Trump

[wufan]

Really? One is a president wanting time to negotiate to have political capital in his country. The other is a candidate seeking help from a foreign government in getting elected. One is a negotiation to try to mutually benefit both countries, the other is to benefit one country and one individual. Still not seeing a difference?

I disagree with your take. I don't read it the way you do. Perhaps you could post the rest of the conversation so I could get the full context.

[wufan]

The question is quickly becoming how this will affect Trump's ability to work with Congress. 2018 is rapidly approaching and there is reason to believe some incumbent Republicans are in shaky elections where support of Trump could be a factor in their re-election.

If only a few Republicans find it to their advantage to create some distance from Trump, then the Republicans effectively lose control of Congress. That would create a Congress unable to actually accomplish much of anything.

There have been some comments about the Dems creating the nuclear option that the Repubs are now using. I see some similaerities between what the Repubs did with Benghazi to what the Dems are now doing with Russia.

The posts about, "if there was a crime, then prosecute" could be applied to Benghazi. The investigations into Benghazi went on for years and years without prosecution. Now that the tables are turned and there is suspicion of the Republican side engaging in questionable activities, why would the Dems not pursue it well past the "beating a dead horse" stage like the Repubs did with Benghazi?

I was 100% with you for the first two paragraphs. The third and fourth paragraphs don't follow the logical flow of the first two and seem to be a different point? Not sure...

[wufan]

You don't press charges and prosecute while the investigation is underway.

. Right. So they should investigate and then press charges if it is believed that a crime was committed.

[ShockCrazy]

I disagree with your take. I don't read it the way you do. Perhaps you could post the rest of the conversation so I could get the full context.

How about just read the article that we are discussing? It was linked.

[Kung Wu]

There is a bit of difference between negotiating with a foreign country to rise to power and negotiating with a foreign country in terms of diplomacy operating as a head of state. I hope you are able to recognize the difference.

Sure there's a difference. Want lots of examples of Bill Clinton and the DNC taking Chinese money to "rise to power" and "stay in power"?

Or do you want examples of Hillary and Bill accepting an undisclosed sum of about $2.3 million from the Russians for potentially helping them gain control over 20% of America's uranium -- while Hillary was a secretary of state?

When Obama made his comment, he was not only the President. He was also a presidential candidate seeking reelection.

[Aargh]

I was 100% with you for the first two paragraphs. The third and fourth paragraphs don't follow the logical flow of the first two and seem to be a different point? Not sure...

Good catch. That's definitely two concepts expressed in a single post.

The second point (final two paragraphs) is a bit of a "what goes around comes around" comment.

[ShockCrazy]

Sure there's a difference. Want lots of examples of Bill Clinton and the DNC taking Chinese money to "rise to power" and "stay in power"?

Or do you want examples of Hillary and Bill accepting an undisclosed sum of about $2.3 million from the Russians for potentially helping them gain control over 20% of America's uranium -- while Hillary was a secretary of state.

Maybe they did maybe they didn't, if they can be charged, charge them. THE POINT IS OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT SOUGHT AID FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO GET ELECTED. Why is this a consistent misdirection at every freaking point, why every time our SITTING PRESIDENT is accused or looked at negatively the response is always but Clinton's bruh. It doesn't help and does not reflect well. If the Clinton's are such an unmitigated disaster don't you find it sad Republicans are basically claiming it's all fine because he'll still stumble over their obscenely low bar? Doesn't that feel shameful to say every time? "Yeah he's bad but at least he's not the absolute worst."

[wufan]

Maybe they did maybe they didn't, if they can be charged, charge them. THE POINT IS OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT SOUGHT AID FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO GET ELECTED. Why is this a consistent misdirection at every freaking point, why every time our SITTING PRESIDENT is accused or looked at negatively the response is always but Clinton's bruh. It doesn't help and does not reflect well. If the Clinton's are such an unmitigated disaster don't you find it sad Republicans are basically claiming it's all fine because he'll still stumble over their obscenely low bar? Doesn't that feel shameful to say every time? "Yeah he's bad but at least he's not the absolute worst."

First, the point is that the presidents son sought info for his dad to get elected. It might be more, but let's stick to the facts.

Second, while I agree that drawing equivalencies should not be done, unless the goal is to show that Trump and Hillary are equally deplorable (which I think IS often the goal of republicans), this particular item of debate was a requested proof. Someone ACTUALLY asked if anyone else had done this, and someone ACTUALLY found a potentially suitable example.

[shockmonster]

at least he's not the absolute worst."

First of all Trump's policies are quite good. Jobs are up. My 401k is actually making money again. We have a good SCOTUS Justice. I think he should quit tweeting and Yada, yada, yada ive said what I don't like many times.


I totally with your above statement and if Hillary had won she would have been worse.

[ShockCrazy]

First of all Trump's policies are quite good. Jobs are up. My 401k is actually making money again. We have a good SCOTUS Justice. I think he should quit tweeting and Yada, yada, yada ive said what I don't like many times.


I totally with your above statement and if Hillary had won she would have been worse.

Pray tell what policies? I'm aware of no significant actual changed policy. What has been passed? We are headed for the 3rd most ineffective session of Congress despite the Republicans having full control, the two less effective were Republican Congresses under Obama.

[Aargh]

First of all Trump's policies are quite good. Jobs are up. My 401k is actually making money again. We have a good SCOTUS Justice. I think he should quit tweeting and Yada, yada, yada ive said what I don't like many times.


I totally with your above statement and if Hillary had won she would have been worse.

If your 401K wasn't making oodles of money under Obama, when the Dow more than doubled in value, you have a mighty poor service handling your 401k.

[SB Shock]

Can you show a single case where someone running for President has been offered and (at the very least) attempted to accept a political advantage from a foreign national? We might be on precedent-setting ground here.

t

Maybe you missed the Politico imvestigation where Ukraine was trying to help Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

[jdmee]

Who died and made you a lawyer? Or even a judge. Or even your qualifications which permit you to interpret the law in this manner?

Safe to say that no one has ever crossed this ethical threshold before.

Hubert Humphrey was offered help by the Russians when he ran against Nixon. Back on those days, politicians were more honest, so he turned the offer down.

And still most politicians are more honest than Donald John Trump and his family.

Not a lawyer and don't work in legal field. But I am just trying to say there is a huge gap between "I don't like it" and breaking the law.

[jdmee]

Legality is far from an open and shut case, for either side.

Can't argue with you.

The text I quoted stated talk to a prostitute isn't illegal unless you agree to do the deed. I disagreed, and was trying to point out solicitation does not require agreement. However, simple conversation does not equate solicitation. Please feel free to come up with a better example.

[shockfan89_]

Maybe you missed the Politico imvestigation where Ukraine was trying to help Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ackfire-233446

This actually seems worse than what Don Jr did? The meeting with the Russian citizen was proposed to Don Jr, he didn't seek them out. The DNC actually encouraged collusion with a foreign government. Why wasn't the media outraged by this? Why don't we have congressional investigations and a special counsel for this? Was this reported by the DNC as a campaign contribution?

A veteran DNC operative who previously worked in the Clinton White House, Alexandra Chalupa, worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists from both Ukraine and America to dig up Russia-related opposition research on Trump and Manafort. She also shared her anti-Trump research with both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to the Politico report.

The Politico report also notes that the DNC encouraged Chalupa to try to arrange an interview with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to talk about Manafort’s ties to the former pro-Russia president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort previously advised.