The article helped inform me of the precarious position Ukraine was in. Maybe that is why they hired Biden's son to start with. To make the United States feel compelled to help them with national defense. The least they can do to make up for bribing politicians by giving their children high paying cushy jobs, is do an open investigation into their own governments wrong doings.
Quid Pro Quo? Yes. It was.
Posts
Total:
89
-->
@bmdrocks21
Investigating a potential case of corruption is blatantly inappropriate?
No, a president asking for his political opponent to be investigated is blatantly inappropriate.
Turns out that when you restate someone else’s comment and leave out the important part, it’s easy to make their statement sound dumb.
But back to the point; Why is this so difficult for you guys? If Obama in 2012 called China and asked them to investigate Mitt Romney would you really have a hard time understanding why that is at the very least, inappropriate?
Do you not think that whether or not some corruption happened is important to know when that potentially corrupt person could be running the country? Wasn't that the whole point of that worthless Russia trial? To see if there was any collusion of our president?
That’s why we have a justice department, and a free press.
So obviously, some sort of favor was needed to start the investigation. That favor would be an improved relationship (misunderstandings being put aside).
This just isn’t serious. First of all, a private citizen getting a job at a private company is of no interest to the United States. Second, the misunderstandings Rudy was talking about were the foreign aid that Trump stopped, and the meeting at the White House Ukraine was asking for that Trump was not responding to. These were very serious things for Ukraine.
Once again, if you ignore everything important of course you’ll end up with nothing important.
-->
@Wylted
The article helped inform me of the precarious position Ukraine was in. Maybe that is why they hired Biden's son to start with.
Ukraine didn’t hire Biden’s son, a private energy company in Ukraine did, and yes of course they wanted the influence they thought they could get out of him, that’s how all these businesses operate. None of this has anything to do with the point of that article or why it matters to the point of this thread.
-->
@Double_R
Ukraine didn’t hire Biden’s son, a private energy company in Ukraine did, and yes of course they wanted the influence they thought they could get out of him
That's pretty fucked up to accept a job for that reason. It should be based on merit. Not because you are promising them they can affect U.S. policy.
How dare Biden do that sort of quid pro quo.
-->
@Double_R
What is so difficult about understanding what a quid pro quo is?Asking a foreign country to investigate your political opponent in exchange for “a better relationship” with the US (continuation of the foreign aid you stopped and a meeting at the White House) is not politicking. That’s corruption. If you still find this difficult just imagine if Biden or Hillary did it, it will magically become crystal clear.
You mean Hillary's ties to Russian disinformation campaigns and the "pee tape"?
Give me a break. It's all Politicking and this entire thread has been one big Orangemanbad rant and pom-poms for the D.
-->
@Greyparrot
At times, Mr. Trump has seemed unconcerned by this issue. For example, in a past interview, he brushed all conflicts concerns aside, stating that “I can be president of the United States and run my business 100 percent, sign checks on my business.”6 Mr. Trump added, “The law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”7 These claims are fully consistent with Trump’s other statements treating presidential conflicts as matters ungoverned by law or ethical requirements.
-->
@Wylted
The point wasn't clear to me. That means if this was an attempt at that sort of thing, it likely flew over the Ukrainian leader's head as well. They shouldn't be that subtle.
If you actually read the article you would know that is is factually false. Ukraine’s leaders understood very well what this is about.
Is it just because he is a republican that you think his words mean, precisely the opposite of what he says? Like some sort of weird twisting of words?When JFK said the only thing to fear is fear itself, was he secretly saying we should be fearful of everything?If not, than how do you conclusively say what statements mean the opposite, of what is said?
Do you really believe I was wishing your family well when I talked about the shame it would be if something were to happen to them?
I don't think a single person changed their mind, merely because an bbn investigation was taking place. People vote based on which candidate most closely aligns with their ideology.
Nonsense, and the polls reflected this. Hillary’s problem was that she was untrustworthy. Learning that she was under an FBI investigation did not help.
He likely used it, because he didn't want any crooked politicians to ruin the investigation by trying to cook up evidence.
And I was just wishing your family well. Look, I said “shame”, shame is a bad thing so I couldn’t have meant it would have been good. That’s just a weird twisting of my words.
But seriously, read post 6 in this thread. He laid it all out perfectly so there’s no reason for me to repeat the context here, which is the very thing that makes this so freaking obvious.
-->
@Wylted
That's pretty fucked up to accept a job for that reason. It should be based on merit. Not because you are promising them they can affect U.S. policy.How dare Biden do that sort of quid pro quo.
I was questioning whether you were being serious, thank you for making it clear.
-->
@Greyparrot
You mean Hillary's ties to Russian disinformation campaigns and the "pee tape"?
Calling something disinformation doesn’t make it so. But I noticed you ignored the entire point of everything I said, which isn’t the least bit surprising. It’s pretty much your MO.
-->
@Double_R
I was questioning whether you were being serious, thank you for making it clear.
You said that was the reason for the job offer. To gain influence. I didn't think you would disagree with that "joking" statement.
And I was just wishing your family well. Look, I said “shame”, shame is a bad thing so I couldn’t have meant it would have been good. That’s just a weird twisting of my words.
I don't understand why you keep harping on this. It is genuinely confusing. I thought you were actually wishing my family well. Foes it have a double meaning I am unaware of?
Nonsense, and the polls reflected this. Hillary’s problem was that she was untrustworthy. Learning that she was under an FBI investigation did not help.
They do this with pills all the time. They project Republican losses, like with Nixon and a Bush and Trump. There have been studies done to show if a person thinks their preferred candidate will lose, they are less likely to actually go out and vote. This is also why Brexit was predicted to lose. That is the only motive I can think of for the polls being wrong.
Had it been Bill under investigation, he would have won. He told Hillary to focus on the rust belt, while her campaign staff mocked him
Her being perceived as untrustworthy is not really going to affect anybody's vote. Go poll the site. Everyone is already voting straight Democrat up and down ballot or straight republican. Nobody changes their mind. The only thing that wins elections is getting people excited to get off their ass and vote.
-->
@FLRW
You wear out those pom-poms yet?
-->
@Double_R
Calling something disinformation doesn’t make it so. But I noticed you ignored the entire point of everything I said, which isn’t the least bit surprising. It’s pretty much your MO.
It's a valid strategy. We can have another 4 years bashing Trump and misdirecting the American public while Biden and his Washington DC cronies fleece America with inflation. Personally I am laughing my ass off all the way to my crypto bank. Enjoy the inflation bro. Keep your eye on that shiny ball.
Calling something disinformation doesn’t make it so.
Exactly. When a D does it, it's smart genius elite politics. When Orangemanbad does it, only then is it criminal. That's Just how it works. Stop questioning authority and get in line.
-->
@Double_R
So if I go into a store with a handgun that’s not loaded, point it at the cashier and tell her to give me her money… I did nothing wrong because I couldn’t have shot her so I had no leverage. Ok.
False equivalency. Ukrainians knew the “gun wasn’t loaded” from the beginning because the President cannot unilaterally stop budget funds already approved by the United States Congress. The worse he can do is delay it, but the money gets there no matter what. That’s how the system works.
You seriously think that the Ukrainians see themselves being extorted by Trump and think to themselves… “well it’s in the US budget so we’ll be fine”?
How’s it extortion when there literally is no leverage. And if they didn’t think that they’re dumb. They’re corrupt af, ofc they knew they’re gonna get their money no matter what Trump says lol.
-->
@ILikePie5
Stock market is doing a pump and dump atm. Get some crypto bro and fight the power.
-->
@Greyparrot
Stock market is doing a pump and dump atm. Get some crypto bro and fight the power.
Too volatile for my liking atm
-->
@Double_R
It’s really interesting the little hoops these guys are jumping through in order to not address the key central points.
My favourite part, is that I could automate 95% of the replies in this thread by writing an algorithm that responds with the first paragraph of the first results“[Random Crazy right wing news source] Democrats actually did [claim]”, followed by a randomly selected generic right wing insult.
-->
@Double_R
Democrats and their media sidekicks swung into a war dance as they convinced themselves that Mulvaney said, “We stopped military aid to Ukraine until they concocted enough dirt to sandbag the Biden campaign.”
While that’s what Trump haters heard, Mulvaney actually said: “Did he [the president] also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money.”
While that’s what Trump haters heard, Mulvaney actually said: “Did he [the president] also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money.”
Wake up libtards
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s really interesting the little hoops these guys are jumping through in order to not address the key central points.
It’s really interesting that fake news stories work one way huh. Russia, Lafayette Square, Russian Bounties, HCQ, Vaccines.
Ukrainian aid was going to go to Ukraine no matter what. Period. End of story. That’s how the Impoundment Control Act works. This is just like the sham impeachment trial at the end of Trump’s term. Unconstitutional af.
-->
@ILikePie5
The point isn't the ultimate outcome. The point is the intent and actions taken with regards to the intent.
If someone does his very best to murder someone else, but ultimately fails, this would still be a crime. In a similar fashion here, it's true that money apportioned to Ukraine must go to Ukraine eventually from a legal standpoint, but this doesn't really address the manner in which the aid was attempted to be used as leverage.
-->
@dustryder
The point is the intent and actions taken with regards to the intent.
Exactly. The entire cult-like religion of Orangemanbad revolves around intent because it sure as fuck isn't based on actual policies or actual transgressions.
-->
@dustryder
The point isn't the ultimate outcome. The point is the intent and actions taken with regards to the intent.If someone does his very best to murder someone else, but ultimately fails, this would still be a crime. In a similar fashion here, it's true that money apportioned to Ukraine must go to Ukraine eventually from a legal standpoint, but this doesn't really address the manner in which the aid was attempted to be used as leverage.
Another false equivalency. If you wanted to murder someone, you have the capacity to murder that someone even if you fail. Here you do not have the capacity to stop the funds because of the law. You can’t try to stop something that can’t be stopped in the first place lol. You can only delay it.
There was no leverage if the money was going to be given anyways. Its just like obstruction. Obstruction of justice when there literally was no crime committed. Gimme a break.
-->
@ILikePie5
Another false equivalency. If you wanted to murder someone, you have the capacity to murder that someone even if you fail. Here you do not have the capacity to stop the funds because of the law.
The goal wasn’t to stop the funds, it was to get Ukraine to *announce* that they were investigating the Biden’s. Why is that so difficult?
-->
@Wylted
I don't understand why you keep harping on this. It is genuinely confusing. I thought you were actually wishing my family well. Foes it have a double meaning I am unaware of?
So when I said “nice family you have there, shame if something were to happen to them”… you hear that and your mind thinks “how nice of him to wish my family well”
Really?
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s really interesting the little hoops these guys are jumping through in order to not address the key central points.
I don’t know if it’s more fascinating or frustrating. They’re not that stupid, so it’s just a matter of what is it exactly that has them contorting themselves and do they realize it? I don’t know, and at this point I’m pessimistic that we will ever find out.
-->
@Double_R
Yes. I did fo to youtube and apparently it was in a mafia movie and maybe they were saying mafia members speak in very very subtle ways nor something.
-->
@ILikePie5
Ukrainians knew the “gun wasn’t loaded” from the beginning
Wow, how absurd. So to be clear, your position is that the president of the United States is a nobody to foreign countries like Ukraine?
What’s more absurd, is that this claim is being made in the face of an actual Ukrainian ( the only one who has spoken about it publicly so far) who was an advisor to Zelensky at the time while this was happening saying everything I’m saying. But why let facts get in the way right?
-->
@Double_R
The goal wasn’t to stop the funds, it was to get Ukraine to *announce* that they were investigating the Biden’s. Why is that so difficult?
What incentive did Ukraine have to “announce” an investigation. None. So at the very best it’s a request for an investigation into corruption. Don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Wow, how absurd. So to be clear, your position is that the president of the United States is a nobody to foreign countries like Ukraine?
My position is that the Ukrainians aren’t that stupid that the US holds no leverage over them lol.
What’s more absurd, is that this claim is being made in the face of an actual Ukrainian ( the only one who has spoken about it publicly so far) who was an advisor to Zelensky at the time while this was happening saying everything I’m saying. But why let facts get in the way right?
Oh so you’re at Zelensky’s advisors. I have Zelensky saying there was no blackmail. So who should we believe. An advisor or the President himself? Cause guess what? The aid would be released anyways. It’s not hard to understand.
-->
@ILikePie5
Great gish gallop deflection!
Recall post 6, this basically explains all you need to know here.
Your defense itself is ludicrous; in that we know aid was withheld, we know it panicked the Ukrainians, and it seems clear that while it’s probably certain they would have eventually got the aid, it’s unclear whether they knew that, and whether that “eventually” would be far enough in the future to harm them.
It’s the same logic as suggesting a death threat wasn’t a death threat if it wasn’t serious.
What you’re doing, though is a common strategy of flat earthers and creationists - and many others who have irrational indefensible beliefs- “if you’re wrong about one thing, you’re wrong about everything, if I’m right about one thing, I’m right about everything”.
Irrational people don’t like conflicting information, as it challenges the thinking they are emotionally dependent upon. As a result, they have defence mechanisms like this, short cuts and strategy’s to deflect and dodge from information they don’t like.
IE: all the critical news is fake. Everyone who says different is lying, etc. And you’re simply trying to find a way to rationalize that knee jerk rejection.
It’s exploited by those in power - to cut off your ability to accept critical information - so that you only digest and accept information that agrees with your position.
So in terms of the news; you simply strip our all context and relevance, somewhat misremember what actually happened; and look at any deviation in accuracy of any kind as total proof they’re lying about everything.
Russia, for example: it has been shown that there was a systematic pattern of dubious and unethical behaviour, as well as unusual and highly suspect interactions between the Trump campaign, and Russia. There have been repeated attempts to illegally obstruct the investigation, and outright lies Teump has told to obfuscate and misrepresent what had happened. Given the behaviour, the media was actually pretty accurate in what they reported, and was largely justified as how they reported it - overly sensational, sure, but not fake by any means. We’ve subsequently found out there were links between The campaign and Russian security (manafort and passing of polling data) Russian hackers and Trump Jr (guccifer DMs), and Trump affiliates and Wikileaks. A bunch of People went to prison.
All of this hugely suspect and unethical behaviour warranted much of the reporting. However these objectively determined facts are now dismissed as all lies, based on the inability to find criminal conspiracy and a suspect dossier which was reported on (but was not a key component of reporting).
HCQ was pretty accurate. Trump touted it as a miracle cure without clear evidence, and despite potentially impactful side effects (which was mostly how it was reported), and it ended up being tested and its efficacy inconclusive.
Even the recent Lafayette square updates is ridiculously revisionist.
Trump have a speech saying “As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property.” He talked about the need to dominate the streets: Almost as the square was being violently cleared - and then went to give a photo op in the square that had just been cleared.
The idea that someone in charge of federal troops says that he is sending armed troops to clear the streets “as we speak”, and that as he spoke armed troops violently cleared the streets - and those two things are unrelated - is flat out batsh*t nuts.
The immediate joining of those obvious dots and resulting speculation was completely justified; with the fuller story of Barr’s involvement and the earlier decisions only came out over the next several days. And at that point the speculation of how the attack played, who ordered of out had largely played out.
Now we know exactly what happened, the right wing media is trying to dress up that fairly reasonable speculation given specifics of the events at the time was unreasonable, by exploiting your fading memory of the events, hindsight; and your own confirmation bias, expecting that you’ll just swallow the “media bad” pill, and not think too hard about the detail.
This is not saying the media is perfect; or even unbiased. They are often sensational, jump to conclusions, speculate a lot and assume the worst; but the idea that they are systematically selling a false narrative is unsupported claptrap, sold by a political wing that needs you dismiss any unflattering story.
Even considering all the “errors” above; the media has been broadly accurate with much of its reporting, the worst actions and behaviours are largely uncontested; and for a collection of media dedicated to selling you fake news narrative, the sure as F report a lot of stories, information and narratives that conflict with that narrative. Conflicting positions that don’t seem to factor into any analysis.
At the very worst, the media is making the objectively terrible behaviour of the right look marginally worse.
The dynamic here, is pretty simple.
The left wing media is making Stalin look like Hitler. The right wing media is pointing to the few cases where the left wing media hasn’t accurately portrayed Stalin and scream “LoOk At HoW uNfAiRlY tHeY ArE TrEaTiNg GhAnDi”
Recall post 6, this basically explains all you need to know here.
Your defense itself is ludicrous; in that we know aid was withheld, we know it panicked the Ukrainians, and it seems clear that while it’s probably certain they would have eventually got the aid, it’s unclear whether they knew that, and whether that “eventually” would be far enough in the future to harm them.
It’s the same logic as suggesting a death threat wasn’t a death threat if it wasn’t serious.
What you’re doing, though is a common strategy of flat earthers and creationists - and many others who have irrational indefensible beliefs- “if you’re wrong about one thing, you’re wrong about everything, if I’m right about one thing, I’m right about everything”.
Irrational people don’t like conflicting information, as it challenges the thinking they are emotionally dependent upon. As a result, they have defence mechanisms like this, short cuts and strategy’s to deflect and dodge from information they don’t like.
IE: all the critical news is fake. Everyone who says different is lying, etc. And you’re simply trying to find a way to rationalize that knee jerk rejection.
It’s exploited by those in power - to cut off your ability to accept critical information - so that you only digest and accept information that agrees with your position.
So in terms of the news; you simply strip our all context and relevance, somewhat misremember what actually happened; and look at any deviation in accuracy of any kind as total proof they’re lying about everything.
Russia, for example: it has been shown that there was a systematic pattern of dubious and unethical behaviour, as well as unusual and highly suspect interactions between the Trump campaign, and Russia. There have been repeated attempts to illegally obstruct the investigation, and outright lies Teump has told to obfuscate and misrepresent what had happened. Given the behaviour, the media was actually pretty accurate in what they reported, and was largely justified as how they reported it - overly sensational, sure, but not fake by any means. We’ve subsequently found out there were links between The campaign and Russian security (manafort and passing of polling data) Russian hackers and Trump Jr (guccifer DMs), and Trump affiliates and Wikileaks. A bunch of People went to prison.
All of this hugely suspect and unethical behaviour warranted much of the reporting. However these objectively determined facts are now dismissed as all lies, based on the inability to find criminal conspiracy and a suspect dossier which was reported on (but was not a key component of reporting).
HCQ was pretty accurate. Trump touted it as a miracle cure without clear evidence, and despite potentially impactful side effects (which was mostly how it was reported), and it ended up being tested and its efficacy inconclusive.
Even the recent Lafayette square updates is ridiculously revisionist.
Trump have a speech saying “As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property.” He talked about the need to dominate the streets: Almost as the square was being violently cleared - and then went to give a photo op in the square that had just been cleared.
The idea that someone in charge of federal troops says that he is sending armed troops to clear the streets “as we speak”, and that as he spoke armed troops violently cleared the streets - and those two things are unrelated - is flat out batsh*t nuts.
The immediate joining of those obvious dots and resulting speculation was completely justified; with the fuller story of Barr’s involvement and the earlier decisions only came out over the next several days. And at that point the speculation of how the attack played, who ordered of out had largely played out.
Now we know exactly what happened, the right wing media is trying to dress up that fairly reasonable speculation given specifics of the events at the time was unreasonable, by exploiting your fading memory of the events, hindsight; and your own confirmation bias, expecting that you’ll just swallow the “media bad” pill, and not think too hard about the detail.
This is not saying the media is perfect; or even unbiased. They are often sensational, jump to conclusions, speculate a lot and assume the worst; but the idea that they are systematically selling a false narrative is unsupported claptrap, sold by a political wing that needs you dismiss any unflattering story.
Even considering all the “errors” above; the media has been broadly accurate with much of its reporting, the worst actions and behaviours are largely uncontested; and for a collection of media dedicated to selling you fake news narrative, the sure as F report a lot of stories, information and narratives that conflict with that narrative. Conflicting positions that don’t seem to factor into any analysis.
At the very worst, the media is making the objectively terrible behaviour of the right look marginally worse.
The dynamic here, is pretty simple.
The left wing media is making Stalin look like Hitler. The right wing media is pointing to the few cases where the left wing media hasn’t accurately portrayed Stalin and scream “LoOk At HoW uNfAiRlY tHeY ArE TrEaTiNg GhAnDi”
-->
@Greyparrot
Looks like we got another vomiter
-->
@Ramshutu
This is not saying the media is perfect; or even unbiased. They are often sensational, jump to conclusions, speculate a lot and assume the worst; but the idea that they are systematically selling a false narrative is unsupported claptrap, sold by a political wing that needs you dismiss any unflattering story.
I wonder why it only benefits one side. I wonder why. Yall’s end goal is political supremacy for the next century through amnesty, court packing, and statehood for PR and DC. It’s painfully obvious. You want to make the nation a one party nation, not me. It’s ok though, before all of this radical shit happens, there will be a Civil War and I’m sure you can guess which side would win.