Res Ipsa wrote:honorentheos wrote:The bar for clearing up what actually happened is so low given the nature of the facts, it's silly not to shut it down. Instead, every time it's brought up it gets the, "There is no evidence of actual wrong doing" given as the response. Which carries an implication the evidence is unavailable. It's not a strategy to avoid addressing it. It's accepting the counter narrative and letting it become the only narrative.
You still believe that if we Investigate the Bidens that things will be cleared up and Trump and the other Republicans would stop lying through their teeth about the Bidens and Fox News will stop repeating the lies?
No. Maybe earlier at the start during closed door hearings and later expanding them to the public there could have been questions to state department members in the know to make those part of the public record. But I think that time has passed and it needs a different method for getting the message into mainstream consciousness.
I believe that Democrats need to make the actual facts a resounding part of their messaging. Biden carried the message of not only the Obama administration but also the international community in the west that the PG needed to go because he was resisting investigating Burisma rather than leading an investigation into it.
Republicans never fail to slip it into their talking points it seems. Democrats should be just as actively making simple, accurate statements about what occurred both at opportune times.
Slip in the same kind of quips Republicans like to use, like when referencing Biden include something like, "Joe Biden, whose removal of a corrupt PG was fighting actually corruption in the Ukraine,...". Things like that.
The facts are overwhelming that when Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government, he was not motivated by a desire to help his son. He was advancing the interests of the US and Europe to get a corrupt prosecutor fired. There is nothing to clear up. Anyone who thinks Joe was acting out of a corrupt intent is not persuadable.’
Or ignorant. I agree about the state of the facts. I disagree that it's reasonable to view a person who sees the initial facts and thinks something wrong is at fault for having that belief when Democrats have such an easy, obvious case they can make to show that initial take is flawed.
Politicians’ families are going to trade on the politician’s name regardless. Unless we are willing to put severe restrictions on their employment, the best we can do is police corruption on a case by case basis.
I think they'd do well to avoid taking on the Hunter Biden side of the problem. Focus on Joe and his message being the opposite of helpful to Hunter Biden's client if one must insert Hunter in the discussion. Again, Republicans are pretty good at doing that sort of thing. Reporter: You say Joe Biden was fighting corruption in the Ukraine yet his son was collecting $50k a month from Burisma, known as one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine. How do you explain that? Democrat fighting like a Republican: Joe Biden carrying the message the corrupt PG Shokin needed to go because he was protecting people like the president of Burisma despite his son's ties shows how committed he was to fighting corruption and helping the Ukraine fight both Russian invaders and those unwilling to restore true democracy there. Trump's quid pro quo is just another example of people with Russian ties and wealth undermining the ability of President Zelensky to realize his promises to the people of Ukraine that corruption and stealing from the people is not going to fly anymore..."
But I guess we can just say people are morons who don't know what we know so that sounds like it will work out peachy.