Let’s not forget trying to violate the law by seeking out the whistleblower.
You said it was benefit for the electorate. It’s not. It’s benefit for the Trump campaign. Democrats can’t use the power of the presidency for themselves to find dirt on Trump. They don’t have the office.
Seriously of all the things to defend him on this is a strange one but you do you.
False. I said “to the benefit of.”
Let Trump uncover dirt now, and let Democrats when they get power. I think it’s always a good thing.
And I’ll be saying it’s an abuse of power if Democrats do it. And impeachable if they use tax dollars for it.
1 Like
So you would prefer to not know what politicians do. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I didn’t say that. Plenty of proper ways to do that. This isn’t one of them. But you’re cool with abuse of power here and that’s fine. Just most everyone disagrees with you.
Isn’t using your power to get re-elected mainly a dictator thing? We know Trumps a dictator fan already.
Has Trump gotten any of the dirt he wanted? What was it? What were the proper ways to obtain it?
That’s extremely bothersome. There’s nothing I want more than for “most everyone” to agree with me. On a totally unrelated note, have you met “most everyone?” Do you wish to be like them?
I don’t know. A lot of things are. Exposing dirt=a good thing. Using the military to keep people from voting=a bad thing(unless those people would vote for someone bad while you are good…then, it’s a good thing!).
It’s not a good idea and it never has been. It’s the very definition of self-dealing and corruption, and it is the antithesis of republican government.
1 Like
You don’t think he has people looking for dirt? I can tell you the improper way to obtain it. It’s what he’s being accused of.
Not only that why give the President that power merely because they are the President? Not much of a fair election if that’s the case.
Maybe Nick’s opposed to fair elections.
If my view of something is counter to how the vast majority of people view something it makes me question if my view is correct.
Yes - and for proof of this, there are all kinds of rules that prohibit elected officials from using their office for private gain, and in particular, advancing the interests of his/her campaign for re-election. We’ve considered this bedrock anti-corruption law forever - but Trump gets elected, and we get fresh noise from the Right about “hey, what’s the big deal?”
1 Like
What in the hell is a fair election? There’s nothing fair about “majority rules.”
Edit: How about this: An unfair election is one in which people are kept away from the polls via force. It’s not an election in which more dirt is uncovered and/or exposed by one side or the other. That’s politics.
I can certainly understand these kinds of rules. I don’t see any valid claim Trump did this.
These, too…if that’s monetary contribution…not so much for “the other guy did this.”
If we aren’t going to even attempt to have things Presidents shouldn’t use their office for in order to get re-elected let’s just give them 8 years right off the bat and save everyone the time.
I get that you don’t think the President should have limits on how they go searching for dirt. Use NSA, FBI, pay foreign countries, whatever.
Just politics.
That’s most often exactly what happens(since 1992, it’s the only thing that’s happened…Edit: we just have to go through the expensive motions of an election).
If we’re going to have such things, I agree! I’d rather get rid of them altogether.
Yep. I wasn’t being serious but being the incumbent has plenty of advantages. They don’t need extra ones like no limits on what they can do to maintain power. I’m not sure why anyone would even want that. Even if you love Democrats or Republicans wouldn’t you want an election where the rules for both people running for a spot are as similar as possible?
But we’re not talking about getting rid of them. We’re talking about using them to advance one persons political career in a way that no one else can.
Doesn’t really bother me. It’s just a symptom. Don’t like it? Move to Somalia.
Then you’re remaining intentionally ignorant. Trump sought something of value to himself personally - and we know this because he was having Giuliani try and get the thing of value - dirt on Biden. This can’t be disputed. Next, Trump (apparently) used his office to withhold Congressionally appropriated funds in hopes of putting pressure on Ukraine to get thing of personal value that Giuliani had not previously succeeded in securing.
No valid claim? Horseshit.
But it’s never been so limited as to be restricted as only a monetary contribution. Seriously - you can’t juat make up new rules and pretend they apply.
2 Likes