Trump is an idiot

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 365
#331
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As I anticipated, you're classing special counsel Durham as a natural check which is pure semantics.
And I anticipated that you would hand waive it away without any attempt to explain what is wrong with it.

Again, the individual who presented the case to the judge lost his law lisence for over a year and was sentenced to 400 hours of community service. If that is not a check to you then you do not speak English.

They are given the Hunter laptop and they sit on it, intentionally; and a bunch of them claim (without evidence) that it is Russian disinformation.
3 nonsense claims within 25 words.

The first, that the FBI "sat" on the laptop, implying they did nothing with it. You do not know what the FBI is or is not doing with it, that's not public information nor has there been much reporting on it. What we do know is that it is being used in the investigation of Hunter's finances which is reportedly nearing it's final stages where charges are considered.

You do not know what their intentions are here, you do not work for the FBI and probably don't know anyone who does. This part is just made up whole cloth.

But the letter comment is the most egregious in this example as this is easily verifiably false. Here's what the letter actually says:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement"

So when you say they 'claimed without evidence' that it was Russian disinformation you are either being intentionally dishonest, or you are demonstrating your willingness to accept and repeat right wing talking points without the slightest interest in verifying them first.

Your entire post is like this, which is why I'm not going to respond to every nonsense claim within it.

But then, despite repeatedly showing you how there was a national and international consensus regarding the desire to fire Shokin, suddenly your standards go through the roof as even article after article after article written at the time, well before this issue became politicized in the US, all say the exact same thing and yet you still dismiss it as a series of one offs.

Moreover, if Shokin was (as you have suggested) not corrupt and actually holding public officials and oligarchs to account, all you have to do is provide the examples. Instead you sit there with your arms folded claiming no one here has done a good enough job holding your hand through it.

So when it comes to claims that suit your narrative, all you need is to hear it on Fox news or OANN to accept and repeat it, but when it comes to claims that don't, suddenly source after source after source all saying the same thing and no source saying otherwise is not enough.

And in the face if this remarkable double standard being pointed out, your go-to is to advise me if doing the same:

You explained a scenario in which the implications I drew were wrong without further evidence.
It wasn't "a scenario", it was what your letter actually said.

You presented a letter written months before the time period in question to argue that it showed there was no consensus, which already fails.

I then pointed out that the "Good job" remarks you were focusing on explicitly talked about his "agenda", which logically translates into "we're excited to see what you're going to do", not "we're happy with what you've done".

It's not that I'm dismissing the possibility, it's that your letter does not logically support it.

#332
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,999
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
In fairness, you could also say the FBI "sat" on the information that Trump had unsecured documents for over 500 days.
#333
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,172
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
As I anticipated, you're classing special counsel Durham as a natural check which is pure semantics.
And I anticipated that you would hand waive it away without any attempt to explain what is wrong with it.

Again, the individual who presented the case to the judge lost his law lisence for over a year and was sentenced to 400 hours of community service. If that is not a check to you then you do not speak English.
Must be nice, if they are caught, convicted, and wrist slapped only though whistle-blowing and special prosecutors you say "see no problem here" and if they aren't you declare that it's a conspiracy theory and once again "see no problem here"

By such a standard there was never any problem with the Trump presidency, after all they impeached him right? If that's not a check I don't know what is.


You do not know what the FBI is or is not doing with it, that's not public information nor has there been much reporting on it.
Well we come back to the fact that the AP is not the fountainhead of truth. While I have not been given a vision by our lord and savior AP (credentialed be its name) I have in fact learned of it through a dark and demonic sorcery known as "alternative media" who have informed me of whistleblowers.

They knew before the 2020 election the laptop was corroborated, they chose to claim it was Russian disinformation instead.


This part is just made up whole cloth.
If whole cloth was common sense and whistleblowers...


So when you say they 'claimed without evidence' that it was Russian disinformation you are either being intentionally dishonest, or you are demonstrating your willingness to accept and repeat right wing talking points without the slightest interest in verifying them first.
Well in this case I don't care if that's what the letter said because that just shifts the dishonesty to the timing and the mainstream (although dying) press (credentialed be their name)


But then, despite repeatedly showing you how there was a national and international consensus regarding the desire to fire Shokin
You have repeatedly asserted it, but you have not presented convincing evidence. A few articles talking in the past tense about how some bureaucrats aren't happy is not a national and international consensus.


even article after article after article written at the time
.. written at the time of firing, there was one that was written before the quid pro quo, and I'm not sure I ever saw it. I think you mislinked to it and I never actually got to see it.

well before this issue became politicized in the US
But not before US ambassadors (who should be considered agents of Biden) were telling Ukrainians how they should feel about Shokin.


Moreover, if Shokin was (as you have suggested) not corrupt and actually holding public officials and oligarchs to account, all you have to do is provide the examples.
No I don't, there is no dichotomy between corruption and failing to make a big enough splash to have people write stories. Then again they did write a story about how he went have Burisma's main oligarch and we know Burisma was corrupt...


So when it comes to claims that suit your narrative, all you need is to hear it on Fox news or OANN to accept and repeat it, but when it comes to claims that don't, suddenly source after source after source all saying the same thing and no source saying otherwise is not enough.
I've explained to you that AP parrots do not constitute independent sources. I bet concession that you've rejected more original testimony (that is from witnesses) during this debate than I have. Deal?


It wasn't "a scenario", it was what your letter actually said.
A microcosm of the double standards I've been talking about. You insist on literalism only for the letter I found. If you applied litteralism to the senate letter you would admit that it doesn't contain the words "fire Shokin"


You presented a letter written months before the time period in question to argue that it showed there was no consensus, which already fails.
To show the public campaign hadn't started at that point. Not to show that there was no public campaign.


I then pointed out that the "Good job" remarks you were focusing on explicitly talked about his "agenda", which logically translates into "we're excited to see what you're going to do", not "we're happy with what you've done".
And the scenario you thus posit is that the letter writers did not think he was doing a good job because there was some kind of natural angst against Shokin.

The simplest explanation is that they did not warn Shokin to do better because the campaign against Shokin had not started yet so there was no angst against Shokin to speak of.
#334
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Must be nice, if they are caught, convicted, and wrist slapped only though whistle-blowing and special prosecutors you say "see no problem here" and if they aren't you declare that it's a conspiracy theory and once again "see no problem here"
The fact that you cannot meet the burden of proof you give yourself when you make a claim is not my problem.

You have repeatedly asserted it, but you have not presented convincing evidence. A few articles talking in the past tense about how some bureaucrats aren't happy is not a national and international consensus.
Ok, let's run through this... Again.

As I have repeated multiple times now, I presented 6 articles from all over the world talking about Shokin and his corruption. Two of those articles were not as you describe "past tense", they were written in November 2015, before Biden got involved in the push for Shokin's removal. I explained this to you multiple times.

I also showed you a bipartisan Senate letter once again, saying the same thing.

Just for the heck of it, I went through Google and found 4 more articles from that timeframe saying the same thing. 

You dismiss all of these, not with conflicting evidence, but just because it's not enough to meet your high standards of evidence. Standards which you throw out the window when it comes to Fox News talking points of course.

So this appears to be the heart of our disagreement. You continue to pretend that there is some other reality where Shokin was not corrupt, seemingly as a matter of faith. The fact of the matter is that if you actually use Google and look this up yourself, you'll notice that Every. Single. Peice. Of literature about Viktor Shokin written in late 2015 or early 2016 all says the same thing; that he was a corrupt prosecutor fired for not prosecuting corruption. Find one article written by any major publication saying otherwise. I'll wait.

A microcosm of the double standards I've been talking about. You insist on literalism only for the letter I found. If you applied litteralism to the senate letter you would admit that it doesn't contain the words "fire Shokin"
I've already explained to you what the language in one letter clearly implies vs what the language in the other letter clearly implies. Rather than engage in a good faith conversation about how to interpret words, you retreat to a purposefully overly simplistic characterization that sounds good to you so that you do not have to make an argument you know you can't support.

Address the arguments I made.
#335
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,172
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Must be nice, if they are caught, convicted, and wrist slapped only though whistle-blowing and special prosecutors you say "see no problem here" and if they aren't you declare that it's a conspiracy theory and once again "see no problem here"
The fact that you cannot meet the burden of proof you give yourself when you make a claim is not my problem.
A pitiable misdirection. You attempted to redefine all evidence of corruption as evidence of self-policing. The evidence of corruption remains.

I incur no burden of proof in pointing out your semantic deception.


You have repeatedly asserted it, but you have not presented convincing evidence. A few articles talking in the past tense about how some bureaucrats aren't happy is not a national and international consensus.
Ok, let's run through this... Again.

As I have repeated multiple times now, I presented 6 articles from all over the world talking about Shokin and his corruption.

Only one link was from before the quid pro quo, November 6th; and it described the US executive branch as the one to kick off the public campaign in late September. https://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/new-round-of-western-criticism-targets-procurator-general-shokin/


Two of those articles were not as you describe "past tense", they were written in November 2015, before Biden got involved in the push for Shokin's removal. I explained this to you multiple times.
You have no idea when exactly Biden got involved. You only know about the date of the quid pro quo and only because he bragged about it. He was the policy leader in Ukraine from about the same time Hunter started collecting.


I also showed you a bipartisan Senate letter once again, saying the same thing.
Not exactly.


Just for the heck of it, I went through Google and found 4 more articles from that timeframe saying the same thing. 
Well I must have missed those because my link count is still at 2, don't kill yourself though. I already told you I don't considered every article an independent source.


You dismiss all of these, not with conflicting evidence, but just because it's not enough to meet your high standards of evidence.
I reserve the right to evaluate the credibility and possibility of specific factual claims, but I did not dismiss any specific factual claims from the articles you posted. I simply pointed out that they fail to establish a timeline or scale that is inconsistent with Biden being motivated by personal corruption and the deep-state interest in removing any pro-russian elements in Ukraine.


So this appears to be the heart of our disagreement. You continue to pretend that there is some other reality where Shokin was not corrupt, seemingly as a matter of faith.
Yes! my faith in the AP is lacking. Even when they claim that someone besides themselves asserted something, I have... doubts [priest who looks exactly like Brian Stelter on other side of confessional shakes head]


The fact of the matter is that if you actually use Google and look this up yourself, you'll notice that Every. Single. Peice. Of literature about Viktor Shokin written in late 2015 or early 2016 all says the same thing; that he was a corrupt prosecutor fired for not prosecuting corruption. Find one article written by any major publication saying otherwise. I'll wait.
That's why they went for the schools and the media. First they teach them that debate is exchanging citations, and then they control the source of citations.

I'm sure some pro-russian paper in Ukraine (or Russia) wrote that it was a political hit job at the time, but when you include "major publication" why would I go through the effort to find it? You'll simply dismiss it as not major, or if not major not trust worthy (like fox news).

You're playing a meaningless minigame called link-wars and even that you can't win without rigging the rules.
#336
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,172
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Well I was curious how hard it would be so I went and did it:

Auto Translated: "If we look for points of intersection with the interests of US corporations, then American officials and their agents like The Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavicius and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk talked, among other things, about the privatization of such large assets as the Odessa Port Plant (the leading producer of ammonia) and Centrenergo (one of the leading producers of electricity). And in this vein, employees of the Prosecutor General's Office are a universal resource both in order to instruct people's deputies to "vote correctly" and in order to cool down the "hotheads" from among the oligarchs and raiders who may risk standing against the commercial interests of the United States in Ukraine.
Auto Translated: "In this case, it would be more correct to say that all the "Maidan parties" voted for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General, unwanted by the United States, regardless of which of them now belongs to the parliamentary coalition, and who has signed up for the opposition.

Auto Translated: "Since the decision was made at the very top, it was clear from the start that there would be enough votes.

Note that "the top" refers to Poroshenko, the man Biden quid pro quoed.

You see when you fire someone to protect your corruption and get them out of the way for your political agenda to move forward, you don't say that's what you're doing. Once again a reminder, I do not resort to the authority of this eadaily, I do not cede authority over truth to any entity. This is merely to point out that the political analysis I have also made was made at the time.

It is a fact that the official reason (given by Poroshenko and the parliament) that the reason was corruption. From that actual event spawned the AP (or equivalent) original story. From that story all the middlemen stories were spawned. You go around googling all the middlemen and convince yourself you're uncovering mountains of evidence that Shokin was corrupt.

I do not deny the fact that it was the reason given, I deny that you have uncovered mountains of evidence.

Address the arguments I made.
I have, many times. Apparently so many times you've forgotten some of the things you argued.

#337
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I see that there was an error with the links I provided, so we'll clarify that issue first. Let's try the following experiment: Google "Victor Shokin 2015", then scroll down and open up every article written about him in late 2015 or early 2016.

Spoiler alert... Here are the results:

"The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite."

"The amazing thing is not that he was sacked but that it has taken so long. President Petro Poroshenko appointed Shokin to the role in February 2015. From the outset, he stood out by causing great damage even to Ukraine’s substandard legal system. Most strikingly, Shokin failed to prosecute any single prominent member of the Yanukovych regime. Nor did he prosecute anyone in the current government"

"The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine's scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country's political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister."

"Since he was appointed as prosecutor general by Poroshenko in February, Shokin has not brought any cases of corruption to court involving Yanukovich or his partners. Nor has he prosecuted the hundreds of high-level corruption cases that have been brought to his office by Ukraine’s parliamentary committee on preventing and combating corruption."

"The country’s controversial prosecutor general has been criticized repeatedly for failing to jail corrupt senior officials and undermining an anti-corruption effort that would pull Ukraine closer to the European Union.

That’s a problem, since cracking down on graft and sidling up to Europe were two keys demands of last year’s street revolution. Even top Western officials, including the US ambassador to Ukraine, have publicly criticized Shokin.

Last week, the Ukraine branch of watchdog Transparency International claimed the country’s chief jurist was “personally responsible” for failing to make good on his promises to battle graft. It said the 63-year-old had picked dubious bureaucrats, who served under ousted ex-President Viktor Yanukovych, to choose a new anti-corruption prosecutor."

"US officials think this took far too long, and they are losing patience with Ukraine's government, especially since Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, a Poroshenko confidant, has delayed filling the anti-corruption position. In September of this year, Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kyiv, took an unusual step. He tweeted - albeit in a convoluted, diplomatic manner - his demand for Shokin's dismissal."

"Ukrainians stand to pay a high price for Poroshenko's focus on self-preservation. According to Kaleniuk, Poroshenko's support for Shokin not only jeopardizes visa-free access to the EU, but risks costing Ukraine $4.4 billion in desperately needed financial assistance—$1.2 billion from the EU and $3.2 billion from the International Monetary Fund.

Ukraine's civil society reformers are right to demand the Prosecutor General's ouster—and Poroshenko's decision to protect Shokin is inexcusable. If Poroshenko continues down this path, he will surely receive more visits from the determined activists of the Euromaidan."

"Scores of protesters have rallied in the Ukrainian capital, demanding the resignation of the country’s top prosecutor, who has been repeatedly criticized as an impediment to badly needed anticorruption reforms."

"Shokin's perceived unwillingness to clamp down on corruption and go after the lawmakers suspected of murky deals has caused public outcry and repeated calls for his resignation."

"As the drive to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin gains momentum, the discredited and distrusted official has opened an embezzlement case against one of the country's most prominent anti-corruption groups."

"Anti-corruption public activists note that the country saw no expected relaunch of the prosecutor's office and full investigation of high-profile cases under Shokin."

"Western leaders and reform-minded Ukrainians had been calling for Shokin’s removal for some time.  Critics claimed he failed to prosecute any major cases, including the killing of more than 100 protesters during the EuroMaidan Revolution in 2014 and cases against allies of former President Viktor Yanukovych."
#338
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The above articles include every single one I came across from 2015/2016 discussing Shokin and his standing within the country or international community. What is absolutely remarkable about going through this exercise is the absence of any article written by anyone, anywhere, talking about Shokin as if the push to get him out of office was anything but a wide spread consensus. All your articles talk about is what motivated the Ukrainian parliament, but that doesn't refute anything here, Biden's own words affirmed that his pressure was the main catalyst. It's also remarkable that you had to search through another language, which goes to show how little out there supports your objections.

So does this prove that Biden was purely motivated by US interests? No. Does it prove that Shokin was in fact corrupt? No.

What it proves is that Biden was not some rogue actor when he pushed for Shokin's firing. It proves that your conspiracy theory ignores a perfectly reasonable explanation for Biden's involvement. It proves that the simple Occam's razor test for what best explains Biden's motivations are at the very least matched by the prospect of him acting to get Shokin fired because Shokin was believed by nearly everyone to be corrupt. In other words, it proves that your assertion that Biden really got involved for his own personal interests is at best just one possible explanation out of other possible explanations  which are just as reasonable.

If you cannot admit to this one point then there is no sense in continuing.
#339
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,172
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I see that there was an error with the links I provided
Yea, I know; I said it twice. If you read my posts instead of skimming them you would have noticed.

Spoiler alert... Here are the results:
You seem to have missed a key part of my last post, here it is again:
ADOL: It is a fact that the official reason (given by Poroshenko and the parliament) that the reason was corruption. From that actual event spawned the AP (or equivalent) original story. From that story all the middlemen stories were spawned. You go around googling all the middlemen and convince yourself you're uncovering mountains of evidence that Shokin was corrupt.

I do not deny the fact that it was the reason given, I deny that you have uncovered mountains of evidence.


It's also remarkable that you had to search through another language, which goes to show how little out there supports your objections.
It's remarkable that you can't think of an alternative theory besides "only anglophones speak truth".


So does this prove that Biden was purely motivated by US interests? No. Does it prove that Shokin was in fact corrupt? No.

What it proves is that Biden was not some rogue actor when he pushed for Shokin's firing.
Ah, so all of this linking and talk of senate letters was a waste of time because as we all know if the good and honorable Joseph R Biden says something we know it's on the level because the people who worked for him agreed with him.

It proves that the simple Occam's razor test for what best explains Biden's motivations are at the very least matched by the prospect of him acting to get Shokin fired because Shokin was believed by nearly everyone to be corrupt.

In other words, it proves that your assertion that Biden really got involved for his own personal interests is at best just one possible explanation out of other possible explanations  which are just as reasonable.
You continue to ignore the related probability of corruption actually occurring. The world is wide, and there are a lot of corrupt people Biden go could personally quid pro quo out of power. It would be an enormous coincidence that he just happened to attack the one in all the world that was a threat to his corruption.

Occam's razor favors simple explanations, simple explanations are explanations with the least total improbability.

Also it wasn't everyone. It was a bare majority of the parliament and only after the quid pro quo.
#340
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
If Trump was an idiot, Biden would have pardoned Trump to save the country from all this embarrassment.

But Trump has committed serious criminal acts and is not above the law. He has to be tried and convicted.  Trump will be the first American President to  serve jail time.
#341
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Here's you:
You go around googling all the middlemen and convince yourself you're uncovering mountains of evidence that Shokin was corrupt.
And here's what I actually said:
So does this prove that Biden was purely motivated by US interests? No. Does it prove that Shokin was in fact corrupt? No. What it proves is that Biden was not some rogue actor when he pushed for Shokin's firing.
So as you claim I'm not reading your posts, take a good look in the mirror.

If we cannot agree on the most basic facts then further conversation is pointless. This is why I scaled the conversion back to one very simple question, was there a wide spread consensus amongst the US and international community that Viktor Shokin needed to be fired? Yes or No?

The rest of this debate is pointless if we cannot agree on this one point.

So I posted a dozen articles from the time period in question, a time period far before the political right politicized this issue in the wake of Biden's public comments on it. A time period where it would have made absolutely no sense to write articles about anything other than what was actually happening.

Your response to this was as telling as it was predictable; you hand waived away all of it beforehand as a collection of "middle men" writing about whatever they were told to believe. That speaks volumes about the issue here; you do not care about logic and reason.

You have no evidence whatsoever that there was not a wide spread consensus on this, and you disregard all of the evidence that there was.

Until you can present actual evidence of your alternative narrative, something other than "dUh eVeryOnE  wAS jUsT lISteNeNinG tO biDEn", there's no point in continuing.
#342
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,172
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
If we cannot agree on the most basic facts then further conversation is pointless. This is why I scaled the conversion back to one very simple question, was there a wide spread consensus amongst the US and international community that Viktor Shokin needed to be fired? Yes or No?
No. Your definition of the "US" as a relatively small number of people in the executive branch is rejected as well as the definition of the "international community" as a relatively small number of EU diplomats.

Under such a definition the "US" asked for Hunter to be investigated.

The rest of this debate is pointless if we cannot agree on this one point.
Well I'd say (and did say) the debate on whether Biden could not have been using the quid pro quo for personal reasons would be lost by you and won by me: If you don't have both this concession and a concession on Biden being ignorant about any threat to his money laundering.



So I posted a dozen articles from the time period in question, a time period far before the political right politicized this issue in the wake of Biden's public comments on it. A time period where it would have made absolutely no sense to write articles about anything other than what was actually happening.
The stated reason for the firing was corruption, they wrote about that. Them writing about that at the time is at best evidence that the stated reason was corruption.

I also laugh at the notion that so long as the American right-wing aren't interested second hand reporting is intrinsically infallible.


Your response to this was as telling as it was predictable; you hand waived away all of it beforehand as a collection of "middle men" writing about whatever they were told to believe. That speaks volumes about the issue here; you do not care about logic and reason.
You have a collection of middlemen relating what they were told (often with direct quotes instead of assertions of fact) confused with logic and reason.


You have no evidence whatsoever that there was not a wide spread consensus on this, and you disregard all of the evidence that there was.
The evidence you have provided supports the theory that there was never a "wide spread consensus", that the limited consensus that did exist was spawned by the actions of US officials who almost certainly reported to Biden, and that said consensus is only a consensus by definition. i.e. you define the group as everyone who wanted Shokin gone and then you say "look, everyone in this group wanted Shokin gone".

Well the vote in the Ukrainian parliament and the fact that the president of Ukraine didn't do anything about Shokin until he was "blackmailed" by Biden is not what consensus looks like. In fact it looks a lot more like Shokin was a controversial figure that wasn't going anywhere until a corrupt politician from a necessary ally showed up to make him go away.

It's a bit of a "The vote was 100% in my favor after I killed everyone who didn't vote for me" situation.


Until you can present actual evidence of your alternative narrative, something other than "dUh eVeryOnE  wAS jUsT lISteNeNinG tO biDEn", there's no point in continuing.
I did when you posted the two articles originally. One of them said it started with a US ambassador in late September.
#343
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Let's assume for one moment - just for the sake of argument - that there was in fact a wide spread consensus amongst the US and international community that Viktor Shokin should be fired.

Q1: What evidence would need to be presented to convince you of this

Q2: What method would you say we should follow to determine if this was the case?
#344
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @Double_R
In fairness, you could also say the FBI "sat" on the information that Trump had unsecured documents for over 500 days.
The FBI and DOJ were negotiating with Trump for almost a year to have the classified documents returned to the National Archives. But Trump took that time to hide the documents which made it necessary to get a search warrant. 

#345
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,999
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
And? If it were so important to secure the documents, Somebody in the FBI should have been fired for taking 500 days to do it.
#346
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot

--> @Shila
And? If it were so important to secure the documents, Somebody in the FBI should have been fired for taking 500 days to do it.
Remember Trump was the former president and took all the classified materials after he left office. They belong to the National Archives. So he essentially stole the documents.

#347
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,999
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
They were just as stolen on day 1 as day 500. I don't know why the FBI gets a free pass on this. I expect more out of the FBI.
#348
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
--> @Shila
They were just as stolen on day 1 as day 500. I don't know why the FBI gets a free pass on this. I expect more out of the FBI.
If the FBI were more efficient. Think of all the past American presidents that would be in jail.

#349
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,172
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Let's assume for one moment - just for the sake of argument - that there was in fact a wide spread consensus amongst the US and international community that Viktor Shokin should be fired.

Q1: What evidence would need to be presented to convince you of this

Q2: What method would you say we should follow to determine if this was the case?
Well to start off, consensus requires awareness.

It would be extremely odd, almost unheard of; for an appointed bureaucrat in a country of only middling notoriety to be the subject of global awareness. In this case he was not; but for the sake of argument this consensus existed so it follows that he is uniquely infamous.

We would expect this infamy and the specific acts which caused it to have been reported on and discussed by pundits and politicians around the globe. There would be clips of such discussions (dated to a time shortly after the infamous act was discovered).

There would be skeptics who were beaten back by the force of evidence proving the acts, for if they weren't beaten back there would be no consensus. The evidence itself would be publicly available (at the time) lest the skepticism only grow.

It's a hard scenario to analogize because it is so unlike anything that has happened in recent history. Plenty of postulations have had global awareness with an acute lack of consensus. For instance the claim that there were WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.

Perhaps the moon landings, that is global awareness with global consensus. Lots of independent original sources.
#350
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
A former president holding on to top propaganda material is unthinkable in America. It material has to be passed onto the next president to maintain the appearance of continuity and consistency.

#351
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
We would expect this infamy and the specific acts which caused it to have been reported on and discussed by pundits and politicians around the globe. There would be clips of such discussions (dated to a time shortly after the infamous act was discovered).
I provided a dozen articles reporting on this at the time, you hand waived them all away as "middle men" parroting what they were told.

Those articles included multiple examples of politicians around the world agreeing with his firing, you hand waived that away as a 'small number of bureaucrats'.

You don't believe a word you're saying. You already have the evidence you claim would convince you.

You distort the circumstances to pretend the situation warranted more attention than it did. There is no reason the whole world apart from those working closely with Ukraine would have cared about this. Ukraine is a small country with a long history of corruption, this wasn't breaking news.

You also pretend there is some 'infamous acts' for which there would have been mountains of evidence showing Shokin's guilt. If you actually read the articles you'd know that Shokin was acused of not investigating corruption, so your claim that there would be evidence of his actions is a non sequitur.

And of course, you dismiss the fact that you have no evidence showing anything else. Your arguments defending Shokin - that it's all coming from Biden and everyone is just following suit, that the articles are all just 'middle men' parroting what they were told, that the only people who believed he was corrupt are the ones listed in these articles - it's all just taken on faith. I could make the same claims about anything, that doesn't give anyone a reason to believe them.
#352
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
If it were so important to secure the documents, Somebody in the FBI should have been fired for taking 500 days to do it.
This has already been explained to you.

#353
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,999
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I'm not interested in the excuses. 500 days is unacceptable to have stolen documents in the wild. Someone in the FBI needs to be fired for sitting on this for 500 days.
#354
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,172
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I provided a dozen articles reporting on this at the time, you hand waived them all away as "middle men" parroting what they were told.
At the time of firing or quid pro quoing, parroting the same things.

Those articles included multiple examples of politicians around the world agreeing with his firing, you hand waived that away as a 'small number of bureaucrats'.
Shall we count them?

There is no reason the whole world apart from those working closely with Ukraine would have cared about this.
Indeed, which is why the claim of "international consensus" (or other similar language) incurred a burden of proof you couldn't bear from the moment you said it.

You also pretend there is some 'infamous acts' for which there would have been mountains of evidence showing Shokin's guilt. If you actually read the articles you'd know that Shokin was acused of not investigating corruption, so your claim that there would be evidence of his actions is a non sequitur.
There is the claim that the diamond arrests (if they happened) were frame jobs. Regardless your claim here only supports my position that the kind of international attention you implied existed would be absurd. As if U.S. interests hinge on some appointed position not doing his job fast enough in a distant non-NATO country.

There are plenty of cops and prosecutors in the US not doing their job very fast, none of that attracted international attention or federal quid pro quos.

I will continue to believe, without certainty, but with the balance of the evidence available as support; that Viktor Shokin, whatever else he failed to do, was an obstacle to the installment of a US puppet regime in Ukraine and a direct threat to the related bribery of one Joseph Biden. That's why he garnered attention and that's why the attention started with US executive branch action and ended with US executive branch action.

And of course, you dismiss the fact that you have no evidence showing anything else.
Recap:
US ambassador started the campaign against Shokin in late September (your source)
Shokin is fired due to quid pro quo (source = Biden)
Shokin moved against Burisma, you admit that the only motivation would be to go after Biden and therefore Shokin knew Biden was connected to Burisma

All your articles keep doing (besides supporting my case) is repeating that the given reason for Shokin being fired was corruption. It is not counter-evidence in the slightest. The reason they keep doing the same thing is because they are not original sources, there was one source, you can easily tell by nearly the exact same list of events and quotes; I don't have the time nor interest in finding out what it is because it doesn't matter.

I addressed everything in those reports and they are consistent with my theory. What makes my theory better than yours is that it fits the other facts. Facts like the money laundering, Shokin's statements, the lack of action against Shokin before the quid pro quo, the Russian commentary at the time, etc...
#355
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There is no reason the whole world apart from those working closely with Ukraine would have cared about this.
Indeed, which is why the claim of "international consensus" incurred a burden of proof you couldn't bear from the moment you said it.
So your argument is once again, a strawman.

International consensus does not mean every country in the world agreed, nor does it even mean every major political figure in the countries involved all agree. It means that major political figures within multiple countries agreed and there is very little sign of dissent.

All your articles keep doing (besides supporting my case) is repeating that the given reason for Shokin being fired was corruption. It is not counter-evidence in the slightest.
If people from around the world saying that they wanted Shokin fired because he was corrupt, and celebrating his firing because they say he was corrupt, does not qualify to you as evidence that the world thought he was corrupt... then you do not know what evidence is.

Recap:
US ambassador started the campaign against Shokin in late September (your source)
Yes, which supports my argument. You're claiming that Biden did what he did for personal reasons. If you are following basic logic here (aka Occam's razor) this means that for Biden's to successfully abuse his power he needed other US agencies to follow through with his plot. You can claim all day that this "could have happened" just like I can claim all day that the Earth's core is made of parmesan cheese. What you need is actual evidence that Biden improperly influenced these people for your claim to warrant serious consideration. As usual, you have nothing but baseless assertions.

Shokin is fired due to quid pro quo (source = Biden)
No one denies Biden's involvement and influence, but it is notable that Ukraine was also in danger of losing over $4 billion in finding from the EU and the international monetary fund because of Shokin. You would know this is you bothered to read what I posted.

Shokin moved against Burisma, you admit that the only motivation would be to go after Biden and therefore Shokin knew Biden was connected to Burisma
You are either lying or you don't read. I made clear, multiple times, that we don't know what Shokin's motivation here was, and made clear, multiple times, that the fact that we don't know how motivations was my point from the start. You even said as much at first before apparently realizing that you couldn't stick with that position and so you needed to change it. Whatever makes more views seem like legitimate discourse, reality be dammed.

That's why he garnered attention and that's why the attention started with US executive branch action and ended with US executive branch action.
Again, if you read the articles you would know that "the attention" did not start with Biden. As one of the articles you ignored put it "Even top Western officials, including the US ambassador to Ukraine, have publicly criticized Shokin". In other words, the fact that the US was getting involved came as a surprise to some since the main voices here was coming from there EU. But again, you will, with no evidence to the contrary of course, just hand waive all of this away.
#356
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not interested in the [explanation for how the world actually works].
Fixed.
#357
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,999
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Sorry, but in a functioning society, the government does not take 500 days to fix a problem they know about that could destroy a country. The society you describe is regressive. where people are conditioned to expect that level of incompetence from the FBI. That's the way the world works in a regressive society.
#358
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Sorry, but in a functioning society, the government does not take 500 days to fix a problem they know about that could destroy a country. The society you describe is regressive. where people are conditioned to expect that level of incompetence from the FBI. That's the way the world works in a regressive society.
It took 4 years to get a twice impeached president Trump out of office. The system is drowning in bureaucracy.

#359
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,999
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
Yep. The swamp needs draining.
#360
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,172
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
International consensus does not mean every country in the world agreed, nor does it even mean every major political figure in the countries involved all agree. It means that major political figures within multiple countries agreed and there is very little sign of dissent.
Now there needs to be dissent huh? What if it's just that nobody else knew or cared about Shokin enough to protest the US executive branch demands? That is what one would expect of an appointed position having to do with internal affairs in a non-major country.

Under some theories of international world order, it's no one's damn business how a government handles its own law enforcement and many many many countries follow that guideline. US, CCP, and back in the day USSR are of course exceptions. Constantly sticking their noses everywhere in an attempt to establish or defend hegemony.


All your articles keep doing (besides supporting my case) is repeating that the given reason for Shokin being fired was corruption. It is not counter-evidence in the slightest.
If people from around the world saying that they wanted Shokin fired because he was corrupt, and celebrating his firing because they say he was corrupt, does not qualify to you as evidence that the world thought he was corrupt... then you do not know what evidence is.
Or you do not know the difference between propaganda and evidence. I may remind you of that when Biden is impeached and a bunch of people celebrate. We'll get into who exactly "people" are below.



Recap:
US ambassador started the campaign against Shokin in late September (your source)
Yes, which supports my argument. You're claiming that Biden did what he did for personal reasons. ... this means that for Biden's to successfully abuse his power he needed other US agencies to follow through with his plot. You can claim all day that this "could have happened" ... What you need is actual evidence that Biden improperly influenced these people for your claim to warrant serious consideration.
What you deem worthy of serious consideration is beyond my power to control. The fact remains that people who would basically have worked for Biden at the time do not count as indicators of sound motivation.

The equivalent claim would be that Trump could not have been personally motivated because Giuliani would have to follow through with his plot.

You have no problem imaging that Giuliani, who was delegated any power he might have from the executive branch (i.e. Trump) would have every reason to consider Trump's interests as his own. You have indicated as much.

You may weave a poem about the lustrous honor of various appointed positions and agencies in the executive branch, but when reduced to bare facts an ambassador (for example) is just as vulnerable to being fired and just as likely to have been appointed for the cause of loyalty as Giuliani.

Anyone who serves at the pleasure of the president can be assumed to be serving the interests of the president without additional evidence. Presidents delegate, sometimes to a vice president; and that is what contemporary reports and simple inference shows happened with Biden in Ukraine. He was the executive branch in Ukraine at this time.


Shokin is fired due to quid pro quo (source = Biden)
No one denies Biden's involvement and influence
Remember that before you claim I have no evidence.


You are either lying or you don't read. I made clear, multiple times, that we don't know what Shokin's motivation here was, and made clear, multiple times, that the fact that we don't know how motivations was my point from the start.
You were the one who suggested the motivation was revenge against Biden. It does make perfect sense, it is the most likely explanation given what we know. You are simply upset that your own common sense betrayed your narrative for a moment.

If anyone else is following this and doubts it I can go find the post number.


That's why he garnered attention and that's why the attention started with US executive branch action and ended with US executive branch action.
Again, if you read the articles you would know that "the attention" did not start with Biden. As one of the articles you ignored put it "Even top Western officials, including the US ambassador to Ukraine, have publicly criticized Shokin".
So in the absence of direct evidence you have decided that the ambassador wasn't taking any direction from the executive branch, decided to start railing against prosecutors, and he made such a convincing case that Biden himself took note and came down to personally quid pro quo the prosecutor out of office and that just happened to save burisma's oligarch.

Or... Shokin was nosing around Burisma, Biden asked for some research on this guy, found that there was some local controversy about diamonds and annoying a few EU officials and decided to use this to get rid of him. Phoned up the ambassador told him to make it an issue of "US interests". What would have been routine political turbulence that goes on all the time in every country (especially Ukraine) is turned into a major issue for the US. The (two?) guys in the EU working on some Visa program puff up their chests like it had anything to do with them and agree Shokin should be fired.

But Shokin isn't fired because he was actually a handpicked guy of the president (of Ukraine). So Biden and the deep state turn up the temperature, circulating the "dirt" on Shokin (which in reality was common knowledge accusations in Ukraine), the senate committee reads and and wags a finger, but that doesn't get Shokin fired either. No, in the end Biden needs to go there personally and use basically the entire foreign policy of the US in Ukraine as a cudgel to quid pro quo Shokin out.

The later story is the one that fits with Hunter Biden collecting bribes. The former, besides being bizarre on the face of it; does not. The probabilities are related and because of the fact of personal motivation the later is an order of magnitude more likely.

You know when the left is trying to tie things to Russia they consider any Russian an agent of Putin. No need for any formal employer status, just coming from Russia and doing something is proof enough... but when it comes to a democrat administration an explicit hierarchy isn't enough to consider an ambassador as an agent?

Who are "top western officials"? You have said that an international consensus doesn't need popular awareness, it doesn't even need more than a few officials in a few countries. Who are these people? We have the ambassador to Ukraine for one. Biden. Anyone else?

I'm curious about the number, five people? eight?


In other words, the fact that the US was getting involved came as a surprise to some since the main voices here was coming from there EU.
Now why would it surprise anyone if there was an international consensus? If it was normal for the US to barge in and demand corrupt prosecutors be fired?

It wasn't normal because Ukraine wasn't just any other country to Biden and the Obama admin.