Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[garbon]

*weary sigh*

No....

I'm not understanding why the Right seems to be flipping out over the fact that Hunter Biden once earned $50,000 dollars in a single month.  That's not a huge figure, and Rudy Giuliani charges more than that for a single speech.

Sounds like a lot to those who don't make that much in a year?

[crazy canuck]

BC is 100% Hydro.

edit, we also have private solar and wind feeding into the grid.  We were going to supply Alberta with our new hydro project, but with the the new government there, not sure that will happen.  Quebec can also supply those on the East coast.

Your figure is not correct CC.

BC produces 90% of its electricity from hydro, 6% biomass/geothermal, 2% natural gas, 1% wind, and <1% petroleum.

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/bc-eng.html

The natural gas and biomass is related to industrial use.  Some industries that use natural gas for heating have also created co-generation plants to produce both heat and electricity. Ie the same fuel is used for both purposes.  Same with biomass.  The Forestry sector generates a lot of biomass at the mill, the parts that are otherwise unusable are used to generate electricity.

Everyone else is powered by hydro and the private solar and wind.

So at best you are quibbling.

[Barrister]

The natural gas and biomass is related to industrial use.  Some industries that use natural gas for heating have also created co-generation plants to produce both heat and electricity. Ie the same fuel is used for both purposes.  Same with biomass.  The Forestry sector generates a lot of biomass at the mill, the parts that are otherwise unusable are used to generate electricity.

Everyone else is powered by hydro and the private solar and wind.

So at best you are quibbling.

How is it quibbling to point out that 90% is not 100%.

Thanks for explaining where the biomass figure comes from.  Makes sense.

The CER (the former NEB) figures show that solar is negligible in BC.

[Eddie Teach]

*weary sigh*

No....

I'm not understanding why the Right seems to be flipping out over the fact that Hunter Biden once earned $50,000 dollars in a single month.  That's not a huge figure, and Rudy Giuliani charges more than that for a single speech.

Who are the fools paying Rudy that much?   

[grumbler]

*weary sigh*

No....

I'm not understanding why the Right seems to be flipping out over the fact that Hunter Biden once earned $50,000 dollars in a single month.  That's not a huge figure, and Rudy Giuliani charges more than that for a single speech.

Who are the fools paying Rudy that much?   

People who want to buy access to the president, I presume.  Plus, maybe some companies still paying him back for the back-door deals he arranged while a "consultant." 

[Admiral Yi]

Trump has the advantage of a simpler narrative.  Somebody on the Democratic side has to start explaining to the American public how an American demand to investigate corruption at Hunter's company was consistent with Hunter sitting on that company's board.  If Hunter has to be thrown under the bus, then so be it.

[Barrister]

Trump has the advantage of a simpler narrative.  Somebody on the Democratic side has to start explaining to the American public how an American demand to investigate corruption at Hunter's company was consistent with Hunter sitting on that company's board.  If Hunter has to be thrown under the bus, then so be it.

I think the Dems have the simpler narrative: Trump was leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid in order for the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on his political rivals.

The problems with the Trump narrative: if Trump was so concerned about corruption, why did he only mention two very specific, and now finished, instances?  Why would both potentially benefit him politically?

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump has the advantage of a simpler narrative.  Somebody on the Democratic side has to start explaining to the American public how an American demand to investigate corruption at Hunter's company was consistent with Hunter sitting on that company's board.  If Hunter has to be thrown under the bus, then so be it.

Hunter Biden is not an officer or employee of the US government and had no government position since 2001. There is nothing illegal or improper about a private citizen sitting on the board of a foreign company and zero evidence that he did anything improper while a member of the board. It's really no different from say Jeb Bush getting paid over $1 million per year to consult at Lehman Brothers at the same time his brother was President during the 07-08 financial crisis and making decisions about Treasury support, bail outs, etc.. One could name dozens of similar examples.

The question is why Joe Biden was allowed to carry out Obama administration policy in Ukraine despite the apparent conflict of interest posed by his son's position at Burisma.  We don't yet know what analysis the Obama people did in that respect.  But we can guess.  At the time, the Obama administration policy, carried out in conjunction with its (then ) European allies, was to push for the resignation of Prosecutor General Shokin, who had gained notoriety for blocking judicial reform and for refusing to prosecute corruption cases arising out the prior Russian puppet regime. Shokin was hit by massive street protests in the Ukraine and ultimately was removed by a overwhelming vote in the Ukrainian parliament.  Biden was involved in the diplomatic effort.  However, there wouldn't have been any perceived conflict re Burisma because Shokin wasn't doing anything to investigate or prosecute Burisma. 

[crazy canuck]

Trump has the advantage of a simpler narrative.  Somebody on the Democratic side has to start explaining to the American public how an American demand to investigate corruption at Hunter's company was consistent with Hunter sitting on that company's board.  If Hunter has to be thrown under the bus, then so be it.

And simple followers

[Admiral Yi]

Hunter Biden is not an officer or employee of the US government and had no government position since 2001. There is nothing illegal or improper about a private citizen sitting on the board of a foreign company and zero evidence that he did anything improper while a member of the board. It's really no different from say Jeb Bush getting paid over $1 million per year to consult at Lehman Brothers at the same time his brother was President during the 07-08 financial crisis and making decisions about Treasury support, bail outs, etc.. One could name dozens of similar examples.

The Jeb Bush analogy is apples and oranges.  First because a consultant is not a member of a board.  Second because Lehman has not been accused of criminal activity.

Hunter had a fiduciary duty to prevent corruption at Burisma.  Just as there is no evidence he did anything improper, there is also no evidence that he was stymied in his virtuous efforts to combat corruption by a conspiracy to deny him the relevant information.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also the inquiry into Burisma was basically a garden variety tax probe.  They were accused on underpaying tax in the years prior to Hunter Biden joining the board.  The matter was settled when Burisma made some back tax payments.  There was no reason for Hunter Biden to believe himself personally at risk from the probe.  On the contrary, he and several other "names" were hired to make the company look better.

[grumbler]

Trump has the advantage of a simpler narrative.  Somebody on the Democratic side has to start explaining to the American public how an American demand to investigate corruption at Hunter's company was consistent with Hunter sitting on that company's board. 

The American demand came before Hunter Biden worked for them.  He, and the other foreign board members, were supposed to be part of the solution to the corruption problem by getting some outside eyes on the decisions being made.  Someone on the Republican side has to start explaining why American demand to investigate corruption was being carried out by the President's personal lawyer.

[Admiral Yi]

Also the inquiry into Burisma was basically a garden variety tax probe.  They were accused on underpaying tax in the years prior to Hunter Biden joining the board.  The matter was settled when Burisma made some back tax payments.  There was no reason for Hunter Biden to believe himself personally at risk from the probe.  On the contrary, he and several other "names" were hired to make the company look better.

Help me get the chronology straight.  Please put the following into order.

Burisma underpays taxes
Burisma settles and pays back taxes
Joe withholds aid to get AG fired
Hunter joins board

[Syt]

[Habbaku]

Ted Cruz's dad helped killed JFK, but we're investigating Trump? Preposterous!