Wheat/“/“/“ wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:50 pm
I don’t like Trumps character, I’ve been very clear on that and certainly not afraid to address his faults there. I also don’t like Biden’s character, he’s a lying career politician that’s tells people what he thinks they want to hear, [etc.].
And those are our two choices. Not America’s best or brightest, but that’s what we have. So we have to set aside those character flaws and look at what they do, or what their party wants to do, if they are in office.
This isn't just a question of character. It is a question of the use of power for personal, political ends.
You asked earlier what Trump did to further his personal interests, and in the next breath laughed off the Ukraine matter. Let's say you really believe Hunter Biden is really a threat to national security because Joe arranged a cushy job for him in a Ukrainian oil company. Under past administrations, U.S. agencies would have been tasked with that matter. Those agencies would have worked outside the direct purview of the President, possibly in conjunction with the country in which it happened, but also possibly not. But in any case, it is the U.S. investigation that would have evaluated the case and made a determination. No such U.S. investigation was opened. Why not?
In addition, the President did not make the money appropriated to Congress available to Ukraine for its defense against Russia immediately available. Did he want an investigation opened in exchange for that release? Actually, no. He asked for a public statement of an investigation, but didn't actually ask for an investigation, didn't ask for any reports to be sent, and didn't ask for any U.S. agency involvement in the requested investigation. Why not? Meanwhile, Congress had said that Ukraine needed the money urgently, but the funds were not released. How is that acceptable action in the national interest?
That just one instance, of course. He has also suggested holding the G7 at his own resort (rescinded due to public outcry), has redirected the routes of military aircraft to house crews at a Trump-owned resort, has asked the British Government to change the site of the British Open golf tournament to one of his properties, and used official acts and official government property directly in a campaign. And before you flippantly say that last one doesn't mean anything, how is using the White House for the Republican National Committee advancing the interests of any non-Republican taxpayer? That's just the low-hanging fruit.
Oh, and why won't he release his tax returns, anyway? Why does he get a free pass on that, as the only major party NOMINEE, let alone elected President, to refuse to do so for the last 40 years (Gerald Ford released summaries - but not returns - in 1976)?
Hunter Biden
is a problem, I agree. But the fact remains, that it is is legal under U.S. law. The reverse, by the way, is not. A foreign leader's children may not accept jobs directly in U.S. companies. That law needs to change.
Now for the issue you raised, which I believe boils down to the following from a later post:
Wheat/“/“/“ wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:50 pm
Simple question: Democrats have had control of those communities for decades. just how much time do you need to fix it?
The problem with the general question as phrased is that regardless of what specific item I raise, it allows you to shift the discussion to something else. This is a very common rhetorical tactic (on both sides, not just yours): One asks a general question, a specific response is given, and then the initial questioner gives a different "whatabout" question until the initial responder can't find a reply.
That doesn't pass for discussion where I'm from. If you have something specific in mind, whether a specific policy or a specific city, name it, and I'll be happy to discuss it, warts and all. I have done so above, so now I expect you to do the same.
One of the major faults of our current political discourse is that it is far too simplistic. Both sides have trouble admitting fault. Errors need to be evaluated and discussed. Encountering a single problem may, but more then likely does not, invalidate an entire approach. It often does require a fix, however. But you can't fix the details until you agree on what the subject matter is. The way your question is phrased, I can't tell what you are actually asking.
Or, I could say, "less time than passed between 1865 (the Civil War) and 1960 (the Civil Rights Movement)", and leave it at that. But I don't see how that advances the discussion.
