The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Danny Bateman]

10 minutes ago, Redux said:

So, this doesn't count as quid pro quo?

 

 

 

It's been explained to you why this isn't quid pro quo.

 

Biden didn't get anything out of it. Ukraine and the rest of the world did.

 

Compare that to Trump leveraging taxpayer funds for personal gain for help in an election.

 

It's not hard to see the difference.

[Landlord]

8 minutes ago, Redux said:

So, this doesn't count as quid pro quo?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it doesn't. Because he was operating on behalf of the U.S. Government (and in cooperation with many other governments) for our interests and at the proper direction given to him in his job. And because the text at the beginning is unsubstantiated claims.

[Redux]

Holy blinders Batman

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, Redux said:

Holy blinders Batman

How is it blinders? If Trump did literally the exact same thing as Biden we wouldn't be in this predicament that is a fact. The difference isn't R and D. It isn't a hate for Trump. The actions are just completely different.

 

Biden held IMF loans(international money) Trump held taxpayer funds. Biden held the funds to fire a prosecutor, Trump held funds to get an announcement of investigation into a political rival by a foriegn country. Biden held funds with approval of congress, POTUS and the IMF, the ones giving the loans out whereas Trump held the funds with approval of his cronies and disapproval of everyone else.

 

They keep talking about all of the conditions being met and vetted for the aid Trump held. The difference in the situations can essentially be boiled down to the conditions were met with Trumps whereas a condition to get the aid Biden held was Shokin. That wasn't coming from Biden, but the instead a condition from higher up. If for some insane reason a congressional condition of the aid to Ukraine was to open an investigation into Bidens then Trump would have done nothing wrong. Unfortunately that was only a condition for Trumps personal interest.

[funhusker]

4 hours ago, Redux said:

 

Google is a private company that doesn't have to abide by Freedom of Speech because social media and tech have community standard loopholes.  How do you go about putting a number on costing someone a presidential nomination, or funding to campaign?  There isn't a way to gauge her losses here.  And it's blatantly shady, just like Trump and Biden.

That’s why they aren’t the same.  We can’t put a price on one.  But can put a literal price on the other: $390M and a WH meeting for the “announcement” of a sham investigation.  One Situation would be decided by frivolous lawsuits, the other Constitutional procedures.  

The government is actually working like it’s supposed right now.  I say enjoy it 

 

[Redux]

1 minute ago, funhusker said:

The government is actually working like it’s supposed right now.

 

[Cdog923]

38 minutes ago, Redux said:

Holy blinders Batman

 

[Redux]

22 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

 

Yep, that's me, trying to make sense of things being illegal for one but not the other.  It's cray cray.

[Nebfanatic]

18 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Yep, that's me, trying to make sense of things being illegal for one but not the other.  It's cray cray.

What did Biden have to gain personally from getting a corrupt prosecutor fired? 

[Redux]

11 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

What did Biden have to gain personally from getting a corrupt prosecutor fired? 

 

He literally says he wouldn’t give them aid unless they fired the prosecutor that was going to investigate burisma...which his son worked for.  But it's only corrupt to help family when dumbass Trump does it I guess.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

He literally says he wouldn’t give them aid unless they fired the prosecutor that was going to investigate burisma...which his son worked for.  But it's only corrupt to help family when dumbass Trump does it I guess.

First of all, they were investigating Burisma from 2010-2012, a time Hunter was not involved in the company. Secondly, for the 13 months Shokin was prosecutor, not a single major figure was convicted for any crime..that is because he was known for starting investigations in order to blackmail the target of said investigation for money and never finish the investigation. If Biden wanted his son to be protected from the law he would have left Shokin in place.

[knapplc]

At this point, if you can't see what's in front of your eyes you either don't want to see or simply cannot see.

 

One is partisanship, and I guess, OK. Whatever. Choose your side. People supported the South during the Civil War and all that.

 

But if it's just plain stupidity... dang.

 

[Cdog923]

58 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Yep, that's me, trying to make sense of things being illegal for one but not the other.  It's cray cray.

 

It's been explained to you multiple times at this point. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you aren't capable of understanding. 

[Redux]

Oh there's some clear partisanship and stupidity going on here, could not agree more.  Condemn one and pardon the other.  Practice what you preach, they are all guilty.  But since Biden is a potential candidate against Trump and it happened under Obama's watch it must be totally okay.

[Redux]

3 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

It's been explained to you multiple times at this point. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you aren't capable of understanding. 

 

Yeah I'd like someone who doesn't spend their days and weeks pissing and moaning about Trump to explain it to me once.  I get the feeling it wouldn't sound the same as it does in these threads.  Grind that ax though...