holy hell that Ukraine stuff

[Estebonrober]

You think the rural poor get any benefit from their party in power? They're a good percentage of who voted them there. So they take their frustration out on others.

No they don't, they control that though. They did not have to buy into the narrative that all government is evil and only out to hurt them and then vote in people who actually want to hurt them. They are literally voting in the bad guys from the Dukes of Hazard or Bonanza (using their cultural icons) and then moaning about how evil government is everyday.

 

[rah]

We will disagree on this. Those guys voting for the 'bad guys' also moan about those damn northerners or big city folks or libs. Take your choice.
And they love if it when they can piss them off.

 

[Gori the Grey]

And they love if it when they can piss them off.

And that, in fact, is what they are voting for.

 

[rah]

yeah, but some are actually racists.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

yeah, but some are actually racists.

Yeah it's hard to say they're voting against their interests when their interests are hurting people of color by denying them healthcare and food stamps even if it hurts themselves as well.

 

[Gori the Grey]

yeah, but some are actually racists.

These are not distinct things. The primary (possibly the only thing, I'll have to give it some thought) about which they enjoy pissing off the left are matters having to do with the left's celebration of racial diversity.

 

[rah]

Yes, not being one, I do not know the reason why they enjoy pissing them off. I can only guess.
My bet would be they want to knock them off their high horse, so to speak.
But as my wife would say, I am probably wrong.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you have any proof that Obama used government funds to bribe a foreign government for personal gain?

Biden waved a billion $ at Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. His son was getting millions from an oligarch who benefited from that firing. We're told its just a coincidence, but the replacement settled up with the 'exiled' oligarch and he returned home, case closed. Its a glaring conflict of interest and obvious 'bribery' (and extortion) to keep the Ukrainians from investigating anyone linked to western friends in high places.

Now that may be legal (here) since we're always bribing countries to do what we want but the line between policy and personal gain gets blurred real easy when our bribes buy protection for family and friends profiting from the corruption. What was Biden's personal gain? His son kept his job until this year. Obama's? At the very least he wanted to beat Trump, he wanted Hillary to win. A Trump win cost him his legacy. Throwing money around a corrupt country that interfered in our election is problematic.

What is Trump's personal gain? Getting Ukraine to investigate Biden. They should investigate him, he was in charge of policy during a US election subjected to Ukrainian interference. Obama's DoJ spied on Trump under the guise of investigating foreign interference in our election and their excuse - the Steele dossier - was actual foreign interference in our election. Its good to be the king.

An annual report from Burisma shows that the company donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Atlantic Council in 2018-19, according to multiple media reports.

CORRECTION: This article has been amended to include reference to reported donations by Burisma to the Atlantic Council.

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html

The Atlantic Council was one of the organizations that wanted Shokin fired and they're taking money from the same oligarch who paid Hunter millions. Another coincidence. Looks like Shokin couldn't afford The Atlantic Council's 'service'.

From the little I heard from this Shokin guy, he said the activists wanted him gone because he was investigating them for the misuse of western aid money - we told the Ukrainian prosecutors to mind their own business. I guess they didn't... The activists had western friends in high places.

Around the same time frame Obama's WH was being used to facilitate meetings between Dems and Ukrainians looking to bring down Trump should he win the nomination at the same time they were pumping him up in the media because they wanted to face him in November.

Ukrainians were badmouthing Trump, the black ledger brought down Manafort, etc... Thats why Politico published a story in Jan '17 before Trump even took office about how Ukraine was trying to make nice with Donald after they tried to get Hillary elected. Trump wanted Ukraine to do us a favor and investigate their interference in our election. Well, Democrat senators sent a letter to the Ukrainians telling them to help investigate Trump or risk our friendship yada yada.

The Dems fed lies to the FBI to spy on Trump and he wants that investigated. I'm supposed to be outraged by his reaction?

 

[Estebonrober]

Whats the matter with Kansas? Basically. I mean I've agreed with this for twelve years now and is why I switched affiliations completely around 2008. Watching the reaction to Obama and "intellectualism" did it for me. Celebrating stupidity is stupid.

Frank also claims a bitter divide between 'moderate' and 'conservative' Kansas Republicans (whom he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hot-button cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers – when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings – when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work – you could be damned sure about what would follow. Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.

— Frank, T. 2004 "What's the Matter with Kansas?", pp. 67-68
Instead of fighting for working class interests, the Democratic party, under the direction of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), effectively abandoned them by adopting economically conservative policies. To differentiate themselves from Republicans at the national level, Democrats also focused on socio-cultural wedge issues:

The Democratic Leadership Council, the organization that produced such figures as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and Terry McAuliffe, has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far outweighing anything raised by organized labor. The way to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies, "New Democrats" think, is to stand rock-solid on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation and the rest of it.

— Frank, T. 2004 "What's the Matter with Kansas?", pp. 243

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Matter_with_Kansas?

 

[Estebonrober]

Biden waved a billion $ at Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. His son was getting millions from an oligarch who benefited from that firing. We're told its just a coincidence, but the replacement settled up with the 'exiled' oligarch and he returned home, case closed. Its a glaring conflict of interest and obvious 'bribery' (and extortion) to keep the Ukrainians from investigating anyone linked to western friends in high places.

Now that may be legal (here) since we're always bribing countries to do what we want but the line between policy and personal gain gets blurred real easy when our bribes buy protection for family and friends profiting from the corruption. What was Biden's personal gain? His son kept his job until this year. Obama's? At the very least he wanted to beat Trump, he wanted Hillary to win. A Trump win cost him his legacy. Throwing money around a corrupt country that interfered in our election is problematic.

What is Trump's personal gain? Getting Ukraine to investigate Biden. They should investigate him, he was in charge of policy during a US election subjected to Ukrainian interference. Obama's DoJ spied on Trump under the guise of investigating foreign interference in our election and their excuse - the Steele dossier - was actual foreign interference in our election. Its good to be the king.



https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html

The Atlantic Council was one of the organizations that wanted Shokin fired and they're taking money from the same oligarch who paid Hunter millions. Another coincidence. Looks like Shokin couldn't afford The Atlantic Council's 'service'.

From the little I heard from this Shokin guy, he said the activists wanted him gone because he was investigating them for the misuse of western aid money - we told the Ukrainian prosecutors to mind their own business. I guess they didn't... The activists had western friends in high places.

Around the same time frame Obama's WH was being used to facilitate meetings between Dems and Ukrainians looking to bring down Trump should he win the nomination at the same time they were pumping him up in the media because they wanted to face him in November.

Ukrainians were badmouthing Trump, the black ledger brought down Manafort, etc... Thats why Politico published a story in Jan '17 before Trump even took office about how Ukraine was trying to make nice with Donald after they tried to get Hillary elected. Trump wanted Ukraine to do us a favor and investigate their interference in our election. Well, Democrat senators sent a letter to the Ukrainians telling them to help investigate Trump or risk our friendship yada yada.

The Dems fed lies to the FBI to spy on Trump and he wants that investigated. I'm supposed to be outraged by his reaction?

Such a hack. Try Occam's Razor? Whats the truth here? A few people were in on a bribery scheme involving a few lawyers and businessmen in ukraine? Or the entire western world is in on a conspiracy to fleece Ukraine that just happens to include every political enemy the right has made up in the past ten years?

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it's obvious Hunter had conflicts of interest.

I think we solved that by electing a president whose kids control and will inherit billions of dollars in obfuscated asset holdings.

I mean Trump has shown us what an American Dream can be achieved if you merely inherit hundreds of Millions. Imagine inheriting billions and political cover from 40% of the population!

 

[Berzerker]

better than taking billions in bribes

 

[rah]

Biden waved a billion $ at Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. His son was getting millions from an oligarch who benefited from that firing. We're told its just a coincidence, but the replacement settled up with the 'exiled' oligarch and he returned home, case closed. Its a glaring conflict of interest and obvious 'bribery' (and extortion) to keep the Ukrainians from investigating anyone linked to western friends in high places.

So the answer is No, you have no proof that Obama used government funds to bribe a foreign government for personal gain.
That is what Trump is being charged with. Please don't try to pretend there is an equivalence here.

 

[Arakhor]

And, even if Obama did do that, it doesn't retroactively make it legal for Trump to do it.

 

[rah]

No, of course not, but I get tired of people claiming that Obama did the same thing when there is no proof that he actually did.

 

[El_Machinae]

better than taking billions in bribes

The advantage of being a billionaire with obfuscated assets is that no one can tell if you're being bribed.

I guess you're just not going to acknowledge it. Whatever concerns you about Hunter, the Trump plan will be able to do ten times worse with greater political cover

 

[Arakhor]

No, of course not, but I get tired of people claiming that Obama did the same thing when there is no proof that he actually did.

I completely agree. My point was more that even if these crazy fringe theories were true, that still wouldn't make Trump innocent. It would just mean that should be further court cases after Trump's impeachment and removal.

 

[rah]

Which I 100% agreed with. Trump is in for a world of hurt once he leaves office. If he thinks he's being persecuted now, he's in for a rude shock.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And, even if Obama did do that, it doesn't retroactively make it legal for Trump to do it.

During this week's impeachment hearing, one of the Republicans asked the witnesses if a long list of crimes committed by past presidents were impeachable. They all were and this guy was actually trying to argue that because other past presidents did impeachable things but weren't impeached, this Ukraine scandal is a nothingburger.

Oh and one of the 'both sides' guests that PBS brought on to argue the GOP's perspective on the news tried to claim that yeah, Ukraine was bad/criminal but it is a 'one off' thing and you need a pattern to impeach. Minutes after the broadcast ended, New York Magazine published an article stating there is evidence Trump tried to shake down Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 as well. Smeh.

Also, I don't remember Clinton having a pattern of perjury but whatever...There is no shame

 

[civvver]

During this week's impeachment hearing, one of the Republicans asked the witnesses if a long list of crimes committed by past presidents were impeachable. They all were and this guy was actually trying to argue that because other past presidents did impeachable things but weren't impeached, this Ukraine scandal is a nothingburger.

Oh and one of the 'both sides' guests that PBS brought on to argue the GOP's perspective on the news tried to claim that yeah, Ukraine was bad/criminal but it is a 'one off' thing and you need a pattern to impeach. Minutes after the broadcast ended, New York Magazine published an article stating there is evidence Trump tried to shake down Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 as well. Smeh.

Also, I don't remember Clinton having a pattern of perjury but whatever...There is no shame

I thought the republicans were still saying no bribery happened.