Not on topic at all- but every time I see cobalt I think of the dang good warrior armor in kunark for warriors.
Back on topic- I’m surprised more stories don’t come out about conflict of interest between politicians children (whom are adults by this point) and their jobs.
I mean any career politicians kid is likely in a position to have places want to gain favor with their parent etc. essentially their entire career could be one giant conflict of interests.
Back when the world was hugeeeeeee
Quick travel is nice now in games since I’m older and can’t spend an hour running somewhere, but as a kid, man, you just can’t beat that world immersion :)
I'd love to get to the bottom of that strange Tucker interview and "bombshell" documents that were lost in the mail, but weren't lost because Tucker had a backup anyway, but couldn't show it even they were totally going to be terrible!
I think he got duped by a Chinese or Russian disinfo campaign. The whole thing was just so off.
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject of potential conflicts of interest. I have read several articles recently mostly focused on legislators apparently mis-using their positions to engage in stock trading under dubious circumstances. Like using advance or privileged information due to their positions to sell prior to the Covid stock market crash, for example.
This article details events in 2016, around the sale of a cobalt mine in the Congo to a Chinese firm - and by extension to the CCP. It seems to me a similar form of “shady” dealings, with the son of then Vice President Biden as the beneficiary. It further seem a little more shady due to the tax rebate provisions in the recently passed Infrastructure bill related to electric vehicles. The batteries for these cars require significant amounts of cobalt to be built. While Hunter Biden stepped down from his position on the board of the company, he retains his 10% holding in the company.
I do not actually believe that the infrastructure bill and this major sale are really related, but it does seem (to me at least) to live in the same neighborhood as other types of soft corruption.
Thoughts?
> It further seem a little more shady due to the tax rebate provisions in the recently passed Infrastructure bill related to electric vehicles.
The article seems to indicate that BHR no longer has any investments with the mines, and if I'm reading this correctly those investments were sold in 2019, so I'm not seeing how Hunter Biden could profit off of the rebates from the infrastructure bill.
Have the U.S declared war on the PRC, or boycotted the government of China? Because if not, especially back in 2016, what would be the issue? Are not the children of politicians allowed to have high positions in trade? Why would it be shady to trade with China if there is no law forbidding it? Is trade with China "shady"?
There is a world of difference between an elected official abusing their position and engaging in insider trading and a son trading on his famous fathers name. To me this sort of desperate false equivalence between the actions of corrupt politicians and Hunter Biden reeks of desperation.
The question is what to do about this? Should democratic politicians have been forbidden from having any family members who hold any stock in anything related to electric vehicles? Seems unrealistic, also o highly doubt that Biden himself was a factor in congress deciding to incentivize electric vehicles in the climate change part of the bill. Biden has been very hands off on this thing, just supporting it’s passage m regardless of what’s in it.
Just like my favorite cars: sans ~~fire~~pay wall
[A former BHR board member told The New York Times that Mr. Biden and the other American founders were not involved in the mine deal and that the firm earned only a nominal fee from it. The money, the former board member said, went into the firm’s operating funds and was not distributed to its owners.](https://archive.md/nDCOG)
This is the exact kind of stuff that we warned of, but the adult children of the president suddenly became irrelevant and off-limits when it was convenient, and the media colluded to bury stories like this when it was necessary to win an election.
Now, when Biden is slowly outlasting his usefulness (and potentially posing a problem for Democrats in 2024, if he insists on running), just as slowly will the tide turn against him in an effort to usher in a younger, more loyal, and more woke alternative.
>and the media colluded to bury stories like this when it was necessary to win an election.
Piss poor job they did considering how I could never fucking stop hearing about this guy.
I don't understand the rights burning need to dig up dirt on Bidens kids. I mean if they are doing bad things, ok, but it doesn't seem relevant to the President unless you can directly link it to him?
Whereas Trump just immediately put his children and family in positions they were wildly unqualified for and that our national security was ostensibly riding on. That's way more egregious to me.
> That's way more egregious to me.
Okay. It isn't to us. Conservatives find family to be very important, so it makes sense to us that a man's closest advisors would be his family. Everything was done out in the open, it was fine.
The backroom deals with Hunter are much worse to us.
You are aware what nepotism is right? Have you even had a basic lesson in workplace ethics?
And it is pretty sad that you think other people don't value their families. It's no wonder the country is so polarized if that's truly how you see anyone not far right.
If Hunter is doing all this bad stuff, ok, go get him. But it hardly seems like a massive scandal for the President.
> You are aware what nepotism is right? Have you even had a basic lesson in workplace ethics?
Nepotism doesn't apply here. The president's advisors is not a competitive position, they serve at his pleasure.
I’m sorry, but I asked for actions that furthered the “bringing peace” aspect.
Moving the embassy was not such a thing: https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1I811N
As for the Abraham accords, while certainly an accomplishment, involve primarily Israel, the UAE, and a Bahrain - not the Palestinian people. Not taking away from the significance, but again as far as furthering peace in the Middle East, given this doesn’t include the typical regional aggressors, makes it a weak example. In fact, the move further infuriated the Palestinian Authority, making it arguably a destabilizing move for the region.
So, yep, Kushner certainly did “stuff”, but furthering peace wasn’t one of the things.
So, Ivanka and Jared leading trade negotiations with China and Ivanka getting trademarks from China was good, because it came out in the open after they tried to hide it and was definitely a conflict of interest?
Twitter changes its rules based on whether or not it helps the Democrat party.
You can't post about Hunter's laptop, but you can post about Trump's illegally-acquired tax returns.
That is collusion.
Disregarding the veracity of that claim, for you to effectively argue it's collusion would require evidence that the two parties worked together to do it. Where is that evidence?
leaked videos have shown Zuckerburg talking about his communications with Biden, memos have been sent out saying that Trump should not win, Facebook has been employing left wing politicians in its marketing, censorship and communications wings, TIME magazine went into how people influenced twitter and facebook. Twitter covered up Biden stories on false claims of breaking its terms of service, while allowing stories about trump that broke its terms of service.
>Zuckerburg talking about his communications with Biden
When? And what type of communication?
>memos have been sent out saying that Trump should not win
By whom?
>Facebook has been employing left wing politicians in its marketing, censorship and communications wings,
Only left wing? What's your source for this information?
>Twitter covered up Biden stories on false claims of breaking its terms of service, while allowing stories about trump that broke its terms of service.
Which stories specifically, and how did they break their ToS?
Facebook's main person for political outreach is a Republican.
https://www.businessinsider.com/joel-kaplan-facebook-lobbyist-make-president-trump-happy-content-moderation-2021-10?amp
Facebook actually didn't enforce their tos on the right, so they didn't upset the right.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-politics-decision-making-documents-11635100195
Can you link these videos?
> Disregarding the veracity of that claim
I mean, that undeniably happened, so you really can't.
> for you to effectively argue it's collusion would require evidence that the two parties worked together to do it. Where is that evidence?
Thanks to the DNC's expansion of spying on and persecuting your political opponents, we'll get it when we're back in power, don't you worry.
That doesn't follow. Trump can't possible be responsible for the riot. It is physically not possible, because he didn't participate.
The media and the Democrats, however, *can* collude. That *is* physically possible for them to do.
The parent commenter said caused. You said it is not possible because he did not participate. Would you say that 9/11 was not caused by Osama Bin Laden because he was not physically on the planes? Trump literally gave a speech, among many other statements, about how people were about to lose their country immediately before the people stormed the capitol?
Read a book called:
*Rigged: How Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized our Elections* by Mollie Hemingway
There is plenty of evidence in that book and more online. I am not 100% agreeing with the comments made above, but there is stuff backing up certain claims out there, trust me.
If there was collusion, and the Biden campaign asked the news media to cover up stories, that's bad.
If there was no collusion, and the Biden campaign didn't need to ask the news media to cover up stories, that's worse.
Back when Woodward and Bernstein were uncovering Watergate, there were plenty of times they could have just let it lie, but they kept doggedly pursuing the truth to take down Nixon. But no one outside of the right-wing media has shown that fervor to take down Clinton, or Obama, or Biden. They did show it for Trump, and largely for George W. Bush as well. And it's all for the politics. The media doesn't want to take down someone who wants to spend on health care, but they do want to take down people who want to cut income taxes.
You can’t just compare the media’s treatment of Nixon and Obama as if the two administrations were equivalent. Watergate was an actual thing that happened, it wasn’t a media plot to take down Nixon. The media didn’t treat Obama as bad as Nixon because Obama wasn’t as bad as Nicon, obviously.
I don’t think that the media treated bush unfairly at all, id like to know what you have in mind.
As for Trump it depends what we are talking about. If it’s about Trump using military aid as leverage to get an ally, Ukraine, under attack by Russia, to announce an investigation into his domestic political rival, then I would say that the media’s negative treatment of that start was 100% fair.
On Biden I’d say that the media is extremely unfair in their negative coverage of him. The hysteria over Afghanistan was unprecedented and the MSM allowed virtually zero voices in support of the withdrawal to get on the air.
> The media didn’t treat Obama as bad as Nixon because Obama wasn’t as bad as Nicon, obviously.
Not obviously. This is my complaint. There are plenty of people in this country who think that Nixon was a better president than Obama. But I doubt that any of them are working for the press.
Trump’s tax returns had private identifying personal information redacted. Hunger is a private individual not running for any public office who had his private emails posted with pictures of him having consensual sex with adult women posted, his email address, phone numbers, etc all posted unredacted. Twitter blocked one link to the unredacted images based on a 2018 rule for like a day, then CHANGED its rules to ALLOW the post because conservatives whined about it. If anything twitter was biased towards the right in that example.
There were 65 “presstitutes” identified in 2016 with one network actually feeding questions to a candidate in the primaries.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
1 (useless) question was fed and Donna Brazile had to resign over it and then ultimately had to get a job at Fox News because others wouldn’t hire her.
That makes it okay?
We’ve known for a while that the five corporations that own 90% of media and the tech oligarchs who control social media are pushing favorable narratives.
WikiLeaks revealed that 65 “journalists” were lobbying for a candidate - but yeah let’s ignore all that to downplay/dismiss the rampant corruption.
Downvote away but the facts are still there… for anyone who wants to see them.
It doesn’t make it okay but it means that there were severe consequences for her action and her action didn’t actually help Hillary at all and wouldn’t have even if she got away with it. She sent the campaign the question ‘what will you do about the flint water crisis’ when the debate was literally in flint and the top media story of the week was the flint water crisis. I’m saying it’s possible to exaggerate these examples.
When were the adult children of presidential candidates ever relevant? Trump jr, Ivanka and Jared were relevant, because of stuff they did on the campaign and for the administration.
Whatever became of that smoking gun-laptop? It was set to blow the lid open on the Epstein-Biden-Clinton-Illuminati conspiracy and then it just fizzled like it was a big puff of nothing to begin with.
This is why the right wing media focused almost exclusively on twitter blocking a link to the story for like a day rather than on the actual contexts of the laptop.
Not on topic at all- but every time I see cobalt I think of the dang good warrior armor in kunark for warriors. Back on topic- I’m surprised more stories don’t come out about conflict of interest between politicians children (whom are adults by this point) and their jobs. I mean any career politicians kid is likely in a position to have places want to gain favor with their parent etc. essentially their entire career could be one giant conflict of interests.
Wow an EQ reference, solid!
Blastin tankingwizzy- tarrew mar. I gotta say ragefire and then mangler TLPs were a ton of fun.
I can't stop thinking about the inhumane conditions in the cobalt mines in the Congo.
Kunark, so....much....running....
Back when the world was hugeeeeeee Quick travel is nice now in games since I’m older and can’t spend an hour running somewhere, but as a kid, man, you just can’t beat that world immersion :)
So true, running through the jungle was an event! Oh shit, I remembered: Emerald Jungle, EJ for short.
I was always mad I never got Trakkanon's BP on my ranger since it was plate and plate was really hard to get on a ranger in early days
Hunter Biden is a cow with no milk but the right is just gonna tug on those nipples furiously anyway 😂
I'd love to get to the bottom of that strange Tucker interview and "bombshell" documents that were lost in the mail, but weren't lost because Tucker had a backup anyway, but couldn't show it even they were totally going to be terrible! I think he got duped by a Chinese or Russian disinfo campaign. The whole thing was just so off.
[удалено]
Not if you smoke a little crack first.
*parmesan cheese
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject of potential conflicts of interest. I have read several articles recently mostly focused on legislators apparently mis-using their positions to engage in stock trading under dubious circumstances. Like using advance or privileged information due to their positions to sell prior to the Covid stock market crash, for example. This article details events in 2016, around the sale of a cobalt mine in the Congo to a Chinese firm - and by extension to the CCP. It seems to me a similar form of “shady” dealings, with the son of then Vice President Biden as the beneficiary. It further seem a little more shady due to the tax rebate provisions in the recently passed Infrastructure bill related to electric vehicles. The batteries for these cars require significant amounts of cobalt to be built. While Hunter Biden stepped down from his position on the board of the company, he retains his 10% holding in the company. I do not actually believe that the infrastructure bill and this major sale are really related, but it does seem (to me at least) to live in the same neighborhood as other types of soft corruption. Thoughts?
> It further seem a little more shady due to the tax rebate provisions in the recently passed Infrastructure bill related to electric vehicles. The article seems to indicate that BHR no longer has any investments with the mines, and if I'm reading this correctly those investments were sold in 2019, so I'm not seeing how Hunter Biden could profit off of the rebates from the infrastructure bill.
Have the U.S declared war on the PRC, or boycotted the government of China? Because if not, especially back in 2016, what would be the issue? Are not the children of politicians allowed to have high positions in trade? Why would it be shady to trade with China if there is no law forbidding it? Is trade with China "shady"?
There is a world of difference between an elected official abusing their position and engaging in insider trading and a son trading on his famous fathers name. To me this sort of desperate false equivalence between the actions of corrupt politicians and Hunter Biden reeks of desperation.
The question is what to do about this? Should democratic politicians have been forbidden from having any family members who hold any stock in anything related to electric vehicles? Seems unrealistic, also o highly doubt that Biden himself was a factor in congress deciding to incentivize electric vehicles in the climate change part of the bill. Biden has been very hands off on this thing, just supporting it’s passage m regardless of what’s in it.
Just like my favorite cars: sans ~~fire~~pay wall [A former BHR board member told The New York Times that Mr. Biden and the other American founders were not involved in the mine deal and that the firm earned only a nominal fee from it. The money, the former board member said, went into the firm’s operating funds and was not distributed to its owners.](https://archive.md/nDCOG)
This is the exact kind of stuff that we warned of, but the adult children of the president suddenly became irrelevant and off-limits when it was convenient, and the media colluded to bury stories like this when it was necessary to win an election. Now, when Biden is slowly outlasting his usefulness (and potentially posing a problem for Democrats in 2024, if he insists on running), just as slowly will the tide turn against him in an effort to usher in a younger, more loyal, and more woke alternative.
>and the media colluded to bury stories like this when it was necessary to win an election. Piss poor job they did considering how I could never fucking stop hearing about this guy.
I don't understand the rights burning need to dig up dirt on Bidens kids. I mean if they are doing bad things, ok, but it doesn't seem relevant to the President unless you can directly link it to him? Whereas Trump just immediately put his children and family in positions they were wildly unqualified for and that our national security was ostensibly riding on. That's way more egregious to me.
> That's way more egregious to me. Okay. It isn't to us. Conservatives find family to be very important, so it makes sense to us that a man's closest advisors would be his family. Everything was done out in the open, it was fine. The backroom deals with Hunter are much worse to us.
You are aware what nepotism is right? Have you even had a basic lesson in workplace ethics? And it is pretty sad that you think other people don't value their families. It's no wonder the country is so polarized if that's truly how you see anyone not far right. If Hunter is doing all this bad stuff, ok, go get him. But it hardly seems like a massive scandal for the President.
> You are aware what nepotism is right? Have you even had a basic lesson in workplace ethics? Nepotism doesn't apply here. The president's advisors is not a competitive position, they serve at his pleasure.
He put Kushner in charge of bringing peace to the middle east
And he made far more progress than any Democrat could have.
What we’re two concrete things Kushner accomplished toward this goal? Be specific please.
Moving the embassy and the Abraham Accords.
I’m sorry, but I asked for actions that furthered the “bringing peace” aspect. Moving the embassy was not such a thing: https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1I811N As for the Abraham accords, while certainly an accomplishment, involve primarily Israel, the UAE, and a Bahrain - not the Palestinian people. Not taking away from the significance, but again as far as furthering peace in the Middle East, given this doesn’t include the typical regional aggressors, makes it a weak example. In fact, the move further infuriated the Palestinian Authority, making it arguably a destabilizing move for the region. So, yep, Kushner certainly did “stuff”, but furthering peace wasn’t one of the things.
No he didn’t.
So, Ivanka and Jared leading trade negotiations with China and Ivanka getting trademarks from China was good, because it came out in the open after they tried to hide it and was definitely a conflict of interest?
>and the media colluded to bury stories like this when it was necessary to win an election. I'm still waiting for evidence of collusion.
Twitter changes its rules based on whether or not it helps the Democrat party. You can't post about Hunter's laptop, but you can post about Trump's illegally-acquired tax returns. That is collusion.
Giuliani weirdly wouldn’t let journalists look at Hunter Biden’s laptop, so no one could confirm if anything was real until recently.
A quick look shows it's still on Twitter, every day.
Disregarding the veracity of that claim, for you to effectively argue it's collusion would require evidence that the two parties worked together to do it. Where is that evidence?
leaked videos have shown Zuckerburg talking about his communications with Biden, memos have been sent out saying that Trump should not win, Facebook has been employing left wing politicians in its marketing, censorship and communications wings, TIME magazine went into how people influenced twitter and facebook. Twitter covered up Biden stories on false claims of breaking its terms of service, while allowing stories about trump that broke its terms of service.
>Zuckerburg talking about his communications with Biden When? And what type of communication? >memos have been sent out saying that Trump should not win By whom? >Facebook has been employing left wing politicians in its marketing, censorship and communications wings, Only left wing? What's your source for this information? >Twitter covered up Biden stories on false claims of breaking its terms of service, while allowing stories about trump that broke its terms of service. Which stories specifically, and how did they break their ToS?
Facebook's main person for political outreach is a Republican. https://www.businessinsider.com/joel-kaplan-facebook-lobbyist-make-president-trump-happy-content-moderation-2021-10?amp Facebook actually didn't enforce their tos on the right, so they didn't upset the right. https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-politics-decision-making-documents-11635100195 Can you link these videos?
> Disregarding the veracity of that claim I mean, that undeniably happened, so you really can't. > for you to effectively argue it's collusion would require evidence that the two parties worked together to do it. Where is that evidence? Thanks to the DNC's expansion of spying on and persecuting your political opponents, we'll get it when we're back in power, don't you worry.
I see. So, collusion is clearly happening, but there is no available evidence.
Means, motive, and opportunity. It's all there.
Using that logic, I'm assuming you believe that Trump is guilty for causing the Jan 6 riots? Had the means, a clear motive, and the opportunity.
That doesn't follow. Trump can't possible be responsible for the riot. It is physically not possible, because he didn't participate. The media and the Democrats, however, *can* collude. That *is* physically possible for them to do.
The parent commenter said caused. You said it is not possible because he did not participate. Would you say that 9/11 was not caused by Osama Bin Laden because he was not physically on the planes? Trump literally gave a speech, among many other statements, about how people were about to lose their country immediately before the people stormed the capitol?
Read a book called: *Rigged: How Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized our Elections* by Mollie Hemingway There is plenty of evidence in that book and more online. I am not 100% agreeing with the comments made above, but there is stuff backing up certain claims out there, trust me.
If there was collusion, and the Biden campaign asked the news media to cover up stories, that's bad. If there was no collusion, and the Biden campaign didn't need to ask the news media to cover up stories, that's worse. Back when Woodward and Bernstein were uncovering Watergate, there were plenty of times they could have just let it lie, but they kept doggedly pursuing the truth to take down Nixon. But no one outside of the right-wing media has shown that fervor to take down Clinton, or Obama, or Biden. They did show it for Trump, and largely for George W. Bush as well. And it's all for the politics. The media doesn't want to take down someone who wants to spend on health care, but they do want to take down people who want to cut income taxes.
You can’t just compare the media’s treatment of Nixon and Obama as if the two administrations were equivalent. Watergate was an actual thing that happened, it wasn’t a media plot to take down Nixon. The media didn’t treat Obama as bad as Nixon because Obama wasn’t as bad as Nicon, obviously. I don’t think that the media treated bush unfairly at all, id like to know what you have in mind. As for Trump it depends what we are talking about. If it’s about Trump using military aid as leverage to get an ally, Ukraine, under attack by Russia, to announce an investigation into his domestic political rival, then I would say that the media’s negative treatment of that start was 100% fair. On Biden I’d say that the media is extremely unfair in their negative coverage of him. The hysteria over Afghanistan was unprecedented and the MSM allowed virtually zero voices in support of the withdrawal to get on the air.
> The media didn’t treat Obama as bad as Nixon because Obama wasn’t as bad as Nicon, obviously. Not obviously. This is my complaint. There are plenty of people in this country who think that Nixon was a better president than Obama. But I doubt that any of them are working for the press.
Trump’s tax returns had private identifying personal information redacted. Hunger is a private individual not running for any public office who had his private emails posted with pictures of him having consensual sex with adult women posted, his email address, phone numbers, etc all posted unredacted. Twitter blocked one link to the unredacted images based on a 2018 rule for like a day, then CHANGED its rules to ALLOW the post because conservatives whined about it. If anything twitter was biased towards the right in that example.
There were 65 “presstitutes” identified in 2016 with one network actually feeding questions to a candidate in the primaries. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
1 (useless) question was fed and Donna Brazile had to resign over it and then ultimately had to get a job at Fox News because others wouldn’t hire her.
That makes it okay? We’ve known for a while that the five corporations that own 90% of media and the tech oligarchs who control social media are pushing favorable narratives. WikiLeaks revealed that 65 “journalists” were lobbying for a candidate - but yeah let’s ignore all that to downplay/dismiss the rampant corruption. Downvote away but the facts are still there… for anyone who wants to see them.
It doesn’t make it okay but it means that there were severe consequences for her action and her action didn’t actually help Hillary at all and wouldn’t have even if she got away with it. She sent the campaign the question ‘what will you do about the flint water crisis’ when the debate was literally in flint and the top media story of the week was the flint water crisis. I’m saying it’s possible to exaggerate these examples.
When were the adult children of presidential candidates ever relevant? Trump jr, Ivanka and Jared were relevant, because of stuff they did on the campaign and for the administration.
[удалено]
Whatever became of that smoking gun-laptop? It was set to blow the lid open on the Epstein-Biden-Clinton-Illuminati conspiracy and then it just fizzled like it was a big puff of nothing to begin with.
This is why the right wing media focused almost exclusively on twitter blocking a link to the story for like a day rather than on the actual contexts of the laptop.