She's Back!

[yobnoc 142]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That, my friend, depends on who's president and who's camp you reside in.

I'm not in either camp - That is what make it so amusing.

Dude...nobody believes your milquetoast claim.  You spout Hannity/Rush talking points and conspiracy theories, and give credence to trump's craziness as if it's on equal footing with reality.  I haven't seen you once mention that you want to see Javanka and the two idiots investigated for profiteering off their daddy's presidency - which is WIDELY known as fact - yet you cling to the shittiest conspiracy theory about Joe Biden without being able to provide any solid evidence to support your case.  Of course, when you get called out on your blatant hypocrisy, you come back with "oh I've held that position (about Javanka, etc.) the whole time." It's not believable though, because you spend all your time flaming about "the left," and only give the faintest of squeaks of dissent about any conservative scandal. 

Flame on, trumper.  Flame on.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Dude...nobody believes your milquetoast claim.  You spout Hannity/Rush talking points and conspiracy theories, and give credence to trump's craziness as if it's on equal footing with reality.  I haven't seen you once mention that you want to see Javanka and the two idiots investigated for profiteering off their daddy's presidency - which is WIDELY known as fact - yet you cling to the shittiest conspiracy theory about Joe Biden without being able to provide any solid evidence to support your case.  Of course, when you get called out on your blatant hypocrisy, you come back with "oh I've held that position (about Javanka, etc.) the whole time." It's not believable though, because you spend all your time flaming about "the left," and only give the faintest of squeaks of dissent about any conservative scandal. 

Flame on, trumper.  Flame on.

I haven't made any comments for or against Javanka, etc.

I have no idea what RushMC's talking points are, anymore than I know what R.Limbaugh's talking points are.

The absence of those comments don't mean anything other than I didn't bother.

 

I can make a solid observation from your posts though.

You support Biden, and will defend Hunter's actions.  After all you haven't condemned them.

 

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

33 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That, my friend, depends on who's president and who's camp you reside in.

I'm not in either camp - That is what make it so amusing.

I think that is not true and a lot of false equivalencies are assumed.

[yobnoc 142]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

I haven't made any comments for or against Javanka, etc.

I have no idea what RushMC's talking points are, anymore than I know what R.Limbaugh's talking points are.

The absence of those comments don't mean anything other than I didn't bother.

 

I can make a solid observation from your posts though.

You support Biden, and will defend Hunter's actions.  After all you haven't condemned them.

 

 

Your solid observation skills suck.  I support Pete Buttigieg as a first choice, Elizabeth Warren 2nd, Bernie 3rd, and Biden is pretty much last on my list slightly above Tulsi and Marianne. 

What I don't support is seeking election interference from foreign governments or entities.  Because it's against the law and the framers made it perfectly clear. 

Hunter Biden probably got the job with Burisma because his last name is Biden.  Just like every President's kid will have the world as their oyster because their daddy was President, so did Hunter benefit from his surname.  It's gross, but it's also human nature.  I don't buy that Joe did anything to help Hunter get that job. 

And when I say Hannity/Rush I'm not referring to RushMC, I'm referring to Limbaugh.  And again: I'm gonna call you out on what appears to be a...how does the media say it so it doesn't sound so bad...falsehood?...

Your posts ooze with conservative media talking points, devoid of any evidentiary backup.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I haven't made any comments for or against Javanka, etc.

I have no idea what RushMC's talking points are, anymore than I know what R.Limbaugh's talking points are.

The absence of those comments don't mean anything other than I didn't bother.

 

I can make a solid observation from your posts though.

You support Biden, and will defend Hunter's actions.  After all you haven't condemned them.

 

 

Yes, from what I know so far I will indeed support them. There is no indication to date they have done anything illegal. I don't think Hunter should have gotten that position, but there was nothing illegal.

Do you understand the difference between Hunter and Ivanka?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Your solid observation skills suck.  I support Pete Buttigieg as a first choice, Elizabeth Warren 2nd, Bernie 3rd, and Biden is pretty much last on my list slightly above Tulsi and Marianne. 

No more than yours do - You still don't condemn Biden for his action or letting the influence happen.

I wonder if you would just say "It sucks" or "It's Gross" if one of trumps family were in that same position.

[turtlespeed 212]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yes, from what I know so far I will indeed support them. There is no indication to date they have done anything illegal. I don't think Hunter should have gotten that position, but there was nothing illegal.

Good to see where your morals are.

 

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Do you understand the difference between Hunter and Ivanka?

Yes.  I also dont agree with the placement.  Its gross.

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Good to see where your morals are.

 

 

Right. So Ivanka and Jared are profiting while being employed by the White House. Do you understand that is not an equivalent situation to Hunter Biden?

If you understand that, you should also understand why your "but, Biden" while ignoring Ivanka and Jared is so incredibly biased. (and just a repeat of a right wing talking point)

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Right. So Ivanka and Jared are profiting while being employed by the White House. Do you understand that is not an equivalent situation to Hunter Biden?

If you understand that, you should also understand why your "but, Biden" while ignoring Ivanka and Jared is so incredibly biased. (and just a repeat of a right wing talking point)

I'm not ignoring them - 

Every time I have responded to a direct reference to them, I have had the same opinion.  "Its wrong."

It is wrong in exactly the same way that Biden being in a position of power made the opportunity possible for a ridiculous ceremonial position.

Next.

Question, if the Clintons were to have had Chelsea in a position, given she was old enough, would you have brokered issue with that?  What about Malia Ann, or Sasha?

I'd bet a lot of money you would have been perfectly fine with any of those situations.

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

It is wrong in exactly the same way that Biden being in a position of power made the opportunity possible for a ridiculous ceremonial position.

Except it is not the same. You are creating a false equivalency.

 

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Question, if the Clintons were to have had Chelsea in a position, given she was old enough, would you have brokered issue with that?  What about Malia Ann, or Sasha?

I'd bet a lot of money you would have been perfectly fine with any of those situations.

Similar to Hunter Biden? Do you have any evidence Joe Biden brokered the deal to have Joe employed? You are simply just making shit up. It is straw man after straw man after straw man.

[turtlespeed 212]

12 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Except it is not the same. You are creating a false equivalency.

 

Similar to Hunter Biden? Do you have any evidence Joe Biden brokered the deal to have Joe employed? You are simply just making shit up. It is straw man after straw man after straw man.

Hunter admitted on camera that he wouldnt have gotten that job if it weren't for Daddy, so - yeah, I'm pretty much just "Making stuff up".

Its hard to make a straw man out of the actual human that went on camera and admitted it.

Do I need to help you with those, or are you finally going to take off your blinders by yourself?

 

Here - let me give you a hand:

From NBC Interview:

When asked if he would have been given the board position on Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, if his last name was not Biden, he conceded, "probably not."

"I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect," he said. "But that's — you know — I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden."

Edited October 24, 2019 by turtlespeed

[normiss 622]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I haven't made any comments for or against Javanka, etc.

I have no idea what RushMC's talking points are, anymore than I know what R.Limbaugh's talking points are.

The absence of those comments don't mean anything other than I didn't bother.

 

I can make a solid observation from your posts though.

You support Biden, and will defend Hunter's actions.  After all you haven't condemned them.

 

 

Limpbaugh, I believe MC has fallen off the planet.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, normiss said:

Limpbaugh, I believe MC has fallen off the planet.

I - KNEW IT - 

 

It's flat, isn't it?

[normiss 622]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

I - KNEW IT - 

 

It's flat, isn't it?

??

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, normiss said:

??

That is RushMC in red . . . 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

34 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Hunter admitted on camera that he wouldnt have gotten that job if it weren't for Daddy, so - yeah, I'm pretty much just "Making stuff up".

Its hard to make a straw man out of the actual human that went on camera and admitted it.

Do I need to help you with those, or are you finally going to take off your blinders by yourself?

 

Here - let me give you a hand:

From NBC Interview:

When asked if he would have been given the board position on Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, if his last name was not Biden, he conceded, "probably not."

"I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect," he said. "But that's — you know — I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden."

So where does he say his dad brokered the deal? Your question regarding Chelsea clearly insinuated action by the parents.

Like I said, you are making things up.

What isn't made up is the Trumps directly profiting while being in office and Trump putting his kids in positions, forcing denied security clearances and those kids enriching themselves through those actions.

Then you want to claim hypocrisy by creating a false narrative just so you can point to a Democrat.

[wmw999 2,121]

52 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

From NBC Interview:

When asked if he would have been given the board position on Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, if his last name was not Biden, he conceded, "probably not."

"I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect," he said. "But that's — you know — I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden."

Isn't that what legacy admissions to colleges, giving a job to a kid whose parent you know, and every other favor like that is all about? Isn't that what looking at the job applications for names like "Trey" and "Muffy" or "Lashika" and "Jamal" is about also?

Doesn't make it right. But it's not all the same, either. And would you put a good word in for someone you know, or even one of your kids, for a job? I probably would. I'm a private citizen, though. But once my kid is an adult, I don't control him any more; any more than Jimmy Carter could manage his brother Billy (remember him? )

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 212]

7 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Isn't that what legacy admissions to colleges, giving a job to a kid whose parent you know, and every other favor like that is all about? Isn't that what looking at the job applications for names like "Trey" and "Muffy" or "Lashika" and "Jamal" is about also?

Doesn't make it right. But it's not all the same, either. And would you put a good word in for someone you know, or even one of your kids, for a job? I probably would. I'm a private citizen, though. But once my kid is an adult, I don't control him any more; any more than Jimmy Carter could manage his brother Billy (remember him? )

Wendy P.

Maybe I run in the reality sort of circles - but What Hunter did wasnt a job, it was a ceremonial position.

They might as well have been handing Joe the paycheck.  Hunter was hired to garner influence.

I secured a job for my daughter at the same company I work for.  They didn't hire her because of me, so much as they hired her because she could do the job.

I don't believe that there is a REAL position that needs to be filled in any energy company with the job description of "Needless figure head that gains us influence with the Americans"

This doesn't even get into China.

BUT  . . . since you mention it - 

Are you saying that you consider Ivanka's placement to be acceptable then?

 

ETA - Yep - Billy Beer will be forever etched on the most horrible memories section of my brain.

Edited October 24, 2019 by turtlespeed

[turtlespeed 212]

11 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

So where does he say his dad brokered the deal? Your question regarding Chelsea clearly insinuated action by the parents.

Like I said, you are making things up.

What isn't made up is the Trumps directly profiting while being in office and Trump putting his kids in positions, forcing denied security clearances and those kids enriching themselves through those actions.

Then you want to claim hypocrisy by creating a false narrative just so you can point to a Democrat.

Are you really REALLY that naive?

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Hunter admitted on camera that he wouldnt have gotten that job if it weren't for Daddy, so - yeah, I'm pretty much just "Making stuff up".

Not really the same thing.

Lots of people get jobs because of who they know.   I have; I am sure you have too.

Very few people get jobs (or keep them, or prosper at them) because they illegally use taxpayer money to sell shoes, change foreign policy or fill hotel rooms.

[yobnoc 142]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

No more than yours do - You still don't condemn Biden for his action or letting the influence happen.

I wonder if you would just say "It sucks" or "It's Gross" if one of trumps family were in that same position.

There's the Tu Quoque fallacy you love to wield so well.  What action should I condemn?  And Javanka made $87M last year.  That's pretty gross.  Ivanka's patents are all streamline-approved (rubber-stamped) in China, and her business ventures there are conspicuously exempt from the tariffs.  Trump self-deals with his family business at the expense of the taxpayer and you somehow think that's on equal footing with a company hiring a Biden for sitting on a business board?  Get real.

[yobnoc 142]

24 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Are you really REALLY that naive?

Occam's razor here.  Wouldn't it make sense for a board of directors to hire someone for a negligible amount of money (for a company that size) with the hopes that it gains them influence, without that being an actual brokered deal?  Ex-politicians get hired all the time to sit on boards of companies they have no experience in.  Fuck, trump wants to hire fox news actors to be fucking diplomats.  What crazy world are you living in where you think any of this is on equal footing with a company gambling on trying to buy influence and failing?  You can't point to one benefit Burisma got from hiring Hunter when it comes to US policy.  I already pointed out the major flaw with your conspiracy theory about Shokin, but I'll reiterate it again: Burisma was only "under investigation" on paper under Shokin (i.e. it was dormant).  Hunter Biden was never a subject of that investigation.  When the US, EU, and IMF all teamed up to put pressure on Ukraine to fire Shokin (with Joe Biden as the mouthpiece of that policy), it made it more, not less likely for that investigation into Burisma to be reinvigorated.  And it advanced the common goals of those nations and entities to bolster a free and independent Ukraine, which is good for America's global interests.

You're adding in unnecessary layers of rubbish to try to paint it to fit your bias. 

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

A lot of the same things.  

The same things. Great. Thank you so much for being so informative and making that extra effort to have a serious discussion. It's really appreciated, we can all now move forward with total clarity about exactly what we're talking about. Clearly, you are a person to be taken seriously, who has really considered the details instead of bulldozing onwards with nothing but blind partisan bias.

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm not in either camp - 

There are none so blind...

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You support Biden,

Why not? What has he done wrong?