That's what the word consensus means.
No, it means complete or almost complete agreement. If I sneak into congress and declare I am the god emperor and no one dissents; that's not consensus.
Ok, so let’s recap here. I’ve provided a dozen articles written well before this issue ever became politicized explaining how Shokin was corrupt according to the US, the EU, and from a large swath of Ukraine and challenged you to find one - just one - article from that same time period arguing that Shokin was not corrupt and/or should have kept his job.
You can’t find one. And you clearly looked since you went as far as to translate articles written in another language.
But yet you believe you are sitting on rational grounds to claim that a consensus should not be assumed because there might be other people or other countries that didn’t think he was corrupt but just haven’t said so.
This is the classic example of an argument from ignorance. Your position here is based off of literally nothing.
there is no evidence that the grumbling of a few EU bureaucrats was anything but that which was latched onto as a bolstering excuse by the US executive campaign.
In other words, “here’s another possibility you haven’t proven false, therefore I’m rationally justified in accepting it as true”
A follows B. I haven't seen any evidence of international attention dated from before Hunter started collecting bribes.
That’s because Shokin wasn’t in the job yet.
We’ve been through the timeline already, that was the conversation where you failed to recognize that 4+6=10
Ah so you don't have the evidence you claim, you just want me to submit to the generic opinion of various columnists who almost certainly did no independent research.
No, I want you to recognize that when all of the evidence points in the same direction, the only rational position is to tentatively accept it.
Attack the credibility of anyone who wrote any literature on this subject as a middle man just parroting what they were told to say by some nefarious force
Like you attacked the credibility of Shokin and Giuliani.
No, not like that at all.
I attacked the credibility of Shokin and Giuliani by giving reasons and examples specific to those two individuals. Your attacks were indiscriminate hand waiving away of anyone who dared to take a position that countered your narrative. These are not the same thing. Context actually matters.
Well other than the senate committee everyone worked for Biden... so yea.
They didn’t work for Biden. The ambassador reports to the Secretary of State, who reports to the President. Biden also reports to the President. Contrary to your fantasy narrative, Biden was not ultimately in charge and the ambassador did not report to him.
I’ve explained this already. If you’re going to reply the least you can do is acknowledge what has been said.
As I explained several times, if you are not ruling out personal motivations then the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of corruption remains the best explanation.
We’re talking about whether there was a consensus around Shokin. Focus.
Rudy Giuliani was the president's personal attorney. He reported to no one else but Donald J Trump. Not the same thing.
And Donald J Trump works for the American people.
You ignored everything I just said to draw a line that doesn’t connect.
Setting aside the laughable notion that Donald Trump ever saw himself as working for the American people… once again, Giuliani was Trump’s personal attorney, so this is already an apples to oranges comparison. Moreover, we’re talking about potential corrupt influences. Corruption is the product of corrupt individuals which in Biden’s case would have needed to start above him with Obama. It is incoherent to insert “the American people” as a corrupt influence in this conversation.
The evidence is the fact that internal affairs of Ukraine are none of our business + the fact of Biden's corruption + Ambassador works for Biden.
Your opinion on US foreign policy is not evidence of anything.
Biden’s corruption is the claim we are debating you’re being the question.
The ambassador does not work for Biden.
Biden doesn't need to tell the ambassador "look I'm taking bribes and I want you to go out and lie about Shokin", he just needs to say "look people don't like Shokin, we got to get rid of him".
A conversation you have zero evidence for nor any reasonable argument that it ever took place. Your entire case for this is that it fits into your narrative, which you are using as evidence. It’s classic question begging.
Already did with the Russian article. You dismissed it, not an authority you liked; big surprise huh?
Here’s the difference between you and I; I actually look at the articles and accept or reject them based on their merits. You base the merits on whether they agree with your narrative, just as you judge my ability to assess the articles on whether it goes along with your narrative.
I explained in detail what was wrong with your articles. You’ve since dropped that conversation and are now trying to use the fact that I do not accept your articles as evidence of your position as an argument that I’m somehow being biased. It’s absurd, but it’s also telling.
The reason I narrowed this conversation down to the question of whether there was a consensus on Shokin is because you can’t resolve a disagreement by referring to a scorecard of smaller disagreements, when those smaller disagreements are themselves unresolved. If you really believe your articles prove what you think they do then you need to stick with that argument or drop it. You can’t drop them and then pretend that the fact that I didn’t buy your BS proves anything else you have to say.
