|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 21 2019 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2019 02:47 redlightdistrict wrote:On November 21 2019 02:12 Velr wrote:
Can anyone here actually bring up an argument why Trump shouldn't be impeached for this? Not, that you don't want him to be due to tactics or partisanship, I search a "fact" based reason why he shouldn't be impeachable for this. Because reasonable doubt, plausabile deniability, and window of negligence. Do I think Trump should be impeached? Yes Do I think he should be impeached based on this evidence? No Its more likely than not that Trump was up to all sorts of fuckery, but I wouldn't impeach him but it would make it much harder to beat in the 2020 election. When Bill Clinton got impeached, Dems stonewalled the GOP, preventing Bill from being removed from office and Bill's favor ability rating rose to around 70%. The same would have happen if Trump got impeached and we would have to deal with this idiot for another 4 years. If he is going to be impeached, it better be for something undeniably terrible that even Trump has no ability to spin it into his favor. Do you think Clinton's rise in approval might have had something to do with the GOP trying to impeach him over the definition of a blowjob rather then corruption or abuse of Office?
They didnt impeach Bill over getting a blowjob, they impeached him over lying about it. Which is the exact same thing the Dems are accusing Trump of, lying, thus resulting in history repeating itself.
|
I think they're accusing Trump of doing significantly more than just lying.
|
On November 21 2019 06:07 redlightdistrict wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2019 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2019 02:47 redlightdistrict wrote:On November 21 2019 02:12 Velr wrote:
Can anyone here actually bring up an argument why Trump shouldn't be impeached for this? Not, that you don't want him to be due to tactics or partisanship, I search a "fact" based reason why he shouldn't be impeachable for this. Because reasonable doubt, plausabile deniability, and window of negligence. Do I think Trump should be impeached? Yes Do I think he should be impeached based on this evidence? No Its more likely than not that Trump was up to all sorts of fuckery, but I wouldn't impeach him but it would make it much harder to beat in the 2020 election. When Bill Clinton got impeached, Dems stonewalled the GOP, preventing Bill from being removed from office and Bill's favor ability rating rose to around 70%. The same would have happen if Trump got impeached and we would have to deal with this idiot for another 4 years. If he is going to be impeached, it better be for something undeniably terrible that even Trump has no ability to spin it into his favor. Do you think Clinton's rise in approval might have had something to do with the GOP trying to impeach him over the definition of a blowjob rather then corruption or abuse of Office? They didnt impeach Bill over getting a blowjob, they impeached him over lying about it. Which is the exact same thing the Dems are accusing Trump of, lying, thus resulting in history repeating itself. Really? Cause I'm pretty sure Trump is being impeached for a quid pro quo where Ukraine would investigate the son of a political opponent in exchange for receiving aid that Congress had granted them.
Trump is lying about it, like he is with everything, but the lie isn't why he is being impeached. The act he is laying about is the why.
|
Yeah, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob. It had nothing to do with his ability to do his job as president. A whole lot of voters understood that his job as president was not compromised and that he had made an understandable lie. He was mostly forgiven for it and the Republican effort to smear him was partially rejected... although Clinton was treated as toxic by the Gore campaign and that may have cost Gore the election.
Alternatively, Trump is being impeached for abusing his power as president to actively take down a political opponent for the next election. He's using state power to undermine the democratic process. He has both lied about it and straight up admitted it. It's not the lying that people are worried about in this instance. He already did it in 2016 and got away with it. A lot of people do not want him to get away with it again. I've seen enough evidence already. I would vote out any senator or congressman that doesn't vote for impeachment and confirmation. A lot of people are with me, but probably not enough in the states that matter (ones controlled by Republicans right now).
|
On November 21 2019 06:07 redlightdistrict wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2019 04:31 Gorsameth wrote:On November 21 2019 02:47 redlightdistrict wrote:On November 21 2019 02:12 Velr wrote:
Can anyone here actually bring up an argument why Trump shouldn't be impeached for this? Not, that you don't want him to be due to tactics or partisanship, I search a "fact" based reason why he shouldn't be impeachable for this. Because reasonable doubt, plausabile deniability, and window of negligence. Do I think Trump should be impeached? Yes Do I think he should be impeached based on this evidence? No Its more likely than not that Trump was up to all sorts of fuckery, but I wouldn't impeach him but it would make it much harder to beat in the 2020 election. When Bill Clinton got impeached, Dems stonewalled the GOP, preventing Bill from being removed from office and Bill's favor ability rating rose to around 70%. The same would have happen if Trump got impeached and we would have to deal with this idiot for another 4 years. If he is going to be impeached, it better be for something undeniably terrible that even Trump has no ability to spin it into his favor. Do you think Clinton's rise in approval might have had something to do with the GOP trying to impeach him over the definition of a blowjob rather then corruption or abuse of Office? They didnt impeach Bill over getting a blowjob, they impeached him over lying about it. Which is the exact same thing the Dems are accusing Trump of, lying, thus resulting in history repeating itself.
Democrats are impeaching Trump for extorting a foreign leader by withholding military aid from an ally while they are at war in exchange for a personal political favor.
|
On November 21 2019 02:47 Sent. wrote:
Trying and failing to remove Trump like this can convince his supporters and people on the fence that he did nothing wrong and that it was just a political attack. You don't take fights you can't win.
Depends. If enough people get convinced that the GOP stonewalled the investigation and threw all integrity through the window out of pure partisanship, it could cost them a lot. It just depends what people think when it's all over. The dems know full well that republicans lawmakers don't have the balls or the honesty to throw Trump under the bus and believe me, Pelosi must have thought about what she was doing when she decided to go into that process. She is smart as hell.
|
On November 21 2019 06:14 NewSunshine wrote:
I think they're accusing Trump of doing significantly more than just lying.
Even if he was only lying, lying about having had your dick sucked and lying about having blackmailed an allied country with military aid for personal gain is not quite the same.
|
On November 19 2019 05:37 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 02:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 19 2019 02:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 19 2019 02:00 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 19 2019 01:28 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:22 reborn8u2 wrote:On November 19 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 00:44 reborn8u2 wrote:
If you took this away there would be 20+ states that wouldn't matter. They would have almost no voice in the federal government. Smaller population states already have little say in electing president and in congress. Why would they stay in the union if they had no voice? They might as well be ruled by England at that point.
Imagine that I were to complain that my vote doesn’t matter and that I have almost no voice in Federal government. Perhaps I hyperbolically state that I might as well be ruled by England. Would you humour my complaints or would you point out that I am one man in a nation of 330 million and that my voice should not be louder than the combined voice of the others? Would you give me my own senator? Would you let me secede? The reason the states with less population have less voting power is not a bug or a flaw, it’s that they have less population to represent. It’s absurd to say that the problem is that one man has fewer votes than a group of a hundred men and therefore he should be compensated for it else he would want to leave. It’s a nonsense argument that can only logically be resolved by making every voter, for that is the lowest level at which this can be applied, more powerful than every voter. One man, one vote. That’s the only way it can work. You don’t get to argue that your vote gets overridden by a larger group of voters so really you deserve bonus votes. I agree with most of your statement. It isn't a bug or flaw. The system is designed so that population carries weight. This holds true in the electoral college and in the congress. I take no issue with it. I'm simply saying the reason we also have a senate is to give lower population states more voice, because without it many states would have almost no voice in the federal government. It wouldn't make sense for those staes to be a part of nation where people with far different opinions and interests impose their will on them. They would be better off forming their own nation, and that's why we have the compromise of splitting the house into a congress and sentate. More population carries much more weight in our system but large areas of low population are still able to have some voice. I like our system and I think the reasoning behind it is sound and practical. Why would it not make sense for 1% of the population to have 1% of the representation? You’re saying it wouldn’t make sense but that makes sense to me. Please feel free to elaborate on why 1% of population having 1% of representation makes no sense but 1% of population having 5% of representation makes perfect sense. Because you keep saying that one man one vote doesn’t make sense but you’re not arguing why. It doesn’t make no sense as an isolated proposition. In practical, real-world terms maybe some weighting is necessary in certain scenarios, maybe not. In the UK example London is dominant over the whole country. Hypothetically if there’s enough of a population there it’s politically prudent to appease solely that population. Which makes it even more dominant, economic policy is dictated to those needs, more people emigrate from the poor regions starved of investment and the cycle just repeats. Sure maybe going against 1 man 1 vote is entirely arbitrary here, but it can serve a practical purpose in preventing such a cycle being completely egregious. Leave it to a purely majoritarian system without arbitrary weighting and do Londoners ever, ever throw their support behind any kind of policy to redistribute industry and investment to the rest of the country? Well no they don’t. And as the dominant areas become more dominant they drag more and more of the population away from other places and over to the dominant areas. So yeah maybe other areas do need protection, arbitrary as it is rather than ‘want a job? Move to the coasts or London/Paris (or whatever equivalent)’ We do have a broadly majoritarian system in the UK and Londoners do vote for policies that help people outside of London so I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. And yes, if the majority of the population had a specific interest then the government would attempt to serve that interest but that’s pretty much the point of government, that’s why it exists. You’re also assuming that the majority interest would be opposed to the minority interest on majority vs minority lines which is a big reach. It’s far more likely to be rich vs poor than cities vs country, the interests of a London fast food worker are more closely aligned with a shires fast food worker than with a banker. You’re also assuming that regions won’t find their own place without government influence. The Lake District doesn’t need extra MPs to be the best Lake District it can be, it does just fine on Londoners going there for weekend getaways. Salisbury Plain doesn’t need special favours from the government, where else are they going to test their munitions or keep their squaddies? Where’s been the appetite for wholesale investment in the regions for the last 20/30 years? How would you measure appropriate investment? If people in London pay more in taxes it would be appropriate that their money is used for their local area, but instead on average the London taxpayer subsidises the rest of the UK. If you was seeking to invest in transportation, it make sense to build roads and rails to where they are needed or provide the best return for investment, both human and monetary, rather than bridges to nowhere. People deserve investment. Regions do not. The idea that landmass deserve proportionate representation as to people as some people here have made for the American system is preposterous from a democratic viewpoint. What determines one landmass is as deserving of another landmass? Landmass does not think, it does not feel, it does not have a consciousness. It is completely arbitrary. How would you measure it? You’re basically saying that Londoners deserve more investment, because they’re more of them and they contribute more economically? Calculating how much should be invested and where is a complicated question. In one sense I can agree that basic infrastructure and services should be provided and made available, but awareness must be given to those who are funding those infrastructure and services in the first place. As it is, Londoners are receiving less back per tax which goes to the rest of the country. If money was to be spent proportionally by tax, then yes they would be deserving of more money.
As someone living in London I am resigned to that my taxes are not proportionately used back to me, but is used to prop up services and infrastructure in the rest of the country. Which does make some sense as the greater population density can mean that services can be cheaper to run. That would be fine, were it not so galling when the beneficiaries of those who receive proportionally more back than they pay in taxes, beleive that they are receiving less, when the opposite is true.
Inherent in the idea of investment in infrastructure and services is the idea that the money is being used to serve the country. A country is made up of people, not areas of land. That people live in areas of land does not subtract that the landmass do not feel benefits, but humans do. It is humans that feel emotions, not land, so it makes no sense to measure investment by regions. It is the human element that should be considered, not meaningless land.
|
Northern Ireland25243 Posts
On November 21 2019 08:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2019 05:37 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 19 2019 02:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 19 2019 02:05 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 19 2019 02:00 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 19 2019 01:28 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 01:22 reborn8u2 wrote:On November 19 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On November 19 2019 00:44 reborn8u2 wrote:
If you took this away there would be 20+ states that wouldn't matter. They would have almost no voice in the federal government. Smaller population states already have little say in electing president and in congress. Why would they stay in the union if they had no voice? They might as well be ruled by England at that point.
Imagine that I were to complain that my vote doesn’t matter and that I have almost no voice in Federal government. Perhaps I hyperbolically state that I might as well be ruled by England. Would you humour my complaints or would you point out that I am one man in a nation of 330 million and that my voice should not be louder than the combined voice of the others? Would you give me my own senator? Would you let me secede? The reason the states with less population have less voting power is not a bug or a flaw, it’s that they have less population to represent. It’s absurd to say that the problem is that one man has fewer votes than a group of a hundred men and therefore he should be compensated for it else he would want to leave. It’s a nonsense argument that can only logically be resolved by making every voter, for that is the lowest level at which this can be applied, more powerful than every voter. One man, one vote. That’s the only way it can work. You don’t get to argue that your vote gets overridden by a larger group of voters so really you deserve bonus votes. I agree with most of your statement. It isn't a bug or flaw. The system is designed so that population carries weight. This holds true in the electoral college and in the congress. I take no issue with it. I'm simply saying the reason we also have a senate is to give lower population states more voice, because without it many states would have almost no voice in the federal government. It wouldn't make sense for those staes to be a part of nation where people with far different opinions and interests impose their will on them. They would be better off forming their own nation, and that's why we have the compromise of splitting the house into a congress and sentate. More population carries much more weight in our system but large areas of low population are still able to have some voice. I like our system and I think the reasoning behind it is sound and practical. Why would it not make sense for 1% of the population to have 1% of the representation? You’re saying it wouldn’t make sense but that makes sense to me. Please feel free to elaborate on why 1% of population having 1% of representation makes no sense but 1% of population having 5% of representation makes perfect sense. Because you keep saying that one man one vote doesn’t make sense but you’re not arguing why. It doesn’t make no sense as an isolated proposition. In practical, real-world terms maybe some weighting is necessary in certain scenarios, maybe not. In the UK example London is dominant over the whole country. Hypothetically if there’s enough of a population there it’s politically prudent to appease solely that population. Which makes it even more dominant, economic policy is dictated to those needs, more people emigrate from the poor regions starved of investment and the cycle just repeats. Sure maybe going against 1 man 1 vote is entirely arbitrary here, but it can serve a practical purpose in preventing such a cycle being completely egregious. Leave it to a purely majoritarian system without arbitrary weighting and do Londoners ever, ever throw their support behind any kind of policy to redistribute industry and investment to the rest of the country? Well no they don’t. And as the dominant areas become more dominant they drag more and more of the population away from other places and over to the dominant areas. So yeah maybe other areas do need protection, arbitrary as it is rather than ‘want a job? Move to the coasts or London/Paris (or whatever equivalent)’ We do have a broadly majoritarian system in the UK and Londoners do vote for policies that help people outside of London so I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. And yes, if the majority of the population had a specific interest then the government would attempt to serve that interest but that’s pretty much the point of government, that’s why it exists. You’re also assuming that the majority interest would be opposed to the minority interest on majority vs minority lines which is a big reach. It’s far more likely to be rich vs poor than cities vs country, the interests of a London fast food worker are more closely aligned with a shires fast food worker than with a banker. You’re also assuming that regions won’t find their own place without government influence. The Lake District doesn’t need extra MPs to be the best Lake District it can be, it does just fine on Londoners going there for weekend getaways. Salisbury Plain doesn’t need special favours from the government, where else are they going to test their munitions or keep their squaddies? Where’s been the appetite for wholesale investment in the regions for the last 20/30 years? How would you measure appropriate investment? If people in London pay more in taxes it would be appropriate that their money is used for their local area, but instead on average the London taxpayer subsidises the rest of the UK. If you was seeking to invest in transportation, it make sense to build roads and rails to where they are needed or provide the best return for investment, both human and monetary, rather than bridges to nowhere. People deserve investment. Regions do not. The idea that landmass deserve proportionate representation as to people as some people here have made for the American system is preposterous from a democratic viewpoint. What determines one landmass is as deserving of another landmass? Landmass does not think, it does not feel, it does not have a consciousness. It is completely arbitrary. How would you measure it? You’re basically saying that Londoners deserve more investment, because they’re more of them and they contribute more economically? Calculating how much should be invested and where is a complicated question. In one sense I can agree that basic infrastructure and services should be provided and made available, but awareness must be given to those who are funding those infrastructure and services in the first place. As it is, Londoners are receiving less back per tax which goes to the rest of the country. If money was to be spent proportionally by tax, then yes they would be deserving of more money. As someone living in London I am resigned to that my taxes are not proportionately used back to me, but is used to prop up services and infrastructure in the rest of the country. Which does make some sense as the greater population density can mean that services can be cheaper to run. That would be fine, were it not so galling when the beneficiaries of those who receive proportionally more back than they pay in taxes, beleive that they are receiving less, when the opposite is true. Inherent in the idea of investment in infrastructure and services is the idea that the money is being used to serve the country. A country is made up of people, not areas of land. That people live in areas of land does not subtract that the landmass do not feel benefits, but humans do. It is humans that feel emotions, not land, so it makes no sense to measure investment by regions. It is the human element that should be considered, not meaningless land.
Are you a Londoner or did you move from somewhere else?
I don’t like the current state of affairs where a London taxpayer is propping up other regions btw. I’m aware that Northern Ireland is one such region too.
I don’t think that should be the case, but that we should have (and had for literally 30+ years) have had a national strategy to decentralise and had sustainable industry spread out around the country.
Basically benefits everyone with few downsides. Even with the living wage, lower level London workers still have to pay London prices, especially for rent (never mind buying). Commute times get ridiculous. And for other regions we have the brain drain.
A lot of people are ignorant that their region is a net beneficiary, and I understand the frustration in that, one I share. We don’t need handouts we need sustainable investment, we need incentives for companies to operate here and if we have that we can stand on our own feet fine.
Be it Northern Ireland, be it areas in England or Wales that have struggled to deal with transitions from industries like coal mining or manufacturing etc.
|
I was born in London moved around a bit, but I've lived in London for the past 10 years. The fact is, the secondary sector of the economy has declined. Industry isn't concentrated in London, for industry has moved out of London a long time ago, forced out by land rent. There is no incentieve to set up any industry within London itself,though the areas around it might fair better. There is no national strategy to decentralise, because what there is left is not centralised anywhere in particular except maybe around some military related production I'm not particularily comfortable with the idea of subsidising industries that are not of strategic (military) interest, though I think that rail networks should be improved all around the country.
Anyways I think we are talking about two different types of investment. I'm thinking of investment to transport and education, which I beleive should be provided at a basic level, and then appropriately normalised to per person as much as possible, and you seem to be thinking about nationalising manufacturing. To be fair, increased manufacturing sector would be greatly in my personal interest and benefit, but on a national level investment to transport and education is a far better investment to the future.
|
Northern Ireland25243 Posts
On November 21 2019 09:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I was born in London moved around a bit, but I've lived in London for the past 10 years. The fact is, the secondary sector of the economy has declined. Industry isn't concentrated in London, for industry has moved out of London a long time ago, forced out by land rent. There is no incentieve to set up any industry within London itself,though the areas around it might fair better. There is no national strategy to decentralise, because what there is left is not centralised anywhere in particular except maybe around some military related production I'm not particularily comfortable with the idea of subsidising industries that are not of strategic (military) interest, though I think that rail networks should be improved all around the country.
Anyways I think we are talking about two different types of investment. I'm thinking of investment to transport and education, which I beleive should be provided at a basic level, and then appropriately normalised to per person as much as possible, and you seem to be thinking about nationalising manufacturing. To be fair, increased manufacturing sector would be greatly in my personal interest and benefit, but on a national level investment to transport and education is a far better investment to the future.
Manufacturing is a largely dead horse and shouldn’t be being flogged without good reason. By industry I mean jobs of all sectors to be clear.
Luckily it’s a sector I am retraining in but government inducements in bringing computer science and IT jobs to Northern Ireland is working pretty well. For potential employees who either just want to stay in their home city, or have other commitments there’s too many jobs than can be filled (although that’ll probably change soon), and for companies they have employees they can pay less due to living costs.
My friends who trained in that field when I was doing my first degree almost a decade ago all went to London because that’s where the jobs where, and have said they would have considered staying here if the job environment was as it is today.
|
Apparently Hunter Biden tried to cover up that he fathered a child out of wedlock, giving Joe Biden a total of 6 grandchildren.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hunter-biden-the-father-of-arkansas-womans-baby-dna-test-shows
Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic candidate, can welcome a sixth grandchild into his family after a DNA test confirmed that his son Hunter was the father of an an Arkansas "Baby Doe."
The new family member marked a second landmark for Biden on Wednesday, who also turned 77.
Testing found “with scientific certainty” that Joe Biden’s son fathered the child, according to a motion filed Wednesday. He “is not expected to challenge the results of the DNA test or the testing process,” the filing said.
“Baby Doe’s paternal grandfather, Joe Biden, is seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States of America (he has already filed for the March 2020 Arkansas primary). He is considered by some to be the person most likely to win his party’s nomination and challenge President Trump on the ballot in 2020,” the filing added.
The court document also said members of the Biden family were eligible to be protected by Secret Service.
Biden, 49, agreed to take the paternity last month after 28-year-old Lunden Roberts claimed he was the father of her one-year-old child. Biden has publicly denied he was the father, but Roberts said Biden had admitted otherwise to her in private.
The name and gender of the child in question is not known. The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment.
Hunter Biden is the father of three daughters — Naomi, 24, Finnegan, 19, and Maisy, 18 — from his 24-year marriage to Kathleen Buhle. The two divorced in 2017. Joe Biden has two other grandchildren, Natalie, 15, and Robert "Hunter" II, 13.
He has since dated the wife of his late brother, Beau Biden, and married Melissa Cohen, a filmmaker from South Africa, earlier this year.
Roberts's attorney, Clinton Lancaster, said that she wants to avoid the media spotlight.
“She really does not want this to be a media spectacle. She does not want this to affect Joe Biden's campaign. She just wants this baby to get financial support from the baby’s father,” Lancaster said about why Roberts filed a petition for paternity and support.
Roberts attended college at Western Illinois University, playing for the college’s basketball team before transferring to Arkansas State University, where she graduated in 2014 with a degree in interdisciplinary studies.
She was living in Washington, D.C., and Virginia from 2015 to 2018, according to public records, which would have been the time when the child was conceived.
|
I feel like if Biden's son was both a rapist and murderer, it would mean nothing to me. The idea that someone's family means anything is silly. So long as they are not members of the government.
|
On November 21 2019 10:07 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like if Biden's son was both a rapist and murderer, it would mean nothing to me. The idea that someone's family means anything is silly. So long as they are not members of the government.
The hypothetical where you wouldn't vote for Biden because his son had a child out of wedlock, but you would vote for Trump who pays porn stars to cheat on his pregnant wife is even more confusing for me.
|
Not even gonna watch this debate. Way too many irrelevant candidates
|
On November 21 2019 10:07 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like if Biden's son was both a rapist and murderer, it would mean nothing to me. The idea that someone's family means anything is silly. So long as they are not members of the government.
The only notable thing about it is Hunter lied about it.Denied he ever had sex with her, denied it was ever his kid.
As more dodgy Ukraine news keeps coming out (Ukrainian MPs claiming he pocketed millions from Burisma https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625876.html ) it just goes to reinforce the claim that Hunter is a bad hombre.
|
On November 21 2019 10:07 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like if Biden's son was both a rapist and murderer, it would mean nothing to me. The idea that someone's family means anything is silly. So long as they are not members of the government.
Yeah the fact that Kushner is our country's broker of peace between Israel and Palestine is far more disturbing than anything that could be revealed about Hunter Biden. But this is all obviously desperate deflection and whataboutism anyway. Shame on the Republicans.
|
Cmon Kushner's job is just to do everything single handedly. You know he's a smart guy because everyone said so.
|
On November 21 2019 11:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2019 10:07 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like if Biden's son was both a rapist and murderer, it would mean nothing to me. The idea that someone's family means anything is silly. So long as they are not members of the government. The only notable thing about it is Hunter lied about it.Denied he ever had sex with her, denied it was ever his kid. As more dodgy Ukraine news keeps coming out (Ukrainian MPs claiming he pocketed millions from Burisma https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625876.html ) it just goes to reinforce the claim that Hunter is a bad hombre.
Doesn't matter if he shot her in the head while pregnant because he didn't like her new dress, then lied about it. Has nothing to do with Joe Biden.
If Biden's dad was Hitler, but Biden showed no signs of Nazi sympathy, I would not hold his dad's past against him.
|
I've watched every (often painful) minute of the democratic debates. Typically the Joe Biden debating experience unfolds in three stages. Starts out passably coherent, maybe putting a decent thought together here and there. Phase two is slow decline, with him struggling harder and harder to construct sentences without repeating his filler "Fact of the matter is" and "Heres the truth" phrases. The final third he struggles to keep the train on the tracks and there he is most vulnerable to say something dumb.
Tonight he looked like he was falling asleep on the first question. Who knows, could this be the beginning of the long-awaited slide? My gut says no because I don't think his crucial block of voters is much affected by what happens in the debates anyway. Also, last debate everybody went after Warren and that helped him, its happening tonight also.
Side note, I think Bernie Sanders is far and away the best performer on all the debate stages. Again though he's performed strongly from the beginning but hasn't seen much growth in the polls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
