Hope this is allowed! I've browsed on this site for a while, even had another username where I engaged in some fairly civil debates with other users before I was banned due to not being a Q follower.
Interested in having a friendly discussion with anyone who's up for it!
A bit about me:
I'm a mechanical engineer working in product marketing I live in a major city, Chicago, and have pretty much only voted democrat I am a homeowner I have followed conspiracies for a while based solely on my own curiosity, and by and large found that a lot of the major ones (pizzagate, Q) don't make a ton of sense, but I'm not here to argue that. I think we're just gonna have different opinions on it.
All said, happy to have a casual AMA! Not interested in flamebaiting or arguing
Yes, I absolutely appreciate the argument that you are making. And my point is that naughty things were happening during the Biden period as well, but that they are are trying to obfuscate the issue... ((only naughty things were happening at this point in time, please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain))
Burisma is just a BIG naughty thing. The naughtiest of naughties.
Why does Pelosi's son also have interest in a Ukraine O/G company??
So, which direction does the corruption run? Does it run from Ukraine to the Bidens and/or the Pelosis? Or does it run from the other direction? Who is twisting whose arm? The information at this point is leading to the corruption running from the Bidens TO Ukraine.
The problem seems to be that the prosecutor was ousted because of his investigations, however his investigations had nothing to do with the time period where the Biden's were involved.
So, these two facts don't line up
You are still under the spell of the obfuscation of facts.
If you cannot see that these are two separate issues then I am pretty much done with this discusion.
I gave you tons of evidence of fraud, blackmail, and corruption. And you are arguing semantics because your news told you that the prosecutor is a naughty boy.
You are under their spell still and until you break free from that mind programming, there is literally no longer any point in continuing this discussion.
Well that's the thing, I am seeing them as two separate issues. That's why I don't see what the problem is.
I'm not sure what "my news" is. I looked up the facts of the case and that's what I'm basing it off of. I didn't get these facts from some youtube personality or something.
But that's fine! If you don't have the facts I'm not interested either. Take care!
I'm not sure what other facts you're looking for??
I gave you the facts that I have that prove the situation to me. Perhaps you require some sort of extra tangential proof? But, I have no idea what to provide to you so that you can see that the situation with Burisma and the Bidens was actually during Joe's time in the WH.
edit to add:
The argument that you are actually making with your points is so beyond lame as to be pretty worthless. You might think that you are arguing for a particular subject, but what you are actually arguing, the point that you are actually making is that the Bidens haven't engaged in any fraudulent activity because people were demanding that the Prosecutor resign years before.
Your argument is BAD.
You are using the fact that the Prosecutor was already being investigated or whatever as the basis for your ENTIRE claim. I am using it as a point of reference.
Here is my thought process...
I originally saw the video where Biden said that he was witholding funds from Ukraine until the Prosecutor was fired. Well guess what, that Prosecutor was then fired.
Odd things for a VP to threaten... let's investigate. And I did. But you seem to be stuck on the timeline and the Prosecutor.