-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
Lol... the state dept investigation is never going to cut it.
And impeachment investigation is only totally different whilst the Dems control the process, as soon as it hits the senate it will be front and centre, just where many, including myself, think it should be.
You do understand the process I gather?
It has to be in the House first then the Senate. If it gets that far then your wish will be granted.
All this bullshit about the hearings being Dem controlled is no different to previous impeachment process.
I agree about the State Dept 'investigation into conflict of interest being not the strongest though. They don't even see conflict of interest with Ivanka.
There is a very thin line between favours and corruption. that's for sure.I was meaning Bidens alleged corruption should be front and centre of this investigation. Not that these hearing happening now should be in the senate. My post wasnt clear.
I am getting there in understanding the process, havent made it a hobby though.
In previous impeachment investigations both sides could present witnesses, the minority were not shut down and cut off. It isnt that the Dems are controlling the process... although the House Intelligence committee running it is a first... has always been the Judiciary committee.. but Nadler is even more incompetent than Schiff... it is the HOW they are controlling the porcess. That isnt bullshit, it shows that the process is so partisan as to be a disaster.
Never before has the vote for an impeachment investigation been so partisan, and the only dissenters were Democrats.
Given that you dont like Trump, what is your dream scenario for this? I just cannot see any happy ending for Dems. Much is made of the fact that the process is political not criminal, dont these morons realise that people generally loathe politics.. and being guilty of a purely political crime in a political court will likely endear him to most?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
Lol... the state dept investigation is never going to cut it.
And impeachment investigation is only totally different whilst the Dems control the process, as soon as it hits the senate it will be front and centre, just where many, including myself, think it should be.
You do understand the process I gather?
It has to be in the House first then the Senate. If it gets that far then your wish will be granted.
All this bullshit about the hearings being Dem controlled is no different to previous impeachment process.
I agree about the State Dept 'investigation into conflict of interest being not the strongest though. They don't even see conflict of interest with Ivanka.
There is a very thin line between favours and corruption. that's for sure.I was meaning Bidens alleged corruption should be front and centre of this investigation. Not that these hearing happening now should be in the senate. My post wasnt clear.
I am getting there in understanding the process, havent made it a hobby though.
In previous impeachment investigations both sides could present witnesses, the minority were not shut down and cut off. It isnt that the Dems are controlling the process... although the House Intelligence committee running it is a first... has always been the Judiciary committee.. but Nadler is even more incompetent than Schiff... it is the HOW they are controlling the porcess. That isnt bullshit, it shows that the process is so partisan as to be a disaster.
Never before has the vote for an impeachment investigation been so partisan, and the only dissenters were Democrats.
Given that you dont like Trump, what is your dream scenario for this? I just cannot see any happy ending for Dems. Much is made of the fact that the process is political not criminal, dont these morons realise that people generally loathe politics.. and being guilty of a purely political crime in a political court will likely endear him to most?
You are confusing the investigations with the trial.
Investigation is at Reps level, trial at senate.Given that it is a public matter the investigations are held in an open forum where possible.
You don't run a defence at an investigation. That is merely to establish whether there are grounds to 'prosecute'. No different to most court cases.
I do agree that when you have a situation were the house is controlled by an opposition then the view is that things are simply political and I do agree that the Dems have been waiting for their chance to try and nail Trump on something. He presented them with that chance.This is how the Supreme Court describes the duty to investigate
It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function
There is no denying that of the many things the House could go about investigating and the time they could spend of impeachment investigations all over the place, they have saved their energy for Trump. However, that being said, if he did breach his oath of office then he should be accountable yes?
As to whether Biden's alleged corruption should be front and centre, no one has even said what this 'corruption' is let alone formed an accusation that can be investigated. Trump complains of witch hunts but his approach was a fishing expedition. If there is something there and Biden has broken the law then he should be accountable but that is separate to this investigation. It may have been a catalyst for Trump's behaviour but isn't a defence.
As for your last question, I don't have a dream scenario. I dislike Trump, not on grounds of political ideology but because he is a narcissistic liar. His actions have little personal effect on me except for the reinforcing of the terrible attitudes of the border control officials that I sometimes have to deal with.
Is this a 'political crime'? It would be a charge that has political motivation, so yes, he would get some sympathy from that. I doubt very much if the Dems would get more votes. Trumps approval ratings are steady through all of this and independents are even appearing to swing towards 'no impeachment'.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they don't take this further. They have probably achieved whatever damage they thought they could. Trump's unhinged ranting emboldens their existing support and may turn off the few 'swing' voters they need to affect.
Don't forget that the whole Presidential election usually comes down to a couple of States. Trump managed to convince a few of those swing voters that his disruptive approach would bring them benefits and it will come down to whether he achieves that. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
Lol... the state dept investigation is never going to cut it.
And impeachment investigation is only totally different whilst the Dems control the process, as soon as it hits the senate it will be front and centre, just where many, including myself, think it should be.
You do understand the process I gather?
It has to be in the House first then the Senate. If it gets that far then your wish will be granted.
All this bullshit about the hearings being Dem controlled is no different to previous impeachment process.
I agree about the State Dept 'investigation into conflict of interest being not the strongest though. They don't even see conflict of interest with Ivanka.
There is a very thin line between favours and corruption. that's for sure.I was meaning Bidens alleged corruption should be front and centre of this investigation. Not that these hearing happening now should be in the senate. My post wasnt clear.
I am getting there in understanding the process, havent made it a hobby though.
In previous impeachment investigations both sides could present witnesses, the minority were not shut down and cut off. It isnt that the Dems are controlling the process... although the House Intelligence committee running it is a first... has always been the Judiciary committee.. but Nadler is even more incompetent than Schiff... it is the HOW they are controlling the porcess. That isnt bullshit, it shows that the process is so partisan as to be a disaster.
Never before has the vote for an impeachment investigation been so partisan, and the only dissenters were Democrats.
Given that you dont like Trump, what is your dream scenario for this? I just cannot see any happy ending for Dems. Much is made of the fact that the process is political not criminal, dont these morons realise that people generally loathe politics.. and being guilty of a purely political crime in a political court will likely endear him to most?
You are confusing the investigations with the trial.
Investigation is at Reps level, trial at senate.Given that it is a public matter the investigations are held in an open forum where possible.
You don't run a defence at an investigation. That is merely to establish whether there are grounds to 'prosecute'. No different to most court cases.
I do agree that when you have a situation were the house is controlled by an opposition then the view is that things are simply political and I do agree that the Dems have been waiting for their chance to try and nail Trump on something. He presented them with that chance.This is how the Supreme Court describes the duty to investigate
It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function
There is no denying that of the many things the House could go about investigating and the time they could spend of impeachment investigations all over the place, they have saved their energy for Trump. However, that being said, if he did breach his oath of office then he should be accountable yes?
As to whether Biden's alleged corruption should be front and centre, no one has even said what this 'corruption' is let alone formed an accusation that can be investigated. Trump complains of witch hunts but his approach was a fishing expedition. If there is something there and Biden has broken the law then he should be accountable but that is separate to this investigation. It may have been a catalyst for Trump's behaviour but isn't a defence.
As for your last question, I don't have a dream scenario. I dislike Trump, not on grounds of political ideology but because he is a narcissistic liar. His actions have little personal effect on me except for the reinforcing of the terrible attitudes of the border control officials that I sometimes have to deal with.
Is this a 'political crime'? It would be a charge that has political motivation, so yes, he would get some sympathy from that. I doubt very much if the Dems would get more votes. Trumps approval ratings are steady through all of this and independents are even appearing to swing towards 'no impeachment'.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they don't take this further. They have probably achieved whatever damage they thought they could. Trump's unhinged ranting emboldens their existing support and may turn off the few 'swing' voters they need to affect.
Don't forget that the whole Presidential election usually comes down to a couple of States. Trump managed to convince a few of those swing voters that his disruptive approach would bring them benefits and it will come down to whether he achieves that.Wow... you have managed to be incredibly patronizing .
I did not confuse the 2 at all. I think the BIdens are at the heart of this, Hunter Biden getting trucktons of cash to work on a corrupt board of a corrupt country when he doesnt speak the language and doesnt know anything about energy.... yeah nothing to see here..... he didnt get the job because his dad was VP and in charge of Ukraine affairs at the WH. It stinks. And Trump asking for that to be investigated is not only not wrong, it is very right. You dont get a free pass because you are a presidential candidate.
ALOT of people have stated very clearly the corruption of the Bidens. Biden got a prosecutor fired who was about to look into Burisma and Hunter BIden... in fact he bragged on camera about doing it. The allegation being that the prosecutor was corrupt.. an allegation later disproved. But the mission was never about that.. it was about protecting the Bidens.
And that doesnt even start on Hunter Bidens hedge fund associates getting 1 BILLION dollars in Chinese money at the same time as Joe Biden was in charge of WH China policy....As for the process..... in both it is basically whatever the rule makers want. Hence Schiff and his ludicrous bias. The whole impeachment process is very open. There are only bare bones of rules. The Republicans can do all sorts of investigating as part of its trial.
And you dont need to remind me about swing states making the difference, it was my point to Gollum back in 2016....
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If corroborated then it certainly should be investigated.
Potential corruption involving Hunter Biden has already been investigated by both the US State Department (who declared no conflict of interest) and Ukraine (who have no link of Bidens involvement in the Burisma investigations).
The (totally different) impeachment investigation is to establish whetherTrump tried to link the two for personal/ political gain which is against his oath of office.
Lol... the state dept investigation is never going to cut it.
And impeachment investigation is only totally different whilst the Dems control the process, as soon as it hits the senate it will be front and centre, just where many, including myself, think it should be.
You do understand the process I gather?
It has to be in the House first then the Senate. If it gets that far then your wish will be granted.
All this bullshit about the hearings being Dem controlled is no different to previous impeachment process.
I agree about the State Dept 'investigation into conflict of interest being not the strongest though. They don't even see conflict of interest with Ivanka.
There is a very thin line between favours and corruption. that's for sure.I was meaning Bidens alleged corruption should be front and centre of this investigation. Not that these hearing happening now should be in the senate. My post wasnt clear.
I am getting there in understanding the process, havent made it a hobby though.
In previous impeachment investigations both sides could present witnesses, the minority were not shut down and cut off. It isnt that the Dems are controlling the process... although the House Intelligence committee running it is a first... has always been the Judiciary committee.. but Nadler is even more incompetent than Schiff... it is the HOW they are controlling the porcess. That isnt bullshit, it shows that the process is so partisan as to be a disaster.
Never before has the vote for an impeachment investigation been so partisan, and the only dissenters were Democrats.
Given that you dont like Trump, what is your dream scenario for this? I just cannot see any happy ending for Dems. Much is made of the fact that the process is political not criminal, dont these morons realise that people generally loathe politics.. and being guilty of a purely political crime in a political court will likely endear him to most?
You are confusing the investigations with the trial.
Investigation is at Reps level, trial at senate.Given that it is a public matter the investigations are held in an open forum where possible.
You don't run a defence at an investigation. That is merely to establish whether there are grounds to 'prosecute'. No different to most court cases.
I do agree that when you have a situation were the house is controlled by an opposition then the view is that things are simply political and I do agree that the Dems have been waiting for their chance to try and nail Trump on something. He presented them with that chance.This is how the Supreme Court describes the duty to investigate
It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function
There is no denying that of the many things the House could go about investigating and the time they could spend of impeachment investigations all over the place, they have saved their energy for Trump. However, that being said, if he did breach his oath of office then he should be accountable yes?
As to whether Biden's alleged corruption should be front and centre, no one has even said what this 'corruption' is let alone formed an accusation that can be investigated. Trump complains of witch hunts but his approach was a fishing expedition. If there is something there and Biden has broken the law then he should be accountable but that is separate to this investigation. It may have been a catalyst for Trump's behaviour but isn't a defence.
As for your last question, I don't have a dream scenario. I dislike Trump, not on grounds of political ideology but because he is a narcissistic liar. His actions have little personal effect on me except for the reinforcing of the terrible attitudes of the border control officials that I sometimes have to deal with.
Is this a 'political crime'? It would be a charge that has political motivation, so yes, he would get some sympathy from that. I doubt very much if the Dems would get more votes. Trumps approval ratings are steady through all of this and independents are even appearing to swing towards 'no impeachment'.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if they don't take this further. They have probably achieved whatever damage they thought they could. Trump's unhinged ranting emboldens their existing support and may turn off the few 'swing' voters they need to affect.
Don't forget that the whole Presidential election usually comes down to a couple of States. Trump managed to convince a few of those swing voters that his disruptive approach would bring them benefits and it will come down to whether he achieves that.Wow... you have managed to be incredibly patronizing .
I did not confuse the 2 at all. I think the BIdens are at the heart of this, Hunter Biden getting trucktons of cash to work on a corrupt board of a corrupt country when he doesnt speak the language and doesnt know anything about energy.... yeah nothing to see here..... he didnt get the job because his dad was VP and in charge of Ukraine affairs at the WH. It stinks. And Trump asking for that to be investigated is not only not wrong, it is very right. You dont get a free pass because you are a presidential candidate.
ALOT of people have stated very clearly the corruption of the Bidens. Biden got a prosecutor fired who was about to look into Burisma and Hunter BIden... in fact he bragged on camera about doing it. The allegation being that the prosecutor was corrupt.. an allegation later disproved. But the mission was never about that.. it was about protecting the Bidens.
And that doesnt even start on Hunter Bidens hedge fund associates getting 1 BILLION dollars in Chinese money at the same time as Joe Biden was in charge of WH China policy....I'm not denying that there are things about the Biden's that raise questions but if that doesn't mean that Trump gets to withhold aid to get another investigation. He just doesn't understand that there are processes to be followed. There was (and is) absolutely nothing to stop questions being raised and even an impeachment enquiry into Biden, done through the correct processes. Trump instead sends his personal lawyer to put pressure on a foreign country carrying a stick that he isn't entitled to wield? That isn't allowed.
However, I don't think it is any more than a reprimand situation. Trump needs to be told that he isn't a dictator. He operates in a democratic regime that has rules and boundaries on how it's leaders can act.As for the process..... in both it is basically whatever the rule makers want. Hence Schiff and his ludicrous bias. The whole impeachment process is very open. There are only bare bones of rules. The Republicans can do all sorts of investigating as part of its trial.
As they will and are entitled to do. But IMO two wrongs don't make a right.
And you dont need to remind me about swing states making the difference, it was my point to Gollum back in 2016....
So how Trump appears to the mass doesn't really matter then? After all he lost the total vote last election but won the Presidency.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial No it only matters what the mass of states think. Good thing IMO.
As opposed to the majority of people?
I'm not trying to make some 'Trump's win isn't valid' claim, just curious as to why you think that an electoral college system is better than a popular vote when it offers more opportunity to get unbalanced.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial No it only matters what the mass of states think. Good thing IMO.
As opposed to the majority of people?
I'm not trying to make some 'Trump's win isn't valid' claim, just curious as to why you think that an electoral college system is better than a popular vote when it offers more opportunity to get unbalanced.
I think of it this way, and it will only make sense if you aren't an Aucklander. Imagine if Aucklanders determined the rules for all of New Zealand. They have the most people..but may be lacking any understanding of peoples needs outside of Auckland.
Representation needs to be proportional both by population and by the geography which can dictate a persons way of life. California is the biggest state by far in population whereas its a bit of a basket case between nerdy rich hipsters, famous celebs, the mentally insane and the homeless. The people there have very different needs from folk in other states...pavement pooing and potential bubonic plague issues as a couple examples.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I dislike Trump, not on grounds of political ideology but because he is a narcissistic liar. His actions have little personal effect on me ........Is what you are saying kind of similar to the guys and girls in this video?
Can't really name the policies you dislike, or offer a cogent argument for what is wrong with what he is actually doing. That is kind of like my Mum. Doesn't like his boastfulness and all round over the top New York American persona. -
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I dislike Trump, not on grounds of political ideology but because he is a narcissistic liar. His actions have little personal effect on me ........Is what you are saying kind of similar to the guys and girls in this video?
Can't really name the policies you dislike, or offer a cogent argument for what is wrong with what he is actually doing. That is kind of like my Mum. Doesn't like his boastfulness and all round over the top New York American persona.No, it is just you trying to belittle my opinion based on a one line statement.
I know plenty about Trump and his behaviour, both before and during his Presidency and both personal and official. Some of what I know is formed by conversations with people that have to deal with him, some formed by media writings over a long period where trends and facts can be verified. I don't take everything as gospel or as unbiased.
I have formed an opinion based on that. OK?
As for policies etc. It isn't up to me to dictate on what is good/bad or indifferent to the people of the country he leads. I don't get affected by his internal policies and I would be pissed of if Amercans tried to tell us what is good or not.
-
Tulsi and Jocko on the latest Rogan.
Very enjoyable so far. Damn she could really make an impact if she'd just stop bending over to the Dems. Plenty of reasonable democrats out there who need someone to stand up to that parties madness.
Also commiserations to her family on her upcoming suicide.
-
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Also commiserations to her family on her upcoming suicide.
WTF
For context:
&
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Also commiserations to her family on her upcoming suicide.
WTF
For context:
&
Oh satire, leveraging off conspiracy theories. Right.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Tulsi and Jocko on the latest Rogan.
Very enjoyable so far. Damn she could really make an impact if she'd just stop bending over to the Dems. Plenty of reasonable democrats out there who need someone to stand up to that parties madness.
Also commiserations to her family on her upcoming suicide.
God it was refreshing to hear a cogent discussion for once.
-
Just finished it. What a great podcast. Actual sanity from a democrat candidate and having Jocko on was brilliant. Some actual nuanced conversation on Trump, no doubt she will be hauled over the coals by the twitteratti for not incessantly yelling 'orange man bad' while screaming at the sky and pulling clumps of her own hair out. Really thing she could give Trump a run for his money if my some miracle she could get the nomination and actually stick to her ideals.
-
Gabbard's first name comes from Sanskrit. Tulsi is the name for Holy Basil, a plant sacred in Hinduism.[194] Her siblings also have Hindu Sanskrit-origin names.[18] During her childhood Gabbard excelled in martial arts.[23] In 2002, she was a martial arts instructor.[195] She is vegan[196]
I'm torn here, she is a vegan but doesn't bring it up much if at all . If a vegan isn't preachy and annoying about it can they truly call themselves a vegan?
US Politics