Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 254: Pete's Whine Cave

(+) Yeah! (+)

red sox 777 posted...

Now, if Hillary had been exaggerating rather than generalizing - say, she multiplied all her statements by a factor of 10 - then the statement would need to be read as saying 5% of Trump supporters are deplorable - which sounds reasonable. But Hillary does not have a history of exaggerating, gave no sign that she was exaggerating, and didn't even say so after the fact. So I think it's fair to say that Hillary meant a number somewhere more in the ballpark of 50% than 5%.

i don't really get the difference. if hillary had said "well obviously i'm exaggerating a ton" instead of "i'm being grossly generalistic," you would have been fine with her comments? i always interpreted the "grossly generalistic" part as "well obviously it's not actually 50% but the point is that it's still a lot of people and it's a huge problem in american society."

also, given all the different types of "deplorables" she described (racists, sexists, etc), the number is probably much higher than 5%. you shouldn't underestimate how many crappy people exist.

---

It's still absurd that in the quote she says "They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Islamophobic you name it." and people's reaction is "OMG! SHE IS CALLING ME DEPLORABLE!".

If you are self identifying as a racist, sexist, homophobic, etc... then yeah you ARE deplorable. If you aren't those things then she wasn't talking about you.

So if we're going to bring "reading comprehension" up maybe address that.

---

xp1337 posted...

They also signal they're going to step-up poll watching since a judge lifted in 2018 a consent decree that had been put in place in 1982 after the RNC was alleged to have visibly armed off-duty police at polling places in urban areas with armbands reading "National Ballot Security Task Force."

what the fuck

1. So today I had to wait for an hour in a hospital for my appointment cuz they messed up in a cafeteria for some reason. There was like 20 nurses there talking politics. They were surprisingly all pro-trump. One of the main arguments I heard was that this impeachment stuff was garbage. That there is like 20 people running against him and he didn't try to investigate any of them. It isn't because he is some special candidate. It is because he was bragging about pressuring Ukraine with a billion dollars regarding their administration. That the reason he was trying to investigate Biden was because he was on tape bragging about it. Nothing more.

2. My girl is flipping right now cuz Batman Hush had two girls kissing in it when the kids were watching it. Lol. Flipping.

---

To be clear, Biden was bragging about executing the at the time bipartisan policy objective of the US government with respect to Ukraine (getting rid of a corrupt prosecutor standing in the way of the countrys reform)

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

To be clear, Biden was bragging about executing the at the time bipartisan policy objective of the US government with respect to Ukraine (getting rid of a corrupt prosecutor standing in the way of the countrys reform)

Would you say that was a quid pro quo? Get rid of this investigator and we will give you your aid?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Would you say that was a quid pro quo? Get rid of this investigator and we will give you your aid?

Heres the thing: If it was, you admit what Trump did was infinitely worse because it was to advance solely his interests.

One thing that gets lost in all this is that one of the corruption charges against him was the investigation into Burisma was stalled, setting aside that it was related to events which occurred years before Hunter Biden was on the board.


---

Yes, there was a quid pro quo. There often is with US aid. The difference is that Biden was advancing US policy, whereas Trump was withholding money that Congress had allocated without their knowledge in order to leverage a personal advantage.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Heres the thing: If it was, you admit what Trump did was infinitely worse because it was to advance solely his interests.

One thing that gets lost in all this is that one of the corruption charges against him was the investigation into Burisma was stalled, setting aside that it was related to events which occurred years before Hunter Biden was on the board.

I asked a simple yes or no.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't really get the difference. if hillary had said "well obviously i'm exaggerating a ton" instead of "i'm being grossly generalistic," you would have been fine with her comments? i always interpreted the "grossly generalistic" part as "well obviously it's not actually 50% but the point is that it's still a lot of people and it's a huge problem in american society."

also, given all the different types of "deplorables" she described (racists, sexists, etc), the number is probably much higher than 5%. you shouldn't underestimate how many crappy people exist.

If she had a history of using "half" to mean "less than 20%" it would work for her. When Trump says "people are saying" we all know it means "Donald Trump, who is a person" is saying.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

It's still absurd that in the quote she says "They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Islamophobic you name it." and people's reaction is "OMG! SHE IS CALLING ME DEPLORABLE!".

If you are self identifying as a racist, sexist, homophobic, etc... then yeah you ARE deplorable. If you aren't those things then she wasn't talking about you.

So if we're going to bring "reading comprehension" up maybe address that.

No, she said half. That means she thinks if you meet one other Trump supporter on average, she thinks one of you is a racist, sexist, etc. That's very offensive and insulting.

---

Part of the problem with what Trump did from a legal perspective is that holding the aid as long as he did without authorization from congress is literally illegal. Biden did what he did legally with the backing of the legislative branch, but Trump did not have the authority to do so.

---

What a character witness:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1208228299119439878?s=21

Technically hes probably a witness because he assuredly has Trumps phone tapped...!

---

Putin is also talking about putting back the lifetime 2 term limit for Russian presidents. Maybe he's running for US President in 2024?

---

Corrik7 posted...

2. My girl is flipping right now cuz Batman Hush had two girls kissing in it when the kids were watching it. Lol. Flipping.

Every post you ever make about your partner makes her sound like a lunatic
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Every post you ever make about your partner makes her sound like a lunatic

Kids can watch brutal violence but not love.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Kids can watch brutal violence but not love.

And also not magic
---

Corrik7 posted...

One of the main arguments I heard was that this impeachment stuff was garbage. That there is like 20 people running against him and he didn't try to investigate any of them. It isn't because he is some special candidate. It is because he was bragging about pressuring Ukraine with a billion dollars regarding their administration. That the reason he was trying to investigate Biden was because he was on tape bragging about it. Nothing more.

Generally impeachment isn't approved of by most of the nation for a variety of reasons but the biggest three come to that 1) it's such a shitty premise, and 2) there's an election within a year, and 3) everyone knows it's all for show. The more you know politics the more obvious these all become - from knowledge of Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election to all the things the House Dems have approved while impeaching him. "You are the worst president ever now if you'll excuse me here's a trillion dollars trade deal, a $700 billion defense bill, and massive spying powers."

Not exactly a consistent view and these points are just proof to even a casual observer that it's all just bullshit for show.

---

Kinglicious posted...

from knowledge of Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election

...?
---

Also Im not sure most of the nation isnt for impeachment? Generally polls tend to show a small plurality approve, but some show a full majority

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/20/poll-trump-impeachment-088812
---

...Ukraine was in Hillary's corner in 2016.
this info was released shortly after the election results. the scope included digging up as much info as they could on Manafort, a connection between the Clinton Foundation and a Ukrainian backed think tank, and a few other officials that were working with both the DNC and Hillary. there's literally a ruling by a Ukrainian court that they illegally got involved in America's politics, that was a year ago almost to this day.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html

additionally the top prosecutor in the Ukraine, an activist against Russia, has been digging into this more and points out how the Obama-era embassy was actually not letting him prosecute certain people. to what extent all this is true nobody really knows except for people directly involved. but Republicans have been bringing it up consistently over the past month as it ties really well with the accusation of the Bidens being stuck in a case of soft corruption/nepotism, which i don't think anybody's really able to dispute as there really isn't any other reason Hunter was making 7 figures a year. if you know of their involvement in passing then you're basically faced with the idea that another Obama-era official was involved with the Ukraine and it isn't shocking.

but the gaslighting pretending none of the above is true is.

---

Theres Wang digging hard into the conspiracy territory.

Was wondering when he'd break out the crazy.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also Im not sure most of the nation isnt for impeachment?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/271691/trump-approval-inches-support-impeachment-dips.aspx

a few trends have been pretty consistent throughout impeachment:

• approval of impeachment goes down
• approval of Trump goes up
• in polls for head to head matches, Trump is getting better numbers, often now beating each candidate

based on the last two points especially, impeachment ain't working. the fact also is he now can also push both the defense spending budget success and USMCA as major successes by his campaign so his numbers probably won't be dropping anytime soon, but impeachment will as more people see it as him doing a good job and/or come around to the idea of "it's an election year, the fuck are you doing?" there's no way to make it popular as the campaigns continue.

---

ah yes, the conspiracy theory that a Ukrainian court agreed on, pushed on by their top prosecutor, who is very anti-Russia. because that clearly makes sense.

---

Anyway, the short version of Hunter Biden and Ukraine is that he was basically a consulting lawyer for a Ukranian company that had been having issues while a the same time Joe Biden was literally dealing (effectively, might I add) at helping curb corruption in Ukraine. At no point did any conflict of interest ever arise(Aside from maybe, a bad look from a very broad public view because people like Wang are gullible as heck and want to latch onto any fake story).

The rest of Wang's crazy post is trying to say Ukraine was corrupt for...outing Paul Manafort as being corrupt(And the rest of that story says clearly, they took this ruling because they were worried doing this upset the Trump administration).

But you know, conspiracy and such, way more likely story.

(No, its not, Wang has just dug himself way down the crazy rabbit hole these last few years and wants to grasp at literally everything he can).

Tony I apologize for ever calling you a conspiracy nut I forget you are super tame(And have actually toned it down a good bit recently, as I have noticed and appreciated) compared to people like Wang.

---

Wanglicious posted...

ah yes, the conspiracy theory that a Ukrainian court agreed on, pushed on by their top prosecutor, who is very anti-Russia. because that clearly makes sense.

You are literally saying they are somehow correct based on a technicality of releasing information that Paul Manafort was actually corrupt.

It was literally interference in the most negligible sense. Again, they wanted to appease the current administration and didn't want strained relations.

---

Wanglicious posted...

ah yes, the conspiracy theory that a Ukrainian court agreed on, pushed on by their top prosecutor, who is very anti-Russia. because that clearly makes sense.

a determination that was thrown out on appeal

---

I'm reiterating, the dude that was actually corrupt while Hunter Biden was working for the Ukrainian company was fired in part due to Joe Biden at the time.

It was literally the exact opposite of corruption by Joe Biden and the Obama administration(Hunter, on the other hand, is likely just a scummy lawyer that took a shit job for $$$).

---

If Hunter was a consulting attorney, why did they put him on the board? And was Burisma his only client? Unless he was spending most of his time working for Burisma 600k a year is rather high a rate.....unless of course he brought special expertise of connections to the table....like being the vice president's son.

---

red13n posted...

Anyway, the short version of Hunter Biden and Ukraine is that he was basically a consulting lawyer for a Ukranian company that had been having issues while a the same time Joe Biden was literally dealing (effectively, might I add) at helping curb corruption in Ukraine. At no point did any conflict of interest ever arise(Aside from maybe, a bad look from a very broad public view because people like Wang are gullible as heck and want to latch onto any fake story).

if you seriously think he was paid $80,000 a month for "consulting" and that it had no connection to the fact that his dad was the man in charge of matters with the Ukraine in the US, gotta tell you, i'm impressed at how much you suck at seeing bullshit.

red13n posted...

You are literally saying they are somehow correct based on a technicality of releasing information that Paul Manafort was actually corrupt.

no, i'm saying that a court in that region determined that there was interference. i'm also saying that their head prosecutor has gone on record to saying everything else that i pointed out above. what you're flipping out about and going "OH SO CRAZY" is literally what their top guy, a very anti-Russia, pro-Ukraine, has said. and none of this should be particularly surprising or upsetting either really, it's all very business as usual. of course they're going to want to curry favor with the dems, Hillary was the obvious choice, they already had a connection with the DNC, the VP's son was there, both had reason to continue being anti-Russia, both believed Trump and Putin were connected... none of this is particularly abnormal.

---

And I'm going to reiterate this Wang, because I'm tired of harmful conspiracy nutjobs, you have turned into a very harmful conspiracy nutjob pushing garbage.

Also yep further googling shows that Ukrainian ruling got overruled on appeal.

(And again, that entire ruling was on the basis of Ukraine outing Paul Manafort's actual corruption)

---

Wanglicious posted...

if you seriously think he was paid $80,000 a month for "consulting" and that it had no connection to the fact that his dad was the man in charge of matters with the Ukraine in the US, gotta tell you, i'm impressed at how much you suck at seeing bullshit.

I literally just told you he was hired on to be a scummy lawyers. Scummy lawyers make a lot of money. Yes, he was given more money because of the name recognition in all likelihood.

But the Obama administration, under direct direction of Joe Biden, literally was impartial and fighting corruption successfully. They literally got the guy that was not doing his job fired.

So yes, your nutso crap is nutso garbage.

---

Basically, they probably hired Hunter Biden under the assumption it would curry favor with the Obama administration and there is absolutely evidence that such favor did not exist.

---

xp1337 posted...

a determination that was thrown out on appeal

not really "thrown out," the exact phrasing is that it was canceled. i don't think we have exact wording of why but the defense being argued against the case was 1) lack of standing, and 2) statute of limitations had expired. it was not that the findings were wrong, just that the courts can't do anything about it. if that was the correction, pretty sure it would've been reported on. same if it had been reversed, but that wasn't it.

---

WaPo wrote a piece looking into the central points of the GOP's "Ukraine interference!" thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/02/this-is-what-ukraines-interference-looked-like-according-republicans/

You also have former Ambassador Yovanovitch testifying that the Ukrainians looking into the "black ledger" were likely not most concerned with Manafort but the money that the former President and his political party allegedly stole and where it went.

---

red13n posted...

And I'm going to reiterate this Wang,

that you just like attacking me? yeah, i got that.
you consider stuff like a man making a million bucks a year in an industry he has nothing to do with to totally not be due to his dad being literally the most powerful man involved in that government's military. you also consider stuff like a Ukrainian court agreeing that yeah, there was involvement, to be conspiracy theory. and that the top Ukranian prosecutor who has said US involvement was much more than that in interviews to also be peddling conspiracy theories. all that is loud and clear.

you done being an asshole or are you gonna continue rambling for another six posts about how i'm a terrible person? you know what you can do to avoid that? use that nifty gamefaqs feature to ignore me. then you'll never have to see a post of mine again and never have to stress yourself out.

---

xp1337 posted...

You also have former Ambassador Yovanovitch testifying that the Ukrainians looking into the "black ledger" were likely not most concerned with Manafort but the money that the former President and his political party allegedly stole and where it went.

Thats exactly how the story went at the time IIRC
---

Wang where do you stand on Trump and the GOPs insistence that Ukraine is hiding a CrowdStrike server
---

Wanglicious posted...

that you just like attacking me? yeah, i got that.
you consider stuff like a man making a million bucks a year in an industry he has nothing to do with to totally not be due to his dad being literally the most powerful man involved in that government's military. you also consider stuff like a Ukrainian court agreeing that yeah, there was involvement, to be conspiracy theory. and that the top Ukranian prosecutor who has said US involvement was much more than that in interviews to also be peddling conspiracy theories. all that is loud and clear.

you done being an asshole or are you gonna continue rambling for another six posts about how i'm a terrible person? you know what you can do to avoid that? use that nifty gamefaqs feature to ignore me. then you'll never have to see a post of mine again and never have to stress yourself out.

To be fair, liberals can't really argue without likening you to a monster, acting like you lack empathy, or are immoral because you don't agree with them. It is a consistent playbook in arguing with them.

He probably doesn't even realize he does this because it is so commonplace for his political spectrum.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Thats exactly how the story went at the time IIRC

Yeah, on the Ukrainian side they never mentioned Manafort in their original press conference. It was the American press that dug into it and found him, the NYT first, a few months after a Ukrainian press conference.

It was an open secret at the time that Manafort was working for the former President so it wasn't a shock to anyone (and also explains why the press would look into it) when the ledger was revealed.

---

Corrik7 posted...

or are immoral because you don't agree with them

Like when two ladies smooch on the Batman show
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Like when two ladies smooch on the Batman show

Does this comment even have a point?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Does this comment even have a point?

Yeah Im trying to show that its a conservative thing too
---

Like the GOP argument here is that Ukraine should not have investigated corruption of its former President and his political party, including the illegal theft of funds, because of the high likelihood that it would confirm what was already an open secret to everyone there (and to Americans who followed Ukrianian politics, so press outlets with international reach, political insiders, relevant ambassadors, etc.) that one of the recipients of the slush fund was hired on as Trump's campaign manager and the press here could easily connect the dots and would have a legitimate interest in looking into it.

Hell, I remember reporting/political insider talk from Day 1 of Manafort being hired that he was known to work for pro-Russian interests and had foreign lobbying ties that were probably not on the up-and-up. The complaining here is that one party, in investigating its own government, turned up more concrete proof that he was involved in the corruption.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah Im trying to show that its a conservative thing too

Because she doesn't think it is appropriate for our kid to see?

You make a ton of sense, bud. Nice try!

---

xp1337 posted...

WaPo wrote a piece looking into the central points of the GOP's "Ukraine interference!" thing:

i'd use a different link largely because WaPo is a paywall. politico and NYT both have covered it i think. GOP has muddied the waters a lot on this and gotten details messed up. they also do overplay the extent of influence the Ukraine had, though the dems go so far in the opposite direction to act like nothing was happening and it's a total conspiracy that they end up looking even more insane. like it ain't hard to say yeah, there were major people in the Ukraine that favored the dems, including oligarchs and political officials, who tried to run interference, investigations, and control various aspects. the US is known to meddle in other nations' affairs, we've done this for the better part of the past 100 years now. similarly the Ukraine is heavily corrupt so of course this was a thing. it just ultimately didn't amount to much in the election. not a very hard position to take but going the whole mile to acting like nothing ever happened just comes off as trying too hard.

anyway, non-wapo link for ya:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/02/senate-panel-ukraine-election-interference-074796


---

Corrik7 posted...

Because she doesn't think it is appropriate for our kid to see?

You make a ton of sense, bud. Nice try!

Just curious, do you and your lady ever kiss in front of them?

---

WaPo is soft paywall yeah, but I'm so conditioned to using private browsing to read its articles that I forget that often. Sorry.

They do link the Politico article there so yeah.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Because she doesn't think it is appropriate for our kid to see?

Yep! It kind of implies she thinks its immoral for the people who made the show to have a different opinion about gay affection
---

Wanglicious posted...

that you just like attacking me? yeah, i got that.

You are here spouting debunked conspiracy theories and I am telling you that you are a gullible conspiracy nut.

It is a harsh truth but hardly a personal attack.

---