Kansas Crimson

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:13 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:56 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:19 am

So, it's okay if it's for the right reasons? You really want to go with that line of reasoning?

"It"? Again, you're comparing a benefit you described as a Dad possibly feeling paternal pride about his son having a job that he may have only gotten due to who his father is to a President holding up desperately needed Congressional funds to another nation so he can have a few sound bites for his reeelection campaign IF Joe Biden wins the Dem nomination.

The two are not even in the same stratosphere, let alone close enough to blob them into an "it's only OK if..." comparison. That's an Illy level faulty leap of logic.

If you really believe that Biden didn't get Hunter a job through the same quid pro quo avenues you are decrying President Trump allegedly using, then we are going to disagree, I'm afraid.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:17 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:13 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:56 am
"It"? Again, you're comparing a benefit you described as a Dad possibly feeling paternal pride about his son having a job that he may have only gotten due to who his father is to a President holding up desperately needed Congressional funds to another nation so he can have a few sound bites for his reeelection campaign IF Joe Biden wins the Dem nomination.

The two are not even in the same stratosphere, let alone close enough to blob them into an "it's only OK if..." comparison. That's an Illy level faulty leap of logic.

If you really believe that Biden didn't get Hunter a job through the same quid pro quo avenues you are decrying President Trump allegedly using, then we are going to disagree, I'm afraid.

What benefit did Joe Biden receive or hope to receive from his son getting that job? Because we all know that political dirt was what Trump was personally looking for in his quid pro quo.

And where is the proof that Joe Biden had any sort of involvement in his son receiving that job in the first place? I have not seen anything that stated that he was directly involved in Hunter procuring that job other than that he was the Vice President and that hiring the Vice President's son might at some point give the company some sort of "in" if they needed it.

So what am I missing? Because you seem to have all sorts of additional information that I haven't seen.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:17 pm Because you seem to have all sorts of additional information that I haven't seen.

Geezer wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:49 pm Is Biden being impeached?

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:38 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:17 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:13 pm

If you really believe that Biden didn't get Hunter a job through the same quid pro quo avenues you are decrying President Trump allegedly using, then we are going to disagree, I'm afraid.

What benefit did Joe Biden receive or hope to receive from his son getting that job? Because we all know that political dirt was what Trump was personally looking for in his quid pro quo.

And where is the proof that Joe Biden had any sort of involvement in his son receiving that job in the first place? I have not seen anything that stated that he was directly involved in Hunter procuring that job other than that he was the Vice President and that hiring the Vice President's son might at some point give the company some sort of "in" if they needed it.

So what am I missing? Because you seem to have all sorts of additional information that I haven't seen.

What is criminal about a POTUS asking a foreign intelligence agency for information about possible illegal activity taking place in his country?

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 4:41 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:38 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:17 pm
What benefit did Joe Biden receive or hope to receive from his son getting that job? Because we all know that political dirt was what Trump was personally looking for in his quid pro quo.

And where is the proof that Joe Biden had any sort of involvement in his son receiving that job in the first place? I have not seen anything that stated that he was directly involved in Hunter procuring that job other than that he was the Vice President and that hiring the Vice President's son might at some point give the company some sort of "in" if they needed it.

So what am I missing? Because you seem to have all sorts of additional information that I haven't seen.

What is criminal about a POTUS asking a foreign intelligence agency for information about possible illegal activity taking place in his country?

I was unaware that Donald Trump was facing criminal charges.

And we all know he didn't "just" ask. If the Congressionally approved aid had flowed to Ukraine unimpeded and Trump "just" asked them to look into the Biden thing then he would not have been impeached.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:13 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:56 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:19 am

So, it's okay if it's for the right reasons? You really want to go with that line of reasoning?

"It"? Again, you're comparing a benefit you described as a Dad possibly feeling paternal pride about his son having a job that he may have only gotten due to who his father is to a President holding up desperately needed Congressional funds to another nation so he can have a few sound bites for his reeelection campaign IF Joe Biden wins the Dem nomination.

The two are not even in the same stratosphere, let alone close enough to blob them into an "it's only OK if..." comparison. That's an Illy level faulty leap of logic.

If you really believe that Biden didn't get Hunter a job through the same quid pro quo avenues you are decrying President Trump allegedly using, then we are going to disagree, I'm afraid.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:47 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:17 pm Because you seem to have all sorts of additional information that I haven't seen.

Yes, he does.

There are two primary sources for the charge that the Biden/Burisma business is more significant than what we have been told. The first is Giuliani. The second is the plaintiff's legal team in the paternity suit against Hunter Biden. Both are, obviously, unreliable, to say the least, but they've made charges that are part of the public record.

This is a big part of the reason Rudy should be put under oath by someone, somewhere.

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:06 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:47 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:17 pm Because you seem to have all sorts of additional information that I haven't seen.

Yes, he does.

There are two primary sources for the charge that the Biden/Burisma business is more significant than what we have been told. The first is Giuliani. The second is the plaintiff's legal team in the paternity suit against Hunter Biden. Both are, obviously, unreliable, to say the least, but they've made charges that are part of the public record.

This is a big part of the reason Rudy should be put under oath by someone, somewhere.

To imply that is similar to Trump's case is intellectually dishonest. I have no problem with putting Hunter under oath. But still.

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:00 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:13 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:56 am
"It"? Again, you're comparing a benefit you described as a Dad possibly feeling paternal pride about his son having a job that he may have only gotten due to who his father is to a President holding up desperately needed Congressional funds to another nation so he can have a few sound bites for his reeelection campaign IF Joe Biden wins the Dem nomination.

The two are not even in the same stratosphere, let alone close enough to blob them into an "it's only OK if..." comparison. That's an Illy level faulty leap of logic.

If you really believe that Biden didn't get Hunter a job through the same quid pro quo avenues you are decrying President Trump allegedly using, then we are going to disagree, I'm afraid.

Whoa. Umm... That's insane. Like, a complete lack of being able to comprehend what is most likely given known facts.