• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Even if you just apply Occam's Razor here, that the simplest option is the most likely. Tony B was in business with Hunter Biden and various other associates. This is all documented. Hunter is obviously a deeply troubled guy who had been peddling his family name to make bank for a number of years. It was always in his best interests to let people think that he had his Dad's ear on business matters, that Joe was involved, etc because that increased his profile and his worth to the people he was peddling himself to. There's nothing tangible linking Joe to any of this. One throwaway line in an email about "the big guy" and a one guy claiming that there was "multiple" meetings in LA that later was admitted to be one that wasn't really a meeting, but instead Joe talking to him about his dad having cancer.
 
MindzEye said:
Questions

1) What evidence would persuade you that Clarence Thomas accepted bribes?
2) What evidence is there that...Joe....Biden was involved in any sort of bribery? Not that his dipshit drug addict kid benefitted from the Biden last name, but that Joe was involved in receiving any of the proceeds of it.
Click to expand...

Biden is the President. He can do whatever he wants thanks to the Supreme court
 
FlyGuy said:
oversight.house.gov

Witnesses Confirm Joe Biden’s Involvement in His Family’s Influence Peddling - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
oversight.house.gov oversight.house.gov
Click to expand...

1) Why are you ducking a super simple question about what type of evidence would persuade you to believe that Clarence Thomas should be investigated?

2) So...Tony Bobulinski with no evidence, and then the say so of a guy serving 14 years for multiple types of business fraud.

Do Alex Smirnov next!
 
worm said:
Biden is the President. He can do whatever he wants thanks to the Supreme court
Click to expand...
Yeah why are we even talking about an upcoming election after that immunity decision? Biden can just cancel it. Cancelling an election is an official act.

Or I guess maybe he wants to win legitimately, and if he doesn’t, will just claim he actually did win and stop the count.
 
manny said:
Yeah why are we even talking about an upcoming election after that immunity decision? Biden can just cancel it. Cancelling an election is an official act.

Or I guess maybe he wants to win legitimately, and if he doesn’t, will just claim he actually did win and stop the count.
Click to expand...
That would explain why he won't step down.
 
MindzEye said:
1) Why are you ducking a super simple question about what type of evidence would persuade you to believe that Clarence Thomas should be investigated?

2) So...Tony Bobulinski with no evidence, and then the say so of a guy serving 14 years for multiple types of business fraud.

Do Alex Smirnov next!
Click to expand...
I’m at the gym my friend. I and all my fellow far-right fitness enthusiasts and currently lifting shit.

I don’t have the time nor care to get into this the depth you like to, but kudos to you for having the time and interest.

Apparently the say so of guys that are known fraudsters and liars are pretty reliable and honest these days, according to the Trump trial he was convicted in.
 
Here's a quick primer on how evidence works.

Documents are usually best. Photos are obviously great.

For example this:

blog_thomas_rv.jpg


Is a photo of Clarence Thomas with a 267,000 dollar motorhome he owns

There are documents showing that he took out a loan from a "friend" to buy said motorhome. Those documents include agreements signed by Thomas and were shared with the Senate Finance Committee.

There are then no documents showing that he ever repaid that loan, and despite not having repaid the loan, he didn't include it as income (as is required) on his tax returns despite the loan being forgiven in 2008, obviously while Clarence Thomas was on SCOTUS.

There has been no dispute that the "loan" was provided, was agreed upon by Thomas, nor that it was forgiven.

So back to the whole thing about evidence. Evidence is when you can track that a thing happened, people who are involved with it are documented to be involved with it, etc. "10% for the big guy" written by a guy no one has any proof was ever in business with Biden, no proof of money ever reaching Joe Biden, no documentation with Joe Biden's name on it being involved in any way with any of these companies. That's not evidence.
 
MindzEye said:
Here's a quick primer on how evidence works.

Documents are usually best. Photos are obviously great.

For example this:

blog_thomas_rv.jpg


Is a photo of Clarence Thomas with a 267,000 dollar motorhome he owns

There are documents showing that he took out a loan from a "friend" to buy said motorhome. Those documents include agreements signed by Thomas and were shared with the Senate Finance Committee.

There are then no documents showing that he ever repaid that loan, and despite not having repaid the loan, he didn't include it as income (as is required) on his tax returns despite the loan being forgiven in 2008, obviously while Clarence Thomas was on SCOTUS.

There has been no dispute that the "loan" was provided, was agreed upon by Thomas, nor that it was forgiven.

So back to the whole thing about evidence. Evidence is when you can track that a thing happened, people who are involved with it are documented to be involved with it, etc. "10% for the big guy" written by a guy no one has any proof was ever in business with Biden, no proof of money ever reaching Joe Biden, no documentation with Joe Biden's name on it being involved in any way with any of these companies. That's not evidence.
Click to expand...
Tell me you’ve never been to an SEC tailgate without telling me
 
FlyGuy said:
Apparently the say so of guys that are known fraudsters and liars are pretty reliable and honest these days, according to the Trump trial he was convicted in.
Click to expand...

Only because that particular fraudster and liar was corroborating documentary evidence. That's how this whole thing works. If some crooked prick of a lawyer said that Trump did some shit, no one would ever convict on that. If that same crooked prick lawyer corroborates information contained in seized business records, that's evidence.
 
MindzEye said:
Speaking of photo evidence

_107810999_trumpandepstein.jpg.webp


You and your far right fitness enthusiasts still worried about the whole pedo thing or do you not talk about that anymore?
Click to expand...
I am begging an impartial investigation into Epstein’s client. Guy to the right has been publicly vocal about investigating his clients. Alas it’s a Mossad/CIA op so it’ll never happen
 
If anyone’s in a dynasty hockey league, you gotta quickly identify the Pizza Boys among you and target them for trades. Maybe try and grab their future firsts.

Anywho, just a thought that came to me completely randomly while observing. Carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top