J.C.MacSwell

I think in this case it's on everyone. An extraordinary claim would be that the climate won't change at all over time...that's never happened. Weather of course is the noise, but the glacier and icefield melting is pretty much undeniable evidence which way things are currently going. The rate of change is the greatest threat. Organisms need time to adapt and evolve, man included. Man at least has a chance to plan based on gathering and evaluating best evidence.

Warren showing an interest in Universal Basic Income https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-universal-basic-income-option-to-consider-andrew-yang-2019-11

Facts vs opinion Public domain of course doesn't make it factual. Trump's tweets are public domain. I can't remember for certain but I seem to recall one or two of them being less than 100% factual. But seriously let's go over some of your facts from that post. I won't dispute them as I am not sure of the contexts intended, other than question they should be taken as gospel. The first: Who was "Trump's own team"? Does this refer to Hunter Biden's dealings? Or specifically Joe Biden's quid pro quo that at leats appears to have been on behalf of America and not for personal gain or to protect his Son (as Trump I think has suggested). When did this investigation take place? Did it finish prior to his call with Zelensky? Second: This is not something I would expect him to do, nor do I believe he was legally bound to do it. Given the animus and bad faith between Trump and the Democrats I really don't blame him for that. I can understand why you would, reasonably, but don't see it as impeachable. Third: Sounds like Trump, but where, when and by whom was this confirmed? Again not impeachable unless tied directly to a personal, pretty much exclusively personal, quid pro quo. Now, when I say impeachable or not they are my opinions, not my facts, but I do believe it comes down to sufficient evidence, not just best evidence (especially if and where not enough is available) Of course what is sufficient will be different for the Senate than the House...and if you compare with the coming 2020 election it will be different again. That is the gauntlet Trump must run to get back for another 4 years. The most the House can do is slow him down...which may allow him to build momentum going forward if perceived to have not been done fairly. All that of course being opinion...

Congratulations on your first post.

What you claim to be facts are in dispute; However, if they are true they should certainly come out during the impeachment inquiry. If evidence for them does not come out clearly and definitively...you really can't claim them as facts.

You act like I'm accusing the Bidens of corruption. I did not. I said it was obviously suspicious. (it is) On my original point, I said Trump's defence (not in his defence) is that he, Trump, saw it as suspicious. That is sufficient for him to ask that it be investigated. Other evidence may clear Hunter Biden, or be inconclusive, but that doesn't change the fact that H. Bidens position in Ukraine is suspicious, or was to Trump at the time of the Zelensky call. Why do you think Yang, Gabbard, and Sanders made the comments they did?

You don't find it suspicious, and furthermore, don't understand how others would see it that way? See the quotes from Yang "It certainly has a bad look to it" and Gabbard: “I think the perception is certainly a concern,” Heres Sanders reserving judgement: “I know I’m a little bit old-fashioned. I like to see the evidence before I talk about things. I read the papers and I read what I read... but I don’t know that I know enough at this point to make any definitive statement.” https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bernie-wont-rule-out-questioning-hunter-biden-83411 I think you are conflating suspicious with certainty.

Already covered that. Your point is fine. That's why (in part) it falls into the category of suspicious and not indisputably corrupt. It's still suspicious, and still obviously. If you would like a political reference... Yang hasn't condemned the Bidens, but believes much of this type of thing should end. "it certainly has a bad look to it" https://www.inquisitr.com/5662296/andrew-yang-biden-ukraine/ https://www.yang2020.com/policies/prevent-regulatory-capture-and-corruption/ Another Democrat candidates take: Co-host Saagar Enjeti also noted Friday that many Democratic presidential candidates “have been very reluctant to call this out as evidence of corruption” and asked Gabbard if the allegations against Joe Biden indicate corruption.“I think the perception is certainly a concern,” Gabbard said. “I think we have to look at how we can root out the corruption of the abuse of power and influence within our government, and I think that there’s a lot of examples of it.” https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/tulsi-blasts-biden-ukraine-allegations-87996 I still think Mistermack's is the best! "It's stating the bleedin obvious really. Nobody in their right mind could believe his daddy's position had nothing to do with it."

I think Mistermack put it quite eloquently:

I'm sorry if I in any way assisted in getting you confused or questioning your own sanity. I assure you it was unintentional. I think you can avoid this by concentrating on what is written instead of what you think I might "really mean". ...and you see none of this with the Democrats?

Wow. Where did I blame the left for MigL's question in his OP? You said my words had nothing to do with the discussion. I pointed out that they were directly related to the OP. I'm not really sure if MigL is on the left or right. He seems to think for himself. More should be like him.

Sure. But is Trump legally obligated to avoid all conflicts of interest? I don't think he is. Why in particular would this be legally required in this case? (not saying you claimed it was but see below) The Dems and Trump have been operating in bad faith with one another. So any expectation of anything more than what is legally required is unjustified. It's not the way it should be...but that is currently the way it is. You can high five Schiff and condemn Trump if you like, but there is no taking the high ground being displayed here. Most here act like I'm on Trump's side. I've outlined his case, which is pretty much as I predicted it would be when the Zelensky call transcript came out. Not liking it doesn't make it an unacceptable defence. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary is needed for that. From the OP... I understand why you might think that given your bias against opinions you don't agree with and your polarized thinking. But for the record I have not suggested it, incessantly or otherwise. I do believe the Dems are suffering from poor tactics. They might work, but could also backfire, as I have said many times. I also believe a decent moderate Dem, if given the ticket, would have a walk in the park to the Whitehouse, making their impeachment tactics unnecessary.

The one with all the broken windows? What does he have to lose, exactly? (but even to the degree it is good advice...you'd be asking Trump to first of all understand it...and then if he did how long can he help himself to take it? ) Trump hypocritical? He would be the first to claim he doesn't have a hypocritical bone in his body...so colour me shocked! Trump is simply unfit for the office he holds...no different today than when the American people saw fit to elect him. But that doesn't mean the Democrat's tactics are solid...and won't backfire. If they can't find a reasonable candidate with an overwhelming chance to beat him there is something wrong with America...and not just on the right.

You have supplied no evidence whatsoever that it wasn't corrupt. No explanation as to why it might have been a legitimate hiring. Nor can I reasonably expect you to. I don't expect anyone can. (but willing to listen) But you can't brush it off as not relevant. It is very much relevant and on topic...as "inconvenient" as it may seem to you.

Thanks for the link.