Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 254: Pete's Whine Cave

(+) Yeah! (+)

He literally withheld foreign aid for his own political benefit.

Nothing Joe Biden did was corrupt. Trump's phone call was pure corruption.

---

Literally everything Joe Biden did with Ukraine was anti-corruption even, which you seem to somehow ignore.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

But its not a completely different thing. Its the EXACT SAME THING. And finding one counter-example on its own is enough.

You could have shut me down easily enough by just admitting that conservatives do it too! I was never trying to argue that liberals DONT.

If you say so. You are never wrong, so I am not wasting my time on it anymore.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yet, it was the investigator that was investigating the company for corruption that Biden had reason to believe was corrupt right before his eyes that he forced out of the Ukrainian government, while his son continued to draw his paycheck from said company.

That investigation had been shelved for a year at the time of Joe Biden's involvement and it was widely agreed upon by both parties in the US and our allies in Europe that Shokin was corrupt and needed to go if Ukraine had any hope of reforming. In fact, because Shokin was ignoring corruption, replacing him put Burisma in more danger if they had done anything illegal.

---

red13n posted...

He literally withheld foreign aid for his own political benefit.

Nothing Joe Biden did was corrupt. Trump's phone call was pure corruption.

Yes, we know. Dems good. Repubs bad. We are humoring the world where Biden isn't a saint and Trump isn't the devil tho.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That investigation had been shelved for a year at the time of Joe Biden's involvement and it was widely agreed upon by both parties in the US and our allies in Europe that Shokin was corrupt and needed to go if Ukraine had any hope of reforming. In fact, because Shokin was ignoring corruption, replacing him put Burisma in more danger if they had done anything illegal.

Which parties in the US and Europe agreed on that? The people opposing Russia?

---

Corrik7 posted...

If you say so. You are never wrong, so I am not wasting my time on it anymore.

Honest question: have you ever admitted you were wrong?

Ive admitted I was wrong multiple times, in these very topics, yet I dont recall you ever giving an inch in any argument
---

Corrik7 posted...

So the position of power was the reasoning for the hire. Correct?

Probably.

Corrik7 posted...

Now, are we going to act like Joe Biden didn't know his son was hired by a company in a country he dealt with for a job he had zero experience or knowledge regarding in an extremely high paying job?

I mean, we aren't going to go that route right?

Not sure. But I'll accept that Biden likely knew his son got the job.

Corrik7 posted...

So, Joe either knows something is fishy there or he is incompetent, right?

He may be aware that Burisma is trying to get influence. He could also know that such an attempt is futile.

Corrik7 posted...

So, if he knows something is fishy in the country that he supposedly is trying to root out corruption in, you would think he would advise his son to leave the job, refuse it, or investigate the company itself right?

Hunter is an adult so faulting Joe for Hunter's decision here is an inversion of the "sins of the father." I'm also not sure it's appropriate for Joe to leverage the investigative power of the US Government against Burisma even if he thinks they're being sus. Or do you think he should pull a Giuliani and run some shadow investigation that is nebulously connected to the office of the VP in all but official record?

Corrik7 posted...

Yet, it was the investigator that was investigating the company for corruption that Biden had reason to believe was corrupt right before his eyes that he forced out of the Ukrainian government, while his son continued to draw his paycheck from said company.

red covered this already:

red13n posted...

Also I know red sox is being facetious here but I know Wang is in deep so let me just refute this real quick. The prosecutor had stopped investigating the company(and others unrelated) Hunter Biden was working for at the time he was fired. He had said publicly a long while(A year+) that he would prosecute corruption but it had been a case of his words being far from his actions(He was, in fact, corrupt).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That investigation had been shelved for a year at the time of Joe Biden's involvement and it was widely agreed upon by both parties in the US and our allies in Europe that Shokin was corrupt and needed to go if Ukraine had any hope of reforming. In fact, because Shokin was ignoring corruption, replacing him put Burisma in more danger if they had done anything illegal.

That part is more of a isn't that an interesting connection sidenote. The gist is that Biden if rooting out corruption should have seen it directly in his face due to his son. Yet, I have a feeling Biden didn't seem to have much issue with that arrangement.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Honest question: have you ever admitted you were wrong?

Ive admitted I was wrong multiple times, in these very topics, yet I dont recall you ever giving an inch in any argument

Pay attention more.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yes, we know. Dems good. Repubs bad. We are humoring the world where Biden isn't a saint and Trump isn't the devil tho.

I dont think anyone here thinks Biden is a saint. Most of us dont even like him at all.
---

So people seem to be taking the position that it was okay for Joe Biden to engage in a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government based on massive pressure (withholding a billion dollars of aid) because it was done to fight corruption.

If that's the case, the Donald Trump is definitely innocent, because that's exactly what he did.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I dont think anyone here thinks Biden is a saint. Most of us dont even like him at all.

I think anyone saying a politician isn't corrupt is basically likening him to a saint. It's basically a unicorn. Pretty much every politician has their hands in some cookie jar. Unfortunately.

Like, Biden did no wrong! I mean, maybe. But, it is unlikely.

It isn't preposterous of someone to think Hunter Biden's job was a cookie jar.

---

red sox 777 posted...

If that's the case, the Donald Trump is definitely innocent, because that's exactly what he did.

Ive been saying that Republicans should take this tactic! Admit what Trump did but just say its no big deal
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Just a PSA: people from Ukraine find the phrase "the Ukraine" offensive because it dates back to when they were a part of the USSR. They've requested that the rest of the world use "Ukraine" since gaining independence.

didn't know that.

Jakyl25 posted...

Actually I saw a headline tonight that they found some tapes? Not sure which ones. I did not look further.

*checks*
oh hey it's the same one i was talking about there. apparently they found the tapes the day after.

red13n posted...

So tell me again, what did Joe Biden do that was corrupt exactly?

tell me again, when did i say what he did was corrupt? when have i made that accusation? look back and realize how far you have driven this point: the initial point i made was how impeachment was unpopular with 3 major causes being that it's a shitty premise, it's an election year, and that it's clearly all for show. i then further pointed out that the more politics you know the more obvious this is, citing the 2016 interference and the stuff house dems are approving. when pressed on the 2016 stuff, my info is straight from Ukrainian sources, then tied back to the current situation involving the Bidens as a case of soft corruption/nepotism that nobody would be surprised about since it's about another Obama-era official being involved with e Ukraine.

at that point you came in going crazy. i have no intention of steering away from my initial point.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Ive been saying that Republicans should take this tactic! Admit what Trump did but just say its no big deal

They kind of have. I mean, that was what Mulvaney did when he admitted at that press conference it was a quid pro quo, that they "do it all the time," and we should "get over it."

The thing is the GOP is basically using every argument on the spectrum from "It never happened! Perfect Phone call!" to "It happened, but this is perfectly normal behavior by presidents." simultaneously so it's hard to know what they're arguing.

Lately though they've leaned more into the "Perfect Phone Call!" side because when they were drifting towards "It happened but it's fine/not impeachable" side, Trump threw a fit and demanded they parrot his line instead. But you still see remnants of it here and there.

---

*Tangential Epstein rant*

The problem with that whole thing is how flippant the meme has become. I saw someone say that the internet has turned Epstein into Harambe and theres truth to that.

So people have naturally lined up on the side of the meme or against the meme when really NO ONE ON EITHER SIDE KNOWS.

What we do know is that it deserves a thorough investigation by a neutral party, but what constitutes a neutral party is an argument unto itself.

Lordy, let there be tapes
---

Although I guess We need more knowledge about how Epstein died isnt as catchy
---

Whoa Trump raised the legal age to smoke to 21?

That ain't gonna sit well with the young vote.

---

If only there was a young vote
---

red sox 777 posted...

So people seem to be taking the position that it was okay for Joe Biden to engage in a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government based on massive pressure (withholding a billion dollars of aid) because it was done to fight corruption.

If that's the case, the Donald Trump is definitely innocent, because that's exactly what he did.

i'd go a step further: it'd even be okay if Biden did it fully aware that he's benefiting his son. as long as Joe doesn't explicitly connect anything directly to Hunter, his situation gets a pass. if Trump goes on the attack for it, he can counterpunch with Ivanka, Jared, and Jr (sorry Eric) so hard that it'll become an irrelevant point at worst and a point in his favor at best. yet when you make this situation be the basis of your impeachment the whole thing looks shitty. "you impeached Trump because he went after a corruption scandal involving a political rival's son making a million bucks a year in a foreign country doing a job he didn't earn?" if you're gonna go after him don't make it on a subject that sounds two-faced or like you're protecting one of your own. you can say it's the quid pro quo but that's the same way perjury was the crime with Bill: we all can see the underlying reason and that it's bullshit. then you add in the political theater aspects and it becomes really smelly bullshit.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Whoa Trump raised the legal age to smoke to 21?

That ain't gonna sit well with the young vote.

they've got 9 months to stockpile up to 3 years worth of vapes.
or do what they already do for beer and henny: rely on the older person in the group.

---

I have almost zero intention of repeating the argument in-depth since I already did so only a few days ago, but again the idea that impeachment is unpopular is just not supported by the data.

The numbers overall are basically flat 47% +/- 1% (which is higher than the opposition number) and also flat across all partisan breakdowns. if i were to get spicy i'd note that to the extent that 538's tracker has a trend the impeachment support line is slightly trending up again but again my actual argument is it is a flat line that would just me being saucy. The last real movement on impeachment was a huge increase in support when the inquiry was announced a few months back at which point it has basically been a straight line.

---

Wanglicious posted...

i'd go a step further: it'd even be okay if Biden did it fully aware that he's benefiting his son. as long as Joe doesn't explicitly connect anything directly to Hunter, his situation gets a pass. if Trump goes on the attack for it, he can counterpunch with Ivanka, Jared, and Jr (sorry Eric) so hard that it'll become an irrelevant point at worst and a point in his favor at best. yet when you make this situation be the basis of your impeachment the whole thing looks shitty. "you impeached Trump because he went after a corruption scandal involving a political rival's son making a million bucks a year in a foreign country doing a job he didn't earn?" if you're gonna go after him don't make it on a subject that sounds two-faced or like you're protecting one of your own. you can say it's the quid pro quo but that's the same way perjury was the crime with Bill: we all can see the underlying reason and that it's bullshit. then you add in the political theater aspects and it becomes really smelly bullshit.

Donald Trump wasn't "going after corruption." He was trying to generate a scandal for his most likely general election opponent. A few things that strongly undermine Trump's "going after corruption" defense:

1. Trump has literally zero history of actually rooting out corruption anywhere, and is in fact hugely corrupt himself. People are supposed to believe that the one time he just happened to do it it just happened to be Joe Biden?
2. Trump's ask was for the announcement of an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, not the actual investigation. An announcement is actively counterproductive to an actual investigation, but is very useful for Trump's actual goal of sliming Biden.

---

Wanglicious posted...

i'd go a step further: it'd even be okay if Biden did it fully aware that he's benefiting his son. as long as Joe doesn't explicitly connect anything directly to Hunter, his situation gets a pass. if Trump goes on the attack for it, he can counterpunch with Ivanka, Jared, and Jr (sorry Eric) so hard that it'll become an irrelevant point at worst and a point in his favor at best.

Actually you don't even have to go that far. Trump still has a financial stake in his own companies. He just gave up all controlling power.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Donald Trump wasn't "going after corruption." He was trying to generate a scandal for his most likely general election opponent. A few things that strongly undermine Trump's "going after corruption" defense:
1. Trump has literally zero history of actually rooting out corruption anywhere, and is in fact hugely corrupt himself. People are supposed to believe that the one time he just happened to do it it just happened to be Joe Biden?
2. Trump's ask was for the announcement of an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, not the actual investigation. An announcement is actively counterproductive to an actual investigation, but is very useful for Trump's actual goal of sliming Biden.

To add to the comically inept corruption of it all, his rooting out corruption that just so happened to be focused on Joe Biden, came literally the month after Biden entered the race at the top of the polls

---

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...
Honest question: have you ever admitted you were wrong?

Ive admitted I was wrong multiple times, in these very topics, yet I dont recall you ever giving an inch in any argumen
Pay attention more

For the record, Corrik, this is the most annoying way you could have answered that.

Literally all you had to do was respond to Jakyl with an example of you being wrong and youve refuted him, but instead you just...didnt.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

For the record, Corrik, this is the most annoying way you could have answered that.

Literally all you had to do was respond to Jakyl with an example of you being wrong and youve refuted him, but instead you just...didnt.

Not worth my time.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Not worth my time.

But 50+ posts worth of responses were, huh.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

But 50+ posts worth of responses were, huh.

Sure

---

he literally argued two days ago that burning an American flag is terrorism an a threat to everybody in the country why are you still arguing?

or a slightly more clarified point: why are you getting invested? he's not arguing in bad faith like redsox so it's not pointless, but you're probably not gonna get anywhere with him regardless of topic either

---

NFUN posted...

he literally argued two days ago that burning an American flag is terrorism an a threat to everybody in the country why are you still arguing?

Let me correct you before he does

He never said that. He just believes you should be arrested for doing it because its disrespectful, not because its a threat or youre a terrorist.

Im not sure which is a sillier point of view but lets strive for accuracy

EDIT:



EDIT 2: Wow, GameFAQs really did the work to translate a single emoji into 4
---

---

Jakyl25 posted...

EDIT 2: Wow, GameFAQs really did the work to translate a single emoji into 4

they updated their site to 2011 to include unicode, not 2014

---

NFUN posted...

he literally argued two days ago that burning an American flag is terrorism an a threat to everybody in the country why are you still arguing?

No I didn't. What.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Let me correct you before he does

---

Wanglicious posted...

you can say it's the quid pro quo but that's the same way perjury was the crime with Bill: we all can see the underlying reason and that it's bullshit

It's not though, you (and most people) just don't give a shit about why the systems are in place. It's the same weak argument as Gabbard's no vote.

The entire point of impeachment is that it can only used on very specific high crimes that damage the office of the presidency. It has nothing to do with judgment of a president. Causing a great depression is not impeachable. Rallying for nazis to shoot up journalists in not impeachable. Assassinating American citizens by executive order is not impeachable. But despite how stupid it sounds, lying under oath about a blowjob IS 1000% unambiguously by definition grounds for impeachment.

You might think that secretly trading US foreign aid in exchange for personal political favors is as harmless as lying about a blowjob, but it still is unambiguously an abuse of the office of the presidency. That's it. If the house ignores it, like they did all the other impeachable offenses, then they are failing their most basic job.

So you're right that it's bullshit that this is the first issue the house actually moved to impeach on. It should have been way, way earlier. But that doesn't change that this issue needed to be impeached.

---

How is assassinating American citizens without due process not impeachable?

---

The whole Biden thing is pretty irrelevant as far as the legalities go. To use an analogy, the government has the power to authorize executions. The president does not have the authority to shoot someone on 5th avenue. Biden executed a guy, Trump shot a guy. You can argue about the guy Biden executed being innocent, or the guy Trump shot being guilty, but in the end one did what they did legally, the other did not.

---

red sox 777 posted...

How is assassinating American citizens without due process not impeachable?

I guess you could argue it but it's a lot less clear cut cuz both Congress and the courts constantly reauthorize the president's power to do so

---

The obnoxious thing is that no one wants to defend nepotism. Hunter Biden's appointment is clear nepotism in a way that is "normal" for politics and every other wielder of power. And that sucks but it's also an extremely minor issue in the grand scheme of things because the conflict of interest was never acted upon.

If people want to push to prevent nepotism and conflicts of interests in the future then go right ahead. But Hunter Biden just isn't worth discussing. There is no substance to it. And worse - Trump doesn't care about the substance. It's entirely an issue of appearances.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The obnoxious thing is that no one wants to defend nepotism. Hunter Biden's appointment is clear nepotism in a way that is "normal" for politics and every other wielder of power. And that sucks but it's also an extremely minor issue in the grand scheme of things because the conflict of interest was never acted upon.

If people want to push to prevent nepotism and conflicts of interests in the future then go right ahead. But Hunter Biden just isn't worth discussing. There is no substance to it. And worse - Trump doesn't care about the substance. It's entirely an issue of appearances.

Also, if you want to make a point about nepotism, then Hunter Biden getting a job in Ukraine because of who his dad is is assuredly not as bad as Trump's kids getting jobs in the White House that they are manifestly not qualified for.

---

No republican would ever mention nepotism, for that reason. It's not about nepotism, it's about Biden giving his family unfair benefits. They are really careful about how they generalize the problem, because if they criticize the system, it's 100% self-destructive. Which is why no Trump supporters (even the super smart and reasonable Seph and Corrik) have even 1 argument that is not party tribalism at its core. No arguments that would not be flipped 180 degrees if the parties switched.

---

It is amazing to see how the trump fanbase is powered on pure faith. Facts don't seem to matter to them any more

---

foolm0r0n posted...

No republican would ever mention nepotism, for that reason. It's not about nepotism, it's about Biden giving his family unfair benefits. They are really careful about how they generalize the problem, because if they criticize the system, it's 100% self-destructive. Which is why no Trump supporters (even the super smart and reasonable Seph and Corrik) have even 1 argument that is not party tribalism at its core. No arguments that would not be flipped 180 degrees if the parties switched.

Well what would be the fun in that?

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Also, if you want to make a point about nepotism, then Hunter Biden getting a job in Ukraine because of who his dad is is assuredly not as bad as Trump's kids getting jobs in the White House that they are manifestly not qualified for.

Surely his kids are more qualified to advise him than Hunter was for the Burisma job. Not that it is saying much. Lol

---

Ukraine aid was ordered to be held up less than two hours after the Perfect Phone Call:

https://twitter.com/dabeard/status/1208376599118258177?s=21

---

Corrik7 posted...

Surely his kids are more qualified to advise him than Hunter was for the Burisma job. Not that it is saying much. Lol

Jareds role is much more than an advisor
---

Also lmao Tulsi:

https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1208383008186732545?s=21

(top reply is also great)

---

Corrik7 posted...

Surely his kids are more qualified to advise him than Hunter was for the Burisma job. Not that it is saying much. Lol

So on the one hand an energy company hired a "an American lawyer and lobbyist" as an advisor.

And the President of the United States hired an "American businesswoman, fashion designer, author, and reality television personality" as an advisor.

And you think not only are those the same thing, but the white house appointment was more correct? Even without bringing up the relationships into it's an absurdly one sided situation.

---