EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3552
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On March 19 2022 00:24 Doc.Rivers wrote: Question is whether Joe got a cut. That question is newly raised by the NYT story (although the NYT ignored that lede). Even back before the election, one of Hunter's business partners was doing interviews on Fox saying the "big guy" was Joe. So that is a level of corroboration that the media has chosen to ignore. A cut of Hunter Biden’s salary? That would seem absurdly petty. If I’m the VP and I’m selling out my country I’m looking for billions and a mountain fortress in a non extradition country. If I want thousands I’ll just give away 99% of the millions I’ll make from the lecture circuit after my term is up. You don’t really imagine that the Ukrainian government was buying Joe Biden for a cut of a $500k salary do you? If you’re open to sending military aid to Ukraine and want money then you get lobbied by Raytheon, not Ukraine. Incidentally Raytheon employees did donate over a million to Democratic candidates in 2020. Don’t get me wrong, I think the question of “what return do companies think they’re getting when they pay politically connected people consulting salaries” is a valid one. But that’s a very long standing question that was already fully asked when Hunter got the job in the first place. The laptop story has always been a claim of a hidden smoking gun behind a curtain. If there was a smoking gun we’d have seen it, they hide it because they prefer the implication of smoke to whatever they actually have. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On March 19 2022 00:35 JimmiC wrote: Wait why are you interested in this at all? Has hunter or joe been convicted? Did your bar of what matter just magically change again? "The media" is not ignoring it hence there is stories about it, its not hard when you are not spitting stupid catch phrases. More will come out if there is anything to it, but considering like Kwark said they had tonsnof time to produce the evidence this looks a lot more like "lobbying" which both parties should care about but neither actually do. And your party is the one that pushes harder for less over sight so... Come on man. You can not flip flop so dramaticly and expect to be taken remotely seriously can you? I had said before that a story of crime would only be a political gotcha if there's a conviction or we know facts about the case, beyond the fact that the government is investigating. So I don't think I'm being inconsistent because we know some things about the Hunter case. It's certainly true though that these stories of crime surrounding a president are a magnet for partisanship. Those who are affiliated with Republicans will believe this story to be true, and those who are affiliated with democrats will believe this story to not be true. That's how it works. On March 19 2022 00:43 KwarK wrote: A cut of Hunter Biden’s salary? That would seem absurdly petty. If I’m the VP and I’m selling out my country I’m looking for billions and a mountain fortress in a non extradition country. If I want thousands I’ll just give away 99% of the millions I’ll make from the lecture circuit after my term is up. You don’t really imagine that the Ukrainian government was buying Joe Biden for a cut of a $500k salary do you? If you’re open to sending military aid to Ukraine and want money then you get lobbied by Raytheon, not Ukraine. Incidentally Raytheon employees did donate over a million to Democratic candidates in 2020. Don’t get me wrong, I think the question of “what return do companies think they’re getting when they pay politically connected people consulting salaries” is a valid one. But that’s a very long standing question that was already fully asked when Hunter got the job in the first place. The laptop story has always been a claim of a hidden smoking gun behind a curtain. If there was a smoking gun we’d have seen it, they hide it because they prefer the implication of smoke to whatever they actually have. The big guy email actually has to do with China. Hunter was involved in various foreign countries, including China, Ukraine and Kazakhstan (the NYT has been covering this). So it would be a pretty simple scheme of corruption - Joe uses his influence to boost his son's foreign political consulting, and in return Joe gets a cut. The Bidens probably wouldn't be the only family doing that. I'd imagine the amount of money involved is substantial. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On March 19 2022 00:30 NewSunshine wrote: I see we suddenly care about the foreign business arrangements of people related to the president. Sorry if I have a hard time following, got a bit of whiplash. And it's fair game to go after his son, but only because he has no role in bidens administration. If he had any role, it would be considered harassment. I just can't wrap my mind that some people forgot how Trump put his own family in key role, used his office to enrich himself, and yet we're talking about Hunter Biden for thousands of $ ? Is it because drumpf did it in the open like the dumbass he is ? Do you need it to be a conspiracy to be interested Doc ? | ||
|
lestye
United States4240 Posts
On March 19 2022 00:30 NewSunshine wrote: I see we suddenly care about the foreign business arrangements of people related to the president. Sorry if I have a hard time following, got a bit of whiplash. Yeah. This is ultimately why I can't bother to care, I don't think these people are arguing in good faith. Trump never divested, he insisted on using his properties for big events, not even giving the courtesy of having his secret service housed for free. You had Junior and people who had no role in his Presidency conveniently always around for Presidential functions. Not to mention all their foreign entanglements. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On March 19 2022 02:18 lestye wrote: Yeah. This is ultimately why I can't bother to care, I don't think these people are arguing in good faith. Trump never divested, he insisted on using his properties for big events, not even giving the courtesy of having his secret service housed for free. You had Junior and people who had no role in his Presidency conveniently always around for Presidential functions. Not to mention all their foreign entanglements. I’ll have you know that Trump used a blind trust. He explained that a blind trust is basically when you don’t have a trust, your assets are still all owned by you, and also you know what your assets are and also you still control them. For those that don’t know the pre-Trump standard was for Presidents to appoint a trustee to invest whatever assets they have in a diversified basket and then not tell them what they’re invested in. Hence the blind part. The President cannot favour businesses he is invested in if he doesn’t know which businesses he’s invested in. The trustee is fully independent and not involved in the administration so they can’t be accused of making policy to favour the assets. Trump famously said this I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don’t know if it’s a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. But—is that a blind trust? I don’t know Obviously we have a bunch of issues there. It’s not blind. Trump is still going to know about the Trump organization after Ivanka starts running it. He’s still going to know that if he insists on staying at a Trump resort on a state visit, despite it being nowhere near the meeting point and requiring an additional helicopter fleet to get him to his meeting, the Trump org will benefit from that at taxpayer expense. It’s not a trust. He still retained ownership. His kids were actively involved in the political stuff and so no division between politics and investments has been created. Somewhere Peanut Jimmy (who sold his peanut farm to avoid suspicion that he might favour big peanut) is crying. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On March 19 2022 02:33 Doc.Rivers wrote: I agree that any corruption by Trump is relevant, although many on this site would describe such talk as "whataboutism." Perhaps Biden should not be punished for corruption, because we've been lax in punishing presidential corruption. I'd still like to know about the corruption though. The issue being talked is why are you harping on a very obvious scam from the get go while ignoring the very real signs of corruptions. Like if you truly believe Tucker lost the usb or it got stolen in the mail then why should anyone care what you say ? The hunter biden story might be real, but as it's currently unverified, unlike Trump taking money from secret services at his hotels or the goya incident, you just seem to be grasping at straws while ignoring reality | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 19 2022 02:33 Doc.Rivers wrote: I agree that any corruption by Trump is relevant, although many on this site would describe such talk as "whataboutism." Perhaps Biden should not be punished for corruption, because we've been lax in punishing presidential corruption. I'd still like to know about the corruption though. What corruption though? You're making a string of leaps that would make an Olympic long-jumper blush, just to say that Biden has any fingers in this pie at all. Even to say that the laptop is a pie in the first place. It's still unconfirmed on any significant axis, and reeks of bullshit. Like, the fact that this is the hill Republicans have erected their tent on is bewildering to me. There's no story here yet as it pertains to Joe Biden, and probably never will be. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On March 19 2022 02:53 NewSunshine wrote: What corruption though? You're making a string of leaps that would make an Olympic long-jumper blush, just to say that Biden has any fingers in this pie at all. Even to say that the laptop is a pie in the first place. It's still unconfirmed on any significant axis, and reeks of bullshit. Like, the fact that this is the hill Republicans have erected their tent on is bewildering to me. We shouldn’t ignore that, rightly or wrongly, companies think they’re getting something in return by giving money to politically connected individuals. It’s legal, but it’s still smells like corruption and I think we’d all prefer a system where there was more scrutiny there. Trump did far worse on a daily basis but I think this is one of those times where we can say “yeah, Biden’s not great, he’s better than the alternative but he’s still a product of a shit system”. The hypocrisy of the right on this subject is staggering but we don’t need to defend Biden by reflex. Hunter Biden (and everyone like him) can get a real job and companies should be required to justify the work they had him do and why they thought the compensation was reasonable for that work. | ||
|
lestye
United States4240 Posts
On March 19 2022 02:33 Doc.Rivers wrote: I agree that any corruption by Trump is relevant, although many on this site would describe such talk as "whataboutism." Perhaps Biden should not be punished for corruption, because we've been lax in punishing presidential corruption. I'd still like to know about the corruption though. I don't think it's whataboutism if you argue in good faith. I think if there is corruption in the government/Presidency, it's going to be with lobbyists. I think if you gave a damn about corruption, you would look at money in politics, not the President's son who has nothing to do with administration. How about we go after Citizens United and other bad decision that enable money in politics, like banning Congress from insider trading? Thats my irk, it doesn't seem the people who care about Hunter Biden cares about corruption across the board, just that 1 particular instance of it. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14208 Posts
This is only an issue if Hunter had a job in the white house or was involved in the business at the white house. Come back to me when this reaches above petty nepotism and trading on your own last name. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 19 2022 03:00 KwarK wrote: We shouldn’t ignore that, rightly or wrongly, companies think they’re getting something in return by giving money to politically connected individuals. It’s legal, but it’s still smells like corruption and I think we’d all prefer a system where there was more scrutiny there. Trump did far worse on a daily basis but I think this is one of those times where we can say “yeah, Biden’s not great, he’s better than the alternative but he’s still a product of a shit system”. The hypocrisy of the right on this subject is staggering but we don’t need to defend Biden by reflex. Hunter Biden (and everyone like him) can get a real job and companies should be required to justify the work they had him do and why they thought the compensation was reasonable for that work. I think that's reasonable. To me that's its own ball of wax, and I agree 100%, I also have a strong reaction when I learn that someone makes a shitload of money while providing no real value, compared to how it is for me and everyone I know. But, again, that's kind of the system we have. I would prefer a system where everything was being scrutinized a little harder, but I have a particular problem that this is being presented as some political showstopper, by the same people who didn't give a shit about the issue 2 years ago. It's the bad faith thing for me, more than I think Joe Biden is great. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On March 19 2022 03:02 lestye wrote: I don't think it's whataboutism if you argue in good faith. I think if there is corruption in the government/Presidency, it's going to be with lobbyists. I think if you gave a damn about corruption, you would look at money in politics, not the President's son who has nothing to do with administration. How about we go after Citizens United and other bad decision that enable money in politics, like banning Congress from insider trading? Thats my irk, it doesn't seem the people who care about Hunter Biden cares about corruption across the board, just that 1 particular instance of it. The Hunter/Joe story is not about ordinary lobbying. It's about a very particular form of corruption by which Joe may have used his office to personally enrich himself. It's evidenced by authenticated emails and the word of Hunter's former business partner. So it's a worthy topic even if lobbying is corrupt and Trump is corrupt. On March 19 2022 03:55 JimmiC wrote: Wtf are you talking about? It was reported on like crazy. The actions of the nimrods around it, hiding it and "losing" various components that delegitimized it. Not to mention all the fox and other conservative media reporting like it was fact and bombshell with the same lack of evidence. This "main stream media" bullshit has to stop somewhere. There should be basic levels of resonability and fact befote something is "news". That there is not is why so many people are getting stupider. The story was suppressed by a formal program of suppression. It was very much not "reported on like crazy." The media could have at least investigated, but chose to actively suppress instead. The reason was the upcoming election. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On March 19 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote: Aside from the content of the emails, the big story here is how weeks before the election social media, and the media generally, decided that the story was Russian misinformation and actively suppressed it and delegitimized it without even checking on all to help a political candidate. Amusing we were just talking about the trustworthiness of the mainstream media last week and had people defending them and whining about "misinformation" only for this to come out. Egg on face moment for sure. It takes a year and a half just for the legacy media to admit the email were even real. What a joke they are. The story was known, we all heard it at the time. It was very public and very discussed. The problem the laptop people had was that they were a bunch of clowns who couldn’t produce a laptop or emails or anything else but kept insisting that they would any day now. They were the same group of people who kept saying that a kraken would reveal that the Arizona ballots contained trace evidence of micropandas. The laptop was variously reported to show links to every conspiracy theory imaginable and their excuses for not being able to produce the laptop got steadily more ridiculous. The media got it right. You can’t complain that they got treated like clowns when they were all wearing clown makeup and throwing buckets of water over each other. They ruined their own credibility. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4240 Posts
| ||
| ||
