Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef?
I am trying to say... and i'll phrase it differently in case i wasn't clear before... is that by accepting a position that he was unqualified for Hunter, and by extension his father (who may or may not have orchestrated the hiring in the first place) accepted a bribe.
Burisma's payment for the bribe does not need to be provided in liquid assets (hell it doesn't even have to be provided right away), maybe it was access to the VP, maybe it was prestige... whatever it may be, it can be stated (likely without too much dispute) that Burisma, had no reason to offer Hunter the job without the anticipation of some benefit. Maybe they could just say that biden owed them a favor... we dont know the exact benefit, but what we can say the benefit was not, is experience in the field or financial connections (like any reasonable boardmember might have).
Because of that it is easy to suspect that there was some form of horse trading that happened, but exactly what that is is unclear, and ultimately irrelevant.
To tie this back to my central point - if you're going to be pissed about the trump kids then you gotta be upset about Joe Biden getting a favor for his son, which i believe to be totally unrelated to the specific work he went to do in ukraine, and was likely just a favor on the side to have a VP owe you one.
to tie it back to GH's central point, which i will admit is not a direct comparison, dont be mad at trump for playing the game without getting mad at biden for playing the game as well. (again this is predicated on the fact that Burisma probably got something in the form of access or whatever, that wasn't 100% on the up and up for hiring Hunter).
As a caveeat to all of this I have read, although I am no expert on Hunter and his work history, that he had run a few consulting firms dealing with access to chinese markets, and reports are that the chairman of the Burisma board hired him based on "merit". whether thats all true or not I cannot guarantee, and i dont think its the case.
EDIT: To clarify there were a couple of conversations happening at the same time. one about trumps kids, (i forget who brought up the kids) and one about the impeachment and trump. as i mentioned the trump argument is not a direct one, and may even be a bad one, but you cant pretend that you cant possibly see the connection. one guy did something unethical, but ultimately legal. another guy did something unethical, but ultimately legal. so in for the penny in for the pound. call out both and judge them both equally in the court of public opinion (the impeachment proceedings are a political tool and will only be viable if the court of public opinion judges the act harshly enough - unfortunately for all of us that want this guy gone thats just the way the system works)
@DMCD i am not trying to draw a comparison or even an equivalence of the actions of the two btw, merely stating that both are equally unethical, and unequally being treated as such.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef?
I am trying to say... and i'll phrase it differently in case i wasn't clear before... is that by accepting a position that he was unqualified for Hunter, and by extension his father (who may or may not have orchestrated the hiring in the first place) accepted a bribe.
Burisma's payment for the bribe does not need to be provided in liquid assets (hell it doesn't even have to be provided right away), maybe it was access to the VP, maybe it was prestige... whatever it may be, it can be stated (likely without too much dispute) that Burisma, had no reason to offer Hunter the job without the anticipation of some benefit. Maybe they could just say that biden owed them a favor... we dont know the exact benefit, but what we can say the benefit was not, is experience in the field or financial connections (like any reasonable boardmember might have).
Because of that it is easy to suspect that there was some form of horse trading that happened, but exactly what that is is unclear, and ultimately irrelevant.
To tie this back to my central point - if you're going to be pissed about the trump kids then you gotta be upset about Joe Biden getting a favor for his son, which i believe to be totally unrelated to the specific work he went to do in ukraine, and was likely just a favor on the side to have a VP owe you one.
to tie it back to GH's central point, which i will admit is not a direct comparison, dont be mad at trump for playing the game without getting mad at biden for playing the game as well. (again this is predicated on the fact that Burisma probably got something in the form of access or whatever, that wasn't 100% on the up and up for hiring Hunter).
As a caveeat to all of this I have read, although I am no expert on Hunter and his work history, that he had run a few consulting firms dealing with access to chinese markets, and reports are that the chairman of the Burisma board hired him based on "merit". whether thats all true or not I cannot guarantee, and i dont think its the case.
He had also spent a few years in the board of directors of Amtrak. A small little company you might not have heard about.
That same year he was appointed by President George W. Bush to a five year term on the board of directors of Amtrak. He was chosen as the board's vice chairman, and served from July 2006 until resigning at the end of January 2009.[17] [19]
(Wikipedia)
After his father was elected as vice president in 2008, Biden resigned from his position on the Amtrak board of directors and left his career as a lobbyist.
I'd say there is LESS conflict in joining a board in Ukraine than in staying in the US as a lobbyist or on a board. Wouldn't you ?
But clearly his appointment (and others at that time), were due to the ongoing investigation that happened on the oligarch running Burisma. They wanted to get probably some legitimacy and buy themselves a conscience ? Scummy but still not illegal nor a bribe. If we follow you, no son of elected officials could EVER hold a successful career.
All in all, we probably agree that it is definitely not the best situation for the Bidens. It was investigated for conflicts of interest, as it should be. But Trump, as usual, doesn't care and sees an opportunity to hurt a political rival (there is lots of corruption in Ukraine, he could have chosen anything), and involves people that have no business doing it, back channels, to covertly ask for investigations on them. Hides the record. Withholds aid that he has no business withholding, it's not his job. All this to target political opponents. While he is doing far worse with his children ! That is the definition of corrupt intent.
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
Like the trump kids?
exactly like the trump kids... so like GH has been trying to point out. there is hypocrisy in being upset about them without having the same level of outrage over hunter.
I had that discussion with GH a few days ago. Most administration boards are shams. They are not illegal though. So him taking the job is NOT evidence of corruption or bribery. Or you'd put all boards in prison (which GH agreed with, due to his political opinions. I can get why in thoses cases. However, the law is what it is, the current law that we must abide to, not a wishlist.)
You don't find it hypocritical from Trump to investigate Biden for this, while he is doing it himself and shamelessly pushing back against accusations of it being improper ? The democrats aren't impeaching or investigating his children for having been on the payroll (criticizing, yes). Maybe for some actions they took.
So, who is the hypocrit there ?
Jim Jordan telling that the "master plan" would have been to replace an uncooperative ambassador by Taylor, the "star witness" ? God that was a bad plan ! He conveniently forgets that he tasked Sondland, a political donor and ally, with these matters. Someone who should have no authority over most matters about Ukraine.
Ninja-ing my own post to add a little tidbit that I missed at the time, by Zelensky. It's a good laugh and might lighten the mood a little ^^
Both Democrats and republicans are hypocrites. it is known. i absolutely find it hypocritical for trump to investigate biden while shamelessly doing the same things himself. in fact you could say that's his signature, or if you're into fighting games his ultimate move. & very few democrats are criticizing biden and those that are dont really mean it, its just politically expedient at this time. if they really were criticizing him they would have done it in 2009 or whenever hunter was hired.
Someone else mentioned that there was an investigation into the hiring, I'm not aware of this and will take a look to see if that turns up any relevant information.
Someone else mentioned that there was an investigation into the hiring, I'm not aware of this and will take a look to see if that turns up any relevant information.
Kent's sworn testimony wednesday I believe. HB's wikipedia also links NYTimes articles from 2015 or so (reference 30), but I cannot look at the link, no NYT account.
It lowers my view of the Obama administration a little, but doesn't change the root of the matter : no actual conflicted action has been shown by anyone, so it's a bit late to raise it. On the contrary, Biden pushed to fire a prosecutor that put under wraps the investigation into his son's company... Very opportunistic by Trump, especially since HB he quit any important position in the US when his father was elected, which is already a good start. And you still can't call it a bribe. This word has a legal definition.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef?
I am trying to say... and i'll phrase it differently in case i wasn't clear before... is that by accepting a position that he was unqualified for Hunter, and by extension his father (who may or may not have orchestrated the hiring in the first place) accepted a bribe.
Burisma's payment for the bribe does not need to be provided in liquid assets (hell it doesn't even have to be provided right away), maybe it was access to the VP, maybe it was prestige... whatever it may be, it can be stated (likely without too much dispute) that Burisma, had no reason to offer Hunter the job without the anticipation of some benefit. Maybe they could just say that biden owed them a favor... we dont know the exact benefit, but what we can say the benefit was not, is experience in the field or financial connections (like any reasonable boardmember might have).
Because of that it is easy to suspect that there was some form of horse trading that happened, but exactly what that is is unclear, and ultimately irrelevant.
To tie this back to my central point - if you're going to be pissed about the trump kids then you gotta be upset about Joe Biden getting a favor for his son, which i believe to be totally unrelated to the specific work he went to do in ukraine, and was likely just a favor on the side to have a VP owe you one.
to tie it back to GH's central point, which i will admit is not a direct comparison, dont be mad at trump for playing the game without getting mad at biden for playing the game as well. (again this is predicated on the fact that Burisma probably got something in the form of access or whatever, that wasn't 100% on the up and up for hiring Hunter).
As a caveeat to all of this I have read, although I am no expert on Hunter and his work history, that he had run a few consulting firms dealing with access to chinese markets, and reports are that the chairman of the Burisma board hired him based on "merit". whether thats all true or not I cannot guarantee, and i dont think its the case.
He had also spent a few years in the board of directors of Amtrak. A small little company you might not have heard about.
That same year he was appointed by President George W. Bush to a five year term on the board of directors of Amtrak. He was chosen as the board's vice chairman, and served from July 2006 until resigning at the end of January 2009.[17] [19]
After his father was elected as vice president in 2008, Biden resigned from his position on the Amtrak board of directors and left his career as a lobbyist.
I'd say there is LESS conflict in joining a board in Ukraine than in staying in the US as a lobbyist or on a board. Wouldn't you ?
I would agree on face value that there is less, but what happens behind closed doors happens behind closed doors... so...
But clearly his appointment (and others at that time), were due to the ongoing investigation that happened on the oligarch running Burisma. They wanted to get probably some legitimacy and buy themselves a conscience ? Scummy but still not illegal nor a bribe. If we follow you, no son of elected officials could EVER hold a successful career.
While i agree that the actions were not illegal (if the subsequent investigations are to be believed) it doesn't mean it wasn't a bribe - im sure there are loopholes to maneuver around
Bribe - persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.
All in all, we probably agree that it is definitely not the best situation for the Bidens. It was investigated for conflicts of interest, as it should be. But Trump, as usual, doesn't care and sees an opportunity to hurt a political rival (there is lots of corruption in Ukraine, he could have chosen anything), and involves people that have no business doing it, back channels, to covertly ask for investigations on them. Hides the record. Withholds aid that he has no business withholding, it's not his job. All this to target political opponents. While he is doing far worse with his children ! That is the definition of corrupt intent.
Agreed on all counts
And to someone elses point - children of politicians can have successful careers free of the perception of impropriety by divesting themselves form their parents, which many have done and many do.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge as would be reasonably expected). see previous definition of a bribe.
Some bribes are illegal, others are legal. depends on what you can prove and the intent.
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge).
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
EDIT for clarity:
It's still moot ? Then any POTUS' or VP's son can't take any job, in the country or outside, because the company hiring them wants to curtail favor in your eyes, try to maybe get new contracts, new clients by advertising the family name to raise their prestige ? Any higher-up position would lead to that. Industry, services, finance, any company with dealings to a state, you name it. And even abroad ??
If he kept the Amtrak board, there would be higher suspicion, because Amtrak probably gets contracts from the government. But a gas company in Ukraine ? I mean, Ukraine doesn't export gas to the US, it didn't even export to the EU before this year... It still has to import around 80% of its own natural gas consumption. What benefit would that company have to employ the US VP's son ? Except the credibility issue I mentioned. They also hired an ex-president for their board. They probably went "Hey this guy has a good last name, has been in a board, is a lawyer. It might be good to include him, gives us good name recognition to show that we are trying to be less corrupt than before !" Is that an issue ?
If you have anything to show, a suspicion, you are welcome to provide it. But as we said prior, any investigation must be based on something, a lead, a proof. Not just an assumption.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge as would be reasonably expected). see previous definition of a bribe.
Some bribes are illegal, others are legal. depends on what you can prove and the intent.
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge).
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
EDIT for clarity:
It's still moot ? Then any POTUS' or VP's son can't take any job, in the country or outside, because the company hiring them wants to curtail favor in your eyes, try to maybe get new contracts, new clients by advertising the family name to raise their prestige ? Any higher-up position would lead to that. Industry, services, finance, any company with dealings to a state, you name it. And even abroad ?? If you have anything to show, a suspicion, you are welcome to provide it. But as we said prior, any investigation must be based on something, a lead, a proof. Not just an assumption.
Like i said if you want to avoid the perception of impropriety then you gotta divest from your parents as much as you can. Hunter didn't do that in his past dealings (arranging for handshakes and informal meetings with Joe for his clients) so thats his burden to bare. If your ok with dealing with the perception and knowing that you will be investigated then you can live in the gray areas of ethics, but thats a choice that each person needs to make for themselves.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge as would be reasonably expected). see previous definition of a bribe.
Some bribes are illegal, others are legal. depends on what you can prove and the intent.
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
EDIT for clarity:
Congress can't impeach hunter biden.
I apologize to my teachers and anyone else in this thread if that wasn't as incredibly obvious as i intended it to be.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge).
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
EDIT for clarity:
It's still moot ? Then any POTUS' or VP's son can't take any job, in the country or outside, because the company hiring them wants to curtail favor in your eyes, try to maybe get new contracts, new clients by advertising the family name to raise their prestige ? Any higher-up position would lead to that. Industry, services, finance, any company with dealings to a state, you name it. And even abroad ?? If you have anything to show, a suspicion, you are welcome to provide it. But as we said prior, any investigation must be based on something, a lead, a proof. Not just an assumption.
Like i said if you want to avoid the perception of impropriety then you gotta divest from your parents as much as you can. Hunter didn't do that in his past dealings (arranging for handshakes and informal meetings with Joe for his clients) so thats his burden to bare. If your ok with dealing with the perception and knowing that you will be investigated then you can live in the gray areas of ethics, but thats a choice that each person needs to make for themselves.
heavy is the head that wears the crown.
Yup. Being a lobbyist is one of the worst jobs when your father is a politician. However, he stopped being that in 2009 when his father became VP. Read my edit of the post you just quoted please, for more details.
Now, when I saw Ivanka putting up trademarks and getting contracts in China for her fashion brand, after visiting China as part of her fathers delegation as the new US president while she was an official. That was...
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge).
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
EDIT for clarity:
It's still moot ? Then any POTUS' or VP's son can't take any job, in the country or outside, because the company hiring them wants to curtail favor in your eyes, try to maybe get new contracts, new clients by advertising the family name to raise their prestige ? Any higher-up position would lead to that. Industry, services, finance, any company with dealings to a state, you name it. And even abroad ?? If you have anything to show, a suspicion, you are welcome to provide it. But as we said prior, any investigation must be based on something, a lead, a proof. Not just an assumption.
Like i said if you want to avoid the perception of impropriety then you gotta divest from your parents as much as you can. Hunter didn't do that in his past dealings (arranging for handshakes and informal meetings with Joe for his clients) so thats his burden to bare. If your ok with dealing with the perception and knowing that you will be investigated then you can live in the gray areas of ethics, but thats a choice that each person needs to make for themselves.
heavy is the head that wears the crown.
Yup. Being a lobbyist is one of the worst jobs when your father is a politician. However, he stopped being that in 2009 when his father became VP. Read my edit of the post you just quoted please, for more details.
Now, when I saw Ivanka putting up trademarks and getting contracts in China for her fashion brand, after visiting China as part of her fathers delegation as the new US president while she was an official. That was...
This isn't directly related to Hunter Biden specifically, but why do you think we invaded Iraq and companies like Halliburton and Blackwater got rich from it? National security/interest?
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge).
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
EDIT for clarity:
It's still moot ? Then any POTUS' or VP's son can't take any job, in the country or outside, because the company hiring them wants to curtail favor in your eyes, try to maybe get new contracts, new clients by advertising the family name to raise their prestige ? Any higher-up position would lead to that. Industry, services, finance, any company with dealings to a state, you name it. And even abroad ?? If you have anything to show, a suspicion, you are welcome to provide it. But as we said prior, any investigation must be based on something, a lead, a proof. Not just an assumption.
Like i said if you want to avoid the perception of impropriety then you gotta divest from your parents as much as you can. Hunter didn't do that in his past dealings (arranging for handshakes and informal meetings with Joe for his clients) so thats his burden to bare. If your ok with dealing with the perception and knowing that you will be investigated then you can live in the gray areas of ethics, but thats a choice that each person needs to make for themselves.
heavy is the head that wears the crown.
Yup. Being a lobbyist is one of the worst jobs when your father is a politician. However, he stopped being that in 2009 when his father became VP. Read my edit of the post you just quoted please, for more details.
Now, when I saw Ivanka putting up trademarks and getting contracts in China for her fashion brand, after visiting China as part of her fathers delegation as the new US president while she was an official. That was...
This isn't directly related to Hunter Biden specifically, but why do you think we invaded Iraq and companies like Halliburton and Blackwater got rich from it? National security/interest?
National interest in controlling an oil-rich country, helped/covered by the fact that Hussein was a bastard so it was easy to justify. This kind of control-taking can have a good epilogue for the country, if done properly : putting a stable infrastructure in the country, develop institutions, accounting for the culture of the country (not all are fit for a direct move to western-style democracy and market economy...). However that nearly never happens (because it's hella hard to do, requires a lot of long-term investment over several administrations, and costs a lot. And also because they are in for the money, not peace and unicorns... War sells and the US are the biggest arms dealer around.)
In this case : it was an opportunity to secure a proxy government, provide for oil control, get contracts for american companies (reconstruction or long-term concessions), by a corrupt US government. Let's say a new type of colony. I am hoping nobody is still thinking after all these years that the US are benevolent angels ? Priority n°1 has always been to keep the US at the top. Which Trump, for all he's saying, has damaged by a lot. (note : it has always been the same in all conflicts, except maybe WW2. But Germany and Japan were resilient countries, that didn't need a whole lot of institutional reconstruction to get back on their feet, only physical rebuilding).
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge).
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
EDIT for clarity:
It's still moot ? Then any POTUS' or VP's son can't take any job, in the country or outside, because the company hiring them wants to curtail favor in your eyes, try to maybe get new contracts, new clients by advertising the family name to raise their prestige ? Any higher-up position would lead to that. Industry, services, finance, any company with dealings to a state, you name it. And even abroad ?? If you have anything to show, a suspicion, you are welcome to provide it. But as we said prior, any investigation must be based on something, a lead, a proof. Not just an assumption.
Like i said if you want to avoid the perception of impropriety then you gotta divest from your parents as much as you can. Hunter didn't do that in his past dealings (arranging for handshakes and informal meetings with Joe for his clients) so thats his burden to bare. If your ok with dealing with the perception and knowing that you will be investigated then you can live in the gray areas of ethics, but thats a choice that each person needs to make for themselves.
heavy is the head that wears the crown.
Yup. Being a lobbyist is one of the worst jobs when your father is a politician. However, he stopped being that in 2009 when his father became VP. Read my edit of the post you just quoted please, for more details.
Now, when I saw Ivanka putting up trademarks and getting contracts in China for her fashion brand, after visiting China as part of her fathers delegation as the new US president while she was an official. That was...
This isn't directly related to Hunter Biden specifically, but why do you think we invaded Iraq and companies like Halliburton and Blackwater got rich from it? National security/interest?
National interest in controlling an oil-rich country, helped/covered by the fact that Hussein was a bastard so it was easy to justify. This kind of control-taking can have a good epilogue for the country, if done properly : putting a stable infrastructure in the country, develop institutions, accounting for the culture of the country (not all are fit for a direct move to western-style democracy and market economy...). However that nearly never happens (because it's hella hard to do, requires a lot of long-term investment over several administrations, and costs a lot. And also because they are in for the money, not peace and unicorns... War sells and the US are the biggest arms dealer around.)
In this case : it was an opportunity to secure a proxy government, provide for oil control, get contracts for american companies (reconstruction or long-term concessions), by a corrupt US government. Let's say a new type of colony. I am hoping nobody is still thinking after all these years that the US are benevolent angels ? Priority n°1 has always been to keep the US at the top. Which Trump, for all he's saying, has damaged by a lot. (note : it has always been the same in all conflicts, except maybe WW2. But Germany and Japan were resilient countries, that didn't need a whole lot of institutional reconstruction to get back on their feet, only physical rebuilding).
I won't dive into the Prince/DeVos dynasty.
An example of the reason I'm saying it's practically impossible to hold Trump accountable for this Ukraine thing is that we never held the Bush administration or the Halliburtons of his administration accountable for what was clearly corruption and exponentially more detrimental to society than even the worst allegations about Ukraine for Trump.
On November 16 2019 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
I haven't backtracked on anything? my quote says that taking the job is evidence of curruption/bribery, so job = bribe. not sure where the disconnect in your perception of my statement is.
i was not literally equating the words job and bribe as though they have the same meaning... seriously... the job for Hunter Biden is the payment that Burisma made to Joe Biden for some hereto undiscovered favor.
Not that taking a job is a bribe, but that taking the job with Burisma was acceptance of payment for some undisclosed benefit (that is not work experience and knowledge).
i agree with the purpose and reasoning behind the impeachment. I do not expect congress to impeach hunter biden. i (nor GH) is asking for that. we are asking for congress to look in the mirror and think beyond the politics of our time and reflect on unethical conduct that they have accepted in the past, while they also reckon with the challenges of the present. thats all... no one is trying to draw a false equivalence.
EDIT for clarity:
It's still moot ? Then any POTUS' or VP's son can't take any job, in the country or outside, because the company hiring them wants to curtail favor in your eyes, try to maybe get new contracts, new clients by advertising the family name to raise their prestige ? Any higher-up position would lead to that. Industry, services, finance, any company with dealings to a state, you name it. And even abroad ?? If you have anything to show, a suspicion, you are welcome to provide it. But as we said prior, any investigation must be based on something, a lead, a proof. Not just an assumption.
Like i said if you want to avoid the perception of impropriety then you gotta divest from your parents as much as you can. Hunter didn't do that in his past dealings (arranging for handshakes and informal meetings with Joe for his clients) so thats his burden to bare. If your ok with dealing with the perception and knowing that you will be investigated then you can live in the gray areas of ethics, but thats a choice that each person needs to make for themselves.
heavy is the head that wears the crown.
Yup. Being a lobbyist is one of the worst jobs when your father is a politician. However, he stopped being that in 2009 when his father became VP. Read my edit of the post you just quoted please, for more details.
Now, when I saw Ivanka putting up trademarks and getting contracts in China for her fashion brand, after visiting China as part of her fathers delegation as the new US president while she was an official. That was...
This isn't directly related to Hunter Biden specifically, but why do you think we invaded Iraq and companies like Halliburton and Blackwater got rich from it? National security/interest?
National interest in controlling an oil-rich country, helped/covered by the fact that Hussein was a bastard so it was easy to justify. This kind of control-taking can have a good epilogue for the country, if done properly : putting a stable infrastructure in the country, develop institutions, accounting for the culture of the country (not all are fit for a direct move to western-style democracy and market economy...). However that nearly never happens (because it's hella hard to do, requires a lot of long-term investment over several administrations, and costs a lot. And also because they are in for the money, not peace and unicorns... War sells and the US are the biggest arms dealer around.)
In this case : it was an opportunity to secure a proxy government, provide for oil control, get contracts for american companies (reconstruction or long-term concessions), by a corrupt US government. Let's say a new type of colony. I am hoping nobody is still thinking after all these years that the US are benevolent angels ? Priority n°1 has always been to keep the US at the top. Which Trump, for all he's saying, has damaged by a lot. (note : it has always been the same in all conflicts, except maybe WW2. But Germany and Japan were resilient countries, that didn't need a whole lot of institutional reconstruction to get back on their feet, only physical rebuilding).
I won't dive into the Prince/DeVos dynasty.
An example of the reason I'm saying it's practically impossible to hold Trump accountable for this Ukraine thing is that we never held the Bush administration or the Halliburtons of his administration accountable for what was clearly corruption and exponentially more detrimental to society than even the worst allegations about Ukraine for Trump.
Doesn't mean one should just stop trying. Especially since Trump has personally done 100 times worse every step of the way than anything Bush -himself- did. It's just that he surrounds himself with idiots. Malevolent yes, but still low-grade idiots. Smart bastards don't run with a lunatic, it's too risky.
Abroad, the Bush administration was more dangerous than the Trump one, because they were more organized, and it was pretty hard to attack it legally, unlike now with Giuliani admitting to everything live on air. But inside your borders ? With the support of the Senate (all these guys having to be hypocrites shamelessly fighting for their political lives, except some real a******s), they are doing a lot of damage. The world standing of the US was wavering after Bush, it came back up under Obama. Regardless of his policies, he ensured that the US were listened to and respected by the other countries, by himself respecting them. Now ? A laughing stock that can't be held to its word and empowers the other rogue nations with its stupidity and Trump's blind adoration of autocrats and dictators (Putin, Kim, Erdogan...).
At least in France we don't just pardon ex-presidents... though it's hard as hell to hold politicians accountable... Eric Woerth, Sarkozy himself... Sometimes the reckoning arrives, in the end, after dozens of years and after they exhausted all possible appeals... Once they are old, irrelevant or dead.
I’m kind of with what (I take) to be GH’s angle on this, there’s a staggering amount of ‘legitimate’ corruption flowing around that to be pious about Trump for merely indulging in incompetent ‘stadium rock’ corruption rings hollow for a lot of folks.
On November 16 2019 08:47 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m kind of with what (I take) to be GH’s angle on this, there’s a staggering amount of ‘legitimate’ corruption flowing around that to be pious about Trump for merely indulging in incompetent ‘stadium rock’ corruption rings hollow for a lot of folks.
That's pretty much it but it's hard to get anywhere before people get this part.
On November 16 2019 08:47 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m kind of with what (I take) to be GH’s angle on this, there’s a staggering amount of ‘legitimate’ corruption flowing around that to be pious about Trump for merely indulging in incompetent ‘stadium rock’ corruption rings hollow for a lot of folks.
Wouldn't that be a little like not going after Capone for tax evasion? Sure he did a lot worse, and there were a lot of people doing a lot worse, but this is what they could catch him on because this was the crime they can prove.
It does not mean that there are not other problems, or that this is worst thing. And I don't think anyone on this thread has stated that.
I mean it is not like there is not shit tons of corruption in China, Russia, Venezuala, Brazil, the UK, and so on. And going after Trump and saying Trump is guilty does not make all the others innocent. It is just that this is thing that he did that is provable and impeachable.
I don’t really care just don’t be pious about it.
All Trump does that’s particularly atypical is be incompetent and brazen about his brand of corruption, there’s plenty of it elsewhere.
Plenty of the electorate instinctually found Hillary Clinton to be unpalatable for entirely ‘legitimate’ corruption.
Tax avoidance via entirely legal means and similar mechanisms are legally entirely fine but morally repugnant to many people.
Either people can get some balls and actually tackle these things in a bipartisan way, or they can not and indulge in throwing stones at glass houses as far as I’m concerned.
On November 16 2019 08:47 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m kind of with what (I take) to be GH’s angle on this, there’s a staggering amount of ‘legitimate’ corruption flowing around that to be pious about Trump for merely indulging in incompetent ‘stadium rock’ corruption rings hollow for a lot of folks.
Hypocrisy does not excuse corruption. Trump is corrupt. Arguing that the hypocrisy of the Democrats excuses the corruption of Trump is nonsensical. It’s straight from the “we can’t fix everything so let’s fix nothing” school of bad arguments.
EPT
