Forums / Discussion / General

Last week there was talk about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove a President. Immediately it was assumed that it applied to Trump – although Nancy Pelosi clarified that this was not about Trump but "future Presidents".

Many concluded that what that meant was that this was a precursor of using the 25th Amendment to remove Biden from Presidency and install Kamala Harris – which, isn't that far fetched of an idea given the kind of rhetoric we've been hearing about.

That is, Joe Biden is a Trojan Horse Presidency set up to get Kamala Harris as the actual President.

I think many people subscribe to this idea.
But … what if…it goes deeper.
What if…

Kamala Harris is the Trojan Horse?

I know it's conspiratorial – sensationalist…but…
Out of the blue, the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs issue was dropped. Context: This isn't foreignpolicy.com Foreign Affairs is the primo-tier A-list Foreign policy magazine, the top of the top writes for it. And in this particular issue, a white paper of future defense spending and foreign policy. It would be if you were president, a significant speech. If you were running for President this would be the "Obama foreign policy would be announced"…and if you know who published this article? Well if you clicked the link…it was non other than…Hillary Clinton. In OCTOBER 2020, Hillary Clinton is laying out the future of defense spending and foreign policy vs diplomacy in Foreign Affairs.

Here is where it's crazy enough to work.

A President elect and a vice president elect, before an electoral college convenes…the vice president can resign. The President elect then, with the committee of their own party, can choose a new Vice President – without needing to hold any new elections. So the scenerio: Biden wins, Kamala resigns before January, Biden and the Democrats put Clinton as the VP. A few months down the line the 25th Amendment is invoked, and guess who becomes the new President of the US? And imagine yourself as Clinton in 2016. You won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college. You feel that the election was stolen. If you're a Democrat, you'd feel the same exact way. So turnabout is fair play. If Kamala Harris resigns she still remains a Senator. She's young, she's still got a political career, she can definitely take the hit.

And yet, here we are. 2020, the craziest year most of us have ever experienced, and here we are. Someone who hasn't held an elected office in some time, someone who, by any all reason should not matter, is literally penning a foreign policy white paper in one of the most prestigious foreign policy journals outlining the future of defense spending – as if this is a second term in office.

Crazy. Conspiratorial. I know.
But let's entertain the thought – if this was to go through – and it would be, in every sense, absolutely lawful by our own legal and constitutional system. If we come into a Clinton VP before January, with a few short months of a Biden Presidency showing cognitive decline and a very honorable invocation of the 25th amendment to remove Biden…How would you all feel about this, Byzantine machinations?
Do you think a majority of the Democratic base would accept it? What about the majority of America?

Again. I am not saying this will happen. It's just…coincidental-an idea that may be too crazy enough to actually work.

I hear Kamala is in charge of the chemtrails and gay frog chemicals too.

So how many times do I have to iterate that this is conspiratorial, sensationalist, and this is a hypothetical, for people to get that I am not saying this like it will happen? I am throwing out a hypothetical because there is nothing inherently illegal or impossible for this to happen – I am legitimately curious as to how people would react if it does go this way?

Also, the gay frog chemicals, Alex Jones took a real article about how "Atrazine, one of the world’s most widely used pesticides, wreaks havoc with the sex lives of adult male frogs, emasculating three-quarters of them and turning one in 10 into females, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, biologists."

Sensationalist? Absolutely.
Conspiracy theories may speak facts, but miss the truth. I.e. You can put together a slew of "factual" things, and re-interpret them into something that is not truthful.

Johnathan was killed by a police officer while attempting to shake his hand.

At least that cop got jailed

California Republicans are refusing to remove their illegal unofficial ballot drop-off boxes.

They are so damn shameless about it.

Apparently, Governor Northam was also considered a kidnapping target.

I swear to fucking god this is a true story. My mom calls me in the room and she goes "sign this, its your voter registration I already signed you for Biden" I snatched that thing off the table and crumpled it up in my pocket and this bitch has the nerve to scream.

>"are you crazy"

I swear to god people have lost their fucking minds with this bullshit.

Once again the puppetmasters have convinced the masses that blue/red puppet is everything right in the world, and red/blue puppet is literally an isis of hitlers
I proudly tell morons that try to shame me into either side that I'm voting third

I would call your local election board and ask for another ballot if you plan on changing that vote.

I put my ballot in the wrong envelope by mistake and had to reopen it and they gave me instructions on how to fix it.

I would explain the situation carefully and hope they can fix it if you want it fixed.

I look in the media to expect legit criticism towards Amy Comey Barret because i have a dislike to her policies, only to see the big criticism is the "sexual preference" which i want to fucking scream so fucking hard.

And just hours ago someone sneaked in the Merriam Webster dictionary website, went to the "sexual preference" page, and added it that it's an offensive word

Edit: Btw there are two tweets saying that "sexual preference" is offensive. One from George Takei and Kyle Griffin.
Both got over 100k likes rn

Check WaPo

They’re a bit more refined

Don't worry, there's plenty of talk about how she won't recognize Article II's authority over elections and the blank notepads she had on her desk for the hearing.

Lol at that one Senator who decided to roast the Houston Astros at the hearings.

Lindsey Graham is pining for the good ol' days of segregation.

No offence to you, but for your mom to do that makes her a massive bitch who has no respect for your right to form your own opinion.

Even if you are going to vote Biden that is extremely disrespectful to take away your agency

Just like biden

The drama storm is on fire today.

Earlier today NYPost dropped emails it received regarding the on-going corruption allegations regarding Bidern, Hunter Biden, and Burisma, a Ukrainian Energy company. Specifically, whether or not the Ukrainian company used Hunter Biden to get influence on Biden during the Obama years.

The email reveals that either Biden met with, or was going to meet with Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma – despite Biden saying such a meeting never occurred before.

"Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

The customer who brought in the water-damaged MacBook Pro for repair never paid for the service or retrieved it or a hard drive on which its contents were stored, according to the shop owner, who said he tried repeatedly to contact the client."

"Less than eight months after Pozharskyi thanked Hunter Biden for the introduction to his dad, the then-vice president admittedly pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk into getting rid of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin by threatening to withhold a $1 billion US loan guarantee during a December 2015 trip to Kiev.

“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden infamously bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.

“Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”"

The article itself is pretty nuts, have a read.

But this is where the roller coaster just starts.
Almost immediately after release, Facebook and then Twitter began censorship of the article. The article would not be sharable on either platform, with Facebook actively removing it from people who link it. And we all know what happens when these platforms try to censor a story, the very fact that they try to do so only encourages people to go and actually look for the story themselves. It only exacerbated the problem.

The GOP and Conservatives exploded with vitriol against supposed anti-Conservative bias that these platforms have, with Trump tweeting to repeal section 230.

Initially, at 9:30 am today the Biden campaign called it a "lid" on today's appearances, effectively hunkering Biden down from the public. Later the Biden Campaign, responded to the allegations published in Politico In a statement, Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said, “we have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.” (my own highlight). However,"Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory."

Andy Stone, director of communications at Facebook tweeted the reason for Facebook censoring the story, saying that it is going into Facebook's own internal fact checking system first. Some pointed out that Andy Stone used to work on many major Democratic Presidential campaigns, including for John Kerry. Accusations of bias exploded.

As the story and the outrage over censorship grew through the day, accusations of bias, double standards, and bias came out. As Twitter was trying desperately to clarify what exactly was the reason for them censoring the story in the first place.

Just a bit ago, Trump's Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany shared the story in a tweet, prompting Twitter to locking her account down. Which, I think may open up a huge problem for them.

An hour after the President threatened to remove Section 230 protections, Jack Dorsey the CEO of Twitter came out and effectively apologized for the way Twitter handled the situation . Tweeting "“Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we’re blocking: unacceptable,” Dorsey tweeted."

Initially, Twitter's excuse for censorship was that the story was highly inaccurate, and harmful, followed by that Twitter does bans anything that comes from being hacked and which reveals 'personal and private information' – this immediately drew ire of people for it's blatant hypocrisy, and double standard of application.

All this teaches me is that the attempt by social media to censor something only caused it to explode even further. This only galvanizes Trump's base to come out in support. With even more support for ending Section 230, becoming a bigger issue. At the same time, many are actively invested in this fight to continue: NYPost get's a lot of stories and becomes center stage. Trump is having a ball pointing to this story. "Big Tech censorship" is at the fore front of today's discussion. If the attempt by the Biden campaign, Twitter, and Facebook was to bury the story from growing a few weeks out of from the election, it seemed to have done the opposite.

The career politician doth protest too much, methinks.

I don't get why they are specifically going after Section 230, since removing it would just make social media platforms be forced to censor even more shit. Including this story, which isn't even verified, possibly includes a falsehood (I've seen people say the firing of the prosecutor was for failing to investigate corruption charges and had nothing to do with Biden, and many nations leaders called for it, but I don't know how true that is atm), which if it does, Facebook and Twitter, without Section 230, could be liable for slander, thus they'd have even more reason to remove the story. I don't think anyone pushing for the removal of Section 230 actually knows how Social Media functions.

Also, on closer inspection, can someone clarify what's so bad about these unverified emails anyway? The only thing I can find is that Hunter apparently offered to set up a meeting that most likely didn't happen?

What's bad about the story is that the guy with the laptop decided to copy the data off of it to Rudy Giuliani's lawyer, who gave it to Rudy and Steve Bannon.

Trafficking stolen data is a federal crime.

Also, the guy who received the laptop, didn't know who dropped it off, claimed it was from Hunter Biden (and it was actually 3 laptops), and the guy was anti-Biden since 2013 and believes the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.

In fact, all of yesterday seemed like a massive move by the mainstream media to defend Trump. From NY Post, to NYTimes trafficking stolen data for a conspiracy theory, to NBC's unprompted townhall happening parallel to Biden's on ABC, it's a mad dash to defend their golden goose.

I think the logic for them is two fold: that the censorship largely goes one way. Removing Section 230 would force more censorship – but both ways. The other is that the lawsuits would severely undermine the platforms' power and role in politics, which from the perspective of conservatives goes largely against them.

If you've read the articles, the emails reinforce the idea that there was some serious shenanagins with the Bidens in Burisma, including the potential for Ukrainian businessmen from Burisma engaging in pay-for-play with the Vice Persident of the US. Biden has, for a long time, denied that there was any connection between Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's dealings. The emails – if true – prove otherwise. The Biden campaign said there is no official record of the meeting, but did admit that an unofficial meeting could have taken place. Why include that? Because there is probably some evidence, some where that a meeting did take place, unofficially.

But there is a bigger meta-story that emerged yesterday: social media censorship of a story, with, admittedly, poor reasoning, double standards, and vague adherence to their own rules.

Even before all this, at the end of the month, both Dorsey and Zuckerberg are going to be ina congressional committee in Washington regarding section 230. I suspect that Dorsey recognized that what occurred yesterday across Twitter is going to be used as cannon fodder later in the month, which is why after an hour when the President tweeted regarding section 230, he had to pretty much apologize for the way it was handled. The fallout is continuing today as well – conservative twitter sphere is still milking this, with memes coming out editing the photos of Hunter with a crack pipe in a way that won't immediately get them locked.

I'm not 100% sure if this is the October surprise or not.
But chipping away the trustworthiness of the Bidens is probably a big deal for the Trump's election campaign. A little while ago Fox made a poll for their own viewers regarding people's trust in Biden, a little less than half of the respondents responded with that they trust Joe Biden – that he is trustworthy. Keep in mind this is a Fox poll, so you'd think the number would be far lower.

Looks like it worked, Ajit Pai and the FCC are going to be moving forward with rule clarification regarding Section 230.

Steve Skully indefinately suspended by CSPAN for lying about being hacked when he reached out to Scaramucci about how to respond to Trump.

It seems what Facebook is doing is aggressively posturing itself as "not needing regulation" in the eyes of the next regime. We knew that Facebook had the opposite view on political censorship earlier, before Trump's current polling collapse

So basically this leak was biased from the start

More the kind of fake you'd expect it to be. The .pdf file at the center of it was created months after the "drop off"

Trump at a rally in Des Moines seems to imply he ordered the assassination of an antifa activist in Portland, Oregon.

"We sent in the US Marshals, took 15 minutes and it was over… They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him and 15 minutes that ended."

Apparently, the Marshalls involved might not have identified themselves before they opened fire.

So I'm gonna post here what I posted in the comments, tell me if I got the story straight

So, from looking into this story a little more, it seems like everyone is drawing the exact opposite conclusion from what actually happened. People are saying this proves Biden used his pull as VP to get rid of a state prosecutor investigating the company his son worked for. However, the US, EU, IMF, and Ukraine's own citizens pressured the Ukraine government to get rid of Shokin specifically because he wasn't investigating Bursima, and that he was corrupt. His own deputy provided documents showing that the investigation wasn't happening

So what people keep saying is proof Biden bribed Ukraine into getting rid of a prosecutor investigating his son's corruption seems to be just Biden taking action in a multinational effort to remove the prosecutor because the prosecutor himself was corrupt, and in reality was doing the opposite of what people say he was doing. If anything, Shokin was shielding Hunter and Joe pressured for his removal anyway.

I just wanna say here that I just voted 20 minutes ago for Biden

After waiting for an hour in a line outside my police station

Proud of you, buddy!
Don't let that NY Post nothingburger stop you, I sincerely think voting for him's the only way out of this mess

There's no "way out" in Biden. Biden will do little and drop out within 2 years, Harris will take over and america will re live the discontent that caused Trump in the first place, this time with a less charismatic figurehead.

The only mess you will be "out of" will be the need to pretend to be outraged, you and the media will try and receed back into a state of willful ignorance of the corruption and abuse of the average american politician.

Maybe there'll be some catharsis for you in that, but it will only last until the next "unacceptable" politician rides popular discontent to the whitehouse and we start the process all over again.

ok trumpie

Yes because so many presidents have dropped out after they were elected.

>There's no "way out" in Biden.

Having a sane leader is the first step towards improvement. We are not going to go from Trump straight to a functioning government in one fell swoop, steps need to be taken. Also, nice conspiracy theory based on nothing.

I'll respond to you here, what I responded to you in the comments:

Quite a stretch to say Shokin was shielding Hunter. First, the deputy didn't provide the documents, he only said it was stalled in an interview. The documents were provided by the Ukrainian Government. Bloomberg links to, but doesn't even talk much about an interview that Shokin himself gave to Strana . In it, Shokin alleges that the government purposefully mismanaged the Prosecutor's Office, which Shokin was tasked to reform. That the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt implied that the Prosecutor's Office should stop the investigation. That it was factionalized, and the deputy that said it was stalled, was promised the position of Prosecutor General [- i.e. he's a rival]. That there was pressure on him when he went to arrest the assets of [Mykola Zlochevsky]. That he wanted to interrogate Biden Jr., Archer, but was prevented by Biden himself? Read the interview, it's damning.

Shokin offers a hell of a lot of details that no one else seems to be providing or refuting. But the interview is incredibly dark in it's telling of how deep the level of corruption across the board in Ukraine really are. A lot of names mentioned have to be googled, because there are a lot of players involved.

So now it's a question of whether or not you believe Shokin in this interview.
Shokin however came out of retirement to reform the Prosecutor's office in Ukraine. He had a long, sordid, but long history of being involved in investigation, such as as the infamous (though oft-not talked about in the US) cotton scandal in the USSR, which, arguably, was one of the major lead ups to it's inevitable breakup.

It's hard to reconcile someone who is planning to interrogate Hunter Biden as "shielding Hunter".

Bloomberg, among many other outlets continue the idea that he wasn't investigating.

However: Interfax Ukraine a Ukranian News Agency reported in April 2nd of 2016 ""The PGO filed a petition to court to arrest the property of the ex-Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine, the Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Mykola Zlochevsky, from which arrest was withdrawn, and other property he actually uses, namely housing estate with a total area of 922 square meters, a land plot of 0.24 hectares, a garden house with a total area of 299.8 square meters, a garden house in the territory of Vyshgorod district, a garden house of 2,312 square meters, a land plot of 0.0394 hectares, a Rolls-Royce Phantom car, a Knott 924-5014 trainer," reads the report."

Keep in mind Shokin was removed only 3 weeks after the above mentioned article. So it's disingenuous to say, that he wasn't investigating Burisma, when indeed, it was reported that he was.

In 2018, after Biden boasted about how he got him fired threatening to withdraw money from Ukraine: They reopened the case on Burisma, Nazar Kholodnytskyi the lead anti-corruption prosecutor said "We were able to start this case again." But the police agency that is investigating corruption has been "dragging it's feet". He goes on to say "we don't see any result from this case one year after the reopening because of some external influence," but declined to be specific. Hmm, how interesting. What's even more interesting is that in the Bloomberg article, a year after Shokin was dismissed, In October 2017, Burisma issued a statement saying Ukrainian prosecutors had closed all legal and criminal proceedings against it.

"Ukraine's own citizens" yes, 500 protestors.
US, EU, IMF – all have vested interest in Ukraine after Europmaidan – especially in the idea that Burisma could be a great alternative of energy imports than Russia (which I agree).

Even the q-sphere has forgotten about it and is complaining about unfair town hall questions.

@chewbunny Then let's have the conversation here to avoid the multi comment bullshit.

>Quite a stretch to say Shokin was shielding Hunter

By not investigating the company he was working for, he was, whether that was his intention or not. I didn't imply that was what he was doing, I said is anything, that was what he was doing, meaning he was closer to shielding him than investigating him.

>Shokin alleges that the government purposefully mismanaged the Prosecutor's Office, which Shokin was tasked to reform

Of course he did, he's not going to admit to corruption. I'm more inclined to believe multiple nations and organizations rather than the suspect himself.

>And by the way, it's damn hard to pin Shokin as some corrupt prosecutor given his own history

One can do good work then become corrupt later.

>But the police agency that is investigating corruption has been "dragging it's feet"

So Shokin's replacement is doing the same thing. This doesn't really matter to Shokin's case all that much.

Much of your conclusions are based on the word of a man multiple nations, organizations, his own government and citizenry pushed to remove. We can believe several nations, several multi-national organizations, the Ukraine Government, and his own workers or we can believe him. Someone's lying and Occum's Razor is pointing me towards Shokin.

Also, much of this story relies on unverified emails of dubious origins.

Agreed. Let's keep it here.

>By not investigating the company

He was though. It was reported by his own office that in April of 2016 they filed to seize assets of Zlochevsk, owner of Burisma.

>I'm more inclined to believe multiple nations and organizations rather than the suspect himself.

In this case I'll put more faith in a prosecutor pulled out of retirement to reform an office, that was horribly corrupt. So corrupt that Shokin was suprised that all the case files regarding Tymoshenko have dissapeared from the Prosecutor's office.

I'd also be less likely to believe nations that have vested interest in propping up a rival energy company to the Russians. Especially during a turbulent time after Euromaidan, and Crimea.

>One can do good work then become corrupt later.

While true, corruption charges were made by vested interests in seeing him gone.

>So Shokin's replacement is doing the same thing. This doesn't really matter to Shokin's case all that much.

No, but it does make it goddam suspicious that after so much pressure from all those countries in investigating Burisma, a year after he was gone, they closed all cases on Burisma, only to reopen them in 2018, and once again, have it be dragged out. Why, oh why, is Burisma, which Hunter Biden is on the board of, so resistant to investigations? Where is the pressure from the EU, the IMF, then?

"Much of your conclusions are based on the word of a man multiple nations, organizations, his own government and citizenry pushed to remove."

Indeed. Much of the conclusions you have are predicated on believing in the good intentions and objectivity of nations with heavy investment in Ukraine, 500 protesters, a direct competitor for Shokin's job, and a President that forced Shokin out due to a massive financial threat from the US.

You're asking me to believe that Joe Biden was eager for better and deeper investigations into a company his own son was directly working for? That he was pissed off that more wasn't done to investigate the corruption of a company that hired his son, and his sons' business partner?

The emails are about whether or not Biden met with the businessman from Burisma. That is all. They are, at most, a piece to a larger puzzle, and that puzzle being: What was the exact motive behind Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to force another country to stop, slow down, hamper, investigation into a major energy company that his own son is directly working for.

>He was though.

The words used by most was "dragging his feet", so I guess saying he wasn't investigating at all is a misstatement.

>I'd also be less likely to believe nations that have vested

So one guy is lying to save his reputation or multiple nations, organizations and his own country are in on a conspiracy to save this one company.

>No, but it does make it goddam suspicious that after so much pressure from all those countries in investigating Burisma, a year after he was gone, they closed all cases on Burisma, only to reopen them in 2018, and once again, have it be dragged out.

The people after Shokin don't seem to be much better or less corrupt, and I guess the other investigations never found enough to be of use. Again, this could be suspicious, or it could be nothing, but there is nothing saying Biden had anything to do with what happened after Shokin was removed.

>Indeed. Much of the conclusions you have are predicated on believing in the good intentions and objectivity of nations with heavy investment in Ukraine, 500 protesters, a direct competitor for Shokin's job, and a President that forced Shokin out due to a massive financial threat from the US.

Again, Occum's Razor. Multiple, separate, sometimes competing entities all coming together for this one company or one dude is lying when his corruption is exposed. It's the same thing with most conspiracy theories, so many different actors with their own agenda's, often competing with one another, having to settle on one lies with not a single one snitching on the others for their own gain is a huge thing to believe in, while one guy lying to save his career is easy to believe.

>You're asking me to believe that Joe Biden was eager for better and deeper investigations into a company his own son was directly working for?

I'm saying he probably just did his job as a political leader of a country, doing what the Obama administration was doing with or without him.

>What was the exact motive behind Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to force another country to stop, slow down, hamper, investigation into a major energy company that his own son is directly working for.

The same as every other nation involved in it. That Ukraine is a valuable ally against Russia and it's in these countries and organizations best interests that there not be corruption in it's government. Why would all these nations conspire together to save Hunter's bacon? Or conspire to save one of several natural gas companies operating in Ukraine at the expense of a valuable political ally?

The story I'm being asked to believe relies on much more convincing evidence than I'm seeing.

>The words used by most was "dragging his feet",
The only place I've seen that used that specific phrasing was referring to the anti-corruption police that has been dragging its feet at the reopening of the case in 2018. Keep in mind, Shokin was brought back to the GPU in 2015 to reform it and go after corruption cases, of which, Burisma was just one. He wasn't brought in specifically to go after Burisma, he was brought in for reform and to go after corruption. And according to the interview, which he lays out exactly what was happening, there was considerable amount of time dedicated to retraining, streamlining, and reforming the system. I really urge you to read the interview, not to believe him, but at least hear his accounting of his one year tenure. Whether he was slow on it or not, it takes time to reform a federal office, and build a case against a major company, ending up in seizure of assets in a year's time.

>to save this one company.

Yes. This one company that happens to be the second largest privately owned natural gas producer in Ukraine, in 2016 accounting for 26% of all natural gas produced by privately owned companies and more than 5% of total gas production in Ukraine. Owned and operated by Mykola Zlochevsky who was a government minister of Ecology and Natural Resources, who fled Ukraine in 2014 because of accusations of extensive fraud brought about by international countries, and who, by 2017 was found innocent of all charges.

As you pointed out later:
That Ukraine is a valuable ally against Russia. But it's not just being an ally. It's being able to be an alternative to the Russian oil and gas monopoly which the Europeans are dependent on.

Why indeed is there so much focus on this one company.

>Biden had anything to do with what happened after Shokin was removed.
Not saying there was. But after Shokin was removed, very little if anything transpired. Burisma Holdings expanded, and within a year all charges against the company were completely dropped. Until 2018, when Biden just had to boast about it.

>Again, Occum's Razor. [and subsequent paragraph]
We're dealing with Ukraine. Not the US, not Western Europe. We're dealing with Ukraine right after Euromaidan, and subsequent mini-revolution that ended in one of the most corrupt leadership, in one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Hell yes there are multiple actors in play, vying for influence, control, power, and holding on to their very jobs during a turbulent time when the government is urging reform in it's prosecution office. If you read the interview you can see the string of people involved.

You're dealing with a country that just recently removed a pro-Kremlin leadership, one of the most corrupt. I'm speaking now from personal experience: my dad and my dad's side of the family are from Odessa, Ukraine (not me, I'm from neighboring Moldova). I know it's decades after the USSR, but little changes when it comes to oligarchs, corruption, and post Communist rule. One of the very reasons that there was such unrest in Euromaidan (which I 100% support) was due to the high levels of corruption. This is a country that existed for centuries on corrupt officials. Shit that would be treasonous, scandalous, and outright unbelievable in the US, or even Western Europe, was (and unfortunately I still think it is) normal in many parts of East Europe. So yes, in this case, I do believe there are multiple factions, peoples, vested interests in competition over one, major company. This isn't an argument of evidence, just a personal view of it.

>I'm saying he probably just did his job as a political leader of a country, doing what the Obama administration was doing with or without him.

Did President Obama not see a potential problem, a conflict of interest, in having Biden so deeply involved in Ukraine and going after a state-prosecutor that was planning to interrogate his own vice president's son?

Let's argue for the sake that Biden's motivation was indeed, administrative, nothing else.

Surely there would have been someone that would say "hey, really, this can come off as a serious conflict of interest".

>Why would all these nations conspire together to save Hunter's bacon? Or conspire to save one of several natural gas companies operating in Ukraine at the expense of a valuable political ally?

It's not Hunter's ass they care about. I don't think they ever gave a shit about Hunter or to protect him. This isn't just one of several natural gas companies. As I point out, it's the second largest gas company in Ukraine. And I doubt they'd see it as an expense of a valuable political ally – the EU, the IMF, they view Burisma as an alternative solution to weaken Europe's dependency on Russian energy.

Man, I can go on for hours about the level of geopolitical machinations that Europe has been engaged in for literally decades in regards to securing energy. This is just part of the MO for Europeans. Just to point out. 55% of ALL ENERGY Europe uses is imported out of Europe.

There have been 9 presidents that didnt finish thier last term, 8 due to death, one to resignation.

Biden would be 78; the oldest ever at inaugeration and he is not hale and hearty for a man of his age; one way or another he would not finish a term.

Even if he were to; my points would stand; Biden might not be as uncharismatic as Harris but he isnt an Obama and his tenure certainly wouldnt be any more beneficial to the shattered image of presidential integrety.

Reading about US presidents is basically my hobby so I knew all of that stuff. Also, dying is not the same as dropping out. I can't say I knew Abe Lincoln but I'm pretty sure he didn't ask John Wilkes Booth to shoot him.

"sane leader"
I wouldn't consider dementia much of an improvement over trump's retardation

That's why I think we need a blue wave, no matter how bland Biden is

I’m not against biden for being “bland” I’m against him for being a senile predator with a history of reactionary politices

And we Canadians aren't that better either, you hear about that M'ikmaw fishery going up in flames over tensions between white fishermen and M'ikmaw ones practicing treaty rights?

NY Post decided to post Hunter Biden story due to pressure from Giuliani despite doubts.