Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Endus]

Given his father's position as President, it is a matter that does take on grave significance, and it's especially disconcerting that he, of all people, would choose to falsify information on a federal firearms form.

Why would any of that be a factor?

It's only natural to expect that Hunter will face more stringent scrutiny due to his family background—that’s simply a matter of common sense, which you'd like people to look past.

Scrutiny, sure, but the only legitimate scrutiny there would be ensuring there aren't any factors that would put his father at risk of being compromised in some way, through blackmail or the like.

Everything else is completely irrelevant and any further scrutiny has no justifiable good cause.

[Lenonis]

A more thorough investigation into a crime isn't unjust

Sure it is if it's for political reasons. How do you not see this?

[Lenonis]

For someone claiming to be a life-long Democrat, you would figure she'd realize when the GOP is gaslighting her.

I know she isn't posting in good faith - but she does represent people who actually do exist. The whole idea of "because he's related to the president means he should be investigated and punished more harshly than a normal person even though the crime has absolutely nothing to do with politics" is the very definition of the whole "deep state" abuse of power the right cries about. It's so blatantly obvious it's a miscarriage of justice I have to think these people are deliberately pretending ignorance.

[postman1782]

Medical cannabis patients can’t even own a gun legally in the state—he knew what he was doing was illegal. It’s all very clear.

Not anymore it isn't. It was struck down in the 5th circuit court of appeals. I can guarantee he won't serve a day in jail, if the charges don't get thrown out for being charges they don't give time form, he will get probation at most.

- - - Updated - - -

Given his father's position as President, it is a matter that does take on grave significance, and it's especially disconcerting that he, of all people, would choose to falsify information on a federal firearms form. It's only natural to expect that Hunter will face more stringent scrutiny due to his family background—that’s simply a matter of common sense, which you'd like people to look past.

You do know that people that get this charge, if they get time, are usually convicted felons already? Like Kodak Black? he got this same charge, and he was got 44 months for it because he was a convicted felon. For a first offense, if he gets anything, he will get probation, but I bet it gets thrown out since the statute was thrown out in the 5th circuit court of appeals.

- - - Updated - - -

A more thorough investigation into a crime isn't unjust—it’s when we begin to question the fairness of the punishment, that concerns will begin to arise…

It took them 5 years, to go through this whole bullshit, to find 2 charges that probably won't even stick.

[draynay]

Given his father's position as President, it is a matter that does take on grave significance, and it's especially disconcerting that he, of all people, would choose to falsify information on a federal firearms form. It's only natural to expect that Hunter will face more stringent scrutiny due to his family background—that’s simply a matter of common sense, which you'd like people to look past.

I guess I'm crazy for thinking the whole point of our country is that it doesn't matter who your father is, that everyone be judged on their own merit. Obviously this isn't the case, but I thought it was the intent.

[postman1782]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...n-impeachment/

Ken Buck posted his own opinion to Washington Post about the Biden Impeachment. And he called them out on everything.

Ken Buck, a Republican, represents Colorado’s 4th Congressional District in the House.

The House is back in session, and Americans are getting an up-close look at Washington’s dysfunction. We are barreling toward a government shutdown without making progress on cutting our out-of-control spending. Yet Republican leadership has decided to divert attention to an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

The GOP’s charge against Biden is that he personally benefited from his son’s deplorable business exploits around the globe. Without doubt, Hunter Biden’s shady business deals undermined America’s image and our anti-corruption goals, and his conduct was thoroughly reprehensible. What’s missing, despite years of investigation, is the smoking gun that connects Joe Biden to his ne’er-do-well son’s corruption.

My fellow Republicans leading the House inquiry believe the connection comes through the 2016 firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, which then-Vice President Biden helped facilitate.

The dominant narrative in right-wing media is that Shokin was an anti-corruption zealot with an active investigation into Burisma, the company where Hunter Biden held a seat on the board of directors, and from which he reportedly received large monthly payments.

The truth about Shokin is much more complicated and runs counter to the GOP’s “gotcha” narrative. In reality, Shokin was deeply enmeshed in Ukraine’s culture of corruption and, far from being a beacon of transparency, was viewed by many in the West — including some conservative Republican senators — as an obstacle to anti-corruption reforms. There is, in fact, no evidence that Shokin was engaged in an investigation of Burisma, or that Joe Biden’s role in his firing was in any way connected to Burisma.

Much attention has been focused on a speech Biden delivered in December 2015 before Ukraine’s parliament, in which he explicitly called for change at the prosecutor general’s office. Far from being out of line with U.S. policy, Biden’s remarks were entirely within the U.S. government’s paradigm of helping Ukraine break free from its lawless Soviet past. Other senior officials, including U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, made the case during the same period for firing Shokin.

The European Union, which necessarily pays a great deal of attention to the politics and policies of neighboring Ukraine, was also of the opinion that Shokin should be sacked. Shokin had been the biggest barrier to the E.U.’s years-long efforts to encourage rule-of-law reforms in Ukraine.

These facts — like all facts — are stubborn things.

Republicans in the House who are itching for an impeachment are relying on an imagined history. Their inquiry, formally announced by Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday, rests heavily on a fictitious version of Shokin’s career, with the alleged investigation of Burisma at the center. It’s a neat story, and one that performs well in certain media circles. But impeachment is a serious matter and should have a foundation of rock-solid facts.

Does this flimsy excuse for an impeachment sound familiar? It should.

In 2019, the Democratic-controlled House, led by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), pursued an impeachment of President Donald Trump on the loose allegation of a quid pro quo — again involving Ukraine and Shokin. The Democrats alleged that Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to pressure him into examining the theoretical connection between Hunter Biden’s payments from Burisma and Shokin’s firing. Trump ultimately did withhold aid from Ukraine, consistent with the U.S. government’s long-standing policy of tying aid to anti-corruption reforms. But the Democrats were off and running.

I joined my Republican colleagues then in denouncing that impeachment. It was, as we argued at the time, an inversion of our own rule-of-law system. The Democrats had their man and found a pretext to impeach him.

Trump’s impeachment in 2019 was a disgrace to the Constitution and a disservice to Americans. The GOP’s reprise in 2023 is no better.

And that right there in the bold is what Republicans are impeaching Biden for, but even Buck knows that this is bullshit and the Republicans have been lying about the Shokin situation for YEARS now.

[Surfd]

I'm still trying to figure out the biggest problem with this whole thing: I didn't think it was possible to impeach a president for things he did when he wasn't president. Like, how exactly does that work? How do you impeach someone for something they did BEFORE they got the job, which has no bearing on their current performance of the job?

[diller]

Given his father's position as President, it is a matter that does take on grave significance, and it's especially disconcerting that he, of all people, would choose to falsify information on a federal firearms form. It's only natural to expect that Hunter will face more stringent scrutiny due to his family background—that’s simply a matter of common sense, which you'd like people to look past.

What’s peculiar is how some users are downplaying the legal matters and concentrating on Republicans—they didn't engage in these unlawful activities. They're merely upholding the law, so why the sudden cause for concern?

Says the self proclaimed Democrat.

Lets not forget Hunter Biden is NOT a politician.

[Surfd]

The Constitution doesn’t specify that “high crimes and misdemeanors” must occur during the president's time in office, when in regards to impeachment.

While true, I can only imagine that it wasn't specifically mentioned because it was directly assumed by everyone involved in drafting the language that everyone already knew that impeachment was meant to be used only in response to actions taken while in office.

You know, much the same way that every baking recipe that says "use 2 eggs" never specifies "chicken eggs" simply because it's assumed that everyone knows that, unless specifically noted otherwise, that's what is meant by "eggs".

[Surfd]

I don’t think it’s specifically mentioned because a president's honor should be upheld not only during their time in office, but also before and after their presidency, particularly if they are reelected.

Which is directly contradicted by the fact that the constitution literally permits someone with a criminal background to run for the office. There is no "constitutional" protection for the president's "honor". I mean, ffs, they put Trump in the Whitehouse. That alone is proof that your assertion is insane, at best.

[gondrin]

Observation, the ratfuckers are trying to make Biden's Age the "But her emails" of 2024.

This situation is now spiraling into a typically bizarre meta-narrative, in which people like Nate Silver are obsessing about how the mainstream media aren’t covering the issue of Biden’s age enough. The owners of CNN and NYT really miss mistah Trump as their president.

This is all actually much worse than the but her emails nonsense. In 2016 it was still possible to pretend that Donald Trump might not actually be Donald Trump after all, because “Donald Trump” was all schtick, and there was really a semi-normal person lurking underneath the schtick, plus guardrails the Constitution blah blah blah.
In 2023 it’s impossible to have any illusions about any of this any more.

Ahh yes, the Age of Biden. Yet seeming to not care about the fact that Trump is literally one presidential term younger in age. If they both lived in the same town, they would have went to school together, albeit with Trump being a freshman and Biden being a senior.

- - - Updated - - -

The Constitution doesn’t specify that “high crimes and misdemeanors” must occur during the president's time in office, when in regards to impeachment.

Well, if that were the case, Trump should have been impeached each day of his presidency for the fact that he stole from his own charity, conned a bunch of people thinking his "university" was going to teach them anything, owning a casino that was a front for a money laundering scheme and other such crimes. And yes, he was found guilty for at least 2 of these and one was rumored to happen.

[Breccia]

Well, if that were the case, Trump should have been impeached each day of his presidency for the fact that he stole from his own charity, conned a bunch of people thinking his "university" was going to teach them anything, owning a casino that was a front for a money laundering scheme and other such crimes. And yes, he was found guilty for at least 2 of these and one was rumored to happen.

Or, should be impeached now for his acts after fairly and legally losing the election, plus allowing Kushner to profit from the Saudis due to his work in the White House -- exactly what Republicans are saying Hunter Biden did, except not by working in the White House like Kushner did.

- - - Updated - - -

It's almost like individuals experience cognitive decline differently--

Have you commented yet on Trump beating Obama, or Biden starting World War II? I don't believe you have. Hold on, I'll check.

(10 seconds pass)

Nope, no posts in the Trump thread for quite some time. Almost like you're hiding for some reason. Well, since you haven't commented on that, the only logical conclusion is you're not worried about cognitive decline in general, and your "concern" is thereby handwaved as disingenuous.

[gondrin]

It's almost like individuals experience cognitive decline differently based on several, individual factors… what could be the reason for that, I suppose?

I've always said that there should be a maximum age for ANYONE in any elected or appointed office. We are seeing that first hand with a lot of Congressmen. We saw that with a couple of Supreme Court justices.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, should be impeached now for his acts after fairly and legally losing the election, plus allowing Kushner to profit from the Saudis due to his work in the White House -- exactly what Republicans are saying Hunter Biden did, except not by working in the White House like Kushner did.

- - - Updated - - -



Have you commented yet on Trump beating Obama, or Biden starting World War II? I don't believe you have. Hold on, I'll check.

(10 seconds pass)

Nope, no posts in the Trump thread for quite some time. Almost like you're hiding for some reason. Well, since you haven't commented on that, the only logical conclusion is you're not worried about cognitive decline in general, and your "concern" is thereby handwaved as disingenuous.

What about those airports and planes during the Revolutionary war. I mean, who doesn't remember the air raids at the Battle of Fort Ticonderoga.

[Edge-]

It's almost like individuals experience cognitive decline differently based on several, individual factors… what could be the reason for that, I suppose?

Casual reminder that the "cognitively impaired old guy" worked Congressional Republicans like they were a supple mound of clay during the SOTU this year, repeatedly baiting them into very predictably angry and bad looking outbursts and going off-script to get them to commit to not cutting Social Security or Medicare.

Generally agreed upon to be some fairly deft political maneuvering done on the fly, live in front of an audience of millions.

If we're to be worried about Biden, boy is that an indictment on the kind of people Americans are electing in general, too.

[Breccia]

What about those airports and planes during the Revolutionary war. I mean, who doesn't remember the air raids at the Battle of Fort Ticonderoga.

Indeed, Andrew Jackson was so unhappy with it all.

[Edge-]

Well that's outrageous! How could Biden be so racist!?

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...-diplomas.html

Oh look...he's not...it's Republicans literally making shit up again by removing key context like a connecting word that completely alters the meaning of the line.

We've seen record lows in unemployment, particularly -- and I've focused on this my whole career -- particularly for African Americans and Hispanic workers and veterans, you know, and [bold added by Lead Stories - ed] the workers without high-school diplomas. The lowest unemployment rate in 70 years for women now.

Boy, if it isn't another nothingberder with extra cheese.

[Breccia]

Boy, if it isn't another nothingberder with extra cheese.

"Our candidate is a crazy racist liar who makes shit up. We will make it look like Biden does the same so they will vote for our crazy racist liar."

This won't move the needle. They are preaching to the base. They have the base. They were better off talking about Hunter Biden, yes, that's how bad things are for them.

[Muzjhath]

It's almost like individuals experience cognitive decline differently based on several, individual factors… what could be the reason for that, I suppose?

Absolutely, and Trump seems far worse of than Biden does on that cognitive decline!

[bladeXcrasher]

Bad news for Biden in new Yahoo News/YouGov poll

He's at 41.1% approval as of 4 hours ago in the aggregate polling...sorry to disappoint but you're 3.1pts off the mark.

[Edge-]

Now that the link is fixed, here's what you didn't quote:



I'll ask again, how does this poll make you feel, Winter?

Oh damn, the Republicans that were never going to vote for Joseph Robinette Biden are definitely not gonna vote for him now.

Big if true.