Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 2733 times)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #350 on: October 11, 2019, 07:39:52 AM »
The Washington Examiner can now can confirm that, among the many indicators of extreme bias, the leaker worked for Joe Biden.

So what we have is Democrat loyalists within the intelligence community, having failed in the Russian collusion operations, now running the exact same operation again but with Ukraine this time. All in an effort to overturn the 2016 election.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 07:42:51 AM by Crunch »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #351 on: October 11, 2019, 10:16:39 AM »
If its not against the law, as Seriati suggests, then no investigation required. End of story.

So if Biden is the Vice President at the time of his conduct, the options for investigating the conduct really boils down to Barack Obama or Donald Trump.  A rule that an "opponent" can't do the investigation is effectively a rule for something even broader than Presidential immunity.  An absolute immunity for acts of a Vice President, if those acts are not caught by the President of his own party before he leaves office. 

Of course, there's a direct conflict of interest there, and there's zero chance it would be looked upon as legitimate if say Trump declared that what appeared to be a crime by Pence as having been properly investigated and not a crime.  We don't even have to ask, the Trump DOJ already looked at the call and said there was no crime.  Which literally answers the question you are asking, yet you're still asking it and the left/media is still literally writing that it's a crime.

Again, one would think that Trump releasing the actual call AND the whistle blower complaint would be viewed more positively than Schiff making up what's in the call (because the call didn't say what he wanted it to say), conducting secret hearings and "leaking" tidbits that help his case.  If you asked an alien to look at which person was acting like the liar in that circumstance it's hard to imagine they wouldn't say Schiff.

Quote
The arguments pointing to Biden guilt or innocence is in my opinion not relevant to the question, nor is reputation.

As a technical matter you're correct, for the purpose of a crime.  For an impeachment not so much, as the issue there is not whether what Trump did was illegal, but rather whether it was a misuse of public office.  And while it shouldn't matter whether Biden's guilty if the investigation itself is legitimate (and there's no reason to believe it's not legitimate to investigate when Hunter's benefits are really indefensible), it just does cause that's the way we're wired.  If Joe's guilty then we'd have little choice but to see the investigation as legitimate (how could it not be if there's a real crime), and if he's not guilty we're going to flip the scrip and claim that in hindsight no reasonable person could have thought he was (and therefore the real motive was an abuse of power).

And this is even worse because it's Trump.  Whether it's legitimate or an artifact of a massive manipulation campaign by the media (which did happen) not even his supporters are SURE he's acting for proper motives and his opponents can't even accept that he COULD BE no matter how plausible the circumstances.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #352 on: October 11, 2019, 06:04:54 PM »
Quote
The Washington Examiner can now can confirm that, among the many indicators of extreme bias, the leaker worked for Joe Biden.

Work for Biden or worked with Biden?  There is a difference.

If the whistleblower was with the CIA and worked in the White House, and had been doing so for more than three years, he naturally would have worked with Biden.  He was probably checking up on what Biden did just like he was checking Trump.  And since Biden was VP, technically he would have been working for Biden then, too.

Exactly how did he work for Biden?  As an aid, as a subordinate, as a supporter, or as oversight?

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #353 on: October 11, 2019, 06:10:53 PM »
The Washington Examiner can now can confirm that, among the many indicators of extreme bias, the leaker worked for Joe Biden.

So what we have is Democrat loyalists within the intelligence community, having failed in the Russian collusion operations, now running the exact same operation again but with Ukraine this time. All in an effort to overturn the 2016 election.

He did not work "for" Joe Biden even according to the Washington Examiner.  They are quoting sources who say they are pretty sure he would have worked with Joe Biden at the WH. Note this WB was ALSO DETAILED TO THE TRUMP WH SO IT IS JUST AS ACCURATE TO SAY HE WORKED "FOR" PENCE. That a career CIA analyst would have occasion to work with a VP is not news.

But nothing will stop Crunch from pretending that a bias on the part of the WB somehow alters the facts of what the President did or why he did it.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #354 on: October 11, 2019, 06:45:08 PM »
Quote
So if Biden is the Vice President at the time of his conduct, the options for investigating the conduct really boils down to Barack Obama or Donald Trump.  A rule that an "opponent" can't do the investigation is effectively a rule for something even broader than Presidential immunity.  An absolute immunity for acts of a Vice President, if those acts are not caught by the President of his own party before he leaves office.

I appreciate you responding to the question. 

My understanding of the process is that an investigation into a President or Vice President does not boil down to President having to initiate the investigation by bypassing process. (If that’s what he did) I would like to think that a process existed for proper checks and balances. I assumed that there was but maybe that’s not the case.   

I’m not convinced that Biden innocents or guilt is relevant to the question of the method Trump choose to take to pursue an investigation, however I suspect I don’t understand the rules of the game. 

Actually, I’m no longer sure there are rules, or maybe the rules are fluid, changing to the narrative that’s a “truth” in the moment.  The narrative that we want to believe the one that is true, with the rules adjusted accordingly. Either way its not a game I’m equipped to play.

Its a dangerous game, the end is always in the beginning, truth, ethics, morals and character matter, even when not convenient to narrative.

“What kind of world do you want?
Think Anything
Let's start at the start
Build a masterpiece
Be careful what you wish for
History starts now” - FFF

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #355 on: October 12, 2019, 10:38:08 AM »
The Washington Examiner can now can confirm that, among the many indicators of extreme bias, the leaker worked for Joe Biden.

So what we have is Democrat loyalists within the intelligence community, having failed in the Russian collusion operations, now running the exact same operation again but with Ukraine this time. All in an effort to overturn the 2016 election.

He did not work "for" Joe Biden even according to the Washington Examiner.  They are quoting sources who say they are pretty sure he would have worked with Joe Biden at the WH. Note this WB was ALSO DETAILED TO THE TRUMP WH SO IT IS JUST AS ACCURATE TO SAY HE WORKED "FOR" PENCE. That a career CIA analyst would have occasion to work with a VP is not news.

But nothing will stop Crunch from pretending that a bias on the part of the WB somehow alters the facts of what the President did or why he did it.

Are you now claiming hearsay from anonymous sources can be problematic? Whhhaaaat? No way!

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #356 on: October 14, 2019, 08:34:45 AM »
Quote
House Democrats are looking to prevent the whistleblower from being identified by holding the person's testimony at a remote location and potentially changing their appearance and voice.

Secret testimony from a secret accuser giving hearsay evidence, all from a secret location. I hope they really do go this route. This would be perfect.

This weekend Schiff made the point that the leaker will probably not testify, presumably Schiff got all he needed from the secret meetings with the leaker to plan this hoax. 


In a nutshell, they plan to impeach Trump by accusing him of doing something many Democrats have openly done. In fact, as Schiff explained, Trump doesn’t even have to have done it:

Quote
Appearing on CBS's Face The Nation Sunday morning, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff essentially conceded that there was no quid pro quo between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by saying "there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo."

No quid pro quo. They’re just impeaching because they want to overturn the election.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #357 on: October 14, 2019, 09:59:45 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/12/768935251/trump-ukraine-and-the-path-to-the-impeachment-inquiry-a-timeline

This has some key dates about the timing of the call and the military aid money.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #358 on: October 14, 2019, 12:35:17 PM »
Why does the timing matter? Schiff and the Democrats have essentially decided that the timing does not matter, why do you disagree with that?

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #359 on: October 14, 2019, 01:00:02 PM »
Why does the timing matter? Schiff and the Democrats have essentially decided that the timing does not matter, why do you disagree with that?

Do I disappoint you by not being a lefty brainwashed strawman?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #360 on: October 14, 2019, 02:01:19 PM »
I was actually seriously asking. We’re basically dumping the quid pro quo meme in this. The whole thing was about the quid pro quo but suddenly it’s not. That piece of the fabrication is now irrelevant for some reason. That would also render any timing around it irrelevant as well.

Or do you think the timing is relevant? What is a reason the timing should be examined now?

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #361 on: October 14, 2019, 02:16:35 PM »
"The whole thing was about the quid pro quo but suddenly it’s not."

For non-Trumpists, the whole thing is about an ongoing investigation. We'll see what comes out about an explicit quid pro quo. There's clearly an implied one just in the phone call, but there could always be more to learn. 

For Trumpists, it's been about throwing up distracting smokescreens, making up things about the process so they could pretend the process invalidates the inquiry. Even the "no quid pro quo" is a smokescreen. Trump doesn't get to ask other countries to attack his political rivals; the act isn't whitewashed by the lack of an explicit quid pro quo. The quid pro quo would only be additional wrongdoing.

(I'm not bothering to engage with the fantasy that Trump had legitimate reasons to ask for the investigations. Crowdstrike/Ukraine/server is a 4chan invention, and Joe Biden didn't kill an investigation into his own son. If Trump believed those things it's just more evidence he's unfit for office.)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #362 on: October 14, 2019, 04:51:37 PM »
Well, Biden specifically bragged about getting the prosecutor fired. And it was the prosecutor investigating his son and the company. That’s a fact. It’s as hard a fact as they get. You may try to argue those two things are miraculously unrelated but you can dismiss it as nothing but a fantasy

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #363 on: October 15, 2019, 03:10:22 PM »
"It’s as hard a fact as they get."

No, Shokin wasn't investigating, the investigation was dormant. The Brits were complaining about how much that particular investigation was not being done. The investigation that wasn't being done was about events that predated Hunter Biden's appointment to the board. Joe Biden was pushing for the appointment of a prosecutor who would more actively pursue corruption and there was no requirement that the new prosecutor leave his son or that company alone (as Shokin was leaving them alone at the time).

One can make the argument that Hunter had a position he didn't earn and that he got it because his dad was the VP. But that doesn't require any corrupt action from either Biden. It actually pales in comparison to Trump's conflicts of interest that involve most of his adult children and his businesses.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #364 on: October 15, 2019, 11:58:58 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-jr-mocks-hunter-biden-190040845.html

“‘It is impossible for me to be on any of the boards I just mentioned without saying that I’m the son of the vice president of the US. I don’t think that there’s a lot of things that would have happen in my life that if my name wasn’t Biden’ Hunter Biden.”

How are these companies getting value for all the money they are paying him to be on these boards?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #365 on: Today at 07:08:22 AM »
"It’s as hard a fact as they get."

No, Shokin wasn't investigating, the investigation was dormant. The Brits were complaining about how much that particular investigation was not being done. The investigation that wasn't being done was about events that predated Hunter Biden's appointment to the board. Joe Biden was pushing for the appointment of a prosecutor who would more actively pursue corruption and there was no requirement that the new prosecutor leave his son or that company alone (as Shokin was leaving them alone at the time).

One can make the argument that Hunter had a position he didn't earn and that he got it because his dad was the VP. But that doesn't require any corrupt action from either Biden. It actually pales in comparison to Trump's conflicts of interest that involve most of his adult children and his businesses.

That is not what the prosecutor is saying. He has a very different story than MSNBC

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #366 on: Today at 07:12:27 AM »
Quote
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday she will not stage a vote on the House floor to officially launch an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

This vote was how the impeachment proceedings against Nixon and Clinton were initiated. So Pelosi is essentially signaling that there will be no impeachment process started. Or, if it is, the process will remain secret accusers and secret evidence presented during secret hearings.

Either way, Trump wins.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #367 on: Today at 10:15:17 AM »
I suspect Pelosi was always ok with the notion that a vote may not happen. Most of this was Kabuki theater driven by the absence of a candidate strong enough to legitimately unseat Trump next year.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #368 on: Today at 10:23:56 AM »
How are these companies getting value for all the money they are paying him to be on these boards?

It is the same reason people hire kids from Harvard and Yale - most of the value is in their connections. Not in a corrupt way, but simply they can use name dropping to get people on the phone that otherwise might not take a call.  Most of the effort in establishing business relationships is getting the introduction and a famous name gets the introduction.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #369 on: Today at 11:38:13 AM »
If I'm being fair re:Biden on the board, it's not uncommon at all for board members to *not* be experts in the field of the company whose board they sit. The "what experience does Biden have in the oil industry" argument doesn't really pass muster, assuming he has strong business acumen in other areas (a big assumption).

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #370 on: Today at 12:19:26 PM »
If I'm being fair re:Biden on the board, it's not uncommon at all for board members to *not* be experts in the field of the company whose board they sit. The "what experience does Biden have in the oil industry" argument doesn't really pass muster, assuming he has strong business acumen in other areas (a big assumption).

I think the main reason to have someone on a board is "what can we gain by having them here", which to be fair can be many things including (but not limited to) expertise. So maybe he's a lawyer, or a financial consultant, or an expert in the oil field, or maybe it's personal connections. I mean it seems hard to believe it *isn't* personal connections in this case. But then that begs the question of whether it's legit. Under normal circumstances offering personal connections for a company isn't suspect, rather it's exactly normal good business. But if the connection is a political person that creates a conflict of interest within government, assuming the politician is actually going to use that influence to help. So is it in fact outright illegal to be offering, in so many words, the connection of a politician as your contribution to a board? I mean obviously it's not illegal to be related to a politician and sit on a board, but if the tacit understanding is that your value is in that connection, that does not automatically compromise the politician? Let's pretend for the moment that Joe Biden actually had no interest at all in helping Biden and that company, and Hunter went ahead and joined anyhow hoping to get hid dad to change his mind. Just that pressure existing in the first place should probably be illegal; i.e. if a potential conflict exists it's already crossing a line, even if the politician doesn't happen to succumb to it. It's the same as bribes: offering or soliciting them is illegal regardless of whether they're accepted.

Of course all of this assumes that the system actually has a motivation to eliminate conflicts of interest, while in reality it's exactly the opposite. The system is rigged to maximize the payoffs from [currently legal] conflicts of interest.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #371 on: Today at 01:30:59 PM »
Quote
I mean obviously it's not illegal to be related to a politician and sit on a board, but if the tacit understanding is that your value is in that connection, that does not automatically compromise the politician?

The question is what is the value of the connection? Is it because they hope to influence political decisions that directly impact their bottom line? Or is it because shareholders will hold your company in higher esteem? Because they can get introduced to new customers? Because they want to meet the person in question?

Is it different if it were an American company? That takes the foreign policy bit out of the equation.

Any way you slice it, it was an error in judgement to take the job. As I've said before, I am very much in favor of eliminating even the appearance of impropriety. On the other hand, what job could Hunter take where there isn't the possibility for a conflict of interest?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #372 on: Today at 01:46:30 PM »
The question is what is the value of the connection? Is it because they hope to influence political decisions that directly impact their bottom line? Or is it because shareholders will hold your company in higher esteem? Because they can get introduced to new customers? Because they want to meet the person in question?

That's my question, though: does it actually matter what the hoped-for value is? Or does even the possibility that it's a "bribe" (i.e. political influence) automatically count as if it was that, regardless of their actual intentions?

Quote
Is it different if it were an American company? That takes the foreign policy bit out of the equation.

I don't think there's a difference there in terms of it being a political conflict of interest. I do think there's a difference, though, which is that in foreign country sitting in the middle of a power struggle, having American politically affiliated people on boards amounts to a potential corporate takeover of that nation, which is not only possible but a very common occurance. Insofar as the political conflict of interest enters into it, it turns "regular corruption" into "corruption that is also invasive to another country". So it's a worse version of what it would be if it was just local.

Quote
On the other hand, what job could Hunter take where there isn't the possibility for a conflict of interest?

Yeah, heaven forbid there should be an actual consquence, like, you know, a loss, associated with being the son of a politician. Contrary to popular wisdom I'm not fond of the "my dad is powerful and therefore so am I" dynasty thing. If his life is made harder by dad being in the Congress I say so be it, that's the breaks of ensuring that dad isn't compromised.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #373 on: Today at 01:49:14 PM »
Quote
Yeah, heaven forbid there should be an actual consquence, like, you know, a loss, associated with being the son of a politician. Contrary to popular wisdom I'm not fond of the "my dad is powerful and therefore so am I" dynasty thing. If his life is made harder by dad being in the Congress I say so be it, that's the breaks of ensuring that dad isn't compromised.

I'm all for it if it leaves the Trump kids unemployed.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #374 on: Today at 02:51:49 PM »
I'm all for it if it leaves the Trump kids unemployed.

That might be tongue and cheek, but so long as the people benefiting from these things are also the ones making the laws it will take them saying something less like "I hope my opponent's kids are unemployed" and more like "I am willing for my own kids to be unemployed if that's what the integrity of my office requires." I would be just about as surprised for lawmakers to endorse this attitude as I would for police departments to really investigate their own officers and administration for misconduct.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #375 on: Today at 03:01:22 PM »
So, at least on this Forum. Trump wins
All discussion about what Trump may or may not have done shifted to the guilt of Biden. 

Well maybe something good comes out of this and Biden steps down. His time, and the politics he represents has past.
It was unlikely he would have beat Trump 

Trump blew his wad to soon. He didn't need a investigation into Biden to have the label of crooked to stick. He just needed to wait for the campaign to start and then hit him with it.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #376 on: Today at 03:26:33 PM »
So, at least on this Forum. Trump wins
All discussion about what Trump may or may not have done shifted to the guilt of Biden. 

Unless something more damaging comes out of the state department Trump wins in the senate anyway. Trump winning in the Senate is a win, because it works up his base more than not being impeached does.

So personally I think Trump engaged in the behavior he was accused of, I believe it is an appalling abuse of presidential power, and I believe his supporters will convince themselves that every bit of evidence that comes out doesn't actually show any wrongdoing, or if there was wrongdoing it simply because of how corrupt Biden is and so its all okay. So why waste my energy trying to convince them this or that new piece of evidence is damning, they're convinced its a political/deep state/democratic/ witch hunt and nothing is going to shake that view. So unless something amazingly blatant comes out the status quo of the republicans in the senate defending Trump isn't going to change. Sadly the end of this story is written before the beginning and I feel like in the end it helps Trump politically. Maybe I'm wrong about how its going to impact moderates and independents in Penn/Wi/Mi. A net 50,000ish voters in those states decided the outcome of the election last time so its probably insane to say with any certainty how any particular story is going to play out on the electoral map. But the impeachment only increases his support among those who already support him.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #377 on: Today at 03:43:08 PM »
When it's all about whether or not it would result in his removal from office (or hurt "competitive seats"), rather than impeachment because it's your JOB the check an out of control president... it was all theater anyway.   :-\

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #378 on: Today at 04:04:23 PM »
But remember, yossarian, Trump won by a very thin margin.  A hundred-thousand votes out of 65 millions going the other way would have caused a tied election; two-hundred thousands would have completely tipped it.  So it won't take that many votes to change and/or not be cast to change the outcome of the next election.

Really it comes down to what is revealed in the investigation.  We already know that some diplomats believed that Trump as trying to extort the Ukrainians into investigating Biden.  If the people working for him perceived him as asking for quid pro quo, is there any doubt that it could have been perceived that way by others?

And the testimony and the investigation probably will uncover other problems with this Administration.  We already have Guilliani tied to a couple of jokers who donated foreign money to the election, something that Republicans wanted to hang Hillary for a few years back on much less evidence.  Who knows what else will be revealed?

And remember that this is also tied to Trump's popularity.  As long as people like the President and are satisfied with his job, they won't be swayed.  But if he does something stupid, like throw the Kurds under the Turkish bus, he may lose his personal support.  And then suddenly they won't be so forgiving of his many peccadilloes.

Trump's hard-core supporters won't be moved, but they number maybe 30 to 40 percent of the voters, if that.  The others can be swayed, even many of the hard-core ones if he does something to upset them.  So while currently the end of this story seems foreordained, you can expect a few more twists before the last page.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #379 on: Today at 04:04:30 PM »

Unless something more damaging comes out of the state department Trump wins in the senate anyway. Trump winning in the Senate is a win, because it works up his base more than not being impeached does.

So personally I think Trump engaged in the behavior he was accused of, I believe it is an appalling abuse of presidential power, and I believe his supporters will convince themselves that every bit of evidence that comes out doesn't actually show any wrongdoing, or if there was wrongdoing it simply because of how corrupt Biden is and so its all okay. So why waste my energy trying to convince them this or that new piece of evidence is damning, they're convinced its a political/deep state/democratic/ witch hunt and nothing is going to shake that view. So unless something amazingly blatant comes out the status quo of the republicans in the senate defending Trump isn't going to change. Sadly the end of this story is written before the beginning and I feel like in the end it helps Trump politically. Maybe I'm wrong about how its going to impact moderates and independents in Penn/Wi/Mi. A net 50,000ish voters in those states decided the outcome of the election last time so its probably insane to say with any certainty how any particular story is going to play out on the electoral map. But the impeachment only increases his support among those who already support him.

I think you're mostly right here. Although I think you'd be surprised that a lot of Trump supporters are pretty open to the idea that he did something sketchy, maybe even impeachable - just not with the evidence presented. Trump supporters have seen an unprecedented barrage of media bias for years and as a result have their spidey-sense on high alert on anything that's said about him.

Case in point, just this morning NBC had to issue a correction on a Trump quote. NBC originally quoted Trump saying the Turkish invasion of Syria is "not our problem". When in fact he said "They have a problem at a border — it's not our border,” “...it’s not between Turkey and the US..."

Those are incredibly different quotes and shows the reflexive bad faith of mainstream media, not that it's ever been hidden. You see that kind of "reporting" over years, and yeah, you get super skeptical about what's actually true and what's not.

ScottF

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #380 on: Today at 04:08:50 PM »
Trump, overheard when asked about what he'd like for dinner. "I'd kill for some good Mexican!"

Dateline: TRUMP DECLARES DEATH ON GOOD MEXICANS.

"I'd kill!" Trump was heard to say, when asked about Mexico. The white house was not available for comment.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #381 on: Today at 04:09:25 PM »
Those are incredibly different quotes and shows the reflexive bad faith of mainstream media, not that it's ever been hidden. You see that kind of "reporting" over years, and yeah, you get super skeptical about what's actually true and what's not.

To say nothing of the fake footage ABC just showed of "fighting in Syria", using footage from a gun range. That was one of the rare occurances of it publicly blowing up in their face, but I've seen *so many* occasions of that kind of fakery. Gee, I wonder why many people don't trust that kind of partisan reporting any more...
« Last Edit: Today at 04:14:10 PM by Fenring »

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #382 on: Today at 04:27:29 PM »
Whats interesting to me is how quickly the guilt of Biden and his sun was taken at face value while I'm guess if the same type evidence if pointed to Trump would have been argued as not relevant. 

That so many of Trumps followers don't see that or the implications of the arguments they are presenting should be concerning.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #383 on: Today at 05:14:15 PM »
Whats interesting to me is how quickly the guilt of Biden and his sun was taken at face value while I'm guess if the same type evidence if pointed to Trump would have been argued as not relevant. 

That so many of Trumps followers don't see that or the implications of the arguments they are presenting should be concerning.

Perhaps. But it may also be the case that people hate hypocrites more than criminals.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #384 on: Today at 05:22:03 PM »
Quote
Perhaps. But it may also be the case that people hate hypocrites more than criminals.

Probably true. :(
More about feeling then reason perhaps related to the politics of taking, giving and fearing 'offense'.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #385 on: Today at 05:24:38 PM »
Quote
Case in point, just this morning NBC had to issue a correction on a Trump quote. NBC originally quoted Trump saying the Turkish invasion of Syria is "not our problem". When in fact he said "They have a problem at a border — it's not our border,” “...it’s not between Turkey and the US..."

Those are incredibly different quotes and shows the reflexive bad faith of mainstream media, not that it's ever been hidden. You see that kind of "reporting" over years, and yeah, you get super skeptical about what's actually true and what's not.

First, this was a random tweet - not a news report. Trump's followers have a lot of gall crabbing about a reporter's tweet while swallowing every nugget of misinformation that Trump pumps out of his twitter. Th e way you tell it is like it got published in an article.

Second, it isn't really a horrible misrepresentation. If he hadn't put in quotes, it really isn't too far off. It does portray him as a little more flippant, but it sums up his attitude and is logically equivalent.

If there is a problem at a border and the border is not ours, coupled with "America First" policy and the removal of American influence in the area, can't you conclude that he doesn't think it is our problem and that we shouldn't be involved?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #386 on: Today at 06:50:26 PM »
Whats interesting to me is how quickly the guilt of Biden and his sun was taken at face value while I'm guess if the same type evidence if pointed to Trump would have been argued as not relevant. 

That so many of Trumps followers don't see that or the implications of the arguments they are presenting should be concerning.

Perhaps. But it may also be the case that people hate hypocrites more than criminals.

Or it could be Biden openly bragging about it and actually getting the guy fired. Maybe?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #387 on: Today at 06:54:04 PM »
Quote
Yeah, heaven forbid there should be an actual consquence, like, you know, a loss, associated with being the son of a politician. Contrary to popular wisdom I'm not fond of the "my dad is powerful and therefore so am I" dynasty thing. If his life is made harder by dad being in the Congress I say so be it, that's the breaks of ensuring that dad isn't compromised.

I'm all for it if it leaves the Trump kids unemployed.

For it only as long as it hurts the opposition. I’d say that’s about right.