JIMMY DORE is "ready to go out and get this [Covid-19] virus and get back to life"

Is hunter running for president?  And please tell me what he or joe should be in jail for - right now?

nan said:

 Again, the elites live in a world where the rules do not apply to them.  This is not a winning strategy for the 2020 election.  I have heard lots of contradictory details about Hunter Biden's Ukraine and China corruption.  Some say he and Joe did illegal actions and others say nothing he did was illegal.  There are just as many variations on getting that prosecuter fired.  We can spend all day arguing and I would never get my house cleaned as I am planning to do in a few minutes.  IF I get everything on my list checked off today, perhaps I will have more time for Joe's corruption later.

The point is, what the Bidens did in Ukraine/China looks really bad (and that's not even counting the coup stuff which most Americans don't even know about).  If it was not illegal, it should have been.  You look at a candidate like Biden and he is senile, runs on corporate money, has no real plans for ordinary Americans, and has a horrible history that includes the crime bill and calls for cuts to Medicare and Social Security.  Now you take all that negativity and add in his son making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent.  You have Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired. You are looking at a losing candidate.  It's plain as the nose on your face. 

You're exhibiting the approach that will get Trump re-elected.

Don't go by, "some people say".  Go by facts, go by logic.

Using facts and logic, nobody can define an actual crime to accuse Joe Biden of.  The arguments always degenerate to Hunter Biden was "making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent."  You're being duped by their strategy to use resentment, as a replacement for facts and logic.

And "Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired" is the TRUMP way to characterize what actually happened - this will be in all-caps because it seems to get missed all the time- THEY FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WASN'T GOING AFTER CORRUPTION.  

nan said:

nohero said:

Now that you're all here, if someone could explain Jimmy's pro-Brexit position, and the argument he uses, that would be appreciated.

 This video is from July of 2016.  It is not about Jimmy Dore's "pro-Brexit" position.  I doubt he even has one of those. ...

And the Brexit vote was held before that, and "leave" won. 

Jimmy was pushing the "Brexit is good" theme.  Period.  

The economist talking about the Euro is irrelevant to whether Brexit is good for working people in the United Kingdom.

Nothing in your long summary (I didn't leave all of it in the quote) addresses that.

Jimmy pushed the "pro-Brexit" argument.  Why?  There's little to indicate that it's good for working people in the United Kingdom.  People outside the UK who don't like the concept of a European Union (because they're not in it) like Brexit.

Again, what's Jimmy's reason for claiming (with no real support) that it's good for working people?

nohero said:

You're exhibiting the approach that will get Trump re-elected.

Don't go by, "some people say".  Go by facts, go by logic.

Using facts and logic, nobody can define an actual crime to accuse Joe Biden of.  The arguments always degenerate to Hunter Biden was "making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent."  You're being duped by their strategy to use resentment, as a replacement for facts and logic.

And "Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired" is the TRUMP way to characterize what actually happened - this will be in all-caps because it seems to get missed all the time- THEY FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WASN'T GOING AFTER CORRUPTION.  

Run Joe Biden as the nominee and you will get Trump re-elected.  The stuff with Hunter can only be seen as an optics problem.  I don't buy that they fired a prosecutor who wasn't' going after corruption.  They rarely have a problem with corruption; we support lots of corrupt leaders and bureaucrats. But, whatever, his tracks have been covered on that one. However, Biden is a democrat who relies openly on corporate donations and once bragged about being a political prostitute.  He reeks of corruption. There is also the issue of regime change in Ukraine, but lucky for him, he's been covered there.  Still, there are so many problems. including the crime bill, Anita Hill, etc.  Biden acts senile and puts his foot in his mouth all the time.  It's like nominating a minefield. 

Seriously, do you think Biden is a good candidate?   He terrifies me.  Even Beto is looking more reliable and he should be selling skateboards. 

Well let's all agree that Bernie and Tulsi need to drop out because they don't have a chance.

RealityForAll said:

My post dealt with the fact that both the IRS and SEC use related party rules for analyzing transactions.  And, I believe related party rules should be used for the entirety of Joe's family (including Joe's brother and Joe's son - not just attribution under related party rules to Joe's wife).

 And since we're talking about Hunter Biden taking a job, your post is irrelevant. And since Hunter Biden isn't running for president, it's doubly irrelevant.

Bit of  advice -- based on your approach to interpreting IRS rules, I'd recommend not doing your own taxes.  You'll get yourself into trouble if your above analysis is any indication.

nan said:

nohero said:

And "Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired" is the TRUMP way to characterize what actually happened - this will be in all-caps because it seems to get missed all the time- THEY FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WASN'T GOING AFTER CORRUPTION.  

Run Joe Biden as the nominee and you will get Trump re-elected.  The stuff with Hunter can only be seen as an optics problem.  I don't buy that they fired a prosecutor who wasn't' going after corruption.  ...

There's a BIG STACK OF FACTS showing that they did fire that prosecutor for not going after corruption.  

Ignoring facts is NOT the same as having a different opinion. 

sbenois said:

Well let's all agree that Bernie and Tulsi need to drop out because they don't have a chance.

Hey sbenois, my decoder ring says that Langley wants you to call them at 757-PROPAGANDA (757-776-6242) to discuss the next steps in eliminating Bernie and Tulsi.

PVW said:

RealityForAll said:

My post dealt with the fact that both the IRS and SEC use related party rules for analyzing transactions.  And, I believe related party rules should be used for the entirety of Joe's family (including Joe's brother and Joe's son - not just attribution under related party rules to Joe's wife).

 And since we're talking about Hunter Biden taking a job, your post is irrelevant. And since Hunter Biden isn't running for president, it's doubly irrelevant.

Bit of  advice -- based on your approach to interpreting IRS rules, I'd recommend not doing your own taxes.  You'll get yourself into trouble if your above analysis is any indication.

I am not interpreting IRS rules, I merely explained what the IRS statute (26 USC 267(b) and (c)) is and the principles behind the related party rules.

Serious question for PVW and drummerboy:  why were actions of Joe's wife attributed to Joe when he was VP for purposes of conflicts-of-interest analysis and criminal law compliance?

.

.

.

.

.

.

Come on you can say it:  related party attribution for purposes of analysis and compliance.

PS PVW, based on your chronic confusion, I will abstain from your advice.  By-the-way does MOL have a 25th amendment type procedure for posters who are very confused (for example, PVW unable to fathom the fact the IRS employs related party definitions and analysis - and how I never mentioned Joe's T/R nor Hunter as a dependent)? 

nan said:

nohero said:

Now that you're all here, if someone could explain Jimmy's pro-Brexit position, and the argument he uses, that would be appreciated.

This video is from July of 2016. It is not about Jimmy Dore's "pro-Brexit" position. I doubt he even has one of those. He is talking about the views of Mark Blyth, who is a professor at Brown University. He is well-known for being against austerity policies, the hallmark of neoliberalism. He describes why people are so angry and want Brexit because they are sick of unelected people running their lives. Dore found this guy interesting and wanted to present his idea in a video, and is mostly interested in drawing parallels between the UK and US. What problem do you have with that? Do you only want one narrative allowed? I would never see this guy presented on MSNBC/CNN so I am glad that I learned about him from Jimmy Dore. Dore does not pretend to be an economics expert, but he is clearly a curious person and likes to share the things that influence his thinking with viewers. And here you are with steam coming out of your ears because Jimmy Dore is presenting ideas on YouTube. Get a grip. I will summarize the video as best I can below for anyone who is interested and can't handle watching (a common impairment on MOL, it seems).

--------------------------------------------

The guy is against the Euro because he thinks the long-term effect will be to drive down wages. The low wage workers will be under the same banner as the higher wage workers doing the same work. He says it will be especially bad for France, parts of Italy and Greece. He thinks all the wages will come down so they can compete with China. He's saying that if you have sovereignty over your own economy, you might have more control over that. He is afraid that what happened in Greece will happen to other countries.

So, Dore, based on Blyth, is thinking that Brexit may have some benefits for working people. Dore makes it clear that he is not an economist and tells people to correct him if he is wrong. Blyth provides some examples related to surpluses and deficits. Individual countries are not allowed to run their own deficits. Currently, the only option is contraction which leads to austerity (neoliberalism) which does not work and only hurts people and helps the banks.

Blyth calls out this strategy. He says the Brexit debate is like Trumpisim. Blyth defines Trumpisim as for the past 35 years, the center-left It'has told the 60% at the bottom the following story: "Globalization is good for you. It's really great. We are going to sign all the trade deals and don't worry about compensation. It will be fair. You will all end up as computer programmers. It will be fantastic. And don't really worry because we are all going to move to the middle because that's where the voters are and those are the ones that we care about. You get this shift under all of the leaders (labor, Blair, etc.) and you make that move and you basically take the bottom 30% of the income distribution and you say "We don't care what happens to you. You are now something to be policed. You are now something to have your behaviors changed. It's a very paternal and patronizing relationship. This is no longer the warm embrace of social Democracy. There is no solidarity with the working class. You can have them policed so you can feel safe in your neighborhood and you can have your private schools while they have their public schools which you don't really want to pay taxes for anymore

So once this has evolved over 20 years you have this revolt not just against Brexit/EU. It is about revolting aginast the elites, the 1%. It's about how your parties which were meant to serve your interests have sold you down the river. " He goes on to give an example about Scottish independence as a cautionary tale. You end up where your vote is ignored, Democracy is supplanted by elite rule, and they make all the decisions and they don't care about you. It's a no-win scenario. Blyth says, "As I like to say to my American hedge-fund friends, The Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons are on very low lying beaches. Eventually, people will come for you." Basically, the pitchfork are a'comin.

Dore draws a connection from this to the United States where neoliberalism rules and Democrats have turned their backs on workers. They got in bed with Wall Street and corporations, just like the Republicans and now we have things like NAFTA and the TPP, and fewer unions. We have this and the biggest income disparity since the Gilded Age. 50% of all wage earners earn less than 30K. The upper 1% have control over the economy and the government and set it up to benefit them. They have screwed over everyone else, including the workers. People work for less and less and college is unaffordable. The elites in both countries ignore the problems because they don't want to take responsibility for it and they don't' want to change. They don't want to put in job plans or regulate Wall Sreet. Then they would have to stop crap like TPP and that is not going to happen. It's one big gravy train and one big party and it's the Money Party.

-----------------------------

For anyone that wants to learn more about Mark Blyth and his ideas, I found this on YouTube. I have not watched it yet, but I will try to later:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

Now that you're all here, if someone could explain Jimmy's pro-Brexit position, and the argument he uses, that would be appreciated.

 This video is from July of 2016.  It is not about Jimmy Dore's "pro-Brexit" position.  I doubt he even has one of those. ...

And the Brexit vote was held before that, and "leave" won. 

Jimmy was pushing the "Brexit is good" theme.  Period.  

The economist talking about the Euro is irrelevant to whether Brexit is good for working people in the United Kingdom.

Nothing in your long summary (I didn't leave all of it in the quote) addresses that.

Jimmy pushed the "pro-Brexit" argument.  Why?  There's little to indicate that it's good for working people in the United Kingdom.  People outside the UK who don't like the concept of a European Union (because they're not in it) like Brexit.

Again, what's Jimmy's reason for claiming (with no real support) that it's good for working people?

 I had to repost the whole text so I could demonstrate that you are just making crap up.  Dore was not presenting Brexit as good, although he might think that.  He was presenting the ideas of Brown University professor, Mark Blyth.  Blyth's view is that austerity is a bad neoliberal strategy and that the elites have undemocratically usurped power and treat the poor like criminals that need to be controlled. The working class and poor are angry and ready to revolt.  He places Brexit in that context and explains why some aspects of it, such as dropping the Euro and wages might be better for workers. I would suggest that anyone who is interested, watch one of the videos posted and/or read my summary. 

Again, I am grateful to Dore for presenting the work of this professor, whom I doubt I would have encountered on MSNBC/CNN. This is a terrific example of why people need to expand their news sources. Even if you disagree with this guy, he has interesting ideas and I'm just wondering why nohero wants to suppress them by trying to discredit the source.  

RealityForAll said:I am not interpreting IRS rules, I merely explained what the IRS statute (26 USC 267(b) and (c)) is and the principles behind the related party rules

You've seized on an IRS rule and are claiming it applies to this situation. That's "interpreting IRS rules."

Serious question for PVW and drummerboy:  why were actions of Joe's wife attributed to Joe when he was VP for purposes of conflicts-of-interest analysis and criminal law compliance

I don't know why I should accept that it's "IRS statute (26 USC 267(b) and (c))" that applies here and, if it does, that you're applying it correctly. Are you a tax lawyer? No? Then on what basis should I accept that your question is a serious one rather than a misreading by an unqualified amateur?

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

RealityForAll said:

My post dealt with the fact that both the IRS and SEC use related party rules for analyzing transactions.  And, I believe related party rules should be used for the entirety of Joe's family (including Joe's brother and Joe's son - not just attribution under related party rules to Joe's wife).

 And since we're talking about Hunter Biden taking a job, your post is irrelevant. And since Hunter Biden isn't running for president, it's doubly irrelevant.

Bit of  advice -- based on your approach to interpreting IRS rules, I'd recommend not doing your own taxes.  You'll get yourself into trouble if your above analysis is any indication.

I am not interpreting IRS rules, I merely explained what the IRS statute (26 USC 267(b) and (c)) is and the principles behind the related party rules.

Serious question for PVW and drummerboy:  why were actions of Joe's wife attributed to Joe when he was VP for purposes of conflicts-of-interest analysis and criminal law compliance?

.

.

.

.

.

.

Come on you can say it:  related party attribution for purposes of analysis and compliance.

PS PVW, based on your chronic confusion, I will abstain from your advice.  By-the-way does MOL have a 25th amendment type procedure for posters who are very confused (for example, PVW unable to fathom the fact the IRS employs related party definitions and analysis - and how I never mentioned Joe's T/R nor Hunter as a dependent)? 

 be careful what you wish for. 

nan said:

He places Brexit in that context and explains why some aspects of it, such as dropping the Euro and wages might be better for workers.

 What currency does the UK use currently? What currency would they use should they leave the EU? 

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

RealityForAll said:

My post dealt with the fact that both the IRS and SEC use related party rules for analyzing transactions.  And, I believe related party rules should be used for the entirety of Joe's family (including Joe's brother and Joe's son - not just attribution under related party rules to Joe's wife).

 And since we're talking about Hunter Biden taking a job, your post is irrelevant. And since Hunter Biden isn't running for president, it's doubly irrelevant.

Bit of  advice -- based on your approach to interpreting IRS rules, I'd recommend not doing your own taxes.  You'll get yourself into trouble if your above analysis is any indication.

I am not interpreting IRS rules, I merely explained what the IRS statute (26 USC 267(b) and (c)) is and the principles behind the related party rules.

Serious question for PVW and drummerboy:  why were actions of Joe's wife attributed to Joe when he was VP for purposes of conflicts-of-interest analysis and criminal law compliance?

.

.

.

.

.

.

Come on you can say it:  related party attribution for purposes of analysis and compliance.

PS PVW, based on your chronic confusion, I will abstain from your advice.  By-the-way does MOL have a 25th amendment type procedure for posters who are very confused (for example, PVW unable to fathom the fact the IRS employs related party definitions and analysis - and how I never mentioned Joe's T/R nor Hunter as a dependent)? 

 be careful what you wish for. 

 Et tu ml1!!

PVW said:

nan said:

He places Brexit in that context and explains why some aspects of it, such as dropping the Euro and wages might be better for workers.

 What currency does the UK use currently? What currency would they use should they leave the EU? 

 Pound sterling before and after.

Your point, please?

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

nan said:

He places Brexit in that context and explains why some aspects of it, such as dropping the Euro and wages might be better for workers.

 What currency does the UK use currently? What currency would they use should they leave the EU? 

 Pound sterling before and after.

Your point, please?

 See, this is why I have my doubts on your analysis of the IRS rules.

I'll give you a hint. Look at nan's quote. What currency does she reference?

PVW said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

nan said:

He places Brexit in that context and explains why some aspects of it, such as dropping the Euro and wages might be better for workers.

 What currency does the UK use currently? What currency would they use should they leave the EU? 

 Pound sterling before and after.

Your point, please?

 See, this is why I have my doubts on your analysis of the IRS rules.

I'll give you a hint. Look at nan's quote. What currency does she reference?

Did I get the answers to your questions (namely, What currency does the UK use currently? What currency would they use should they leave the EU?) wrong?

PS Your question did not reference nan's quote.  Thus, nan's quote is not relevant in this instance.

PPS I never said that the IRS' related party rules and definitions (namely, 26 USC 267(b) and (c)) apply to the Hunter-Brismas-Joe situation.  Instead, I discussed how related party rules are applied and defined in the IRS context.  And, then analogized them to the Hunter-Brismas-Joe situation.

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

nan said:

He places Brexit in that context and explains why some aspects of it, such as dropping the Euro and wages might be better for workers.

 What currency does the UK use currently? What currency would they use should they leave the EU? 

 Pound sterling before and after.

Your point, please?

 See, this is why I have my doubts on your analysis of the IRS rules.

I'll give you a hint. Look at nan's quote. What currency does she reference?

Did I get the answers to your questions (namely, What currency does the UK use currently? What currency would they use should they leave the EU?) wrong?

PS Your question did not reference nan's quote.  Thus, nan's quote is not relevant in this instance.

PPS I never said that the IRS' related party rules and definitions (namely, 26 USC 267(b) and (c)) apply to the Hunter-Brismas-Joe situation.  Instead, I discussed how related party rules are applied and defined in the IRS context.  And, then analogized them to the Hunter-Brismas-Joe situation.

 Amazing.

I’d take a small step back and re-read the exchange between PVW and nan again, RFA.

nohero said:

nan said:

 Again, the elites live in a world where the rules do not apply to them.  This is not a winning strategy for the 2020 election.  I have heard lots of contradictory details about Hunter Biden's Ukraine and China corruption.  Some say he and Joe did illegal actions and others say nothing he did was illegal.  There are just as many variations on getting that prosecuter fired.  We can spend all day arguing and I would never get my house cleaned as I am planning to do in a few minutes.  IF I get everything on my list checked off today, perhaps I will have more time for Joe's corruption later.

The point is, what the Bidens did in Ukraine/China looks really bad (and that's not even counting the coup stuff which most Americans don't even know about).  If it was not illegal, it should have been.  You look at a candidate like Biden and he is senile, runs on corporate money, has no real plans for ordinary Americans, and has a horrible history that includes the crime bill and calls for cuts to Medicare and Social Security.  Now you take all that negativity and add in his son making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent.  You have Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired. You are looking at a losing candidate.  It's plain as the nose on your face. 

You're exhibiting the approach that will get Trump re-elected.

Don't go by, "some people say".  Go by facts, go by logic.

Using facts and logic, nobody can define an actual crime to accuse Joe Biden of.  The arguments always degenerate to Hunter Biden was "making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent."  You're being duped by their strategy to use resentment, as a replacement for facts and logic.

And "Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired" is the TRUMP way to characterize what actually happened - this will be in all-caps because it seems to get missed all the time- THEY FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WASN'T GOING AFTER CORRUPTION.  

What happened (at 52:00):

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

nan said:

He places Brexit in that context and explains why some aspects of it, such as dropping the Euro and wages might be better for workers.

 What currency does the UK use currently? What currency would they use should they leave the EU? 

 Pound sterling before and after.

Your point, please?

PVW’s point is that Britain will not be (per nan’s quote, which he referenced) “dropping the euro.”

Nan, your turn to explain why that doesn’t matter.

RFA, your turn to do whatever it is you do.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

nan said:

 Again, the elites live in a world where the rules do not apply to them.  This is not a winning strategy for the 2020 election.  I have heard lots of contradictory details about Hunter Biden's Ukraine and China corruption.  Some say he and Joe did illegal actions and others say nothing he did was illegal.  There are just as many variations on getting that prosecuter fired.  We can spend all day arguing and I would never get my house cleaned as I am planning to do in a few minutes.  IF I get everything on my list checked off today, perhaps I will have more time for Joe's corruption later.

The point is, what the Bidens did in Ukraine/China looks really bad (and that's not even counting the coup stuff which most Americans don't even know about).  If it was not illegal, it should have been.  You look at a candidate like Biden and he is senile, runs on corporate money, has no real plans for ordinary Americans, and has a horrible history that includes the crime bill and calls for cuts to Medicare and Social Security.  Now you take all that negativity and add in his son making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent.  You have Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired. You are looking at a losing candidate.  It's plain as the nose on your face. 

You're exhibiting the approach that will get Trump re-elected.

Don't go by, "some people say".  Go by facts, go by logic.

Using facts and logic, nobody can define an actual crime to accuse Joe Biden of.  The arguments always degenerate to Hunter Biden was "making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent."  You're being duped by their strategy to use resentment, as a replacement for facts and logic.

And "Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired" is the TRUMP way to characterize what actually happened - this will be in all-caps because it seems to get missed all the time- THEY FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WASN'T GOING AFTER CORRUPTION.  

What happened (at 52:00):

 Is that water you're carrying for Trump getting heavy yet?

RealityForAll said:

 Et tu ml1!!

 brilliant response 

DaveSchmidt said:

PVW’s point is that Britain will not be (per nan’s quote, which he referenced) “dropping the euro.”

Nan, your turn to explain why that doesn’t matter.

RFA, your turn to do whatever it is you do.

I quickly typed up a synopsis to this video.  If you think there is something inaccurate than you can LISTEN to the video to check on what was said and let me know, without trying to humiliate me, what I need to correct.  

nohero requested a response on this video.  It took some time to listen and type that up.  You can thank me for my effort at any time.  I will not hold my breath.  On MOL, no good deed goes unpunished.  

It would be nice, sometime, if you actually commented on the contents of my posts instead of just hunting through them looking for typos and small mistakes.  

nan said:

I quickly typed up a synopsis to this video.  

Nobody’s rushing you, nan.

It would be nice, sometime, if you actually commented on the contents of my posts instead of just hunting through them looking for typos and small mistakes.

It was PVW’s observation, not mine. Nobody’s rushing you, nan.

DaveSchmidt said:

It was PVW’s observation, not mine. Nobody’s rushing you, nan.

 I went through the video, as requested by nohero, once and that was enough.  I needed to clean my house. What did you think of Mark Blyth's ideas?   You know, the topic of the video?   

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

nan said:

 Again, the elites live in a world where the rules do not apply to them.  This is not a winning strategy for the 2020 election.  I have heard lots of contradictory details about Hunter Biden's Ukraine and China corruption.  Some say he and Joe did illegal actions and others say nothing he did was illegal.  There are just as many variations on getting that prosecuter fired.  We can spend all day arguing and I would never get my house cleaned as I am planning to do in a few minutes.  IF I get everything on my list checked off today, perhaps I will have more time for Joe's corruption later.

The point is, what the Bidens did in Ukraine/China looks really bad (and that's not even counting the coup stuff which most Americans don't even know about).  If it was not illegal, it should have been.  You look at a candidate like Biden and he is senile, runs on corporate money, has no real plans for ordinary Americans, and has a horrible history that includes the crime bill and calls for cuts to Medicare and Social Security.  Now you take all that negativity and add in his son making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent.  You have Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired. You are looking at a losing candidate.  It's plain as the nose on your face. 

You're exhibiting the approach that will get Trump re-elected.

Don't go by, "some people say".  Go by facts, go by logic.

Using facts and logic, nobody can define an actual crime to accuse Joe Biden of.  The arguments always degenerate to Hunter Biden was "making $50K a month when so many can't even afford basic rent."  You're being duped by their strategy to use resentment, as a replacement for facts and logic.

And "Joe Biden bragging about withholding money until someone is fired" is the TRUMP way to characterize what actually happened - this will be in all-caps because it seems to get missed all the time- THEY FIRED A PROSECUTOR WHO WASN'T GOING AFTER CORRUPTION.  

What happened (at 52:00):

 Is that water you're carrying for Trump getting heavy yet?

Haven't you gotten the memo? Joe's extortion of the Ukrainian president was a good thing.

paulsurovell said:

Haven't you gotten the memo? Joe's extortion of the Ukrainian president was a good thing.

 Just came across this January 2018 Kyle Kulinski video where he is outraged by Joe Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired.  He views it within the normal operating procedure of the Democrats and also shows a clip of Hillary suggesting the Palestinian elections should either not happen or be rigged. This is before Ukrainegate so there is no Whataboutism.  Kyle does not know that in MOL land Joe did nothing wrong (and probably Hillary too). When we interfere with other countries, it's just fine.

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

Haven't you gotten the memo? Joe's extortion of the Ukrainian president was a good thing.

 Just came across this January 2018 Kyle Kulinski video where he is outraged by Joe Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired.  He views it within the normal operating procedure of the Democrats and also shows a clip of Hillary suggesting the Palestinian elections should either not happen or be rigged. This is before Ukrainegate so there is no Whataboutism.  Kyle does not know that in MOL land Joe did nothing wrong (and probably Hillary too). When we interfere with other countries, it's just fine.

 gaaaah

I listened to about 1:20 and gave up. He's grossly simplifying what we know to be a very complex situation involving most of the EU in regards to the do-nothing prosecutor.

Did we and the EU strong-arm Ukraine. Yeah.

get me my laudanum, I'm having a spell.

Anyway, carry that water. It will serve Trump well.

It'll f*** the rest of us though.

But you guys keep on playing that Biden clip. It must please you so.