Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

List of Trump's crimes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    It is no wonder no-one will answer this simple question:

    Do you acknowledge there is a difference between quid pro quo when the exchange is in the US national interests and when the only beneficiary is the individual engaged in the quid pro quo?
    Jim, I'm doing my best to avoid interaction with you, but this is simply not a true statement, as demonstrated here, here, and, directly responding to your post, here.

    I, most certainly, have responded to "this simple question".
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      It is no wonder no-one will answer this simple question:

      Do you acknowledge there is a difference between quid pro quo when the exchange is in the US national interests and when the only beneficiary is the individual engaged in the quid pro quo?

      If you answer that question yes, then the error present in your comment:

      The US routinely puts conditions on foreign aid. It happens all the time.

      Is instantly obvious.

      The issue here is not 'quid pro quo' on behalf of the national interests of the US.

      The issue here is Trump engaging in 'quid pro quo' for his own personal gain, and not only that, AGAINST THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE US.

      To not argue with an overt consciousness of the difference is beneath you Sparko, not to mention misleading.


      Jim
      I am not discussing politics with you Ox. JimL can answer for himself.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        I am not discussing politics with you Ox. JimL can answer for himself.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Why do you feel obligated to try to instigate something? It's none of your business. I just consider Ox a friend and don't want to be embroiled in political discussions with him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Jim, I'm doing my best to avoid interaction with you, but this is simply not a true statement, as demonstrated here, here, and, directly responding to your post, here.

            I, most certainly, have responded to "this simple question".
            I am referring to asking it of OBP in another thread. And I am referring to Sparko acting - in the comment referenced - as if there is no such difference.
            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I am not discussing politics with you Ox. JimL can answer for himself.
              And the question would be 'why'. You discuss the same things and have the same disagreements with others here. They make similar accusations, and you make similar accusations back - but somehow you don't feel the need to try to cut them off.

              Clearly I can't stop you, but you, cp, and others are gradually engaging in an implicit group censure. And that is not a particularly 'friendly' thing to do. These has been nothing hostile in my posts of late. And yet you are still doing it.
              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                And the question would be 'why'. You discuss the same things and have the same disagreements with others here. They make similar accusations, and you make similar accusations back - but somehow you don't feel the need to try to cut them off.

                Clearly I can't stop you, but you, cp, and others are gradually engaging in an implicit group censure. And that is not a particularly 'friendly' thing to do. These has been nothing hostile in my posts of late. And yet you are still doing it.
                Because every time I engage with you, I get accused of twisting your words or attacking you when I am not. So I think it is best to just avoid engaging with you on political matters for both of our sanity and friendship.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Jim, I'm doing my best to avoid interaction with you, but this is simply not a true statement, as demonstrated here, here, and, directly responding to your post, here.

                  I, most certainly, have responded to "this simple question".
                  The only one of those that even comes close to the context of this discussion is this reply:

                  There's still the possibility that there was a request made in the national interest of the country that ALSO benefited Trump personally. I don't know, and neither do you.
                  The context of my question to Sparko is that stating 'quid pro quo happens all the time' leaves out the critical defining clause that makes it ok - it must be in the national interest.

                  That reply is in fact special pleading that there was some obscure potential element of 'in the best interest of the US' that just might justify it. Yet in point of fact it is very clear from the testimony of the diplomats deeply involved in the situation that simply is not the case. So I would say, we most certainly do know that this request only had the potential to benefit one person - Donald Trump.

                  In the end the answer is:

                  Quid pro quo is NOT ok if (1) is is solely to benefit the diplomat and/or (2) it is contrary to the best interests of the country. Holding this aid was NEVER in the best interests of the country. They are at war with Russia, they have shown significant strides in pushing back against corruption, and a very real danger exists to our best interests that by holding the aid we are enabling Russia to win and take back a struggling democracy that wants to be part of NATO and is looking to us for help. When that is contrasted with the only potential benefit being the 2020 Trump campaign, then we have abuse of power.
                  He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                  "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    And the question would be 'why'. You discuss the same things and have the same disagreements with others here. They make similar accusations, and you make similar accusations back - but somehow you don't feel the need to try to cut them off.

                    Clearly I can't stop you, but you, cp, and others are gradually engaging in an implicit group censure. And that is not a particularly 'friendly' thing to do. These has been nothing hostile in my posts of late. And yet you are still doing it.
                    Every time I engage in discussion with you, it ends up producing far more heat than light. I am not saying the fault is yours; it may well be mine. Regardless, I seem to always end up regretting engagement with you, so I'm trying to politely avoid it. Please respect that.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      It is no wonder no-one will answer this simple question:

                      Do you acknowledge there is a difference between quid pro quo when the exchange is in the US national interests and when the only beneficiary is the individual engaged in the quid pro quo?

                      If you answer that question yes, then the error present in your comment:

                      The US routinely puts conditions on foreign aid. It happens all the time.

                      Is instantly obvious.

                      The issue here is not 'quid pro quo' on behalf of the national interests of the US.

                      The issue here is Trump engaging in 'quid pro quo' for his own personal gain, and not only that, AGAINST THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE US.

                      To not argue with an overt consciousness of the difference is beneath you Sparko, not to mention misleading.


                      Jim
                      I have also wondered why it is so difficult for some to see the obvious difference. When people fail to see or acknowledge what is obvious, it is usually a very good indication that they have a weak case.
                      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Because every time I engage with you, I get accused of twisting your words or attacking you when I am not. So I think it is best to just avoid engaging with you on political matters for both of our sanity and friendship.
                        That still resolves to censure. And it allows no room for change or improvement. It is not preserving a friendship, it is cutting it off. I am dedicated to not pushing back on anyone unless attacked repeatedly first (several times in the same conversation). If you are dedicated to the same, we should be fine.
                        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          I am referring to asking it of OBP in another thread. And I am referring to Sparko acting - in the comment referenced - as if there is no such difference.
                          No, Jim, your exact words were...

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          It is no wonder no-one will answer this simple question:
                          I did, indeed, answer, but maybe I'm "no-one".
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Clearly I can't stop you, but you, cp, and others are gradually engaging in an implicit group censure. And that is not a particularly 'friendly' thing to do. These has been nothing hostile in my posts of late. And yet you are still doing it.
                            Nobody is censuring you, Jim - you are free to post as much as you want on any topic you wish, subject to the rules of the forum. Similarly, I'm free not to engage in political arguments with you.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Every time I engage in discussion with you, it ends up producing far more heat than light. I am not saying the fault is yours; it may well be mine. Regardless, I seem to always end up regretting engagement with you, so I'm trying to politely avoid it. Please respect that.
                              As I said to Sparko - that resolves to censure. There is something very unbalanced here - as I said, the same sorts of disagreements occur between you and Charles, JimL and others. Yet you do not 'regret' your conversations with them. And there have been other personalities on this site that a far more aggressive than I have ever been, and they were never censured in this manner either. You need to ask yourself why you can tolerate such feedback from others and not from this person.
                              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Nobody is censuring you, Jim - you are free to post as much as you want on any topic you wish, subject to the rules of the forum. Similarly, I'm free not to engage in political arguments with you.
                                Refusing to have discussions with a person is censure. You may as well just all put me on ignore.
                                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:49 AM
                                12 responses
                                61 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:47 AM
                                52 responses
                                300 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Starlight, Yesterday, 01:07 AM
                                34 responses
                                213 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 01-24-2021, 07:45 PM
                                7 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 01-24-2021, 11:11 AM
                                45 responses
                                276 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post EvoUK
                                by EvoUK
                                 
                                Working...
                                X