(07-13-2023, 04:44 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]Do any of you who have heard Robert Kennedy Jr. speak have an opinion on what he has to say?
Li
stening to him is difficult . . . he sounds like he is suffering from throat cancer. He hasn't the famed oratory skills or delivery, as did others from his famous family.
My opinion regarding his platform? I'm with Rothschild on this one . . . including his corporate politics observation.
Without a massive corporate echo chamber, he, like other candidates (on both sides of the isle), are dismissed as being viable. You proved this point when you cited all of the outlets reporting on Kushner's $2B Saudi investment and refusing to use the same critical lens, when it came to a Biden.
I really can't classify him, using today's political definitions . . . he's part Libertarian, 60's moderate Democrat, a bit Progressive and a tad Federalist Republican.
That being said, it is obvious to me (and I'm sure to the corporate political machine), he refuses to be the Left's Gunga Din.
(07-14-2023, 09:44 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-13-2023, 04:44 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]Do any of you who have heard Robert Kennedy Jr. speak have an opinion on what he has to say?
Listening to him is difficult . . . he sounds like he is suffering from throat cancer. He hasn't the famed oratory skills or delivery, as did others from his famous family.
My opinion regarding his platform? I'm with Rothschild on this one . . . including his corporate politics observation.
Without a massive corporate echo chamber, he, like other candidates (on both sides of the isle), are dismissed as being viable. You proved this point when you cited all of the outlets reporting on Kushner's $2B Saudi investment and refusing to use the same critical lens, when it came to a Biden.
I really can't classify him, using today's political definitions . . . he's part Libertarian, 60's moderate Democrat, a bit Progressive and a tad Federalist Republican.
That being said, it is obvious to me (and I'm sure to the corporate political machine), he refuses to be the Left's Gunga Din.
I went to all the places I cited in regards to Kushner's fuckery and put Joe Biden in the search bar. Here ya go. I hope it helps.
I was prepared to give Kennedy a listen until he began running around stating the coronavirus vaccine were developed to control people via microchips in the vaccine.
https://www.businessinsider.com/s?q=joe+biden
https://www.cnbc.com/search/?query=joe%2...oe%20biden
https://www.marketwatch.com/search?q=joe...All%20News
https://www.rollingstone.com/results/#?q=joe%20biden
https://www.washingtonpost.com/search/?q...=relevancy
https://www.reuters.com/site-search/?query=joe+biden
https://www.pbs.org/search/?q=joe+biden
Thanks for the links.
After reviewing them, it seems you have, again, supported my premise regarding a corporate political echo chamber.
NOT ONE link questioned or criticized Hunter Biden's abilities or acumen, concerning his various board positions or investment ability . . . unlike the coverage dedicated to Kushner's Saudi transaction. A President's son, it appears, gets a pass versus a former President's son in law.
It is not a conspiratorial premise (to state this fact), as it appears to be a deliberate ignoring of events . . . to protect a candidate against any news that could potentially damage his credibility, competency or candidacy. (Didn't we learn that killing or suppressing stories that could damage a candidate is bad . . . or possibly criminal in nature? Thanks, Stormy!)
As to Kennedy's position of micro chipping the populous, via Covid vaccine, I do not share (but do not discount the plausibility) of his position. Additionally, he also believes that Autism might be caused by unnamed childhood vaccines.
Don't forget his opinion about 5G . . . that it is another tool for global totalitarianism.
He also believes the CIA was responsible for his Uncle's assignation.
Wacky . . . maybe.
Just as wacky as Hunter's laptop being a deliberate hoax and Russian conspiracy, against candidate Joe Biden . . . and then sold to the world by the corporate media and "intelligence experts", as such, . . . solely to attack and discredit Trump.
Actually, Joe Biden stated the laptop was a hoax and a Russian conspiracy, too.
To my knowledge, he never corrected this statement to the American public. Go figure.
(07-14-2023, 12:20 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the links.
You're welcome. 
(07-14-2023, 01:08 PM)rothschild Wrote: [ -> ]Are those suppose to represent a diverse range of opinion?
rothschild, they represent the exact sources I posted in regards to Jared Kushner's fuckery which was a response to Tiki. If you don't agree with one damn thing I post, I would suggest putting me on ignore. I won't mind at all. 'K?
(07-14-2023, 01:12 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (07-14-2023, 01:08 PM)rothschild Wrote: [ -> ]Are those suppose to represent a diverse range of opinion?
rothschild, they represent the exact sources I posted in regards to Jared Kushner's fuckery which was a response to Tiki. If you don't agree with one damn thing I post, I would suggest putting me on ignore. I won't mind at all. 'K?
Is there something wrong with asking you if you think they represent a diverse range of opinion?
(07-14-2023, 05:04 PM)rothschild Wrote: [ -> ]Is there something wrong with asking you if you think they represent a diverse range of opinion?
Well of course there isn't and I'm pretty sure you know that's how I feel given I ask for yours, as well as the others, opinions all the time. I LIKE reading all the opinions in here whether I agree with them or not and besides, I think it's better for Mock's health to have a variety of opinions. I love how diverse we are and it's something I count on. So there. 
RC . . . Duchess was providing links to my statement that, unlike the links provided criticizing Jared Kushner for his lack of a solid investment background, there were no links provided to show that MSM addressed the same observations and critiques regarding Hunter Biden.
I was not asking for diverse opinions . . . I was simply posing the question if legacy corporate media used the same lens, when it came to Hunter Biden, as was used for Jared Kushner and reported it factually.
Did you open any of the links Duchess provided? If so, was the reporting similar to what was said about Kushner? That's all I wanted to know.
She graciously provided the links as resources. (Yes, I mean that sincerely.)
Spoiler alert . . . her search was done for JOE . . . not Hunter Biden. There was no reporting about Hunter's business activities within the links provided.
Therefore, that tells me you didn't investigate the links before posting your comment.
Perhaps you might be able to find some from legacy media . . . fairly, honestly and without imposing any of your personal bias.
(07-14-2023, 05:45 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Spoiler alert . . . her search was done for JOE . . . not Hunter Biden.
Shit! 
You're absolutely right.
(07-14-2023, 05:45 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]RC . . . Duchess was providing links to my statement that, unlike the links provided criticizing Jared Kushner for his lack of a solid investment background, there were no links provided to show that MSM addressed the same observations and critiques regarding Hunter Biden.
I was not asking for diverse opinions . . . I was simply posing the question if legacy corporate media used the same lens, when it came to Hunter Biden, as was used for Jared Kushner and reported it factually.
Did you open any of the links Duchess provided? If so, was the reporting similar to what was said about Kushner? That's all I wanted to know.
She graciously provided the links as resources. (Yes, I mean that sincerely.)
Spoiler alert . . . her search was done for JOE . . . not Hunter Biden. There was no reporting about Hunter's business activities within the links provided.
Therefore, that tells me you didn't investigate the links before posting your comment.
Perhaps you might be able to find some from legacy media . . . fairly, honestly and without imposing any of your personal bias.
I noticed that all the links she posted referenced Joe, so I think my point still stands. Journalistic homogeneity equates to journalism without objectivity. We could take any controversial issue and there would be no appreciable difference in the reporting by the sources she cited, and that's not to say that FOX or Newsmax is "good" journalism. I was genuinely interested to know how she would answer my question because I think it's important, irrespective of our political orientation.
Okay . . . let me see if I can be clear on my position.
I have no problem when the press observes and reports a huge investment, to a close relative of President, who (to my knowledge) doesn't possess an SEC license nor has a track record of managing a PRIVATE equity fund. (Caveat: I do hold an SEC license.)
My concern: Hunter Biden was afforded the same opportunity (albeit while his father was Vice President) with the same lack of an investment track record and no mention of possessing an SEC license . . . without any MSM reporting this . . . in both detail and quantity . . . as done with Kushner.
Additionally, the Kushner reporting also floated a blatant CONSPIRACY THEORY, implying (by their inference) it was a quid pro quo for the coverup of a journalist's murder, at the direction of a Saudi Prince . . . without any proof . . . only speculation. That was by design; not by accident. It crosses the line of factual reporting.
(Me . . . I'm more interested with Kushner's involvement with Qatar investors. If memory serves me correctly, that deal was around $1B.)
Now . . . let's look at how the corporate media reported Hunter's $3B Chinese deal and if any "conspiracies" (or shades of a quid pro quo) could be associated with his deal.
Crickets. Golly! I wonder why? The one-sidedness, of reporting, is glaring.
Hunter's appointment to the AMTRAK board is bizarre, as it occurred in 2006 . . . and he was appointed by G.W. Bush.
Must have been a Bush Skull and Bones obligation, since Hunter had zero experience with transportation.
Membership does has its privileges. Especially with secret societies.
(07-14-2023, 10:24 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Okay . . . let me see if I can be clear on my position.
I have no problem when the press observes and reports a huge investment, to a close relative of President, who (to my knowledge) doesn't possess an SEC license nor has a track record of managing a PRIVATE equity fund. (Caveat: I do hold an SEC license.)
My concern: Hunter Biden was afforded the same opportunity (albeit while his father was Vice President) with the same lack of an investment track record and no mention of possessing an SEC license . . . without any MSM reporting this . . . in both detail and quantity . . . as done with Kushner.
Additionally, the Kushner reporting also floated a blatant CONSPIRACY THEORY, implying (by their inference) it was a quid pro quo for the coverup of a journalist's murder, at the direction of a Saudi Prince . . . without any proof . . . only speculation. That was by design; not by accident. It crosses the line of factual reporting.
(Me . . . I'm more interested with Kushner's involvement with Qatar investors. If memory serves me correctly, that deal was around $1B.)
Now . . . let's look at how the corporate media reported Hunter's $3B Chinese deal and if any "conspiracies" (or shades of a quid pro quo) could be associated with his deal.
Crickets. Golly! I wonder why? The one-sidedness, of reporting, is glaring.
Hunter's appointment to the AMTRAK board is bizarre, as it occurred in 2006 . . . and he was appointed by G.W. Bush.
Must have been a Bush Skull and Bones obligation, since Hunter had zero experience with transportation.
Membership does has its privileges. Especially with secret societies.
Bill Clinton gave a shout-out to Carroll Quigley during his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination. Quigley taught at Georgetown University and was very familiar with secret societies, writing about Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner. Monsters in my book, Quigley admired them. Unsurprisingly, Bill was a Rhodes Scholar.
Well-articulated post, Tiki.
Hunter Biden didn't get 2 billion dollars from the Saudis. He also didn't get security clearances against the better judgement of those who give such things, Hunter Biden didn't hold a position of senior advisor in the White House, or any position at all. Y'all conveniently overlooked those things. Once he gets all those things I might have some fucks to give but until then I don't think I can care any less than I do.
No. I didn't overlook those things. They weren't relevant.
I was commenting on family members cashing in on the influence gleaned from political relatives and how the press covered them differently.
Both Jared and Hunter experienced financial gain, not from their talents, but through a direct connection with their influential and powerful political family members.
And the MSM focused solely on Kushner, while ignoring the same type of economic gain, that Hunter experienced.
To deny that fact is unsupportable and ridiculous . . . regardless of your political beliefs or affiliation.
(07-15-2023, 05:27 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Both Jared and Hunter experienced financial gain
I don't disagree with that.
(07-15-2023, 05:29 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (07-15-2023, 05:27 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Both Jared and Hunter experienced financial gain
I don't disagree with that.
Nice selective editing!
Now, fill in the rest on how they experienced their financial gains: "One is a sleazy crook who used his personal political connection . . . and the other is an accomplished and world renowned artist."
I don't see an equal comparison between Kushner & Hunter Biden.
They were investigating Hunter for deducting the cost of the flights of prostitutes he was hiring.
Like I said, get back to me when he runs for office or is given a position in the White House that requires a security clearance that he couldn't pass but was given anyway.