• 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!

Biden had no conflict of interest

theLiquidGuy said:
Everyone please observe what code1211 wrote above. He is doing exactly what republicans always do. They try to insult/attack/discredit the person and then dsmiss their facts as lies. This is the standard republican desperate response.



(sigh) Everyone knows that this is not the complete text. My post was expecting your response. It wasn’t meant to stand alone. So stop pretending there was deception.


You have a pretty dull ability to interpret diplomatic context and power-dynamics. Zelensky is in no position to just say whatever he wants. There is a lot riding on any call with a US president but doubly so when your country is at war and you are desperate for aid. Zelensky’s supply of javelins is dwindling and he needs to remind Trump of this. Any resistance from Trump could be disastrous. Zelensky doesn’t want to give Trump an opportunity to refuse or push back. Instead he says “almost” in order to gauge trump’s reaction. It’s a half-measure, because in politics and diplomacy avoiding committal statements is always the wisest course of action. The fact that Z brings up the javelins on only his 3rd turn to speak shows it was a high priority for him. I don’t think you are naive. I just think that you have chosen to take Zelensky’s words at face value because doing so is convenient for your argument.



He did not say he was “NOT ready”. You are being misleading. He said “almost ready.”


Nothing. Comprehension requires understanding the power-dynamic at play. I do. You won’t.


Except that Trump was 1000% wrong (as usual). Europe has always given more to Ukraine. Far more

“The European Union is the largest donor to Ukraine, and Ukraine is the largest recipient of EU macro-financial assistance to any non-EU country. The European Union has given, on average, over $710 million (€650 million) per year to the country since 2014—almost twice as much as the United States average. “​



You are being deceptive. When Z mentions the javelins, the very first thing Trump does is ask for a favour “though”. Here is the “exact” flow of conversation without interrupting ellipses:

Zelensky: ...we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though ...
Click to expand...

You're raving.

Zelensky still had Javelin Missiles because Trump arranged for Zelensky to have them. Obama had denied them for all of the years he had the power to do so.

It was not Obama's fault, though. Whenever the thought of Putin crossed his mind, he hid under his bed and wet his pants.

When Trump entered office, in lieu of wetting his pants under the bed, he approved the shipment of Javelin Missiles to Ukraine to help stave off the incursions by the Russians.

Initial shipment was approved by Defense in December of 2017 and by State a few months later. It is a weapons system that is very effective for defense, but not offensive. Obama could have sent it, but he did not.

Do you wonder why he did not?

After the initial shipment, Trump sent more. The Ukrainians were never without javelin missiles. Except for the period when Obama refused to send them and the Russians annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.

You need to incorporate them into your flawed thinking.

In passing, my opening statement did nothing that you mistakenly thought it did. I merely pointed out that your conclusions on this are crap. I made no value judgment in any way on the person issuing the crap.

My attack was on your ideas, not on you. You are free to improve your thought process. Whether you do so or not, you will still be you.
 
theLiquidGuy said:
LOL! Terrified? oh please, stop. This was already investigated and debunked. you are a conspiracy theorist.

They have never been terrified of that because its just a debunked conspiracy theory. And every day your conspiracy theory buddies are finding that out. just yesterday I posted this: click here. The only thnig they are terrified of is that republicans will succeed in making this a distraction from the real problems at hand: Trump.

Truth is fine. I have no problem with investigating anything. except it already has been. Twice now. You wanna be embarrassed a third time too?

P.S. There is no hardware. the DNC server was a cloud based system
Click to expand...


You link to you own delusion to support your delusion?

WOW!
 
code1211 said:
You're raving.

Zelensky still had Javelin Missiles because Trump arranged for Zelensky to have them. Obama had denied them for all of the years he had the power to do so.

It was not Obama's fault, though. Whenever the thought of Putin crossed his mind, he hid under his bed and wet his pants.

When Trump entered office, in lieu of wetting his pants under the bed, he approved the shipment of Javelin Missiles to Ukraine to help stave off the incursions by the Russians.

Initial shipment was approved by Defense in December of 2017 and by State a few months later. It is a weapons system that is very effective for defense, but not offensive. Obama could have sent it, but he did not.

Do you wonder why he did not?

After the initial shipment, Trump sent more. The Ukrainians were never without javelin missiles. Except for the period when Obama refused to send them and the Russians annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine.

Facts are facts.

You need to incorporate them into your flawed thinking.

In passing, my opening statement did nothing that you mistakenly thought it did. I merely pointed out that your conclusions on this are crap. I made no value judgment in any way on the person issuing the crap.

My attack was on your ideas, not on you. You are free to improve your thought process. Whether you do so or not, you will still be you.
Click to expand...

As usual, your response ignored 99% of what i wrote and changes the subject.

I did not dispute that republicans approved military aid for Ukraine. i was disputing your facile interpretation of the July 25 phone call transcript.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
code1211 said:
The issues regarding first hand TESTIMONY is that the transcript has been released. You may have heard about this.

Here it is. Again:

Read the Trump-Ukraine phone call transcript (full text & PDF) - POLITICO

In light of the transcript of the call, the "concerns" of the partisan hacks clinging to this charade are shown to be the ravings of lunatics.

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

For starters there's a distinction between a transcript and a memorandum, just so we're clear about what we're talking about. The memorandum keeps being referred to as as a transcript, which it is not. Secondly, I don't think anyone conducting an investigation is going to be fine with a memorandum as being the main piece of evidence. Then of course there's the whole issue of what the president's personal attorney is doing conducting these types of deals when he represents his client's interests and not the nation. Also, you keep avoiding the fact the administration has not provided some of the requested documents nor allowed key officials to testify. It's the position of accepting someone's claim they didn't do anything as what concludes an investigation.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
Then I look forward to your vote for either a democrat or third party in 2020.
Click to expand...

If most Americans become convinced the party of the wicked rebel against God promotes the only honest and decent candidates availabe for office then America will no doubt be taken down to ruin by horrific deception.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Do you have any idea why Western Europe, the United States, and the International Monetary fund wanted Shokin gone?
Click to expand...

Probably because he was as corrupt as the day is long. Which is as good a reason as any for us to intercede into the workings of a sovereign foreign government and demand the removal of a particular minister or consul. As I said, Jredbaron96, I do not think "quid pro quos" are necessarily wrong. Our aid can be and often is conditioned on foreign governments obeying our orders. If we are going to be an imperialist power, I prefer our imperialism to be naked rather than underhanded.
 
Felis Leo said:
As I said, Jredbaron96, I do not think "quid pro quos" are necessarily wrong. Our aid can be and often is conditioned on foreign governments obeying our orders.
Click to expand...

It wasn't our money. It was an IMF loan installment that the IMF didn't want to give unless Ukraine made an actual effort to clean up corruption.

Quid pro quo implies a direct benefit to the United States. What we got out of the whole deal is a barely noticeable improvement in Ukraine's internal politics.
 
trouble13 said:
You tell me, whats the problem with investigating it, if there isnt anything to hide?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Because we don't investigate citizens for no reason. Which is exactly way Trump turned to Ukraine to do his dirty work.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It wasn't our money. It was an IMF loan installment that the IMF didn't want to give unless Ukraine made an actual effort to clean up corruption.

Quid pro quo implies a direct benefit to the United States. What we got out of the whole deal is a barely noticeable improvement in Ukraine's internal politics.
Click to expand...

Well, we are the biggest contributor with the largest financial commitment to the International Monetary Fund; we are basically the biggest shareholder of the bank and hold practical veto power over its decisions. My point stands that quid pro quos are not wrong in general. I do not mind if something is a direct benefit to the United States conditioned upon our release of financial aid that we directly fund, or are funds under our de facto control.
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, we are the biggest contributor with the largest financial commitment to the International Monetary Fund; we are basically the biggest shareholder of the bank and hold practical veto power over its decisions. My point stands that quid pro quos are not wrong in general. I do not mind if something is a direct benefit to the United States conditioned upon our release of financial aid that we directly fund, or are funds under our de facto control.
Click to expand...

And again, to call this a quid pro quo implies some kind of direct benefit to us. What exactly did we get out of this, exactly?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And again, to call this a quid pro quo implies some kind of direct benefit to us. What exactly did we get out of this, exactly?
Click to expand...

We can argue to what degree, I would argue that working with a government headed by officials less subject to corruption and state capture by a hostile foreign adversary like Russia is a net benefit for our nation and its allies. Fewer funds are misappropriated, less graft, government officials actually doing their jobs to work with us in furthering our geo-strategic aims, etc. are net benefits. Additionally, a government that immediately kowtows to do what our government says is also a net benefit, as it demonstrates our influence and power, which is key to international relations.
 
Felis Leo said:
We can argue to what degree, I would argue that working with a government headed by officials less subject to corruption and state capture by a hostile foreign adversary like Russia is a net benefit for our nation and its allies. Additionally, a government that immediately kowtows to do what our government says is also a net benefit, as it demonstrates our influence and power, which is key to international relations.
Click to expand...

And yet Ukraine remains mired in corruption, and now is being accused by members of our government as the primary instigators of interference in our elections. What kind of success was this?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And yet Ukraine remains mired in corruption, and now is being accused by members of our government as the primary instigators of interference in our elections. What kind of success was this?
Click to expand...

By no means was it a success, Jredbaron96. But that speaks to the results of the action, not the aims of the action itself. If your argument is that something cannot be a "quid pro quo" unless it achieves the positive results that the instigator desired, that certainly is an argument. Not one that I would use.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
By no means was it a success, Jredbaron96. But that speaks to the results of the action, not the aims of the action itself. If your argument is that something cannot be a "quid pro quo" unless it achieves the positive results that the instigator desired, that certainly is an argument. Not one that I would use.
Click to expand...

And to label every American effort to affect change in other countries a "quid pro quo" would dilute the phrase to the point of emptying it of any meaning, especially when doing it to detract from the insinuation that an American president used it in an attempt to gain leverage against a political rival.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Because investigations aren't supposed to be politically biased horse**** with no foundation in reality. Even Republicans were happy to see that prosecutor go. And they never even mentioned the possibility of corruption or abuse til Biden was expected to run against trump. So it's bull**** topped with horse**** for incredibly gullible people.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That might be a pretty good argument if the only thing Trump had asked Zelensky to investigate was the Biden/Burisma connection.

But, as you should know, it was not. IMO Trump didn't care so much about sabotaging Biden as exposing the dirty tricks of the Dems who sought to dig up dirt on him. Now, I'll freely admit that he was capable of doing the same thing to them, and he may indeed have done so. But the Russia collusion narrative was far more likely to be the sort of thing Trump wanted dirt on, and even IF some people think a candidate ought to be protected from all criticism from his opponents, that protection wouldn't extend to his party.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
an American president used it in an attempt to gain leverage against a political rival.
Click to expand...

You mean when Hillary used it to buy the Steele Dossier to gain leverage against Trump?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And to label every American effort to affect change in other countries a "quid pro quo" would dilute the phrase to the point of emptying it of any meaning,
Click to expand...

it has no meaning since all human relationships are based on a continuing series of quid pro quos (this for that). Every penny of foreign aid we have ever given was based on a strings attached quid pro quo.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And to label every American effort to affect change in other countries a "quid pro quo" would dilute the phrase to the point of emptying it of any meaning,
Click to expand...

Obama, according to Public Integrity, gave cushy ambassador posts to 31 campaign faithfuls who pulled in at least $50,000 for his reelection. He also doled out second-term ambassador slots to 39 who gave generously to his campaign, either in the form or money or political capital — or both.Let's not forget that Obama made a quid pro quo deal just like ...
The Independent | US | Latest news and features | US, UK and worldwide news › voices › trump-impeachment-obama-whi...
Sep 26, 2019 - The most egregious example is former President Barack Obama's quid pro quo with Moscow during his 2012 campaign for re-election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom