379
submitted 6 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 112 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Just another example of Joe Biden weaponizing the Department of Justice! ...oh wait.

In all seriousness, most people could see this result coming from a mile away. The prosecution had a solid case against him. I expect the justice system to hold everyone accountable for their actions, regardless of who they are. Republicans expecting us to do backflips to defend Hunter Biden as some sort of "gotcha" are completely out of their gourd. He earned this conviction through his own deeds, just like how Trump earned his.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

They don't understand that we don't worship Biden like they do Trump. Hell, most of us don't even like him that much.

[-] thisbenzingring 15 points 6 months ago

My sister was the victim of public enemy #1 in my state. She survived but there's cyber stalking laws now because of her. Biden as a Senator sponsored her to speak to Congress. She's the recipient of the Jefferson Award.

My sister doesn't like his politics, she probably didn't vote for him. But there's no question that Joe Biden is a good person. He is

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I think he's a good person, but I agree with your sister and don't like his politics.

I will most definitely be voting for him and anyone else who isn't a Republican for the rest of my life, though.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I will most definitely be voting for him and anyone else who isn’t a Republican for the rest of my life, though.

I wish I had more years on this earth just so I could vote not Republican for longer than I'm going to be able to!

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Ideally, there either won't be any more Republican candidates to not vote for or they'll somehow salvage themselves as a legitimate political party, but I doubt either of these things will happen in my lifetime.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

I believe they can reform themselves, but like you I know I'll be dead of old age before they possibly could.

[-] DeanFogg@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

Theyd have to stop being giant pussies and slightly less dumbass so yeah your lifetime probably not

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

Theyd have to stop being giant pussies and slightly less dumbass so yeah your lifetime probably not

These things don't even appear on the top twenty list of things that would have to change for me to vote R.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah, believing in objective reality would be a great start.

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

It's kind of a shitty law in the first place, but he was assuredly guilty of it. It's still unusual that they went after him for it when it wasn't connected to any other crime (which is usually when federal prosecutors use this law) and really unusual that the judge threw out the plea bargain.

[-] thisbenzingring 11 points 6 months ago

It was clearly used as a political tool in this case.

[-] constantokra@lemmy.one 1 points 6 months ago

I don't really get this take. I've seen the same people wanting stricter gun control and also saying this is a dumb law. Most responsible gun owners who are pro gun rights would agree that we don't want drug addicts to have guns. Why isn't this something people can all agree on? Admittedly, this is hypocritical as hell because police don't bother to follow up on felons who own guns, and even infrequent marijuana use prohibits people from purchasing firearms. But, it's just good sense for someone who is addicted to crack to not own guns.

Even with the details of this case, my understanding is that it all started because he was on drugs, and didn't have his gun safely stored and his then girlfriend, also a drug user, took it and threw it in a trash can in a public place, which is an excellent reason not to let drug users have guns.

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

"Drugs" are a pretty broad category of thing, it's unlikely that you're ever going to get an honest answer out of anyone, and it's even more unlikely that anyone using illegal drugs who wants a gun is going to not buy a gun because of this. It's just more war on drugs bullshit.

I'll also add that if people were actually worried about the competency of people buying guns to own guns, then it would make far more sense to put the burden of proof on the person buying to prove their competency. But that's not what this law is really about.

[-] Bridger@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

Drug addicts need to defend themselves too! /s

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago

Republicans expecting us to do backflips to defend Hunter Biden as some sort of “gotcha” are completely out of their gourd. He earned this conviction through his own deeds, just like how Trump earned his.

Look at all the tears I'm crying because of my blind loyalty to the Biden family! Ah wait, actually I figure if he did those things then justice was served. Sorry magas.

[-] Thrashy@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

So far a fair number have actually come out against the verdict, including Lindsay Graham... which makes me think there are a number of Republican legislators who own guns and enjoy partaking in a little nose candy from time to time, as well.

this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
379 points (97.3% liked)

News

23625 readers
2849 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS