Irrelevant. You attempted to present the State and the capitalist Corporations - in general - as opposed entities, so that power gained by one was lost by the other. That is not true of fascist States. Trump has never been peaceful. He started his tenure as President by boosting the military and stepping up the drone wars, and he has been reducing the role of diplomacy and increasing the role of military violence and threats ever since - approaching three years of increasing reliance on military force, threats, and coercion worldwide. You didn't know that? Odd. As much as Stalin, anyway - the other choice for top dog Russian conqueror, and the one apparently most influential on Putin's agenda. Doesn't have to - W laid it all out for him. But he might anyway - sooner or later one of his threats and attempted bullyings will backfire, if history is any guide. - - - - ? You still haven't consulted a dictionary or decent usage manual - no one can help you. The goalpost of bribery and quid pro quo is one goalpost - one set of facts. Only the language has changed - which is of course what Republican bubbledwellers regard as reality, hence the change. You have also overlooked major differences between the Parties - the Dem leadership does not control the Dem Congress as the Rep leadership does. This language of yours - "the Dems" - is Republican cant that you have suckered for, been played for a fool by - the Dem leadership is not at all the same as the Rep leadership, because the Dems are not a lockstep Party taken over by a fascist movement. The Dem leadership is still attempting to live in a "bothsides" world framed by the Republican corporate media. In that world there are lots of "moderate" Republicans, "Obama/Trump" voters, and similar mythical beings, and those are the people the Dem leadership - not "the Dems" - are attempting to attract by dumbing everything down and pulling their punches. That is not true, as you would know if you had read the Mueller report - or followed the news, even (Roger Stone just got convicted on all 7 counts). - - - Also known as "Republicans". They do like their cuadillos, and after a generation of Hollywood movies they are always willing to give a tough talker a pass on the actual military leadership criterion. Trump=Republican. Republican=Trump Trump is just an updated Reagan, Bush, W. He's a Republican Party President.
Like them, apparently you don't understand the difference. Quid pro quo is not illegal, as all US foreign aid comes with strings attached, whether it's to reduce corruption, human rights violations, etc.. Much like the Democrats who threatened to cut off Ukrainian aid if they didn't cooperate with the Mueller investigation. All US foreign aid is contingent upon being in the interests of the US. Bribery is contingent upon an exchange, where in this case, Ukraine didn't investigate anything and still got the foreign aid. And an attempted bribery would be contingent upon its illegality, where in this case, the president has broad authority to set US foreign policy. They also focus group tested "extortion", which I assume you also ignorantly conflate with bribery and quid pro quo. You project a lot about your own need to consult a dictionary. Lots of people abbreviate Dems and Reps, like you just did. Quit being needlessly pedantic. Who said the Dems were in lock step? And what would it matter if they were. No point of mine is contingent on that, so I can only assume this is a straw man, projecting your own partisan group think. You obviously don't stray too far from leftists sources if you really believe the GOP has been taken over by fascists. And that you believe the media in general is Republican is woefully ignorant and conspiratorial. Where was Ukraine involved in the Mueller report? Why hasn't the Democrat impeachment inquiry questioned anyone involved or about the Mueller investigation?
You heavily distort my presentation, as usual. I wrote, in particular, "Those who followed gained top positions, state contracts, and a lot of things they liked a lot, but they had to follow." So, I have made clear that even if the state rules, the corporations gain power. In particular, power over competitors, power over the workers, and so on. In fact, they gain positions they cannot gain in a liberal society because those corporatist institutions don't even exist there. You react as expected from an uneducable propagandist. The next Dem president will start the usual two terrorist wars and you will nonetheless present him as much more peaceful than Trump. LOL, you did not even read the Wiki link I have given. Else, you would not make even more fun of yourself with that nonsense. But, ok, for writing down yet another propaganda lie against Putin the true propagandist will care about looking stupid to those who have at least elementary knowledge. And even if not, the next Dem president will start the usual two terrorist wars, and you will, of course, blame Trump for this.
I interpret this as support of my thesis "No, they need some moral justification. So there will be a return to a serious "Assad must go" policy, yet some more fake gas attacks, and then a full-scale war with Syrian, and probably also with Russia. What else?" That there will be no gas attack, but Assad will be accused of genocide against the Kurds, is, of course, a variant for justifying a war against Syria. This has been done in Yugoslavia and in particular in Kosovo too. Those who started genocide in Syria against all other religious groups were the jihadist terrorists, created and supported by the Obama administration. The West did not care at all, even if the victims of such genocide have been Christians. Probably this is classified today as a religion of old white men, thus, no problem if worshippers of such a religion are genocided away. Tiassa presented himself like I would expect it from a loser in another post. LOL, are you completely off? Nobody wants to start a war with the US. Those with territory occupied by the US may want to start some actions liberating them, but is not what is named starting a war - the war was started by the US occupying the foreign territories. Nobody simply attacks a state with nuclear weapons. (That's why Kim will not give the NK nuclear weapons away - he is not as suicidal as Ghadafi to believe Western promises.) And the states you have mentioned would, of course, build up their military anyway. With Dem warmongers ruling they would have to do it even more, given that a US aggression would be more probable.
I am enjoying the usual Trump supporter progression here. "Trump didn't do it" "OK he did it but it's not illegal" "Obama did it first" It is actually illegal to use your position in the government to attempt to undermine an opponent (Ref. Hatch act) and illegal to ask for help from a foreign country for your campaign (Ref. US Constitution, US code section 30121.) Note that it is illegal to even solicit it.
Maybe the KGB forbids him from talking about it. Yep, look how much chaos and disruption just one single incel is able to cause here for free. Your comment reminds me about Joe Rogan labeling conspiracy theorists "Unf@!#able white people". I remember skimming through some parts of it a couple months ago. The problem is that ___ _____ _____ __ __ damn redacted, there's hardly ______ _____ and verbs ____ to _________ anything coherent. Beyond stuff like "Mr. Trump met Greaseball McGee at McDonald's on ____ ________ ___" there seems to be no useful info to glean without using Schmelzer's magic Kremlin crystal ball, or the divination rods Russians like to use in their economic planning. Seems like no one's going to end up getting punished for anything until voters choose to force the obstructors out of office, assuming they ever do so. I never understood how black people could contemplate voting for a party which elevates unapologetic segregationists to senior membership roles. I stayed out of the recent Canadian elections because it was a choice between delusional airheads who believe the prairies are a bottomless pit to siphon from to get votes from the coastal provinces, and homophobic self-denying prairie politicians who seemingly want to bring back the Spanish Inquisition. The latter group will probably commission a statue of Trump to stand in front of their campaign headquarters once he retires, he can do no wrong in their eyes. If you read what they write and fill in the blanks, it's quite obvious why Trump gets the support he does. First there's a large group of people who care not how many porn stars and teenagers he sleeps with or how many women he gropes and slaps, as long as he starts the nuclear war to bring Jesus back, because this outcome would suck a lot less than admitting that they wasted their lives pandering to a medieval cult. Then on the other side there's the shit lords who can't get a Stormy Daniels in their beds, but they're happy to at least have a guy in charge who treats women like Barbie dolls, and with him in charge there's a non-negligible chance there will soon be no more Stormy Daniels in the world left to sleep with anyone else. Yes, one goal of the Kremlin is simply to disrupt the conversations in American society, and this fits well with the agenda of Kremlin adherents who have nothing worthwhile to converse about in their own lives. There is indeed a point to this whole spectacle, but you will need very dirty, cracked, warped spectacles in order to see it... and a 24 of vodka. Well there is the possible explanation that a completely objective random German dude got tired of having blonde hair, blue eyes, the hottest girlfriends, windfall profits in a strong economy and nothing but German ancestry going back for 3000 years. Thus one day he decided to throw it all away in favour of seedier lines of work with the KGB's internet division, falling in love with a slavic ultranationalist Russian tyrant in hopes of this one finishing off what the last one failed to wreck in his own homeland's east. But I find the theory that Jar Jar Binks is solely responsible for Anakin Skywalker's tragic turn to the dark side to be slightly more plausible, so no.
Where did I say any of that? Oh, I get it, all Trump supporters must be the same, right? You would think you'd be vaguely informed before posting nonsense. The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice president, and certain designated high-level officials, from engaging in some forms of political activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939"...except the president..." It shall be unlawful for-- (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-- (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local electionhttps://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-52-voting-and-elections/52-usc-sect-30121.htmlWhat did Mueller say about that? The Mueller Report (p.192) notes that election campaign-finance law prohibits anyone from soliciting something of value from foreign nationals in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A), (a)(2). The solicitation must be “knowing and willful. If the thing of value involves more than $25,000 it is a felony. A willful violation will require some “proof of the defendant’s knowledge of the law”. https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...ding-impeachment-part-2-election-finance-law/Knowledge and intent seems to be a crucial factor.
Of course you can't. It's just an example, and for over a month you have shown yourself incapable of understanding despite being told repeatedly: • Your constant failure to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique is its own self-inflicted denigration. (#813↑) • As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique .... (#818↑) • For instance, your inability to follow along from post to post results, in some part, from not actually knowing what you're on about, just like when you waxed ignorant about the Seventeenth, or white supremacism, or even the basic difference between law and law enforcement; the problem with your argument is that it's excrement. (ibid) • The resulting unreliability about your assessments is a reputation that precedes you. (#843↑) • But therein we start to see the range that confuses you. As I said in #813↑, the problem here is your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range. It's true, you skipped out on it in #817↑, but since it tied into your question about why I raised the question of the Seventeenth, I reminded explicitly: As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance. (#872↑) We might also note much of this is reiteration of what was listed in #871↑, but that is simply because you're running around in circles: Considering that you can't be bothered to reasonably address pretty much anything, maybe you should reconsider the wisdom of demanding what is already on record; we end up simply repeating ourselves, running in circles in order to accommodate you. As much as you might pretend to trust↑ the reader↑, you seem to be trusting in a pretense of their ignorance, and, sure, in some circles that's a safe bet, but only when preaching to the feathered choir or an imagined gallery audience; were you actually trying to persuade informed people who happen to disagree with you, investing your arguments in pretenses of requisite ignorance is neither wise nor useful. Furthermore, if we wind all the way back to where the question arises, in #813↑, the point remains that your argument in #757↑, reminding that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power," and asserting, "Nothing unlawful about either," is erroneous for its inappropriate application, as I noted in #758↑: Executive privilege is not unlimited, neither is pardon power. Your response in #768↑, complaining of a, "Straw man," because you, "Never said either was unlimited", is itself fallacious; proclaiming as your support the observable fact of inappropriate omission does not actually help your argument. Or, as you were reminded in #776↑: The reminder that executive privilege and pardon power are not unlimited attends your unbound statement that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power. Nothing unlawful about either." Such as it is, those sentences might be generally correct, but they are not necessarily appropriate to the particular application. And that is still true, six weeks and all these posts later. Two plus two can equal four, but that doesn't address whether the scale is working properly; considering that grift has been around since ancient times, it would probably be best to not think you're innovating any particular sleight. Fallacious application of generalizations only accurate in abstract presupposition not accurately describing circumstances in effect, are dysfunctional. Run around in cricles all you want, but the formulations will eventually and substantively fall apart if what you're trying to describe is actually a heptadecagon. Sometimes the difference between an ouroboros and a cyclic polygon ought to be apparent. And when your counterpoint is to repeatedly assert and behave as if you can't tell the difference, it's true that others will notice. Or, as I said back in September (#741↑), the particular ignorance Trump defenders seem to require in order to make their cases ranges well beyond unbelievable. Look at your paragraph about what you see: If you aren't what you resent being seen as, then maybe, just maybe, you should try something else. You know, show something better. Don't simply trust in sympathetic readers choosing to not put any effort into figuring out what they wouldn't want to accept, anyway.
"Quid pro quo is not illegal." Not at all. But the same themes re-emerge time and time again. Yep. We have reached the point where Trump supporters consider the US Constitution "nonsense." Makes sense; Trump himself holds the Constitution in contempt.
It is illegal when when done for personal gain by a public official. How so? The President has no authority to use Presidential powers to act in his own personal interest against that of the US. If he does that in foreign policy matters, he can and should be impeached. I don't conflate any terms. The physical reality on the table is the issue. It may very well involve extortion - also bribery, and of course quid pro quo. It may also be treason, for that matter - the facts so far emergent suggest it. Why are you trying to discuss focus groups? They do not affect the matter at hand. You, and everyone else who referred to the actions of the few in leadership positions as the actions of "the Dems". "Leftist sources" are not the only ones capable of reality based description. The GOP was taken over by fascism decades ago - that's not a controversial observation any more, outside of some people not liking the term or confusing it with Germany's Nazi government. 1) In the parts where interference in the US elections and domestic politics was pinned on Russians, rather than Ukrainians, among several other places. Read the report, or take the word of those who have. 2) Partly because Trump forbade them from testifying. Partly because their testimony is already on file, in the Mueller report. Partly because they are Ukrainians or Russians and not available (say: Kilimnik) 4) And - it has. The obvious person not appearing so far in either inquiry is Trump himself, of course. They have much in common. So the argument becomes: Trump is innocent because he is incompetent, has no wrongful intentions - he is surrounded by bad people, is all. That has been where Trump supporters have ended up, frequently. It doesn't explain where the bad people came from - or the Trump supporters.
You think criminal investigations against a US politician suspect of corruption (Biden) are against the interest of the US? You really want to have a corrupt president? In fact, it may be not that bad for peace to have a corrupt US president. Instead of the US starting a war against NK/Venezuela/Iran, Hunter Biden will be hired by firms from NK/Venezuela/Iran.
How come you're only interested in possible corruption when it's about someone who's not the president and involves a country trying to escape Russia's clutches rather than Russia itself? I know the answer already, but I was hoping for fun you could explain it to everyone in your own words with a Russian accent.
You made my day with "a country trying to escape Russia's clutches". So, ok, some fun for you too: My accent remains German, even if I speak Russian, every Russian easily recognizes this as a German accent. Of course, I'm interested only in the corruption of countries which are really dangerous for world peace, thus, today only for the US. Corruption is usually harmful to the people of the country, so why I should wish to harm them? The only point would be that the harm corruption causes to the state is something positive for the world as a whole. So, after the end of the IS, the US is the only country where I wish to see a lot of corruption.
which is why you support Trump.... You actually wish corruption upon the USA...even if that leads to the destruction of Russia? You are a fool if you think you can contain the corruption that you wish for... Whether you like it or not Globalization includes Russia... You only have to look at what is happening in Russia to know what Western style corruption is doing...
If I recall the news reports (various) coming out of Ukraine during the initial protests correctly they were protesting about how Russian monopoly on Ukraine commodities was driving them nuts and they wished their government to engage the West for their imports. Russia didn't like that as they were to loose one of their important export markets not to mention military strategic assets and land access to the Crimea. Of course shortly after the incident the news changed into the Russian propaganda feed as you would expect... just like it did shortly after they shot down MH17 commercial jet killing all on board. ( Russian mobile phone records at the time were published and then with drawn.) but this statement of yours is totally damning: and I find it really amazing that your Russian Handlers even bother to pay you anything as you have just blown your cover wide open... btw are you familiar with the Alexei Burkov saga?
Not really, but if he would be corrupt this would not change my support for Trump. I see corruption in the US diminishing the danger of the destruction of Russia as well as a lot of other countries. Imagine, the US has 10 times or so the military budget of Russia, what would that be for power if not for the corruption of the US military-industrial complex. Looking at Russia during the Yeltsin time, we see, indeed, a quite catastrophic picture following Western-style corruption. All the things worth something grabbed by a few oligarchs, the people poor, and the army not even strong enough to win against the Chechen terrorists. The Russians are happy that times have changed. Actually one can see the effects of Western-style corruption in the strongest form in Ukraine. Nonsense, as you have to expect once you believe Western media. There was a EU proposal for a EU association. No problem for Russia, except that Ukraine was in a customs union, and the EU association would have allowed the EU to export whatever they like via Ukraine to Russia without paying a single cent of customs to Russia. This was inacceptable to Russia, thus, to protect the Russian market from the EU competition, after an EU association would have stopped the customs union with Ukraine and started to tax imports from Ukraine. This is what Putin has explained Yanukovich, and thinking about it Yanukovich decided that this would be stupid and harmful for Ukraine. But then the Western agents started to use this rejection of the EU proposal to start the Maidan regime change operation. Whatever Western propaganda writes about MH17 is nothing but propaganda. It would be even more off-topic to start an MH17 discussion here. A poor Russian guy kidnapped by Israel for extradition to the US, where he will be probably imprisoned forever for nothing in something similar to a Stalin time court. This becomes a common practice now, kidnapping people all over the world and sentencing them following the "law" of that three felonies a day country as if foreigners are obliged to follow those laws. I find it amazing that you repeat defamations from the local Nazi against me as if they were facts. It is cheap and general defamation used essentially against everybody who disagrees with the Western propaganda lies. (Of course, once you receive a lot of money from the CIA, you may not even recognize that this is defamation - it is simply what you do as your job. But please recognize that other people think differently about this, SCNR to mirror this.) Of course, given this kidnapping practice, every enemy of the US fascism is in potential danger of being kidnapped in a similar way. Such is life. If you think that this is sufficient to silence me, you err. Moreover, the extradition of German citizens from Germany is forbidden by the German constitution. (Which is, of course, only a piece of worthless paper, because there is no constitutional court in Germany worth to be named that way (if the judges don't like an appeal on a constitutional issue, they can simply not accept it, without giving any justification for it, so that they decide only about appeals they like to decide about). Moreover, the extradition of Germans to other EU members is possible. So, it would be foolish to think that this protects me completely. A scheme like played with Assange (invented rape accusations from Sweden, and then Sweden could extradite to the US) would be a possibility. Nonetheless, I'm sure nobody in the US will care so much to get me.)
so you have only superficial knowledge about this "top end" Russian hacker, cyber criminal Alexei Burkov? There is every reason to believe that the USA's acceptance yesterday of Israel's West Bank settlement could be a trade off for Israel's participation in capturing and extraditing Alexei Burkov thus indicating just how important this "poor Russian guy" may be...of course the timing may be purely coincidental but I would doubt it... and you seek to corrupt the USA even more...?
Of course not. But we were talking about Trump's corruption - his use of Presidential powers for personal gain. Do you remember when you denied - several times - that you supported Trump? Meanwhile: What other countries? What country other than Russia ( since you are willing to hand Russia over to Putin, and call that "safe") is safer because of Trump? Ukraine certainly isn't - Russia has invaded and annexed part of it, and threatens the rest. Somalia and Yemen and Iran and Mexico and Venezuela and Taiwan and so forth certainly aren't safer - Trump is intensifying the role of US military violence globally. Nobody threatened by the US CIA and hired thugs is safer because of Trump - Bolivia just lost an election to what appears to be US meddling and corruption under Trump, and he's been expanding the role of the CIA et al in general. You have inverted the timeline, exactly as it was inverted by the US rightwing propaganda feed. The common error reveals the common source. Living and learning about fascism.
I was answering your claim "The President has no authority to use Presidential powers to act in his own personal interest against that of the US." Once you accept that what Trump has done (namely to initiate investigations against the suspected corrupt Biden) was not against the interest of the US, what remains from your claim? Pointing to obvious loophole in your arguments counts already as support of whatever? NK is, Trump has essentially weakened the pressure against NK. Syria is (Trump has even given up some of the occupied territories). Most of all, the two countries where a Dem president would have started the usual two terrorist wars are safer, simply because they have not been attacked by US-paid terrorists. Propaganda fantasy. Russia does not threaten anybody in Ukraine, it waits until Ukraine starts implementing what they are obliged to do, the Minsk II contract they have signed. So, no US support means no support for the most dangerous Nazis, and therefore better chances for the start of a peace process. No. Of course, he will be named "top end cybercriminal" by the kidnappers, that's cheap. A real Russian "top end cybercriminal" would care about his personal security and therefore not travel to states like Israel where the US secret services can do whatever they like to do. I'm an observer, not an active fighter. So I think "seek" is the wrong word, it suggests some activity to make the US more corrupt. There is no such activity. I simply observe that if the US becomes more corrupt this would be good news for world peace. One may disagree about this, with the argument that more corrupt means more unpredictable, means more dangerous. But given the known criminal character of the whole US elite, every corrupt member of that gang is simply good news.
It's not in the interest of the US to withhold aid to Ukraine with or without a Biden investigation. Besides, you said you support Trump's corruption because it damages the US, but now you're defending him for going after alleged corruption that allegedly harms the US?
