• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawmakers Alarmed by Reports U.S. Envoy Told Brazil It Could Help Re-elect Trump

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. The NY Times would never ask it because they have an anti-Trump agenda to push.

You could try answering it instead of restating stuff in the OP that I already read.
 
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.
 
I don't have an answer to your question, and I'm not sure how it refutes this reporting.

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?

Absolutely! You see, Iowa farmers are no different than anyone one else. If they see an opportunity to increase their profits, they will vote for whomever they perceive as being responsible for that opportunity.

The difference is Trump doesn't give **** about the Iowa farmers, but if he can get hem to sell their vote to him via Brazil, he'll do it. But here's the thing: Trump doesn't have to actually deliver. He just has to convince the farmers that he would.

Just like when he promises "white suburban housewives" that he's preventing people of color, particularly poor people of color, from moving into their neighborhoods, he's simply tapping into what he believes is the button to push for that particular demographic. Doesn't have to do anything else. Make the promise, they're in, simple as that.

Trump will promise you whatever you want.

Universal healthcare? Check.

Conservative judges on every bench? Check.

Tax cuts for you? Check?

A glorious wall to get rid of illegal immigrants? Check.

Soybeans to China? Check.

Ethanol to Brazil? Check.

Law and order everywhere? Check.

It's all right in there "Art of the Deal." You promise them whatever they want to hear to get them to sign the contract. He'll be making more promises before the election, too.
 
Indeed you don't. Thank you for your time.


Do you have links showing this report might be false or are you just going to continue with arm-chair theory of why you "think" it might be false?
 
Last edited:
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?

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.
 
Last edited:
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?

Not Susan Collins!




Edit: I see Powerob beat me to it!
 
And in this case, it's also potentially ILLEGAL.

"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?
 
Last edited:
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?

Well, it certainly wasn't in order to affect Mr. Xi's electoral chances one way or the other.

In fact, the most likely answer to the question "Why did Trump put tariffs on certain Chinese goods?" is "Because he didn't know what he was doing or whom he was dealing with.".
 
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."

With Mr. Trump, that "You do me this favor, I will not forget." is more properly rendered as

Right Now - "You do me this favor, I will not forget."

20 minutes later - "What do you mean I said 'I will not forget.'? I don't remember ever having said anything even remotely like that.".​
 
"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?

Seriously? You think everything is potentially illegal?

When it comes to Trump, you want to literally erase the lines, don't you? Whatever he does, whatever his motives are 100% OK with you. He could shoot someone ... yeah, he was talking about you.
 
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?

I rather suspect that, unlike what appears to be the majority of Americans, the Brazilian politicians are well aware of what is happening in the elections in foreign countries.
 
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.

No, no, NO, NO, NO!

Mr. Trump is responsible for the biggest jump in the American economy in history. That so-called "decline" is pure FAKE NEWS produced by the lying Clinton/Obama Conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2016 elections.

[The above form of "Internet Rebuttal" has been specifically and officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"TheFirst Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
 
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.

You have to remember that the most important things in American politics today are "gET HIm re-eleCted Somehow" and "MOre Retirement And financiaL benefitS for me".
 
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."

Well, that sure is convenient. You don't have to explain anything at all, no motive for Brazil, except "good graces", LOL!

Oh, but wait, the NY Times said so, and the House Democrats are opening an investigation (they do that more often than people eat), so it must be true. They would never lie or concoct false stories about Trump for political gain, they are so virtuous! (another joke)
 
"Potentially" illegal? What does that mean? What is not "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."

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?

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:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophy/
 
Last edited:
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. ;)
 
I agree our value systems are too far apart.

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?

I'll wait for you to explain the ethics of harming Iowa farmers just so you can hate on Trump. ;)

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?

you can hate on Trump. ;)

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent.
 
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?
 
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?

When the law says "Thou shalt NOT (do 'X')." then discussion of the "ethics" of doing 'X' is pretty silly isn't it?
 
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.

Seems to me the bigger problem is the Ambassador explicitly tying the act to getting his boss reelected. Does that guy serve the U.S. or Trump? If it's Trump, that is a problem. They're all big boys and a favor like that to Trump gets repaid. Every major donor to every campaign understands how that stuff works.
 
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?

Depends on the quid/quo, doesn't it?

It's unbelievable what Trump has done. It's now not even surprising that the U.S. government is going around the world explicitly tying foreign policy to Trump's reelection. So our diplomatic corp serving the interests of Trump is what we all expect. **** that "serve the country" nonsense - their first job is helping the boss!!
 
Back
Top Bottom