J.C.MacSwell

Already covered that. Your point is fine. That's why (in part) it falls into the category of suspicious and not indisputably corrupt. It's still suspicious, and still obviously. If you would like a political reference... Yang hasn't condemned the Bidens, but believes much of this type of thing should end. "it certainly has a bad look to it" https://www.inquisitr.com/5662296/andrew-yang-biden-ukraine/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/prevent-regulatory-capture-and-corruption/ Another Democrat candidates take: Co-host Saagar Enjeti also noted Friday that many Democratic presidential candidates “have been very reluctant to call this out as evidence of corruption” and asked Gabbard if the allegations against Joe Biden indicate corruption.“I think the perception is certainly a concern,” Gabbard said. “I think we have to look at how we can root out the corruption of the abuse of power and influence within our government, and I think that there’s a lot of examples of it.” https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/tulsi-blasts-biden-ukraine-allegations-87996 I still think Mistermack's is the best! "It's stating the bleedin obvious really. Nobody in their right mind could believe his daddy's position had nothing to do with it."

I think Mistermack put it quite eloquently:

I'm sorry if I in any way assisted in getting you confused or questioning your own sanity. I assure you it was unintentional. I think you can avoid this by concentrating on what is written instead of what you think I might "really mean". ...and you see none of this with the Democrats?

Wow. Where did I blame the left for MigL's question in his OP? You said my words had nothing to do with the discussion. I pointed out that they were directly related to the OP. I'm not really sure if MigL is on the left or right. He seems to think for himself. More should be like him.

Sure. But is Trump legally obligated to avoid all conflicts of interest? I don't think he is. Why in particular would this be legally required in this case? (not saying you claimed it was but see below) The Dems and Trump have been operating in bad faith with one another. So any expectation of anything more than what is legally required is unjustified. It's not the way it should be...but that is currently the way it is. You can high five Schiff and condemn Trump if you like, but there is no taking the high ground being displayed here. Most here act like I'm on Trump's side. I've outlined his case, which is pretty much as I predicted it would be when the Zelensky call transcript came out. Not liking it doesn't make it an unacceptable defence. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary is needed for that. From the OP... I understand why you might think that given your bias against opinions you don't agree with and your polarized thinking. But for the record I have not suggested it, incessantly or otherwise. I do believe the Dems are suffering from poor tactics. They might work, but could also backfire, as I have said many times. I also believe a decent moderate Dem, if given the ticket, would have a walk in the park to the Whitehouse, making their impeachment tactics unnecessary.

The one with all the broken windows? What does he have to lose, exactly? (but even to the degree it is good advice...you'd be asking Trump to first of all understand it...and then if he did how long can he help himself to take it? ) Trump hypocritical? He would be the first to claim he doesn't have a hypocritical bone in his body...so colour me shocked! Trump is simply unfit for the office he holds...no different today than when the American people saw fit to elect him. But that doesn't mean the Democrat's tactics are solid...and won't backfire. If they can't find a reasonable candidate with an overwhelming chance to beat him there is something wrong with America...and not just on the right.

You have supplied no evidence whatsoever that it wasn't corrupt. No explanation as to why it might have been a legitimate hiring. Nor can I reasonably expect you to. I don't expect anyone can. (but willing to listen) But you can't brush it off as not relevant. It is very much relevant and on topic...as "inconvenient" as it may seem to you.

Thanks for the link.

Pete Buttigieg seems to have been smart enough to think the same way, and is doing well, at least in part, because of it. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/cnn-poll-11-16-2019/index.html

I do. Can you link your source for "You should look into this or I will withhold US government support for your country"? So, having bought that narrative, how do you explain Hunter Biden's "legitimate" hiring and role on the board for Burisma Holdings? Second, assuming somehow that it is in fact legitimate, why would you expect Trump to believe it? Even if it is, somehow, reasonable to believe what you are saying, if Trump is skeptical he still has legitimate cause to ask for it to be investigated. What he can't do is ask that the Ukrainians make something up, a narrative put forward by Schiff that he has no evidence for...surpassing even the standard Democrat overreach.

Here's the question; Since what Hunter Biden was doing was obviously suspicious, making it reasonable for Trump to ask for it to be investigated, is Trump obligated to not ask to have it looked into due to the fact Joe Biden is a main political opponent? The counter argument would be that corruption in Washington is so rampant that the level of influence peddling as seen or perceived by the Biden's is never questioned, and so asking for investigation is clearly motivated solely by political motivation.

It wouldn't be if true. But the evidence uncovered so far doesn't support it. In any case Shokin wasn't Prosecutor General in 2006. But the facts that are known are fairly suspicious, to say the least. Trump asking that it be investigated is not in itself a problem politically, IMO, unless the American voter considers Hunter Biden to have provided value beyond influence stemming from his father. It's hard to believe they would be that credulous. And Trump did get a mandate to "drain the swamp". It was right up there with building a Mexico funded border wall.

That, winning and losing, was with regard to the outcome of the 2020 election. You don't believe this has anything to do with that? Clearly it is very much about that. Assuming the context I think you went with I would agree. What if the same effort went into finding common ground and moving forward?

Absolutely agree. But right now it is the Dems insisting there will be a game. Currently in fact they are the ones with the most control of the rules. So if they lose you'll say hats off to Republicans? (surely not)

Obama warning the Dems not to overdo it https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/11/16/obama-2020-democratic-candidates-sot-nr-vpx.cnn

I think it is understandable given that it is in response to accusations that are so clearly partisan driven. Exactly what you would expect of Trump, and given that, nothing to new see and nothing inconsistent with the "mandate" he felt he received when elected. The Dems are, primarily, playing for political points. They have no one to blame but themselves if they lose that game after having elected to play it.

I wonder, given the way the hearings are going, whether Trump will be even be impeached by the House. If he is it is of course on to the Senate with the control reversed. With last say on the matter that could affect the lasting impression of all this heading into the 2020 election But nothing of note so far that we don't already know or could infer from the transcript released on the call with Zelensky. It seems at best so far as more evidence that Trump is misfit for the job due to his narcissistic personality, and questionable ethics. So no sign of change since he put his hat in the ring in 2015, and eventually won. Meanwhile the Democrats are looking worse all the time. (Maybe the GOP is as as well, but against the backdrop of the current Democrats it hardly seems that way)

Wow. You're good. I didn't even have to hint at high crimes and misdemeanors. No mention at all. What gave me away? OK. I actually looked up "lesser of two evils" So there's that. It could read lesser of two negatives but that is a little ambiguous IMO. I was referring specifically with regard to what it would take to remove Trump.

Viable Democrat candidates need to focus policy on at least the moderates in America as well as the radical left instead of focusing on the clown. Otherwise the clown gets back in...by default...again...as the lesser of two evils.

I think they would show up. I can't really think of a group that would have more to gain by his policies...maybe those in jail on nonviolent cannabis charges, In Canada...they would be allowed to vote.

I really don't know. I haven't seen any breakdown on that. (in this they did break out white with college degree 3%, and white without 5%) Why do you feel it is important? I do think he is open to some indirect reparations but would mostly rely on his freedom dividend and other social programs righting things less divisively over time. He would point to Flint Michigan as the type of thing that should not be happening and he would prioritize to be righted immediately. Generally I don't think he tends to focus on intersectionality other than to admit or point out what is obvious and will do his best to give answers (better on podcasts and interviews than debates) "important" should be read as why in a strategic sense in your opinion for votes...of course it is important

Okay, thanks. New Quinnipac Poll released (seems Michael Bloomberg not yet included) Counts toward December debate which is good for Yang to check another box.(4%, which is the thresh hold requirement, or at least one of them) https://poll.qu.edu/new-hampshire/release-detail?ReleaseID=3648 Note Gabbard at 6% (with enemies like Hilary Clinton...who needs friends?)

Somewhat anecdotal and no real proof sex caused the change, but congrats on getting better.

Did you hear that somewhere? From someone trying to dismiss him out of hand for political reasons? Or you based it on your own research? Just curious. I expect it to be a common perception for those not paying closer attention, but I doubt that would include you. He's put out an awful lot and made it available through his site and on twitter. I don't agree with everything, but I do think he's the best candidate and has a solid chance to succeed. This could include making his ideas mainstream, and even becoming President. +1, though the Universal Basic Income is a conservative idea in many respects.

I saw an ice chunk float by in the harbour last February. I felt bad for everyone heading south looking for a warm swim in the ocean. Silly thought of course but any time temperature is in transition the assumption of equilibrium is at best an approximate one.