Trump just admitted it

gcomeau wrote:
However you want to try characterizing what happened in Ukraine the "for personal gains" part of your statement MAKES IT A CORRUPT ABUSE OF HIS OFFICE.

How is this a hard thing to understand?

Please. Every single one of your last five president abused his office for lobbying or corportive interests. Recall Bush that invaded Iraq under clearly fraudulent resoning. Recall Obama, who nade a mess out of all middle East to applease his Saudi friends.

If you think whats Trump done is a crime, then what do you suggest to do with Bush and Obama? Trump at lest did not invade anyone! So, what should we do with his predesors? Dismantle them and sell as donor organs for ill kids? Or lobotomise and put for menial job in hospital?

Basically the only Trump major difference from last US presidents - is that his victory was so unexpected, that democrats literally could not forgive him for "stealing" their assured victory. Thats why the whole mess, much, MUCH worse than for any previous president. Thats why the whole Trump de-humanization campaign. Thats why the political antagonism in US reached the highest level since the Civil War. And yes, this is serious.

Basically, democrats demonstrated quite clearly, that they prefer conflict to compromise. Problem is, the seems not to realise the cost of conflict for US society. Democrats are conservative to the bones, totally unwilling to admit that reality did not correspond with their plans & agenda.

P.S. And if I'm correct, democrats are desperate. Otherwise they would not start the impeachment campaign now, a year before presidental election.

This is... inefficient, you see: if you have one shot of heavy weapon, you should not use it immediately, just hoping that it would be enough to topple the enemy. You should wait until the deceisive battle started, and only then launch a crefully-prepared shot.

By using this shot now, democrats basically denied themselves a powerful salvo in presidental campaign. If they do not manages to get Trump now (frankly, their previous efforts were miserble failures), then they basically only made him stronger, because he would present itself as "wrongly accused", and after three years of "Russiagate" US public would kinda be ready to believe him.

The only reason for such poor timing I could conceive is desperation. Democrats spend too much time unsucsessfully attempting to neutralize the 2014 election. They have nothing to promize for US peoples now. They have no program, no unified candidate - nothing.

And if Trump would won the 2020s election, all the current Democrat leadership would be finished completely.

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
However you want to try characterizing what happened in Ukraine the "for personal gains" part of your statement MAKES IT A CORRUPT ABUSE OF HIS OFFICE.

How is this a hard thing to understand?

Please. Every single one of your last five president abused his office for lobbying or corportive interests. Recall Bush that invaded Iraq under clearly fraudulent resoning. Recall Obama, who nade a mess out of all middle East to applease his Saudi friends.

1. Your sweeping generalizations are debatable.

2. Even if we accepted them as accurate there is a VAST difference both legally and ethically between taking actions that financially benefit *other* entities, and taking actions for the explicit purpose of *directly benefiting yourself personally at the expense of national security concerns*.

Trump tried to EXTORT a foreign head of state to illegally influence the upcoming election Trump was going to be running in, withholding congressionally designated military aid as part of the process.

That is FLATLY illegal.

This isn't a hard thing to understand, why do you have such astonishing difficulty grasping it?

PS: And then there was the follow up CRIME of illegally attempting to withhold the complaint from congressional oversight.

gcomeau wrote:
2. Even if we accepted them as accurate there is a VAST difference both legally and ethically between taking actions that financially benefit *other* entities, and taking actions for the explicit purpose of *directly benefiting yourself personally at the expense of national security concerns*.

...So starting the war, destroying the whole bation and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples are MORE ethical that extort foreign leader to help dig against political opponent?...

I seriously start to wonder: should anti-Trump'ism be considered as mental condition? It seems that you would claim that Pol Pot was a nice guy, if Trump said otherwise...

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
2. Even if we accepted them as accurate there is a VAST difference both legally and ethically between taking actions that financially benefit *other* entities, and taking actions for the explicit purpose of *directly benefiting yourself personally at the expense of national security concerns*.

...So starting the war, destroying the whole bation and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples are MORE ethical that extort foreign leader to help dig against political opponent?...

1. You're talking to someone who opposed the wars in question.

2. I have argued many times that Bush and Cheney should have been prosecuted for lying the US into Iraq in particular.

3. NONE OF THIS MAKES TRUMP'S CONDUCT NOT A GROSS ILLEGAL ABUSE OF POWER. So knock off the whataboutism bullshit. If you want to debate past US wars, start a goddamn thread about it.

gcomeau wrote:1. You're talking to someone who opposed the wars in question.

2. I have argued many times that Bush and Cheney should have been prosecuted for lying the US into Iraq in particular.

3. NONE OF THIS MAKES TRUMP'S CONDUCT NOT A GROSS ILLEGAL ABUSE OF POWER. So knock off the whataboutism bullshit. If you want to debate past US wars, start a goddamn thread about it.

1. For someone being opposed to war, you are doing a remarkably poor job.

2. But nothing about good mr. Obama, yeah.

3. You should blame those who established precedent of gross abuse of power as a normal thing. Considering how little damage Trump actually done, I fail to see why should we even bother to investigate him before two previous US president would be placed on electric chair.

Seriously, your logic is flawed. You did not think that FIRSTLY should be presecuted those who established the pattern (and used it to cause enormous damage). Instead, you are hysterical about Trump, who done exactly zero damage. Sorry, but you could not stuck to the letter and the spirit of law at the same time.

P.S. And forgive me, gcomeau, but your "opposition to war" seems exactly like Lindberg's at the start of World War 2. You are opposed to reasonable defense measures, like dissolution of outdated treaties, without any consideration how exactly those treaties influenced the current situation. If it was 1941, you probably would blame Roosevelt for building new warships, because "we should try to return Japan to the Washington Treaty, not destroy it themselves!"

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:1. You're talking to someone who opposed the wars in question.

2. I have argued many times that Bush and Cheney should have been prosecuted for lying the US into Iraq in particular.

3. NONE OF THIS MAKES TRUMP'S CONDUCT NOT A GROSS ILLEGAL ABUSE OF POWER. So knock off the whataboutism bullshit. If you want to debate past US wars, start a goddamn thread about it.

1. For someone being opposed to war, you are doing a remarkably poor job.

How so, *exactly*?

2. But nothing about good mr. Obama, yeah.

Last I checked Obama didn't fabricate evidence to launch an invasion of a country.

3. You should blame those who established precedent of gross abuse of power as a normal thing.

One more time, there is NO PRECEDENT for this flagrant abuse. The two things you are talking about are *completely fucking different*.

gcomeau wrote:
How so, *exactly*?

2. But nothing about good mr. Obama, yeah.

Last I checked Obama didn't fabricate evidence to launch an invasion of a country.

3. You should blame those who established precedent of gross abuse of power as a normal thing.

One more time, there is NO PRECEDENT for this flagrant abuse. The two things you are talking about are *completely fucking different*.

1. As I mentioned above, your opposition to war looks more as appleasment of those who you considered dangerous.

2. Last I checked, during Obama regime, a whole lot of nations suspiciously "simultaneous went into chaos". Mainly those who opposed Saudi Arbia dominance, which was rigidly supported by USA despite numerous evidence of their less than pleasant ction.

And let's not even start to talk about how Obama handled the Ukrainean mess...

3. Yeah, the difference: Trump abused the power and killed no one. His predessors abused their power and killed hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions).

Seriously, gcomeau, a bit more of your anti-Trump propaganda, and his face would probably be placed on Mount Rushmore.