Honda VTX Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
I guess any stupid liar can make up a meme. And it looks like poor spelling and ignorance of history counts too.

I still like Mittens. I think he was mistaken in voting to convict Trump, but he clearly chose a path that he knew would result in catching lots of heat. Personally, I think Trump WAS guilty of inappropriate conduct, but I would not have voted for his removal. In fact, I think his guilt is very much similar to the Clinton impeachment, where the President was obviously guilty of obstruction of justice by having directed his lawyers and other witnesses to lie, and he personally lied under oath as well. But in each impeachment trial, where the only options are acquittal vs. removal from office, the Senate decided that the punishment was too extreme for the misdeed. It was only in reflection that I realized the 1998 Senate had probably made the right call regarding Clinton. Despite the clear fact that Clinton committed perjury, they chose to leave him in office, based on two political considerations - fuzzy threshold of whether his lies constituted "high crimes", and the fact that no one wanted to see VP Gore ascend to POTUS.

But enough with my opinions, and back to the stupidity and inaccuracy of the meme -
It's an obvious and stupid lie to say Romney is first Senator to vote to convict a President of his own party. Many Repubs voted to convict Johnson in 1868.
Claiming the President is more popular in UT than Romney is also false. Part of what gave Romney the freedom to vote however he chose was the fact that he has much stronger numbers in Utah than does Trump. And if you read recent polls from Salt Lake City, most Utah voters approve of Romney voting guilty.

I laughed at "WORM out his welcome". I guess folks who are eager to smear with zero facts don't get a chance to proof-read. ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,549 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Well Dud, I'm certainly glad you took time to research the impeachments.
I'll be sure , in the future, to keep an eye out for any questionable & misspelled memes for you to correct. Should keep you distracted & busy for awhile.

Distractions also work on 5 year olds...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,533 Posts
I guess any stupid liar can make up a meme. And it looks like poor spelling and ignorance of history counts too.

I still like Mittens. I think he was mistaken in voting to convict Trump, but he clearly chose a path that he knew would result in catching lots of heat. Personally, I think Trump WAS guilty of inappropriate conduct, but I would not have voted for his removal. In fact, I think his guilt is very much similar to the Clinton impeachment, where the President was obviously guilty of obstruction of justice by having directed his lawyers and other witnesses to lie, and he personally lied under oath as well. But in each impeachment trial, where the only options are acquittal vs. removal from office, the Senate decided that the punishment was too extreme for the misdeed. It was only in reflection that I realized the 1998 Senate had probably made the right call regarding Clinton. Despite the clear fact that Clinton committed perjury, they chose to leave him in office, based on two political considerations - fuzzy threshold of whether his lies constituted "high crimes", and the fact that no one wanted to see VP Gore ascend to POTUS.

But enough with my opinions, and back to the stupidity and inaccuracy of the meme -
It's an obvious and stupid lie to say Romney is first Senator to vote to convict a President of his own party. Many Repubs voted to convict Johnson in 1868.
Claiming the President is more popular in UT than Romney is also false. Part of what gave Romney the freedom to vote however he chose was the fact that he has much stronger numbers in Utah than does Trump. And if you read recent polls from Salt Lake City, most Utah voters approve of Romney voting guilty.

I laughed at "WORM out his welcome". I guess folks who are eager to smear with zero facts don't get a chance to proof-read. ?
I think Trumps inappropriate conduct is somewhat debatable as that is still somewhat subjective. Clinton lying under oath is a fact. If Clinton had just said, "yeah, we did that, io the oval office ... and I'd do it again!" Then nothing more would have come of it. Hell Kennedy was a philandering cheat and no one cared. A president cheating, even if subjectively inappropriate is not cause for impeachment. It certainly is not cause for removal from office. Lying under oath, while not IMHO an offense that merits removal from office, could be argued as such based on trust. But yes, this is all opinion. Additionally, IMO, it is Biden who acted inappropriately. When sexual exploits and infidelities are exposed on the campaign trail, that is fair game, and revealing grossly inappropriate and criminal action on the part of a possible candidate is not, we have what I'd call an imbalance. If Biden is guilty, Trump should get a pass. He did the nation a service ... which is hos job. If Biden is innocent, then Trump acted inappropriately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
I think Trumps inappropriate conduct is somewhat debatable as that is still somewhat subjective. Clinton lying under oath is a fact. If Clinton had just said, "yeah, we did that, io the oval office ... and I'd do it again!" Then nothing more would have come of it. Hell Kennedy was a philandering cheat and no one cared. A president cheating, even if subjectively inappropriate is not cause for impeachment. It certainly is not cause for removal from office. Lying under oath, while not IMHO an offense that merits removal from office, could be argued as such based on trust. But yes, this is all opinion. Additionally, IMO, it is Biden who acted inappropriately. When sexual exploits and infidelities are exposed on the campaign trail, that is fair game, and revealing grossly inappropriate and criminal action on the part of a possible candidate is not, we have what I'd call an imbalance. If Biden is guilty, Trump should get a pass. He did the nation a service ... which is hos job. If Biden is innocent, then Trump acted inappropriately.
Lamar Alexander and several other Senators expressed their view that Trump's linkage of aid to a Biden corruption investigation was inappropriate. I agree with them. But (with the exception of Romney), it appears that we are all agreed that this action (regardless of appropriateness or lack thereof) did NOT rise to the level of removal from office.

Now, let's move on to where you've actually jumped off the rails. "If Biden is innocent, then Trump acted inappropriately." - Nope, that makes no sense at all. Regardless of whether Biden was actually a corrupt co-conspirator in his son's cushy employment or not, the obvious appearance of conflict of interest makes Trump's investigation request perfectly fine in my book. Raising the question isn't wrong, no matter what the answer turns out to be. But where the line for appropriateness is crossed is the hold-up of military aid, that had already been voted into law by Congress and then approved by the Pentagon, once they certified that Ukraine would apply it effectively.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
I will not believe that Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden's influence was inappropriate until it is proven that if Biden did interfere with and/or influence the killing of the original corruption, he was the only one complicit in that/those actions. He was the sitting VP of the US at the time. It would not be a stretch to think that there could have been others involved, all the way up to the President's office. Until all the facts are public we cannot know what Trump knows, and he may know that it did not begin and end with Biden and son. If so, he would have every right, not to mention the duty, to get to the bottom of the situation regardless of the fact that Biden is trying to run against him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,164 Posts
Romney's number one problem as a Republican is that he has morals and ethics. This is what motivated him to vote against Trump and it's why he rubs many Republicans the wrong way. He's only an 'unforced error' in the respect that his religious beliefs are crippling his political career as a Republican. Obviously not all Republicans have abandoned their morals, but enough have during the Trump era to tarnish the party as caring more about party/career than ethics.

This says it well;
Republicans Are Now Conceding Their Core Values
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,533 Posts
Lamar Alexander and several other Senators expressed their view that Trump's linkage of aid to a Biden corruption investigation was inappropriate. I agree with them. But (with the exception of Romney), it appears that we are all agreed that this action (regardless of appropriateness or lack thereof) did NOT rise to the level of removal from office.

Now, let's move on to where you've actually jumped off the rails. "If Biden is innocent, then Trump acted inappropriately." - Nope, that makes no sense at all. Regardless of whether Biden was actually a corrupt co-conspirator in his son's cushy employment or not, the obvious appearance of conflict of interest makes Trump's investigation request perfectly fine in my book. Raising the question isn't wrong, no matter what the answer turns out to be. But where the line for appropriateness is crossed is the hold-up of military aid, that had already been voted into law by Congress and then approved by the Pentagon, once they certified that Ukraine would apply it effectively.
Yeah, I should have said "If Biden is innocent, then it could be argued Trump acted inappropriately." Your point goes back to the whole "quid pro quo" argument. The only people that said there was pressure is the bunch that wanted him gone. The arguments for withholding the aid has been largely established as benign and was not withheld because of anything to do with Biden. New government that needed to stablize before handing over hundreds of millions. Yes it would have been inappropriate for Trump to hold promised moneys based on a return favor against a political rival. I thought that was disproved. Ukraine got their money and did not proceed with said investigation. Or do I misunderstand the order of this?

I will not believe that Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden's influence was inappropriate until it is proven that if Biden did interfere with and/or influence the killing of the original corruption, he was the only one complicit in that/those actions. He was the sitting VP of the US at the time. It would not be a stretch to think that there could have been others involved, all the way up to the President's office. Until all the facts are public we cannot know what Trump knows, and he may know that it did not begin and end with Biden and son. If so, he would have every right, not to mention the duty, to get to the bottom of the situation regardless of the fact that Biden is trying to run against him.
I think Dud is saying that asking was not inappropriate, but rather to hold aid as a carrot would have been. As I stated, I don't believe that happened. As such, he was doing his job in trying to expose a criminal wanting to become POTUS. A guy like Biden should never become POTUS IMO, based on that criminal wrong doing alone. Personally I don't think that level of pressure was ever proven, nor experienced. Again JMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
I think most Republicans are simply being pragmatic. Trump has glaring flaws, but he also has many strengths that are totally necessary in the current hyper-partisan world. If your world-view is “whatever I need is my right to have, and therefore it’s the government’s job to provide it”, then you aren’t likely to vote Repub. If you see the folly of endless freebies, you aren’t likely to vote Dem. It’s the normal ‘lessor of two evils’ decision.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
...
I think Dud is saying that asking was not inappropriate, but rather to hold aid as a carrot would have been. As I stated, I don't believe that happened. As such, he was doing his job in trying to expose a criminal wanting to become POTUS. A guy like Biden should never become POTUS IMO, based on that criminal wrong doing alone. Personally I don't think that level of pressure was ever proven, nor experienced. Again JMHO.
I would still view the withholding of aid as appropriate, IF Trump knew of a larger issue than just Biden acting out of nepotism. To go further, Biden was the sitting VP. If Trump's motivation was not for political gain then I believe he'd be warranted to hold the aid until Ukraine cooperated. Of course in our hyper-partisan times he'd have to be able to prove this motivation was not simply political. For instance even if Biden was the only one involved AND there were other instances of similar behavior by him, any of which might be used to compromise US National Security in some way.
At the very least Biden's actions were beneath the Office, and if he was a Pub it would have been deemed a crime by the other side and the mainstream media. In reality he should be held accountable for his behavior. And in the court of public opinion I think this is happening. Hence his campaign hanging by a thin thread at this time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,533 Posts
I would still view the withholding of aid as appropriate, IF Trump knew of a larger issue than just Biden acting out of nepotism. To go further, Biden was the sitting VP. If Trump's motivation was not for political gain then I believe he'd be warranted to hold the aid until Ukraine cooperated. Of course in our hyper-partisan times he'd have to be able to prove this motivation was not simply political. For instance even if Biden was the only one involved AND there were other instances of similar behavior by him, any of which might be used to compromise US National Security in some way.
At the very least Biden's actions were beneath the Office, and if he was a Pub it would have been deemed a crime by the other side and the mainstream media. In reality he should be held accountable for his behavior. And in the court of public opinion I think this is happening. Hence his campaign hanging by a thin thread at this time.
This is what I said that if Biden is innocent, then an argument could be made it was inappropriate. I tend to agree with you on this, but on the flip side, one could argue there is a disconnect in military aid and an American politicians wrongdoings. I get that Burisma is a publicly held company and the Ukraine gov't has a responsibility in any corruption, but there is also an argument to be made that this was an American issue and needs to be investigated by Americans. All I'm saying is that an argument could be made that way, I'm not subscribing to it. I tend to agree that the President, knowing what went on, would have been wrong to let it go, just because Biden was hoping to be president. Perhaps it was even more important to expose it, just because Biden was hoping to become president. It could be a slippery slope, but Biden is dirty as sin, and should have to answer for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
... The arguments for withholding the aid has been largely established as benign and was not withheld because of anything to do with Biden. New government that needed to stablize before handing over hundreds of millions. Yes it would have been inappropriate for Trump to hold promised moneys based on a return favor against a political rival. I thought that was disproved. Ukraine got their money and did not proceed with said investigation. Or do I misunderstand the order of this?
No, the withholding of funds was not proved to be benign, and it was not disproved that Trump's motive in directing that funds be withheld was related to Biden. Although some folks might choose to interpret the impeachment thru that lens, a more accurate interpretation in my opinion would be that the Senate did not think the issue rose to the level of requiring the President's removal from office. And I think the Senate decided correctly. As for the overall timeline, here is a straightforward sequence of what I consider to be relevant events. This is not opinion; it's simply a chronological series of facts.

On Feb 15, 2019, Congress passed the last section of the Fiscal Year 2019 budget. This budget included a total of $391 million in military aid for Ukraine.

On Feb 28, 2019, the Trump administration informed Congress it was releasing the aid to Ukraine, although no aid was released at this point.

On May 23, 2019, DOD recertified that Ukraine had taken substantial actions to decrease corruption, increase accountability, and sustained improved combat capability enabled by U.S. assistance. DOD recommended providing $125 million in military assistance, including for counter-artillery radars and defensive weapons.

In June 2019, aid to Ukraine was placed on hold. Lt. Col. Vindman claims he learned of this hold in July.

On July 25, 2019, Trump and Zelenskiy had the phonecall where Ukraine was asked to ‘look into’ the Biden corruption / conflict of interest issues.

On Aug 12, 2019, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Senate and House intelligence agencies, alleging that Trump had “solicited interference from a foreign country”.

On Sept 11, 2019, the military aid to Ukraine was released. (By the way, in accordance with budget legalities, the money appropriated for FY2019 must be spent by end of Sept.)

On Sept 20, 2019, the Wall Street Journal published a story that publicized the potentially contentious content of the July 25 Trump-Zelenskiy phone call.

On Jan 16, 2020, the Government Accountability Office issued its report concluding that the withholding of Ukraine security assistance was a violation of law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,533 Posts
No, the withholding of funds was not proved to be benign, and it was not disproved that Trump's motive in directing that funds be withheld was related to Biden. Although some folks might choose to interpret the impeachment thru that lens, a more accurate interpretation in my opinion would be that the Senate did not think the issue rose to the level of requiring the President's removal from office. And I think the Senate decided correctly. As for the overall timeline, here is a straightforward sequence of what I consider to be relevant events. This is not opinion; it's simply a chronological series of facts.

On Feb 15, 2019, Congress passed the last section of the Fiscal Year 2019 budget. This budget included a total of $391 million in military aid for Ukraine.

On Feb 28, 2019, the Trump administration informed Congress it was releasing the aid to Ukraine, although no aid was released at this point.

On May 23, 2019, DOD recertified that Ukraine had taken substantial actions to decrease corruption, increase accountability, and sustained improved combat capability enabled by U.S. assistance. DOD recommended providing $125 million in military assistance, including for counter-artillery radars and defensive weapons.

In June 2019, aid to Ukraine was placed on hold. Lt. Col. Vindman claims he learned of this hold in July.

On July 25, 2019, Trump and Zelenskiy had the phonecall where Ukraine was asked to ‘look into’ the Biden corruption / conflict of interest issues.

On Aug 12, 2019, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Senate and House intelligence agencies, alleging that Trump had “solicited interference from a foreign country”.

On Sept 11, 2019, the military aid to Ukraine was released. (By the way, in accordance with budget legalities, the money appropriated for FY2019 must be spent by end of Sept.)

On Sept 20, 2019, the Wall Street Journal published a story that publicized the potentially contentious content of the July 25 Trump-Zelenskiy phone call.

On Jan 16, 2020, the Government Accountability Office issued its report concluding that the withholding of Ukraine security assistance was a violation of law.
Thanks for the clarification. So Ukraine got their aid and did not further investigate Biden?

I still think that Trump requesting a look into shenanigans that should affect one's eligibility to run for office was a public service. I can see your argument, and it is not without merit. Either way, as you mentioned, we agree it did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, justifying removal from office. I believe Biden should have to answer for this, and someone should make restitution to the tax payers of America. These guys spend tax payer money like it's some sort of treasure chest, with no accountability to the people providing the cash, and for their own personal gain. Definitely not cool!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,642 Posts
It was not all about Biden. Ukraine had previously admitted to trying to tamper with our elections and this was an issue also. Biden was just a part of a larger smelly mess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,410 Posts
Thanks for the clarification. So Ukraine got their aid and did not further investigate Biden?
That's correct. Ukraine got their aid without announcing an investigation of Biden. But it should be noted that this release of funds occurred AFTER the whistleblower complaint was filed with both House and Senate intelligence committees. Now, I think we all understand that just because things happen in a given sequence doesn't prove A caused B, but there was certainly no proof that the two events (complaint filed >> funds released) were unrelated. Given the anecdotal details of Bolton's claims, I actually think its reasonable to believe Trump did indeed hold up the funds in order to apply leverage and get the investigation he desired. And even if he did, I still don't particularly care. It might have been inappropriate, and it may well have been a violation of law, as concluded by GAO, but in my mind, it still doesn't rise to the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Perhaps the only honest person about the whole thing was Chief of Staff Nick Mulvaney, who initially said "Get over it... this sort of stuff happens all the time". I think he is exactly right. When a country gives hundreds of millions of dollars to another, it ALWAYS comes with strings attached. Of course we want some accommodations; that's kind of whole point of diplomacy; seeking outcomes that are beneficial for both sides.

To sum it up, I think Trump essentially got a speeding ticket. Yep, he violated an ICA regulation. Big deal. We don't sentence speeders to life in prison, and we don't throw Presidents out of office for a little heavy-handed diplomatic pressure. My 2 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,143 Posts
There was MUCH more to the call than dirt on the Bidens, and there's NO PROOF that aide was withheld to force an investigation. EVERYONE in the House Impeachment hearings admitted as much. In fact, they admitted Trump said emphatically, "No quid pro quo." Even the Ukrainian leader admitted there was no coercion or arm-twisting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,012 Posts
The aid was released before the end of Sept deadline. The Ukraine President said there was no Quid Pro Quo, There was no bribery or extortion proved either.
You Butt hurt Dems need to get over it. You know who you are.
As a side note if Nadler gets his way, there will be another move to impeach in the House before the election. If he gets his way the dims will go down in flames.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top