If he lies. Show the lies instead of stating he lies and calling him a propagandist. It shouldn't be too hard to argue against someone who you claim is factually wrong. For the rest, stop soliciting his ban. NOS4A2 and I hardly see eye to eye and I seriously thought he was a troll in the beginning, but he isn't. Just someone who believes in such outlandish things (e.g. far removed from what I believe how things work) that it surprised me. Get over it.

I appreciate that, friend. But it’s all good. I don’t mind it!

Show the lies instead of stating he lies and calling him a propagandist. — Benkei

Part of the methodology is engage, engage, engage. Quietly, drip, drip, drip, through a thousand little channels, just like this. And see how easy it is to win favour, Precious.

Fiona Hill at public hearings: ”Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.” Russia aims at nothing less than destroying Americans’ faith in their democracy. American support for Ukraine, under attack from Russia, has been “politicized,” a succinct summation of Trump’s reduction of a major European country, struggling to emerge from the mind-bending legacy of the Soviet imperium, to a potential source of dirt on a political opponent.

If this is not abuse of power, what is?

....Trump is Putin’s stooge. The American president’s contempt for Ukraine’s fate is quintessentially Russian, for, in the mythology of Greater Russia, Ukraine as an independent state is a mere illusion (hence Putin helps himself to Crimea). Never before have I felt with such acuity — except perhaps during the earlier testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, the former American ambassador to Ukraine — how the public service of dedicated patriots is under attack from Trump’s diplomacy as an exercise in narcissism. — Roger Cohen

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/opinion/impeachment-inquiry-fiona-hill.html?

Just to keep some focus on what’s happening outside the Foxverse.

Oh, and from the news just now, part of Trump’s Fox rant - that the problem with Marie Yovanovitch is that she wouldn’t hang a photo of Dear Leader in her office! For a whole year! The gall. If only he had Chairman Kim’s powers, then these kinds of embarrassments would never be allowed to happen.

It'll be a good day when Nunes, Graham, and McConnell are no longer in Congress. Those three really are the worst.

And what? Those methods, even if true, aren't available to you? And he has my favour up to the point I'm prepared to discuss things with him. I'm just politely asking (and actually advising you as well) you to stop the whining about his assumed bad faith. It makes you look weak and unsure of your own position which I actually tend to agree with more often than his.

People participating in an Philosophy Forum ought to be open to totally different views and be able to defend their own. The best thing that this site offers me is a place to engage with people who don't share my views. It's makes me firmly believe in democracy.

After all, the trolls, flamers and the real simpletons will be taken out to the forest and shot by the admins.

I dont know, seems to me the process for investigating Biden could have been started here. Still not seeing the America first option.

I mean; there is a distinct difference between Biden withholding a loan guarentee and Trump withholding congressionally approved funds.

Also as far as I'm aware, Biden's involvement in Ukraine was to advise the removal of a Ukraine Prosecutor who was not investigating corruption in multiple Ukrainian companies and individuals.

I mean; there is a distinct difference between Biden withholding a loan guarentee and Trump withholding congressionally approved funds. — Mark Dennis

In part because Biden wasn't the one making the decision. He was just the mouthpiece.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/correcting-media-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

Biden was carrying out a policy developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

...

The U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, along with then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, were key champions of the policy at the day-to-day level.

...

President Obama confirmed willingness to provide the third tranche of loan guarantees in the amount of $1 billion upon completion of the formation of a new government in Ukraine.

As far as I'm aware the Vice President doesn't have that much power or say over policy.

Which is why this conspiracy theory that Biden was acting corruptly to protect his son is so ridiculous. Probably yet another Russian misinformation campaign that Trump supporters can't help but lap up.

Thank you for expanding and the constructive help in informing my current views! It is much appreciated.

Someone here has a theory that a couple of these guys here are actually Russian.

I think @Wallows also finds this theory to be highly plausible. Who was it that originally said that? I'll need to go back and look but I'd love to hear the full theory there.

I dont know, seems to me the process for investigating Biden could have been started here. Still not seeing the America first option.

I mean; there is a distinct difference between Biden withholding a loan guarentee and Trump withholding congressionally approved funds.

Also as far as I'm aware, Biden's involvement in Ukraine was to advise the removal of a Ukraine Prosecutor who was not investigating corruption in multiple Ukrainian companies and individuals.

No one is investigating Biden, nor has anyone held aid for any investigation into the Bidens. That’s why this impeachment hoax is so silly.

Just a comment on something VagabondSpectre mentioned in another topic.

NOS4A2 is an example of a poster who toes the line of philosophical value vs effort. His posts are intellectually bankrupt, but they're also coherent and not poorly written. He genuinely seems to believe his ideas, and he definitely puts some degree of effort into posts. He could actually be a paid Russian troll, but even if that's true, his posts still meet that good-faith "effort" requirement, and he otherwise colors inside the aforementioned hostility lines, so even if we knew he was getting paid to write his posts, it might still be worth letting him stick around.
– VagabondSpectre

Assuming the objective of a paid Russian troll is to influence American voters to vote for a destabilizing or Russian friendly presidential candidate, they would be largely wasting their time on a forum like this. They'd get much better results on facebook and the like. So if NOS4A2 is a paid Russian troll, he should be...

No one is investigating Biden, nor has anyone held aid for any investigation into the Bidens. That’s why this impeachment hoax is so silly. — NOS4A2

Sondland's deposition suggests otherwise.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776170895/read-the-deposition-by-gordon-sondland-u-s-ambassador-to-the-european-union

But I did not understand until much later that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son, or to involve Ukrainians directly or indirectly in the President's 2020 reelection campaign.

... my understanding was that the President directed Mr. Giuliani's participation, and that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the concerns of the President ...

As does his public testimony.

https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-4-transcript-gordon-sondland-testifies

Adam Schiff: (01:44)
And then of course, on July 25th, although you were not privy to the call and other condition was added, that being the investigation of the Bidens.

Gordon Sondland: (01:53)
I was not privy to the call and I did not know that the condition of investigating the Bidens was a condition, correct.

...

Dan Goldman: (26:55)
President Zelensky then responds without reference to the company that he’s referring to. And two witnesses yesterday said that when President Zelensky actually said the company, he said Burisma. So you would agree that regardless of whether you knew about the connection to the Bidens, at the very least, that you now know that that’s what President Trump wanted at the time through the Burisma investigation.

Gordon Sondland: (27:24)
I now know it all, of course.

And then there's Rudy himself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Mr. Giuliani said he plans to travel to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation’s president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to Mr. Trump.

One is the origin of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other is the involvement of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.

And then there's Holmes' public testimony.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/nov/21/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-hearings-fiona-hill-david-holmes-latest-updates?page=with:block-5dd6a4ed8f080fd59fb149fb

Daniel Goldman: (18:59)
And then after that call, you had a subsequent conversation with Ambassador Sondland where he, in sum and substance, told you that the President doesn’t care about Ukraine, he only cares about big stuff related to himself, and particularly the Biden investigation that Giuliani was pushing?

David Holmes: (19:15)
Correct.

...

David Holmes: (58:46)
Okay thank you. It’s exactly my point. I briefed the call in detail to the Deputy Chief of Mission, went away for a week, come back, I refer to the call and everyone is nodding. Of course, that’s what’s going on. Of course the president is pressing for a Biden investigation before he’ll do these things the Ukrainians want. There was nodding agreement. So it did I go through every single word in the call? No, because everyone by that point agreed. It was obvious what the president was pressing for...

And then there's the memo of the Trump-Zelenskyy call.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ...

The impeachment enquiry isn't a hoax. There is enough evidence of suspicious activity that the facts warrant further investigation.

At this point I can only assume that you aren't arguing in good faith.

At this point I can only assume that you aren't arguing in good faith. — Michael

I...love argument, rhetoric and disputation for its own sake. — NOS4A2

(NOS4A2 quote is from the "etiquette" thread in the Lounge.)

Ah, so a troll by definition. Glad that's finally in the open.

Guilliani’s efforts were about the ongoing investigations into Burisma, not investigations of the Bidens. There are no such investigations into the Bidens, though they could be implicated in investigations of Burisma and Ukrainian corruption. These efforts were made in his capacity as Trump’s defense lawyer during the Mueller investigation. Nothing to do with future elections.

I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Was the investigations a condition of these so-called investigations? According to Sondland, this aspect was presumed.

Note that this exchange contains your Schiff/Sondland exchange.

Rep Mike Turner: 00:56:18 Okay. Well after you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the President of the United States because of your testimony, and if you pull up CNN today, right now their banner says Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid. Is that your testimony today Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.

Gordon Sondland: 00:56:41 I’ve said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump, [crosstalk 00:56:49]

Rep Mike Turner: 00:56:49 Not just the President, Giuliani didn’t tell you, Mulvaney didn’t tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn’t tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:04 I think I already testified-

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:05 No. Answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations. Because if your answer is yes, then the Chairman’s wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:23 Yes.

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:24 So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:36 Other than my own presumption.

https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-4-transcript-gordon-sondland-testifies

Holmes: “It’s obvious what the president is pressing for.”

Oh is it?

Again, these are all presumptions, likely media-fuelled, and all you can do is repeat them.

Did you miss Holmes' testimony?

Daniel Goldman: (18:59)
And then after that call, you had a subsequent conversation with Ambassador Sondland where he, in sum and substance, told you that the President doesn’t care about Ukraine, he only cares about big stuff related to himself, and particularly the Biden investigation that Giuliani was pushing?

David Holmes: (19:15)
Correct.

...

David Holmes: (58:46)
Okay thank you. It’s exactly my point. I briefed the call in detail to the Deputy Chief of Mission, went away for a week, come back, I refer to the call and everyone is nodding. Of course, that’s what’s going on. Of course the president is pressing for a Biden investigation before he’ll do these things the Ukrainians want. There was nodding agreement. So it did I go through every single word in the call? No, because everyone by that point agreed. It was obvious what the president was pressing for...

And Trump's phone call?

The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ...

Which investigation of the Bidens are you talking about? Ukraine got the aid, so which investigation in particular was it conditioned upon?

It's crazy how no evidence at all is enough for you to think an investigation into possible Biden-Burisma corruption is warranted but that despite all the evidence of Trump abusing his power for personal gain you still think the impeachment enquiry is a hoax.

It's crazy how no evidence at all is enough for you to think an investigation into possible Biden-Burisma corruption is warranted but that despite all the evidence of Trump abusing his power for personal gain you still think the impeachment enquiry is a hoax.

Sure, if that is the case, you might be able to explain what “personal gain” Trump acquired.

Which investigation of the Bidens are you talking about? Ukraine got the aid, so which investigation in particular was it conditioned upon? — NOS4A2

It received the aid after the State Department realised that withholding it was illegal and after the whistleblower complaint and announcement of investigations. That's damage control.

The fact that it was withheld and that demands were being made is beyond doubt. So I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

It received the aid after the State Department realised that withholding it was illegal and after the whistleblower complaint and announcement of investigations.

So no personal gain. So the only investigations into political opponents is the inquiry into Trump, correct?

Oh dear, quote-mining for the purposes of slander. That’s so unlike you guys. Oh, look, someone believed it. That’s so untypical.

How is this so hard to understand?

• Trump demanded that Ukraine announce investigations into Burisma and the Bidens so that he can damage a political rival and help his reelection campaign.
• The State Department released some of that money on Bolton's orders, apparently without Trump knowing, after finding it illegal to withhold.
• The whistleblower complaint is made.
• Politico reports about the withheld aid.
• House investigations are announced.
• Aid is released in response to Sen. Dick Durbin threatening to block $5 billion in Pentagon funding, and probably also in response to the House investigations.

If you somehow think that because the Burisma/Biden investigations/announcement never happened then Trump didn't do anything wrong then you're very, very mistaken. The fact that his attempts failed so miserably doesn't mean he didn't abuse his powers for personal gain.

Trump demanded that Ukraine announce investigations into Burisma and the Bidens so that he can damage a political rival and help his reelection campaign.

Unless you can find one time Trump expressed the desire to “damage a political rival and help his re-election campaign”, you are dealing with presumptions and fabrications. Actually Trump has repeatedly expressed he needs no help, and has expressed his motives as to why he held back the aid. But none of these show up in your accusations. Why is that?

Oh dear, quote-mining for the purposes of slander. — NOS4A2

Not sure how a direct quote constitutes slander - unless you consider your statements self-damaging.

Not sure how a direct quote constitutes slander - unless you consider your statements self-damaging.

Why wouldn’t you quote the whole thing? Unless you consider the context irrelevant.

Unless you consider the context irrelevant. — NOS4A2

I do.

Unless you can find one time Trump expressed the desire to “damage a political rival and help his re-election campaign”, you are dealing with presumptions and fabrications. — NOS4A2

Unless you can find one time Biden expressed the desire to fire a prosecutor to protect his son from being prosecuted you are dealing with presumptions and fabrications.