This is also NOT from the Onion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1837
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:16 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:15 pm
SImple matter is that we have a president who based the granting of aid to another country simply based upon what the other country would do SOLELY for HIS interest. And, absolutely NOTHING to do with the country's interest.
That is what Biden did, since America doesn't benefit from his son's company escaping a corruption investigation.

But it is in America's interest to shed light on a politicians corrupt activities (Biden's), especially if he's campaigning for president.

This is the same point I made in my last post. You're just re-arraigning Biden and Trump in a way that doesn't make sense to me.
If anyone cannot see that I cannot add anything to the above. In this specific case we interpreting it entirely differently. Which is not an earth shattering conclusion. That seems to be the normality in life. Two people interpreting the same things in opposite ways.
Is it fair to say that your position is that rooting out corrupt political actions IS in line with America's interests, but Trump being president is worse than a corrupt politician who threatened to withhold aid to a national ally for the benefit of a family member's company, and so it isn't in the country's interest? Or you don't think Biden did anything wrong?
To die, to sleep
To sleep, perchance to dream; ay, there's the rub
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Montague, MA
Contact:

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:43 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:16 pm
vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:15 pm
SImple matter is that we have a president who based the granting of aid to another country simply based upon what the other country would do SOLELY for HIS interest. And, absolutely NOTHING to do with the country's interest.
That is what Biden did, since America doesn't benefit from his son's company escaping a corruption investigation.

But it is in America's interest to shed light on a politicians corrupt activities (Biden's), especially if he's campaigning for president.

This is the same point I made in my last post. You're just re-arraigning Biden and Trump in a way that doesn't make sense to me.
If anyone cannot see that I cannot add anything to the above. In this specific case we interpreting it entirely differently. Which is not an earth shattering conclusion. That seems to be the normality in life. Two people interpreting the same things in opposite ways.
Is it fair to say that your position is that rooting out corrupt political actions IS in line with America's interests, but Trump being president is worse than a corrupt politician who threatened to withhold aid to a national ally for the benefit of a family member's company, and so it isn't in the country's interest? Or you don't think Biden did anything wrong?
Where is your proof for what you say regarding Biden? I detest Biden. Would never vote for him. Have searched high and low for what you say. But all I find is that the rest of the world supported Biden / our request in the desire that Ukraine remove a corrupt prosecutor. That is what I presently believe unless you can point me to some reliable sources that show otherwise.

I don't accept the premise of your last paragraph because there is no evidence of Biden being corrupt in this particular action. Now when it comes to credit card companies (MBNA) (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... im-behind/) that might be a different story. Was there any other focus for Trump's regarding corruption in Ukraine outside of someone who (he thought) could be his formidable political opponent? Why not? Your last paragraph makes a more specific allegation regarding Biden that I have not seen even close to being proven. And, I really have more emotional dislike for Biden than I do for Trump. At least Trump is entertaining. Whenever he comes on C-Span I keep it tuned on to him.

Vinny
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Montague, MA
Contact:

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by vnatale » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:53 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:51 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:53 pm
While I have great respect for the people testifying, my overall sense is this kind of talk and "quid pro quo" likely goes on all the time and they just decided to call Trump on it because they don't like him.

I 100% believe he withheld aid to try to get what he wanted. Can the democrats clearly make that case? I highly doubt it.
Quid pro quo is kind what diplomacy is all about, right? It's pretty much always used in the sense that it's nefarious (ie, two illegal things are done), but it doesn't have to. Pretty much all international relations and diplomacy are conducted as quid pro quos. Look at a list of treaties and you see a big list of "you give us this land, and we'll stop attacking you" and "you let me be king of Spain, and I'll stop trying to be king of France" or whatever.

In addition, is it a Bad Thing to withhold aid from a country? Do we just have to give them stuff, no questions asked? I think it depends on the circumstances. If you're negotiating (quid pro quo-ing) with a country, and you threaten to withhold aid unless they stop investigating your son's company for illegal activities, that's a Bad Thing. But if you threaten to withhold it if they don't help you investigate corruption among your own politicians, that's a Good Thing. Though last I heard, Trump didn't tell the Ukrainians he would withhold aid if they didn't help, but I may be behind the times.

When I try to sort out what actually happened and whether it was kosher or not, I gather that Trump asked Ukraine to help determine whether we have a corrupt politician (Biden) on our hands. This is precisely what we have a treaty with Ukraine to do. Biden doesn't get immunity from investigation just because he's campaigning for president. I get why some people are queezy about the whole thing, since tyrannical 3rd world governments suppress (or attempt to suppress) political opposition with made-up charges against their opponents*, but this one seems legit from the available information.

* which does seem to be what the Left in America has been doing to Trump for a while now, with various made up charges like Russiagate, sexual assaults, etc. One of the rules that seems slavishly followed is Saul Alinsky's for accusing your opponents of what you're doing to them.
Just read this. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/p ... raine.html Found nothing in it to support what you say above. Conforms with what I have previously known regarding this.

Vinny
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by technovelist » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:43 am

dualstow wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:48 pm
I agree. I also wonder if they’d want a President Pence anyway. They’re basically nervous that if Trump is not impeached (whatever the word is for real impeachment, post indictment), he’ll be re-elected, and yet they can’t do anything about it.
The word is "convicted".

But apparently a lot of Democrats think that if they impeach him, then Hillary will be President.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8777
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by dualstow » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:47 am

Convicted, yes, thanks.
The Dems are indeed crazy! Plenty of Onionlike material coming out of them these days.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TactiCat
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by technovelist » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:47 am

Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:53 pm
Just to confirm to everyone that I do not have TDS, or am in remission, I have listened to multiple hours today.

And my conclusion is the democrats are screwed. If they wanted a clear argument that he deserves to be impeached, it is not happening in the least.

While I have great respect for the people testifying, my overall sense is this kind of talk and "quid pro quo" likely goes on all the time and they just decided to call Trump on it because they don't like him.

I 100% believe he withheld aid to try to get what he wanted. Can the democrats clearly make that case? I highly doubt it.
I don't believe that, but what if he did? There's absolutely nothing illegal or even unusual about that. It is completely within the scope of Presidential powers.

Even worse for the Democrats, there is a statute requiring him to try to ensure that aid doesn't go to corrupt governments. I don't have the statute handy but Rand Paul explains the situation here: https://www.redstate.com/alexparker/201 ... ate-biden/
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by technovelist » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:50 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:15 pm
SImple matter is that we have a president who based the granting of aid to another country simply based upon what the other country would do SOLELY for HIS interest. And, absolutely NOTHING to do with the country's interest.

If anyone cannot see that I cannot add anything to the above. In this specific case we interpreting it entirely differently. Which is not an earth shattering conclusion. That seems to be the normality in life. Two people interpreting the same things in opposite ways.

Vinny
You are completely wrong on this. It is precisely in the country's interest to get other countries to investigate corruption by US officials overseas.
If you don't see that, then all I can conclude is that you are a blind partisan who cannot be reached by reason.
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by technovelist » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:52 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:53 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:51 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:53 pm
While I have great respect for the people testifying, my overall sense is this kind of talk and "quid pro quo" likely goes on all the time and they just decided to call Trump on it because they don't like him.

I 100% believe he withheld aid to try to get what he wanted. Can the democrats clearly make that case? I highly doubt it.
Quid pro quo is kind what diplomacy is all about, right? It's pretty much always used in the sense that it's nefarious (ie, two illegal things are done), but it doesn't have to. Pretty much all international relations and diplomacy are conducted as quid pro quos. Look at a list of treaties and you see a big list of "you give us this land, and we'll stop attacking you" and "you let me be king of Spain, and I'll stop trying to be king of France" or whatever.

In addition, is it a Bad Thing to withhold aid from a country? Do we just have to give them stuff, no questions asked? I think it depends on the circumstances. If you're negotiating (quid pro quo-ing) with a country, and you threaten to withhold aid unless they stop investigating your son's company for illegal activities, that's a Bad Thing. But if you threaten to withhold it if they don't help you investigate corruption among your own politicians, that's a Good Thing. Though last I heard, Trump didn't tell the Ukrainians he would withhold aid if they didn't help, but I may be behind the times.

When I try to sort out what actually happened and whether it was kosher or not, I gather that Trump asked Ukraine to help determine whether we have a corrupt politician (Biden) on our hands. This is precisely what we have a treaty with Ukraine to do. Biden doesn't get immunity from investigation just because he's campaigning for president. I get why some people are queezy about the whole thing, since tyrannical 3rd world governments suppress (or attempt to suppress) political opposition with made-up charges against their opponents*, but this one seems legit from the available information.

* which does seem to be what the Left in America has been doing to Trump for a while now, with various made up charges like Russiagate, sexual assaults, etc. One of the rules that seems slavishly followed is Saul Alinsky's for accusing your opponents of what you're doing to them.
Just read this. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/p ... raine.html Found nothing in it to support what you say above. Conforms with what I have previously known regarding this.

Vinny
Wow, so the New York Times doesn't agree that Biden was corrupt?
Imagine my shock that they wrote this after saying that we should celebrate the Deep State: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opin ... state.html
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3802
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:55 am

Breitbart provides a balance for the NYT as the NYT has largely turned in to all OpEd and commentary, as has Breitbart ..... and Hollywood ..... and the House of Representatives (who needs to change their name to House of the Rising Sun ;) ). YMMV.
Romans 1:16-32
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Montague, MA
Contact:

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by vnatale » Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:25 pm

technovelist wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:50 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:15 pm
SImple matter is that we have a president who based the granting of aid to another country simply based upon what the other country would do SOLELY for HIS interest. And, absolutely NOTHING to do with the country's interest.

If anyone cannot see that I cannot add anything to the above. In this specific case we interpreting it entirely differently. Which is not an earth shattering conclusion. That seems to be the normality in life. Two people interpreting the same things in opposite ways.

Vinny
You are completely wrong on this. It is precisely in the country's interest to get other countries to investigate corruption by US officials overseas.
If you don't see that, then all I can conclude is that you are a blind partisan who cannot be reached by reason.
Again don't agree with the premise. It is ONLY Republicans (and the like minded) who believe he was investigating corruption by US officials overseas. The REST of the world supported Biden's "corrupt" activities. He did in in the wide open. He did it NOT for his benefit but for our benefit, Ukraine's benefit, and the rest of the World's benefit. Major difference between Trump's many corrupt activities that benefit no other entity except for him!

Vinny
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Montague, MA
Contact:

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by vnatale » Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:27 pm

technovelist wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:52 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:53 pm
Kriegsspiel wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:51 pm


Quid pro quo is kind what diplomacy is all about, right? It's pretty much always used in the sense that it's nefarious (ie, two illegal things are done), but it doesn't have to. Pretty much all international relations and diplomacy are conducted as quid pro quos. Look at a list of treaties and you see a big list of "you give us this land, and we'll stop attacking you" and "you let me be king of Spain, and I'll stop trying to be king of France" or whatever.

In addition, is it a Bad Thing to withhold aid from a country? Do we just have to give them stuff, no questions asked? I think it depends on the circumstances. If you're negotiating (quid pro quo-ing) with a country, and you threaten to withhold aid unless they stop investigating your son's company for illegal activities, that's a Bad Thing. But if you threaten to withhold it if they don't help you investigate corruption among your own politicians, that's a Good Thing. Though last I heard, Trump didn't tell the Ukrainians he would withhold aid if they didn't help, but I may be behind the times.

When I try to sort out what actually happened and whether it was kosher or not, I gather that Trump asked Ukraine to help determine whether we have a corrupt politician (Biden) on our hands. This is precisely what we have a treaty with Ukraine to do. Biden doesn't get immunity from investigation just because he's campaigning for president. I get why some people are queezy about the whole thing, since tyrannical 3rd world governments suppress (or attempt to suppress) political opposition with made-up charges against their opponents*, but this one seems legit from the available information.

* which does seem to be what the Left in America has been doing to Trump for a while now, with various made up charges like Russiagate, sexual assaults, etc. One of the rules that seems slavishly followed is Saul Alinsky's for accusing your opponents of what you're doing to them.
Just read this. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/p ... raine.html Found nothing in it to support what you say above. Conforms with what I have previously known regarding this.

Vinny
Wow, so the New York Times doesn't agree that Biden was corrupt?
Imagine my shock that they wrote this after saying that we should celebrate the Deep State: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opin ... state.html
So if it is in the New York Time is is ALL "Fake News"?

i will bet that 100 years from now that more historians will be citing the New York Times as a source than any other "reliable" source you can cite.

Vinny
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: This is also NOT from the Onion

Post by technovelist » Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:31 pm

vnatale wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:27 pm
technovelist wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:52 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:53 pm


Just read this. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/p ... raine.html Found nothing in it to support what you say above. Conforms with what I have previously known regarding this.

Vinny
Wow, so the New York Times doesn't agree that Biden was corrupt?
Imagine my shock that they wrote this after saying that we should celebrate the Deep State: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/opin ... state.html
So if it is in the New York Time is is ALL "Fake News"?

i will bet that 100 years from now that more historians will be citing the New York Times as a source than any other "reliable" source you can cite.

Vinny
I hope you get treatment for your TDS soon. Bye-bye!
Post Reply