task0778
Diamond Member
1. If you state a fact, provide a link to substantiate it. If you state an opinion and it's not yours, provide a link. If you do not provide a link then whatever you post is considered to be your opinion, which by the way is fine.
2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.
3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.
The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's best interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?
Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.
It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?
My vote? NO. No more than any other president has, and not too the level of impeachment.
I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
2. No one-line fly-bys. Rationales and reasoning for your opinions are required.
3. Disagreeing with someone's post is acceptable, even encouraged, but attacking someone's post is not. If you characterize someone's post as garbage, that's an attack. If you say 'I don't believe that' or 'I don't think that's right or true', that's disagreeing and you should state why.
The line between a president's political and personal benefit for a given act may be somewhat indistinguishable from his intent to further America's best interests. For instance, one might say that Obama's decision to return billions of dollars to Iran influenced them to agree to his deal with them, thus adding to his political legacy. Was that bribery? One could say he did it to delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability which it was argued made us and our allies safer. But his legacy was enhanced, was it not? At least he thought so. How does one delineate between his benefit and ours? Could it be both?
Now look at Trump vis-a-vis Ukraine. Once Joe Biden announces his candidacy for president, should the American public not be told of any involvement he and/or his son might have had in association with Burisma and the ex-vice president's own admission that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, allegedly for looking into any possible corruption? The Bidens do not and should not get a free pass now that Joe is running for president, true? A case could be made that President Trump actually had a duty to ask the Ukrainians to look into those dealings. So, was his (Trump's) actions solely based on his political/personal well-being? I don't think that is cut and dried, there is room for doubt.
It is my opinion that other presidents have, shall we say, coerced other countries into doing his will to our benefit but also to his benefit too. Politically if not personally. Surely this is not the first time a US President has withheld aid or support of some kind to get something he wants. Are we to assume that no president ever did so without some political if not personal benefit? I ain't buying it, I think quid pro quo goes on pretty much all the time. We just may not have been made aware of the details of what really happened. So, is that fair, to single Trump out for impeachment, for doing what many other presidents have done? Did Trump abuse the power of his office?
My vote? NO. No more than any other president has, and not too the level of impeachment.
I have more debates to follow on the Trump impeachment. But rather than have one thread with all sorts of tangents, I have elected to focus on one issue at a time.
Last edited: