Trump vs Biden 2020, Ultimate battle for the fate of our universe (pt 3)Read OP 01/11

iliketomoveit

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It sort of is though. It's pretty much the central question.

People take bribes or under the table payments for a reason.

Usually because they need the money - They are in debt or perhaps want to fund a lifestyle that is beyond their current means.

They don't do it for the laugh.

Biden isn't in debt and he's not living a lifestyle that is obviously beyond his reported needs. So again , why would he do it?

The suggestion is that a % of any money that Hunter Biden was to make from various deals was actually for Joe , but it would be in Hunters name.

Why? What's the money for? When does he plan to spend it?

He's 78 years old and as was shown by his IRS reported earnings from 2016 to 2018 , he has plenty of ways to earn lots of money legally and above board via the typical "Book deal and public speaking" route used by all previous US high office holders. So again , Why??

It just doesn't make sense.

You're asking why he wouldn't want to gain millions of dollars? Maybe it was easy money, maybe he wasn't planning on running for president at that time, maybe he wanted to simply enrich his son. There are plenty of plausible reasons, all speculation.

Overheal

Seems undemocratic that Republicans picked 15 of the last 19 justices now, but have only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections

ohnonotgmail

schmittel wrote: »

With all due respect you are starting to sound a bit silly suggesting I am making this up:



https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/joe-biden/2020/10/20/analysis-how-biden-made-large-profit-sale-his-house-2008-archive-article/5996458002/

can you point to where it says the banker paid over the odds for bidens house? that was a claim you made and you have yet to back it up. Instead you are going for the "many people say" nonsense that trump comes out with.

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

Seems undemocratic that Republicans picked 15 of the last 19 justices now, but have only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections

Hillary lost, get over it

eire4

Overheal wrote: »

Seems undemocratic that Republicans picked 15 of the last 19 justices now, but have only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections

That is just how they like it. To be fair the USA is not a functioning democracy at this point bur rather an oligarchy IMHO and one that seems to be lurching ever further to the right and away from democracy towards being an out and out authoritarian state.

Call Me Jimmy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

And in fact the only thing that all of the News organisations including Fox, can agree on is that the emails do not show ANY evidence of Joe Biden being involved in anything illegal or untoward.

While simultaneously corroborating all the emails (given the sheer number bubolinski would have had). If one of them didn't match you'd have heard about it.

hometruths

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you point to where it says the banker paid over the odds for bidens house? that was a claim you made and you have yet to back it up. Instead you are going for the "many people say" nonsense that trump comes out with.

I said there were questions raised over the deal. Which there were, whether you are prepared to believe it or not.

I did not claim to have inside knowledge of a property transaction between Biden and a top MBNA exec.

Bidens relationship with MBNA has raised eyebrows for decades. This is a fact whether you like or not.

8-10

eire4 wrote: »

That is just how they like it. To be fair the USA is not a functioning democracy at this point bur rather an oligarchy IMHO and one that seems to be lurching every further to the right and away from democracy towards being an out and out authoritarian state.

Exactly. Supreme Court Justices should be completely impartial so it shouldn't matter a jot which party nominates because the process should be like any other top job: the best judges get considered for the position, and the houses of congress vote on it.

It's not like appointing a secretary of State or other Executive branch position. The judiciary in theory is non-partisan.

But like everything else it's been politicised beyond recognition to the point where we can now say 'oh it's unfair that Republicans have chosen more recently' when that ignores the real issue because we're already conditioned that everything is right or left leaning.

It's a mad house they have over there. I mean, I like it a lot as a country, but it's bonkers.

ohnonotgmail

schmittel wrote: »

I read there was some question that the banker who bought it (senior at bank Hunter worked at, and big donor to Joe) paid over market value for the house.

schmittel wrote: »

I said there were questions raised over the deal. Which there were, whether you are prepared to believe it or not.

I did not claim to have inside knowledge of a property transaction between Biden and a top MBNA exec.

Bidens relationship with MBNA has raised eyebrows for decades. This is a fact whether you like or not.

It is there in black and white. You claimed the banker paid over market value. what are you basing that on? It is not the NYT article because that article does not support that point.

Quin_Dub

iliketomoveit wrote: »

You're asking why he wouldn't want to gain millions of dollars? Maybe it was easy money, maybe he wasn't planning on running for president at that time, maybe he wanted to simply enrich his son. There are plenty of plausible reasons, all speculation.

Exactly...


An utterly evidence free zone and each time actual evidence to disprove the speculation is put forward, the response is - "Ah , but it could be this other thing"

There is absolutely no path out of that swamp is there?

weisses

schmittel wrote: »

I said there were questions raised over the deal. Which there were, whether you are prepared to believe it or not.

I did not claim to have inside knowledge of a property transaction between Biden and a top MBNA exec.

Bidens relationship with MBNA has raised eyebrows for decades. This is a fact whether you like or not.

You only have to look at who raised these questions to know the motivation behind it.....

Quin_Dub

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is there in black and white. You claimed the banker paid over market value. what are you basing that on?

Reading the articles , the entire suggestion of impropriety seems to come from a potential Senatorial opponent trying to see if they could get some mud to stick.

It didn't stick then , but people seem keen to try to scrape that same muck off the floor and try to throw it at the wall again 25 years later.

hometruths

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is there in black and white. You claimed the banker paid over market value. what are you basing that on? It is not the NYT article because that article does not support that point.

I read there was some question that the banker who bought it (senior at bank Hunter worked at, and big donor to Joe) paid over market value for the house.

Many people say you cannot read what is in front of you. I cannot help you with that.

Weisses and Quin DUb seem to understand that questions were raised - maybe they can help you understand.

ohnonotgmail

schmittel wrote: »

Many people say you cannot read what is in front of you. I cannot help you with that.

but there were no such questions. you made it up and when questioned you linked to a NYT article that did not support your position.

Overheal

schmittel wrote: »

Many people say you cannot read what is in front of you. I cannot help you with that.

Weisses and Quin DUb seem to understand that questions were raised - maybe they can help you understand.

This style of argument is utterly pointless and in general is ridiculous as it is insipid, as though asking questions that are inane is a legitimate political strategy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elRxbGJuCw8

hometruths

Overheal wrote: »

This style of argument is utterly pointless and in general is ridiculous as it is insipid, as though asking questions that are inane is a legitimate political strategy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elRxbGJuCw8

Are you suggesting that nobody credible has ever questioned Biden's relationship with MBNA?

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

Are you suggesting that nobody credible has ever questioned Biden's relationship with MBNA?

So you're suggesting something is amiss because donkeys years ago somebody:

Raised eyebrows
Asked questions

I see.

You can probably understand why that's a fairly weak attempt to discredit Biden.

astrofool

salmocab wrote: »

Is buying a house living in it for over 20 years and selling it for a profit, leaving aside the refurbishment costs really something someone is suggesting as suspicious?

I think they're watching Donald, the crap businessman, who's taken his daddy's money, only to sell the properties (mostly forced during a bankruptcy) at drastically lower amounts than he bought them, and think that's "normal".

iliketomoveit

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly...


An utterly evidence free zone and each time actual evidence to disprove the speculation is put forward, the response is - "Ah , but it could be this other thing"

There is absolutely no path out of that swamp is there?

So are you saying it's unlikely the corruption claims have any truth because there's not a clear reason why he needs the money?

Overheal

schmittel wrote: »

Are you suggesting that nobody credible has ever questioned Biden's relationship with MBNA?

Cut the crap tbh.

Either you question it or you don’t. Nebulous “others” who might question it, is crap. “Many people are asking this” is crap. Do you question it.

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

So you're suggesting something is amiss because donkeys years ago somebody:

Raised eyebrows
Asked questions

I see.

You can probably understand why that's a fairly weak attempt to discredit Biden.

Asking questions used to be an essential part of journalism. Sadly it now seems to be verboten for fear the answers might cause offense.

hometruths

Overheal wrote: »

Cut the crap tbh.

Either you question it or you don’t. Nebulous “others” who might question it, is crap. “Many people are asking this” is crap. Do you question it.

I get you now.

Yes, absolutely I think Bidens relationship with MBNA stinks. As does that property deal.

Overheal

schmittel wrote: »

Asking questions used to be an essential part of journalism. Sadly it now seems to be verboten for fear the answers might cause offense.

Misrepresenting the issue here again tbh. These questions were asked well over a decade ago, and answered. The link you provided for this tangent both opened and closed the topic by clearing up that there was no wrongdoing and everything was legitimate.

iliketomoveit

salmocab wrote: »

Is buying a house living in it for over 20 years and selling it for a profit, leaving aside the refurbishment costs really something someone is suggesting as suspicious?

I was asked how he might launder money and gave this as one (of many) plausible ways.

astrofool wrote: »

I think they're watching Donald, the crap businessman, who's taken his daddy's money, only to sell the properties (mostly forced during a bankruptcy) at drastically lower amounts than he bought them, and think that's "normal".

So far the only claim I've made is that Biden is most likely corrupt.

Kidchameleon

On the whole Biden mistaking Trump for Bush... I found this hilarious, Trump ROASTS Biden at a rally... "He called me George, I don't know if I should be insulted or happy about it??"


I feel that Biden is a total idiot, more gaffs to come I'm sure!

Overheal

Oh my yes get prepared for 8 years of Biden gaffes

hometruths

Overheal wrote: »

Misrepresenting the issue here again tbh. These questions were asked well over a decade ago, and answered. The link you provided for this tangent both opened and closed the topic by clearing up that there was no wrongdoing and everything was legitimate.

Fair enough. Asked and answered as you say. Good enough to close the topic for a boards.ie forum.

But I wonder if the topic is closed for those voters in the US who think that Biden used his VP position for financial gain.

Quin_Dub

iliketomoveit wrote: »

So are you saying it's unlikely the corruption claims have any truth because there's not a clear reason why he needs the money?

It certainly weakens the already flimsy evidence.

No one thing in isolation confirms or denies anything , but as it stands right now the propensity of evidence leads to a logical conclusion of giving him the benefit of the doubt.

As Trump frequently likes to say - He's bee in Public life for 47 years , if there really was a "there" there , it would have been found by now.

And looking at Obama , who on the basis of the complete and total lack of ANYTHING being put forward about him , is as clean as a whistle.

He would have done his due diligence and there were plenty of other possibilities for VP - Why would he have gone with Biden if there was dirt (or even a viable suggestion of it) there?

Quin_Dub

schmittel wrote: »

Many people say you cannot read what is in front of you. I cannot help you with that.

Weisses and Quin DUb seem to understand that questions were raised - maybe they can help you understand.

I absolutely get that "questions were raised" , but my point is that they were raised by a person working an angle , a GOP candidate trying to unseat Biden in a solidly Blue state.

So ,them "asking questions" doesn't really carry a whole lot of legitimacy - No one really bought them when they were first floated decades ago and time hasn't improved them either.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

On the whole Biden mistaking Trump for Bush... I found this hilarious, Trump ROASTS Biden at a rally... "He called me George, I don't know if I should be insulted or happy about it??"


I feel that Biden is a total idiot, more gaffs to come I'm sure!

Do you find this hilarious too? Will you watch this short clip of Trump misspronouncing the names of people (some sitting right next to him) and give your thoughts on it? Or will you ignore it again and run away?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOM87mNHR1M