|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Sept 25, 2019 13:07:55 GMT -5
The Obama administration DID do exactly this to try to stop a Trump presidency in the first place. Nuh uh. Mike
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Sept 25, 2019 13:13:47 GMT -5
If Biden is guilty, who is supposed to investigate and prosecute? I dono, but I’ll take a stab anyway. Maybe Justice? Mike
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 25, 2019 13:20:09 GMT -5
If Biden is guilty, who is supposed to investigate and prosecute? I dono, but I’ll take a stab anyway. Maybe Justice? Mike So, you mean the Attorney General? ...then you agree with Trump.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 25, 2019 13:21:45 GMT -5
The call was to initiate a smear, not to investigate a scandal. Full stop. There was and is nothing to investigate.
Again, this is the part that the White House chose to release. Lots of ellipses. Can't wait to find out what they left out.
By the way, this, of course, never happened:
“Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it…”
Fredo was more smooth than this blockhead.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Sept 25, 2019 13:34:26 GMT -5
If Biden is guilty, who is supposed to investigate and prosecute? Your question raises an interesting ethical question. In this particular case, let's call Trump the "whistle blower". He's raised the question of whether or not the corruption that's been reported in Ukraine has involved Biden's son or even Joe himself. The fact that Joe Biden is Trump's main political rival is part of this. Now the ethical drama unfolds. If Trump believes either of the Bidens to have been involved in Ukrainian corruption does he have a moral responsibility to initiate an investigation? The easy answer is "yes". But it's more complicated than that. Joe Biden is thought to be Trump's primary stumbling block to re-election. If it turns out that either of the Bidens has dirt on their shoes then such an investigation would be unethical because it could affect the results of the 2020 election Election tampering if you will. Would the ethics of the thing be altered by the intent of the investigation? Could it be said that the political ramifications of a negative investigative report were collateral in nature; an unintended by-product of an effort to get at the facts? So would the investigation be ethical or not? Let's look to recent history to find out. In 2016 the DNC paid for the Steele Dossier, a document that started out as opposition research on Trump. The investigation was carried out by a former British intelligence agent and included sources in Russia. There is little doubt in my mind that had the Steele Dossier contained verifiable negative facts about Trump, the Democrats would not have hesitated to use that information to affect the 2016 election. What seems to be the biggest difference between Ukraine/Biden and Steel Dossier/Trump is that one involves a candidate for president and the other involves a sitting president. In these cases I have a tendency to look past some of the finer points of things and focus on what the thing actually is. When you break it down this is two incidents that are remarkably similar; a political figure attempting to gain negative information about a political opponent. What bothers me is that I am too dumb to understand the nuances that make one acceptable and the other an impeachable offense.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 25, 2019 13:40:13 GMT -5
What seems to be the biggest difference between Ukraine/Biden and Steel Dossier/Trump is that one involves a candidate for president and the other involves a sitting president. In these cases I have a tendency to look past some of the finer points of things and focus on what the thing actually is. When you break it down this is two incidents that are remarkably similar; a political figure attempting to gain negative information about a political opponent. . I don't agree that there's any difference. The Obama administration was in the thick of everything that happened in the Clinton campaign. The Obama administration's justice department was in the thick of it. The deleted emails between Obama and Clinton occurred at the same time. Obama's Attorney General had a private meeting with Bill Clinton at the very apex of the Clinton email scandal which was, as it turns out, all part of the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 25, 2019 13:52:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 25, 2019 14:20:24 GMT -5
I dono, but I’ll take a stab anyway. Maybe Justice? Mike So, you mean the Attorney General? ...then you agree with Trump. This whole thing is Amateur Hour. Even a guy as corrupt as Trump needs to have some guard-rails. Especially a guy as corrupt as Trump. This is why you don't have a toady like Barr as your Attorney General. This is why you talk him out of stupid ass ideas BEFORE he talks with heads of state. "I'm thinking of pressing that new guy in the Ukraine about Biden and his kid. FOX News says there is something fishy there." "Gee, boss. You sure that's a good idea? Generally speaking, going after your political opponents in conversations with world leaders is considered bad form. And, really, your source is FOX?" "But, what about Obama?" "Good one, boss. Did you notice that Obama didn't go after Bush and Cheney and pursue them for war crimes? His base wanted it, but he was smart enough to know it would stink to high heaven." Pretending that Trump has a basis for a "case," absurd. He is poorly served by lousy advisors. Only the best people. Sheeee-it.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 25, 2019 16:02:19 GMT -5
Well, the stock markets laughed it off so I'm not worried.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Sept 25, 2019 16:42:11 GMT -5
For those who don't have the patience to read the entire transcript, I've prepared this handy infographic: Me?!? Your the one posting dirty pictures!
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Sept 25, 2019 17:47:57 GMT -5
I dono, but I’ll take a stab anyway. Maybe Justice? Mike So, you mean the Attorney General? ...then you agree with Trump. News flash for those not paying attention. Justice is not investigating Biden. Mike
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 25, 2019 19:15:36 GMT -5
The Republicans are no more fans of Trump than are the Democrats. Ha ha ha ha ha! I apologize for my knee-jerk laugh, I was at work and didn't have time to elaborate. I'm not clear what you actually mean here by "Republicans." Republican voters, Republican politicians? You're right, Republican politicians are no fans of Trump, in fact they hate the guy. But - big but - they fear Trump's base, the Republican voters, more than they hate Trump. After all, nobody else will vote for them. What else can they do? So they are complicit in their silence, anything Trump does is fine with them, as long as his supporters still vote for them. Now with impeachment on the line, they are going to have to take a public stand, yes or no. They are fucking scared to death.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 25, 2019 19:29:08 GMT -5
Quoting from a facebook friend:
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 25, 2019 19:45:45 GMT -5
Quoting from a facebook friend: Boy, you need brighter Facebook friends.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 25, 2019 20:39:46 GMT -5
Based on my mostly cordial experiences with Republican officeholders in my state, I think Radtke is quite correct. They mostly despise Trump but they realize that the base likes him and that opposing Trump right now is a kiss of death politically. That's why Jeff Flake didn't run for Senate again. There was some **** he would not eat.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 25, 2019 21:11:59 GMT -5
Trump has a loyal base. But, it isn't really a Republican base. It is a Trump base that has infested the Republican body. It is a Primary base, a base that has been put together outside of the party, any party. Some of the most fervant in Trump's base used to be Democrats and some of the most unhappy are good solid life-long Republicans that can't bring themselves to vote Democratic and are just hanging on waiting for the day Trump is gone.
Both parties are being re-shaped and newly constitued in front of our eyes, fruit of the Primary Tree.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Sept 25, 2019 21:32:19 GMT -5
Trump has a loyal base. But, it isn't really a Republican base. It is a Trump base that has infested the Republican body. It is a Primary base, a base that has been put together outside of the party, any party. Some of the most fervant in Trump's base used to be Democrats and some of the most unhappy are good solid life-long Republicans that can't bring themselves to vote Democratic and are just hanging on waiting for the day Trump is gone. Both parties are being re-shaped and newly constitued in front of our eyes, fruit of the Primary Tree. Perhaps not a bad thing. To be honest, this may be the fruit that those such as our dear Aquaduct have been waiting to see drop from the tree; now that his Trumpness has disrupted to the max, he exits stage left, and a real Republican gets to run the ship. If you think about it, the man is so seriously stained at this point in time, who knows whether he’ll be re-elected or not. But.... it’s very possible that he’ll either be impeached, or, when it comes time to select the candidate for the next go round, he gets dumped. I dunno. Got the popcorn and my sixpack out. We have our own election coming up with Trump lite vs. Trudeau, and Trudeau is a bit light in the loafers. Going to be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 26, 2019 3:23:05 GMT -5
Trump has a loyal base. But, it isn't really a Republican base. It is a Trump base that has infested the Republican body. It is a Primary base, a base that has been put together outside of the party, any party. Some of the most fervant in Trump's base used to be Democrats and some of the most unhappy are good solid life-long Republicans that can't bring themselves to vote Democratic and are just hanging on waiting for the day Trump is gone. Both parties are being re-shaped and newly constitued in front of our eyes, fruit of the Primary Tree. Perhaps not a bad thing. To be honest, this may be the fruit that those such as our dear Aquaduct have been waiting to see drop from the tree; now that his Trumpness has disrupted to the max, he exits stage left, and a real Republican gets to run the ship. If you think about it, the man is so seriously stained at this point in time, who knows whether he’ll be re-elected or not. But.... it’s very possible that he’ll either be impeached, or, when it comes time to select the candidate for the next go round, he gets dumped. I dunno. Got the popcorn and my sixpack out. We have our own election coming up with Trump lite vs. Trudeau, and Trudeau is a bit light in the loafers. Going to be interesting. No Rick, to understand the Trump phenomena I think there's way more wisdom to be found here... Weren't impeachment inquiries exactly the same thing they've been doing for 3 years already? What's changed?My assumption is that there is knowledge inside the Democratic caucus that RBG is not long for the world. This is about pre-loading a "No President under impeachment investigation should be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS candidate" narrative. Folks might want to spend some time chewing on that rather than lame partisan excuses.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,289
|
Post by Dub on Sept 26, 2019 8:00:33 GMT -5
…No Rick, to understand the Trump phenomena I think there's way more wisdom to be found here... My assumption is that there is knowledge inside the Democratic caucus that RBG is not long for the world. This is about pre-loading a "No President under impeachment investigation should be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS candidate" narrative. Folks might want to spend some time chewing on that rather than lame partisan excuses. I like that suggestion and it’s a good one. My only problem with it is that it requires more cogent, strategic thinking than I’ve seen displayed so far. I see the actual whistle-blower complaint has just been released as I write this.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Sept 26, 2019 8:41:41 GMT -5
Trump has a loyal base. But, it isn't really a Republican base. It is a Trump base that has infested the Republican body. It is a Primary base, a base that has been put together outside of the party, any party. Some of the most fervant in Trump's base used to be Democrats and some of the most unhappy are good solid life-long Republicans that can't bring themselves to vote Democratic and are just hanging on waiting for the day Trump is gone. Both parties are being re-shaped and newly constitued in front of our eyes, fruit of the Primary Tree. I'm going to disagree with you slightly here. You've been to South Dakota. You and I and everybody else in the world knows that the correct pronunciation of Pierre is "pee-ayr." Only it's not. The people of SoDak, who live there, are the ones who get to decide, and they've decided that the correct pronunciation is "peer," however stupid it may look and sound to the rest of us. The Republicans are the ones who get to decide what is Republican, and they have decided - through their votes and their support (either loud vehemence or silent acquiescence) - that Trump is Republican and Republican is Trump, however stupid it may look and sound to the rest of us.
|
|