President Trump

[Zarathustra]

On Brinn's question....yes, Trump being Trump probably believed it would advance his personal interests. So? All Presidents wind up making decisions which advance their personal interests, because "securing my legacy", "fulfilling a campaign promise", or "if I do this it will increase my chances of being re-elected" are all instances of "advancing my personal interests". So...Trump is "guilty" of doing what every POTUS has done? Breathtaking.

That may be true to some extent but my concern is his disregard for coherent foreign policy and his willingness to subjugate US security interests to his own personal interests. In truth, he probably didn't even realize that what he was doing threatened US security interests as he's neither smart enough to understand the ramifications nor is he wise enough to take counsel from those who are.

How does investigating the Bidens threaten our security interests?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

On Brinn's question....yes, Trump being Trump probably believed it would advance his personal interests. So? All Presidents wind up making decisions which advance their personal interests, because "securing my legacy", "fulfilling a campaign promise", or "if I do this it will increase my chances of being re-elected" are all instances of "advancing my personal interests". So...Trump is "guilty" of doing what every POTUS has done? Breathtaking.

That may be true to some extent but my concern is his disregard for coherent foreign policy and his willingness to subjugate US security interests to his own personal interests. In truth, he probably didn't even realize that what he was doing threatened US security interests as he's neither smart enough to understand the ramifications nor is he wise enough to take counsel from those who are.

How does investigating the Bidens threaten our security interests?

Funnily enough, one might've thought your question would be, "How does withholding aid threaten our security interests?"

[Zarathustra]

+JMJ+

That may be true to some extent but my concern is his disregard for coherent foreign policy and his willingness to subjugate US security interests to his own personal interests. In truth, he probably didn't even realize that what he was doing threatened US security interests as he's neither smart enough to understand the ramifications nor is he wise enough to take counsel from those who are.

How does investigating the Bidens threaten our security interests?

Funnily enough, one might've thought your question would be, "How does withholding aid threaten our security interests?"

I don't know, ask Biden! You know, the guy who openly bragged about doing exactly this? Remember him? Why is withholding aid a nonissue for Biden, but an impeachable offense for Trump? The thing you guys are calling a "threat to our security interests" is exactly what Trump wanted to investigate. But curiously, when Trump wants to investigate a "threat to our security interests," it's no longer a matter of national security, but only a personal benefit.

Do you honestly think the rest of the country doesn't see this double standard??

[Brinn]

Withholding aid weakens the Ukraine's ability to resist Russia both economically and militarily. Also, I have no double standard. If Democrats want to censure Biden or even force him out of the race that's fine by me. I subscribe to very few (if any) Democratic positions regarding foreign policy so I can't really be painted with the partisan inconsistency that your argument appears to hinge upon.

I've answered your question and would be interested in your honest answer to my question above regarding the likelihood of Trump's true aims in withholding the aid. I'm genuinely interested in your answer as well as The Fallen and Ex Nihilo's.

[Zarathustra]

I've answered your question and would be interested in your honest answer to my question above regarding the likelihood of Trump's true aims in withholding the aid. I'm genuinely interested in your answer as well as The Fallen and Ex Nihilo's.

No problem.

If withholding aid is a national security issue, then it doesn't matter what Trump's motivations are for wanting to investigate a national security issue. If it did matter, such that it would be not only wrong but impeachable for him to investigate any matter than might benefit him politically, then the President's hands would be tied in national security matters any time his own political fortunes would align with the outcome of the act in question. For instance, it benefited Obama politically to kill Bin Laden. Does this mean he shouldn't have killed Bin Laden? Of course not.

The bar is lowered in this case because people hate Trump and see him as an opportunist. Actions which literally raised no eyebrows when Biden did it are now all of a sudden impeachable. It makes no sense.

Granted, you are consistent in criticizing both. But if you truly believe Biden may have done something wrong, then why would it be wrong for Trump to want it investigated?

Also, I do not think it has been established that Trump withheld aid as an "extortion" or "bribery" as people have been alleging. Where's the evidence? If Trump's motives actually matter, it doesn't matter what we imagine them to be. It matters what you can show that they are. The appearance of nefarious motive might be enough to start an investigation, but not impeach. Not without hard evidence.

But that's only if motive matters. I honestly don't think it does if he was investigating a legitimate national security issue. The question we should ask is: was it an abuse of power? It should never be an abuse of power for the President to look into national security issues, even if doing so happens to align with his political fortunes. The good of the country is not mutually exclusive with the good of the President. That used to be obvious, until TrumpHate blinded us and changed the rules.

[Brinn]

That really didn't answer the question as posed. I'm merely asking for your honest opinion here.

[Zarathustra]

I honestly don't know. If he withheld the aid in order to put pressure on Ukraine to do the investigations, it seems like he would have mentioned it, and there would be some evidence of it. But even if that is precisely why he withheld the aid, I would have no problem with it.

[Brinn]

Granted, you are consistent in criticizing both. But if you truly believe Biden may have done something wrong, then why would it be wrong for Trump to want it investigated?

It would seem obvious to me that, taken at face value, your argument would boil down to the President investigating the withholding of aid via... the threat of withholding aid! That doesn't seem odd to you? Could the next president then investigate Trump for withholding aid?

I can understand that you view Trump as the enemy of your enemy but you aren't in any way concerned with the normalization of bald-faced lying, or his foreign policy by personal whimsey and cable TV, or him surrounding himself with sycophants, yes-men and family members?!?! He is a dullard with zero integrity. Even worse, he's a dullard who thinks he's a "very stable genius" with a "very good brain" which is even more dangerous. The "R" next to his name on the ticket isn't enough for me to get behind him. If this guy was a Democrat (which he was) I'd be crucifying him. Can't we expect more of our leaders?!?!

[Brinn]

]I honestly don't know. If he withheld the aid in order to put pressure on Ukraine to do the investigations, it seems like he would have mentioned it, and there would be some evidence of it. But even if that is precisely why he withheld the aid, I would have no problem with it.

I know you don't know but I'm asking for your opinion. Which is more likely in your opinion, given what you do know of the man and the situation.

[Zarathustra]

Granted, you are consistent in criticizing both. But if you truly believe Biden may have done something wrong, then why would it be wrong for Trump to want it investigated?

It would seem obvious to me that, taken at face value, your argument would boil down to the President investigating the withholding of aid via... the threat of withholding aid! That doesn't seem odd to you?

hell yeah it seems odd to me! That's my whole point. The Democrats want to impeach Trump for investigating be very thing that they accused him of doing.

I personally don't have a problem with withholding aid. I used that as a way to poke holes in the arguments of the Democrats. I think it is much more important to focus on what was trying to be accomplished by withholding of the aid. And the case of Biden, the objective seems to be to stop investigations into corruption, whereas trumps appears to be restarting investigation into corruption.

I can understand that you view Trump as the enemy of your enemy but you aren't in any way concerned with the normalization of bald-faced lying, or his foreign policy by personal whimsey and cable TV, or him surrounding himself with sycophants, yes-men and family members?!?! He is a dullard with zero integrity. Even worse, he's a dullard who thinks he's a "very stable genius" with a "very good brain" which is even more dangerous. The "R" next to his name on the ticket isn't enough for me to get behind him. If this guy was a Democrat (which he was) I'd be crucifying him. Can't we expect more of our leaders?!?!

I understand that those are commom complaints about Trump, but you realize they are irrelevant to the issue at hand, don't you? The fact that you bring them up in this context I think is revealing of your true motivations here, and that is not so much Trump's alleged wrong doing now, but the "crime" of being Trump in the first place. This only gives ammo to the arguement that all this impeachment stuff is just a pretext for getting rid of a guy that you already did not like before it this even came to light.

[Zarathustra]

]I honestly don't know. If he withheld the aid in order to put pressure on Ukraine to do the investigations, it seems like he would have mentioned it, and there would be some evidence of it. But even if that is precisely why he withheld the aid, I would have no problem with it.

I know you don't know but I'm asking for your opinion. Which is more likely in your opinion, given what you do know of the man and the situation.

in my opinion it is unlikely that he withheld the aid in order to put pressure on Ukraine, because the Ukrainians claim they didn't even know the aid was withheld. However, I do not think your two options are the only options possible. Maybe he is just a micro managing control freak who wanted to review the entire Ukrainian policy before releasing the aid. Or maybe he held it back as an insurance policy, for a future bargaining chip.

[Brinn]

I understand that those are commom complaints about Trump, but you realize they are irrelevant to the issue at hand, don't you? The fact that you bring them up in this context I think is revealing of your true motivations here, and that is not so much Trump's alleged wrong doing now, but the "crime" of being Trump in the first place. This only gives ammo to the arguement that all this impeachment stuff is just a pretext for getting rid of a guy that you already did not like before it this even came to light.

I'll readily admit that I didn't like the guy before this came to light. He's given me plenty of reasons prior to this most recent one. These common complaints are completely relevant as Trump's handling of the Ukraine situation is a symptom of these faults.

Just one more nail in a coffin he's building for himself.

[Brinn]

in my opinion it is unlikely that he withheld the aid in order to put pressure on Ukraine

This truly surprises me.

[Skyweir]

OMG ... its in his his transcript ... Giuliani admits it openly. Mulvaney cried no quid pro quo ... then as the corroboration came to light he walked it back .. with there was quid pro quo so what?

Are you listen to the sound bytes only?

The talking points and sound bytes arising from the Trump admin

All governments do this
All POTUSes benefit personally from the office
Its normal negotiating

All BS ... there are rules and laws AND the US Constitution prohibits the misuse of office

The Constitution, rules of office and laws exist to safeguard against acts of bribery and extortion ...

The Constitution et al exist to make bribery and extortion and abuse of office an impeachable offence.

Why?

Because its ok? No

Because they are criminal acts.

You are NOT supposed to use your position in government to secure personal favours.

You are in office to ... what is it Trump says right ... to make America great again.

This weakens America in sooo many ways.

[Gaius Octavius]

How does it weaken America? You guys will still beg us for money and protection in wars.

[Skyweir]

It affects the way the US is viewed ... how Trump is viewed representing your State has a huge impact on Americas standing in the world.

That affect is significant and potentially damaging.

The US who has been seen as an icon of democracy,, liberty and freedom, and has for decades been a respected global leader ... is losing traction in interglobal engagements.

Extorting an aid recipient for personal gain is one thing ... being caught with one hand in the cookie jar ... is in itself a game changer.

The impact of this presidency has .. and will continue to undermine global relations, trade, the economy. The reason? Its lack of confidence that effects the stock market, its lack of confidence that affects global relationships.

The ripples will be felt for generations.

And its not just this cookie jar grab ... its domestic policy ... rolling back on water purity standards, its the damage to US agricultural industry, and a whole host of national protections that the Trump admin have rolled back.

[Zarathustra]

Brinn, I have really enjoyed our discussion. I want to point out to others that it is possible for two people to be diametrically opposed on an issue, even for one to think the absolute worst of Trump, and for these strong feelings not to bleed into personal attacks and judgment.

These common complaints are completely relevant as Trump's handling of the Ukraine situation is a symptom of these faults.

That's circular reasoning. You assume these complaints are relevant because you assume that they are exhibiting themselves in the Ukraine situation. However, if there is nothing wrong with the Ukraine, then these aren't faults manifesting as symptoms. Your bias against Trump is s self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Savor Dam]

These common complaints are completely relevant as Trump's handling of the Ukraine situation is a symptom of these faults.

That's circular reasoning. You assume these complaints are relevant because you assume that they are exhibiting themselves in the Ukraine situation. However, if there is nothing wrong with the Ukraine, then these aren't faults manifesting as symptoms. Your bias against Trump is s self-fulfilling prophecy.

B: The latest behavior conforms to a pattern exhibited by prior examples. Extrapolation would not come amiss.

Z: No; you are assuming that the latest ambiguous behavior is related to a prior sequence of similarly ambiguous behaviours. As long as there is a credible narrative that this latest story arc is isolated and misinterpreted, the contention that all prior arcs are also invalid and unrelated can be maintained.

Ah, no.

[Brinn]

That's circular reasoning. You assume these complaints are relevant because you assume that they are exhibiting themselves in the Ukraine situation. However, if there is nothing wrong with the Ukraine, then these aren't faults manifesting as symptoms. Your bias against Trump is s self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't believe I'm assuming anything not clearly visible to anyone who cares to look. Would it not also be possible that you are merely defending a position in which you have become ideologically entrenched? You appear willing to provide Trump with an overly generous benefit-of-the-doubt. One that you have not historically provided to those on the other side of the aisle.

Of those few who have responded to my simple question (including conservatives such as myself, Hashi, The Fallen and Savor Dam as well as true independents such as Avatar) only you have indicated that you believe it is more likely that Trump was more concerned with the security of the country than personal political gain. Do you find that odd? Why do you think other intelligent conservatives answer that question differently than you?

I believe there is currently a much higher probability that my position is correct and your position is not. It's OK to admit to and disagree with poor behavior when you see it. I guess I have a much higher standard and expect much more from leaders on our side of the aisle.

[Zarathustra]

That's circular reasoning. You assume these complaints are relevant because you assume that they are exhibiting themselves in the Ukraine situation. However, if there is nothing wrong with the Ukraine, then these aren't faults manifesting as symptoms. Your bias against Trump is s self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't believe I'm assuming anything not clearly visible to anyone who cares to look.

You are arguing by caricature. Just because Trump has some characteristics that are easy to lampoon doesn't mean that you can conclude that what has happened with Ukraine is a symptom of these things you don't like about him. It's the laziest kind of reasoning there is. It's like an argument from the View. A bunch gossip and assumption.

Let me illustrate the problem logically: suppose it wasn't Trump who wanted the Biden thing investigated, but instead it was the Democrats. Maybe their critics would argue that the Dems were only worried that his questionable dealings would be a detriment to their electoral hopes in 2020 and the Dems were trying to boot him out of the race for their own political benefit, but they claim they were honestly pursuing justice, and the fact that they are willing to prosecute one of their own proves their pure motives.

Would it be an abuse of power for the Dems to have investigated Biden? What if they were the ones to hold up aid for this purpose?

If the answer is yes, it's an abuse of power for the Dems to do this, we're left with the absurd conclusion that Biden is above the law, because neither the Dems nor Trump (or by association, the Reps) can investigate him! If the answer is no, it's not an abuse of power, this means that withholding aid and demanding an investigation is only wrong depending on who does it (even though there are political ramifications for each). So we're left with either an absurd stalemate, or a contradiction. If right and wrong changes depending on who is doing the act, then we're not really talking about right and wrong. It's just an argument of political opportunism, one particularly tailored to attack Trump, based--ADMITTEDLY!--on his personal characteristics which are factoring into your interpretation of the events. So, because he has these things which you don't like about him, you hold him to a higher standard such that he could not do acts that his political rivals could get away with, without being impeached.

That's bullshit, all the way around.

Would it not also be possible that you are merely defending a position in which you have become ideologically entrenched?

Which ideology is that? When have I voiced an ideology in this context?

You appear willing to provide Trump with an overly generous benefit-of-the-doubt. One that you have not historically provided to those on the other side of the aisle.

I'm not providing him the benefit of the doubt. Man, it's like you're not even reading my posts. I said that I have no problem with him withholding aid, even if it's for the reasons you suspect. That's not the benefit of the doubt that his motives are purely altruistic. It's me having a different standard than you. I don't care if he uses his position to go after Joe. He's the President. Every president, just as every Congressman, uses their position for personal gain. Since his personal gain in this case means defeating the Dems, I'm all for it. It's no different from Obama using his presidential power to personally ask Ukraine to investigate Paul Manafort in 2016, or, for that matter, the Dems using their power to investigate Trump.

Of those few who have responded to my simple question (including conservatives such as myself, Hashi, The Fallen and Savor Dam as well as true independents such as Avatar) only you have indicated that you believe it is more likely that Trump was more concerned with the security of the country than personal political gain.

I didn't say that at all! Seriously, man, if you're going to criticize what I say, then I insist that you read what I say. You cut off my point mid-sentence when you quoted it (in a previous post) to say how surprised you were. The rest of my sentence didn't say anything about the security of the country. It said that I doubt he withheld aid to pressure Ukraine because the Ukrainian government reported that they didn't even know the aid was withheld. My argument wasn't based on my guess of his motives or a caricature I've constructed. It was based on the facts. You can't have pressure when the people you're trying to pressure don't know about the pressure. It's makes no freaking sense. Explain that in "Trump has bad qualities" terms. You can't.

The other guesses I've listed as to his motives also made no mention of national security.

Do you find that odd? Why do you think other intelligent conservatives answer that question differently than you?

Is this an attempt to shame me into conformity with the group? I'm not sure what you're doing with this question. Argument by groupthink?

I take pride in being an original thinker who can stand on his own. After all, I was the first and only person here for a long while that predicted Trump would win the nomination and then the Presidency. I'm perfectly fine with my track record and have no problem being at odds with others. I don't think it's odd at all. I think you guys need to catch up. LOL.