|
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 15 2019 09:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 00:36 Gorgonoth wrote:
Quinnipac poll on Monday has Biden up 4 points in NH, Monmouth has Pete Buttigeg up by 3 in Iowa with Biden in 2nd.
Not sure if I see any other take that makes sense besides "It's moderately good for Biden" that Buttigeg is surging(in one state). Pete is still polling at 8% nationally so he's not gonna win this, but if he takes away an early victory from Warren that she may desperately need, on paper thats pretty good for Biden.
Warren's still hanging close, trading national polls with Biden, but if she continues to be mediocre in her Iowa, NH, and NV polls things aren't looking great. What about the idea that Pete winning in Iowa might make other moderates more interested in him than Biden? I can't imagine too many Warren or Sanders supporters switching to Pete after Iowa, but switching from the main moderate (Biden) to another moderate (Pete) could happen?
I think that Biden's base is pretty solid. Buttigieg's "base" is really just a regional appeal and that's reflected by his forgettable national polling. The impactful part of him winning is the early couple races are the time where Warren, Sanders (frankly anyone not named Joe Biden) need to win and get a net delegate cushion over Biden. Everything is trending for Biden to win big in the delegate-rich South, and hes polling very close everywhere else so early state wins don't mean as much for him.
Does anyone here think Warren or Sanders will drop out before the primaries? If an anti-Biden coalition is going to be formed the clock is ticking because 50% of the delegates are decided in the first month, and 75% in two months. A Warren Sanders ticket could be very strong, I doubt it will happen though as I think they're both pretty convinced they can win. I see Sanders dropping out more than I do Warren, of course since Warren is in a strong second. A possibly more likely scenario is one drops out and Warren gets a strong VP to run with her and has a solid performance and wins the primary that way.
|
On November 15 2019 09:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 14 2019 23:45 redlightdistrict wrote:A new 2020 democratic contender has entered the fray. https://www.yahoo.com/news/deval-patrick-former-massachusetts-governor-115229763.htmlShow nested quote +Deval Patrick, who made history after becoming Massachusetts’ first black governor, threw his name into the 2020 Democratic presidential election Thursday.
In a video released Thursday morning, Patrick, 63, played up his poor upbringing on the South Side of Chicago and traced his journey to the "American Dream," the path to which is "closing off," he said.
"I admire and respect the candidates in the Democratic field, they bring a richness of ideas and experience and a depth of character that makes me proud to be a Democrat," he said. "But if the character of the candidates is an issue in every election, this time is about the character of the country."
Patrick made a passing reference to President Donald Trump, but did not mention him by name. The election, he said, is "about more than removing an unpopular and divisive leader" but about "delivering instead for you."
Election 2020: In California's 2020 primary, Latino voters could help Democrats defeat President Trump
Patrick is a close ally of former President Barack Obama, and previously explored a bid for the presidency before deciding not to run.
In August 2018, allies of Patrick launched a political action committee called Reason to Believe, and Patrick spent time ahead of the 2018 midterms stumping for Democratic candidates.
But in December, Patrick took his name out of the running, citing “the cruelty of our elections process.”
"I’ve been overwhelmed by advice and encouragement from people from all over the country, known and unknown. Humbled, in fact," Patrick said in a statement posted to Facebook at the time. "But knowing that the cruelty of our elections process would ultimately splash back on people whom (my wife) and I love, but who hadn’t signed up for the journey, was more than I could ask."
Patrick's decision reflects uncertainty from some about the direction of the Democratic presidential primary. Former Vice President Joe Biden entered the race as the frontrunner and maintains significant support from black voters, whose backing is critical in a Democratic primary. But he’s facing spirited challenges from Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, progressives whose calls for fundamental economic change have alarmed moderates and wealthy donors.
Young voters: Can young voters again push Democrats to victory in 2020?
Patrick’s candidacy faces a significant hurdle to raise enormous amounts of money quickly and to build an organization in the traditional early voting states that most of his rivals have focused on for the past year. And he’ll have to pivot to the expensive and logistically daunting Super Tuesday contests, when voters in more than a dozen states and territories head to the polls.
Patrick graduated from Harvard Law School and later went on to be part of President Bill Clinton’s administration as chief of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
Patrick is not the only moderate Democrat who is seeking a late entry into the 2020 race. Michael Bloomberg is also weighing a bid, billing himself as a more centrist alternative that could beat President Donald Trump.
Due to his late bid in the race, Patrick will likely not make the debate stage in December, where he will need at least 200,000 unique contributors and at least 4% in four national or early state polls, or at least 6% in two early state polls.
The Massachusetts Democrat will likely benefit from his state’s proximity to New Hampshire, the first-in-the-nation primary state. Yup, and he'll be completely irrelevant.
Think everyone sees him more irrelevant than Bloomberg. Bloomberg has the finances and backing of philanthropy to run a campaign but neither of them have any real status beyond their respective localities, even more so for Patrick.
|
VP picks don't normally matter in an election, but I think either combo of Sanders/Warren would lose harder than either of them would alone. One of Trump's primary strategies is going to be calling out all the radical things they want to do, and picking one of the two as a running mate puts a gigantic exclamation point on that. They won't be able to run from all the stuff they are proposing to get the nomination. It would probably never happen for ego and other political reasons, but it would be playing right into Trump's hands.
It's obvious I don't share the idea of the left (of which there is, or at least was a mirror on the right) that running hard left is the key. Doubling up like that takes away a whole swath of voters who want any reason they can to convince themselves to vote for Democrats (or more accurately, against Trump). Throw them a bone! You do this and it's going all in on the belief that progressive ideas are far more popular to a general electorate than there is any reason to believe. Trump won in 2016 in part by winning moderates and independents, doing this would give them to him again.
of course if the economy tanks Trump is probably dead no matter what.
|
Ohio trying to pass a law that makes it so students can’t be penalized for scientifically wrong answers as long as they have a religious belief backing it up. Probably want to avoid any STEM people from Ohio moving forward.
A religious liberties bill in Ohio is being criticized by detractors who allege it could be used to prohibit teachers from penalizing scientifically false answers on assignments.
In a 61-31 vote on Wednesday, the Ohio House sent the legislation, the Student Religious Liberties Act, to the state Senate. Among other provisions, the bill requires public schools to give groups expressing religious beliefs equal access to facilities and bans schools from restricting students from religious expression when completing homework and assignments, according to Cleveland.com.
The sponsor of the bill, Republican state Rep. Timothy Ginter, said that the legislation is needed given the pressures that today’s students face, including drug use, depression, and suicide.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/critics-claim-ohio-religious-liberty-bill-could-force-teachers-to-accept-scientifically-wrong-answers?_amp=true
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/us/hoda-muthana-isis-citizenship.html
A surprise ruling from the bench is a blow to a bid to bring Hoda Muthana and her 2-year-old son, the child of a slain ISIS fighter, back from a refugee camp in Syria.
A federal judge ruled on Thursday that Hoda Muthana, an American-born woman who joined the Islamic State in 2014 and says she now wants to return home to her family in Alabama, is not an American citizen.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 14 2019 04:26 Nouar wrote:
My god I can't bear the hypocrisy of these lines of questioning...
"But now Ukrainians have got their lethal aid ! With THIS administration while you were begging Obama to give it ! Ah Ah ! So you're wrong in what you've heard, gotcha !!!"
Yeah, aid voted by congress, released after the scandal broke out and a lot of pushback from his own admin. No problem there.
"But President Zelensky did not say he felt pressured, to the contrary !!!"
Yeah, as if Zelensky would publicly accuse Trump, risking his country to favor democrats.
What a bunch of ********* (insert insult)
I'm confused with your interpretation. It seems ultimately to require a pre-determination on a motivation behind Trump having an intent of bribery for personal political gain - in which case it would seem reasonable. If you are certain that he only released aid because he was effectively forced to, than it would be fair to dismiss the point as irrelevant. But if you do not accept such a premise, the case is very weak and open to smaller secondary considerations, like this. For example, I'd expect if a President wanted to leverage a favor from Ukraine they could easily find ways to get in the way of aid. It would be fully possible to withhold/delay/diminish it without anyone knowing your motivation. Thus this case appears to require accepting that though there was an easy route to extort a favor, the extortion failed due to incompetence.
Ultimately it is incredibly unlikely anyone can or will make a persuasive assessment of Trump's motives unless they are a psychic. This is one of the main points the GOP made a number of times. The fact that the witnesses have: i) little first hand knowledge on the issue, i.e., basing their opinions on second/third-hand opinion, and ii) showed a lack of background knowledge on relevant to any comprehensive interpretations on Trump's rationale, means that they are horribly qualified to address the fundamental question that is required for the case to meet the common legal standards in such cases (certainty of motives). I mean, it would be almost impossible - even if Trump's best friend testified he had corrupt intent - to meet the legal standard to establish intent, let alone establishing it with people who were in no position to assess his state of mind or even have a fully informed analysis to weigh alternative interpretations for Trump wanting investigations.
I think you seem to be also ignoring the fact this is primarily political theater and both sides will take advantage of it to divert the conversation during the inquiry. There is a good chance of no formal impeachment vote, no chance of removal, and the main purpose for both parties is to get air time (though with GOP, it is not a voluntary choice to engage in this). In this case Republicans can try to make a point on the actual result of aid between administrations and I see little reason for an emotional reaction, even granting the worst case interpretation of partisanship. Though for me, I do feel it is worth it to react quite unhappily over the fact that congress is dedicated to unending theater and is not busy with legislative efforts to address American problems.
|
On November 14 2019 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if the Republicans understand the silliness of accusing Democrats of not having enough witnesses favorable to Trump when there are outstanding subpoeanas to multiple members of the administration that are being ignored...it's a bold move, Cotton.
(there's also the fact that if a crime actually did occur there would naturally be more hostile than sympathetic witnesses to the criminal, but they live in a world where no one can be justified in hostility towards Trump so I suppose that's impossible)
I must be missing something here. Assuming you think impeachment should have a similar level of fairness as a trial, in an "inquiry" or formal proceeding, it makes sense to invite witnesses from all sides. If the Republicans are analogous to a defense team in a trial, imagining a trial where the defense cannot call witnesses or have questions asked that the prosecution does not agree with, it is surely a kangaroo court.
As for ignoring subpoeanas, the relevance is unclear. Firstly, this is mostly dependent on a choice of the individual witness, and has nothing to do with the right to call witnesses. There is no way you can genuinely equivocate these. Witnesses have a legal entitlement to refuse if they believe congress did not have a genuine reason to call them. Congress has the ability to contest these refusals and witnesses can be court-ordered to comply. My understanding is this would not be the case with formal impeachment proceedings, which places some responsibility on Democrats to move forward?
Even if you find the witnesses are not credible, relevant, or persuasive, a defense should have equivalent rights to make their best case. If you are confident in the case for impeachment here, not allowing minority members standard rights makes Democrats look bad. If acting in good faith, I would think they would enact the same house rules as were granted in past recent political investigations and impeachments. Playing hardball by denying minority rights to an unprecedented level (correct me if wrong) gives the appearance of having massive disdain for fairness and/or having something to hide. That is not a good look for a group attempting to play the role of solemn ethical patriots protecting the dignity of our institutions.
And I find it incredible one could imply there would be no good witnesses for an opposition to call. Firstly, it is an inquiry. That means you are not supposed to call witnesses who just do what you want. You're supposed to be finding facts. Secondly, there is an obvious host of witnesses that would potentially cast doubt on this being a good faith investigation. E.g., if any witness revealed that the "whistleblower" did contact and strategize with Schiff, it indicates the person leading the investigation purposely deceived and directly lied, which is of obvious relevance to the credibility of House Democrats. Or there could be witnesses to offer perspectives on legitimate reasons a US President may withhold aid. There are an endless amount of potential witnesses that Republicans could legitimately want, I'm rather stunned someone would casually dismiss such a fundamental part of an investigative process that is critical for fairness.
|
United States43201 Posts
On November 15 2019 18:55 servolisk2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2019 04:26 Nouar wrote:
My god I can't bear the hypocrisy of these lines of questioning...
"But now Ukrainians have got their lethal aid ! With THIS administration while you were begging Obama to give it ! Ah Ah ! So you're wrong in what you've heard, gotcha !!!"
Yeah, aid voted by congress, released after the scandal broke out and a lot of pushback from his own admin. No problem there.
"But President Zelensky did not say he felt pressured, to the contrary !!!"
Yeah, as if Zelensky would publicly accuse Trump, risking his country to favor democrats.
What a bunch of ********* (insert insult) I'm confused with your interpretation. It seems ultimately to require a pre-determination on a motivation behind Trump having an intent of bribery for personal political gain - in which case it would seem reasonable. If you are certain that he only released aid because he was effectively forced to, than it would be fair to dismiss the point as irrelevant. But if you do not accept such a premise, the case is very weak and open to smaller secondary considerations, like this. For example, I'd expect if a President wanted to leverage a favor from Ukraine they could easily find ways to get in the way of aid. It would be fully possible to withhold/delay/diminish it without anyone knowing your motivation. Thus this case appears to require accepting that though there was an easy route to extort a favor, the extortion failed due to incompetence. Ultimately it is incredibly unlikely anyone can or will make a persuasive assessment of Trump's motives unless they are a psychic. This is one of the main points the GOP made a number of times. The fact that the witnesses have: i) little first hand knowledge on the issue, i.e., basing their opinions on second/third-hand opinion, and ii) showed a lack of background knowledge on relevant to any comprehensive interpretations on Trump's rationale, means that they are horribly qualified to address the fundamental question that is required for the case to meet the common legal standards in such cases (certainty of motives). I mean, it would be almost impossible - even if Trump's best friend testified he had corrupt intent - to meet the legal standard to establish intent, let alone establishing it with people who were in no position to assess his state of mind or even have a fully informed analysis to weigh alternative interpretations for Trump wanting investigations. I think you seem to be also ignoring the fact this is primarily political theater and both sides will take advantage of it to divert the conversation during the inquiry. There is a good chance of no formal impeachment vote, no chance of removal, and the main purpose for both parties is to get air time (though with GOP, it is not a voluntary choice to engage in this). In this case Republicans can try to make a point on the actual result of aid between administrations and I see little reason for an emotional reaction, even granting the worst case interpretation of partisanship. Though for me, I do feel it is worth it to react quite unhappily over the fact that congress is dedicated to unending theater and is not busy with legislative efforts to address American problems.
Trump repeatedly stated the quid pro quo existed. His chosen defence is that it’s legal to do quid pro quo’s.
|
On November 15 2019 19:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 18:55 servolisk2 wrote:On November 14 2019 04:26 Nouar wrote:
My god I can't bear the hypocrisy of these lines of questioning...
"But now Ukrainians have got their lethal aid ! With THIS administration while you were begging Obama to give it ! Ah Ah ! So you're wrong in what you've heard, gotcha !!!"
Yeah, aid voted by congress, released after the scandal broke out and a lot of pushback from his own admin. No problem there.
"But President Zelensky did not say he felt pressured, to the contrary !!!"
Yeah, as if Zelensky would publicly accuse Trump, risking his country to favor democrats.
What a bunch of ********* (insert insult) I'm confused with your interpretation. It seems ultimately to require a pre-determination on a motivation behind Trump having an intent of bribery for personal political gain - in which case it would seem reasonable. If you are certain that he only released aid because he was effectively forced to, than it would be fair to dismiss the point as irrelevant. But if you do not accept such a premise, the case is very weak and open to smaller secondary considerations, like this. For example, I'd expect if a President wanted to leverage a favor from Ukraine they could easily find ways to get in the way of aid. It would be fully possible to withhold/delay/diminish it without anyone knowing your motivation. Thus this case appears to require accepting that though there was an easy route to extort a favor, the extortion failed due to incompetence. Ultimately it is incredibly unlikely anyone can or will make a persuasive assessment of Trump's motives unless they are a psychic. This is one of the main points the GOP made a number of times. The fact that the witnesses have: i) little first hand knowledge on the issue, i.e., basing their opinions on second/third-hand opinion, and ii) showed a lack of background knowledge on relevant to any comprehensive interpretations on Trump's rationale, means that they are horribly qualified to address the fundamental question that is required for the case to meet the common legal standards in such cases (certainty of motives). I mean, it would be almost impossible - even if Trump's best friend testified he had corrupt intent - to meet the legal standard to establish intent, let alone establishing it with people who were in no position to assess his state of mind or even have a fully informed analysis to weigh alternative interpretations for Trump wanting investigations. I think you seem to be also ignoring the fact this is primarily political theater and both sides will take advantage of it to divert the conversation during the inquiry. There is a good chance of no formal impeachment vote, no chance of removal, and the main purpose for both parties is to get air time (though with GOP, it is not a voluntary choice to engage in this). In this case Republicans can try to make a point on the actual result of aid between administrations and I see little reason for an emotional reaction, even granting the worst case interpretation of partisanship. Though for me, I do feel it is worth it to react quite unhappily over the fact that congress is dedicated to unending theater and is not busy with legislative efforts to address American problems. Trump repeatedly stated the quid pro quo existed. His chosen defence is that it’s legal to do quid pro quo’s.
Not sure specifically what you mean here. I am guessing it is that it falls into the realm of conditioning aid for US interests. Rather than the one he is tried against, i.e., only being interested in dirt on Biden for personal political advantage. The former is something the witnesses against Trump explained is common. My meaning of "personal political gain" was intended to be specific to mean the primary reason to hold aid is to give pressure for dirt on Biden.
|
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe.
|
On November 15 2019 16:30 Ryzel wrote:Ohio trying to pass a law that makes it so students can’t be penalized for scientifically wrong answers as long as they have a religious belief backing it up. Probably want to avoid any STEM people from Ohio moving forward. Show nested quote + A religious liberties bill in Ohio is being criticized by detractors who allege it could be used to prohibit teachers from penalizing scientifically false answers on assignments.
In a 61-31 vote on Wednesday, the Ohio House sent the legislation, the Student Religious Liberties Act, to the state Senate. Among other provisions, the bill requires public schools to give groups expressing religious beliefs equal access to facilities and bans schools from restricting students from religious expression when completing homework and assignments, according to Cleveland.com.
The sponsor of the bill, Republican state Rep. Timothy Ginter, said that the legislation is needed given the pressures that today’s students face, including drug use, depression, and suicide. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/critics-claim-ohio-religious-liberty-bill-could-force-teachers-to-accept-scientifically-wrong-answers?_amp=true
The legislation text can be found here, by the way: https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-HB-164
The very top of page 16 in the text says this:
No school district board of education, governing authority of a community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code, governing body of a STEM school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code, or board of trustees of a college-preparatory boarding school established under Chapter 3328. of the Revised Code shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.
The underlining is from me, which I think (and hope!) teachers can use in case we have Creationist parents telling Creationist kids to write Creationist answers on their science tests.
The rest of the text is pretty standard protections of religious liberties before, during, and after school hours, but I'm fairly certain that it's essentially all redundant; state and federal laws almost certainly permit everything outlined in this text, from the opportunity to privately pray in public school, to the ability to wear a necklace with a cross, to the ability to have clubs discussing religion.
|
United States43201 Posts
On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe.
No, it’s that it’s not legal for the President to use the office for personal advantage. Like a cop pulling over his ex wife for speeding after following her around for days. Speeding is against the public interest but a cop should not be using the powers to harass their ex.
|
On November 15 2019 20:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe. No, it’s that it’s not legal for the President to use the office for personal advantage. Like a cop pulling over his ex wife for speeding after following her around for days. Speeding is against the public interest but a cop should not be using the powers to harass their ex.
That's one way to frame it, alternatively, the president can (and they all have, except maybe Carter) absolutely benefit personally from using the office to advance "national interests".
So the question becomes, is there a national interest in confronting Hunter Biden getting bribed?
Liberals have to say "no" or acknowledge that he was acting in the national interest (and his own).
|
On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe.
A problem with this is Trump's claim to want Ukrainian investigations is defended by saying there were legitimate concerns that should be investigated. If Biden acted corruptly here, or at least has the appearance of it being a serious question, it is hard to establish a case that only a corrupt motive was involved.
The idea of this corruption only being petty seems wrong to me. The man was a VP and potential POTUS. It might merit a distinct investigation, but it seems reckless to permit this from politicians. Our foreign policy, and the internal politics of a separate allied nation, being shaped in such a manner is not something to yawn at IMO. Shining light on the issue is in the national interest anyway, because this probably is a deep rooted problem in both parties.
|
On November 15 2019 20:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe. No, it’s that it’s not legal for the President to use the office for personal advantage. Like a cop pulling over his ex wife for speeding after following her around for days. Speeding is against the public interest but a cop should not be using the powers to harass their ex.
It would be more like if the cop had heard his wife broke the law and when he did business with wherever that was alleged he asked someone to look into it, in addition to parallel matters not involving his wife whatsoever, because Trump did not solely ask for Biden investigations. Also this is the one instance where he used the office against Biden (AFAIK); the analogy of following an ex around for targeted harassment seems stretched.
I'm not sure how one can possibly hope to make a claim it was for personal advantage. It might be inferred, but to claim to know... how on earth is that possible without psychic powers?
|
On November 15 2019 20:17 servolisk2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe. A problem with this is Trump's claim to want Ukrainian investigations is defended by saying there were legitimate concerns that should be investigated. If Biden acted corruptly here, or at least has the appearance of it being a serious question, it is hard to establish a case that only a corrupt motive was involved. The idea of this corruption only being petty seems wrong to me. The man was a VP and potential POTUS. It might merit a distinct investigation, but it seems reckless to permit this from politicians. Our foreign policy, and the internal politics of a separate allied nation, being shaped in such a manner is not something to yawn at IMO. Shining light on the issue is in the national interest anyway, because this probably is a deep rooted problem in both parties.
And there are ways of doing this investigation. It's what the FBI exists for...
And the FBI has its own channels through which to request Ukraine's help in an investigation. And if the Ukraine refuses or drags its feet, then the FBI director can tell the president and ask for some help in getting their collaboration. None of this happened. Trump apparently decided that the Ukrainian attorney should investigate Hunter Biden based on speculation and a grudge. That's abuse of power regardless of whether it turns out that Biden is guilty or not.
|
On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe. If Ukraine wanted to investigate Hunter for corruption they are allowed to do so.
If the US wants Ukraine to be tougher on corruption before they are given aid that is allowed.
The President deciding that a country does not receive aid until they investigate the son of his political opponent is not allowed.
Just because we are talking about point 3 because that forms part of the basis for the impeachment proceedings against the President doesn't mean Hunter can't be investigated or that bribery is now ok.
Whether or not calling Hunter out is in the national interest isn't relevant to Trump's abuse his office. And I'm sure you can come up with a laundry list of more important things to go after then Biden's son.
|
United States24734 Posts
On November 15 2019 20:23 servolisk2 wrote:
I'm not sure how one can possibly hope to make a claim it was for personal advantage. It might be inferred, but to claim to know... how on earth is that possible without psychic powers?
I think it comes down to what's more likely, not what's 100% known. It's pretty hard to 100% prove anything was the case. If I have to choose between Trump making a benevolent effort to protect the country from his political rival's corruption by pressuring the Ukranian president to publicly announce an investigation in exchange for aid and White House access, or Trump simply trying to get away with whatever he can to ensure victory in his next election, I'm going with the latter. Both are theoretically possibly, but Trump has a long history of bending the rules to do whatever is good for him personally (before and after becoming president), and does not have a long history of putting the country first. Evidence from the impeachment hearings up to this point mostly supports the latter as well.
|
On November 15 2019 20:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 20:17 servolisk2 wrote:On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe. A problem with this is Trump's claim to want Ukrainian investigations is defended by saying there were legitimate concerns that should be investigated. If Biden acted corruptly here, or at least has the appearance of it being a serious question, it is hard to establish a case that only a corrupt motive was involved. The idea of this corruption only being petty seems wrong to me. The man was a VP and potential POTUS. It might merit a distinct investigation, but it seems reckless to permit this from politicians. Our foreign policy, and the internal politics of a separate allied nation, being shaped in such a manner is not something to yawn at IMO. Shining light on the issue is in the national interest anyway, because this probably is a deep rooted problem in both parties. And there are ways of doing this investigation. It's what the FBI exists for...
It could be argued that either that Trump is not confident they can or will sufficiently investigate and/or that there is no harm in asking another possible investigator to act.
If the FBI is fully sufficient, that would imply they have done a good job in all investigations of this sort. Would you say all information on all corruption cases, and this one, is sufficiently known by them? I think this would be a big claim, but I'm not an expert.
|
United States43201 Posts
On November 15 2019 20:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 20:09 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe. No, it’s that it’s not legal for the President to use the office for personal advantage. Like a cop pulling over his ex wife for speeding after following her around for days. Speeding is against the public interest but a cop should not be using the powers to harass their ex. That's one way to frame it, alternatively, the president can (and they all have, except maybe Carter) absolutely benefit personally from using the office to advance "national interests". So the question becomes, is there a national interest in confronting Hunter Biden getting bribed? Liberals have to say "no" or acknowledge that he was acting in the national interest (and his own).
No. Again, it is in the public interest for a cop to discover criminal behaviour but that doesn’t give cops license to use their powers to investigate people they have a personal interest in harming in the hope that they discover illegal activity.
The President used government money to pay a foreign nation to announce that they were investigating the son of a political rival. There’s no case to be made that this was out of a genuine concern of illegality. His demands were a public announcement by Ukraine, along with also demanding that they state that Russia did not hack the 2016 election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
