Exiled wrote:Heaven forbid anyone waits for all the evidence to come in prior to pronouncing guilt. Is this what 4chaners do, wait until all the evidence comes in prior to deciding on an issue? Or do they rush to judgment like most do in paradise? Trump might be guilty of something, but like russiagate, perhaps the walls won't actually close in on anything. How about we disgard emotional thinking? I don't like Trump but let's focus on real issues that will ensure Trump isn't reelected, instead of issues that will bring out his base in force and perhaps convince those key voters in key states to vote for him again because the democrats don't stand for anything other than Trump is an a$$hole.
"Russiagate" closed in on a ton of damning information. You exist in an alternative universe of conspiracy theories that contend the opposite, but it's kind of obnoxious that you take your outlier views as if it is proven fact and go from there.
No, I just don't buy the conspiracy theories the mainstream media pushes and that are parroted here, religiously.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Chap wrote:Of course that was only her opening statement that was published.
That statement was ... quite interesting. But what would be fascinating would be to know what she spent the rest of the day telling the House Committee in closed session. She does not seem to be a lady who does things by halves.
Yeah, I think it would. The committee has the conspiracy theory dossier that was provided by the State Department OG. I’d love to hear her testify about the contents.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Exiled wrote: No, I just don't buy the conspiracy theories the mainstream media pushes and that are parroted here, religiously.
You clearly do not understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and evidence of an actual conspiracy.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Exiled wrote:No, I just don't buy the conspiracy theories the mainstream media pushes and that are parroted here, religiously.
Again, starting from an incorrect position filled with bad information and inferences adopted by fringe groups and then basing your following comments on the shared assumption that it is true is obnoxious to read. As we all know, 9/11 was an inside job, that's why...
Exiled wrote:Heaven forbid anyone waits for all the evidence to come in prior to pronouncing guilt.
Says the guy who was all over a Biden-Ukraine cover up even after the evidence it was the exact opposite of what was being floated had been passed along.
Don't be coy, Exiled. You just hate the establishment, especially the Democrat establishment, and aren't rational about it.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Exiled wrote:Heaven forbid anyone waits for all the evidence to come in prior to pronouncing guilt.
Says the guy who was all over a Biden-Ukraine cover up even after the evidence it was the exact opposite of what was being floated had been passed along.
Don't be coy, Exiled. You just hate the establishment, especially the Democrat establishment, and aren't rational about it.
Aren't rational about it? Just show me a little more evidence about the latest scandal and if it's good evidence, I'll join you're impeachment club. Is that too much to ask or should I have gone right to impeachment?
It's probably impossible for you to admit that giving a $600,000 per year position to a neophyte seems suspect, unless one of the Trump's got the position. Our team good, their team bad. This is why I am independent, and yeah, like russiagate, ukrainegate seems a little light on the evidence that connects the dots, at this point.
I'm not ready to impeach Trump for this. So, I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist?????
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Because Burisma was seeking to gain influence with the Obama administration? At the time, the company ran a natural gas extraction operation in Crimea, a Ukrainian peninsula annexed by Russia after Yanukovych was pushed from power. To what ends, we have no idea. Urging Ukraine to investigate Biden's son is one thing, holding Congressionally approved aid until they do is another.
Seriously. What the “F” is wrong with you? How do you not see the quid pro quo? Had that damned idiot Trump just released the funds and then later asked them to look into corruption in Burisma because it affects x-y-z then he could've had plausible deniability. But he didn't do it. He held that aid hostage contingent on the Ukraine investigating Biden Jr.
Also, as I've stated before, Biden Jr. is a piece of garbage, had no business being hired by Burisma, and it's pretty clear he got that gig off his name. If that's illegal then holy “F” are you going to have a problem with the Trump's' business dealings right now.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Exiled wrote:I'm not ready to impeach Trump for this. So, I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist?????
What makes you a conspiracy theorist is you can't seem to grasp that the guy Joe Biden demanded be ousted was protecting the owner of Burisma from prosecution. But when presented with a crap ton of articles from the time period explaining this, you pointed to a recent claim by Shokin he was just about to get to that but Biden interfered because you are just that kinda guy who is waiting for all the evidence before making a decision...
You don't like the Clintons, you have a chip on your shoulder against the Democrat establishment, you eat up any story that feeds your biases and this is a perfect example of that.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Because Burisma was seeking to gain influence with the Obama administration? At the time, the company ran a natural gas extraction operation in Crimea, a Ukrainian peninsula annexed by Russia after Yanukovych was pushed from power. To what ends, we have no idea. Urging Ukraine to investigate Biden's son is one thing, holding Congressionally approved aid until they do is another.
Seriously. What the ____ is wrong with you? How do you not see the quid pro quo? Had that ____ idiot Trump just released the funds and then later asked them to look into corruption in Burisma because it affects x-y-z then he could've had plausible deniability. But he didn't do it. He held that aid hostage contingent on the Ukraine investigating Biden Jr.
Also, as I've stated before, Biden Jr. is a piece of garbage, had no business being hired by Burisma, and it's pretty clear he got that gig off his name. If that's illegal then holy ____ are you going to have a problem with the Trump's' business dealings right now.
- Doc
Asking to "investigate" Biden is already a major impeachable offense. The use of military aid to pressure them was criminal extra-credit.
And to be clear here, when we say "investigate" what we really mean is "manufacture a scandal about."
Exiled wrote: It's probably impossible for you to admit that giving a $600,000 per year position to a neophyte seems suspect,
Biden was hired for his name, ironically to polish their image after going through a corruption scandal period. If this seems like a lot for that, it does seem like a lot, but it is also very common among incestuous corporate board leadership. So there's nothing ostensibly suspect about it in that sense. He got paid to do a "job" that you or I might seem like too much, but is pretty standard.
Look into speaking fees for C-level political celebrities if you wanna see something that'll fry your noodle. There's a lot of wealth out there available for just having the right name. It's just not for you.