So as a tax payer, a citizen, I am not allowed to question what one does for a living when that one signs on to be a member of a board of directors in a foreign corporation in a nation about to receive my tax dollars handed to them in the form of "aid." And that corporation is one that is very likely to be a serious beneficiary of our tax dollar gift? Really? I got news for you, our nation is still free, and if I want to question the "boy" and his potential for rewards from our tax dollars I can all that I want. I do not have to have founded a law firm, been invited into anything or done anything to your satisfaction to enjoy my FREEDOM to question such a maneuver for personal gain with our tax dollars.
I have put in different colors all the parts of this post so that you understand just how flakey your argument is:
Blue: You being a taxpayer has nothing to do with what you've previously stated. Neither do either of the previous sentences (questions) you asked about him.
Red: Ukraine received foreign aid LONG before this crisis. If you knew a bit of history, you'd have realized that former members of the soviet union have been on the tax dollar's dime since Reagan kicked the Berlin Wall down with his
Green: This substantiated by
what? It's a private company that managed to survive since 2002. I'm sure they don't really need US foreign aid and if they took advantage of it,
so what? Are you suggesting it'd be better for a company with ties to Putin to take advantage of that same foreign money? I'm not really sure what your problem is with US citizens looking after US foreign interests, but if it's to support some pro-Russian nonsense, you better state it.
Black: Irrelevant, what has been asked is that you substantiate how this guy is somehow the product of a handout anymore than you are. As you have failed to even show that this
independently successful man is a "boy" in any sense of the word, your diatribe about 'Murica is unwarranted.
Cyan: Please show us how his company will take advantage of US foreign aid. I will wait.
Your arguments are extremely weak and reliant on an approach just slightly more verbose than "What if". The fact that you refuse to even show any plans or attempts by this company to take advantage of US foreign aid shows that this is nothing more than a guilty by association strategy. I mean, even if you showed that Hunter Biden will eventually lobby the US for contracts, it would be well within his constitutional rights. However, you're not even sure what he's going to do, you have no idea who he is as a person and you refuse to address the rebuttals made to your rant. Simply saying "maybe", won't get you anywhere with me. I like facts, not suppositions because suppositions are as dishonest as it gets when attacking someone. However, now I have some questions for you and I have taken the liberty of showing what you will answer:
1. When did Hunter Biden get a share of "a billion dollars"? (He didn't.)
2. Would this company get a share of that billion dollars in other scenarios simply because of the nature of the work it does? (If you consider that energy companies would get help from American governments REGARDLESS of party in place, yes.)
3. How is Hunter Biden's work for this company a negative for the US? (It isn't as current US policies advocate for less dependence on Russia and the creation of jobs for Americans working the energy sector.)
So what do we have at the end? Well, we have:
You, complaining that this "boy" is where he is thanks to his connections.
However, as a fact: This "boy" just happens to be a pretty successful man who was successful
before he joined this company.
You, claiming that the company will get its hands on US foreign aid.
However, as a fact: You've shown no evidence of such.
You, writing about your freedoms:
However, as a fact: They (your freedoms) have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
I honest to god hope you don't plan to debate me again, it'd be a shame to rip your unsubstantiated suppositions apart.