Vivek vs Pakman.

Author: Greyparrot
FBI

Posts

Total: 78
#31
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Trump's tax returns show that in the 2020 tax year, Donald and Melania Trump reported $78 million in gross income from 16 foreign countries — including the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland and St. Martin, where Trump has properties. The gross income also included a reported $1.2 million from “other countries” — abbreviated as “OC” — that were not specified.
In 2017, Trump's first year in office, he also made $6.5 million from China, the returns show. The source of the China payments is not clear from the returns. The payments were a surprise since Trump is an outspoken critic of the $5.8 million Hunter Biden made in business deals with Chinese interests while his father, now-President Joe Biden, was out of office.
#32
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Trump says republicans must play dirty. No reason to expect he will play by rules.
#33
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think Vivek has a point here?
No.

This is a common tactic among the right to conflate Trump's baseless claims of election fraud with assertions that the election night have been different if [insert issue here] was more widely known. They're not remotely the same thing, this is just a cop out to avoid having to address the fact that Trump lost fair and square.

Pakman afterward did a breakdown where he addressed this and the other problems with the interview, this is a pretty good illustration of why I don't find Vivek to be a serious voice in politics. My assessment of him is that he's just good at making silly arguments sound smart and insightful to people who don't know any better.
#34
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
you think the vice president has the power to put pressure on a foreign government? the VP has basically no power whatsoever, other than what the president says he does.
So no evidence, you just assumed that because the constitution doesn't spell out that a VP can extort a foreign country it can't happen without the president's knowledge and action.
He's assuming that a foreign ally would have basic knowledge of how the US Constitution works, which would be an odd thing to argue against given that this information is easily available to anyone with an internet connection.

Given that they knew full well the VPOTUS had no actual power, it is beyond unreasonable to accept that they would have allowed themselves to be extorted by Biden without Obama's knowledge. In Biden's story, the one you are basing your entire argument on, he even recounted telling the Ukrainians to call Obama.


#35
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
He's assuming that a foreign ally would have basic knowledge of how the US Constitution works, which would be an odd thing to argue against given that this information is easily available to anyone with an internet connection.
He's assuming more than that. He's assuming it's impossible to delegate authority within a hierarchy such that acts can be done on the authority of someone who was not aware they were done.

That assumption is flawed, and if seriously held as opposed to desperately grasped at by a mind suffering cognitive dissonance would be the indication of a person who has never worked or lived in an organization greater than 12 people.


the one you are basing your entire argument on, he even recounted telling the Ukrainians to call Obama.
Why then would Obama not admit to confirming the quid pro quo when the Ukrainians supposedly called him? Surely he would be interested in clearing the record and helping his old pal given that this was all in the interests of the amreican people (and countless others by HistoryBuff's account).

Why like Joe take all the credit when taking credit could destabilize the narrative against Joe?

Hec when I put it like that I'm not sure I would even take Obama at his word.

Yet it seems Obama's intelligence far exceeds Joe's and is more like Clinton's (Bill). The less you say, the less lies you can be caught in.
#36
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Do you claim that people have no right to information? After all you can still speak, all the government is doing is preventing anyone from hearing you right?
you are correct that people have no right to information. And in your scenario it would stop people from being able to speak to others, and that would be infringing their right to speak. Twitter is not speech. It is one media platform. And it is a pretty small one by user count. 

You've moved beyond the realm of reasonable discussion here so I'll drop it.
lol, a common business practice is "beyond the realm of reasonable discussion"? that says alot about your ability to comprehend basic information. 

So no evidence, you just assumed that because the constitution doesn't spell out that a VP can extort a foreign country it can't happen without the president's knowledge and action.
no, they literally can't extort a foreign country. Extortion requires that they have some sort of power to hurt the other side. A VP does not have that unless the president says he does. 

You choose to believe that one person over everyone else.
The balance of evidence aligns with his story.
there is literally no evidence for his story and you can find many news stories about his corruption. So no, you are mistaken. 

ok. so there is a text that so far can't be confirmed to be legitimate. In that text there a section for "H" and that he would hold money for the "big guy". It does not say who "h" is. It does not say who the "big guy" is. And this deal never completed and no money changed hands. So no, this is not evidence biden ever received money. If there was lots of other evidence corroborating and adding more detail this could potentially be evidence. But as it stands, it is nothing. 

So if I accepted money to approve a permit for a oil pipeline, could I argue it wasn't bribery because oil pipelines benefit people?
the bribe would a be a crime. I meant something like if trump cut taxes for himself only, that would be abuse of office. If he cut it for all billionaires, he still heavily benefits from it, but republicans would defend it as being good for the country even though it's just a handout to the rich. 

How convenient since motive can so rarely be objectively proved or disproved.
not at all. In fact I really wish there were much cleaner lines of what is corruption. Sadly, both parties (trump included) don't want that. They all love corruption that is technically legal. 
#37
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
And in your scenario it would stop people from being able to speak to others, and that would be infringing their right to speak.
Your silence on the second thought experiment is deafening.


Extortion requires that they have some sort of power to hurt the other side. A VP does not have that unless the president says he does. 
If the president tells the general staff "The VP is in charge of Ukraine" then they won't go over the VP's head at every order.


In that text there a section for "H" and that he would hold money for the "big guy". It does not say who "h" is. It does not say who the "big guy" is.
Read the full chain if you dare.


If there was lots of other evidence corroborating and adding more detail this could potentially be evidence.
There is lots of other evidence, but you have systematically declared evidence not evidence just as you have here.

How convenient that evidence is only evidence when there is other evidence, but there is never any other evidence because when you look at other evidence it has no corroborating evidence.

The fact that Biden quid pro quoed Shokin is corroborating evidence to this. This is corroborating evidence to that. You have to look at all the evidence and simultaneously minimize the improbabilities to find the most probable theory.

That's something I'm sure you brain could do easily enough if you wanted it to. Such basic intelligence will no doubt be reserved for finding conspiracies in right-tribe leadership.
#38
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If the president tells the general staff "The VP is in charge of Ukraine" then they won't go over the VP's head at every order.
ok. so you are acknowledging that Biden could not extort Ukraine without Obama's approval. Which means the decision wasn't up to him. 

Read the full chain if you dare.
It's more "read the chain if you care". No one has managed to come up with a single piece of actual evidence tying biden to a crime of any kind. so why would i read through text chains I know there is nothing trying to joe biden in there? And how do I know? because if there were, you and every other republican would be screaming it from the rooftops. 

There is lots of other evidence, but you have systematically declared evidence not evidence just as you have here.
lol, you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Hearsay, slander, rumor, you have lots of. Evidence, you have shown nothing. 

How convenient that evidence is only evidence when there is other evidence, but there is never any other evidence because when you look at other evidence it has no corroborating evidence.
you just talked in circles without saying anything. If I say "I heard trump received a bribe from russia" that is hearsay. On it's own, it means pretty much nothing. If you find other pieces of corroborating evidence, like bank transactions, etc, then maybe my statement has value. So far no one has come up with any actual evidence. Just hearsay and rumor. 

The fact that Biden quid pro quoed Shokin is corroborating evidence to this.
he what? he got him fired because he was corrupt. He did not engage in a quid pro quo. 

This is corroborating evidence to that. You have to look at all the evidence and simultaneously minimize the improbabilities to find the most probable theory.
except the "evidence" you are pointing at either doesn't exist or you don't understand. For example, despite all accounts being that shokin was corrupt, he says he isn't. You choose to believe him and his statements over everyone else, then use his statement (with no corresponding evidence to back it up) as a piece of "evidence" in your case. this is madness. Shokin has every reason to lie. He was corrupt and was fired for it. He doesn't want people to think he is corrupt, so of course he is going to say he isn't.

Bottom line, you are piecing together rumors and hearsay and claiming it is proof of a giant elaborate conspiracy. When the much simpler and more likely explanation is that it is what it looks like. Hunter is a shady guy cashing in on daddy's name and Joe is a parent who was losing/lost a son to cancer and wanted to maintain contact with his fuckup of a son because he was all he had left.
#39
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
If the president tells the general staff "The VP is in charge of Ukraine" then they won't go over the VP's head at every order.
ok. so you are acknowledging that Biden could not extort Ukraine without Obama's approval. Which means the decision wasn't up to him. 
No I am acknowledging that the authority Biden used ultimately derived from the office of the president. That does not mean everything Biden did was specifically approved of by Obama or even that Obama knew everything he did under the delegated authority of POTUS.


Read the full chain if you dare.
It's more "read the chain if you care"
Either way. Just remember when they're calling people cultish traitors because they don't care about the latest accusation against Trump, you know what that kind of apathy feels like.


I know there is nothing trying to joe biden in there?
That's incredible. First you claimed there was no evidence. Then after you saw a single screenshot you somehow became omniscient of all possible evidence, after all how else would you know there is nothing tying to Joe Biden?


And how do I know? because if there were, you and every other republican would be screaming it from the rooftops. 
But they/I are doing that. You just don't care and you have been trained to only trust sources which would never confirm these things for themselves until long after they could no longer harm the left-tribe.


There is lots of other evidence, but you have systematically declared evidence not evidence just as you have here.
lol, you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence
Why would I go prepare a pitcher when you won't admit the cup has water in it? I won't. You enjoy your self-proscribed ignorance.


How convenient that evidence is only evidence when there is other evidence, but there is never any other evidence because when you look at other evidence it has no corroborating evidence.
you just talked in circles without saying anything.
Yes, I was describing your mindset.


He did not engage in a quid pro quo.
That's just silly vocabulary for extortion, and he most certainly did; but I won't ask for your definitions because it's clear you aren't operating in good faith when you refuse to call a screenshot of an email evidence.


despite all accounts being that shokin was corrupt, he says he isn't.
All accounts count: 0

How about you provide some "evidence"


then use his statement (with no corresponding evidence to back it up) as a piece of "evidence" in your case.
The quid pro quo is corresponding evidence.


Shokin has every reason to lie.
So does Biden. He's corrupt and he was caught.


When the much simpler and more likely explanation is that it is what it looks like.
Man's son goes off to 1 out of 195 countries in the world. Gets paid to do nothing by a company that had been investigated (no dispute) and was still under investigation (disputed). Man finds one cop in that one out of nearly two hundred countries and extorts him out of office.

How many corrupt prosecutors are in Ukraine? Maybe 10. Let's say 10.

Then the chance of Biden randomly extorting the one prosecutor in all the world who is investigating (or had investigated) the source of his son's income is 1/195 * 1/10 = 1/1950. That's a 0.05% chance.

Corruption is the simplest explanation. If you told this story to anyone who didn't have programed prejudices they would say it looks like corruption.


Joe is a parent who was losing/lost a son to cancer and wanted to maintain contact with his fuckup of a son because he was all he had left.
On top of contact he also wanted 10%, or maybe 50% but I guess Hunter could have been exaggerating:

#40
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why then would Obama not admit to confirming the quid pro quo when the Ukrainians supposedly called him?
Because it's not a quid pro quo. A quid pro quo is when someone in a position of trust provides something of value that doesn't belong to them in exchange for something of personal value. Telling Ukraine that the US will withhold aid if the prosecutor is not fired is a decision made by the US to benefit US interests. Not the same thing.

Also, I never said they did call him, we don't know if they ever did. I pointed out that Joe told them to call him because that just adds to the problems with your allegation. Again, if they were being extorted by Joe for his own personal benefit they could have easily went up the chain, so either they didn't or that didn't work which means Obama was "in on it", which totally defies Occam's razor.

Surely he would be interested in clearing the record and helping his old pal given that this was all in the interests of the amreican people (and countless others by HistoryBuff's account).

Why like Joe take all the credit when taking credit could destabilize the narrative against Joe?

Hec when I put it like that I'm not sure I would even take Obama at his word.
Exactly. If Obama stays quiet, that's suspicious. If Obama speaks up, that's suspicious.

This is the kind of illogic I'm talking about when I explain why "conspiracy theorist" is a pajoritive.
#41
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No I am acknowledging that the authority Biden used ultimately derived from the office of the president. That does not mean everything Biden did was specifically approved of by Obama or even that Obama knew everything he did under the delegated authority of POTUS.
ok. do you understand that the power to do that has to come from the president. But you think that biden had some sort of blank check to do what he wanted? Where is your evidence for that? Since the power had to come from the president, the obvious answer is that it came from the president. so if you say it didn't, you need to show that. 

Either way. Just remember when they're calling people cultish traitors because they don't care about the latest accusation against Trump, you know what that kind of apathy feels like.
ok. trump has mountains of evidence showing him commit crimes. There are literally audio tapes of him admitting to the crimes. There are countless witnesses that were present when he committed them. Some of them he and his lawyers have publicly admitted to. There is no question that he committed crimes. Even he has admitted to them. 

For biden we have what? Some vague texts about a deal that never happened? Some people who say they heard from a guy who maybe knows about something, but there is no evidence that guy actually had evidence. 

Comparing these two things is ridiculous. 

That's incredible. First you claimed there was no evidence. Then after you saw a single screenshot you somehow became omniscient of all possible evidence, after all how else would you know there is nothing tying to Joe Biden?
what? how do i know it doesn't tie to joe biden? Because I have working eyes? I looked at what you sent me and there is nothing that ties to joe biden. How is this a serious question?

Why would I go prepare a pitcher when you won't admit the cup has water in it? I won't. You enjoy your self-proscribed ignorance.
lol, you haven't shown a single piece of actual evidence. I keep asking you for some, you show me rumors and inuendo. So I can understand why you don't want to show me more of the same nonsense. If the 1st, strongest "evidence" you show me is this weak, then the rest of it is probably nothing at all.

He did not engage in a quid pro quo.
That's just silly vocabulary for extortion, and he most certainly did; but I won't ask for your definitions because it's clear you aren't operating in good faith when you refuse to call a screenshot of an email evidence.
a quid pro quo is an exchange. I give you something, you give me something. Like when Trump traded US aid money in echange for Ukraine smearing his political rival. That is a quid pro quo. Biden was sent to Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor by the Obama administration. He then removed them. There was no quid pro quo. 

The quid pro quo is corresponding evidence.
im not sure you know what quid pro quo means. You don't seem to be using it right.

Then the chance of Biden randomly extorting the one prosecutor in all the world who is investigating (or had investigated) the source of his son's income is 1/195 * 1/10 = 1/1950. That's a 0.05% chance.
it wasn't random. There were calls for his removal from all over the world. And it was a decision made by Obama, not Biden. So your math is silly on the face of it. 

On top of contact he also wanted 10%, or maybe 50% but I guess Hunter could have been exaggerating:
there is absolutely no evidence biden ever asked for or received any money from hunter or burisma. So this is just baseless rumor. As I keep explaining to you.
#42
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@HistoryBuff
so there is a text that so far can't be confirmed to be legitimate. In that text there a section for "H" and that he would hold money for the "big guy". It does not say who "h" is. It does not say who the "big guy" is.
The text actually was confirmed, and it's author has made clear that H was referring to Hunter while "the big guy" is Joe Biden, so that's not in dispute.

What they ignore however is that the text was literally just one of Hunter's colleagues asking if he should include Joe in the business deal to which no one responded that he should. About a week later a contract for that deal was drawn and Joe was no where on it, and there remains to this day no evidence that Joe ever even knew about the deal let alone was part of it or benefited from it.

So to be clear, a colleague of Hunter asking in a text whether Joe should be part of a deal is a smoking gun for Joe's corruption, but Trump's hand picked ambassador to the EU saying under oath "there was a quid pro quo" is worthless. MAGA logic.
Topic's author
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
What they ignore however is that the text was literally just one of Hunter's colleagues asking if he should include Joe in the business deal to which no one responded that he should.
Just curious, what was the deal supposed to have been about?
#44
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Its a witch hunt against Biden.
Republicans are playing dirty.
Topic's author
#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
It's more likely a deep state hit job. They could have held onto the laptop forever.
#46
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
To his credit, Pakman conducted a civil interview where he allowed Ramaswamy ample time to speak and answer the questions he posed. Pakman even assured Vivek that his intention was to learn his position rather than spark a debate.

Apparently, Pakman’s fan base didn’t like the outcome of the interview at all. Pathetically, Pakman was compelled to make a follow up episode where he admits to being ill prepared and accuses Ramaswamy of being very talented at “filibustering” (to me, he is describing “Gish galloping”). He rebuts Ramaswamy’s claims while Ramaswamy is conveniently absent, as if to say “See? I can refute everything he says given enough time.” So much for the “interview rather than a debate.”

What a weenie move…
Topic's author
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
I agree with your takeaway.
Topic's author
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
I particularly liked Vivek's critique of Pakman (and sensationalist outlets like his) for failing to honestly steelman opposing views.
#49
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, I cannot say whether he was slyly pointing that at Pakman personally, but he appeared to be addressing the national conversation in general, and that we should seek to understand fully what opposing views are rather than simply dismissing them. I couldn’t agree more.
Topic's author
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
You're right... he did say "I say this out of respect in a constructive way, and not as an attack..."

very classy.
#51
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Very true. Nothing is ever republicans fault. Its always democrats or swamp or illuminati.
Topic's author
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
That sounds like a strawman.

Sweet nips of the straw,
Empty calories delight,
Taste buds dance with joy.
#53
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you saying its not true? Republicans can be bad?
Topic's author
#54
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Republican heart,
Misjudged by the strawmanning,
Depth beyond the name.
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Just curious, what was the deal supposed to have been about?
Don't know, tried to research it but hard to find anyone who will explain it beyond noting that Biden is the big guy. The most I've gotten is a vague description of a scheme to charge someone for giving him access to Biden. Essentially, the guy would have been paying to be a lobbyist.

If this is accurate then it sounds fairly shady, but also remarkable if this is the supposed corruption the republicans are so obsessed with uncovering and even more so if they're really trying to compare this to Trump.
#56
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Why then would Obama not admit to confirming the quid pro quo when the Ukrainians supposedly called him?
Because it's not a quid pro quo. A quid pro quo is when someone in a position of trust provides something of value that doesn't belong to them in exchange for something of personal value
I reject that definition and I deny that Biden's actions wouldn't qualify under that definition.


Again, if they were being extorted by Joe for his own personal benefit they could have easily went up the chain, so either they didn't or that didn't work which means Obama was "in on it"
Why would their failure to go over Biden's head also mean Obama was in on it?

Why does Obama's approval of the extortion imply that he must have approved of the extortion for the exact same reasons Biden was motivated to seek it?


Surely he would be interested in clearing the record and helping his old pal given that this was all in the interests of the amreican people (and countless others by HistoryBuff's account).

Why like Joe take all the credit when taking credit could destabilize the narrative against Joe?

Hec when I put it like that I'm not sure I would even take Obama at his word.
Exactly. If Obama stays quiet, that's suspicious. If Obama speaks up, that's suspicious.
but not equally suspicious. It would be good for Joe regardless for Obama to say he knew everything Biden was doing and approved.


This is the kind of illogic I'm talking about when I explain why "conspiracy theorist" is a pajoritive.
There is no illogic here. People engaged in deception often back themselves into no win situations where silence and speech are both detrimental. If extorting the firing of a prosecutor was a moral and dutiful act as you claim there is no downside to Obama admitting to knowing about it. It's no fault of my theory if other evidence and common moral theories related to national intercourse will always cast a shadow on the act.

Your use of the term "conspiracy theorist" remains and will always be a petty attempt at poisoning the well, nothing more.
#57
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
No I am acknowledging that the authority Biden used ultimately derived from the office of the president. That does not mean everything Biden did was specifically approved of by Obama or even that Obama knew everything he did under the delegated authority of POTUS.
But you think that biden had some sort of blank check to do what he wanted?
Finally a contextually relevant response. The answer is: On Ukraine, Yes.

Where is your evidence for that?
Even if there was no independent evidence, it would be a possibility and the fact that Obama has not commented to clear Joe's name would make it more likely than not.

There is independent evidence though:
Obama made then-Vice President Biden the point man, and he became a frequent visitor to Ukraine. By his own count, Biden says he went there about a dozen times from early 2014 through early 2016.

Meaning: If Obama ever did notice something, he was likely to simply believe Biden's explanation over anyone else's. I shouldn't have to keep explaining this, anyone who had ever held a real job in a real hierarchy would know this: You can go over your bosses' head only once, because afterward they either fire you or they stop trusting you with information.

To rise to the level of alarm that would warrant going over Biden's head (to Obama) would have to be something unequivocally unlikely to be supported by Obama.


Since the power had to come from the president, the obvious answer is that it came from the president.
That is not the obvious answer. If I am asked for ID at the entrance to a military base that authority is derived from the president, but there is no way in hell the president knew that demand was made.


Either way. Just remember when they're calling people cultish traitors because they don't care about the latest accusation against Trump, you know what that kind of apathy feels like.
ok. trump has mountains of evidence showing him commit crimes. There are literally audio tapes of him admitting to the crimes. There are countless witnesses that were present when he committed them.
Same with Biden, you just deny they're crimes. Lo and behold that's what MAGA people do as well.


Some of them he and his lawyers have publicly admitted to. There is no question that he committed crimes. Even he has admitted to them. 
I just want to know how high you are when you listen to TYT?


Comparing these two things is ridiculous.
But useful since all of Trump's supposed crimes were in defense of the American constitution and transparency. In fact he was impeached for trying to uncover Biden's crime of extortion via extortion that was far from proved. The irony will never get old.


That's incredible. First you claimed there was no evidence. Then after you saw a single screenshot you somehow became omniscient of all possible evidence, after all how else would you know there is nothing tying to Joe Biden?
what? how do i know it doesn't tie to joe biden? Because I have working eyes? I looked at what you sent me and there is nothing that ties to joe biden. How is this a serious question?
I'll grant this to double R, he refuses to evaluate relative probability objectively but he has reading comprehension.

The text actually was confirmed, and it's author has made clear that H was referring to Hunter while "the big guy" is Joe Biden, so that's not in dispute. - DoubleR

Now what you just tried to do crosses into open deception. You try to claim here that what you were talking about by "I know there is nothing trying to joe biden in there?" is only what is in the screen shot. The true context was the full chain and that was clear in your post "so why would i read through text chains I know there is nothing trying to joe biden in there?" - You

You have working eyes perhaps, but not an honest disposition.


Why would I go prepare a pitcher when you won't admit the cup has water in it? I won't. You enjoy your self-proscribed ignorance.
lol, you haven't shown a single piece of actual evidence.
Yes I heard you the first time, you're saying the sky is purple and that makes me think we aren't going to agree on the color of the grass.


He did not engage in a quid pro quo.
That's just silly vocabulary for extortion, and he most certainly did; but I won't ask for your definitions because it's clear you aren't operating in good faith when you refuse to call a screenshot of an email evidence.
a quid pro quo is an exchange. I give you something, you give me something. Like when Trump traded US aid money in echange for Ukraine smearing his political rival. That is a quid pro quo.

Biden was sent to Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor by the Obama administration. He then removed them. There was no quid pro quo. 
Biden traded US aid money in exchange for Ukraine firing the prosecutor appointed by a duly elected government.

It is literally the same purported threat in both cases. There are three critical differences:
1) Trump denies making a threat where Biden bragged about it.
2) Trump asked for an investigation into a matter of legitimate interest to the American Republic (the conduct of an US official), he did not demand the reordering of a soverign nation's government staff (supposedly) because that staff was being ineffective in purely internal matters.
3) Trump received no moral support from the deep state, while Biden was backed up the whole way despite the fact that both had personal gain at stake

Plenty can be inferred from these differences.


The quid pro quo is corresponding evidence.
im not sure you know what quid pro quo means. You don't seem to be using it right.
Well, much like "conspiracy theory" you have to ignore the common meaning of the words and remember it means "bad" but only when applied to right-tribers. In fact its part of the definition that only right-tribers can have conspiracy theories or commit quid pro qoes. This is known as the "my shit doesn't stink" principle.


Then the chance of Biden randomly extorting the one prosecutor in all the world who is investigating (or had investigated) the source of his son's income is 1/195 * 1/10 = 1/1950. That's a 0.05% chance.
it wasn't random. There were calls for his removal from all over the world.
You don't know much statistics do you? Two factors that are uncorrelated are random with respect to each other.

Unless you're claiming that those "calls from all over the world" were correlated with Hunter's "employment" then you must be claiming that it was a coincidence that Hunter was collecting money from Burisma.



And it was a decision made by Obama, not Biden. So your math is silly on the face of it. 
I guess you could include all the employees of the federal government that might have had sons collecting money while providing no service who happened to be benefited by Obama's extortion.... but there is only one vice president and there was only one US official who was the "point man" for Ukraine.

Also as far as I know the US didn't extort changes in any other puppet states, but that is almost certainly my ignorance. There is no way these bastards didn't do stuff like this all the time.


On top of contact he also wanted 10%, or maybe 50% but I guess Hunter could have been exaggerating:
there is absolutely no evidence biden ever asked for or received any money from hunter or burisma.
Yes I know the sky is purple, but what words do you want to use for the text between Hunter and his sister that I provided to along with the statement you are responding to?

I mean poor Double R, he's been putting up a resilient, if ultimately flawed and hypocritical, front on the whole Biden corruption scene and you're coming in here denying that screenshots are evidence making "his side" look like kooks.

Well it's poetic justice, I have lunatics and zombies on "my side" more often than I'd like.
Topic's author
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Finally a contextually relevant response. The answer is: On Ukraine, Yes

Do you think Ukraine has Kompromat on Biden? Is it possible Biden is being partly extorted to fund a losing war? America has spent double on the war than Russia has.... And America isn't even fighting for border security like Russia is!
#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A quid pro quo is when someone in a position of trust provides something of value that doesn't belong to them in exchange for something of personal value
I reject that definition

Please define quid pro quo.

Why would their failure to go over Biden's head also mean Obama was in on it?

I already explained that.

Either the Ukrainians believed they were being extorted by Joe Biden for his own personal benefit or they did not.

If they did not, that logically leads to the conclusion that they understood their prosecutor was in fact corrupt, which removes the core of your case.

If they did, then you add to your position the assumption that they would have accepted being personally extorted rather than to have taken the issue up the chain. That's a huge assumption which defies Occam's razor.

Why does Obama's approval of the extortion imply that he must have approved of the extortion for the exact same reasons Biden was motivated to seek it
Because Obama is working with the same information as Biden.

If Obama approved of this he either believed based on the intelligence Shokin was unacceptably corrupt (again refuting the core of your case) or he did not believe that and instead just went along with Biden extorting a foreign nation without at best, knowing why, and at worst, going all in on Biden's scheme to use the power of the executive branch to illegally protect Hunter Biden.

The former refutes your case and the latter defies Occam's razor.

but not equally suspicious. It would be good for Joe regardless for Obama to say he knew everything Biden was doing and approved.
They don't need to be equally suspicious. The fact that you consider both options of a true dichotomy suspicious at all speaks to a lack of commitment to logical consistency. It's a pointless game of heads I win tails you lose.

Not to mention you've answered your own original question; Obama doesn't speak on this because there's no point. It's not possible to appease people who will take issue with whatever you do, so there is no point in trying. His efforts could be much better spent elsewhere.

#60
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Finally a contextually relevant response. The answer is: On Ukraine, Yes
Do you think Ukraine has Kompromat on Biden? Biden is being partly extorted to fund a losing war?
No, I think Biden is a loyal agent of the deep state; and personal gain he extracted from his corruption is considered by the deep state just dues "his cut". I don't think people extort the deep state, the deep state extorts people.

Ukraine is a puppet of the deep state (circa the maidan insurrection). Puppets don't dare blackmail puppet masters. The explanation for the enormous expenditures on Ukraine is simple: That was the goal from the start.

Push Russia to the brink by constant political aggression (puppeting Ukraine and then tolerating the nazis in Donetsk for example). Maybe they didn't expect or want Russia to actually attack, but a saber rattling Russia still means lots of weapons being routed to Ukraine which means $$$ for the weapons industry and skimming the military budget is the wage they pay to most of their body. Also they want to take over the world and weapons tend to be helpful for that.