iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,919
- 1,600
dude fuck off on all the attacks. it makes you look 12. I realize that's a step up for you but just shut the fuck upJapan?? Why not visit Ukraine so you could dig up some more Repub BS on how they invaded our 2016 election?I am after equal justice. now you are on attack.false equiv, to me, means you put more stock into 1 comment of a phone call than you do someone deleting potential evidence and attempting to destroy the trail.people could delete 33k requested pieces of evidence and the left will cover for them.
when trump actually does this, holler. i'll go after him with you and demand he gets locked up. til then we have plenty of examples of what the left HAS IN FACT DONE that the left simply won't acknowledge as being "wrong".
Let me see. You are talking about Hillary Clinton. Is she POTUS? Mmmm no. Was she POTUS? Mmmm no. Was she investigated? Mmmn yes - to hell and back. Did she do something wrong? Yes. She was found to be careless but fortunately no classified material was found to be mishandled. Now. What of it? In the scope of things it was dumb. It was careless. No argument there. But it's not up there with rape, murder, corruption, or fraud. It was investigated and we are done with it. Except for the Trumpists.
There are plenty of examples of wrong doing by the left I can think of that are wrong....Weiner's weener comest to mind. But I like stick to facts not conjecture and I kind of think it's important not to make false equivalencies. When there is wrong doing by a president - it's significantly higher than that of a lesser appointed official IMO - and like Hillary Clinton, there are those in Trump's cabinet who have had to serious problems - but they aren't the POTUS.
we've got to get back to right/wrong being the same or we'll never bridge this ever growing divide.
Yes ... but you also can't say all wrong doing is equal, and I don't mean by party I mean in terms of the act and the position of the person who committed it. The more powerful the position, the greater the power they can wield, the effect they can have, the audience they can reach and - the greater responsibility they have.
"With great power comes great responsibility" - is very very true. We seem to have forgotten it. People are not "equal" in that sense.
Consider too, the POTUS is somewhat protected from the consequences of his actions (it is now decided a sitting president can not be indicted). That is certainly not equal. So how do things like that square in terms of basic rights and wrongs? Wrong is still wrong but justice is meted out very differently. IMO doesn't that confer a greater responsibility on the powerful person?
How do you square all this?
you want trump impeached cause he said look into bidens activities but i've never heard you once dive into "said activities" and justify billions that went to the urkraine and back home to them.
Incorrect. I don't know if I want him impeached - imo, that is determined by Congress and personally I would rather let the electorate decide at this point.
What is wrong - and this gets to the point you made above on right/wrong is that using the power of the presidency to coerce another country to ANNOUNCE an investigation into a political rival (apparently they didn't even really have to do it, they just had to make a public announcement) - is an abuse of power, there is no other way to put it. If any other president did it, we would be outraged.
He did NOT use normal channels - channels that were aware of and concerned with national security and diplomatic initiatives in regards to Ukraine.
He did NOT use normal law enforcement channels to conduct an investigation.
Why?
The only answer I keep hearing is "...but Biden"....but what about Biden?
The military CLEARED Ukraine for the release of the promised aid - stating that they had made significant steps towards cleaning up corruption. So...why then withhold said aid?
IF there is actual evidence to support an investigation into Biden (and thus far the only argument I have heard is that they have gotten rich from Ukraine) - then why not use our law enforcement agencies to look into it? The only reason I can think of is there likely isn't any real evidence to support an investigation and that is why he sent Guilliani.
If there is real evidence- then do it. Otherwise - there is little difference between the Bidens and frankly the Trumps who have gotten rich from investments in foreign countries, including Ukraine.
Corruption is serious, but you need more than circumstantial evidence when you are the most powerful man in the world going after your most threatening political rival in an election year, promoting a debunked conspiracy theory in the process - that looks really bad.
if trump did it, again - i'd join you in locking him up. i'd demand it. i don't care he's on MY SIDE. it's illegal and wrong. so at this point i could say "obama and biden could bilk the taxpayers for billions and the left won't care" and at least i correlate what i say to actions done. not play "what if" games.
But here is the thing...
I GET that you want equality on both sides - I feel that too. But are you not attenpting to FORCE it through a false equivalency? At this point in time there is no evidence either Obama or Biden have done anything wrong. No testimony, nothing. At this point in time - the bad behavior really is on Trump - what he did is, imo - not necessarily a crime, but a terrible abuse of power. I see it like saw it with Nixon. It isn't good.
There are many presidents on the right who I have disliked their policies, but I never saw this failing of character - Bush, Reagan come to mind. So imo - it's not a partisan view, but a matter of right or wrong.
also I'm after equal justice for all. this "she's not POTUS", while music to my ears, doesn't mean Trump is help to a different set of laws.
I get you hate Trump. I get you'll defend Hillary and the actions of the left to the death.
I also get that's why we are divided as we are.
No. You don't get it, Not at all.
You aren't after equal justice if you choose to characterize the two issues the way you are. My immediate response is: "I get you hate Hillary. I get you'll defend Trump and the actions of the right to death."
I tried to provide a serious thoughtful post and that's the reply I get?
First, Trump is not being judged on ONE PHONE CALL. That's the false narrative the right is spreading. There is multiple testimony given UNDER OATH - on multiple situations surrounding these events - several phone calls, and a series of actions taken over time. When you boil it down to "you hate Trump" and "the actions of one phone call" you are being dishonest, blatantly so - or deliberately ignoring the larger picture which includes using US resources to pursue a debunked conspiracy theory at the risk of our national security interests vis a vis Ukraine.
Clinton was investigated to hell and back, multiple times - and you on the right are still yammering after her. I honestly don't get it. She's done for politically, she lost the election, the investigation concluded that she was careless but no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her for it, and you are still yammering for "justice" - well, that is "justice".
Let me ask you this: is there any difference between you, refusing to accept the results of the investigation over Hillary's emails - and the left, refusing to accept the results of the Mueller investigation and clamoring for "justice" on collusion? Any difference?
In the meantime - what different set of laws is Trump being held to? Be specific.
Clinton was investigated. She testified UNDER OATH.
Trump is being investigated. But you (the right) are opposing even that investigation! Trump has not testified UNDER OATH.
So...hmmm....who exactly is being granted more favorable treatment here?
if you want to investigate, go ahead. it's all we do anymore.
just add Obama money laundering to the list. we actually have a paper trail there and not just a phone call.
and I'm in Tokyo this week and don't have the same time to post as usual due to work. apologies it's not up to your satisfaction.
