That is a terrible idea.That would be an awesome forum rule. If you make a claim and someone asks for a citation or to back it up they have to or the post gets edited and the claim is removed.
Still waiting for Greeman to provide some documentation for his allegation that Chelsea Clinton got a $600k "right out of collage (sic)."
Either provide the documentation or withdraw your allegation.
Biden, a trained lawyer, had served on the board of a U.S. company and had also formed an investment firm with fellow Yale graduates Archer and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of former U.S. Senator John Kerry.
According to four sources close to the company, Biden regularly attended Burisma’s twice annual board meetings – all of which were held outside of Ukraine.
A source close to the company said Biden took part in strategic conversations and shared his opinions and experience. In between board meetings, “there were constant calls, dialogue, sharing of advice, consideration of different options,” the source said. “Expansion to other markets was also discussed,” the source added.
Another source close to Burisma said Biden assisted with analysis of oil and gas assets the company was considering buying abroad, though a deal didn’t go through. The company was considering possible acquisitions in Europe, Kazakhstan and the United States, the source and another person close to Burisma said.
Both sources said that around the time Biden was appointed, Burisma was also looking to secure a financing deal with foreign investment funds, including one in the United States.
Biden helped to find lawyers to work on this process, before it broke down due to the start of the war in east Ukraine, one of those two sources said. “He was a ceremonial figure,” that person added.
What Hunter Biden did on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma
KIEV (Reuters) - During his time on the board of one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Hunter Biden, the son of former U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden, was regarded as a helpful non-executive director with a powerful name, according to people familiar with Biden’s role at the company.www.reuters.com
Drug addled is probably fair, but he did do work for them, attended meetings, gave advice, etc.
Sure, they overpaid to get someone prominent and with connections with the hope it would pay off. That’s often how it works, you can’t tell me that most of these board members making big money actually bring that much value in their actual work. It’s their connections that companies are paying for.
Well...he's almost right. From Wikipedia:
Professional life
In 2003, Clinton joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in New York City,[24] and she went to work for Avenue Capital Group in late 2006. She served as co-chair for a fund-raising week for the Clinton Foundation, and subsequently became Vice Chair for the foundation.[43] She serves on the board of the School of American Ballet[24] and on IAC's board of directors.[47][48] In March 2017, Clinton was named to the board of directors of Expedia Group.[49]
In November 2011, NBC hired Clinton as a special correspondent.[50] One of her roles was reporting stories about "Making a Difference" for NBC Nightly News and Rock Center with Brian Williams. It was a three-month contract and allowed her to concurrently continue working for the Clinton Foundation and pursue her education.[50][51] Clinton's first appearance was on the December 12, 2011, episode of Rock Center.[52] Although she received some critical reviews for her work, Clinton's contract with NBC was renewed in February 2012.[53][54] Rock Center ended in May 2013, and she left the network in August 2014.[55][56] Clinton reportedly earned an annual salary of $600,000 for her work at NBC.
Remember. This is a guy who's just here for honest debate.Haha, called it. Let me know when one of those kids is a senior policymaker.
I know you know the difference between giving someone’s kid a kushy job and putting huge amounts of cash directly into policymakers’ pockets. I don’t know if you will admit it, but I’m sure you know.
Two things:Remember. This is a guy who's just here for honest debate.
The guy so dishonest that It is shameful. This happens in any discussion he's involved in. He either ignores questions or facts or just misrepresents things and doubles down.
He is a waste of fucking time. Always a dishonest hack. I think it's sad you give him so much credit. This is why Democrats will never know the enemy
That last part is true, and it doesn't just apply to family members of top politicos, it applies to former politicians as well, who when they leave office sometimes go straight into insanely well-paid, low-workload jobs with the corporations they used to be in charge of regulating.
Revolving Door
I'm not really sure how much I agree with fskimospy's distinction between different forms of corrupt behaviour. I mean, I _guess_ it's true that there are different levels of corruption, and maybe it could be argued that one is more practical to try and entirely eradicate than the other - maybe the nepotism/influence thing is just an unavoidable aspect of capitalism. But it's still all pretty tawdry.
This is where you completely miss the plot. You should be nice to people that are actually open to facts reality and reason and actual debate. Not people that consistently misrepresent everything and always double down and refuse to answer basic questions in a debate.Two things:
1) I think he has bad ideas but I don’t think he’s a liar. To me that’s good enough.
2) The path to victory for us involves you being nice to people you disagree with.
Biden has been very successful at reaching out to both sides and it is probably responsible for his victories in 2020 and 2022. That history is only like a month old!This is where you completely miss the plot. You should be nice to people that are actually open to facts reality and reason and actual debate. Not people that consistently misrepresent everything and always double down and refuse to answer basic questions in a debate.
There are redeemables on the right but he's not one of them. All he does is spout bullshit, and literally about trying to overthrow democracy to now comparing rich connected kids getting cushy jobs out of college to a president's kids having power in government with access to top secret information while making policy.
I'm sorry You can't see what is right in front of you.
Obama was one of the most nice and reasonable and polite presidents trying to reach out to both sides and look where that got him and us. How can you not learn from that? This is not old history.
Obama was one of the most nice and reasonable and polite presidents trying to reach out to both sides and look where that got him and us. How can you not learn from that? This is not old history.
That is a terrible idea.
Well...he's almost right. From Wikipedia:
Professional life
In 2003, Clinton joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in New York City,[24] and she went to work for Avenue Capital Group in late 2006. She served as co-chair for a fund-raising week for the Clinton Foundation, and subsequently became Vice Chair for the foundation.[43] She serves on the board of the School of American Ballet[24] and on IAC's board of directors.[47][48] In March 2017, Clinton was named to the board of directors of Expedia Group.[49]
In November 2011, NBC hired Clinton as a special correspondent.[50] One of her roles was reporting stories about "Making a Difference" for NBC Nightly News and Rock Center with Brian Williams. It was a three-month contract and allowed her to concurrently continue working for the Clinton Foundation and pursue her education.[50][51] Clinton's first appearance was on the December 12, 2011, episode of Rock Center.[52] Although she received some critical reviews for her work, Clinton's contract with NBC was renewed in February 2012.[53][54] Rock Center ended in May 2013, and she left the network in August 2014.[55][56] Clinton reportedly earned an annual salary of $600,000 for her work at NBC.
It’s a pretty big difference.
Let’s say I’m the son of whatever politician. I decide I’m going to live a public life, maybe get a law or accounting degree but primarily go into business. Everyone knows who my dad is. I get courted for boards, or even I go out and start suggesting that I can use my relationship with my dad to help these companies succeed.
What exactly can my dad do about this? He can ask me to stop, sure. He could publicly or back channel that he won’t play ball. However, I’ve put it out there, or at least played along. I can even tell my employers that my dad HAS to deny it in public, but don’t worry.
Now change the math to my dad hires my unqualified ass to conduct government business with the people I’m trying to develop business relationships with. My dad is facilitating the corruption instead of just being the subject of name dropping.
you meant terribly awesome, right?
right?
It's amusing, but I'd rather a "confirmed bullshit" tag be added or something if we were gonna do this.
Two things:
1) I think he has bad ideas but I don’t think he’s a liar. To me that’s good enough.
2) The path to victory for us involves you being nice to people you disagree with.
Then we’re both happy! How fun for us.There are multiple threads that devolved with him literally just lying to you and you trying to get him to admit it, so not sure why you think that. But whatever, you clearly have more time to waste "being nice" to people who repeatedly show they don't even value their own thoughts, as he has readily admitted to. But somehow you do enough to repeatedly partake. Its your time. It would be much better spent elsewhere but hey, its easy enough for me to bypass that these days.
Two things:
1) I think he has bad ideas but I don’t think he’s a liar. To me that’s good enough.
2) The path to victory for us involves you being nice to people you disagree with.
When someone says “right out of college”, it tends to mean the first job after graduation…not eleven (11) years later with several jobs, a master’s degree completed, some univ teaching in between.
It's not at all right.
"right out of college" means getting a BS or BA or whatever. Undergrad. Today that is the effort and skills equivalent of getting your High School Diploma in the 70s and earlier. (and also, while this doesn't apply to Chelsea, today--meaning, last 10 years maybe--this generally means 2.5-3 years of undergrad because credits come fast now and kids just speed their way through it)
She got paid after grabbing 2 masters (not undergrad) and working on her PhD, plus actual work and life experience.
You shouldn't waste your time doing Greenman's work for him, especially when done this poorly.
I don't think these fall into "not liberal" categories. I think the liberal part is how these things are accomplished. National ID? If it is an easy process that doesn't require taking off work standing in line for 17 hours. Common sense gun laws? Yep! Liberals aren't against law and order, they are against the obvious abuse of positions of authority we are seeing by asshole cops.... But I'm heavily pro law and order, I support the 2nd amendment, (and support reasonable, common sense gun laws) and support the idea of a national ID for everyone.
I don't think these fall into "not liberal" categories. I think the liberal part is how these things are accomplished. National ID? If it is an easy process that doesn't require taking off work standing in line for 17 hours. Common sense gun laws? Yep! Liberals aren't against law and order, they are against the obvious abuse of positions of authority we are seeing by asshole cops.
Welcome to the dark side...
Problem 2 is that even if they agree to those reframings, the data will clearly show that the solution (or a more effective solution) is not the one they like (which is often the status quo).I’ve told people before who are ideologically opposed to me that I bet we could easily come up with 5-10 major issues that we agree on. Our differences would be on how those issues are addressed. One of the big issues we have today when it comes to discussing politics is how things are framed.
For example:
It’s not about pro abortion or anti abortion, it’s about bodily autonomy. I bet all sides can agree that reducing the amount of abortions is a good thing. Why not start from there instead going straight to solution A or solution B?
It’s not about banning guns or taking peoples guns, it’s about reducing gun violence. Are there people who are against reducing gun violence?
It’s not about being for more or less government spending it’s about government being more efficient. Whether that means less wasteful spending or better policies, most people can agree that spending money on policies that don’t do what they are supposed to or are inefficient in what they do do is not a good. Why not have discussions on what good policy and good spending looks like?
Defunding the police isn’t about removing police from the community, it’s about creating a better policing system. Is anyone against reforming our criminal system to be more effective, less wasteful, accountable, and safer for everyone?
Health care isn’t about universal health care or even single payer, it’s about making it more affordable, accessible, and effective. Anyone against that?
Unfortunately, when over half this country has been brainwashed into thinking that government is the problem, there isn’t much hope in creating a better system because they’ve already been primed to reject all ideas that aim to improve government.
Problem 2 is that even if they agree to those reframings, the data will clearly show that the solution (or a more effective solution) is not the one they like (which is often the status quo).
Reduce wasteful spending? Don't build border walls....