GroveHillWanderer

*Deleted post edited out* There is absolutely nothing in that article that provides, "the word of Hunter Biden's business associate." His words are not quoted. All it contains are interpretations by other people of what Archer said, such as by James Comer and Dan Goldman. And whereas Comer gives his interpretation (said interpretation not being evidence, please note) that Archer's remarks showed the value of the Biden "brand," Dan Goldman characterised them completely differently. According to Goldman, Archer's testimony showed that, "... approximately 20 times over the course of a 10-year relationship. Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings." So in the end, both Republicans and Democrats seem to be claiming that the same witness testimony supports their own views on Joe Biden's putative involvement in Hunter's business dealings, even though their views are diametrically opposed.

I certainly did.

That is in the article and it's all purely Comer's personal opinion and wild conjecture. None of what Comer says there provides any actual evidence that what Joe Biden said on any of the phone calls was anything other than casual conversation. It's also completely at odds with how other members of the committee characterized Archer's evidence.

It's hardly meaningless. Various people have been arguing that meeting with your son's business partners is proof that you discussed your son's business dealings with him. My example and my personal experience shows that meeting your son's business partners is absolutely no proof whatsoever that you have discussed business dealings with your son.

Did you actually read the article? There's nothing in it that shows Joe and Hunter Biden ever did anything other than exchange casual remarks when there were other business partners of Hunter in the room and they were on speakerphone, or that they ever discussed Hunter's business dealings.

No, it absolutely does not prove that at all. Let me give you a concrete example from my own life. I have a grandson who runs a business with partners (though for the purposes of the argument he could just as easily be my son). I have met most (if not all) the partners that he runs his business with. Yet I can assure you that I have never discussed his business dealings with him.

Again, how does meeting some of a person's business partners prove the contents of any conversation that you have had with that person? (Hint - it doesn't).

The allegation that Joe and Hunter Biden sometimes exchanged remarks over the phone with Hunter Bidens business associates in the room means "the net is tightening" in what way, exactly? Can you imagine the conversation in a court of law? "Yes m'lud, I can prove that the accused committed the crimes he is accused of. The fact that he sometimes spoke to his son on the phone is incontrovertible evidence of his guilt."

Neither meeting somebody, nor writing college admission letters, provides any evidence of the contents of any conversation between Joe and Hunter Biden.

Where is your evidence that it's a lie? Do you have a transcript or recording of any of their conversations, to prove what was said? If not, then it's a baseless claim.

No, he is being prosecuted for falsifying business records related to the payments made to Stormy Daniels. He claimed on his tax returns that these were just originally legal expenses, when they were not. Not to run them as his own personal fiefdom, without any input from anyone but himself, no. For instance, the President is not entitled to decide all by himself, which media companies are allowed to have broadcasting licences. Under Trump's plans, he would be able to do exactly that. As stated by his advisers, if Trump gets back into power, they plan to purge the federal government of even non-politically appointed career employees who aren't loyal to Trump, and replace them with only the most hard-core loyalists. They would also appoint general counsels who will aggressively implement Trump’s orders and skeptically interrogate any career government attorney who tells them their plans are unlawful or cannot be done. In other words, he’s looking for people who would be prepared to break the law for Trump. You should read up on the unitary executive theory. It basically aims to turn the entire mechanism of government into the president's personal plaything.

I must have missed the part where Biden revealed his plans to fully embrace the unitary executive theory and expand the powers of the presidency into control over all aspects of the federal government and bureaucracy.

I can't quite believe any American with the capability of rational analysis, would choose to vote for Trump. He has made it perfectly clear what he plans for the US, should be be re-elected. He intends to turn it into an autocracy, under his control. Donald Trump Isn’t Even Trying to Hide His Authoritarian Plans for a Second Term

While most Ukrainians can speak Russian, I'm pretty sure that nowadays they tend to eschew it, for obvious reasons.

I haven't seen anything saying 51% of Thai milk comes from New Zealand and Australia. Do you have any source for that? There are articles saying that approximately that percentage of imports of all dairy products into Thailand is from those countries but that's not the same as 51% of all milk sold here. In addition, much of what is imported, in the form of concentrated milk or milk powder is then used to produce dairy products that are exported from Thailand. See article below. A quick stop at Thailand’s dairy sector

Cattle feed being too expensive wouldn't explain why fresh milk completely disappeared from the shelves for several days and then reappeared at the same price or (at least for one brand) slightly lower than before.

There have been a couple of relatively recent posts from people held in IDC. By all accounts the conditions are every bit as bad as the regular prisons here, if not worse in some ways (sometimes more overcrowded apparently, for instance).

Actually, when milk finally resurfaced in Lotus in Hua Hin Market Village, at least one brand was actually reduced from what it used to be (and all the others were exactly the same).

So if an FD-1023 form is not an FBI document that contains raw, unverified information from a confidential human source (CHS), then what is it?

The two people referred to were not descended from immigrants though, they were actual immigrants. They were both born outside the US, neither was a US citizen at birth. Both immigrated to the States and acquired US citizenship later in life.

It doesn't matter what the putative crime is, nobody should "receive the death penalty immediately" i.e. without due process, which is what Trump is proposing here

Yes, you can foam it - I've often done so. I've also driven past one of their farms and seen the dairy cows in the fields. This picture is from their website but it matches exactly what I saw when I drove past it.

I have a container of Dutch Mill Selected full fat milk in my fridge right now. The label says it's 100% pasteurized cow's milk. Their website also says their Selected brand milk is 100% pure cow's milk and it is pasteurized. You don't need to pasteurize powdered milk, so that, along with the fact that their site says they operate 764 dairy farms and 18 raw milk centers in Thailand, would seem to suggest that their product is fresh, locally-produced milk. Dutchmill Group

I would imagine it's this one. Aussie teen’s suspicious death in Thailand fuels family’s heartfelt repatriation quest

No, and I didn't say it was but the question asked does not go to the heart of the issue which apparently (at least if that previous EC ruling is anything to go by) is not how many shares are owned but whether the amount of shares was enough to affect company policy.