VanCleef
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 858
- Reaction score
- 524
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I'll return the favor.
I didn't find that sentence in the article the TC linked.
I'll return the favor.
I didn't find that sentence in the article the TC linked.
It's my question. You saw it in the post you responded to. You could try answering it instead of restating stuff in the OP that I already read.
I don't have an answer to your question, and I'm not sure how it refutes this reporting.
Even assuming that's true (and I am not stipulating to that, this is just conjecture), wouldn't opening up Brazil to US ethanol makers be a good thing?
What if Trump can get more out of the Brazilians than Biden can? Would that be a reason for voting for him, especially if you are a Iowa corn grower?
Indeed you don't. Thank you for your time.
Even assuming that's true (and I am not stipulating to that, this is just conjecture), wouldn't opening up Brazil to US ethanol makers be a good thing?
What if Trump can get more out of the Brazilians than Biden can? Would that be a reason for voting for him, especially if you are a Iowa corn grower?
Keeping the instances of trump actively cheating in the election organized in my mind is becoming a challenge.
Who could have foreseen that surviving impeachment would embolden Trump to do more cheating?
And in this case, it's also potentially ILLEGAL.
Do I care if you respond?
I'm serious...anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see how this works.
Answer this: why did Trump put tariffs on certain Chinese goods?
It's the same reasoning that Trump asked the Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and China to buy soybeans from U.S. farmers and asked the president of Mexico to stop saying Mexico was not going to pay for the wall publicly. How does it help those countries? It doesn't, other than to get in the good graces of our Godfather president. "You do me this favor, I will not forget."
"Potentially" illegal? What does that mean? What is not "potentially" illegal?
As for the ethics, helping Iowa farmers would seem to be the greater good. And foreign policy is complicated.
For example, I'm sure China wants to see Trump defeated and they will probably take economic measures that hurt him and help Biden. Biden may even encourage those actions, which are probably ones he favors anyway. Is that "potentially" illegal?
Even assuming that's true (and I am not stipulating to that, this is just conjecture), wouldn't opening up Brazil to US ethanol makers be a good thing?
What if Trump can get more out of the Brazilians than Biden can? Would that be a reason for voting for him, especially if you are a Iowa corn grower?
U.S. Economy Shrank at 33% Annual Rate in April-June Quarter | Time
You Neo Nazi/KKK types are actually destructive to America's economy.
What is wrong with Trump supporters? Don't Trump supporters go to church? Didn't Trump supporters learn the difference between right and wrong? Why are all Trump supporters somehow morally impaired?
It is UNETHICAL, eman623.
And in this case, it's also potentially ILLEGAL.
And why is it unethical?
And why are unethical acts contrary to U.S. interests?
The answer to these questions is quite simple, at least it is simple for people who aren't members of a cult who think their cult leader is beyond reproach:
1. a) We don't want agents of the U.S. government to act in pursuit of Trump's personal political interests. If they do that, they are no longer putting the interests of our Republic first. There is also a law against such behavior, the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act generally prohibits Federal employees from engaging in political activities while on duty.
b) We do not want foreign governments to act in pursuit of Trump's personal political interests either. If agents of the U.S. government encourage foreign governments to make decisions based on the political interests of U.S. officials, they too will begin making decisions that may or may not be in the interests of the Republic as a whole.
2. It also makes it practically difficult for Brazil, if Brazil actually cares about ethics, for them to respond to the policy request if the request is tied to Trump's personal political concerns. Further, it may be both in Brazil's interests and the interests of the U.S. to do such a thing, separate and apart from Trump's personal political concerns, but now neither country can handle the issue without Trump's personal political concerns becoming entangled in it.
There is a reason why ethics are important. The violation of ethical norms and rules has bad consequences for our country. It's not just inherently wrong for Trump to do all these crooked things he's been doing, it also has bad consequences for our country, and if you really loved our country, if you really supported our country, you wouldn't support this incompetent, idiotic, corrupt idiot. And you wonder why Trump critics think Trump supporters are horrible human beings.
It's the same reasoning that Trump asked the Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and China to buy soybeans from U.S. farmers and asked the president of Mexico to stop saying Mexico was not going to pay for the wall publicly. How does it help those countries? It doesn't, other than to get in the good graces of our Godfather president. "You do me this favor, I will not forget."
"Potentially" illegal? What does that mean? What is not "potentially" illegal?
As for the ethics, helping Iowa farmers would seem to be the greater good. And foreign policy is complicated. For example, I'm sure China wants to see Trump defeated and they will probably take economic measures that hurt him and help Biden. Biden may even encourage those actions, which are probably ones he favors anyway. Is that "potentially" illegal?
Nobody knows enough about what happened. Nobody can say with any great degree of certainty that the U.S. envoy violated the Hatch Act. Right now, it's just a news article. That's why I'm using the term "potentially."
I think our value systems are too far apart for us to ever engage in any sort of useful discussion on this issue.
But if you want to attempt to try and prove why Trump should be allowed to engage in acts of public corruption and why Trump's abuses of office and acts of public corruption are somehow ethical, there is a sub-forum for that:
I agree our value systems are too far apart.
I'll wait for you to explain the ethics of harming Iowa farmers just so you can hate on Trump.
you can hate on Trump.
Trump's begged Russia, China, and now getting attempted electoral assistance from Brazil. Jesus.
Then what's the point in trying to engage in a discussion of ethics with you if you basically don't believe in ethics as it applies to things Trump does?
You are presenting the logical fallacy called the false dilemma. We don't need to allow Trump to engage in acts of public corruption in order to help Iowa farmers.
The bottom line is you are so knee-deep in a cult, so loyally in support of Trump, you will justify any and every bad action on Trump's part. So what's the point? You are the kind of person who would say Hitler turned around Germany's economy so he's a swell guy! Am I right? You would say why all the hate against Hitler, Germany just needed a little breathing room! Am I right?
I think it's okay to not like Trump. If a murderer killed one of your family members or a member of your community, you'd be mad at the murderer, right? If someone stole something from you, you'd be mad at them, right? If your local mayor stole money from the city's budget to enrich himself, you'd be mad, right? For some reason when Trump performs acts of public corruption similar to the kinds of things that would make you mad at other people, you're willing to forgive him, and justify it, and defend him. That's how everyone knows you are a member of a cult. You just don't care if he's a corrupt person who does corrupt things. I do. I don't like corrupt public officials. I do not think corrupt public officials should hold official government offices. I think government officials should act with honor, integrity, and good ethics, and in the interests of the government they serve. And I think this notion that officials should refrain from engaging in acts of public corruption should also apply to Trump.
Then what's the point in trying to engage in a discussion of ethics with you if you basically don't believe in ethics as it applies to things Trump does?
What is the point of discussing ethics with someone who basically believes it is ethical to harm an entire state of corn growers, if the alternative is helping Trump get reelected?
Explain again why getting Trump reelected would help sell the idea of lifting the ethanol tariffs to the Brazilians?
Brazil: "We have ethanol tariffs to protect our own domestic ethanol producers."
US Envoys: "But if you dropped them, then it would help Trump get reelected."
Brazil: "Ok we'll left the tariffs"
Seems like I missed a step there.
Even assuming that's true (and I am not stipulating to that, this is just conjecture), wouldn't opening up Brazil to US ethanol makers be a good thing?
What if Trump can get more out of the Brazilians than Biden can? Would that be a reason for voting for him, especially if you are a Iowa corn grower?