Impeachment hearings

[_honorentheos]

Subs, and Republicans, are relying on the, "If it looks like a duck it must be a duck" argument. It's not a bad play...

It's not a bad play if you assume your audience is made up of morons.

Bringing up corruption related to the Bidens in the face of all of the Trump family corruption is the thinnest of distractions, and only a moron would take it seriously.

And that's why it works among the GOP base.

What makes it a game for morons isn't that it looks like a duck. It looks like a duck. It looked like a duck to Democrats who were uncomfortable with it in 2014-2015 as well.

The problem, and I think this is what EA was pointing out to subbie, is it only looks like a duck from a distance and has nothing to do with Joe Biden's actions. It's pretty likely Burisma offered Hunter a position on their board because of his last name. It's indisputable the President of Burisma was a corrupt idiot who stole from the Ukrainian people both as a political figure and through profiting through his company.

The thing is, once one takes even the most rudimentary amount of time to become educated on what actually happened, it's clear it isn't a duck. Shokin wasn't investigating the President of Burisma, he was protecting him. Joe Biden carrying the message that Shokin needed to go HURT Hunter Biden's client's ability to be protected from prosecution. The message didn't originate from Joe Biden but was a view held by the Obama administration and NATO that Shokin was a vestige of the past corruption in Ukraine that needed to go if Ukraine was going to have any chance of effectively combatting corruption.

The best move to shut this line of argument down isn't to tell people they are morons for believing it. It LOOKS like a duck so it seems disingenuious to tell them there's nothing to see there so they are morons for believing it is a duck. Yeah, people aren't likely to do much more than look and say, "Hey, that looks like a duck!" Or, if aligned with the Democrats, also not do much more than say, "What Trump did looks like a duck! Quit trying to make this about Biden!"

That's what makes it a game of morons. People aren't willing to do much more than run with their first impression about it. That applies to both sides, though. The Democrats should have, probably still need to use their control of the House to do some of the lifting to lead voters to the evidence so it stops looking like a duck.

[_Some Schmo]

It LOOKS like a duck so it seems disingenuious to tell them there's nothing to see there so they are morons for believing it is a duck.

Well, two things:

1) I didn't say they were morons for believing it's a duck. I called them morons for thinking this represents anything on par with what the Trump family is doing, and that GOP screams of corruption over the Bidens are emptier than space, even if it actually was a duck. You can't defend your guy's corruption by screaming about someone else's corruption.

2) You keep talking to me as though I'm somehow in charge of Democrat Party messaging. I'm not, and have no interest in that. I'm an independent on a message board calling balls and strikes.

[Guest]

It LOOKS like a duck so it seems disingenuious to tell them there's nothing to see there so they are morons for believing it is a duck.

Well, two things:

1) I didn't say they were morons for believing it's a duck. I called them morons for thinking this represents anything on par with what the Trump family is doing, and that GOP screams of corruption over the Bidens are emptier than space, even if it actually was a duck. You can't defend your guy's corruption by screaming about someone else's corruption.

2) You keep talking to me as though I'm somehow in charge of Democrat Party messaging. I'm not, and have no interest in that. I'm an independent on a message board calling balls and strikes.

I thought your comment reflected the behavior you were ascribing to others. In other words, it wasn't advancing the discussion through providing counter evidence or shining a light on what made the base assumption obviously incorrect. What you say above is...well. It's moronic. If what Biden did was go to the President of Ukraine and tell him to remove the PG with intention of protecting Hunter Biden's client IT damned WOULD BE AS BAD AS WHAT Trump IS ACCUSED OF DOING AND DESERVE SERIOUS SCRUTINY AND CONDEMNATION! It would mean Trump had a valid reason for asking President Zolensky to investigate it which would sink the premise of the impeachment articles. It would be pretty damned serious were it true, which it's not to be clear. But holy fuckballs. Do you not see how partisan your comment is?

It's not what happened, so that's not where we are. But wow. Just wow. That was just unbelievable.

[_Some Schmo]

It's not what happened, so that's not where we are. But wow. Just wow. That was just unbelievable.

Don't be damned stupid, honor. Christ.

We're talking about whataboutism. If what Biden did was as bad as what Trump does, it is still not a damned defense of Trump's behavior to bring it up.

Read for comprehension please.

[_honorentheos]

It's not what happened, so that's not where we are. But wow. Just wow. That was just unbelievable.

Don't be damned stupid, honor. Christ.

We're talking about whataboutism. If what Biden did was as bad as what Trump does, it is still not a damned defense of Trump's behavior to bring it up.

Read for comprehension please.

If Biden DID go to the president of Ukraine, withhold aid on the condition that they remove the PG and it was done to protect his son's client, it would be the scandal of the decade. Trump's call in July would be justified. The impeach would be over at that point and for good reason.

That's the most partisan BS I've seen on this board by someone not named Smokey, Ajax or subbie.

Trump's broke your brain, Schmo, if you don't see why what you said is absolutely wrong.

[_Some Schmo]

If Biden DID go to the president of Ukraine, withhold aid on the condition that they remove the PG and it was done to protect his son's client, it would be the scandal of the decade.

Pffft. Yeah, that would be the scandal. It's like you've had your head in the sand for 3 years.

But OK, honor. If you say so.

*shrug*

[_Some Schmo]

rump's call in July would be justified. The impeach would be over at that point and for good reason.

by the way, this is pure damned nonsense. Trump still held up congressional approved military aid for personal gain, even if the investigation he wanted was justifiable in some universe.

But don't let me stop you from dying on this hill.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Trump's call in July would be justified.

I'm having trouble following this line of reasoning, Honor. My two thoughts are:

1) That's why we have a State department and ambassadors. They work issues like this.

2) The President can't hold up Congressionally approved aid in order to investigate a political rival.

That's it in a nutshell, really.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-mcconnel ... 1HOanoy71B

@3:16

There's no chance the President is removed from office. I mean, we knew it, but regardless this had to happen. Good times.

- doc

[_honorentheos]

Trump's call in July would be justified.

I'm having trouble following this line of reasoning, Honor. My two thoughts are:

1) That's why we have a State department and ambassadors. They work issues like this.

2) The President can't hold up Congressionally approved aid in order to investigate a political rival.

That's it in a nutshell, really.

- Doc

Point 1, Joe Biden was the voice for the state in telling the previous Ukrainian president aid was being held up if they didn't remove Shokin. State works for the executive branch of which the president is the head. If state believed there was wrong doing going on and was requesting Ukrainian assistance, it wouldn't be wrong for the president to make the request head-of-state to head-of-state. Its not what happened or why, but it is essentially EXACTLY how we communicated a similar request when Biden was the representative presenting the message.

Point 2, agree, and that's the case as it stands against Trump.

But in the what-if world that Schmo fabricated where it doesn't matter if Joe Biden was using the power of his office to solicit a favor for his son's client using the power of the state and leveraging the withholding of aid to do so, in this hypothetical it recasts the July 25th call in a new light.

In this hypothetical scenario it's now Trump seeking an investigation of a serious potential crime committed by the VP of the US using his office to benefit a member of his immediate family. He leveraged the withholding of aid to do so, just as point 2 argues is wrong doing on the part of the executive. In this hypothetical, it's Trump seeking to find out why Biden withheld aid. It's Trump pursuing justice in the face of corruption. It would reframe the entire premise on which the impeachment inquiry is based.

What Schmo said is partisan. He is arguing that facts and justice don't matter. Trump is bad, what Biden did is in the past. That's not only crazy, it feeds Republican views that impeachment isn't about protecting the office of the President from a corrupt and self-involved individual who was willing to leverage the power of his office for personal gain.