Hodad

Yes, he was. That's not even in question. According to Archer, they got in with good intentions, not aware of how corrupt Burisma and Ukraine were, but there's no doubt that Hunter and Archer were working for a shady company. What's your point? Shokin was protecting Burisma. Bursima wanted to keep Shokin. Joe Biden still got him fired, contrary to the interests of Hunter's business relationship. -- Great. Good for Joe. That's a testament to his character.

Holy farking shit. You are shameless. Here is the whole damn transcript AGAIN. I defy you to produce any such quote. I have no idea if Devon Archer is a liar or not, but his sworn testimony says exactly the opposite of what you are trying to claim. He said, as has been quoted for you, that Burisma wanted to keep Shokin and place, that he was not aware of Joe Biden ever taking any action to benefit Hunter's business, and that, indeed, Hunter was transparent about not having any ability to influence his father.

WTF? That's not my evidence at all. Not even remotely. You obviously didn't read that article or any of the many, many contemporaneous quotes that have been provided to you. Everyone wanted the corrupt Shokin fired except for his oligarch partners. His countrymen wanted him out, the international community, US Republicans--everyone. What don't you understand about that? Seriously, the only thing you seem interested in learning is the rote lines required to parrot the conspiracy theory. I also notice that you didn't provide the requested citations for your claim. I'm shocked!

Who was arrested and when? Where are your citations? I don't think you have any idea of what was happening in Ukraine outside of your loose conspiracy theory. This never was about the Bidens. It's incredibly myopic to try and shoehorn an entire nation's politics--and the associated geopolitics into a narrative about Americans. Again, the US, UK, EU, IMF, Ukrainian watchdog groups and Ukranian citizens ALL wanted Shokin fired for a long time before Joe Biden applied the pressure. And it's absurd to think an international anti-corruption effort is all a favor to help Hunter make a few bucks. Here's the story of how the UK case was foiled by Shokin's office. The money machine: how a high-profile corruption investigation fell apart Find some evidence and we'll see. So far all you have is wild speculation that is undermined by mountains of evidence that Shokin was corrupt.

To repeat, for people really bad at reading and reason: Mr. Goldman. So was it -- Shokin was ultimately removed from office. Mr. Archer. Right. Mr. Goldman. Was that a bad thing for -- and the Burisma leaders felt like that would be bad for them? Mr. Archer. That was what I was told.

Sure, the conspiracy kooks won't vote for Biden ever again -- wait, they never were going to in the first place. Your opinion piece from 2019 notwithstanding, the facts are abundantly clear. Nothing was found to implicate Joe Biden in any ethically compromised behavior, let alone corruption. The seeds of suspicion were sown, but each point has been thoroughly debunked. Shokin's own office confirmed that there was no investigation at the time--that Shokin had shelved it. We also know that he refused to cooperate with the UK investigation of Burisma, forcing the UK to unfreeze Burisma assets. We also know that Archer and other insiders were told that Shokin was under control and it would be bad for Burisma if he were fired and replaced with a reformer. Good try, but go find a conspiracy that makes any semblance of sense.

You are a crazy person. This has been pointed out to you multiple times, and you persist with your lies. Archer's testimony was literally the opposite of what you claim: A. The Burisma board was told that Shokin was under control and Burisma didn't want him fired. B. To his knowledge, Joe Biden had never done anything material to assist Hunter, the consulting firm or Burisma. Exhibit B (pg. 127 one of many instances 114-120 are also instructive) Q: In fact, Hunter Biden never asked his father to take official actions on behalf of his business partners? A: He did not. He did not ask him -- to my knowledge, I never saw him say, do anything for any particular business. Q And you're not aware of Joe Biden ever doing anything to help his son's business partners? A No. I think that the calls were -- that's what it was. They were calls to talk about the weather, and that was signal enough to be powerful. Q So this, again, was about projecting this illusion of access to his father. Is that right? A: Correct Exhibit A (pg. 106, one of many) Archer: That was like -- that was a narrative that was -- that was told to me 3 by various of the D.C. team, that the firing of Shokin was bad for Burisma because he was 4 under control. Mr. Goldman. What did you understand "under control" to mean? Mr. Archer. Meaning that they were going to maybe give a slap on the wrist as 7 opposed to you know, seize all his assets. Mr. Goldman. Because there was a lot of characterizations by the Republicans in 11 the first part about a Ukrainian investigation. Mr. Archer. Uh-huh. Mr. Goldman. But you're not actually aware of any investigation by the 14 prosecutor general in Ukraine into Burisma which is different from the 15 British investigation. Mr. Archer. Right. The British investigation I was aware of. I think in the early stages, like the visa and the British, I was made aware of. And then it kind of my -- I had other responsibilities and I was less informed as we moved forward and Blue Star kind of was more involved. Mr. Goldman. Was taken over on that angle of things. Mr. Archer. Yeah, I was, like, an FYI at first, and then I became less FYI as time progressed. Mr. Goldman. So was it -- Shokin was ultimately removed from office. Mr. Archer. Right. Mr. Goldman. Was that a bad thing for -- and the Burisma leaders felt like that would be bad for them? Mr. Archer. That was what I was told.

Insult. Tuck tail. Repeat. You are why we cannot have nice things.

You are really the worst at this. Your excuse for US capitalism "failing" in the Great Depression was that it was global. We started it though. We were the point of failure that caused a global depression. Do you not see how that renders your argument obviously incorrect? Like super obviously? Yet you won't or can't ingest that basic information and evolve your opinion. Why is that?

I can't take credit. OP is so reliably fooled by random Internet shit that it's just a given. Sometimes it's harmlessly funny like this, but more often than not it's crass, cruel and thoroughly mean-spirited lies about marginalized groups. Save yourself some time and embrace the ignore list. My favorite is the sincere belief that Aunt Jemima was not only a real person, but America's first Black millionaire. Cited a Pinterest post. ?‍♀️

You don't seriously believe the OP? He lives in a fantasy land. There is no way this is true. The NFL is not stupid.

It was global... eventually. The collapse of the US stock market triggered it and we were the hardest hit. There has always been sort of a no-true-Scotsman argument by Chicago economists. They say that the Fed miscalculated and that led to the GD. The Fed isn't pure capitalism, so capitalism isn't to blame. But, of course, the Fed exists in its current state specifically to moderate the wild swings of capitalism and provide stability. DId it fail to prevent that crash? yep. But that's kind of like blaming the guardrails for not stopping 100% of cars from careening off a cliff. Well, yeah, it's a bummer that every now and then one breaks through, but we'd have a lot more people off the cliff without guardrails. -- and they've gotten considerably better over the decades. The fact that the Great Recession was only a recession is remarkable. Anywho, it was a very fair point. China is currently facing an economic setback. Other economic models have experienced worse. There are a LOT of arguments for why China's model isn't great (philosophical, practical, economic and humanitarian), but I don't think it's fair to call it a failure based on the current situation without applying the same standard for other models.

Actually, that was a very incisive point. If you interpret the slowdown in China as a failure of the economic system, how else would you characterize something as extreme as the great depression? Neatly done. Boxed in like that, your options are to concede the point, find a meaningful flaw in the comparison, or toss out a childish insult and tuck tail. For what it's worth, only the first two are dignified.

You think Democrats are an international organization, controlling policy for the UK, EU, IMF, and Ukraine? And they're all doing it to get Hunter Biden a relatively insignificant amount of money--the whole package is less than 10% of what Joe can earn in a year. And the guy who was internationally reviled for enabling corruption is one you should trust? ^^ If you believe that, you're a damn lunatic.

I'm sure he was there because they thought they could make use of his influence. Turns out they couldn't and Shokin got fired anyway. Not a great investment. Remember, Shokin was protecting Burisma. They wanted to keep him in place. That's what the UK experienced first hand. That's what the Ukraine watchdog groups said. That's what Devon Archer said they were told at the board level. Shokin now says "No, I was good," and you swallow it whole.

Of course, I realize the individual jeopardy. That's why I think they need to show some solidarity to move the party platform and perspective beyond one man. The cult of personality just isn't a viable strategy to govern, and it's also not likely to win, based on past results. And frankly it would be worse for Republicans if Trump does win. That'll be the end of the old Republican party and, potentially the republic. If there was ever a time to fix what's broken and actually lead, this is it. One at a time won't do. They'll be tarred as traitors and RINOs. But they could stand up to him together and say that what he's done is not affordable in the Republican party. That Mike Pence is not a traitor. Etc. They tried to take Trump on one at a time in the last primary. And we saw how that turned out.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but it's more pervasive than just a few bad apples. There are racists in any group. But there are attitudes and policies in the Republican platform that attract racists at scale. Something as absurd as birtherism gained greater than 50% acceptance among Republicans. A majority! And they eagerly elected Trump who built his political footprint on flogging that conspiracy theory. That's doesn't mean that half of Republicans are robe-and-hood racists. But it does mean that they were primed and willing to believe the worst about a Black man with a non-anglo name. There is a fundamental mistrust of non-white, non-Christian people in that population significant enough to scupper a primary run and suppress enthusiasm and turnout in a general. Sort of the presidential politics version of that security guard who watches you extra closely in a store. That's my point. Not that everyone will vocally disqualify Ramaswamy, but even if he were perfect on policy (he's not) he'd be swimming against undercurrents that run strong and deep in the voting base he needs. That's all I have to say about that.

Right? Haley is not perfect, and it would be a hard campaign, but she's the type of candidate that people can vote for rather than just hoping they vote against Biden. I mean, let's be frank, Biden is really old and showing every bit of that mileage. There are a lot of independents out there who have already rejected Trump and his self-styled successors. Those people don't necessarily want to vote for Biden. They'd love a reasonable alternative who presents as knowledgeable and competent and, above all, actually interested in solving problems, building consensus and governing. -- But that's the catch, it has to be a reasonable alternative. And I don't think a reasonable alternative can make it through the primaries unless all the other candidates gather the collective will to renounce Trumpism. I mean, honestly, it shouldn't be that hard to get a stage full of people in the opposition party to say that elections matter and it's wrong and illegal for a sitting vice president to simply decide to remain in power. I mean, jeebus, they all want to be elected, and if they win, none of them think Kamala Harris should be able to simply "nope" the election results. Why can't they find the basic courage to denounce Trump for trying that scheme? It's disappointing and infuriating. Christie is getting killed for telling the truth and publicly breaking with Trump. The other candidates are afraid to join him, but that's not how to lead. If they all did it, they might muster up escape velocity and leave the Trump era.

? Zero evidence? What is wrong with you? The evidence has been shared extensively since at least 2019--including a handful of quotes from multiple sources (not Democrats) t hat I provided just a few posts ago. I hope that you're just too lazy to read them. Otherwise, you're a dim and clumsy liar, not fooling anyone.

So agreed on race and Obama? Whenever I hear Ramaswamy speak ( just a couple of interviews and the debate) he seems divorced from reality. The conspiracy stuff just makes him seem entirely unfit. I grant you that they will still sell to the MAGA crowd, but there's a sizeable constituency of Republicans that want a return to serious politics instead of Trump 2.0. And he simply cannot win without the Bible belt, and he simply cannot win their support. We'll have to watch it play out, but I'm about as worried about Ramaswamy as I am about a lightning strike. Meanwhile, the only candidate in that batch that's ready for the job and viable is Haley. That's who Republicans should be talking about.

Oh, the overtly racist memes and emails were everywhere. And for the folks who recognized that's it's not socially acceptable to be overtly racist anymore, they dialed the xenophobia up to 11 for the first Black president. They spent years trying to make him "the other." They built an entire movement around lies that he was born in Kenya (or some other African country) and that he was a Muslim. A Manchurian candidate. They didn't just dislike his policies (which were pretty moderate anyway), they rejected him as an American altogether. Not "one of us." That's not a coincidence.

Absolutely disagree. Republicans lost their minds when we elected a Black man. They are even more bigoted against other religions. They believe in one nation under God. They believe we are a Christian nation" and will not put someone in the oval office who believes in gods, plural. Not every person. It's not a monolith. But enough to make it impossible.

The obvious logical explanation is that the Vice President of the United States, was given a foreign policy objective aligned to expressed interests of the US and our allies. All done publicly, transparently in plain sight. The janky conspiracy you folks have cobbled together is so thoroughly undermined by facts on record and basic reason that you sound crazier every time you repeat it.

No, I'm aware that you didn't say "the entire Western world." I said it, as a reminder of just how utterly preposterous this entire line of accusation is. The UK wanted Shokin fired - particularly for stonewalling their Burisma investigation. The EU wanted Shokin fired. The US government -- Democrats and Republicans wanted Shokin fired. The IMF wanted Shokin fired. Ukrainian watchdog groups wanted Shokin fired. The Ukrainian people wanted Shokin fired. You think all of them are doing a favor for Hunter Biden? Lol Oh, and you know who DIDN'T want Shokin fired? Burisma. As Devon Archer testified, they were told that Shokin was handled. And he had shelved the investigation.

"A plum government appointment?" What is it that you suppose these things are? They are typically awarded to major donors and friends. They are unpaid positions. The government gets some work done. Rich people (usually) people get something interesting to do, and a cool conversation topic, and everyone's relatively happy. Scandal!!