Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

[_honorentheos]

So in your mind if he was not a lawyer, while being in charge of legal affairs for Burisma...what was he doing there that is somehow okay?

I think the problem here is you can't help but think in a binary manner. Where you ended the post is silly.

[_honorentheos]

To be fair, Rosemont Seneca probably was involved in moving corrupt money around. The issue is folks like Markk keep wanting to see this hung around Joe Biden's neck. Hunter, John Kerry's stepson, and Devin Archer probably were using their claims to be connected in Washington to attract investors and contracts, and they had zero scrupples when it came to vetting if those other players were dirty or not. There is certainly corruption to be found when one goes digging into Relief Society.

Just not corruption involving Joe Biden abusing his office to profit Relief Society.

At the least, Biden's acceptance of the position with Burisma has terrible optics and smacks of opportunism. Although I'm not a fan of opportunism, it does seem to be a prime component of capitalism and the American Way, so I find it hard to criticize unless there is a known and clear corrupt component. Ardent fans of Trump would paint themselves into a corner and expose themselves as laughably hypocritical if opportunism alone was their complaint about Hunter Biden.

Still, Markk needs to show the data behind the accusations. He started this thread because, after 30 pages in the 'Impeachment' thread, he couldn't gain enough traction in his quest to change the subject from Trump to Biden, due - for the most part - in being bogged down with a simple question that pierced the heart of his accusation about Joe Biden's alleged 'corruption that demands to be investigated' ... the question of why Trump didn't ask the DoJ to investigate.

Within this new thread, his premise still faces this major flaw, and he'll again need to dodge that question while he simultaneously begs his audience to believe that Biden needs to be investigated.

If opportunism represents a spectrum with retired experts with name recognition invited to sit on boards on one end, and outright conspiracies to commit fraud on the other, Rosemont Seneca isn't at either end. But the party boys of Rosemont Seneca are far closer to the latter side.

The main issue with that is Markk sees the relationship between Hunter and his dad and infers since Relief Society appears to be more than willing to do business with shady players in shady markets it must mean Joe Biden was involved and part of a scheme. Markk and the like can't deal with the complex realities of what was going on. It's all white hats or black hats every one. He sees meeting dates and business dates for Joe and assumed the inverse of events because he apparently can't understand why Devin Archer wanting to meet with Joe Biden at a time that is in the interest of his client isn't a domino in the chain of events that are required for a state visit like one planned long in advance for Joe as VP to a nation that just went through a violent change of government and is threatened by Russia. It's boring now as it seems impossible to have a conversation with him because of it.

I will also offer up, I don't seem to appreciate the insistence Markk answer a question over and over. Sure, his answer was dumb and inaccurate. But he gave his answer. It's not moving the conversation to ask it louder and slower like he speaks a different language and you want him to speak English. I guess repeating it plays for an audience. But to be honest, I thought playing to an audience is a major reason the Democrats botched the impeachment hearings. I'm getting old I guess, but I'm getting disillusioned by behaviors on all sides these days.

[_canpakes]

I will also offer up, I don't seem to appreciate the insistence Markk answer a question over and over. Sure, his answer was dumb and inaccurate. But he gave his answer. It's not moving the conversation to ask it louder and slower like he speaks a different language and you want him to speak English. I guess repeating it plays for an audience. But to be honest, I thought playing to an audience is a major reason the Democrats botched the impeachment hearings. I'm getting old I guess, but I'm getting disillusioned by behaviors on all sides these days.

I’m surprised someone hasn’t said this sooner. : D

In another time I would probably show better board etiquette and not resort to engaging in what otherwise appears to be a pointless quest for pushing Markk to honestly appraise his position. This time around I’m just poking the subject with a stick for the sheer amusement of watching how a mind set on believing a thing will work so hard to appease its own pride and stubbornness.

[_subgenius]

.... This time around I’m just poking the subject with a stick for the sheer amusement of watching how a mind set on believing a thing will work so hard to appease its own pride and stubbornness.

Interesting how "this time around" your boredom with the message has given way to an admitted strategy of just attacking the messenger while adding a layer of irony with accusations of "pride"....(spoiler alert: your post is narcissistic).

[_Chap]

I don't seem to appreciate the insistence Markk answer a question over and over. Sure, his answer was dumb and inaccurate. But he gave his answer. It's not moving the conversation to ask it louder and slower like he speaks a different language and you want him to speak English.

I don't think people who repeat the question or remark on the lack of any meaningful answer to it from Markk are doing so in the hope that Markk will suddenly have a moment of satori. People rarely change their mind on a topic after having publicly committed themselves to the degree Markk has done - it was been well remarked that confronting such people with evidence or argument against their beliefs tends, if anything, to make them affirm those beliefs even more tenaciously.

Asking the question "If the Biden's are so obviously corrupt, as you claim, why has not Trump launched a DoJ investigation into them, given that he has the power to do so and would gain massively in electoral terms by getting a likely opponent discredited?", or variations thereof, is best seen as a kind of prophylaxis directed towards casual readers of Markk's posts. That question is particularly useful when put to someone who is likely to be impressed by the sheer mass of Markk's posts and the density of his links, and who, without reading them, might be tempted to think 'no smoke without fire'.

And since casual readers may drop by at any time, it makes good sense to drop the question into Markk's thread at regular intervals.

[_canpakes]

.... This time around I’m just poking the subject with a stick for the sheer amusement of watching how a mind set on believing a thing will work so hard to appease its own pride and stubbornness.

Interesting how "this time around" your boredom with the message has given way to an admitted strategy of just attacking the messenger while adding a layer of irony with accusations of "pride"....(spoiler alert: your post is narcissistic).

The question being asked is a legitimate one that you won’t honestly tackle, either, especially given how predictable you are. : )

But, no worries - you can reel your butthurt back in; no one here is about to eclipse your own narcissism.

[_canpakes]

I don't think people who repeat the question or remark on the lack of any meaningful answer to it from Markk are doing so in the hope that Markk will suddenly have a moment of satori.

Agreed. Markk is far too invested in his position to let it bend to reason. But I like how disarmingly simple a question it is. Markk pumped out 30 pages of jumbled rambling and confused timelines peppered with little more than innuendo in trying to avoid or work around that question, but there it still sits, with the answer straightforward and obvious enough to folks not viewing this through the lens of a specific agenda.

Asking the question "If the Biden's are so obviously corrupt, as you claim, why has not Trump launched a DoJ investigation into them, given that he has the power to do so and would gain massively in electoral terms by getting a likely opponent discredited?", or variations thereof, is best seen as a kind of prophylaxis directed towards casual readers of Markk's posts. That question is particularly useful when put to someone who is likely to be impressed by the sheer mass of Markk's posts and the density of his links, and who, without reading them, might be tempted to think 'no smoke without fire'.

And since casual readers may drop by at any time, it makes good sense to drop the question into Markk's thread at regular intervals.

Again, agreed. I believe that the question speaks to the strength (or more correctly, the lack thereof) of his conspiracy claim, and exposes it as primarily a partisan political play.

[_Markk]

Markk, first you complained that Hunter Biden was paid too much for being a board member, and that he had no experience. Now you're implying that he was in charge of all legal issues at Burisma.

Have you decided to move away from your failed attempt to justify any salary based on your initial disingenuous description of Biden's position? And are you now OK with his level of pay given your characterization of Biden being head of the legal team (whatever that means to you) at Burisma?

Hey, by the way - why didn't Trump ask the DoJ to investigate all of this? You keep telling us that we need to do that; I'm so curious as to why Trump didn't think to do so.

Focus, LOL...

My position is that he was hired for who his is and his connections to Washington through his father. It was Burisma, and by default his mobster boss, that gave him his job description.

Focus

[_Markk]

Honor wrote...I will also offer up, I don't seem to appreciate the insistence Markk answer a question over and over. Sure, his answer was dumb and inaccurate. But he gave his answer. It's not moving the conversation to ask it louder and slower like he speaks a different language and you want him to speak English. I guess repeating it plays for an audience. But to be honest, I thought playing to an audience is a major reason the Democrats botched the impeachment hearings. I'm getting old I guess, but I'm getting disillusioned by behaviors on all sides these days.

My answer is accurate in my opinion, and the question has been answered.

The reason is being asked over and over is because pakes has nothing else to offer. She refuses to read anything but talking points and it is just balderdash...that is obvious, especially when in the phone call Trump said he would get the DoJ involved, and today they currently are. The whistle blower even said this in his complaint. It is such a subjective and ignorant question the way it was framed.

I'm getting old I guess, but I'm getting disillusioned by behaviors on all sides these days.

Me too.

Honor...you know as well as I do how dirty this all looks for Joe...and we haven't even got into China, or discussed Joe's brothers, and his sister, and how they get rich off of him. If a investigation was ever warranted, this is it. The more I read, the more it is apparent. There is more than enough evidence to warrant an investigation against the Biden's, and I believe in your heart you know that. I also understand you hate Trump. But the bottom line is, motives aside, Trump did the right thing in wanting them investigated.

I understand Trump is a a-hole, and knows how to push buttons. But I also understand because of this just how dirty and corrupt Washington is, and that "draining the swamp " is a reality ( both the red and blue swamp water). Being that a-hole might be the only way to expose what we are seeing.

You read Moneyland...The Bush's/Clinton's/Obama's/Biden's are really no different than those in the book. The money may not be the same, but our oligarchs deal in power, and Trump is taking it down...so far anyways.

There is no doubt in my mind we would be blown away if we saw how many of or politicians have off shore accounts.

I can only suggest one more time you watch the videos I pasted up thread...then re-read "Aladdin's Cave" in Moneyland.

[_Markk]

Asking the question "If the Biden's are so obviously corrupt, as you claim, why has not Trump launched a DoJ investigation into them, given that he has the power to do so and would gain massively in electoral terms by getting a likely opponent discredited?", or variations thereof, is best seen as a kind of prophylaxis directed towards casual readers of Markk's posts. That question is particularly useful when put to someone who is likely to be impressed by the sheer mass of Markk's posts and the density of his links, and who, without reading them, might be tempted to think 'no smoke without fire'.
.

Chap, I have answered this question (LOL which seems to grow often, this time above with your answer) many times...what is my answer? I have expounded on it many times...provided back up etc.

Can you even explain to me what my answer is to the question?


Thanks