Donald Trump

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 114
Topic's author
#61
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, if you are looking for reasons to vote for Trump, rather than the candidates that have shown up, than here is a.......couple:
  • Trump lowered taxes.
  • Cutting Regulations.
  • Ending Wars.
  • Bringing Troops home.
  • Lowering Funding to NATO, the UN, the WHO.
  • Opening opportunity programs from poverty-stricken neighborhoods. 
  • Giving low level, non-violent inmates a second chance.
  • Fixing mandatory minimums.
  • Starting a worldwide effort to stop persecution of Gays. 
  • Supporting MS-13.
  • Protecting our Borders.
  • Crusading against human and child trafficking. 
  • Bringing back manufacturing facilities.
  • Evening out our suspiciously lopsided trade tariffs.
  • Getting our soldiers, remains back from North Korea. 
  • Getting terminal patients, the right to try. 
  • Record highs in our stock market. 
  • Getting big pharma to match low prices abroad.
  • Reaching Energy Independence. 
  • Brokering Peace Deals all over the Middle East.
  • Record low Unemployment.
  • Keeping Gas and Inflation majorly down. 
  • Donating a salary to different organizations, like the ones fighting opioid addictions every quarter, and doing this for free. 
Taxes: My ideal tax code is outlined below:


Why is cutting regulations good?  That lead to the Palestine Ohio incident?  I think it should be easier to build buildings so they are more affordable for people, but anyone who advocates cutting regulations needs to be specific.

I'm anti war, but Trump didn't end any wars.  He continued our presence in the middle east.

NATO funding: Our military was the highest it was under Trump.  The ideal military budget is 1% of the GDP.
Starting a worldwide effort to stop persecution of Gays. 
Many on the right want to prosecute gay people as well.  Trump can denounce the people in his base that are anti gay if he was principled about the issue.
  • Supporting MS-13.
  • Protecting our Borders.
MS 13 members that sell fetaynyl deserve death; the undocumented caught in the cross hairs should not have their victimless liberties treaded upon.  Trump did neither of these things.

  • Crusading against human and child trafficking. 
Based.

  • Bringing back manufacturing facilities.
Biden did this.

  • Keeping Gas and Inflation majorly down. 
Biden did this too, but inflation should be lower under Biden, then my stocks can do better.


#62
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
A scientific question would be: Does a zygote contain a complete and final set of DNA?
It does, but so does a cancer cell, so unless your arguing that cancer cells are human beings, this definition isn't good for what a human being is.
Underdog... that wasn't a definition of what a human being is. It was an example of a scientific question which is definitely not a definition of what a human being is.

Science is logic + experiment related to the natural world. You can ask how, you an ask why, but you can't ask for definitions. Logic doesn't produce definitions, it operates on them. Choosing useful definitions that allow for useful inferences is an art and sometimes an act of genius but not a science.

Or Does a zygote use phospholipids in its cell walls?
I'm unsure, but I don't think so.
It does, all Terran life does.
#63
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
  • Keeping Gas and Inflation majorly down. 
Biden did this too
Inflation is solely caused by the federal reserve. The federal reserve reacts to credit demand. Credit demand in countries collapsing due to giant wasteful public sectors is determined by government spending.

It's not one president or another. It's the anticipation of enormous deficit spending.

It was less under Trump because of the expectation that he would veto enormous deficit spending.

Now how in the world would you quantify that Biden kept inflation low? Vs what? Who told you it would be higher under any other policy?
#64
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
I want a president that is going to reduce the debt and grow the stock market at least 10% a year.  I don't care their party.
First off, this is a correlation/causation fallacy. You are judging presidents based on the era they happened to preside over while failing to take into account that the circumstances they inherited couldn't have been more different.

Trump took over an economy that had been growing for 7 straight years with no sign of slowing down in sight. Joe Biden took over an economy that was in completed disarray caused by a global pandemic which resulted in global inflation including a drastic global rise in gas prices. We can debate Biden's handling of it but you cannot pretend that the circumstances (and thus expectations) are at all comparable.

Also, your premise is just wrong. Trump grew the national debt more than any president before him, even before COVID. His only signature piece of legislation was to give tax breaks to the rich which added $2T to the debt with not even an attempt to offset it. In his 4 years in office he never talked seriously about nor showed any hint of concern whatsoever about the debt, in fact quite the opposite. Reducing the debt requires either raising taxes or cutting spending. Trump's position was to lower taxes and raise spending. You can't get any more pro debt than that.

But back to my original question and point, I ask about January 6th to understand your mindset. Essentially, you just don't think it matters whether a president cares about preserving the American experiment. I'm really not sure how you justify the position that the debt and/or stock market should be the priority when we're talking talking about putting a man in charge that has demonstrated complete and utter contempt for everything that brought this country to the point where the debt and stock market are important in the first place, and has shown that if given a second chance will destroy it all. I really don't see a point in continuing without first addressing this in detail.
#65
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Inflation is solely caused by the federal reserve
The federal reserve has tools to combat inflation that may or not be enough depending on the depth of the issue. Nothing in their arsenal was sufficient to combat global inflation brought on by a global pandemic.
#66
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why is cutting regulations good?  That lead to the Palestine Ohio incident?  I think it should be easier to build buildings so they are more affordable for people, but anyone who advocates cutting regulations needs to be specific.
Trump cutting regulations did not lead to the Palestine Ohio incident. 
Anyone who is blaming Trump for that obviously is either listening to the headlines only or has no one else to blame.

When cutting regulations, Trump also tried to cut regulations on a certain type of train transportation.
1.) That regulation never went through.
2.) Even if it did go through the type of train Trump tried to cut regulations on wasn't even the same type of train that crashed in Palestine Ohio. 

I don't think the train crashing was anyone's fault. In a country that spans a whole continent, bad things are bound to happen. It's our leaders' reactions that matter. And what matters is that Trump, (who is not a leader at this moment) reacted faster than our literally seriation of transportation and the president. 

I'm anti war, but Trump didn't end any wars.  He continued our presence in the middle east.
He did end wars. 

Many on the right want to prosecute gay people as well.  Trump can denounce the people in his base that are anti gay if he was principled about the issue.
I don't think that prosecuting gays is a political issue. I am righter wing then left, and I don't want to prosecute gays. 
But don't change the subject. Trump can only try to convince people; he can't force people to change their minds. 

It is not the job of a politician to change people's minds only to convince people with their own ideas.
You can equivalate the people who hate gays, with Trump, just because they have the same political agenda. 

MS 13 members that sell fetaynyl deserve death; the undocumented caught in the cross hairs should not have their victimless liberties treaded upon.  Trump did neither of these things.
Trump did support MS-13 and he most definitely did protect our borders.
Do at least some research before you make assumptions. 

Biden did this.
WHAT?
The first thing Biden did when he got into office was shut down the Keystone XL Pipeline, the opposite of bringing back manufacturing facilities.
Are you even doing any sort of research?

Biden did this too, but inflation should be lower under Biden, then my stocks can do better.
No Biden did not do this. Again..............do your research.

Biden after Trumps presidency on his first day as president brought up the price of gas. 
He continued to do so throughout the first 2 years of his presidency. 
Then after he realized that he made a mistake, so he tried to stop inflation, with the cost of leading our economy into ruin. 

So basically, he just fixed his own problem.
#67
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Inflation is solely caused by the federal reserve
The federal reserve has tools to combat inflation that may or not be enough depending on the depth of the issue. Nothing in their arsenal was sufficient to combat global inflation brought on by a global pandemic.
The federal reserve is the one and only source of US dollars. It is therefore the one and only source of inflation.

Cells infected with covid did not caused a single cent to come into existence.

They spiked the money supply with COVID as an excuse. You put the cart before the horse.
#68
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,349
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There 'were other paths NATO could have gone down,
But are nations 'free, or under 'Russia's say so?

Certainly now that war 'is,
I'm disinclined to 'not support Ukraine.

Of the deep state, I have no research,
Not that individuals and groups don't exist,
But I think people overplay them at times, into some sort of bogeyman, rather than regular people.
(Shrug) Countries have factions, sometimes open, sometimes less,
Not that it's 'good when people work against our ideals, but such is society,
Groups of people with differing opinions.

NRA's a faction, smoking industry's a faction, Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Rish individuals, so on so forth.


#69
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
There 'were other paths NATO could have gone down,
NATO could have dissolved or reformed into a global anti-communist pact and allowed Russia (and all old USSR bloc) to join. Then CCP would be isolated and would have probably never have been allowed to rig international trade to make themselves the manufacturing center of the world. By 2000 they would have folded and perhaps even restored the ROC.

This is a general pattern by the way, any thought experiment that involves destroying communists sooner probably leads to less death conflict overall.

But are nations 'free, or under 'Russia's say so?
That's what an enormous number of people ask about the US hegemony. It seems to describe the unaccountable barely elected EU bureaucracy fairly well too.

Having power and interests alone don't make you evil, using power immorally makes you evil.

Russian released those soviet bloc nations in the first place. Then they were hands off for an entire generation. Pretending like they were a looming imperial threat for that whole time is ridiculous.

If the village calls you a monster for all your life, what motivation do you have to be anything else?

Formal alliances and treaties trickle down into the culture. If Russians didn't feel like they were rivals there is no way they would support a war in Europe. Would the Russian state stop vying for influence over nearby countries and economic interests? Of course not, nobody ever does. Yet we could have broken down barriers, instead we rebuilt the Berlin wall through endless fear mongering (and by we I mainly mean the deep state AKA military industrial complex).

But I think people overplay them at times, into some sort of bogeyman, rather than regular people.
Hitler was a painter with a German shepherd. Stalin was just a regular old Joe once (literally).

The Bond Villain is the fantasy. Real monsters are made from regular people.
#70
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,349
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't think Communism 'needs to be anyone's enemy,
Though I prefer that any nation that adopts it, do so of their own free will.
. . .

Maybe,
I'm not familiar with world politics, following the fall of the Soviet Union.
. . .

Sure, America has it's own influence as well, not to mention 'history,
But that some events happened, whether by different people still alive, or people now long dead,
Doesn't mean I need to support attacking countries for not doing every little thing America wants,
Or support attacking countries to increase the size of the nation.

Certainly I don't need to support it in others.
. . . 

Russia is and was a power, I'm thinking,
I'm thinking Russia then 'and now, 'wants it's influence and force,
Wants those countries under it's yoke.

I do not think being suspicious of Putin, led to Putin's War,
I think 'Putin's ideals, loyalties, and ambition, led to Putin's War.

'Might be you're right about Russia,
But I'm not too familiar with Russia following the fall of the USSR,
So I remain doubtful, until I research.
. . .

When I say bogeyman,
I mean the idea people have of some all powerful Illuminati organization,
Pulling all the strings in politics.

I just don't see it, I see 'factions yes,
I understand down low and backdoor deals yes,
But 'Deep 'State, sounds conspiracy excessive, to me.
#71
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming

I don't think Communism 'needs to be anyone's enemy,
Though I prefer that any nation that adopts it, do so of their own free will.
Communism and free will are contradictory by definition.

Nations are arbitrary, the only non-arbitrary unit of humanity is "everyone" and the individual. Individuals don't get to say "no" to communism,

I just don't see it, I see 'factions yes,
I understand down low and backdoor deals yes,
But 'Deep 'State, sounds conspiracy excessive, to me.
You don't see a pyramid, all you see are blocks which fit within a four sided triangular solid.

It doesn't matter if it's a grand conspiracy or a bunch of little conspiracies only working together by common interests. The result is the same, and the crimes are the same.

See Jan 6, nobody organized anything but a protest. Just a bunch of angry people going with the flow. No Illuminati required.

Difference is, left-tribers get themselves in positions of institutional power and use it. See twitter files, see Ukraine coup, see frame job of 1st impeachment, see russia collusion hoax, see summer of love, see IRS audits of right-tribers, see FTC investigation of Musk, see DC courts holding people without charges, see FBI hiding Hunter's laptop, see CIA spying on general population and then getting countries to arrest Assange on trumped up charges, see the baltic pipeline exploding, see the FBI lying to FISA courts.

That's just off the top of my head. If you don't see it, you're not looking. If you say "just a conspiracy theory" to every data point, how would you ever detect a conspiracy?
#72
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,349
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Of the Deep State,
(Shrug)
I don't see it.
. . .

Of Communism, Government and freedom,
People don't generally get to 'say no to government,
Doesn't matter if it's Communist or Capitalist,

Government insists I pay taxes,
Government insists Confederacy doesn't leave.

I don't see why Communism can't be freely chosen, so much as we choose freely in society.
#73
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
You are correct there is no difference in quality between taxation and communism. There is often a difference in degree. Communism is 100% tax rate.

Looking at an arbitrary nation state and saying "Look it's their business if they oppress minorities" is not "freely chosen", an accident of history led to that border, even if it is a democracy slavery is still slavery.
#74
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,349
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Are you an Anarchist then?
#75
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
No. An anarchist is defined as someone who rejects the concept of government (organized violence enforcing a code of behavior, i.e. laws).

There are only two coherent forms of anarchist: Pacifist or Mad Max Savage

It is not law that I reject but unjust law which is law which violates liberty. In other words, it isn't dragons that are the problem but the princess eating.

A 100% public sector economy may seem like communism, but if it is purely by consent it is not immoral and I do not condemn it. It is freely chosen. However, that would be a profoundly false definition of communism. That is more like their fairytale.

I therefore do no care about the size of government. Small, big, medium, whatever works; and you know if it's working if people support it without being threatened.
#76
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The federal reserve is the one and only source of US dollars. It is therefore the one and only source of inflation.

EU was printing money during Covid too. That's why we call it "a global inflation" but we ignore China and Russia who didn't do that BS and are doing just fine.

#77
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
CCP's economy is so contrived, especially in regards to currency exchange, we have no idea what is happening. Don't know about Russia.

I'm sure you're right about the EU. Everyone with an important currency are basically keynesian parrots and do the same thing. The rest base their currency on petrodollar so they track with it too.

Looking into India might be interesting.
#78
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's just off the top of my head. If you don't see it, you're not looking. If you say "just a conspiracy theory" to every data point, how would you ever detect a conspiracy?
By applying Occam's razor.

For example, suppose you have a politician who is accused of abusing his power to advance his own personal interests. But you have a dozen articles published by entirely different institutions local, national, and international, all showing that the actions of this politician aligned with the interests of his office as well as his diplomatic allies. At this point, Occam's razor clearly points to the conclusion that this politician acted appropriately because no assumptions are needed to explain it.

Now imagine someone comes along and claims without any evidence whatsoever that all of the articles were written by corrupt, ignorant, or even stupid authors, all in the pocket of this politician. Well, that's a pretty damn big assumption and therefore fails the test.

This is basic logic and critical thinking.
#79
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
The vast majority don't vote based on issues that would directly affect their life, they vote based on whether the person they are voting for is a poopy head or not.

#80
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Imagine that the assertions of columnists and newspaper writers don't constitute evidence or anything other than the opinion of someone who has gained access to a means of publication.

Which correlated probability is higher:
A.) The Poles attacked a radio station and nazi state media (over a dozen sources) + the italians and romanians were right that a counter attack was obviously in the interests of Germany and not just Hitler
B.) All of those institutions were simply repeating what they had been told by the propaganda minster in Germany, and the nazis decided to attack long before this or any other false flag operation

What is a coorelated probability? It's a probability derived from several other related probabilities: If you hear a cat outside your door it's probably a cat... unless you know there is someone watching cat videos on the internet out there.

So another pertinent fact in this case: Hitler wrote that Germany should attack the slavic countries.

See that changes things. How about another example, say a pipe explodes in the baltic. Wow that's weird maybe an accident? Well now I show you video of people in the US white house saying they wouldn't tolerate that pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine. Well now you have a correlated probability. That is how I knew it was blown up instead of suffered an unfortunate accident long before a real journalist got further corroborating evidence.

I had a conspiracy theory, I evaluated relative probabilities, and found it to be the best explanation. I was right.

The world is a bit more complicated than counting up the number of times you see a claim repeated like a puppet vampire, and some conspiracy theories are true.
#81
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Imagine that the assertions of columnists and newspaper writers don't constitute evidence or anything other than the opinion of someone who has gained access to a means of publication.
Columnists and newspapers have been the primary source of information we as a country along with the rest of the world have relied upon for over 200 years. They aren't as your absurd caricature describes, merely opinions of it's authors. They detail where their information comes from including from experts on the ground, public officials, key witnesses, etc.

To pretend that over a dozen credible sources all pointing in the same direction while no credible source at the time pointed in a different direction is not evidence is just plain stupid. You talk about taking in all the information but you hand waive away any information which does not fit your narrative. Any conspiracy theory can be justified with that approach.

What is a coorelated probability? It's a probability derived from several other related probabilities
Probabilities can only be derived with the information one has. That's the problem with conspiratorial thinking. When you begin with the premise that the evidence is all manufactured, you have granted yourself the ability to decide what goes into you're equation. You are no longer following the evidence, you are leading it.

Example: imagine someone shows you over a dozen articles all supporting the contention and without any logic or evidence claim it's all nonsense.

I had a conspiracy theory, I evaluated relative probabilities, and found it to be the best explanation. I was right.
The pipeline you are referring to is still a very much disputed claim. Regardless, it's not exactly a stretch to claim the US would strike against a pipeline of a foreign advasary while that pipeline is essentially helping to fund a genocide. Not sure why you think you're premature victory lap lends you some kind of credibility.




#82
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
When you begin with the premise that the evidence is all manufactured,
That is a strawman. Understanding the difference between evidence and retelling is not a claim of manufacture. Theories are supported by evidence, including conspiracy theories.

Just because Tim Pool and Steven Crowder both repeat a quote from Trump (and attribute it correctly) doesn't mean Trump's statement is now independently verified twice.

Not sure why you think you're premature victory lap lends you some kind of credibility.
I've learned not to underestimate your ability to ignore the obvious.

#83
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Understanding the difference between evidence and retelling is not a claim of manufacture.
The type of evidence needed to support a claim depends entirely on the claim.

If I claimed that I owned my Mercedes, you would ask for a copy of the title.

The evidence needed to prove a politician acted corruptly is to show not only that his actions align with his personal interests, but more importantly, that they were counter productive to his public responsibilities.

This is where the articles come in. What they demonstrate is that everyone within the national and international community as far as we can possibly tell were all in agreement, including the people of the country those actions were in regards to.

Articles in this case absolutely qualify as evidence. They are not a “retelling” of someone else’s story, they are a reporting on what key figures around the world were all saying at the time, and crucially… before the issue would become politicized years later.

If you had articles saying the opposite of what those were then perhaps you’d have a case to dismiss them, but you don’t even have that. You just hand waive them away because they don’t fit your narrative.

So yes you are correct - one needs to consider all of the evidence. You should take your own advice.
#84
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
The evidence needed to prove a politician acted corruptly is to show not only that his actions align with his personal interests, but more importantly, that they were counter productive to his public responsibilities.
The definition of an official's public responsibilities is not to be found in the opinions of a handful of his underlings, a few persons in their circle, and a minority party in a client state.

This is where the articles come in. What they demonstrate is that everyone within the national and international community as far as we can possibly tell were all in agreement, including the people of the country those actions were in regards to.
Nor does that group constitute "everyone". This is the error you continue to make. A report of a US ambassador complaining months prior is not evidence of anything other than that a US ambassador complained months earlier. Yet you seem to believe it is evidence of "the people of the country those actions were in regards to".

When it comes to politicians there are none without some detractors. Marjorie Tailor Greene and Loren Bobert could, I imagine, very easily complain of the corruption of Pete Buttigieg, but that doesn't mean "everyone" is in favor of removing him and it most certainly doesn't mean a UK (picked at random) official has a public duty to blackmail his firing.
#85
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The definition of an official's public responsibilities is not to be found in the opinions of a handful of his underlings, a few persons in their circle, and a minority party in a client state.
There is no “definition”, that’s why I didn’t use the term. Your usage of it to try and make it seem like it wasn’t met only demonstrates your inability or refusal to understand the basic concepts involved here.

Again, we’re talking about corruption. Corruption is a crime entirely based on an individuals state of mind. If Biden believed this was the best move for the United States, you have no argument.

The fact that Biden, the intelligence community, other republicans, the EU, and Ukraine all believed the same thing, and there is no evidence of any credible individual or organization believing the opposite, makes your entire case here a non starter. That’s why I keep focusing on this. You still have no answer to it other than pretending I’m saying things I’m not.

Nor does that group constitute "everyone".
When you are focusing on semantic BS like this you know you are losing the argument.

There are biologists who don't believe in evolution. Of course you are always going to find someone who disagrees, so no, I'm not being literal when I say "everyone". That should be obvious. What I do mean is that there is not a single piece of evidence that any credible individual or organization disagreed with the position the administration took, and all of the evidence points in the opposite direction.

If there was any serious dissent in any of those places we would have heard about it. There would have been articles written about it. As far as we can tell, there weren't. Anywhere. That should make you think, but it won't.

it most certainly doesn't mean a UK (picked at random) official has a public duty to blackmail his firing.
It wasn't picked at random. Once again, I presented a dozen articles all written at that time which included his comments.

You continue to demonstrate here why conspiracy theorists are deserving of ridicule. Your entire case here is essentially that we can dismiss every article because it was written by a person, and relied on the opinions/observations of another person. Uh yeah, that's what articles are, and we've relied on them in part to understand reality for centuries.

Whether Shokin should have been fired is entirely a matter of opinion, so of course the articles are going to give you opinions. That isn't a gotcha, it's a demonstration of how woefully you lack the ability to understand the kind of evidence needed to support an argument on either side here.
#86
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Again, we’re talking about corruption. Corruption is a crime entirely based on an individuals state of mind.
That's what you may have been talking about. I was talking about extortion, selling US foreign policy for personal gain, and money laundering.

If Biden believed this was the best move for the United States, you have no argument.
And you honestly believe that was the case? Can you prove it?
#87
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's what you may have been talking about. I was talking about extortion, selling US foreign policy for personal gain, and money laundering.
Those are all examples of corruption.

If Biden believed this was the best move for the United States, you have no argument.
And you honestly believe that was the case? Can you prove it?
I don't have to. You are the one alleging Biden was acting corruptly, so the burden of proof is on you here. That's how it works.
#88
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
That's what you may have been talking about. I was talking about extortion, selling US foreign policy for personal gain, and money laundering.
Those are all examples of corruption.
Perhaps, but I'm interested in the part where you think they aren't crimes if the perpetrator is delusional enough.

If Biden believed this was the best move for the United States, you have no argument.
And you honestly believe that was the case? Can you prove it?
I don't have to. You are the one alleging Biden was acting corruptly, so the burden of proof is on you here. That's how it works.
Jeez you fell into that one so easily.

Now, can you prove that Trump did not believe that investigating Biden was the best move for the United States?
#89
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Perhaps, but I'm interested in the part where you think they aren't crimes if the perpetrator is delusional enough.
Corruption is literally defined based on intent.

Now, can you prove that Trump did not believe that investigating Biden was the best move for the United States?
To any reasonable person, yes.

  • The ask wasn't for Biden to be investigated, only for Ukraine to announce the investigation.
  • Biden just so happened to be his top domestic political rival
  • Trump has never shown interest in investigating corruption anywhere else, only in this one case
  • His own ambassador said it was a quid pro quo
  • He got rid of his former ambassador because she was in the way
  • Once the public started to become aware, Trump immediately released the funds to Ukraine and denied he was withholding them (that's what getting caught looks like)
There's more, but this is more than enough. No reasonable person would look at this and conclude anything other than this was an attempt to use the power of his office to help himself personally over the people he supposedly represents. That's the literal definition of corruption.

The fact that any idiot out there can look at all of this, ignore all the facts, ignore Occam's razor, make shit up to fill in the holes, and declare Trump innocent doesn't change reality.
#90
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Now, can you prove that Trump did not believe that investigating Biden was the best move for the United States?
To any reasonable person, yes.

  • The ask wasn't for Biden to be investigated, only for Ukraine to announce the investigation.
Hardly proven, and not certainly not the only thing he asked for in any case. In the transcript he asked for an investigation.

Biden just so happened to be his top domestic political rival
Coincidences don't matter when tribal interests are at stake, haven't you noticed? Questioning the probability of coincidences only leads to conspiracy theories.

Trump has never shown interest in investigating corruption anywhere else, only in this one case
If true, quite symmetric with the special interest the Obama admin (via Biden and probably just Biden) took in a singular prosecutor in a nation half way around the world. How many prosecutors in supposedly sovereign nations do we fire in the name of national interests anyway?

His own ambassador said it was a quid pro quo
Setting aside the questionable order of events leading to that, is this ambassador a telepath?

You want me to take Biden's underling as evidence of independent national interest and Trump's as evidence of no such interest.

Yet it seems obvious that Trump could have found someone in this world who would have agreed with him that investigating the admitted blackmail of a US official acting officially was definitely worth investigating.

I for instance, would have backed him 100%. Now if that had happened this could be completely symmetric, Trump would have told his ambassador to start making a fus about it,  a few articles would have been written saying that the ambassador was making a fus about it, then a few months later Trump would have tried the extortion. Then by your own logic it would have been in the national interest.

The only difference I see here is that Trump can't figure out if someone is a spineless coward or a deep state plant, which I already knew. Also Trump didn't brag about extortion, in fact he denies it and there is no incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

In any case, the opinions of others about Trump's motivations are irrelevant. He did ask for an investigation. There was a crime. Biden's actions did have a reasonable expectation providing some level of cover for his previous extortion/bribery/money laundering.

He got rid of his former ambassador because she was in the way
...and as we know, ambassadors are the true and constant compass pointing the way to legitimate national interests... except some of us have eyes and ears of our own and don't ignore a combination of apparent coincidences that if truly coincidental would represent extraordinary unlikelihood.

How do you know that she wasn't in the way of asking for a genuine investigation?

There's more, but this is more than enough. No reasonable person would look at this and conclude anything other than this was an attempt to use the power of his office to help himself personally over the people he supposedly represents. That's the literal definition of corruption.
"over the people he supposedly represents"? I voted for him. He represented me, and I applaud his attempt to uncover corruption. It was pathetic for a president to fail so quickly, but I have no problem with his intentions whatsoever.

If I was a citizen of another country, especially Ukraine, I would also applaud his actions. The reputation of the USA is tarnished by people like Biden. In the case of Ukraine his and in general deep state actions may well have been the last straw on the path to war.

No reasonable person buys for an instant that it is corrupt to investigate corruption GIVEN that the suspected corruption was since confirmed.

The fact that any idiot out there can look at all of this
Only an idiot or someone with TDS could look at the full facts and believe that there exists any standard which would allow Biden to act as he did without being a criminal and yet what Trump did in response was criminal. See Sam Harris, not an idiot; serious TDS. People like that are not to be trusted on the subject of Trump.

ignore all the facts, ignore Occam's razor, make shit up to fill in the holes
Yea yea you've already proven you don't care about facts or logic the last time we went through this. You don't care about your own standards of proof. You don't care about Occam's razor. You don't care about correlated probabilities. You don't care about the truth.