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

Graham

Phoebas wrote: »

I think most normal people would need some strong evidence before finding that plausible. The rantings of Rudy Gulliani don't meet that bar.

This

MoonUnit75

Graham wrote: »

Perfectly plausible that Hunter used his Fathers position for his own gain.

Not seeing how Hunter's father should be held to account for it.

OK, look at it this way.

Joe Biden is given special responsibility for Ukraine. He makes it known that he alone can withhold millions in loans that they are desperate for. He forces them to sack their prosecutor or he won't release the funds. He goes on public record saying that was his ultimatum to the Ukrainian government.

So Biden makes it known to Ukrainian prosecutors that he has the personal power to have them sacked. The prosecutors job is to investigate corruption in companies like Bursima. Burisma are somehow able to hire Joe Biden's son on a massive salary he is in no way qualified to earn.

When the prosecutor in the Ukraine looks over the list of companies to investigate for corruption, he sees the son of the man who can get him fired is on the board of Burisma. That is how corruption operates.

My own feeling is that Burisma's owner had extremely compromising dirt on Hunter, not unlikely given his public problems with crack and strippers and him just being kicked out of the navy for failing a cocaine test. That is how he was able to retain the Biden name as protection against prosecution in his own country.

Graham

That's a cool story.

Am I also expected to invent a similar story in response?

Cody montana

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

OK, look at it this way.

Joe Biden is given special responsibility for Ukraine. He makes it known that he alone can withhold millions in loans that they are desperate for. He forces them to sack their prosecutor or he won't release the funds. He goes on public record saying that was his ultimatum to the Ukrainian government.

So Biden makes it known to Ukrainian prosecutors that he has the personal power to have them sacked. The prosecutors job is to investigate corruption in companies like Bursima. Burisma are somehow able to hire Joe Biden's son on a massive salary he is in no way qualified to earn.

When the prosecutor in the Ukraine looks over the list of companies to investigate for corruption, he sees the son of the man who can get him fired is on the board of Burisma. That is how corruption operates.

My own feeling is that Burisma's owner had extremely compromising dirt on Hunter, not unlikely given his public problems with crack and strippers and him just being kicked out of the navy for failing a cocaine test. That is how he was able to retain the Biden name as protection against prosecution in his own country.

In what year this this magically happen?

MoonUnit75

Graham wrote: »

That's a cool story.

Am I expected to invent a similar story in response?

It's all on public record. No one in Biden's camp denies that Joe threatened Ukraine unless the sacked the prosecutor. Joe's own son joins the board of a company the next prosecutor is supposed to investigate. No one disputes this.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

It's a fact that whole Joe Biden, as VP, was dealing with the Ukraine that his son got a highly paying job on a gas board.
It doesn't appear that he had any qualifications or experience to make this appointment look sound in any way.
Do you dispute any of the above.
Please start your answer with yes I dispute it or no I don't dispute it.


I'm not asking anybody to build a case. I'm asking that given the information above, which is true, if you think that there's a stench off it.

Did Joe get him the job? Viable sources only.

As I said before a close family member sat on the board of the Rotunda yet he'd no medical qualifications, does that make him unfit for the board? I'd answer no.

You've presented zero verifiable sources to state your case so until you do, there's no point to your posts on this

Graham

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It's all on public record. No one in Biden's camp denies that Joe threatened Ukraine unless the sacked the prosecutor. Joe's own son joins the board of a company the next prosecutor is supposed to investigate. No one disputes this.

You filled in your own blanks to support your own conclusion though. Let's not pretend otherwise.

ArmaniJeanss

eagle eye wrote: »

If a Ukrainian takes issue with it I'll apologise to them.

Meh, it would say more about you if you continued to use it when their own government considers it offensive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/01/its-ukraine-not-ukraine-ukrainians-want-you-get-it-right/
These are the only politically correct terms that express respect to the country and its nation.
Be smart and avoid Soviet style clichés

MoonUnit75

Cody montana wrote: »

In what year this this magically happen?

Fingers in the ears. Very childish.

duploelabs

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Fingers in the ears. Very childish.

I'd wager your response is more childish, why not furnish the poster with backing up your claims

Cody montana

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Fingers in the ears. Very childish.

What year did this happen?

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

You've presented zero verifiable sources to state your case so until you do, there's no point to your posts on this

Well I contend that if this was Trump and Trump junior you'll be all over it like a rash calling for charges and an impeachment hearing.
If you deny that then you really don't know yourself.

MoonUnit75

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

It's all on public record. No one in Biden's camp denies that Joe threatened Ukraine unless the sacked the prosecutor. Joe's own son joins the board of a company the next prosecutor is supposed to investigate. No one disputes this.

And a Republican led investigation found that Biden did nothing wrong. On top of that both the global community and even bipartisan support backed that stance. It was not a unilateral decision by Biden.

eagle eye

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

Meh, it would say more about you if you continued to use it when their own government considers it offensive.

I won't be taking your advice in it, that's for sure.
There is no intention by me to insult anybody. It's an innocent mistake, if it is wrong.
I'll.look at it myself at some stage but it's well down my list of things to do.

I suppose that should go check if the UK and the USA don't like that either even though it's different.

Graham

eagle eye wrote: »

It's a fact that whole Joe Biden, as VP, was dealing with the Ukraine that his son got a highly paying job on a gas board.
It doesn't appear that he had any qualifications or experience to make this appointment look sound in any way.
Do you dispute any of the above.
Please start your answer with yes I dispute it or no I don't dispute it.

Is your father responsible for your actions?

Please start your answer with yes or no.

eagle eye

Graham wrote:

Is your father responsible for your actions?

Yes, partly.

mcsean2163

I don't think anyone cares about sleepy Joe but Kamala is backed by CNAS which is backed by the Clinton's and is a group in favour of war.

Trump is a dreadful president but he hasn't started any wars.

What does everyone think of CNAS that Kamala is bringing on board?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Phoebas wrote: »

At worst the Hunter Biden thing is the energy company giving him a gig in the hopes that it would give them some indirect influence. That doesn't amount to corruption, especially not on Joe Biden's side, but it could probably have been used to tarnish Joe Biden's back story of coming from a modest upbringing in Scranton and working hard for what he earned.

It doesn't amount to much but the Republicans are massively overplaying it. The likes of Giuliani are trying to spin this into Hunter Biden as a 'bagman' for the Biden 'crime family' and this being the biggest political scandal in history.
Of course, no normal person is going to buy that line, and so they've squandered any bit of serious traction that might have got.

It’s all very desperate. If Hunter Biden was the presidential candidate, it might have more traction but he’s a step removed so it’s hard to care. And if this is what they have latched onto to try and discredit Joe Biden, they clearly are a bit low on dirt.

MoonUnit75

Deleted User wrote: »

And a Republican led investigation found that Biden did nothing wrong. On top of that both the global community and even bipartisan support backed that stance. It was not a unilateral decision by Biden.

At least you recognise what I posted was the true state of affairs.

I think the problem is Joe didn't have to do anything, just by having his son on their board of Burisma would have made the prosecutor who replaced the one Joe got sacked think long and hard before dragging the Biden name into their investigations. It's a clear conflict of interest and one that was pointed out internally in the Obama administration. https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-probe-finds-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-raised-concerns-with-obama-officials-11600859178

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I contend that if this was Trump and Trump junior you'll be all over it like a rash calling for charges and an impeachment hearing.
If you deny that then you really don't know yourself.

Not unless there is verification on those claims, which I never have done, so cmon paint the picture for me. What is verifiable that could be amiss about what you've stated?
Show me sources or stop the flapping

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

eagle eye wrote: »

You put a £1000 on Biden and put up the proof here if you are such a big balls to call somebody else out like that.

Eagle eye, I’m not the one posting my really low stake bet as if it’s a gutsy move. So why on earth would I place a big bet and post about it here? I will happily call out that poster. They invited it.

Graham

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes, partly.

I see.

I've taken responsibility for my own actions since I reached adulthood.

Graham

The funny thing about the 'innuendo-evidence' introduced bu Guiliani is the response from the American public has largely been a big fat MEH.

The only ones actually listening are the ones that were going to vote Trump anyway so it's all been rather futile.

I don't expect this will be the only attempt before election day. Are we taking bets on what the next leak will be?

Cody montana

“Trump Threatens To ‘Fire’ Florida Governor If He Loses The State In November“

Is this normal?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Graham wrote: »

The funny thing about the 'innuendo-evidence' introduced bu Guiliani is the response from the American public has largely been a big fat MEH.

The only ones actually listening are the ones that were going to vote Trump anyway so it's all been rather futile.

I don't expect this will be the only attempt before election day. Are we taking bets on what the next leak will be?

Yeah, it probably won’t be the last leak but I have to think they don’t have much else to use against Joe Biden if this is what they went with. If they had something juicier, they’d have released it by now.

Graham

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, it probably won’t be the last leak but I have to think they don’t have much else to use against Joe Biden if this is what they went with. If they had something juicier, they’d have released it by now.

I'd be surprised if there weren't more mysterious discoveries in the next few weeks.

This approach is part of the team Trump playbook, throw enough mud in the hope enough of it sticks to make a difference.

I'm guessing enough Americans still recall the "lock her up" campaign and they remember how that ended.

timsey tiger

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Genuine question here, what is the appeal of Biden beyond the fact that he is not like Trump.

For people into personalities, I think the Lincon project summed it up well, "Joe Biden, he is not a whiny b1tch".

Graham

Cody montana wrote: »

“Trump Threatens To ‘Fire’ Florida Governor If He Loses The State In November“

Is this normal?

Sounds like an episode of The Apprentice. New Normal

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Graham wrote: »

I'd be surprised if there weren't more mysterious discoveries in the next few weeks.

This approach is part of the team Trump playbook, throw enough mud in the hope enough of it sticks to make a difference.

I'm guessing enough Americans still recall the "lock her up" campaign and they remember how that ended.

Yeah, I think that’s their strategy but the problem is that last time, Trump had no political history to be criticised for and now he does so their mud-slinging attempts are having less impact. People have Trump’s performance as president to go on now.

eagle eye

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote:

Eagle eye, I’m not the one posting my really low stake bet as if it’s a gutsy move. So why on earth would I place a big bet and post about it here? I will happily call out that poster. They invited it.

You don't know their financial status. €50 might he a hell of a lot of money to them.