Hodad

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!!

You should come over and play poker sometime? Seeing how easily you believe the guy that the entire Western world wanted fired for enabling corruption makes me think you'd be a great addition to the table. Everyone else "But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies. Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation. 'Burisma Case' Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin "dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case." ... However, there are two big problems with the narrative presented by Trump and Giuliani, according to activists in Ukraine and others. For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand. "There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added. Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them. Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it. "Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.

? Guess he shouldn't have assaulted those FBI agents when he was served federally. "I do find that based on the open charge against you there are grounds for bond to be denied at this point,” Richardson said. “So I’m going to go ahead and find that you are at risk to commit additional felonies and a potential risk to flee the jurisdiction.” She also told Floyd that the issue is ultimately "not going to be decided by me. It’s going to be decided by the judge who was assigned to handle your case.”

They didn't, really. There's nothing that prescribes a two-party system--we could have more. They squabbled over a few things and fell into it factional opposition. With extraordinary foresight Washington saw what was happening and warned against political parties in his farewell address. Obviously, we didn't listen. -- But to your earlier point, the parties have changed, formed and dissolved over time. Perhaps a unified Republican party has run its course. I continue to believe that proportional representation would do us a world of good.

Oh, there's definitely something wrong with the people. They aren't very smart (average IQ is a touch over 100). They aren't well informed because they are lazy--and the ones who aren't lazy are busy-really they all have other priorities. They are social animals, prone to tribalism and groupthink. Basically, they're people. Conditions and context matter, and leadership matters. Hitler is an easy example because everyone is familiar and the outcome was so extreme. Life was hard in Germany after WWI, people were primed for something to change that, but it hadn't occurred to the average German that they should murder millions of their neighbors to improve the situation. They didn't walk down the street, spot a Jewish family eating dinner and think "my life would be better if I went over and shot each of them in the head." But cynical forces exploited all of the things that are wrong with people (above) to create a narrative of victimhood until enough people could be convinced that their team was under threat not from circumstances and hardship, but from "the other." And after that was done a charismatic leader could get them to do almost anything. Still, in isolation, the average German didn't want to murder their Jewish neighbor, but they could be convinced of almost anything in defense of the tribe. And they were. We have conditions here that are psychologically challenging. In the post-war white picket fence era, being a straight white man used to be half the recipe for a good life--at the expense of others, of course. Education could get you ahead, but you didn't need it. Unions protected the working class. A factory job was a ticket to a middle-class life and that was good enough. Now, we're in an increasingly knowledge and skills based economy and things aren't as easy as they once were for uneducated white men. What worked for their parent's generation isn't working for them. So, who can they blame for the difficulties they are facing? For decades Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have been making a lot of money selling the idea that it's not an economic and cultural trend, but that "the other" is out to get them and to literally destroy America. Instead of Jews (though sometimes also Jews!) they blame immigrant labor for putting pressure on unskilled wages, they blame the "elites in their ivory towers." They blame the higher-earning knowledge workers for driving up the price of housing. They blame scientists and environmentalists for being annoying, asking everyone to care about other factors while their tribe is in distress. They begrudge women for pursuing equality, working more and doting less. They begrudge marginalized groups for the same. They begrudge the erosion of privilege. The scapegoating is really shoddy thinking, but it's easy to package and sell--and incredibly lucrative. And it creates conditions of which politicians can take advantage, increasingly leaning into that narrative to score easy votes. Primary candidates one-up each other to secure that disaffected voting bloc, the conversation drifts, talking points become platforms and before you know it you have a stage full of wealthy ivy-league lawyers trying to prove who hates "the elites" the most. And the day after the debates MAGA John wakes up and sees his Democrat neighbor Sally climb into her aging Subaru and putter off to school where she will teach John's kids how to read and count--all for $50K per year. Maybe they wave. You know what he doesn't think? "There goes that b*tch off on her mission to destroy America. Democrats are evil and should be eliminated." -- But he might post that on a message board after work tonight, because extreme rhetoric proves how devoted you are to "the team." ^^This post is both too long for a forum (on my phone, no less) and too short to tell the full story. It's neither comprehensive nor universal. There are lots of Republicans who don't fall into that disaffected class and who haven't been swept up in the extremism, who are rational and most interested in policy and governance, but I'm describing what I see as the cause of the extremist drift. But it's a two party system and the weirdest things are conflated and bundled together because they have to fit in one box or another. So, to circle back, yes there is something wrong with the people, but that's the point of leadership. Trump cynically played into the worst of everything to collect those votes, even courting dark corners of the right that had previously been unacceptable in polite society. The conversation has shifted. The damage is done. Something has broken. That's where leadership comes in. At the debate the other night, you saw a stage full of people who think that they should be president instead of Trump. They want to be leaders, ostensibly to solve problems and help people. And yet they timidly cozy up to the same scapegoating and divisiveness, and spite and hate because they are worried about losing the extremist vote. How could they not stand up in unison and say that what happened under Trump is wrong? That Mike Pence is not a traitor to this country? That Trump broke the law and may face consequences? -- Leaders don't just follow the people into the drift, their job is too lead the people out of it. So again, I place the blame on the Republican leadership--or lack thereof. They need more than one person to step forward and say that the better, brighter future everyone wants lies in other direction.

I know you're trying to be somewhat diplomatic here for the sake of productive conversation, but there's something happening in this thread that is worth observing. Rather early on I laid blame for the size of the divide and the rancor at the feet of the Republicans. I do think one side (the other) has lost its way, lost its foundation, fallen into extremism triggered by a 'cult of personality' moment, prone to purity tests and absolutism. Their only platform today seems to be spite. I also said that the Republicans would have to make hard choices and corrective action to appeal to moderates and independents and avoid an unrecoverable downward spiral. I said all of this because I believe it to be objectively true. I'm not a rabid partisan. I'm a registered independent, but I do have eyes to see, ears to hear--and something useful between the ears. Now, what's noteworthy is that I don't think "the other side" even necessarily disagrees. Some of them set out to prove me right, as they do every day on this forum. Leftism is a cancer. Leftism is all about destruction. Democrats (or Demonrats ?) hate America. Democrats intend to destroy America. Democrats are the pedophiles, groomers, and Nazis. Democrats are communists. Democrats are the worst people to ever walk the Earth, and so on. -- Mitch McConnel is a RINO. Mike Pence should be hanged as a traitor. FOX news has gone woke, switch to OAN. ^^This is not how one goes about refuting accusations of extremism, cultishness and unreasonable demands for purity and subservience to an individual. I say again, this is not a "both sides" issue. They need to do the work fix their shit to be of any value to America. One final thought. What's the biggest point of disagreement between the two parties right now? The thing sucking up ALL the political energy? The battle line that cannot be crossed? ---- Oh yeah, it's that one of the parties has decided that in a representative democracy the votes are now irrelevant, and that it's perfectly legal for the Vice President of the party in power to simply choose that the party should stay in power. Many of them want to execute the Vice President who disagreed with that proposition. And they are unbelievably angry that the rest of us who think that proposition is both crazy and illegal and want to hold legally accountable those who attempted to perpetrate such a scheme. That's how far it's gone, to the point where they will fight tooth and nail to argue that the President doesn't need to be elected. ^^This also is not how one goes about refuting accusations of extremism, cultishness and unreasonable demands for purity and subservience to an individual. I'm not wrong, folks. This is not a "both sides" issue. Something has fundamentally broken on the Republican side of the aisle. We could go into lots of theories about how it broke, but it's definitely broken. And a good chunk of the party--the "normal" Republicans-- know that it's broken, but have no idea how to fix it. And worse, they have perverse motivation not to fix it, as they need to cater to those broken voters to be competitive in elections. They need to cut their losses. Like a bad marriage, that relationship is never going to get better. It's best to pull the band aid off, move on and start rebuilding your life. Then we can get back to civil antagonism and disagreements about policy.

Eh, I'm putting this in the same category as "We'll never know for sure who really killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman." ?