not to be.

In terms of Lopez Obrador, the majority of Mexican voters think he is doing a great job combating corruption so far in his 9 month presidency. You have to see Sinaloa is very dangerous. And Culiacan in particular. I went there years ago....and it was a very interesting experience.

He has to prevent massacres. If he doesn't do that? The anger will be very very intense. People here are sick and tired of damn drug lord wars...they hate it. And think trying to confront the Narcs directly is a huge mistake. Most Mexican law officials who are not on the take, think that the best way is to take over their bank accounts and freeze their assets. Something AMLO did with the top ranking union guy of PEMEX. Petroleos Mexicanos. He was making so much money he had multi million dollar yachts being given away to his kids and relatives....with names like Ël Guero. He was forced to resign and his assets are being frozen. He is angry as hell. But so far no dead bodies.

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.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15044105
BigSteve wrote:An unsuccessful attempt to remove the President, which is exactly what we're going to get, is going to serve to bolster the right and, more specifically, Trump. Why? Because Pelosi and Schiff are pursuing it the way they are. The American people don't like being kept in the dark, nd that's what's happening. We're not being allowed to watch the process. When it happened to Clinton, we knew what was happening. When it was about to happen to Nixon we could see it coming. Now, however, shitheads like Schiff and Pelosi expect us to simply believe what they tell us. They'll get mindless, left-wing dipshits to believe them, but thinking Americans aren't buying their bullshit...

Nope, usually that would be the case. But this time since Trumps popularity is dropping slowly and it will boil down to the fact that Republicans will probably vote against impeachment in the senate. 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. Basically an issue of partisanship of the country where the Rs cant put the future of the country before the party.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15044109
JohnRawls wrote:Nope, usually that would be the case. But this time since Trumps popularity is dropping slowly and it will boil down to the fact that Republicans will probably vote against impeachment in the senate. 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. Basically an issue of partisanship of the country where the Rs cant put the future of the country before the party.


Historically speaking. Republicans have always been WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better at sticking together when compared to Democrats.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15044110
I think history is thrown out the door. Right now the Republicans are the new Democrats and the Democratic party has jerked so far left they are unrecognizable.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15044113
blackjack21 wrote:
Is it incompetence? Or is it pursuit of goals you disagree with that you assume only an incompetent person would pursue?


Fair enough, but Trump isn't in any way responsible for making people fat. I mean the food pyramid is totally wrong and came out in 1992. Why don't you lament Bush or Clinton for that, or the unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of Congressman collecting donations from special interests? Why does that land on Trump's lap? Even before that, the massive increase in added sugar began in the 1970s with high fructose corn syrup getting the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) designation. As soda started using high fructose corn syrup in lieu of cane sugar, prices declined, demand increased and obesity started to reach epidemic proportions. Why are you so loath to place the blame where it belongs, and just see Trump as one of many fat bastards around that are more victims of bad food policy than perpetrators? Jerry Nadler is a far fatter bastard, and failed to take Trump down. Do you suppose that's a character flaw on Nadler's part, and the reason he wasn't able to take down Trump? Obesity?


I never said that Obese Donald was responsible for the obesity epidemic in America. That would be a rather stupid conclusion. I simply state from time to time that Donald is obese. Taking a cue from our intelligent and wise leader in using stupid demeaning names to refer to others. All a part of making America great again. We all can go around all day long insulting and hating each other. E. Pluribus Unum anybody? :lol:

I found what you posted on food policy interesting. I stopped drinking "soda" many years ago. Dumping what was pretty much pure liquid sugar into my body simply for the short cheap thrill and a short sugar high made about as much sense as Donald's economic thinking.

other point: incompetence. Not your Rush and Sean style spin.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15044114
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. :lol:

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...
User avatar
By Rancid
#15044117
@blackjack21,

Your responses takes us back to my original question which you have yet to answer.

Maybe I'll rephrase it for you.

Is there difference between law & what is morally/ethically right?
User avatar
By jimjam
#15044118
The reality is that Mr. Mulvaney has never been particularly raveled, so to speak. Nor has he ever been particularly measured in his tone even before assuming his present position, or acted like a Chief of Staff, acting or otherwise.

Some of this is due to the nature of his boss, and the inherent challenges of the role Mulvaney occupies in serving him.

But all of that put aside, what should be of particular concern to Americans of all political stripes is that both the president and his Chief of Staff occupy very serious roles that require temperament and circumspection, and neither Donald Trump nor Mick Mulvaney are manifesting either of those qualities in the least.

Mulvaney May have viewed his role as letting Trump be Trump, which may in turn have been precisely what his boss wanted out of a Chief. But like Trump, Mulvaney serves the entire nation, and neither is serving their masters well. We have two emotional misfits prone to the human equivalent of nuclear chain reactions, and the results aren’t good.

We are watching a core meltdown. Both Trump and Mulvaney are fissionable material. The damage caused by their emotional meltdowns will linger for years, and it is too soon to even begin calculating just how harmful it will ultimately become.
User avatar
By Stormsmith
#15044120
@BigSteve
And they're going to remember that the reason they had to defend him was the unrelenting attacks by the left on the President.


Agreed


As much as they wish they didn't have to defend him, they will not, under any circumstances, create an environment beneficial to the left. They're not going to give up their defense of Trump, simply because the left would spin that to mean that they are right and their conduct was correct.


I agree, they won'the want their "sound bites" being aired repeatedly. Most of them, I think, are frightened of being primaried. Certainly twittered. Your president doesn't treat his adversaries with respect, does he?


Impeachment is going to backfire on the left, simply because it's going to be unsuccessful. Americans have little patience for shit like this, and the idiots on the left are going to find that out...


Perhaps. Perhaps not. As I said earlier, Speaker Pelosi is clever. She knows what happened with President Nixon. Lather, rinse, repeat.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15044122
Rancid wrote:Historically speaking. Republicans have always been WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better at sticking together when compared to Democrats.


Yeah, that is why i said that senate will not let Trump get impeached. The problem with that position is that it will still hurt the Republicans if the current ratings stay. More than 50% of US population is for impeaching Trump and this number will inevitably grow so it will be a decision for the senate to block the impeachment or not.(Same as with same-sex marriage. Nobody was for it until the opinion of the public changed and then almost everyone was for it) Basically it will depend on how much his popularity will decrease.(Unpopularity is not the same thing as popularity.) It will probably not reach levels when the Rs will need to abandon him. It will hurt both ways though.
  • 1
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 52
The Paradox of Poverty

In a socialist nation there is no private owner[…]

Amb. Taylor pointed out, in his earlier testimony,[…]

A quick update pending fact check, but the inciden[…]

EU-BREXIT

It's obviously much better to invest in the single[…]