262
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
262 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19145 readers
4637 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It doesn't look like it. The NYT says it is a closed deposition. It looks like he made the decision to give the closed testimony the Republicans wanted. Although maybe he thinks that after their main informant was exposed as a Russian stooge, he can better control the narrative.
I bet he prepared this statement, and then released it himself right as he was giving his testimony, to make sure Republicans couldn't hide it.
Open or closed doesn't matter.
trump supporters will claim he's guilty and Biden shouldn't be president.
Biden supporters will say Hunter is 100% innocent of any crimes ever, even when he's self admittedly broken lots of laws.
The majority of the country won't give a shit except wanting all wealthy connected criminals to be held accountable regardless of their "team". But no one is going to listen to us.
No one is saying that. Anywhere.
For real. I'm voting for Biden 100%. Charge Hunter with tax evasion or whatever nonsense he's guilty of, I don't care.
GOP mouth-breathers just love to come up with boogie-men arguments that no one on earth are making.
You could string Hunter Biden up in the gallows by his toenails and I wouldn't give a shit other than just continuously hating the state's monopoly on violence. His existence is irrelevant to me.
You don't remember the sawdust thing from a week ago?
A picture of sawdust that was texted to Biden from an addiction specialist he was seeing was erroneously included as evidence, and everyone was acting like that proved he was innocent. And didn't lie of the gun forms
Despite the fact that Hunter literally wrote a book about all the drugs he was doing at the same time he bought the gun.
trump supporters literally do the same thing, show them 1,000 pieces of evidence and they'll claim one thing you accidentally included invalidates everything and proves Trump is innocent.
Maybe this gas company really didn't get any preferential treatment by hiring Hunter, but it's hard to believe someone thinks he got his position off his own abilities.
If there's no crime, cool. But that's why we have trials in the first time.
Wealthy people do shady shit all the time. I'm not going to excuse Hunter because his dad is president, that's what republicans do.
Hunter Biden isn't a politician. I don't give a shit about his books and coke parties.
Imma break it down for you:
No one is a Biden stan, and no one cares about Hunter.
Lots of Americans are tired of the wealthy getting away with shit...
If that's not you, you're in the privileged minority. Congrats.
And I have zero idea how you can claim with a straight face Biden has no "stans" as you call them
Good luck trying to convince anyone there's lots of Americans who A) didn't even have a single tattered shred of concern regarding Trump family members' unchecked corruption while being actual White House advisers and B) are actually very concerned about the wealthy getting away with shit.
I mean you're gonna need Trump levels of salesmanship to get anyone to buy that, and it just don't seem like you've got it. Y'all never do. Thank goodness.. one Trump is more than enough.
And "privileged minority"? Like, Jesus fucking Christ my guy.
These people live in an alternate reality
I'm basically serially online and I have literally never seen anyone defending Hunter Biden. All I've seen is disbelief that Joe Biden would in anyway be involved in Hunters missteps and potential crimes.
Joe has been a politician for like half a century. He knows better than to in anyway associate with shit that can and will bite him in the ass politically. That said literally no one is squeaky clean, everyone at least parks unsafely or drives to fast or similar misdemeanors at least a few times at the bare minimum. I'm sure Joe has done quite a few questionable things but something blatantly criminal? Unlikely but if there is some actual evidence I would join in with the notion that he pays for his crimes like everybody else should.
...
Yeah, that's why he went around Congress so Israels bombs for their genocide wouldn't be delayed...
Because Biden is to smart to do stupid shit that jeopardizing he's chances...
Classic gish gallop here. Stick to the topic at hand instead of throwing a new “talking point” into every reply.
What account did I block that you switched to your porn account to insult me?
Lmao are you saying you block accounts that don't agree with you? Have fun in your safe space snowflake..
I block people that sound like trumpets...
Like calling people "snowflake"
It's a surprisingly long list, especially since people don't let it go and switch to their alts to keep piling on the insults.
But obviously your 8 month old account with 17 comments isn't at all relevant to that fact...
Ok Snowflake! So sensitive. You know spring is coming, right?
This says a lot about your online demeanor!
Sounds like quite the persecution complex to think people are using multiple accounts to harass him when he stops responding. I doubt anyone cares that much.
No that is clearly his politics. He has always been a staunch supporter of Israel. I don't particularly like that but it's not out of character for him.
I meant in the private sense. He wouldn't pull a favor for a relative when that favor would be questionable not only ethically but legally, it's just not worth it if you're angling for the higher echelons of political power.
How do you rationalize Bidens drug stance politically?
He's so conservative he won't even reschedule cannabis, and is still (last I heard) supportive of the "child predator" crime bill that instituted huge minimum sentences on drug use.
Yet his own son is different. He didn't think the best thing for Hunter was a stuff jail sentence, or he'd have turned him in himself instead of getting him treatment.
Right there, plan as day. Different set of standards.
Hell, Hunter popped for coke in the military and somehow still got an immediate admin discharge. I know a lot of people who got kicked out for drugs, but no one that was able to immediately get an admin.
You think his dad being Joe Biden didn't play into that at all? Even if Joe never picked up the phone, that played a part.
There's rules for the rich, and rules for us.
Biden is better than trump, but neither of them want their own people to be subject to the same rules we are.
So they're not equally the problem, but it's like arguing the best we can ask for is a benevolent oligarchy
Sure, and I have no interest in defending any positions of his that I oppose. But as you say this autumn it isn't about what I want in a politician (and you'd be hard pressed to ever find someone you agree with on every policy) it's about Trump or Biden. Democrats or Republicans in Congress. It's a shitty choice, but solving that is about voting for replacements in primaries and if none exist then actually putting your name in or pushing someone you think is suited into that track. It's about actually getting involved in democracy and not just leave it to the rich and powerful. Come election day the choice is A or B. If you want C then sorry bud but you missed the window to get C on the ballot or C isn't nearly as popular as you think.
So DNC canceling a primary really worked on some people?
What they've been telling progressives for over a decade is the only time they can speak got yanked away, and you just shrug and carry on?
I honestly didn't think the Dem party so was really going to follow republicans down this road, but apparently lots of voters are fine with it
I'd argue a presidential primary is also well to late. And for a primary to matter you need candidates that actually want to challenge the presumptive choice in the incumbent president. If no alternatives exist there's no point in vasting money on a primary.
We're just a few cycles removed from the DNC openly blackballed companies for working with House challengers...
And people really act like they don't understand why people weren't lining up to flush their careers down the toilet.
Hell, even in 2020 all but Bernie dropped out by like the second primary.
You've never heard the term "backroom politics" before?
I’m pretty up on news and the social media cycle around it. Literally no one said it proved he was innocent, almost everyone I saw had a take that was some variation of “look how dumb the prosecution is trying to push this so hard. They are making stupid mistakes trying to make this a big thing. ” Can you link to someone of substance, mainstream media or even a large follower count saying something otherwise?
It’s hilarious how much you’re misunderstanding.
Hunter is pretty obviously guilty of some of his charges, and was about to take a plea deal until it was pointed out that he could be charged further if he took the deal. I don’t think you’re going to find anyone who thinks he is innocent, and the only people saying it are either trolling or trying to stir the pot.
On the accusation of lying on the gun form, my understanding is that he wrote he was not abusing substances at the time of purchase, and the republican congress members were using the sawdust photo as evidence to the contrary? Assuming there is more evidence, I don’t see why that would mean he was innocent of that particular crime. Though I believe the argument being made is “we want to see all their evidence, the stuff they already shared is bonkers” and not “they made one mistake, checkmate ~~atheists~~ republicans.”