@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
Trump violated a lot of those causes; crowning it with his desertion of the Kurds in Syria.
Superficially, it would seem the Kurds were abandoned, but of course that is exactly what you would expect to hear from anti-Trumpers whose goal is to get rid of Trump because he tends to obstruct political methods commonly used to trigger funding and economic stimulus, such as the practices of drawing US military presence into a region for the sake of getting the money that comes with the military presence.
Trump's strategy of using economic consequences to deter abuses is not absurd. You have to figure that if attacking/threatening the Kurds or anyone else brings with it the promise of US military spending and presence in an area, it actually incentivizes attacking/threatening them if military presence is maintained.
This impeachment on the basis of threatening to pull foreign aid is the Democrat/socialist response to Trump's general strategy, which is to use funding-cuts as a weapon against abuse/exploitation globally. The Democrats and global socialism want to secure the global economy against cuts so that their investors and other economic operatives can tap stable global financial flows for money. They don't want to have their income vulnerable to disciplinary action. No one wants to deal with pay cuts as disciplinary action, right?
The irony is that Democrats/socialists set the stage for such disciplinary action by increasing economic dependencies on government spending and other actions; so all Trump is really doing is utilizing power that Democrats/socialists have put into place. It puts them in an awkward position, because if they want to be free of such discipline, they must reduce governmental-dependency overall, but of course they don't want that because it would reduce the power of government.
It is quite similar to what was done with the federal deduction for state income tax, if you think about it. High income-tax states like NY were benefiting by attracting high-income tax-payers to their states, where they could at least contribute tax payments on a more local level rather than handing all the money over at the federal level. Once the deduction was eliminated, it freed those tax-payers to move to lower-tax states, which in turn meant that the higher-tax states would lose investment designed to recoup money paid as taxes.
So now, because the deduction was eliminated, it is in the interest of high tax states to reduce taxes at the federal level to attract higher tax payers to their states, i.e. because their overall tax burden will be lower overall. That is the opposite of what was happening before, which is that it was in the interest of NYers to support higher federal taxes because doing so increases the levels of state tax they could levy that could be deducted from federal income taxes.
