Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Biden made that video to score personal points. But at the time, he was representing stated US administration policy! It isn't (and cannot be) legal policy to investigate non-existent servers, and Biden's SON (not Biden himself) even after both the dismissed prosecutor and his replacement have said there was no there there.

Right, so we are supposed to take Biden and his son's word for it, but not Trumps? Again, being held to a double standard. If we impeach Trump for his comment (note, not actions), then we should investigate Biden and his son for their ACTIONS.

I sit on corporate boards, Hunter Biden has ZERO skillset to justify his sitting on the board of a Billion+ dollar energy company. He got that spot because of his dad, and because of the access to his dad that it affords.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: TradingInvest
Actually talking about quid pro quo is the distraction. It was actually blackmail. The US Congress had already appropriated the money for the Ukraine to help them resist further Russian aggression - i.e. Crimea. They already had the right to the money. Trump threatened to withhold it unless they did him a personal political benefit. Thus the TWO crimes were blackmail AND soliciting a foreign government to meddle in a US election. If you think that conduct is ok - probably not much to. discuss. If you believe t hat would be "wrong" but you don't believe it happened, then Trump should be releasing the actual recording of the. conversation - remember it was a "perfect" phone call.

Of course some people believe Trump was a great businessman - despite the fact that NO US bank would loan him money?? Truly boggles the mind on the disconnect.

I can only be blackmail if the person being held over a barrel knows they have to do something to release the funds. The Ukranians have stated they didn't know the funds were withheld. And even though Congress authorizes the funds, the law is clear: the executive branch can withhold them (for pretty much any reason) until they feel that criteria have been met to release them. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, holding things up for a month is a nothing-burger. Heck, most in Congress wanted it held up (at a different time - in the spring IIRC).

FYI, according to reports there have not been "recordings" of presidential phone calls since Nixon. That's why there are only transcripts available and that is why everyone is bickering about the exact wording of the transcript.
 
Not true, it was a clear quid pro quo (fire the prosecutor - who was also investigating his son - or you don't get the aid). He's on video saying it. It far more egregious than what the Dems accuse Trump of.

All the factual news sources I have seen have said that the prosecutor Biden was pressuring the Ukrainian government to fire was not investigating his son. The only ones saying that prosecutor was are right wing news sources with sketchy records with factual reporting.

Right, so we are supposed to take Biden and his son's word for it, but not Trumps? Again, being held to a double standard. If we impeach Trump for his comment (note, not actions), then we should investigate Biden and his son for their ACTIONS.

I sit on corporate boards, Hunter Biden has ZERO skillset to justify his sitting on the board of a Billion+ dollar energy company. He got that spot because of his dad, and because of the access to his dad that it affords.

In normal diplomatic missions (the way these things were done pre-Trump), nobody ever meets with any significant foreign governmental leader alone and everybody who was there files a contact report immediately after. Every member of the team with Biden would have filed a report and if there was anything at all that was sketchy, Trump's people have full access to all those records and would have trotted them out by now.

On the other hand a significant number of people who were connected with Trump's phone call have already testified to Congress. The reason the initial testimony was behind closed doors was so nobody would know the details of what any other witness said so stories could be cross checked. This is the way grand juries work. Because the DOJ, which should do this sort of investigation refused, the House had to do their job.

The details have not come out, but what has come out indicates that most of the stories correlate with one another and all are damning of Trump to some degree.

We have the presidential records of Biden's visit which have not been revealed to the public, but Trump and the DOJ have full access to them and the Trump administration is dead silent about anything because there is nothing to find. Biden did everything according to Hoyle and the silence out of Trump about facts is screaming it.

On the other hand we have a slew of witnesses who saw Trump commit crimes who have testified to Congress.

This is the way Trump always tries to distract from his scandals: make something up and blame them for it. There is not a single shred of factual evidence anyone has produced that Biden did anything illegal. We only have dribs and drabs of facts about Trump's behavior with the Ukraine and what I've seen so far is damning. And the public part of the impeachment is just about to start. We will all see the testimony of several people live on CSPAN.

I can only be blackmail if the person being held over a barrel knows they have to do something to release the funds. The Ukranians have stated they didn't know the funds were withheld. And even though Congress authorizes the funds, the law is clear: the executive branch can withhold them (for pretty much any reason) until they feel that criteria have been met to release them. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, holding things up for a month is a nothing-burger. Heck, most in Congress wanted it held up (at a different time - in the spring IIRC).

FYI, according to reports there have not been "recordings" of presidential phone calls since Nixon. That's why there are only transcripts available and that is why everyone is bickering about the exact wording of the transcript.

What is used today is a real time text to speech algorithm. After the call various experts who were on the call listening in go over the transcript to fix errors that the algorithm got wrong like people's names or place names for the most part. That was Alexander Vindman's job listening in on the call. He knows the names of all top Ukrainian officials and most other proper names that would have come up with the call, so he could correct a city name that shows up in the transcript as "Kevin" to "Kiev" and things like that.

Publicly the Ukrainians are trying very hard not to be drawn into the middle of an American political mess. So they are making the most innocent remarks publicly. There are reporters who have said that off the record a number of Ukrainian government officials have said they felt they were being blackmailed. But what the Ukrainians say is irrelevant compared to the evidence gathered and stored in the US with many US witnesses.
 
Not true, it was a clear quid pro quo (fire the prosecutor - who was also investigating his son - or you don't get the aid). He's on video saying it. It far more egregious than what the Dems accuse Trump of.

How many time do we have to say this. You sure you are a physician?

(Fire the prosecutor, who is suppose to investigate my son's company but not, or else you don't get the aid) is more like it.

No prosecutor was investigating Bidens son. Zero news articles, even the misleading ones are not claiming this. Man I really do wish you read peer review work from pub med more carefully than this. Hopefully you know what misleading publications.
 
  • Love
Reactions: JRP3
Right, so we are supposed to take Biden and his son's word for it, but not Trumps? Again, being held to a double standard. If we impeach Trump for his comment (note, not actions), then we should investigate Biden and his son for their ACTIONS.

I sit on corporate boards, Hunter Biden has ZERO skillset to justify his sitting on the board of a Billion+ dollar energy company. He got that spot because of his dad, and because of the access to his dad that it affords.
You got it correct at least here
Trump, 13, 435 lies untruths etc
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...as-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

speaking of nepotism, care to comment on Don Jr, Ivanka, Jared, even Eric the challenged one?
trump is just a variant of the definition of appendicitis, Fat F F w h s F F o F
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="bkp_duke, post: 4165173, member: 48255"]As an aside, this is completely false. I run Cloud services, and no one runs "hundreds of email servers". Even if there were multiple email servers (2-10 would be reasonable for an org the size of the DNC), the email database would still be centralized (otherwise keeping things in sync would be difficult) and that is most certainly what the hackers made off with - a copy of the database.[/QUOTE]
So are you a physician or what? do you also run cloud services and sit on corporate boards? spread pretty thin, eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unpilot
I run Cloud services, and no one runs "hundreds of email servers".
Dude, are you trying to tell someone who worked in Microsoft what is cloud service? ;)

Ofcourse, when you have email in the cloud, it could be spread over hundreds of servers - with multiple backups and archives. No idea whether it is true for DNC - since I don't know their workload. Don't assume you know how O365 or Google Cloud is architected because you run a (small I presume) cloud services company.

What does it even mean to say "email server is hidden in Ukraine" ? Only people who have absolutely no idea about modern technology can talk like that. If they wanted to destroy the email evidence they would just erase and ditch the HDDs. Why would anyone take "the server" to an unstable country and try to hide it there ? Its flat earth level conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
="winfield100, post: 4165567, member: 12448"]
So are you a physician or what? do you also run cloud services and sit on corporate boards? spread pretty thin, eh?

I am a RETIRED physician (thank you Obamacare for making a @#$% show of everything). I have for almost 10 years been running a Cloud Services company, and with such skill sets (medicine and tech) have been asked to sit on the board for both biotech and cloud tech companies.

I also have a PhD in molecular biology, so technically I'm a scientist as well, but I don't make much use of that degree any more.

Do you need a copy of my CV?
 
The math just doesn't work out for Warren (or even Sanders). Their own admitted costs for these Medicare-for-all plans would require total tax revenue per year to more than double.

My opinion is that Medicare-for-all is more of a disguise for more government intervention in our lives, not something truly designed to help the people. I'm sure that's not a popular opinion here, but as of this post the First Amendment is still intact.
 
I am a RETIRED physician (thank you Obamacare for making a @#$% show of everything). I have for almost 10 years been running a Cloud Services company, and with such skill sets (medicine and tech) have been asked to sit on the board for both biotech and cloud tech companies.

I also have a PhD in molecular biology, so technically I'm a scientist as well, but I don't make much use of that degree any more.

Do you need a copy of my CV?
So you retired from medicine in 2009? and are grumpy about Obamacare? When did Obamacare start again?
not your CV, but what was the thesis you defended perchance from where?
I have worked with literally 100's of PhD's and they run the gamut, many having oversized egos to the point of we had to enlarge doorways so they could float through, most perfectly normal nice folks.
 
So you retired from medicine in 2009? and are grumpy about Obamacare? When did Obamacare start again?
not your CV, but what was the thesis you defended perchance from where?
I have worked with literally 100's of PhD's and they run the gamut, many having oversized egos to the point of we had to enlarge doorways so they could float through, most perfectly normal nice folks.

Technically, my last day was in 2014, but by that time I was working less than 40% at the hospital because my company was doing well. I was ballparking the date, but if you are that interested I'm sure I can go look up my last day as a pediatric endocrinologist.
 
I can only be blackmail if the person being held over a barrel knows they have to do something to release the funds. The Ukranians have stated they didn't know the funds were withheld. And even though Congress authorizes the funds, the law is clear: the executive branch can withhold them (for pretty much any reason) until they feel that criteria have been met to release them. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, holding things up for a month is a nothing-burger. Heck, most in Congress wanted it held up (at a different time - in the spring IIRC).

FYI, according to reports there have not been "recordings" of presidential phone calls since Nixon. That's why there are only transcripts available and that is why everyone is bickering about the exact wording of the transcript.

So first question. Do you believe a president can withhold funds, authorized by congress to protect that country from our adversary, for the reason that he wants that country to help him in a US election ( which of course is illegal) ? If yes - then stop, if no move on.

Second question. Do you believe Ukraines existence is in jeopardy against Russia without US support? This is simply to highlight the severity of the problem.

Third question. Do you believe the Ukraine would admit they didn't know funds were withheld unless they submitted to Trumps demands and risk alienating him especially considering they have seen that Republicans will support him Regardless of what he does?

Before Trump I could never understand how Hitler got away with what he did in WWII. How the German people allowed it to happen. Now I understand. The speed with which morality, respect for law enforcement and the military, fiscal responsibility has fallen is mind boggling.

Is there ANYTHING Trump could do that would warrant impeachment?
 
The math just doesn't work out for Warren (or even Sanders). Their own admitted costs for these Medicare-for-all plans would require total tax revenue per year to more than double............

Completely agree that if the US changed no other policies at all, then tax revenue would have to increase to support Medicare for All. But do you really think Sanders would continue to occupy the Middle East and maintain the tremendous budget that requires us to do so just because all other Dem candidates except Tulsi Gabbard plan to? I certainly don't. And I think any discussion of health care budgets without including a bloated-and-still growing Military budget is completely disingenuous. Of course you don't hear Elizabeth Warren bringing this up either since she voted to approve a Military budget that was actually increased beyond what Trump had even proposed in the first place. As of this time last year we had already spent over $6 Trillion dollars on the War on Terror so we can 'get them over there before they come get us over here'. And as early as March of last year each American had already contributed an average of $24,000 to the military campaigns alone in their income tax:

We Have Spent $32 Million Per Hour on War Since 2001

"First, the economic costs: According to estimates by the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, the war on terror has cost Americans a staggering $5.6 trillion since 2001, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

$5.6 trillion. This figure includes not just the Pentagon’s war fund, but also future obligations such as social services for an ever-growing number of post-9/11 veterans.

It’s hard for most of us to even begin to grasp such an enormous number.

It means Americans spend $32 million per hour, according to a counter by the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Put another way: Since 2001, every American taxpayer has spent almost $24,000 on the wars — equal to the average down payment on a house, a new Honda Accord, or a year at a public university."


However the 'rate' of spending on these campaigns actually ramped up, not down towards the end of the Obama Presidency. Something Centrist Dems certainly don't like talking about as they were almost all 100% aligned in their support of these campaigns and the budgets to continue them:

America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign | Medea Benjamin

"President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.

Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.

While most of these air attacks were in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also rained down on people in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. That’s seven majority-Muslim countries."


In fact, there is SO much money being spent on war in the Middle East and on our Military Budget that even David Stockman is immensely troubled by the concept of it. Yes, that is right............David Frickin' Stockman..........President Reagan's Budget Director. And recently when David aired these concerns on Fox News, the panel attempted to tear him a new one....unsuccessfully.....because he challenged the grotesque amount of money we are currently spending - and have been spending for the last 3 administrations. The hosts behavior and message was a pathetic display of how far we have moved to the Right as a Nation (both parties) since the Reagan administration. And how even the people with the deepest understanding of the budgets during the Reagan administration feel we need to reign things in NOW and use this money for more sensible things - like health care and education. This is a pretty troubling interview segment:


So please.........before you share the Centrist Dem concepts here on TMC that Medicare for All can't be funded with existing funds because a One Size Fits All Military Budget works for all of us and for all of the Dem Candidates that are bought and paid for by the existing Paradigm, please take a deep breath and realize that TMC is a crowd of people that have been reading and fighting FUD for many, many years now. And claiming the money doesn't exist for Medicare for All except through taxing everybody equally is FUD. It is a FUD smear campaign against Bernie by all of the special interests that would be hurt if we simply had available to us what almost every other modern country has. It is a FUD smear campaign that has been advanced by the efforts of disingenuous comedians owned by these special interest groups like Bill Maher and John Oliver. And it is literally no different than special interest groups fearing disruption by Elon/Tesla spreading FUD every day to slow down that inevitable Paradigm Shift there too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
Are you arguing that the more liberal wing of the Democratic party will turn this around or the Libertarian party? I would argue that the Libertarians would make it worse. Greenspan was a libertarian and his policies almost crashed the world economy

All I'm saying is that when progressives go to the the extreme left on foreign and monetary policy, you end up in the same place as libertarians. That also means that establishment Democrats and Republicans have the same exact (bad) policy on these issues.
 
If Greenspan was a Libertarian then here is a tremendous video clip of a Progressive ripping into that Libertarian for his policies that did ultimately end up crashing the World economy. Clearly these two don't share the 'exact' same monetary policies. Greenspan's smugness in this video in the midst of the economic damage he inflicted upon so many is repulsive:

 
If Greenspan was a Libertarian then here is a tremendous video clip of a Progressive ripping into that Libertarian for his policies that did ultimately end up crashing the World economy. Clearly these two don't share the 'exact' same monetary policies. Greenspan's smugness in this video in the midst of the economic damage he inflicted upon so many is repulsive:


Greenspan wasn't a libertarian. He might have been at one point but as soon as he intervened in the markets in 1987, he gave that up.

Here's a better example of what I'm talking about.

Fed Bashers: The odd couple of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders - Jan. 25, 2010

Why Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders want to limit the Federal Reserve's power

And with war.

Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Ro Khanna, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to Trump imploring him to end US support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Paracelsus
Status
Not open for further replies.