Eh I mean I think everything has been confirmed in the broad strokes of what is going on here.
Bidens son worked for a company that was under the scrutiny of the Ukranian government.
Biden had been involved in the pushing out of the prosecutor that was investigating his son.
That's it.
That's the conflict of interest.
But that's the thing: Shokin wasn't investigating Biden's son. He was investigating the Burisma company itself. He even says this:  The investigation started before Hunter Biden took his role at the company. Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau said on Friday it was investigating activity at Burisma between 2010-2012, but that it was not looking into changes to its board in 2014, when Hunter Biden joined. Ukrainian prosecutors have said they are not investigating Hunter Biden, but are looking into the legality of Burisma’s activities before Biden joined its board. Burisma, which denies any wrongdoing, has faced allegations of dodging taxes and of improperly securing licenses for gas deposits. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine/ukraine-must-investigate-joe-bidens-son-says-ex-ukrainian-pm-idUSKBN1WD0PKHas nothing to do with Hunter Biden. I really just don't think Joe Biden would be dumb enough to brag about how he had Shokin fired if his son was actively being investigated by Shokin. That's because he wasn't. Its a non-issue. If new investigations need to be opened because of Hunter Biden's involvement with the company, that's another story. But it has nothing to do with Shokin. I had mistyped. I had meant that they had been investigating the company, but the point still stands on the conflict of interest. There's no reason that we should let Biden off the hook for this, he had still allowed for a clear conflict of interest to occur without disclosing it. Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.s |
|
|
|
It was private. Government doesn't really have any authority if it was an accidental overdose... even if it happens a million times. Government is trespassing if they continue to call his private property - his house - drug house. Government needs to prove foul play. Using drugs on your own private property isn't illegal, even though government might say that it is. What? Do you feel so sad for the joker who couldn't control what he was doing so that he died? Anybody who does drugs knows that it can be dangerous. Riding bicycle can be dangerous. Climbing mountains can be dangers. Just driving a car is dangerous if you consider all the people who are killed in car accidents. Leave the private people alone once you find out that there was no foul play.  This guy is a sick fetishist well known by local prostitutes to try to forcibly inject and murder people. I am all for people having the freedom to kill themselves in any way they choose, but this guy gets off murdering disadvantaged men and making it look like an accidental OD. This is absolutely case where government should be involved, and they should have been a long time ago. I still don't know how someone like him isn't put under the eye of even local police and prosecutors. What he's doing is sick, and people see it in the news. In my mind, there's only so much that your powerful friends can help you with -- and in my head, once you start literally killing people by lethally injecting illegal drugs into them, you've crossed the line. Damn. |
|
|
|
(ridiculously verbose diarrhea)
That's a long way to go about admitting that I'm right. Nowhere in your long-winded spiel did you even counter the points that I made. You just proceeded to bark at me like a rabid chihuahua. Again, what it comes down to is you don't know more about the situation than Lutsenko. He is not a fan of foreign interference, but since he said something opposite of your narrative you decided to puke on him, and me for bringing it up. As I said in the post, while this may not have been illegal nor a crime -- there was still a clear conflict of interest that Joe Biden ignored to mention to the American people while he had been negotiating there.
That's the part that I take offense with.
I don't think the "conflict of interest" is as clear as you think it is. We don't know the finer details. We just have words by Biden, and words by Trump, and a billion different opinions spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. Proving that Biden forced Ukraine to remove Shokin because his son was being investigated by him is going to be an impossible job. Impeaching Trump over his latest, particularly severe blunder is going to be easy by comparison. Sorry to disappoint you all but I like Biden more now than I ever did before. I have a feeling that a lot of usually-dem voters paying attention to the news feel the same. Eh I mean I think everything has been confirmed in the broad strokes of what is going on here. Bidens son worked for a company that was under the scrutiny of the Ukranian government. Biden had been involved in the pushing out of the prosecutor that was investigating his son. That's it. That's the conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
Let the Dems rally around Biden, a third rate candidate for the POTUS.
That virtually assures Trump wins Four More.
I'm okay with that.
I think that if the Dems actually do pick Biden, they're going to be digging their own grave. Biden is a candidate which alienates a large part of the party, which is the new progressive side of the party. He's someone that's going to be a slap in the face to the Sanders/Warren portion of the party, who have seen themselves past over yet again for the establishment candidate. We'll see, but I do truly think that picking Biden kills the progressives voter turnout. Which is great for the GOP, but not so much for the Dems. |
|
|
|
As I said in the post, while this may not have been illegal nor a crime -- there was still a clear conflict of interest that Joe Biden ignored to mention to the American people while he had been negotiating there. That's the part that I take offense with. |
|
|
|
Glad to see you are back and active here again. Regarding your topic, the Western world is a high trust level society. What you are describing is a low trust level society. This is largely a cultural issue, so the solutions are more systemic and institutional than individual fixes. In my opinion a lot of it has to do with corruption in government and law enforcement. If the law doesn't apply to those in power, people have no respect for the rule of law any longer because it is only imposed on them and not used to protect them. It is like playing a game where everyone is cheating. The honest player always loses and that mentality is difficult to reverse. Of course there are ways such as personally imposing harsh penalties to send a message, but most people don't have the stomach for that.
This conundrum is one of the main reasons I am very much in support of gun ownership in the US, because even in low trust areas such as cities, crooks know they are rolling the dice and it is only a matter of time before they catch a bullet. This is a very effective deterrent that people often completely ignore when advocating for gun bans/restrictions. People don't appreciate how nice it is to live in a high trust society and how easily that can break down when it is not maintained. Even harder is rebuilding a high trust society from a low trust one once it is lost.
I'd have to agree with all of this, mostly the first portion at least. In America we do live in a VERY high trust society. People are more or less trusted to be doing the right things at most times. Now if that is due to people just being trusting in the states, or if they're just scared of the embarassement and consequences, that's another thing. But yeah -- other cultures accept this a little differently. Maybe this could be a society/country/culture that feels as if they're owed what they're stealing, or that they deserve it or something along those lines. Well first they have a reason why they steal if its for good use well it can be okay but if its for bad intention like greed in money but if you do it for your family or any valid reasons then it is okay. There are many beliefs that every country and people have if they believe that it's okay well I respect it but they need to face and know that every country have a Law in stealing and they have to face the consequence if they got caught. No. This is exactly what we're talking about here. There is never a good reason to steal from another person -- it doesn't matter if the rich or the poor or doing it it doesn't make it okay or better in anyway. If we are to say that some people get a [pass for stealing while others do not, we've allowed for this sort of idea to spread. |
|
|
|
Glad to see you are back and active here again. Regarding your topic, the Western world is a high trust level society. What you are describing is a low trust level society. This is largely a cultural issue, so the solutions are more systemic and institutional than individual fixes. In my opinion a lot of it has to do with corruption in government and law enforcement. If the law doesn't apply to those in power, people have no respect for the rule of law any longer because it is only imposed on them and not used to protect them. It is like playing a game where everyone is cheating. The honest player always loses and that mentality is difficult to reverse. Of course there are ways such as personally imposing harsh penalties to send a message, but most people don't have the stomach for that.
This conundrum is one of the main reasons I am very much in support of gun ownership in the US, because even in low trust areas such as cities, crooks know they are rolling the dice and it is only a matter of time before they catch a bullet. This is a very effective deterrent that people often completely ignore when advocating for gun bans/restrictions. People don't appreciate how nice it is to live in a high trust society and how easily that can break down when it is not maintained. Even harder is rebuilding a high trust society from a low trust one once it is lost.
I'd have to agree with all of this, mostly the first portion at least. In America we do live in a VERY high trust society. People are more or less trusted to be doing the right things at most times. Now if that is due to people just being trusting in the states, or if they're just scared of the embarassement and consequences, that's another thing. But yeah -- other cultures accept this a little differently. Maybe this could be a society/country/culture that feels as if they're owed what they're stealing, or that they deserve it or something along those lines. |
|
|
|
Don't worry, hes not off the hook yet regardless of how hard the media is trying to deflect. As far as your "at worst" scenario, I assure you it gets much MUCH worse for Biden regarding what he is responsible for. This goes way deeper than the majority of people realize.
I mean this is more of what I'm pointing to. As the media continues to talk Trump Trump Trump, they forget that the start of this whole story is Biden. Though you can see that Trump and the rest of the GOP is attempting to point him out -- and to make people look at him. How much deeper do ya think this goes? |
|
|
|
|
People forget in this entire Trump-Ukraine scandal that there is a person that is being left out of all investigations relating the topic. JOE BIDEN
Joe Biden is the point man for the Obama administration on all things Ukraine. He deals with everything going in and out of the WH regarding Ukraine.
Well at the same time as this, Joe Biden son, Hunter Biden, has received a job from a Ukrainian oil company who is under the scrutiny of Ukrainian prosecutors. Hunter Biden has no history in the oil industry, though I don't think this is something to be looked at weirdly -- as picking people to be apart of your corporate board simply based on their name is something that is pretty common in corporate America. Though that's where the issue lies, picking Hunter Biden is picking someone simply because of the fact that he's a Biden and you're trying to ride off the coattails of the Biden name.
But that's exactly what happens -- a prosecutor is fired under the direct order of Joe Biden (who had also threatened to withhold foreign aid from Ukraine) that had been investigating the company that Biden had been working for.
So yeah -- the real story in my head here is the fact that at worst Biden had abused his position as the point man for foreign relations in Ukraine to directly benefit his family. And at worst, Biden had a clear conflict of interest that he failed to bring to the attention of the WH and the American people. Biden without a doubt shouldn't have been involved in these negotiations with Ukraine if he has this clear conflict of interest involving his SON.
|
|
|
|
|
In every single past impeachment inquiry, the full house has put it to a vote on if the inquiry should even exist. Nixon and Clinton both went through this, and both impeachment inquiry passed through the full house by a majority vote. Pelosi has the majority -- why won't she put this to a vote to see where people are and if they're willing to go through with this, instead of just using this as a PR and media machine to hurt the President.
She's now saying that she supports an official inquiry, but nothing is changing in terms of committees and what exactly is going on.
If she trusts that this process is going to work out -- either with the President being impeached by the House, and then being found guilty later on in the Senate -- or this leading to the President losing in 2020 -- then she would put this to a vote for the full house.
Until she does that though, we know that she's just using this for short term gain.
|
|
|
|
....
Some of these include but are not limited to
1. The President being immensely powerful, being able to do whatever he wants with his pen and his phone.
2. Congress continuously failing to limit the deficit. Both parties yell about it when they don't hold the Presidency (or Congress) but when they actually take control they don't care enough to actually ensure the country is saved for long periods of time.
3. Congress fails to do much of anything.
1. Really? How about that measly 5B for the wall? 2. This is 100% the voters' fault. 3. A feature, not a bug. Yeah, I think the President is wrong here. But many presidents before him have also abused the office of the Presidency -- so what do you want him to do? Sit there and be the one President in history that doesn't use the powers that Congress has literally handed over to him. I wasn't attacking any one particular President in my post -- I was talking about overarching ideas. Congress was supposed to do things -- even if it wasn't supposed to be done fast. They literally get little to nothing done due to hyper partianship and a gridlocked congress. We have issues in this country that Congress can try to fix -- but we'll never get to any of that when the President is being investigated for 15 other things by all of the committess in Congress that are supposed to be working for the nation instead of working for their party above everything. |
|
|
|
It's just that not much people are actually looking up for stuff to buy on that platform due to the sole reason that the user experience isn't that good in contrast to looking for and buying stuff on sites like Amazon or eBay.
I gave it a shot as buyer like two months ago, and I was actually surprised by how convenient it really is. I initially had the impression that it was a hassle to use and whatnot based on experiences of people on social media, but I think that people mostly say that because they have heard others say so, likely also people who haven't used it. I think the main problem here is that the demand for a decentralized market place isn't really there at this stage, because most of what's being sold on OB doesn't require anyone to skip centralized market places for. Another aspect is that it lacks marketing, which in crypto is very important if you want to gain ground. I really wish OB to gain more ground but if it hasn't been able to do so in the previous years, chances are that it won't take off in the forthcoming years. I mean there's an issue with any market that is accepting a cryptocurrency, and that issue is that not everyone has crypto. The larger market is in accepting credit card, debit card, etc. Most people in the US have one of these, while most don't have crypto. And even going into the people who have crypto -- they most likely aren't going to be spending it daily. Most are just going to be holding for capital appreciation. Open Bazzar -- most likely is going to be accepting btc as well, which is going to cause some issues when it comes to tx fees and tx confirmation times that people aren't going to be used to. People -- while not knowing that credit cards also incur fees for the merchant -- don't like fees are passed onto them. No one is going to want to pay even 25 cents for their transaction to be sent when they've never had to pay for this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
They had a real chance to do this, and support from their causus on the fact that Donald Trump has obstructed justice. They could impeach him over real things, like: - Waging wars without a declaration from congress. - Supporting the Saudi genocide in Yemen. - Emoluments issues with Trump's hotels, etc. - Wiretapping and other executive overreach. But they don't want to impeach him for this sort of stuff because Democratic presidents have done the same things (even emoluments), and furthermore they like having an all-powerful presidency which they can exploit when they get into power and use as a scapegoat when they're out of power. So instead of pushing a powerful impeachment case which the public could actually get behind like, "bombs made in the US are as we speak being used to blow up children, at Trump's order and without congressional approval," the Dems instead search for these little "gotcha!" things which are totally Trump-specific and meaningless in any wider context, and which nobody actually cares about. One of the most harmful trends has been the centralization of power into the presidency. Donald Trump is the ultimate head of an organization with ~4 million employees, and congress has in the past and present basically given him free reign to do whatever he wants with this insane amount of power. I'd love it if outrage over Trump leads to removal of executive powers and more skepticism of the status quo, but so far I'm not seeing any effective move in this direction. IMO there's some chance (not a high chance, but some) that the loser of the next election will attack the legitimacy of the election, which will result in some serious chaos not seen in our lifetimes. And this will just be ridiculous bickering over who the next emperor will be, rather than actually trying to fix the problem at its source by making the presidency less powerful or otherwise fixing things fundamentally. Right as I was reading your first few points, I was thinking the SAME exact thing. There's no way in hell that the Dems are going to go after him for that sort of stuff, because all of those things are common things that the POTUS does at this point. Not something we like to admit everyday, but Congress has ceded large amounts of control to the President for no real reason -- just because it helps their party?  The President should NEVER be this powerful, but we're so caught up in the day to day bullshit that we're never going to attack the real issues in government. Some of these include but are not limited to 1. The President being immensely powerful, being able to do whatever he wants with his pen and his phone. 2. Congress continuously failing to limit the deficit. Both parties yell about it when they don't hold the Presidency (or Congress) but when they actually take control they don't care enough to actually ensure the country is saved for long periods of time. 3. Congress fails to do much of anything. |
|
|
|
I prefer not to go to war, but the same was true during the very beginning of World War Two. WW2 could have been avoided with a fairly small military action against Germany. Instead, the war escalated into something that required millions of troops and resulted in millions of deaths.
A military action against Iran would show that further escalation will not go unpunished, and that further escalation will not result in sanctions being removed. The Saudis cannot beat Iran in a war cleanly by themselves so the US will need to at least play a role in any military action against Iran.
+1 to this. If you want to stop a rogue state before it becomes an issue, you attempt to neutralize the issue with supporting other leaders, crippling the government by attacking them in regards to sanctions and forming an international coalition to ensure that these sanctions aren't let up. Small scale wars and assassinations could work BUT ONLY if there is another person who would be able to take their place who is popular among the people. You can't just take a leader out and then pray that someone out sprouts up out of nowhere. |
|
|
|
Funny bit is how republicans had control of government for 2 years in all 3 branches, yet "take back our nation" rhetoric is strong with them...
This is still an ignored fact. But it's the democrats and other corrupt politicians at fault. All people are going to say this whole 'take back our nation' thing. Because here is the thing, not all Democrats support largely left principles and not all Republicans support largely right principles. So what that rhetoric means is that they want more people that are going to help them advance their policy. Conservatives want more conservatives. Liberals want more Liberals. That's that. |
|
|
|
The Nigerian gov't has a particularly nasty history of financially oppressing it's population too...
It'll be interesting to see how Nigerians handle this loss of financial privacy.
+1 to this. People forget that in this sort of environment, the government is going to be able to know everything that you're able to do with your money. Cash is one of the best systems for keeping things anonymous, digital payments are not. |
|
|
|
This is funny, you want vendors and producer to stop accepting a currency backed by the government policy? This is funny how do they sell their goods? Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency are still evolving. You can't completely remove the fiat for now. May I understand well your write up?
+1 If you were to tell a few companies in the US to start using Bitcoin, for all of their transactions, they wouldn't be able to function. They wouldn't be able to pay employees (unless paying a high premium) they wouldn't be able to pay for insurance, or handle regular safe banking. They cant buy any supplies, nor can they buy new machines, and so on and so forth. If all companies were to start using bitcoin, maybe it could work -- but you can't just say the people that are using fiat are horrible. It's the only real way to run a business these days. |
|
|
|
I dunno. Sounds pretty bad. Sounds like Trump is using his position of the presidency to ask another president to investigate his political rival. I'm not the only one who thinks this.
...
But as we all know, even when Trump loses, he wins. I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.
It'll be another thing like the Mueller report: Democrats will claim that it proves that Trump is basically a dictator, while Republicans will say that Trump was only doing his job in pushing for the investigation of a credible case of corruption. (IMO the truth is somewhere in the middle here, but the truth doesn't matter in politics.) If no other facts appear making this a bigger deal, then I think that Trump will come out even cleaner from this than he did from the Mueller report, while Biden will be substantially hurt. Trump would have to literally strangle a baby on live TV in order for him to be convicted of anything in the Senate. Even if he'd said in the transcript, "Biden is a political threat to me. If and only if you fabricate & publish official Ukrainian reports him look bad, I promise to use my authority as president to give you military aid and provide other favors," he'd still probably be acquitted. (Though in that case it might end up being a political win for the Democrats.) I think that this is bad timing on the fact of the Dems. They had a real chance to do this, and support from their causus on the fact that Donald Trump has obstructed justice. As there had been multiple times throughout the Mueller investigation where the guy had obstructed (If I'm not mistaken, that's what the whole second half of the report was about?) This -- in my mind -- is a nothing burger. Trump is saying that the clear conflict of interest between Biden being the point man on the Ukraine, and Bidens son working for a company that had been under scrutiny from Ukrainian officials - then this just dissapearing, is suspicious. I don't agree with Trump bringing it up in a call. But it doesn't seem like anything had come out of that phone call anyway. Seems like Trump had been doing what Trump does, and spit-balling, with nothing coming out of it. Both sides are wrong here. I just don't think this rises to an impeachable offense by the POTUS. |
|
|
|
It seems to me that he was killed by his own weapon.
In the past, he and his party were the leaders of the so-called. political correctness.
Trudeau has apologized to everyone in the past many times and it had already become a farce.
Now that came back to him like a boomerang, well deserved.
Not surprising to see. This is something thats going to backfire on everyone involved in this whole 'cancel culture' Meaning that people are just going to search through your entire life -- Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, etc -- and find one bad thing that you've said or done that hurts you in the long run. Not something that is going to be sustainable in future generations. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
