Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
Post #53 is pure ad hom, reported; not that it seems to matter. Do we even have mods anymore?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
When you just say "racist" and nothing else, that's you desperately hoping for an echo chamber.There's a million racist web sites and Einstein here goes to a DEBATE site expecting an echo chamber for racist hate speech.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Sidewalker is not only trolling this thread, he is purposely name calling to detail the thread.FLRW is too.
I second that.
Created:
Posted in:
BECAUSE THE 'TRANS COMMUNITY' IS VIOLATING IMPLICIT SOCIAL CONTRACTS AND DEMANDING NOVEL PRIVILEGE IN ALL THOSE AREAS.[IwantRooseveltagain] You mean equal rights
That is most certainly not what I mean for access to sports leagues, bathrooms, and elective surgeries are not rights.
Created:
Posted in:
That’s just an attempt to turn the tables and gaslight. Clearly, it is the left which obsesses over this issueThen why are Republicans passing so many laws related to the trans community?Bathrooms, school policies, sports participation, military policy
BECAUSE THE 'TRANS COMMUNITY' IS VIOLATING IMPLICIT SOCIAL CONTRACTS AND DEMANDING NOVEL PRIVILEGE IN ALL THOSE AREAS.
....Thought that was obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
Vivek Ramaswamy is ever increasingly, forgive the metaphor but you started it: someone I whose dick I would suck.[IwantRooseveltagain] He wasn’t born in this country and he’s a secret Muslim. You shouldn’t trust him.
My trust increased a little just now. Hey do that again!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Wow ebuc you managed to compile a list without mind boggling biases in it.
Indeed we can see that the problem with Jan 6 is that nobody brought a bomb or a gun, you can see in the earlier examples so long as you shoot someone or bomb something you don't appear to be called insurrectionists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
When you're terrorizing an entrenched tyrannical class of government bureaucrats as opposed to innocent citizens (like antifa and BLM target) it's called freedom fighting.The Capitol riot on Jan. 6 was “a terror attack” that resulted in “almost 10 dead.
"10 dead" ...and each unarmed person the government killed is another heavy stone in favor of that interpretation.
This is why Trump will go to prison.
Yes the tyrannical bureaucrats are terrified that they can no longer subvert the democratic will of the people and foolishly think imprisoning Trump is going to change the trajectory. You are right about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But that doesn't justify asserting that a public official making a statement itself disqualifies that statement as credible.
I never said that, I said that just as you feel comfortable dismissing Shokin's statements because you believe they are self-serving so I too can infer that from the timing even technically true statements may have served as fertilization for actions aimed at ulterior motives.
If everybody is J-walking and one out of a thousand people have the mayor lambasting them for it (followed by all the papers reporting that the mayor is lambasting this person) that is suspicious. If you find out later that this one J-walker was in someway presenting a problem to the mayor's agenda ulterior motives are a probable conclusion.
Those are the articles you found. A US ambassador dropped a rant in consort with one faction of Ukrainian politicians, a few British cops, and a few unelected EU bureaucrats and all you found were a few outlets relaying or parroting the claim.This is like me asking 10 people whether they like Trump and 8 of them say yes, then I continue to claim Trump is deeply unpopular because 8 random people saying they like him doesn't mean anything.
I am explaining why a poll is irrelevant to me, even a poll of news outlets.
I never said that the majority of contemporary outlets denied Shokin was corrupt. I'm saying I read them, and they all said the same thing because they were all reporting on the same original source of information namely a manufactured scandal which did not (as far as any evidence shows) predate by any significant margin the US ambassador's complaint and the UK police types throwing up their hands.
In terms of relevant claims there were only ever two: He didn't send paperwork to the UK so they could continue freezing Zlochevsky's assets and that he charged the wrong people in some other corruption case (there were diamonds).
None of them had independent sources or any new claims. It was parroting for local audiences, not investigative journalism.
Let's try this; let's approach this with the scientific method. The question here is; Was Shokin corrupt?
That's your question, not mine. These are my questions:
Was Shokin an impediment to the plans of the deep state?
Was Shokin an impediment to Biden's (or any other DC swamp monster) personal gain?
What gives the US the right to demand Ukraine change its government?
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Yes, he did. He led the attack on the Capital. He led from the rear, but he led the attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Greyparrot asked you a question:
An armed but limited rebellion is an insurrection.What about unarmed trespassing in the Capitol? Is that insurrection? Why hasn't a single person been charged for insurrection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Not dropping the rest, busy; but this stands out because you keep getting this wrong and I want to isolate it:
It's like when Trump goes around saying "people tell me X, I don't know but that's what they say." and then 50 bloggers and fake journalists reprint X is slightly different phrasing.Nobody checked if X was true, not even Trump; worse Trump was the one who decided that X even mattered.Exactly, this is the state of today's political right.But setting that aside, even if you could successfully argue that mainstream media works the same way, this is specifically why I keep pointing out the fact that the articles I provided were all written at the time before any of this was politicized.
No political bias or ferver is required to repeat the statements of government officials. None what so ever.
That's the point, just the fact that Trump says something is enough to have it appear all over the place even when that thing he said had no political significance beforehand. This is true to a lesser degree of all official statements. If you read "news" you will see there is very little of "CNN asserts X" it's "CNN is telling you that Y asserted X".
Those are the articles you found. A US ambassador dropped a rant in consort with one faction of Ukrainian politicians, a few British cops, and a few unelected EU bureaucrats and all you found were a few outlets relaying or parroting the claim.
There are no facts here. Repeating a claim doesn't make it more true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Vivek Ramaswamy is ever increasingly, forgive the metaphor but you started it: someone I whose dick I would suck.
The idea that he would be wasted as VP is offensive, I also fear that he is too good to be true and worry he might be a plant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So now gender AND sex exist on a spectrum. They knew it would come to this.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Goes both ways. obviously.
Not really, there isn't an army looking for black cops shooting white people ready to take that alone as proof of racism.
So this non-point you’re making serves what purpose, exactly!?!
Sleep on it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
one must naturally wonder how obvious the racism has to be for people to notice it being there.
More obvious than all the examples that were posited to me which turned out to be lies or perpetrated by black cops.
I mean that is quite a fact in itself: In a country of 350 million they (the race baiters) can't find a single instance of a racist white cop murdering somebody?
I'm surprised at that, either they're terrible at looking or it just doesn't happen which is an amazing achievement.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't remember having talked about any judgment for our deeds. In fact, I'm assuming there is no hell, no heaven, and as a consequence no judgment.
True peace for the victims is an even greater victory than suffering for the guilty.
All is well that ends well. You'll find not every spiritual ethos focuses on an afterlife; but they all need the story to end well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This for that” is the Latin translation and is what the term means, but when we’re using it in the context of corruption (which is this entire conversation is about) then its meaning becomes very specific; “this” is referring to something that is given from a position of trust, “that” is referring to something given in return for personal benefit.
Uh huh, what's wrong with "bribery"?
That’s why I asked you to define it.
Well I have, and as I explained I believe it was used to subvert clear thinking when it became a common phrase circa when they started describing Trump's alleged threat to withhold aid by that term. I'll stop using it when speaking with anyone who agrees to stop using it. Otherwise reap what you sow.
Either way the funds were approved by congress, withholding them is a threat which is either legitimately POTUS authority or not. You people claim that you can read Biden's mind and know that personal gain wasn't a motivator. You give him the benefit of the doubt. Trumpers give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Complete symmetry (except for the fact that the bulk of evidence is in right-triber favor).
You know that’s not what we’re saying.
No I don't, and it's better to rephrase a perception than talk past each other.
it was about whether they understood he was corrupt. They could have easily understood this and not cared
Ah so you understand the concept. Why couldn't Obama have "understood and not cared"?
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 itBecause Obama is working with the same information as Biden.That looks like an unprovable and highly unlikely assumption to me.You really need to explain that statement. Our intelligence agencies exist for the purpose of ensuring the President is well informed of what is going on around the world to aid his decision making. There is nothing Biden would have access to that Obama would not have.
How about Biden's shared bank account with Hunter? Are you claiming Obama reviewed the balance sheet there? Consider how ridiculous your statements are before you make them.
That doesn't refute my case at all.It does, because if Shokin was corrupt then Biden’s involvement in getting him fired is easily explainable as him acting within the US’s best interests.
It doesn't matter if it's explainable by motives other than personal or subversive if those motivations do exist and are the most probable cause.
For instance Trump asking for an investigation was most probably motivated by wanting Biden to look bad, BUT it was also in the best interests of the American people.
If you think any 'legitimate' motivation being present discounts corruption, what have you to say about Trump?
Notice I put "legitimate" in quotes there because we don't even agree on what constitutes the best interest of the American people. You seem to think interfering in the official proceedings of a sovereign nation is a legitimate business, ironic sense it seems to be considered sedition when Americans do it to American proceedings.
We no longer need to go down the conspiracy corruption path to explain it
You don't need to, but you should because the totally of the evidence makes that the explanation with the highest combined probability.
It’s why I could post over a dozen articles all written before this became politicized talking about his corruption and you just dismiss them wholecloth
They're copy pastes of government officials. It's the government officials who spun the tail.
citing Shokin himself saying he is innocent as credible.
Hardly worse than citing the guy he was replaced with.
You need to show that the decision to remove Shokin would not have happened but for Biden’s personal benefit.
No I don't, I only need to apply the same standards applied to Trump because my thesis is that there is a double standard which if allowed to continue will eventually bend what's left of the USA into a tyrannical police state so oppressive that there will be no way to vote yourself out. In fact I think there is no way to vote yourself out already since the ignorant masses are being manipulated by these endless deceptions.
Because of this, the stronger the case for Shokin's corruption, the stronger the case for Biden's personal benefit needs to be to legitimize your case.
False, It doesn't matter how corrupt Shokin is or was in any way. All that matters is that Shokin was duly appointed by a democratic government of a sovereign nation and that he was a threat to illegitimate interests both personal and deepstate.
You just invoked the notion that the Ukrainian government in general was corrupt. That's not wrong either. They're all corrupt. Biden and every random westerner with no clue about energy on the board of Burisma.
Shokin’s actions (or lack there of) were public knowledge. There is no possible way Biden or any “deep state parasite” could have invented them.
They could easily have invented the need they claimed to have and then dropped the statements about Shokin not fulfilling those needs.
It's like when Trump goes around saying "people tell me X, I don't know but that's what they say." and then 50 bloggers and fake journalists reprint X is slightly different phrasing.
Nobody checked if X was true, not even Trump; worse Trump was the one who decided that X even mattered.
You pretend to not understand dynamics like that, but only when it is convenient.
"Oh no Shokin didn't send the UK these documents, what could that mean? People say he's not doing his job, that's what they say." - US officials and lackeys
"Later today US officials and lackeys said Shokin isn't doing his job" - All those articles you hilarious think are any more relevant than the statement of the US officials and lackeys.
This in itself is corruption and conspiracy. It is not in the best interests of the American people; but it is wider than one corrupt politician lining his pockets.Biden sent Hunter to collect bribes as personal scheme for personal enrichment. That was not a deep state plot, that was Biden's plotYou are more than welcome to provide evidence to support your claims.
The evidence is not secret, but so long as the standard of plausibility for deep state conspiracies is "incontrovertible" in your mind you'll pretend it's not enough.
Created:
Yes it would make me feel better. A lot better. There are many many people who have died and suffered for no achievement or with no vengeance upon upon their abuser. That is a hard pill to swallow.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Don't want this account linked to me irl other than a REALLY close friend/spouse.
Needless to say, same here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
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 valueI reject that definitionPlease define quid pro quo.
"This for that" a trade.
Extortion is when your "offer" was owed such as an already promised item or refraining from physical violence.
Since the left-tribe claims Trump didn't have the authority to withhold aid it becomes extortion even with Biden does it, even if he did it with Obama's approval. The reason left-tribe legislators used the term "quid pro quo" is to avoid using the term "extortion" since using that term relates to specific criminal definitions that Trump could have used to defend himself, again invoking the question as to whether POTUS has the authority to veto congress on foreign policy.
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.
So you're claiming the only possible reason they wouldn't have confirmed with Obama is if they agreed Shokin deserved to be fired?
You really going to stick by that? I see some "razor violations" with that notion, namely the fact that if they already agreed Shokin needed to be fired, extortion wouldn't have been required would it?
Also this scenario does not require Obama to be in on it. I have no idea where you are getting that from.
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 itBecause Obama is working with the same information as Biden.
That looks like an unprovable and highly unlikely assumption to me.
If Obama approved of this he either believed based on the intelligence Shokin was unacceptably corrupt (again refuting the core of your case)
That doesn't refute my case at all. You have been constant in the erroneous claim that if Shokin was corrupt or was believed to be corrupt by any relevant actors then Biden could not have been acting corruptly. This does not follow.
Biden himself could have believed Shokin was corrupt and it would not refute the fact that Biden was financially gaining from burisma in an extremely unlikely way if it was indeed a coincidence. It defies occams razor to assume it was a coincidence when the chance of a coincidence is so low.
Regardless Obama could believe Shokin was corrupt because essentially Biden told him so. Biden could do that directly and/or cause reports to be generated from the intelligence "community" to support his claim, or (what I find most likely) the "intelligence community" - or more precisely the deep state parasite inside it, already wanted Shokin gone because Shokin was too pro Russian.
Corruption was always their cover for removing Shokin, Burisma is just one example of how Shokin was a problem to deep state interests. Burisma was supposed to be a vehicle for the deep state to wage a war for oil with Russia in Ukraine. The Zlochevsky was corrupt but more importantly also aligned with the pre-maidan government, uncooperative, and a potential threat to the deep state control of Burisma. They wanted Shokin to control Zlochevsky without harming Burisma itself. Shokin wouldn't play ball so they replaced him with someone who would.
This in itself is corruption and conspiracy. It is not in the best interests of the American people; but it is wider than one corrupt politician lining his pockets.
Biden sent Hunter to collect bribes as personal scheme for personal enrichment. That was not a deep state plot, that was Biden's plot but there is no reason to expect the two plots had anything to fear from each other. Organized crime often works this way, and it's safer this way because all parties are motivated to stay quiet.
So Obama, if he was involved (which is in no way proven) would have heard exactly what you claim he would have heard: Zlochevsky is a bad guy who ran a bunch of bad dudes. We need to extort his removal in the name of AMERICA *eagle screams*.
Whether or not Obama was deep state or simply deferred to the deep state is not something I know nor does it matter in this case.
Biden's relative stupidity and greed made his personal scheme infinitely more susceptible to detection than the deep state plot would have been otherwise. He apparently wasn't the only one, a bunch of deep staters were sending people to sit on the board of Burisma. Biden was the one who decided to send a close relative and then brag about actions he took in furtherance of both the grand scheme and his personal one.
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.
There is no law of logic that states both sides of a true dichotomy can't imply similar things in some context, but I did not say that Obama speaking out would be a source of suspicion I said that I would suspect regardless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Finally a contextually relevant response. The answer is: On Ukraine, YesDo 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I've written off Vega already as a troll, so I'm not addressing him here but you're both wrong. Science isn't a relabel of 'ideas' or 'evidence'.
Science is an epistemological algorithm built on the foundation of rationality. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Reason doesn't preclude proof and therefore neither does science. Reason operates on premises and evidence is a type of premise which allows logic to operate on phenomenal concepts instead of pure abstractions.
Phenomenal in this case means relating to reality as presented to our senses. Numbers in mathematics is an example of a non-phenomenal concept even though it has plenty of uses in modeling phenomenal concepts.
Science is by definition about phenomenal concepts which is why a chain of reasoning that has no evidence (sensory basis relating to common reality) is not scientific even though it can be absolutely true (mathematical proofs, metaphysical axioms).
When Vega says science offers evidence that is putting the cart before the horse. Science eats evidence and poops theories with predictive power. Without science there is still plenty of evidence, just no reasonable understanding of the phenomena.
Without science there is still plenty of logic that can be done, but it doesn't relate to evidence (and thus specific reality).
Science is the strategy for combining evidence with reason to produce theories. Some of those theories are proven in the sense that the evidence which would need to be denied to allow for falsehood is so universal and repeatable that the only other alternative is the matrix. Anyone who calls that "not really proven" need not be taken seriously.
Created:
Psychology and sociology as it is taught is pseudoscience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not over the whole height of the atmosphere.More blocking = more heat trappedCo2 = more blockingWhats unclear?
More depth of concrete = more light trapped
Concrete = more blocking
What's unclear?
When you show me you understand why more concrete doesn't necessarily block more light we can return to the atmosphere.
No matter which way heat comes, it traps.Heat stays in the Earth's atmosphere irrelevant of way it comes.
*sigh* If there was radiation from the sun in the relevant bands (and there is, 5 watts per square meter) and there was no carbon dioxide (or any other gas that interacted with it) it would go straight through the atmosphere and be absorbed by the planet surface. Be absorbed farther from the rocky surface and closer to the radiate surface means the rocky surface is less cooled as there is an immediate path back out to space for the energy.
Its like a sponge.
No it's the opposite of a sponge. Heat energy (maximum disorder kinetic energy) is always moving to bring about temperature equilibrium.
Heat that goes near our planet gets absorbed.
"near", we're talking about radiation. EM wavefronts don't bend back towards the Earth after missing it There is no "near" it either hits or it doesn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
What are your assertions?You have none. Lol
Now I'm bereft even of assertions. No evidence. No credentials. No assertions.
In a few more posts I might not even be real. Just a passing figment of Vega's imagination. Well no one can say I didn't give every benefit of the doubt.
Troll detected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Ohhh, ok here you go: https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp
Now my assertions are unassailable and I can pretend that I've fullfilled all burdens of proof my assertions may incur right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You believe a hyperlink is "evidence" and makes an argument if combined with an assertion right?
There you go.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
it simply has no effect on the equilibrium since it has always been blocked and never been a significant part of power flow through the atmosphere.Well, the science disagrees with your conspiracy.
The science agrees with me.
The level of blocking was increased by rising Co2.
Not over the whole height of the atmosphere.
Bricks don't block light anymore than a tile. Both block completely.
Also, do note that Co2 captures heat from space.
More than the rocky surface? I think not. Besides, "trapping" works both way. If it traps relevant bands of IR in Earth's atmosphere it also traps them outside of Earth's atmosphere.
I calculated in the other thread that it was blocking about 5 W/m² from the sun at most. The more we add the closer to that number the blocking will get, because unlike the other direction hot air tends to stay high.
I am not sure what exactly is unclear about this.
It's perfectly clear, it's just wrong. Missing relevant dynamics and oversimplifying the system, like a mistake a junior physics student might make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
While it is true that energy can escape the Earth's atmosphere through bulk movement, this does not negate the fact that greenhouse gases like CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere.
It doesn't need to be negated, it simply has no effect on the equilibrium since it has always been blocked and never been a significant part of power flow through the atmosphere.
Therefore, it is important to recognize that while bulk movement can contribute to energy escaping the Earth's atmosphere, it does not invalidate the role that greenhouse gases like CO2 play in trapping heat and contributing to global warming.
The fact of convection and conduction has a significant impact on an argument which relies on the assumption that all power that must be escaping the rocky surface can only do so through repeatedly scattered blackbody radiation and further that the total effect is somehow linear with the gas concentration regardless of the saturation.
Such an argument is the only argument I've ever seen allowing for the quantification of this so called green house effect. If you had seen the debate with mps you would see here that erroneous assumptions is being taught in universities:
We know that 255 K is the wrong answer; off by 33°C. The discrepancy is the greenhouse effect, and to this we owe our comfort and our liquid oceans. The greenhouse gases absorb some of the outbound infrared radiation and re-radiate in all directions, sending some of the energy back toward Earth. Two-thirds of the effect (about 22°C) is from water vapor, about one-fifth (~7°C) is from carbon dioxide, and the remaining 15% is from a mix of other gases, including methane.Crudely speaking, if CO2 is responsible for 7 of the 33 degrees of the greenhouse effect, we can easily predict the equilibrium consequences of an increase in CO2. We have so far increased the concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, or about 40%. Since I have some ambiguity about whether the 7 K contribution to the surface temperature is based on the current CO2 concentration or the pre-industrial figure, we’ll look at it both ways and see it doesn’t matter much at this level of analysis. If CO2 increased the pre-industrial surface temperature by 7 K, then adding 40% more CO2 would increase the temperature by 7×0.4 = 2.8 K. If we instead say that 7 K is the current CO2 contribution, the associated increase is 7−7/1.4 = 2 K. Either way, the increase is in line with estimates of warming—
It's little wonder that academic credentials are producing individuals who are incapable of defending their thesis when such blatant pseudoscience is being taught.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Don't you dare debate AGW.On that you would be crushed. Lol
It's so considerate of you to hold back from crushing me.
Rofl it's like someone shit talking while backpedaling out of the building.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
A subband is blocked, and always has been; but energy still escapes by bulk movement. You may have noticed this by terms such as "wind".Greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb this infrared radiation and trap it in the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Thirdly, there is strong scientific evidence linking increased CO2 levels to rising global temperatures.
Yes, higher temperatures increases carbon dixde concentration due to out-gassing of the oceans.
Rising temperatures are causing ice caps and glaciers to melt, which is contributing to rising sea levels
10 centimeters so far, at this rate our piers may need to be heightened by 10 centimeters in another 200 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
OOpps sorry, it's too late. You've already been dismissed. You couldn't have kept up anyway. Unfortunate, better luck next time.Prove it????????
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If the company was a honeypot run by the government fraudulently claiming to be a public square which then failed to facilitate the speech which the government objected to it has everything to do with the first amendment.lmao, no it absolutely does not. You have no right to use twitter. You have no right to information. The 1st amendment doesn't say that. It says you have a right to speak.
Imagine the government uses a puppet company to develop sound dampening technology which makes it so you can't hear anyone else unless you are within 5 cm of them. Then they deploy that technology only when they detect that someone is about to share information damaging to a government preferred narrative.
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?
After you answer that answer this:
Suppose there is a government with an american constitution on a sparsely populated world in space. People have spread out so that there is hundreds of kilometers between them. There is only one IT company on this planet and that IT company is the only place people go to learn about the politics and events of the world. Then the government puppets that company with agents, proxy stock owners, etc... and uses that company to censor certain information.
Does that violate the 1st amendment?
What weight does it carry when an energy company has connection to the US federal government?It gives them prestige and legitimacy.
You've moved beyond the realm of reasonable discussion here so I'll drop it.
1) Biden didn't decide to fire the prosecutor. Obama did.Rumor?lol what? 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.
It's a he said she said thing.lol, so countless people from governments all over the planet agree that Shokin was corrupt.
You are constantly confusing contexts. Whether or not an investigation was ongoing is a "he said she said"
Also:
lol, so countless people from governments all over the planet agree that Shokin was corrupt.
How about you count up to five (with names). I'll wait.
You choose to believe that one person over everyone else.
The balance of evidence aligns with his story.
You really do love conspiracy theories don't you.
I love the truth and would prefer that there were fewer conspiracies in that category.
None before Biden started getting paid and the prosecutor said he was investigating.there is no evidence joe biden was ever paid
Except for the emails, texts, and testimony.
and there is no evidence the prosecutor was investigating
Except for the prosecutor saying he was investigating after being forced out by someone with financial interests in the target of his investigation. Do you think if you hand out enough false statements I'll just get tired of correcting you and let it stand? I mean that might happen, but also I'm fairly motivated so...
3) Burisma was not under investigation when Biden pushed for Shokin to be removed.This is disputed as I said.by who?
Shokin
the person who was widely agreed to be corrupt?
There are millions upon millions of people who think Joe Biden is corrupt.
Did they provide any evidence they were doing any investigating?
There is no question there was an investigation, assets were seized, the lie is that it was officially closed and that somehow meant Burisma was cosmically incapable of bribing Joe Biden to remove the threat.
whatever this link is, i get an error when I click it. So i'm not sure what it is.
Try this: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Biden-Expectations-email-graphic.jpg
First admit that if Biden (or even Obama) quid pro quoed Ukraine for political or personal advantage that would be a crimeThat is correct. If they engaged in a quid pro quo to trade government policy to only benefit themselves, then that would be an abuse of office. However, if they took actions that benefited america and also happened to benefit themselves
There is a rule that it can only benefit themselves?
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?
In that context motive would be important.
How convenient since motive can so rarely be objectively proved or disproved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I accept your concession.Shhhhhhh. You've been dismissed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Another guy who can't debate
Did he also ask you to support your assertions and then you dismissed him while pretended he was the one running away?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Well I'm the greatest scientist in the world.
Then this should be easy for you.
Why waste time on you? Lol
If you had no intention of supporting your assertions why did you sign up to a debate site?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It shows just how egregiously he held to interests in contradiction to his supposed duties as an employee. Cementing for all rational observers that his true loyalty was with corrupt elements of the government (which has been come to be called "the deep state").You aren't making sense. The 1st amendment means you have a right to speak.
And a right means the government can't tell you to not exercise the option (since there is no way to separate government advise from a government threat due to arbitrary authority in all conventional government)
If a company decides not to publish information, that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
If the company was a honeypot run by the government fraudulently claiming to be a public square which then failed to facilitate the speech which the government objected to it has everything to do with the first amendment.
It is no different from the government secretly running a monopoly on print ink and then suddenly refusing to sell to newspapers critical of the government propaganda.
It was in the article. This lawyer is FBI.ok. How does that infringe on the 1st amendment? Did the allegedly FBI/twitter lawyer ban people from speaking?
Essentially: Yes
and the story is more complicated than that, I merely gave the most prominent example. There was official correspondence between a government office and the social media companies calling out items for censorship and giving winks and nods at critical times. Those subtle communications were used by "former" government agents (who were clearly still government agents) to know what to censor.
No, but i'm sure Burisma advertised how prestigious their board was and used that to help them schmooze business deals. That is why they had multiple people on their board that had nothing to do with the industry they were in.
Yet Trump had plenty to do with the real estate industry, hence why his name in connection to real estate would carry weight.
What weight does it carry when an energy company has connection to the US federal government? The implication isn't "Trump is so good at real estate and because we have his brand so are we", it's "Biden is vice president, he wields enormous political power, that power can be used to our benefit."
... and it was. That's what the prosecutor Biden extorted out of office says. (and there may be even better evidence of this coming out soon)
The difference is that Trump giving real estate advice (regardless of whether it's of any use) is not a federal crime and moral corruption. Biden providing any service what so ever in an official capacity is.
Burisma also had a former president of poland a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign on the board among others.I didn't know that, but it would not surprise me if true. That supports my criminal theory.What? it does the exact opposite of that. It shows you that they regularly get people with some prestige or legitimacy to sit on their board. It makes them look more legitimate. It is a common practice. It doesn't mean that any of those people committed a crime.
Anyone sitting on the board of an energy company that was being investigated for mass corruption in a country known for mass corruption having nothing to contribute to the actual operation of the company except a connection to government power is an agent of criminal corruption.
It doesn't matter how common it is. It is legally criminal because every government in the world has laws against bribery and extortion for officers of the state. It is morally criminal because it is a violation of sworn oaths and almost always involves inequitable use of violent threats.
1) Biden didn't decide to fire the prosecutor. Obama did.
Rumor?
2) the prosecutor was well known to be corrupt and had been killing investigations of burisma and basically every other rich individual for years.
He wasn't in office for years, so right off the bat I can tell you're just making things up. Also you just demonstrated people from multiple countries were involved in the conspiracy. Some guy from Poland?
Plenty of people were interested in stopping the investigations into burisma. All it would take is a few public statements from foreign governments (US and EU minions), and in fact that is how it started.
Also there is no hard evidence to contradict the prosecutors statement that he was investigating burisma and Biden went after him to stop that investigation.
It's a he said she said thing.
There had been calls from the IMF, European governments, the US government and others to remove him for his corruption.
None before Biden started getting paid and the prosecutor said he was investigating.
3) Burisma was not under investigation when Biden pushed for Shokin to be removed.
This is disputed as I said.
There is no evidence any money went to joe biden.Yes, except for the text messages, emails, witness testimony, and financial records that's correct.What text messages and emails. As far as I know, the only such records that exist show Hunter trading on his father's name and getting paid for it. I have not heard of any texts or emails that show joe biden being involved.
here are no witnesses that say they witnessed any biden committed a crime in relation to burisma
First admit that if Biden (or even Obama) quid pro quoed Ukraine for political or personal advantage that would be a crime. Trump was impeached for this claim so it would be funny if you denied it, but I'm not going to do the work of gathering screenshots if you plan to weasel out that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You're dismissed. You could never keep up anyway
It is you who never came to the starting line.
Created:
Posted in:
The fact that I haven't lost a debate about climate science for eight years.[IwantRooseveltagain] A debate with who, your mother?
The set includes perhaps 15 people, my mother not included.
The lack of willing debaters is hardly a sign that I'm wrong regardless. Indeed it stands in stark contrast to the hundreds of eager noob-stompers who engage with flat earthers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Based on what?
The fact that I haven't lost a debate about climate science for eight years.
OK you have nothing. You don't want to debate the issue because you will lose
I can't debate it without an argument to evaluate and an opponent to advance that argument. You are the one preventing the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I'm open to debate the issue
That is in contradiction to your actions.
You falsely claimed to have made an argument, and then when it was pointed out that you did not you said "I'm fine".
I presented a assertion and backed it with evidence
You presented an assertion, and then you gave a link. Are you claiming a hyperlink is equivalent to "two or more premises" ?
Created:
Posted in:
Yes[IwantRooseveltagain] So all you really need to do, is read the summary of the last 2 or 3 reports from the IPCC and you will be more knowledgeable about climate change/global warming than 90-99% of the adults in the world.
I do believe I am more knowledgeable about climate science than 99% of the adults of the world, but reading the summary of the last 2 or 3 reports is a poor method of attaining that state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I am debating it right now on another site
You should restrict your assertions to sites where you are willing to support them.
As I said.....you're not here for debate
A more clear case of confession through projection would be hard to find.
Created:
Posted in:
[IwantRooseveltagain] Do you know about the IPCC?
Yes
[IwantRooseveltagain] I’m betting you are not a climate scientist, you are not any kind of scientist, and you stopped your formal education about 35 years ago after the 12th grade? Correct?
Your fetish for authority is irrelevant. I will not indulge it.
Created: