Exposed partisanship

[Safety]

So, there was a thread where two people were arrested for “planning” an attack.... http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...Mass-Shootings

There were no comments about how this was a bad thing because they didn’t “go through” with it.

So, why are there so many conservatives using the argument that because Trump didn’t “follow through” with his “plan” that somehow his actions were different and no crime took place?

I figured I’d ask, seeing how some topics are not allowed even though it relates directly to the subject.

[MMC]

Hmmm.....with this Sham Impeachment Process. I didn't see you mention anything about the Demos exposed Partisanship. I wonder why that is. LMAO!

[Safety]

Hmmm.....with this Sham Impeachment Process. I didn't see you mention anything about the Demos exposed Partisanship. I wonder why that is. LMAO!

Link?

[MMC]

Link?

Vote shows Pelosi’s impeachment inquiry more partisan than ...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/31/...
Oct 31, 2019 · Vote shows Pelosi's impeachment inquiry more partisan than Clinton effort ... The 232-196 vote to launch an impeachment inquiry of President ... One of the Democrats to vote against the inquiry …




What the Impeachment Vote Says About the Trump Inquiry’s ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/...
Oct 31, 2019 · The stark division in the 232-to-196 vote made clear that the accelerating impeachment inquiry will continue to be highly partisan as it moves into its more public phase, with the two parties …



When your NY Times says will continue to be highly Partisan. What did you think it means? LOL.

[Chris]

YAAFH (Yet Another Argument from Hypocrisy).

You can't reach truth via fallacy.

[Tahuyaman]

So, there was a thread where two people were arrested for “planning” an attack.... http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...Mass-Shootings

There were no comments about how this was a bad thing because they didn’t “go through” with it.

So, why are there so many conservatives using the argument that because Trump didn’t “follow through” with his “plan” that somehow his actions were different and no crime took place?

I figured I’d ask, seeing how some topics are not allowed even though it relates directly to the subject.

Seriously? If someone doesn't comment in a particular thread, it's the same thing as providing a comment in defense of Trump in an unrelated thread.

[Cannons Front]

I had answered your Rhetorical question but deleted it after the general mod warning was posted.

The "Planning attack" situation is completely different than your political situation scenario.

I will start with saying attempting to bribe is wrong and just because the bribe is not accepted does not make it ok. there is actually a charge that covers that Attempted Bribery.

I will start with the POTUS.
Currently no facts or evidence have been presented that show there was an attempt at anything beyond diplomatic procedures. All negotiations involve give and take, that is after all what you are negotiating for, what someone can do for you at what cost to you. So there is no debate that normal Quid Pro Que exists in every diplomatic deal, now what POTUS Trump has been accused of would not be normal IMHO, it would be for personal gain which would be wrong. However at this point he is accused of this and so far in all of this testimony not a single witness has testified any proof or first hand knowledge of any event which validates that accusations. We have had, opinions, we have had beliefs, we have had presumptions but we have not had facts. When questioned directly not a single witness has testified that they had any evidence to support the accusations, actually I believe they have all said that they do not.

Now to the planning of the attack.
While I have no idea what brought these people into the view of LEO's since coming into view and investigation the following facts have been learned. The two have made plans for these attacks written them in their journals, they have purchased arms and ammunition and trained in their use, They have downloaded plans for IED's and purchased components for said IED's including Black Powder, and finally while under investigation one of the two have confessed to their plans.

So under investigation, facts have led to proof and evidence of wrong doing in the terrorism case.

While under investigation, to this point only opinions and personal thought are all that have been provided, no facts or evidence in the POTUS case.

Both cases are being investigated the difference so far is what the investigation has found. If the Toledo investigation had turned up nothing but neighbors saying well I heard that they were doing this, and I think they are planning bad things, and I don't like the way they act and nothing more, they would have never been arrested or charged.

[Private Pickle]

So, there was a thread where two people were arrested for “planning” an attack.... http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...Mass-Shootings

There were no comments about how this was a bad thing because they didn’t “go through” with it.

So, why are there so many conservatives using the argument that because Trump didn’t “follow through” with his “plan” that somehow his actions were different and no crime took place?

I figured I’d ask, seeing how some topics are not allowed even though it relates directly to the subject.

At this point I don't see that Trump has committed a crime. Every negotiation ever has a quid pro quo hence the nature of negotiation. If you're implying that this particular quid pro quo happens to have a political benefit to Trump I don't think that is something new or even something to be considered an issue.

I think it's pretty ludicrous to imply that a POTUS can't negotiate a quid pro quo if it also happens to benefit him politically. If that were the case then every campaign promise a POTUS intends to keep would be against the law.

[Safety]

At this point I don't see that Trump has committed a crime. Every negotiation ever has a quid pro quo hence the nature of negotiation. If you're implying that this particular quid pro quo happens to have a political benefit to Trump I don't think that is something new or even something to be considered an issue.

I think it's pretty ludicrous to imply that a POTUS can't negotiate a quid pro quo if it also happens to benefit him politically. If that were the case then every campaign promise a POTUS intends to keep would be against the law.

I disagree, the action Trump requested from Ukraine was to announce an investigation into Biden or the money for aid and a WH visit will not happen. Now, we know the money was released, and it just so happened after the WB complaint was given to the IC. That is vastly different than any politician making campaign promises, because those promises are not steeped in illegal behavior. If a politician says they will rob a bank and give the money to his constituents if he won, then you would have a case.

[Tahuyaman]

Planning a terrorist attack and mass killing is a criminal act. So far all Trump has proven to have done is conduct foreign policy in a way which differs from his predecessors. That has not yet been made a criminal act.