Home

Whistleblower conspiracy theories
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 1:18 am
Another thing that I don't really understand is why Jews who support Trump's policies but find him lacking in morals, intellect, honesty, and self-control, would not find Mike Pence to be a great replacement?

To me, this makes eminent sense. I can't wrap my head around why there aren't more people who see it this way.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 1:27 am
Seeing Trump's actions as "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not exclusively a Democratic view. Mitt Romney finds Trump's actions in Ukraine to be appalling. It seems that perhaps he would prefer to see Pence be president.

To the framers of the Constitution, "high crimes and misdemeanors" particularly referred to a president who sold out foreign policy to some interest other than the national public interest. See the Federalist Papers for the discussions. They feared a president who was bought out by other countries and became a pawn (bribed or extorted) to follow the foreign policy of another country. (Trump probably does fall into this category, but without perfect proof, it makes sense that no impeachment articles are taking up this line of reasoning.) Using foreign policy to extort an ally for personal gain is very much the sort of crime that the framers were thinking of.

Anyone out there who thinks that investigating Biden wasn't about "personal gain", when this was only after Biden announced he was running for president and began to appear leading Trump in head-to-head polls--well, Mitt Romney thought that this argument "strains credulity." When a reporter asked Trump on Friday if he had ever asked any country to investigate anyone who was not his direct political rival, he could not name any other examples. The only corruption that has ever bothered Trump is the corruption of political rivals.
Back to top

Squishy




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 1:32 am
wiki wrote:
Cheiny, I read all of your responses to all of my post. I understand that you are really angry at Democrats. You have lots of attacking things to say about them. I think I could defend most of them, but that really isn't the point of the thread and to focus on them would be a distraction from most of what I wrote in the posts that you were responding to.

The point is that even if I were to concede that Adam Schiff is a lying terrible person (I don't think he is--the "lying" version of the Trump-Zelensky call that he rendered in the Maguire testimony was not meant to be understood as a quote and was not taken that way by anybody in the hearing because they all had SEEN the transcript summary themselves!), even if he were to have written the whole whistleblower report himself (he didn't), it would not change the facts that the allegations written in the whistleblower report are BEING CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE.

If you are not willing to defend Trump for withholding aid from an ally to help himself win reelection, if you're not willing to READ the transcript summary and READ the Volker texts (various forms of quid pro quo are explicit and implied) and defend them on the merits, then all you want to do is engage in ad hominem attacks on Democrats. I asked for a defense of the merits of what Trump has done; I received an attack that Democrats are foam-mouthed impeachment addicts who are bitter that the economy is good.

This is an ad-hominem line of defense. I did not attack Republicans. I (used to!) like voting for Republicans. I am troubled about Trump's lack of regard for the public interest and for democratic norms. I am concerned that military aid to an ally would be held up to advance an election. I am concerned that Trump supporters are so interested in seeing their team win and in seeing Democrats lose that they are missing the facts here.

Can you imagine if in 2012 Obama unilaterally held up Congressionally-approved aid to Israel while pressuring Israel to hurt Romney in the election? Even if Romney had done sketchy things?

Gmar chasima tova. May you, and I, and all of us find the Republic strong as ever, the Constitution strong as ever, and far more importantly, find the good in one another and the humanity behind people's views, even when we disagree.


Trump is changing democratic norms for the better. You are saying there's an implied qid pro quo. Ukraine was not aware of military aid being held up, so there can be no reliance.

OTOH those who were in power enriched themselves and those around them directly by selling influence. The Clintons biggest foreign donor was the Ukrain. Did you see the tape of Biden explaining how he held up a billion in aid in return for firing the prosecutor who would look into his son's corruption? How does Joe's coke head soon who got thrown out of the navy reserves for testing positive land a $50,000 a month job with no relevant experience? Why was Nancy girl paid by that company to do a promotional video with her son landing another lucrative job? Romney is dirty also. His chief adviser was enriched by Ukrainian interests. Kerry, McCain, and Shiff all have shameful ties to the Ukraine. Do you think Obama didn't know what was going on in his administration?

When you tell me Donald Trump is changing Democratic norms, I applaud. Being interested in uncovering this corruption is a good thing.
Back to top

Squishy




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 1:39 am
wiki wrote:
Seeing Trump's actions as "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not exclusively a Democratic view. Mitt Romney finds Trump's actions in Ukraine to be appalling. It seems that perhaps he would prefer to see Pence be president.

To the framers of the Constitution, "high crimes and misdemeanors" particularly referred to a president who sold out foreign policy to some interest other than the national public interest. See the Federalist Papers for the discussions. They feared a president who was bought out by other countries and became a pawn (bribed or extorted) to follow the foreign policy of another country. (Trump probably does fall into this category, but without perfect proof, it makes sense that no impeachment articles are taking up this line of reasoning.) Using foreign policy to extort an ally for personal gain is very much the sort of crime that the framers were thinking of.

Anyone out there who thinks that investigating Biden wasn't about "personal gain", when this was only after Biden announced he was running for president and began to appear leading Trump in head-to-head polls--well, Mitt Romney thought that this argument "strains credulity." When a reporter asked Trump on Friday if he had ever asked any country to investigate anyone who was not his direct political rival, he could not name any other examples. The only corruption that has ever bothered Trump is the corruption of political rivals.


This hit Romney too close to home. I am really ok with investigating Trump for being influenced by a foreign government. But the investigation must have the appearance of fairness and bipartisanship. This one doesn't.

I would also like the investigation to have scorched earth policy and burn every person who benifited from the Ukraine's money implied or explicit like Obama. How dare he use his administration to enrich the family of his VP?

There would be a power vacuum in those that oppose Trump.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 1:44 am
Squishy wrote:
Trump is changing democratic norms for the better. You are saying there's an implied qid pro quo. Ukraine was not aware of military aid being held up, so there can be no reliance.


1. Did you read the Volker texts? Don't respond further unless you really have read them all.
2. There were several very clear quid pro quos, although they didn't ever hear the one about military aid overtly. They were asking our state department where the money was by late August, and they had a pretty good idea of where it was.
3. As I wrote around page 12 here, even if they did not get the military aid quid pro quo in clear words, it does not matter one iota. It's just like how closing the George Washington Bridge in 2013 to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for not endorsing Chris Christie was a massive abuse of power. The mayor of Fort Lee never heard, "endorse Christie if you ever want to see your bridge lanes open again!" but the punishment timed as a consequence for not "playing ball" politically (to use the words of the State Department) is enough to be an overt abuse of power. Do you agree the Bridgegate, if it had come directly from Christie, was a flagrant abuse of power? How is this case any different?

Squishy wrote:
OTOH those who were in power enriched themselves and those around them directly by selling influence. The Clintons biggest foreign donor was the Ukrain. Did you see the tape of Biden explaining how he held up a billion in aid in return for firing the prosecutor who would look into his son's corruption? How does Joe's coke head soon who got thrown out of the navy reserves for testing positive land a $50,000 a month job with no relevant experience? Why was Nancy girl paid by that company to do a promotional video with her son landing another lucrative job? Romney is dirty also. His chief adviser was enriched by Ukrainian interests. Kerry, McCain, and Shiff all have shameful ties to the Ukraine. Do you think Obama didn't know what was going on in his administration?

When you tell me Donald Trump is changing Democratic norms, I applaud. Being interested in uncovering this corruption is a good thing.


Sure, I've seen Biden's video bragging about getting Shokin fired. He used pressure on an ally to get a result. Countries do that all the time TO ADVANCE NATIONAL INTEREST. Firing Shokin was something that America wanted; the Obama State Department, the UK, the EU, the IMF, and even MANY Republican Senators cheered it at the time!

Did firing Shokin advance Biden's personal interest? I have seen no evidence that it did. Shokin had not been actively investigating Burisma at the time. (I know, he was so upset after he was fired that be blamed it on Biden and claimed that Biden did this to protect his son. But find any evidence other than bitter Shokin to corroborate this? I have looked hard. I don't see any.)

I agree that Biden should not have let his son get money from Ukraine. Hillary also. Trump's kids are just as corrupt in this way! We should improve standards across the board in this regard. I don't think Trump's kids' foreign profits are a reason to impeach Trump, although they are unseemly.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 1:48 am
Squishy wrote:
This hit Romney too close to home. I am really ok with investigating Trump for being influenced by a foreign government. But the investigation must have the appearance of fairness and bipartisanship. This one doesn't.

I would also like the investigation to have scorched earth policy and burn every person who benifited from the Ukraine's money implied or explicit like Obama. How dare he use his administration to enrich the family of his VP?

There would be a power vacuum in those that oppose Trump.


I'm totally agree that financial corruptions should be dealt with consistently. But while we're grilling Hunter Biden, we must also include the personal financial profits of Don, Eric, Ivanka and Donald Trump.

If you'd rather leave the Trump kids out, then leave Hunter Biden alone for now too.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 2:08 pm
wiki wrote:
Cheiny, I read all of your responses to all of my post. I understand that you are really angry at Democrats. You have lots of attacking things to say about them. I think I could defend most of them, but that really isn't the point of the thread and to focus on them would be a distraction from most of what I wrote in the posts that you were responding to.

The point is that even if I were to concede that Adam Schiff is a lying terrible person (I don't think he is--the "lying" version of the Trump-Zelensky call that he rendered in the Maguire testimony was not meant to be understood as a quote and was not taken that way by anybody in the hearing because they all had SEEN the transcript summary themselves!), even if he were to have written the whole whistleblower report himself (he didn't), it would not change the facts that the allegations written in the whistleblower report are BEING CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE.

If you are not willing to defend Trump for withholding aid from an ally to help himself win reelection, if you're not willing to READ the transcript summary and READ the Volker texts (various forms of quid pro quo are explicit and implied) and defend them on the merits, then all you want to do is engage in ad hominem attacks on Democrats. I asked for a defense of the merits of what Trump has done; I received an attack that Democrats are foam-mouthed impeachment addicts who are bitter that the economy is good.

This is an ad-hominem line of defense. I did not attack Republicans. I (used to!) like voting for Republicans. I am troubled about Trump's lack of regard for the public interest and for democratic norms. I am concerned that military aid to an ally would be held up to advance an election. I am concerned that Trump supporters are so interested in seeing their team win and in seeing Democrats lose that they are missing the facts here.

Can you imagine if in 2012 Obama unilaterally held up Congressionally-approved aid to Israel while pressuring Israel to hurt Romney in the election? Even if Romney had done sketchy things?

Gmar chasima tova. May you, and I, and all of us find the Republic strong as ever, the Constitution strong as ever, and far more importantly, find the good in one another and the humanity behind people's views, even when we disagree.


The Justice Department ruled that Trump's phone call broke no law - so your opinion
that Trump broke laws is wrong and just based on blind hatred.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 2:34 pm
I'm just curious what the excuse is going to be for why Trump ordered US troops withdrawn from Syria, leaving our Kurdish allies (who were fighting ISIS for us) exposed to Turkish aggression.

1. He was just joking
2. He's the president so he has the absolute legal right to do it.
3. Don't question his vast and unmatched wisdom
4. Who cares if Muslims kill each other
5. He's trolling the libs
6. He's fulfilling a campaign promise
7. You're overreacting
8. The world hasn't blown up yet
9. Judges
10. Tax cuts
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 2:50 pm
BTW, remember when I warned Trump supporters that it's a waste of energy to defend Trump, because he won't be loyal to you? And the mods flagged my post because it was a "personal attack"?

This is a warning signal. Trump is abandoning our Kurdish allies to their deaths. They fought alongside us to root out ISIS. Trump is kicking them to the curb without a backward glance.

He'd do the same to you in an instant. To Israel, to the Jewish people, to any value you cherish that you think you're upholding by supporting Trump.

You do not need to keep doing this. You don't need to keep fighting for him and defending him. You don't even need to come out in public and say, "I erred." You could just stop supporting him and backing him. He will fall on his own.

I promise you, the Torah will survive without Trump. The Jewish people will survive. I'm still gonna swing a chicken over my head tonight and fast the next day. Am Yisroel chai.

Gmar chasima tova to all of you. Wishing you a year of light and clarity and geulah.
Back to top

itsmeima




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 4:49 pm
Jeanette wrote:
BTW, remember when I warned Trump supporters that it's a waste of energy to defend Trump, because he won't be loyal to you? And the mods flagged my post because it was a "personal attack"?

This is a warning signal. Trump is abandoning our Kurdish allies to their deaths. They fought alongside us to root out ISIS. Trump is kicking them to the curb without a backward glance.

He'd do the same to you in an instant. To Israel, to the Jewish people, to any value you cherish that you think you're upholding by supporting Trump.


You do not need to keep doing this. You don't need to keep fighting for him and defending him. You don't even need to come out in public and say, "I erred." You could just stop supporting him and backing him. He will fall on his own.

I promise you, the Torah will survive without Trump. The Jewish people will survive. I'm still gonna swing a chicken over my head tonight and fast the next day. Am Yisroel chai.

Gmar chasima tova to all of you. Wishing you a year of light and clarity and geulah.


This! It’s frightening!
Back to top

roses




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 5:13 pm
itsmeima wrote:
This! It’s frightening!


I think we're going to see more of the same as Trump continues to decompensate. Erratic, scary behavior on the world stage. Because Trump knows best, as he says, "In his great and unmatched wisdom".

Even the spineless Lindsey Graham stood up to Trump on this and told him how crazy this was
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 6:32 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
The Justice Department ruled that Trump's phone call broke no law - so your opinion
that Trump broke laws is wrong and just based on blind hatred.


Whether your opinion is correct or not will be tested when it has its day in court. Suffice it to say that Bill Barr is not the final word on the subject. The inspector general believed that the concerns about Ukraine being illegal were "credible and urgent."

And anyway, the Federalist Papers are clear that high crimes and misdemeanors can certainly include abuses that are not illegal. Consider again the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge. Not illegal.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 6:34 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
The Justice Department ruled that Trump's phone call broke no law - so your opinion
that Trump broke laws is wrong and just based on blind hatred.


Again, #BestBubby, by all means claim that I am wrong and I am happy to defend my position.

However, it is not right to call my opinions "blind hatred." You don't know me--how could you possibly know if I am hateful at all or whether my positions are arrived at blindly?
Back to top

roses




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 6:47 pm
wiki wrote:
Whether your opinion is correct or not will be tested when it has its day in court. Suffice it to say that Bill Barr is not the final word on the subject. The inspector general believed that the concerns about Ukraine being illegal were "credible and urgent."

And anyway, the Federalist Papers are clear that high crimes and misdemeanors can certainly include abuses that are not illegal. Consider again the closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge. Not illegal.


Let's also mention the clear conflict of interest in Barr dismissing or ruling on a complaint that names him in it as well. How is that ethical? And why should we trust the judgement of a corrupt AG who won't recuse himself and allow an unbiased party to rule on the case, and whether it merits a criminal investigation?

The actions of Barr and the Department of Justice are part of the whole cover-up and corruption. So yeah, what they did or did not say about the case holds zero weight- except to demonstrate Barr's complete lack of ethics and objectivity
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 9:04 pm
Jeanette wrote:
I'm just curious what the excuse is going to be for why Trump ordered US troops withdrawn from Syria, leaving our Kurdish allies (who were fighting ISIS for us) exposed to Turkish aggression.

To be honest, I'm not sure what I think about this announcement. As of right now, I can see arguments on both sides.

But let's be clear on one thing: anyone who is just now expressing concern about the Kurds is a complete fraud and regards everyone else as stupid.

Trump has pursued a policy of withdrawing from Syria since the beginning of his presidency, including reducing U.S. troops from about 2000 to the current 200-400 over a year ago. If you were concerned about Turkish aggression, the proper time to have voiced your opposition would have been in early 2018.

Here is the other thing to consider:

Lots of people are expressing disagreement with the decision to withdraw from Syria, but I have yet to see a single individual, including all the usual suspects on both sides of the aisle, articulate a clear objective of what we should do and state unequivocally exactly how many American lives they are willing to sacrifice to that end.

We need to be very, very careful when supporting actions that involve sending other women's sons to be killed.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 9:18 pm
Jeanette wrote:
BTW, remember when I warned Trump supporters that it's a waste of energy to defend Trump, because he won't be loyal to you? And the mods flagged my post because it was a "personal attack"?

This is a warning signal. Trump is abandoning our Kurdish allies to their deaths. They fought alongside us to root out ISIS. Trump is kicking them to the curb without a backward glance.

He'd do the same to you in an instant. To Israel, to the Jewish people, to any value you cherish that you think you're upholding by supporting Trump.

You do not need to keep doing this. You don't need to keep fighting for him and defending him. You don't even need to come out in public and say, "I erred." You could just stop supporting him and backing him. He will fall on his own.

I promise you, the Torah will survive without Trump. The Jewish people will survive. I'm still gonna swing a chicken over my head tonight and fast the next day. Am Yisroel chai.

Gmar chasima tova to all of you. Wishing you a year of light and clarity and geulah.

The standard of what constitutes a "personal attack" on Imamother is inconsistent at best and capricious at worst. So while I don't exactly see that it's a personal attack, it's definitely silly.

I have yet to meet a Trump voter, let alone an avid supporter, who would even consider the possibility that Trump might be "loyal" him or her as an individual or even to a group to which he/she belonged.

People voted for and support Trump because they believe he is the best of the available individuals to lead the country. That's all. They expect him to do his best for the U.S. in situations where there may be no good or easy solutions; they don't expect to agree with everything he does.

All of your attempts to make this into some kind of personal loyalty issue are simply wrongheaded and slightly bizarre. I'm assuming it's some kind of attempt to infantalize Trump voters by slyly suggesting that they have succumbed to a cult of personality, but except for the small group of people who earn a living by boosting him (e.g., "Diamond and Silk" and similar figures), I've never met anyone or even interacted with anyone on social media who fits that stereotype.

Here's what I find ironic: the places where Trump's policies and actions are treated to the most critical analysis and where people have the most meaningful discussions about what's going well and what isn't going well in his presidency are . . . among pro-Trumpers.

Once everyone is relieved from rebutting endless "orange man bad" nonsense, we can actually disagree with President Trump and one another.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 9:27 pm
I'm not one to manufacture tons of brand-new outrage about retreating from Kurdistan, either. I generally support the idea of not being entangled in endless Middle East wars. That said, the situation here seems deeply troubling because:

1) Lindsey Graham and Nikki Haley and Mitch McConnell are furious. Considering how many other offenses sent them defensive of the president, this one must be serious.
2) The timing is quite sketchy: Trump announced this withdrawal without consulting his defense agencies and moments after he got off the phone with Erdogan. Does our foreign policy follow marching orders from Erdogan? Super troubling.
3) Trump's willingness to turn 180 on his allies doesn't inspire confidence. I hope Israel never gets thrown under his bus.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 9:33 pm
Adding to the sketchy timing: Trump is also suddenly considering withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty, which is a treaty we share with NATO allies to track Russian military action.

Some members of Congress were very alarmed about this today: https://foreignaffairs.house.g.....l.pdf

It's almost as though Putin knows impeachment might be coming, and has asked for Trump to fulfill his whole foreign policy to-do list right now.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 9:57 pm
wiki wrote:
Adding to the sketchy timing: Trump is also suddenly considering withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty, which is a treaty we share with NATO allies to track Russian military action.

Some members of Congress were very alarmed about this today: https://foreignaffairs.house.g.....l.pdf

It's almost as though Putin knows impeachment might be coming, and has asked for Trump to fulfill his whole foreign policy to-do list right now.

Again, I think reasonable people can make arguments on both sides of this, but let's not gloss over the details.

Here's an article in Time -- hardly a Trump mouthpiece -- going back to 2017 on the nature of Open Skies and concerns about it. Time

The question must be, "Is Russia getting more out of it than we are?" None of us can say, but that's a question that has been floating around for some time. Improvements in satellite photo technology will obviously at some point render Open Skies irrelevant and/or change the value for both the U.S. and NATO countries.

As for the ridiculous Putin accusation, I'm afraid I can't keep up. I thought Trump was agitating Putin by leaning on Ukraine? Or was that last week? And didn't Jeanette claim Trump isn't loyal to anyone or anything? So why would he be loyal to Putin or Ukraine?

Anyway, given the current state of NATO, the most positive impact it provides is allowing Trump to keep Ric Grenell firmly ensconced in Berlin, thereby performing one of the most delightful examples of psychosexual trolling in anyone's memory.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Mon, Oct 07 2019, 10:04 pm
wiki wrote:
I'm not one to manufacture tons of brand-new outrage about retreating from Kurdistan, either. I generally support the idea of not being entangled in endless Middle East wars. That said, the situation here seems deeply troubling because:

1) Lindsey Graham and Nikki Haley and Mitch McConnell are furious. Considering how many other offenses sent them defensive of the president, this one must be serious.
2) The timing is quite sketchy: Trump announced this withdrawal without consulting his defense agencies and moments after he got off the phone with Erdogan. Does our foreign policy follow marching orders from Erdogan? Super troubling.
3) Trump's willingness to turn 180 on his allies doesn't inspire confidence. I hope Israel never gets thrown under his bus.

Here's an idea: rather than jumping to conclusions about what is "troubling" and what isn't, let's all wait and see how this plays out. Scott Adams wrote an op-ed in the WSJ about the need to wait until all facts emerge rather than concocting theories that just happen to align with our preconceived ideas.

As I said, I don't know if this is a good decision or not. It might be a bad one. But the information we've gotten so far is too sketchy to draw any true conclusions.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 18 of 19 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Anti vaxx is an anti Jewish conspiracy 0 Wed, May 15 2019, 10:56 am View last post
Dental conspiracy?
by amother
26 Mon, Jan 28 2019, 11:34 pm View last post
by nchr
What's one conspiracy theory you actually believe? 109 Sun, Oct 28 2018, 1:07 pm View last post
Right Wing Conspiracy?
by Mevater
4 Thu, Oct 04 2018, 10:54 am View last post
Conspiracy Theories
by mom127
30 Fri, May 06 2016, 10:09 am View last post

Jump to: