|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it?
It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too.
An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger by abusing the office of the President in a similar way. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans).
Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it.
I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not.
|
On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Show nested quote +Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not.
Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post.
If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it.
|
On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship.
The equivalent for Charlotte would be if the Ukranians wanted to investigate it and Trump was holding up funding to stop them from doing it.
|
On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post.
It's actually just not.
Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests.
Yes, doing things in the "national interest" will potentially make a president look better in the eyes of the public and therefore serve their political interests. This is not in any sense the same as what Trump has done in this instance.
So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion.
This is directly opposed to what I said. Trump using the office for his own direct personal/political benefit is a central part of the problem.
|
On November 11 2019 08:55 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. It's actually just not. Show nested quote +Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. Yes, doing things in the "national interest" will potentially make a president look better in the eyes of the public and therefore serve their political interests. This is not in any sense the same as what Trump has done in this instance. Show nested quote +So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. This is directly opposed to what I said. Trump using the office for his own direct personal/political benefit is a central part of the problem.
The distinction Democrats make between something like Trump moving the embassy in Israel and the bribery/extortion/corruption lobbying involved with that (or the countless other situations like this under every administration) and Trump's pressuring Ukraine to put something together on Hunter Biden's scam job is emblematic of the same kinda "stupidity or acting in bad faith." Simberto sees in Republicans for me with Democrats.
|
On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it.
Extortions and bribe are done every day in international politics. While dirty, these are "legal". Usually they benefit a country. Ex: we bail you out if you let us buy your biggest port (china/greece) etc etc.
In this case :
1) Trump does not get to decide who gets or not the money that was voted by congress. He does not have a veto power. Republicans argue this is not new.
2) what has biden's son done? (Even allegedly...)
3) It was not to benefit his country, but for unverified, already debunked by his own executive agencies, conspiracy theories, for negative exposure (just exposure, not even indictment. Je just wants the "he is being investigated so he is corrupt" punchline, which he rejects when it applies to him) of his political opponent.
Corrupt intent. It has everything to do with who he asks an investigation of, and if there is probable cause (there is not, confirmed by his admin AND ukrainian prosecutors who himself fed the bullshit theory). As there is no probable cause nor existing indictment, you cannot just bring a random citizen to testify about... What? He got a high paying job questionably? His name helped him get the job? Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail.
As much as I hated the embassy move and its reasons, it's not illegal, not for naked personal gain, and somewhat of a campaign promise, so you could argue it's the will of the people, so he was not dishonoring his pledge. (On the Netanyahou side though... Just before election.. and other announcement... You could argue Trump interfered in their politics. That's for them to decide)
|
On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail.
Now you're speaking my language
|
On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:
3) It was not to benefit his country, but for unverified, already debunked by his own executive agencies, conspiracy theories, for negative exposure (just exposure, not even indictment. Je just wants the "he is being investigated so he is corrupt" punchline, which he rejects when it applies to him) of his political opponent.
...
As much as I hated the embassy move and its reasons, it's not illegal, not for naked personal gain, and somewhat of a campaign promise, so you could argue it's the will of the people, so he was not dishonoring his pledge. (On the Netanyahou side though... Just before election.. and other announcement... You could argue Trump interfered in their politics. That's for them to decide)
I was going to write a post but this pretty much covers it.
|
On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language
As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first.
|
On November 11 2019 09:39 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first.
As I said;
The distinction Democrats make between something like Trump moving the embassy in Israel and the bribery/extortion/corruption lobbying involved with that (or the countless other situations like this under every administration) and Trump's pressuring Ukraine to put something together on Hunter Biden's scam job is emblematic of the same kinda "stupidity or acting in bad faith." Simberto sees in Republicans for me with Democrats.
When you say:
you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first.
I see the same bad faith defense of corruption people constantly talk about with Republicans and why Democrats can't see this is a dud politically.
|
On November 11 2019 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 09:39 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:[quote] If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first. As I said; Show nested quote +The distinction Democrats make between something like Trump moving the embassy in Israel and the bribery/extortion/corruption lobbying involved with that (or the countless other situations like this under every administration) and Trump's pressuring Ukraine to put something together on Hunter Biden's scam job is emblematic of the same kinda "stupidity or acting in bad faith." Simberto sees in Republicans for me with Democrats. When you say: Show nested quote +you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first. I see the same bad faith defense of corruption people constantly talk about with Republicans and why Democrats can't see this is a dud politically.
Not sure I see the 'dud politically' angle.
Yes there's corruption involved in this nonsense, but politics everywhere involves a degree of hypocrisy and functions based on it, and people accept it. So long as everyone sings the same song, agrees tacitly that this bit of hypocrisy is part of the system, politically it works fine.
The line in the sand doesn't need to be logical to be adhered to on the political level.
|
There's a big difference between taking advantage of personal connections and taking actions that directly threaten democracy. Whatever you think Hunter Biden is guilty of GH (it isn't too clear), one is someone who isn't a politician doing anything particularily harmful to society, and the other is the president of USA using the US Government to attack political rivals.
And no, all rich people on board of directors and their families should not be put in jail, just because you wnt them to. I can't believe you even think this is appropriate.
|
On November 11 2019 09:39 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first.
You expect any law to be upheld against those who facilitates and funds its upholders?
In general, law works well to moderate undesirable behaviour, but it is entirely impotent when it comes to dealing with the wealthy and connected.
To fix the law, you first need to fix the potential for individual power and the leverage it allows.
|
Northern Ireland27268 Posts
I’m not entirely clear on GH’s stance on the Trump/Biden thing but I can definitely get behind him on the jail the rich ticket.
Although him getting my vote is rather unlikely, me being over here and whatnot. I assume you’ll have to run as an Independent GH? Doesn’t seem a goer with the big two anyway
|
On November 11 2019 22:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
I’m not entirely clear on GH’s stance on the Trump/Biden thing but I can definitely get behind him on the jail the rich ticket.
Although him getting my vote is rather unlikely, me being over here and whatnot. I assume you’ll have to run as an Independent GH? Doesn’t seem a goer with the big two anyway
You can jail people for using their wealth and connection for nefarious reasons, but to arrest them simply for having money is absurd. Wealth redistribution needs to occur, but it's a fool's errand to even contemplate jail time for simply having money.
|
Northern Ireland27268 Posts
On November 11 2019 22:47 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 09:39 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:[quote] If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first. You expect any law to be upheld against those who facilitates and funds its upholders? In general, law works well to moderate undesirable behaviour, but it is entirely impotent when it comes to dealing with the wealthy and connected. To fix the law, you first need to fix the potential for individual power and the leverage it allows.
Which is the crux of the issue really, and a rather intractable one at that.
If the US political system constituted two different wings of policy/general ideologies around a shared pillar of civic duty and what have you, then it could navigate these issues better.
When it sits atop a population that is actively tribal and a media culture that fuels and actively thrives on stoking those fires it becomes exceptionally difficult.
|
On November 11 2019 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 22:47 plated.rawr wrote:On November 11 2019 09:39 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay
I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first. You expect any law to be upheld against those who facilitates and funds its upholders? In general, law works well to moderate undesirable behaviour, but it is entirely impotent when it comes to dealing with the wealthy and connected. To fix the law, you first need to fix the potential for individual power and the leverage it allows. Which is the crux of the issue really, and a rather intractable one at that. If the US political system constituted two different wings of policy/general ideologies around a shared pillar of civic duty and what have you, then it could navigate these issues better. When it sits atop a population that is actively tribal and a media culture that fuels and actively thrives on stoking those fires it becomes exceptionally difficult.
FPTP breeds tribalism if pushed too far as well. If you were forced into coalition governments all the time it would be harder to hide any shady doings and it would allow a political spectrum to emerge. Currently you have pro rich people and companies on both sides. Then one side is against environment and people's rights, the other somewhat cares about them.
|
On November 11 2019 23:53 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 11 2019 22:47 plated.rawr wrote:On November 11 2019 09:39 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated.
But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is.
EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first. You expect any law to be upheld against those who facilitates and funds its upholders? In general, law works well to moderate undesirable behaviour, but it is entirely impotent when it comes to dealing with the wealthy and connected. To fix the law, you first need to fix the potential for individual power and the leverage it allows. Which is the crux of the issue really, and a rather intractable one at that. If the US political system constituted two different wings of policy/general ideologies around a shared pillar of civic duty and what have you, then it could navigate these issues better. When it sits atop a population that is actively tribal and a media culture that fuels and actively thrives on stoking those fires it becomes exceptionally difficult. FPTP breeds tribalism if pushed too far as well. If you were forced into coalition governments all the time it would be harder to hide any shady doings and it would allow a political spectrum to emerge. Currently you have pro rich people and companies on both sides. Then one side is against environment and people's rights, the other somewhat cares about them.
They would need to change the constitution for that. You need 2/3rd of Congress. So any party in power at that time would never relinquish that power. Won't happen. The best chance is when a party, over decades, changes things little by little, like the push in states to remove the electoral college. But changing the party structuring ? good luck.
|
Did anyone here read Trick Mirror? I just finished it, and I feel like it articulated so many things I've been feeling so well that I'm sort of shaken by the experience.
|
Northern Ireland27268 Posts
On November 11 2019 23:53 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 23:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 11 2019 22:47 plated.rawr wrote:On November 11 2019 09:39 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 09:15 Nouar wrote:On November 11 2019 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:37 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated.
But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is.
EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous. Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it? It's still pretty hard to believe... but in the hypothetical case where that happened, I reckon Democrats would probably still try to sink Trump with it (after all, the potential for blowback on them goes down considerably if the Bidens aren't in the picture). Perhaps less enthusiastically... but they'd probably be getting more help from the Republicans, too. An actually believable chain of events would be Trump looking for dirt on the family of a hypothetical primary challenger. Which I think would probably also get him impeached (again with less enthusiasm from the Democrats, but probably a lot more from Republicans). Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it. I can't even engage with this without buying into your worldview so I think I'm just gonna not. Other than the quotations around national interest, that has nothing to do with my worldview and is merely a summary of the positions I've seen articulated here and supported by the rest of your post. If Trump had done the extortion/bribe for something more traditionally bipartisan but definitively more horrific there would be no impeachment attempt for it. ... Ok put all rich people on administration boards and their families in jail. Now you're speaking my language As much as I'd like to sometimes, it's not realistic, you shouldn't arrest people who have not broken the Law. Even if you wish it, you cannot expect the Dems to do it and call them hypocritical if they don't (in this specific case). Change the Law first. You expect any law to be upheld against those who facilitates and funds its upholders? In general, law works well to moderate undesirable behaviour, but it is entirely impotent when it comes to dealing with the wealthy and connected. To fix the law, you first need to fix the potential for individual power and the leverage it allows. Which is the crux of the issue really, and a rather intractable one at that. If the US political system constituted two different wings of policy/general ideologies around a shared pillar of civic duty and what have you, then it could navigate these issues better. When it sits atop a population that is actively tribal and a media culture that fuels and actively thrives on stoking those fires it becomes exceptionally difficult. FPTP breeds tribalism if pushed too far as well. If you were forced into coalition governments all the time it would be harder to hide any shady doings and it would allow a political spectrum to emerge. Currently you have pro rich people and companies on both sides. Then one side is against environment and people's rights, the other somewhat cares about them.
Tribes breed tribalism IMO, systems can mitigate to some degree but it’s something that flows upwards from the base.
The Northern Irish assembly isn’t FPTP, there is enforced power sharing and the political climate is so toxic it doesn’t even sit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
