Political Discussion

It's obvious that Trump was withholding aid in order to put pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden's family. He didn't have to explicitly say this either so the "proof" is probably not there.

I heard that he is using the cover of, "We wouldn't want to give military aide to corrupt government." :rolleyes:

Is this something the DOJ normally handles? Is it unusual that a president is involved in this?
 
It's obvious that Trump was withholding aid in order to put pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden's family. He didn't have to explicitly say this either so the "proof" is probably not there.
The thing is, this has already been thoroughly investigated and dismissed. In this context, "investigate" means "manufacture disinformation against," which is equivalent to making an offer for a quid pro quo to a foreign power in exchange for interference in our elections.

Again.
 
Who likes to Mock children.


EFPT2YAUcAA1aXR
 
I'm sure that this type of corruption is rampant in his admin, which is really sad.

What is also sad is that it is just the tip of the iceberg for both parties. Making decisions that benefit corporations rather that individuals. I wish that benefits to society were seen this way. Somebody needs to chip away at this idea that corporations come first citizens come second.

All true. The last sentence has been a need since the founding of the thing called America (at least). Landowners were the corporations of the day, human servitude was the motor oil running the engine... the founding concepts haven't changed.
 
Who likes to Mock children.

I mean, I see all the claims of sarcasm and mockery, but do any of us think he saw or heard anything other than a girl spoke about climate change at the UN?
 
This thing is, these things are done without explicitly saying them. Withhold the aide and then get on the phone to suggest an action.

How much was this investigated in the past? Biden that is. @Indymisanthrope
 
This is all just from a cursory google search.






 
Let's change the topic for a moment to cover an oxymoron.

Trump is / was attending the UN Climate Change Conference.

Today he threatens to withhold all federal highway funds from California if they don't comply with the federal emissions standards which are lower than what California currently has set.

Let's roll back progress instead of make progress.
 
This is all just from a cursory google search.








I mean just a quick glance at two of the articles and it does smell fishy. Which is enough for some. You do business in a country with corruption and you are gonna come dangerously close to people or attract attention from others that want you pegged.

One thing that struck me was $50K a month for sitting on a board. What do these guys do to earn that? It just seems unfair that capital dictates the rules so easily while labor spends all their time scraping up crumbs.
 
I mean just a quick glance at two of the articles and it does smell fishy
And that’s fine, but the important thing to remember is that:
1) as of right now, no evidence of any wrongdoing has been found from the investigating that has already been done;
2) if wrongdoing was found that wouldn’t validate Trump’s actions;
3) giving credibility to unfounded rumors puts the left on the defensive unnecessarily.
 
What is acceptable in this situation. I have no idea how people are supposed to conduct themselves in these situations.

2) if wrongdoing was found that wouldn’t validate Trump’s actions;

Also this popped out to me in the Vox article

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours,” Biden (Joe) told his audience. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

The former vice president said after the threat, “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

The article doesn't go into what led them to believe the prosecutor was corrupt, but also it's crazy to think that the US so much control over officials in other countries.
 
The article doesn't go into what led them to believe the prosecutor was corrupt,
Shokin served as prosecutor general under Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after he was removed from power in 2014 and was later found guilty of treason. Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”

In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.”

In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.

“After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the PGO itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,” the CRS report said. Shokin resigned in March 2016, coinciding with Biden’s visit to Ukraine and a series of events that increased pressure on Shokin.

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, on Sept. 20 tweeted that the “Obama administration policy (not just ‘Biden policy’) to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go” was “a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society.”
 
Something struck me this morning, after reading some stuff yesterday regarding the Biden situation, thinking about the climate change stuff, and a celebration at the school I work at because of it having the highest middle school test scores. The information required to understand the problems we face in society requires a lot of its citizens. So much that we don’t have the time to understand it all. As a result we have to put our faith in others that are more educated in that area, it seems that that is very difficult to do on a large scale. Government and religion seems to be the only way we have tried to do this. Is there another way?
 
Something struck me this morning, after reading some stuff yesterday regarding the Biden situation, thinking about the climate change stuff, and a celebration at the school I work at because of it having the highest middle school test scores. The information required to understand the problems we face in society requires a lot of its citizens. So much that we don’t have the time to understand it all. As a result we have to put our faith in others that are more educated in that area, it seems that that is very difficult to do on a large scale. Government and religion seems to be the only way we have tried to do this. Is there another way?
I think Government and Religion only give us guidance in how to respond to the issues. There are scientists, the media and others that help us understand the issues. One of the problems we face is that with the wealth of information available we have to personally vet the information more than ever. Although, even in the past, history and other materials needed to understand are written with, if not an actual agenda, the bias of the writer. True clean information has never been truely available but is less possible now.
 
Something struck me this morning, after reading some stuff yesterday regarding the Biden situation, thinking about the climate change stuff, and a celebration at the school I work at because of it having the highest middle school test scores. The information required to understand the problems we face in society requires a lot of its citizens. So much that we don’t have the time to understand it all. As a result we have to put our faith in others that are more educated in that area, it seems that that is very difficult to do on a large scale. Government and religion seems to be the only way we have tried to do this. Is there another way?

I think Government and Religion only give us guidance in how to respond to the issues. There are scientists, the media and others that help us understand the issues. One of the problems we face is that with the wealth of information available we have to personally vet the information more than ever. Although, even in the past, history and other materials needed to understand are written with, if not an actual agenda, the bias of the writer. True clean information has never been truely available but is less possible now.

As a scientist this is something I think about a lot. It's something that weighs on me as and individual and on my profession. It's my feeling and experience that science isn't valued highly. There's a web of reasons why.

For instance, in most organizations that contain both scientists and engineers, engineers earn 10-20% at the same professional level and with less education. Most environmental consultants are not scientist, but engineers. I think there is strong evidence that there has been a societal discrediting of science and scientists that has accelerated over recent decades; particularly post the Environmental Protection Act. Discrediting of science has always been a thing, but was mostly left to religious zealots. Religion, specifically evangelical Christianity, has been able to greatly influence political decisions in the U.S.

There are other factors. Americans now have a basic distrust in their government that (I think) is stronger post-Vietnam, post-Nixon, post-Iran Contra, post-etc. etc. Science is also viewed as inherently socialist. A better way to say it is anti-capitalist because it tends to cost money upfront; long before profits can be made off of what is learned / the knowledge that is gained.

Science has also become for-profit and because of the way academic thought has failed the average person. Science has not dedicated itself to using the language and energy necessary to speak to people outside of their disciplines.

Now, if you want to suggest that scientists are motivated by things other than science. I would agree with that statement. The fact is that scientist need to compete for very limited grant dollars, which are often very limited tax dollars. Most of us work on this "soft" money. It's just accepted and expected that scientists have this impermanence as a part of their lives. Some governments and some states value science more than others and those places tend to be where innovation and advancement of knowledge occur. To me these are ultimately societal choices and have everything to do with the policies put forth by our local and national governments.

Personally, I'm working in a place that I have some freedom to try and address the communication issue, and I'm trying to do so (as are many others). We are getting better at it, but we are scientists not graphic designers, not speech writers, not facilitators. We do all of those things but it's often not our natural state of being. So we need help. We need people in office who spend money efficiently and build important funding foundations. We need people with other expertise to be willing to work with us even though we don't have very much money. We also need the public to make the choice to keep their religion in the home, their politics in the booth, and be willing to interact with people and information they might not easily understand.
 
Back
Top