The double standard

[PeacefulPartier]

Standard A: A Democrat is recorded admitting (and brags about) using taxpayer funds to extort an ally into firing a government employee that was investigating a man and company associated with his son. Not even worthy of an investigation. There is no evidence.

Standard B: A Republican is rumored to have asked a foreign leader for help. Impeach now!

Someone please explain the logic behind these two standards...without attacking me personally. I know that is an impossible task for some. But let's give it a shot, please.

[O Really]

Standard A: A Democrat is recorded admitting (and brags about) using taxpayer funds to extort an ally into firing a government employee that was investigating a man and company associated with his son. Not even worthy of an investigation. There is no evidence.

Standard B: A Republican is rumored to have asked a foreign leader for help. Impeach now!

Someone please explain the logic behind these two standards...without attacking me personally. I know that is an impossible task for some. But let's give it a shot, please.

Assuming "Standard A" is Biden, I don't know much about the instance. You say "there is no evidence". But if a sitting VP did indeed use government power for personal gain, then that was wrong.

Standard B, has several differences, starting with it being a President, and the target for his request for investigation involved a political rival. Sure all politicians do opposition research and look for dirt, but involving a foreign government in an effort to smear an opponent, and (apparently) withholding otherwise approved funds to enforce the request for a "favor" is far out of line of historical accepted political practice.

Recognizing different facts and circumstances doesn't constitute "double standard." Holding different positions to different standards isn't "double standard."

But the question people such as yourself ought to be asking doesn't start with "whuddabout...Hillary/Biden/Anybodyelse" but should start with "if a President - named anything and of any party - asks a foreign government to help dig up dirt on a political opponent, and holds up some funding for that government a couple of weeks before the request, is that acceptable behaviour? If you want to play "whuddabout," ask what your view would be if it were Obama who had done the exact same thing. What if Hillary had done the exact same thing in her role as Secretary of State.

Truth is, opposing parties will make use of what they can, and are happy when an opponent does something stupid/awful. But Dems didn't set Trump up, they didn't create a situation for him to do this, they didn't make it up. He did it - and determining if it's acceptable Presidential behaviour shouldn't be a partisan issue with the citizenry.

[Vrede too]

Standard A:
Joe’s son was already investigated years ago - nothing.
The prosecutor was fired for blatant corruption, something the entire EU wanted to see happen. It had NOTHING to do with the company where Joe’s son was just one board member among many, an innocent one.

Standard B:
You lie, again. 45SHOLE did coerce Ukraine to assist his campaign, the memo and transcript both say so, and even 45SHOLE admits it. There is no “rumored” about it.

“double standard”:
Even casting Joe in the worst possible light, which there’s zero evidence for doing, the two situations are so very different, as O Really says, that it’s either stupidity or dishonesty to call it a “double standard”. Once again, you utterly fail middle school Logic.

Speaking of double standards:
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/forum/vi ... 74#p102074

PP has abandoned laughable logic failures for straight up lying. Pitiful. The Trumpette worship and desperate deflection is strong in this one.

You lie. Al Franken's "victim", a Hooters calendar girl, says that the pic was NOT sexually harassment. Then, it turns out that the radio con lied about the forced kiss.

You lie. Dems immediately pressured Al Franken into resigning and did NOT “look the other way.”

You lie. Franken resigned just 3 weeks after Tweeden lied about him. That is NOT “quite a while”. Meanwhile, you voted for an admitted sexual assaulter and peeper on undressed mid-teen pageant girls, and you still defend him, hypocrite.

You lie. No Dems have said that black face “was fine”. Otoh, it has been fine when a Repug did it.

Byrd renounced the KKK in the 1950s, crybaby, WV Dems would be Repugs in any other state, and for over 55 years the ideological heirs of the racist southern Dems have been Repugs. Now, we have your idol, 45SHOLE:

Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019
Trump has repeatedly claimed he’s “the least racist person.” His history suggests otherwise.

YOU are the one that tolerates overt and current racism.

Not one of your accusations rises to the despicable level of coercing a foreign government into assisting a campaign with a groundless investigation of a political opponent’s family - campaign felonies and treason. Your mommy must still have to buy the apples and oranges for you.

Why do you hate America and democracy?

Wow, look at all of that hypocrisy! Then, to start this topic while having just run shrieking away from exposure of her/his own double standards is yet another example of PP’s double standards. Ironic that.

[bannination]

Standard A: A Democrat is recorded admitting (and brags about) using taxpayer funds to extort an ally into firing a government employee that was investigating a man and company associated with his son. Not even worthy of an investigation. There is no evidence.

Standard B: A Republican is rumored to have asked a foreign leader for help. Impeach now!

Someone please explain the logic behind these two standards...without attacking me personally. I know that is an impossible task for some. But let's give it a shot, please.

Yes, what you wrote I think is mostly a double standard -- the problem is, no one is arguing that.

If either have broken laws, then either should be subject to the consequences.

[neoplacebo]

If Biden or his son broke the law, they should be prosecuted. If trump broke the law, he should be prosecuted. See how easy that is? Also, if either of the Clintons broke the law or abused their official office, they should be prosecuted. You would think that after about 25 years of pretty much continuous "investigation" into the Clintons that there would be something to prosecute. But no, that hasn't happened. And then there's trump; his "university" was shut down and pronounced to be a fraud and he had to pay 25 million dollars to get rid of that mess. And there's the trump charitable foundation that was also found to be a fraud, fined, and the trumps were prohibited from engaging in any sort of charitable activity for ten years. Now trump's latest bungle has resulted in the chickens come home to roost, along with a couple of lunatics in the form of the talking hollow skull Rudy and the king hell bullfrog Barr. I fail to see a double standard; it's more like an amateur hour for a bunch of sycophants and terminally ambitious morons and enablers. Maybe we should have about seven Benghazi type investigations; no, wait, that doesn't work. Let's just quack, squawk, bleat, and wish this thing away. ok

[Vrede too]

It's been the strategy all along - Shriek about supposed Dem "crimes" while knowing that there's NEVER enough there for charges, not even by Repug govt. Meanwhile, 45SHOLE and the Repugs boatloads of real crimes left are being deflected from.

The only question for us is whether PP is that gullible and stupid, or whether PP is a knowing sleazebag. Of course, PP will never have the spine or integrity to tell us. They've all replaced honor and patriotism with POSPOTUS worship.

[neoplacebo]

It's been the strategy all along - Shriek about supposed Dem "crimes" while knowing that there's NEVER enough there for charges, not even by Repug govt. Meanwhile, 45SHOLE and the Repugs boatloads of real crimes left are being deflected from.

The only question for us is whether PP is that gullible and stupid, or whether PP is a knowing sleazebag. Of course, PP will never have the spine or integrity to tell us. They've all replaced honor and patriotism with POSPOTUS worship.

I really believe that the GOP and their more marginally informed supporters have so much repressed angst and anger and subliminal and/or overt racism pent up in them over having a black man as president for eight years that they've just blown all their gaskets and have put themselves in the position of having to support trump's lunacy no matter what. It's really the only rational explanation I can come up with to explain all their blind eye tolerance for what they would plainly be screaming with their hair on fire if Obama had done some of the loony stuff trump does on a regular basis. It's just pretty much a "you bought the ticket, you take the ride" sort of thing. They have no choice but to go along with it. A handful of them have managed to salvage their ethics and honesty and principles, though. But not nearly enough. Most of them feel they just HAVE to stay on the clown car.

[Vrede too]

I really believe that the GOP and their more marginally informed supporters have so much repressed angst and anger and subliminal and/or overt racism pent up in them over having a black man as president for eight years that they've just blown all their gaskets and have put themselves in the position of having to support trump's lunacy no matter what. It's really the only rational explanation I can come up with to explain all their blind eye tolerance for what they would plainly be screaming with their hair on fire if Obama had done some of the loony stuff trump does on a regular basis. It's just pretty much a "you bought the ticket, you take the ride" sort of thing. They have no choice but to go along with it. A handful of them have managed to salvage their ethics and honesty and principles, though. But not nearly enough. Most of them feel they just HAVE to stay on the clown car.

I'm not saying that I think Repugs will break ranks, but some might.

Republicans could back impeachment if Trump directly linked Ukraine aid to Biden probe

First Republican governor voices support for Trump impeachment inquiry
It's one of the few signs of Republican discomfort with the revelations about Trump's call with Ukraine's president seeking to look into Joe Biden.

‘Republicans loathe Donald Trump’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe reveals how president’s support could evaporate under impeachment

Part of this will depend on whether some America and democracy hating, 45SHOLE adoring Trumpettes like PP grow brains and spines.

[PeacefulPartier]

Standard A: A Democrat is recorded admitting (and brags about) using taxpayer funds to extort an ally into firing a government employee that was investigating a man and company associated with his son. Not even worthy of an investigation. There is no evidence.

Standard B: A Republican is rumored to have asked a foreign leader for help. Impeach now!

Someone please explain the logic behind these two standards...without attacking me personally. I know that is an impossible task for some. But let's give it a shot, please.

Assuming "Standard A" is Biden, I don't know much about the instance. You say "there is no evidence". But if a sitting VP did indeed use government power for personal gain, then that was wrong.

I didn't say there is no evidence. I should have been very clear and I wasn't. The red was the Democratic party response.

Standard B, has several differences, starting with it being a President, and the target for his request for investigation involved a political rival. Sure all politicians do opposition research and look for dirt, but involving a foreign government in an effort to smear an opponent, and (apparently) withholding otherwise approved funds to enforce the request for a "favor" is far out of line of historical accepted political practice.

You are ignoring the coercion that led to the end of an investigation by the former Vice President. That isn't a small thing.

Recognizing different facts and circumstances doesn't constitute "double standard." Holding different positions to different standards isn't "double standard."

The statement is true, but the application isn't valid. There are differences but the more objectionable actions are clearly in Standard A.

But the question people such as yourself ought to be asking doesn't start with "whuddabout...Hillary/Biden/Anybodyelse" but should start with "if a President - named anything and of any party - asks a foreign government to help dig up dirt on a political opponent, and holds up some funding for that government a couple of weeks before the request, is that acceptable behaviour? If you want to play "whuddabout," ask what your view would be if it were Obama who had done the exact same thing. What if Hillary had done the exact same thing in her role as Secretary of State.

What if they committed a crime? Should the government ignore those crimes because they are running for President?

Truth is, opposing parties will make use of what they can, and are happy when an opponent does something stupid/awful. But Dems didn't set Trump up, they didn't create a situation for him to do this, they didn't make it up. He did it - and determining if it's acceptable Presidential behaviour shouldn't be a partisan issue with the citizenry.

No one said Trump was set up. What is being said is that the whistle blower is making exaggerated accusations.

[PeacefulPartier]

Standard A: A Democrat is recorded admitting (and brags about) using taxpayer funds to extort an ally into firing a government employee that was investigating a man and company associated with his son. Not even worthy of an investigation. There is no evidence.

Standard B: A Republican is rumored to have asked a foreign leader for help. Impeach now!

Someone please explain the logic behind these two standards...without attacking me personally. I know that is an impossible task for some. But let's give it a shot, please.

Yes, what you wrote I think is mostly a double standard -- the problem is, no one is arguing that.

If either have broken laws, then either should be subject to the consequences.

People are arguing that. That is the news cycle of the last 3 days.

[O Really]

... What is being said is that the whistle blower is making exaggerated accusations.

Maybe, maybe not. But looking at only what has been proven and what has been admitted to and documented on the "summary" provided by Trump, here's what we have:
1. A couple of weeks prior to the teleconference, Trump personally held up $400 mil previously approved for Ukraine. There may be dozens of good reasons to do this other than to be able to hold it over Ukraine's head, but nobody - including Trump - has set forth any reason for doing it.

2. During the teleconference, Trump discussed the great help the US is to Ukraine, and followed that up with a request for a "favor."

3. The "favor" involved asking Ukraine to investigate a specific political rival.

4. Trump also involved his personal lawyer in the process, a person with no official government position or authority.

5. Trump attempted to hide the record of the teleconference.

None of that is disputed. All is admitted, albeit with usual spin. What part is exaggerated?

[O Really]

But the question people such as yourself ought to be asking doesn't start with "whuddabout...Hillary/Biden/Anybodyelse" but should start with "if a President - named anything and of any party - asks a foreign government to help dig up dirt on a political opponent, and holds up some funding for that government a couple of weeks before the request, is that acceptable behaviour? If you want to play "whuddabout," ask what your view would be if it were Obama who had done the exact same thing. What if Hillary had done the exact same thing in her role as Secretary of State.

What if they committed a crime? Should the government ignore those crimes because they are running for President?

If anyone committed a crime, they should be subject to investigation. But since when has "Joey is a criminal" ever been a defence for what Donny does?

[Vrede too]

Desperate Trumpette PP lies, again. "What is being said" by 45SHOLE's own DNI "is that the whistle blower is" NOT "making exaggerated accusations."

Maguire: 'Whistleblower did the right thing'

If anyone committed a crime, they should be subject to investigation. But since when has "Joey is a criminal" ever been a defence for what Donny does?

As has already been said here several times. Is PP really so stupid or just so cowardly when her/his "double standard" whine has flopped?

Anyhow, it's all lying, lying, lying invention by 45SHOLE and his Trumpettes like PP:
U.S. and Ukrainian officials have stated that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time of corrupt prosecutor Shokin's dismissal.
There is no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation by the government of Ukraine.
There is no evidence that Vice President Biden sought the removal of Shokin to protect Hunter Biden or Burisma Holdings.
Case closed.

Of course, PP will cower from these points like s/he already has because s/he has no answer for them. S/he is just an obedient POSPOTUS/Faux Noise parrot and too much of a slacker to apply any brainpower to the issue.

Finally, even if an investigation was warranted, it is still both treason and campaign felonies for Biden's political rival to be coercing with military aid a foreign government into launching one. PP will also cower from this again, along with cowering from the fact that the real winner of a military aid to Ukraine suspension is intentionally Putin.

[bannination]

Standard A: A Democrat is recorded admitting (and brags about) using taxpayer funds to extort an ally into firing a government employee that was investigating a man and company associated with his son. Not even worthy of an investigation. There is no evidence.

Standard B: A Republican is rumored to have asked a foreign leader for help. Impeach now!

Someone please explain the logic behind these two standards...without attacking me personally. I know that is an impossible task for some. But let's give it a shot, please.

Yes, what you wrote I think is mostly a double standard -- the problem is, no one is arguing that.

If either have broken laws, then either should be subject to the consequences.

People are arguing that. That is the news cycle of the last 3 days.

All I can say is that the argument as you've laid it out, I've not seen personally. I suspect that's because you've added your own color to it by misrepresenting reality.

[O Really]

... I suspect that's because you've added your own color to it by misrepresenting reality.

Ya' think? Let's start with their original statement:
"Standard B: A Republican is rumored to have asked a foreign leader for help"

Not just "a Republican" but the President* of the US
"rumored" - not rumored, admitted to and documented, and requested as a "favor."
"for help" - that would be for help in weakening a political rival

And not mentioned was "with implied threat that funds might continue to be withheld".

Trump looks pretty good if the beer goggles are thick enough.

[neoplacebo]

I've never been that drunk, and I have made more than a few serious attempts.

[bannination]

I've never been that drunk, and I have made more than a few serious attempts.

:obscene-drinkingchug: :obscene-drinkingchug: :obscene-drinkingchug:

[neoplacebo]

I've never been that drunk, and I have made more than a few serious attempts.

:obscene-drinkingchug: :obscene-drinkingchug: :obscene-drinkingchug:

well, you know.

[Vrede too]

I'm not saying that I think Repugs will break ranks, but some might.

Republicans could back impeachment if Trump directly linked Ukraine aid to Biden probe

First Republican governor voices support for Trump impeachment inquiry
It's one of the few signs of Republican discomfort with the revelations about Trump's call with Ukraine's president seeking to look into Joe Biden.

‘Republicans loathe Donald Trump’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe reveals how president’s support could evaporate under impeachment

Part of this will depend on whether some America and democracy hating, 45SHOLE adoring Trumpettes like PP grow brains and spines.

First Republican member of Congress voices support for Trump impeachment probe

First crack in the dam, Trumpette. Your idol went too far this time. Northern Nevada’s Second Congressional District being solid red is even more trouble for you, can't whine that he's pandering.

[billy.pilgrim]

Standard A: A Democrat is recorded admitting (and brags about) using taxpayer funds to extort an ally into firing a government employee that was investigating a man and company associated with his son. Not even worthy of an investigation. There is no evidence.

Standard B: A Republican is rumored to have asked a foreign leader for help. Impeach now!

Someone please explain the logic behind these two standards...without attacking me personally. I know that is an impossible task for some. But let's give it a shot, please.

More important than your question is this simple question that you won't answer.

Why is it that liars and simpletons, when confronted with their own wrongdoings, immediately start screaming, "but they did it too, they did it too".

Sure, both parties have people who have done things wrong, but never, never in my lifetime has there been anything close to what your handlers have been perpetrating on the American people over the past 20 years.

Now run away