The debate "The US should Not Give Money to Corrupt Countries Till They Clean Up Their Mess" was started by
November 22, 2019, 12:17 pm.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
jrardin12 posted 10 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, marky and 2 visitors agree.
historybuff and 2 visitors disagree.
The Ukrainians already had the weapons (that Obama didn't want to give them). We are talking about money. The aid, according to all the witnesses, was not linked to the investigation.
The ukranians ask for weapons, Trump says "do us a favor though" then asks for the investigation. We also have sworn testimony from other backing that up.
I just read it. It does mention Biden. However, it doesn't mention a quo.
Give me the link.
This is a direct quote from the call with the Ukranian president
"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... It sounds horrible to me."
He absolutely did mention the bidens. He definitely asked the ukranians to investigate joe biden by name. He also called for the bidens to be investigated on TV. Please stop just blatantly lying when I have already disproved your lie.
We know it was not for personal gain. Bidens were never mentioned.
The reason it is illegal is because he used the power of his office for personal gain. Hiring an investigator isn't a crime. No one is saying Rudy committed a crime by trying to dig up dirt (which he was and apparently still is). The crime is in using the public office for personal gain. The democrats didn't do that. Trump very obviously did. Abuse of trust is an impeachable offense. So is witness tampering, which he committed when he threatened witnesses.
So when the DOJ and the DNC and Hillary Clinton went for dirt on then president-electTrump via Russia, was that illegal?
The point was that a quid pro quo is not a crime on it's own. What you are giving and what you are getting is critically important. For example, buying a sandwich is not a crime. Buying crack cocaine is a crime. Same action, very different legality. Buying slander on a political opponent using your public office, that is a crime.
A transaction does not need to be completed in order for it to be a crime. If you try to buy crack cocaine, they can still arrest you even if you don't succeed. In this case the Ukranians had agreed to trump's demands for slander against biden. They had scheduled the interview where they were going to do it. The only reason trump didn't get what he wanted is the whistle blower report became public and the investigation started. Essentially, trump was caught partway through the drug deal. That is still a crime.
In the end no this and no that.
There was also no quid on aid.
Trump didn't get anything. So there is no quid pro quo.
So if people do it every day then a lot of people should go to jail, maybe including you. And don't tell me you don't watch MSNBC or CNN.
lol definitely someone who watches alot of fox news. Quid pro quo just means "this for that". Which means that literally everyone does this pretty much every day. If you have ever exchanged money for good or services, you have engaged in a quid pro quo. A quid pro quo, in and of itself, is nothing unusual.
The reason why it is a crime in trump's case is because of what was being given and what was being received. Trump was giving something with his public office, IE aid money and a white house meeting. What he was getting was of personal value to him. IE information/slander against a political rival. If trump had engaged in a quid pro quo for something that did not personally benefit him, no one would care. But because he was using his public office to gain something of value to himself, that is a crime. He abused his public office to benefit himself. That is bribery and breach of public trust.
So, with that out of the way, absolutely the US should engage in quid pro quo's with other countries. If the country is corrupt, then it would depend on the circumstances of the situation and what the US goal(s) are. In some cases it would still be a good strategy. In some cases it would not.
What if the government is corrupt? Should we be giving it? Also you are advocating for a quid pro quo.
This is an incredibly flawed take. Foreign aid primarily serves 2 purposes.
1) To help that country to clean up their mess
2) To give the US government influence of countries to advance america's foreign policy goals.
Refusing to give money to "corrupt countries" undermines both of the objectives of the foreign aid. if they need to money to get their shit together, then refusing to give it to them until they get their shit together is a self defeating goal. If the purpose is to gain influence to advance america's goals, then refusing to give the aid only makes it all the more difficult to advance america's goals. You essentially have no influence over them and they will likely actively work against america's interests. This often leads to things that cost alot more than the aid would have.