|
Post by whollygoats on Nov 23, 2019 16:16:37 GMT
But Trump wasn't really inviting Ukraine to "dabble in USA election" - rather he was attempting to get them to publicly investigate the dodgy deal with Biden's son. No he was not. He was attempting to get them to state publicly that they were investigating Burisma and the Biden role in it. Ambassador Sondland made it clear in his testimony that Trump did not care whether any actual investigation ever went forward, he just wanted the appearance of scandal with which to smear his political opponents. Well, as you noted about Trump's actions, such placements on the boards of corporations are legion. They are made to establish connections and influence investors. I suggest that you do an analysis all the boards of all the businesses in all the sectors of any economy, and you will find that a majority of the board members have no background or experience in the field. For example, I have been added to at least two separate non-profit corporation boards, one of an acting ensemble, the other of a youth hostel. In both cases, I did not have ANY requisite experience in either field. However, I was an experienced activist, a trained economist, and had a number of connections of influence in the community. Corporations add members to their boards for any number of reasons....often, one is NOT required to have a background in the specific area of operations. So, I think your assumptions are erroneous. Just look at the tangled sets of boards upon which the hellspawn of the mango shitgibbon are on....Cheeses, those morons are in over their heads almost everywhere they get involved. If we're going to investigate Hunter Biden, let's just open up the investigation to include all the children of all of the members of the current administration, indeed, the entire government. We need to root out the rampant nepotism which corrupts our governance. I'm all for that. But, for the moment, the Hunter Biden accusations are naught but an attempt to divert from their own crimes. It's nothing but a bunch of handwaving and 'whataboutism'. It is bullshit. You evidently missed the testimony given by George Kent. And, Dr. Fiona Hill repeated essentially the same thing in her testimony, only with a lot more sinister allusions....You might want to review the entire testimony of both Dr. Hill and Mr. Holmes before the committee. It seems that, according to Dr. Hill, you are "advancing a fictional narrative promulgated and propagated by Russian security services". Kudos. Who foreign corporations place on their board of directors might well be of interest to the public. As would the make-up of each and every private corporation in the country and worldwide. But, for some reason, I suspect you will run in to a fair amount of resistance to subjecting every addition to every private corporation board of directors to the kind of scrutiny you're alluding to here. I suspect that most private corporations would tell you to stuff it; they'll appoint who they see fit and everybody else can lump it, as it is none of your business. As it is, there seems to be an entire segment of the media dedicated to this kind of bullshit...the business news people. Much of this information is already readily available, thanks to government registration requirements, it is just that there is so much of it that most of 'the public' has no farking interest in. Even those who are interested and do follow it find it overwhelming and instead seek to understand only portions of it. So...Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Nov 23, 2019 18:10:55 GMT
I note that neither Guiliani, nor many of the other players have even been deposed, nor even subpoenaed. There seems to be an entire subplot with Rudy Guiliani and the two Shreks, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, the Ukrainian goons. These two were arrested at Miami International Airport trying to exit the country on one-way tickets back to Vienna. They were charged with campaign finance violations, specifically for funneling European funds in to a wide variety of Republican campaign coffers. Parnas hired Guiliani as legal counsel with a $500,000 retainer. These two were intimately involved with the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch and managed to link Giuliani up with dubious contacts in Ukraine. Now, Parnas has been outed as the 'guide' to Devin Nunes in his conspiracy theory romps through Europe... I think I hear the shuffling of indictments being prepared... **sigh** "As The Swamp Burns"
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Nov 23, 2019 20:52:40 GMT
In the UK, we are not so forgiving to the sons of politicians who profit by dodgy deals in foreign countries. Wikipedia on Mark ThatcherOf course, he is now worth over £60 million, has lived in a succession of tax havens, has inherited the title of Baron, has never actually served any prison time, and the documents about him that should have been released under the normal 30-year-rule haven't been released. But you could never say, "It's one rule for the privileged rich and another for the poor" - if you did, you would likely find yourself under investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Nov 23, 2019 23:58:28 GMT
Hmph they can investigate me all they like . That is exactly how it is.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Nov 24, 2019 4:41:57 GMT
Nunes met with Shokin in Vienna. Shokin was the corrupt Ukraine prosecutor which VP Biden acted to remove. Parnas introduced them. As well as being a client of Guiliani, Parnas is also evidently an associate of Dymitri Fertash, a Ukrainian oligarch presently being held in Vienna in an attempt to extradite him for trial on corruption charges.
So...Guiliani and Nunes are both working in concert with the actors who were the targets of the push to end corruption in Ukraine. Guiliani, at the behest of Trump, is meeting with the corrupt officials in Ukraine and acting to corrupt the newly elected Ukraine officials to do the personal political bidding of the Trump re-election campaign. They were working against, and at odds with, the established US foreign policy in Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Nov 26, 2019 3:17:15 GMT
I am just not following it, other than on facebook. All our media is talking about is Prince Andrew, Brexit and the election. Judging by our news there would seem to be no impeachment hearings going on, which is definitely new as mainly we're all about American news.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Nov 26, 2019 5:36:12 GMT
There's much more coverage of Hong Kong than there is of the impeachment. The whole impeachment thing looks like partisan political point-scoring to me: both parties are so entrenched in their beliefs that they begin to behave irrationality - some of it looks like Bermuda Triangle stuff to us outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Nov 26, 2019 11:18:15 GMT
All our media is talking about is Prince Andrew, Brexit and the election. The BBC has been reporting the impeachment investigation on its website but BBC Newsnight has been strangely quiet about it.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Nov 27, 2019 2:54:03 GMT
There's much more coverage of Hong Kong than there is of the impeachment. The whole impeachment thing looks like partisan political point-scoring to me: both parties are so entrenched in their beliefs that they begin to behave irrationality - some of it looks like Bermuda Triangle stuff to us outsiders. Well, from my political position outside of both major parties, I only see one party as being "so entrenched in their beliefs that they begin to behave irrationality", and I'd say that they have been behaving irrationally since Ronald Reagan. I'd even suggest that if you cannot parse any distinction, then your media sucks ass.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Nov 27, 2019 2:57:24 GMT
I never know what it is Brits do and do not get in terms of news on American politics. By all rights, it should be fairly peripheral to most Brits' interests.
Are you folks all ready for the Russians to meddle in your upcoming elections? What with all the 'antisemitism' bullshit flowing in the media, I see they have already started.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Nov 27, 2019 13:16:21 GMT
I never know what it is Brits do and do not get in terms of news on American politics. By all rights, it should be fairly peripheral to most Brits' interests. We enjoy the debacle without being overly affected by it.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Nov 29, 2019 11:45:25 GMT
I think anyone with a brain hates Trump. I used to think that anyone with half a brain would hate Trump unless they were a corrupt politician. But as I meet intelligent people, who have no ulterior motive and who are clearly intelligent, I am forced to conclude that it isn't true. Moreover, if we dismiss Trump supporters simply as idiots, we misunderstand half the planet. That, to me, is a frightening thought. Yesterday, I discovered the article below, which goes a long way to explaining why so many intelligent and moderately intelligent people support him. It lists 14 factors, for example, ● Practicality Trumps Morality ● The Power of Mortality Reminders and Perceived Existential Threat ● Relative Deprivation — A Misguided Sense of Entitlement ● Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201812/complete-psychological-analysis-trumps-supportMoreover, I have been listening to my right-wing friends on Facebook and trying to understand how their minds work. It is much more rewarding than dismissing them as idiots. I now have a psychology report to help me.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Nov 29, 2019 15:27:02 GMT
Pfft....Psychology Today? Okay....
You are saying that you agree that jettisoning morality for naked 'practicality' is acceptable to the 'intelligent'. So, you are okay with separating immigrant families and confining separated children to cages if it lines the pockets of Republican donors and potentially scares the bejebus out of potential illegal immigrants? That's 'practicality'? Or, fomenting a violent armed civil war just because you don't like the other party's policies? Just what kind of 'faithful' are you? This kind of behavior is reprehensible, not 'intelligent'.
So, fear, greed, and mental deficiency are the cornerstones. I note that you failed to mention the Dunning-Kruger Effect (#7), spewing conspiracy theories that target the mentally vulnerable (#10), and outright bigotry and racism (#14). Since I consider naked bigotry and racism to be hallmarks of stupidity, I think I'll stick with considering MAGAts to be stupid, morally bankrupt, and greedy assholes. This goes for the greater part of the membership of the Republican Party in the US. I still see no reason to adopt your flawed line of 'reasoning'.
Are you really working on being an apologist for morally bankrupt raging assholes?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Nov 30, 2019 0:20:45 GMT
No, he isn't. But Steve and I know people in common who are right wing and clearly have high IQs and are well read, well educated and intelligent. Stating that some intelligent people vote for Trump is not being an apologist for such people - it's simply stating a fact. It's easy to simplify things and to say that all of his supporters are unintelligent. They're not. And that scares me more than if they were.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Nov 30, 2019 3:48:19 GMT
No, he isn't. But Steve and I know people in common who are right wing and clearly have high IQs and are well read, well educated and intelligent. Stating that some intelligent people vote for Trump is not being an apologist for such people - it's simply stating a fact. It's easy to simplify things and to say that all of his supporters are unintelligent. They're not. And that scares me more than if they were. I have already stated that those with 'high IQ' very well may engage in Trump support. I also noted that I consider those people to be bereft of a morality of decency. They are merely content to the current state of affairs because, as noted in the article, they find it to be 'practical' to ignore any and all moral scruples as long as the outcome benefits them personally. We already have at least one member engaged in this, I do not think we need others to encourage such behavior. To defend that with weak 'pop psychology' is to be complicit in protecting the greedy and predatory. That's what I see, at least. How do I explain 'high IQ' people who support Trump? A: Morons need manipulators. Manipulators predate upon masses of morons and enrich themselves at the cost of everyone. Those lacking scruples are manipulators. Is any of this any surprise? Defending 'high IQ' predator parasites is not an honorable undertaking, and yet...
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Nov 30, 2019 22:34:52 GMT
I am not defending them *says mildly*. Actually, I think clever people supporting Trump is morally worse than stupid people, who might not know much better, doing so.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Dec 18, 2019 18:14:29 GMT
So Trump looks likely to be impeached. From what I can see though, this may not end well - Trump gets impeached by Dems, acquitted by Reps, plays the victim of a witch hunt, makes Dems look vindictive and desperate. This in turn makes Dems lose credibility which could make Trump even more dangerous - then he really *could* shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 18, 2019 18:22:38 GMT
So Trump looks likely to be impeached. From what I can see though, this may not end well - Trump gets impeached by Dems, acquitted by Reps, plays the victim of a witch hunt, makes Dems look vindictive and desperate. Noam Chomsky appeared on BBC Newsnight a few months ago and more-or-less agreed with you (except at that time the Dems were fixated on the Russia affair). Donald Trump's approval rating has remained steady over the passed ten months at about 42.3%. I notice it has gone up a whole percentage point in the past seven days. Clinton's affair was much more juicy.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 18, 2019 18:48:51 GMT
So Trump looks likely to be impeached. From what I can see though, this may not end well - Trump gets impeached by Dems, acquitted by Reps, plays the victim of a witch hunt, makes Dems look vindictive and desperate. This in turn makes Dems lose credibility which could make Trump even more dangerous - then he really *could* shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it. An interesting perspective. What, as an outsider, you recommend that 'we' do? I ask because this sounds like the abused spouse apology.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Dec 18, 2019 18:55:39 GMT
Sorry, I don’t follow - the ‘abused spouse’ being whom?
And as for answers, I have none I’m afraid. Britain has just committed an act of national self harm; what do we know. :/
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 18, 2019 18:58:00 GMT
So Trump looks likely to be impeached. From what I can see though, this may not end well - Trump gets impeached by Dems, acquitted by Reps, plays the victim of a witch hunt, makes Dems look vindictive and desperate. Noam Chomsky appeared on BBC Newsnight a few months ago and more-or-less agreed with you (except at that time the Dems were fixated on the Russia affair). Donald Trump's approval rating has remained steady over the passed ten months at about 42.3%. I notice it has gone up a whole percentage point in the past seven days. Clinton's affair was much more juicy. LOL. Have you seen the Fox News poll? 50% of the American public wants him impeached and removed from office. 4% just want him impeached. And only 43% don't want him either impeached nor removed. Yes, that's Fox News, the bad precedent's personal fave TV station. Keep in mind that during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, there was never more than 36% of the American public who wanted his impeachment, much less his removal. So...'juicy' or not, there is more outrage at the president now than there was then. Personally, I think you're dead wrong...Soliciting the interference of a foreign power in US elections, and withholding Congressionally approved military aid to get it, is quite a bit 'juicier' than a mutual consent blowjob. But, then, I don't adhere to your standards...
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 18, 2019 19:01:02 GMT
Sorry, I don’t follow - the ‘abused spouse’ being whom? And as for answers, I have none I’m afraid. Britain has just committed an act of national self harm; what do we know. :/ Us...the American public which is appalled at his public, and private, behavior. He is an avowed and confessed criminal in the highest office of the land....yet, you seem to be urging us to adopt the battered wife's position of not antagonizing our persecutor for fear he will hurt us again, more terribly. It is a plea to submit. My question is, until when?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 18, 2019 20:36:18 GMT
From what I can see though, this may not end well - Trump gets impeached by Dems, acquitted by Reps, plays the victim of a witch hunt, makes Dems look vindictive and desperate. ...yet, you seem to be urging us to adopt the battered wife's position. An explanation does not amount to condoning the actions.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 18, 2019 21:14:21 GMT
An explanation does not amount to condoning the actions. And failing to condemn the actions does not enable them?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Dec 19, 2019 5:04:44 GMT
I didn’t put anything in my post ‘urging’ anyone to do anything, merely commenting on how it may play out.
Here the news is reporting that democrats are impeaching but republicans will acquit. How do *you* think he’ll spin that, afterwards? Of course he’ll play the victim. That’s what he’s done so far, isn’t it?
I’m grabbing my popcorn along with the rest of the world. I sincerely hope something good comes of this. But speaking as a Brit I’m getting a bit jaded.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 19, 2019 5:21:28 GMT
An explanation does not amount to condoning the actions. And failing to condemn the actions does not enable them? Of course not, the BBC and other non-partisan media report news all the time without condemning it. I’m grabbing my popcorn along with the rest of the world. I sincerely hope something good comes of this. But speaking as a Brit I’m getting a bit jaded. My thoughts too.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Dec 20, 2019 8:16:54 GMT
This has not been in the news at all, which I think is outrageous.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 20, 2019 19:52:31 GMT
the BBC and other non-partisan media ROTFLMAOAY.....non-partisan media? BBC? Are you serious?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 21, 2019 13:15:09 GMT
the BBC and other non-partisan media ROTFLMAOAY.....non-partisan media? BBC? Are you serious? The impartiality or not of the BBC does not alter the logic of my assertion, which is that non-partisan media report news all the time without condemning it. If you read back through the thread, you will see that I said "an explanation does not amount to condoning the actions." And that therefore, "failing to condemn the actions does not enable them." I think I have made a watertight case and suggest there is no point in continuing to argue otherwise. Your attempt to side-track the discussion with a question of the BBC's impartiality does not add weight to your argument, which if you think it does, can only be seen as flawed logic.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Dec 21, 2019 23:02:40 GMT
Personally I find the BBC left wing but others argue it is right wing. It is not far left, however.
|
|