Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[Flystripper]

So its less tiresome to talk about the actions of past politicians not in office than to talk about the president that is currently in office. I will never understand you Ted. Instead of using your acute intelligence to actually talk about this you fire up the link-o-matic. You are one strange dude.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is all so tiresome. Whether Biden or Obama were crooks when in office has nothing to do with what Trump did or didn't do. I am so sick of whataboutism. Can we just stipulate that most (if not all) politicians are shady and that if they do illegal acts we all should want them punished, and/or removed from office, and/or from elections so we can actually talk about what our current president is doing and not what our last president and vice president did?

Agreed. Whataboutism is a form of intellectual laziness. Hate it.

[SeattleUte]

Comes from the Axios link that you said was entirely consistent with your argument.

Of course, that site has more detailed information by providing links to the NY times, the LA times, npr, and the New Yorker.

Biden should not have been involved AT ALL in getting Ukraine to fire a prosecutor charged with investigating for corruption a company for which his son was a director. It was a conflict of interest. Really, this is not complicated or even debatable. What the prosecutor was actually doing may be debatable, but the impropriety of what Joe Biden did is not debatable. Axios concludes he was in a conflict of interest.

[SeattleUte]

Agreed. Whataboutism is a form of intellectual laziness. Hate it.

Fuck. Biden is running for president. What are you and FS talking about? That's a separate issue form Trump, who may be toast, regardless of the indubitable fact that what Joe Biden did was wrong and maybe should mean he should withdraw.

[SeattleUte]

Also, if you want to argue or suspect that the impeachment inquiry is politically motivated (of course it is) and not motivated also by national interest, it is fair game and an effective argument to point out that democrats have engaged in similar conduct and there was no outrage or cries for impeachment. This is a valid argument and not whataboutism. It goes to the credibility of the accusers. We are dealing with complicated facts.

[creekster]

Eddie, he hid these on a server we wasn't supposed to. Just as he did with the Ukraine phone call details. As far as I know, it's unprecedented. I don't think the general public needs to have access to them, but they shouldn't be hidden in such a manner that it would be hard for an investigator to know they exist sans a whistleblower.

Congress is having a hard time learning what Trump spoke with Putin about in Helsinki. He isn't hiding things from the media, he's hiding them from oversight. I guess where you and I differ, is you give Trump the benefit of the doubt, and your default suspicion falls on democrats and the media. Trump's life is full of examples of dishonesty, beyond the usual political hijinks. I think the mainstream media, who has the unenviable job of covering a man who has at times wished violence on them, gets things right a lot more often than wrong. Certainly, the media reporting on Trump's actions doesn't equal anything conspiratorial.

Frank I think your concern is overblown for several reasons. First, he did not hide them. They were still available to the inner circle of advisors who had access to the highly classified server. Second, the existence of the less accessible server was known to everyone in the executive branch and probably outside the executive branch as well, including the IS people that set it up. This is not a matter of using an extra-governmental system. It was a server system used to segregate information from more accessible systems. Third, no one knows just how 'precedented' it was because no one in the past has provided a catalog of how it was used or when or under what circumstances. Claiming it was 'unprecedented' is not supported at this point, particularly given that we all know these exist and no one is claiming anything was destroyed. Fourth, it was not a whistleblower who revealed that other transcripts were also on the highly classified server. to the contrary, it was a leak, or an unnamed source, who revealed this. The precise number and dates of such transcripts is not clearly known, at this point. Fifth, the existence of the server system itself is NOT suspicious nor is it improper. Any president needs a place to put highly sensitive or classified information that it does not want to be available to leakers.

Is it ideal? Misclassifying information is never ideal. Casually disregarding norms for classifying information is also a bad idea, whether it be under or over classifying it. But there has been no claim that anything was permanently destroyed or altered WRT to these other transcripts. It MIGHT be that the transcripts reveal more self-dealing. I am sure the House will look at this. But to date there is no information stating if this is true. For all we know, the transcripts were locked up because Trump looked like a clown in talking to Putin or others.

And what is the basis for your conclusion that congress is having a 'hard time' learning about this? Is this because of the fact the documents are on the highly classified server or because Trump isn't cooperating? Congress normally does not have access to such information anyway. The specific server has not made a difference.

As to the media, I agree they get the facts right more often than not. My problem with much of the media is that in the last 25 years it has become almost impossible to find the line between editorializing and reporting. It may be the reason you like the majority of media coverage is that for the most part the opinions offered align with your own opinions., But I am speculating about that.

[imanihonjin]

Fuck. Biden is running for president. What are you and FS talking about? That's a separate issue form Trump, who may be toast, regardless of the indubitable fact that what Joe Biden did was wrong and maybe should mean he should withdraw.

I am not sure why this is so hard for some folks. In this situation, both Biden and Trump's acts are inextricably tied, if the allegations are true. Either they are both wrong or they are both tolerable. That isn't a whataboutism, it is simply asking folks to have integrity as to the position they hold.

[creekster]

Agreed. Whataboutism is a form of intellectual laziness. Hate it.

Not every comparison is whataboutism. Whataboutism is used as often as an illegitimate shield as it is an illegitimate sword.

[Flystripper]

Fuck. Biden is running for president. What are you and FS talking about? That's a separate issue form Trump, who may be toast, regardless of the indubitable fact that what Joe Biden did was wrong and maybe should mean he should withdraw.

Um I said:

Can we just stipulate that most (if not all) politicians are shady and that if they do illegal acts we all should want them punished, and/or removed from office, and/or from elections so we can actually talk about what our current president is doing and not what our last president and vice president did?

Get rid of Joe Biden. I am good with that.

[BlueK]

Biden should not have been involved AT ALL in getting Ukraine to fire a prosecutor charged with investigating for corruption a company for which his son was a director. It was a conflict of interest. Really, this is not complicated or even debatable. What the prosecutor was actually doing may be debatable, but the impropriety of what Joe Biden did is not debatable. Axios concludes he was in a conflict of interest.

Biden and representatives from several European countries wanted that prosecutor fired because he wasn't investigating corruption, including into the company Biden's son had a connection to. Under the previous two regimes, corruption was a major problem in Ukraine, which Europe and the US at the time wanted to have them address before sending money or military aid.

[Uncle Ted]

Also, if you want to argue or suspect that the impeachment inquiry is politically motivated (of course it is) and not motivated also by national interest, it is fair game and an effective argument to point out that democrats have engaged in similar conduct and there was no outrage or cries for impeachment. This is a valid argument and not whataboutism. It goes to the credibility of the accusers. We are dealing with complicated facts.

JL and the Dems are so focused on one thing (i.e., "impeach the mother f***er!") they can't see the facts. They are madly scraping around trying to dig up anything to impeach him with and keep coming up with nothing. But it is really the same political sh*t (or sch*ff), different day or really just a different party.

It is really great entertainment. The dumb Dems are going to blow this election if they don't get their sch*ff together.

[Uncle Ted]

Get rid of Joe Biden. I am good with that.

Yes, get rid of the old white man and bring on the "native american" lady. Send Bernie to a hospital in Cuba so he can enjoy socialized medicine.

[Jeff Lebowski]

JL and the Dems are so focused on one thing (i.e., "impeach the mother f***er!") they can't see the facts. They are madly scraping around trying to dig up anything to impeach him with and keep coming up with nothing. But it is really the same political sh*t (or sch*ff), different day or really just a different party.

It is really great entertainment. The dumb Dems are going to blow this election if they don't get their sch*ff together.

Irony alert!

[frank ryan]

Um I said:



Get rid of Joe Biden. I am good with that.

If this is the worst thing Biden has done, he sounds like a good candidate

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not every comparison is whataboutism. Whataboutism is used as often as an illegitimate shield as it is an illegitimate sword.

Doesn't change my point at all. Whataboutism is a cancer that is rotting our national dialogue. Not to mention that it is boring as hell.