Biden Presidency

[deadheadskier]

Yes you essentially did say that by brushing off the rest

"Are you referring to Trump's 90 odd charges? Yes, I do see those as less concerning. Many are exceedingly thin. I'm least familiar with the Georgia indictments, so I'll let those chips fall further."

And good for you to have all of those conservative principles. You know what's needed to ever have hope of putting those into action? A functional democracy that follows the constitution for ALL Americans.

And that sir is why I frequently call out you, FancyPants and others. Call it trolling if you want.
It's the fact that you would still vote for a former President that showed himself to be the biggest threat to democracy that we have ever had. A person we warned about before 2016. You would overlook this fact because you like his "policies." That's about as unAmerican as it gets. I have a big problem with that and will ALWAYS be critical of your ilk (autocorrect earlier, but nice attempt at a gotcha) and feel you are worthy of scorn. I won't even get into the fact that Trump has zero managerial and political skills to put what you want into action even if he wasn't the threat to Democracy that he is.

Your continued support (willingness to still vote for him) makes not only Trump a threat to American democracy, it makes YOU a threat to American democracy.

I have a BIG problem with that

[XtremeJibber2001]

Trump tried to overthrow the US Govt, has threatened to suspend the US constitution, and if re-elected has said he will persecute his enemies.

Theses are policies of any politician we should all oppose.

In the words of staunch conservative federal judge, appointed by GHWB, Michael Luttig - Trump is a clear and present danger to the USA.

[deadheadskier]

And Moose, I do want to say something about your "Election Day, not Election Month" comment. I have a big problem with that just like your continued support of traitor Trump for two reasons and they both also surround that position being a threat to democracy.

1. The politicians and media people that push this and get you nodding? Despite what they might be selling you, it has absolutely nothing to do with election integrity. They want to sow doubts in our election process and push the "election day only" concept for one reason only. To reduce turn out. Because they know if they do that, historically it has been good for Republicans and bad for Democrats.

2. That POV is about as Suburban Able-bodied privileged as it gets. What about the people in city district who have limited poll workers (again by Republican design) that results in lines of many hours to vote. I bet you don't have to deal with that. What about the poor who have to work two jobs every day to put food on the table and can't leave their shifts? What about healthcare workers who often get forced to stay on their shifts? Other Emergency personnel? Hell even in my restaurant working days there were plenty of times I was forced into a double and couldn't leave. Again it's about restricting access to vote. Places like Colorado and Oregon have had vote by mail for decades and there is zero evidence their elections are less secure than in person voting.

So, what's the problem?

It's not how our elections are run. The problem is Republicans have convinced gullible people like yourself, that there is a real problem.

Wake up. You're being lied to

[Fancypants]

And Moose, I do want to say something about your "Election Day, not Election Month" comment. I have a big problem with that just like your continued support of traitor Trump for two reasons and they both also surround that position being a threat to democracy.

1. The politicians and media people that push this and get you nodding? Despite what they might be selling you, it has absolutely nothing to do with election integrity. They want to sow doubts in our election process and push the "election day only" concept for one reason only. To reduce turn out. Because they know if they do that, historically it has been good for Republicans and bad for Democrats.

2. That POV is about as Suburban Able-bodied privileged as it gets. What about the people in city district who have limited poll workers (again by Republican design) that results in lines of many hours to vote. I bet you don't have to deal with that. What about the poor who have to work two jobs every day to put food on the table and can't leave their shifts? What about healthcare workers who often get forced to stay on their shifts? Other Emergency personnel? Hell even in my restaurant working days there were plenty of times I was forced into a double and couldn't leave. Again it's about restricting access to vote. Places like Colorado and Oregon have had vote by mail for decades and there is zero evidence their elections are less secure than in person voting.

So, what's the problem?

It's not how our elections are run. The problem is Republicans have convinced gullible people like yourself, that there is a real problem.

Wake up. You're being lied to

I think we found the bully....

[easyrider16]

I mostly agree with Moose, with a little pushback on a couple of things:

I agree, that Kurshner-Saudi deal stank. I'd have liked to see way more bright light thrown on it. And laws drawn up to prohibit it for 5 years after office. (Kirshner didn't get "billions" from the Saudis, it wasn't a payment, he got control of investing their billions. Big difference. Yes, he would have earned commissions and fees from managing those investments)

True, but the fees for assets under management with Kushner's fee structure add up to something like $25 million annually. Still a lot of scratch, and more than we are talking about with the Bidens.

▲Saudi Arabia is not a world power like China or Russia. Sure, we never got a very good explanation on the whole 9-11 connection, and they are no angel. There is very likely some classified aspects of the US-Saudi relationship we just don't know about.

Saudi Arabia may not be a world power, but they wield a tremendous amount of power over oil, a highly strategic resource. One might argue our foreign policy with respect to the Saudis is even more important than with regard to China given how important oil is to our economy.

▲Russia is an adversary, and there are millions in payments headed to the Biden family from Russia.
▲China is both a military threat and an economic threat, and there are multiple large payments to the Bidens from China.

This is where my earlier questions come in. Is any of this new? Is there any new evidence here, or are we still talking about payments from 2014? If the latter, why hasn't this been prosecuted by the preceding Republican administration? I have a hard time believing that the fools in Congress are somehow going to uncover something that the professionals in the justice department overlooked.

I think some context is in order:

The phrase “Biden family” is doing a lot of work for McCarthy – because none of these records confirm any direct payments to Joe Biden or show that he was directly involved in Hunter Biden’s business arrangements. Also, some of the $20 million McCarthy was referring to on Tuesday didn’t go to the Biden family but went to business associates of the family as part of their business activities.

What the records have shown is that during and after Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president, Hunter Biden made millions of dollars through complex financial arrangements from private equity deals, legal fees, and corporate consulting in Ukraine, China, Romania and elsewhere.

At times, Obama administration officials, including at the State Department, worried about potential conflict-of-interest problems, because Hunter Biden sat on the board of a prominent Ukrainian energy company, while Joe Biden oversaw US policy toward Ukraine, according to testimony from the Democratic-run impeachment of Donald Trump in 2019.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/13/politics ... index.html

This to me does not seem qualitatively different than what happened under Trump's administration, or really with regard to how most politicians operate in the U.S. generally. Their family members often leverage their positions and relationships for financial gain, and politicians who start with little money often retire very wealthy. One big reason is that they are allowed to trade stocks seemingly using information they obtain in office (see e.g. all those politicians who sold stocks just before the covid stock meltdown). But I'm sure at least some of it comes from business dealings that, while not necessarily illegal, otherwise wouldn't be available to them if they weren't holding high office.

The problem is that this sort of stuff is not currently illegal. It should be. We need better conflict of interest rules. I agree with your suggestion prohibiting such dealings 5 years after leaving office. Further, all politicians holding the highest offices should be required to place all their assets in blind trusts. There should also be better rules about accepting gifts and services.

[deadheadskier]

Ok, so let's just say Saudi Arabia isn't a big deal (I disagree) and we are not going to look into Jared.

But China is a big deal. What about all of the trademarks and lucrative contracts Trump family companies received from China while he was in office?

https://apnews.com/article/0a3283036d2f ... 3c6dd01727

I'm sure those are totally cool, "perfect", trademarks

[daytripper]

And Moose, I do want to say something about your "Election Day, not Election Month" comment. I have a big problem with that just like your continued support of traitor Trump for two reasons and they both also surround that position being a threat to democracy.

1. The politicians and media people that push this and get you nodding? Despite what they might be selling you, it has absolutely nothing to do with election integrity. They want to sow doubts in our election process and push the "election day only" concept for one reason only. To reduce turn out. Because they know if they do that, historically it has been good for Republicans and bad for Democrats.

2. That POV is about as Suburban Able-bodied privileged as it gets. What about the people in city district who have limited poll workers (again by Republican design) that results in lines of many hours to vote. I bet you don't have to deal with that. What about the poor who have to work two jobs every day to put food on the table and can't leave their shifts? What about healthcare workers who often get forced to stay on their shifts? Other Emergency personnel? Hell even in my restaurant working days there were plenty of times I was forced into a double and couldn't leave. Again it's about restricting access to vote. Places like Colorado and Oregon have had vote by mail for decades and there is zero evidence their elections are less secure than in person voting.

So, what's the problem?

It's not how our elections are run. The problem is Republicans have convinced gullible people like yourself, that there is a real problem.

Wake up. You're being lied to

I think we found the bully....

[easyrider16]

Ok, so let's just say Saudi Arabia isn't a big deal (I disagree) and we are not going to look into Jared.

But China is a big deal. What about all of the trademarks and lucrative contracts Trump family companies received from China while he was in office?

https://apnews.com/article/0a3283036d2f ... 3c6dd01727

I'm sure those are totally cool, "perfect", trademarks

It's a problem, but like I said above, are these things actually illegal? I suspect they are not, but that Trump's family being in office probably helped them get these deals. This is how graft works in the modern era - there's rarely a direct quid-pro-quo, but there's a whole lot of let me scratch your back today so you (or your dad/son/daughter) can scratch mine later. Seems to me the only way to prevent it is with better conflict of interest rules. In a more perfect world, the voters would care about this sort of thing and would not elect politicians compromised by such conflicts, but as we've seen with both Trump and Biden, voters don't seem to care, or at least not enough to influence their choices at the ballot box.

[XtremeJibber2001]

None of this matters.

Trump tried to overthrow the US gov't.

This is either a view of Trump's that folks support or does not support. To date, most have not opined one way or the other. I'd argue if someone does not support Trump's effort to subvert our elections, they should not support Trump.

The rest of the discussion is just noise / red herrings.

[deadheadskier]

And Moose, I do want to say something about your "Election Day, not Election Month" comment. I have a big problem with that just like your continued support of traitor Trump for two reasons and they both also surround that position being a threat to democracy.

1. The politicians and media people that push this and get you nodding? Despite what they might be selling you, it has absolutely nothing to do with election integrity. They want to sow doubts in our election process and push the "election day only" concept for one reason only. To reduce turn out. Because they know if they do that, historically it has been good for Republicans and bad for Democrats.

2. That POV is about as Suburban Able-bodied privileged as it gets. What about the people in city district who have limited poll workers (again by Republican design) that results in lines of many hours to vote. I bet you don't have to deal with that. What about the poor who have to work two jobs every day to put food on the table and can't leave their shifts? What about healthcare workers who often get forced to stay on their shifts? Other Emergency personnel? Hell even in my restaurant working days there were plenty of times I was forced into a double and couldn't leave. Again it's about restricting access to vote. Places like Colorado and Oregon have had vote by mail for decades and there is zero evidence their elections are less secure than in person voting.

So, what's the problem?

It's not how our elections are run. The problem is Republicans have convinced gullible people like yourself, that there is a real problem.

Wake up. You're being lied to

I think we found the bully....

Oh jeez, I'm sorry for being a bully.

How either of you come to that conclusion based upon the quoted comment is pretty funny to me.

[easyrider16]

None of this matters.

Trump tried to overthrow the US gov't.

This is either a view of Trump's that folks support or does not support. To date, most have not opined one way or the other. I'd argue if someone does not support Trump's effort to subvert our elections, they should not support Trump.

The rest of the discussion is just noise / red herrings.

You're right. He should be disqualified. But that doesn't mean we can't pick on Biden and others for their conflicts of interest. It's a crazy choice if we have to pick between Biden and Trump, but Biden is clearly the lesser of two evils because he's never tried to overthrow the government.

[deadheadskier]

Never a good thing when the spaghetti chart with names and amounts comes out....

Biden1.jpg
Biden2.jpg

Hey Moose, if this was so compelling, why weren't the Republicans able to deliver witnesses today or really any evidence against Joe?

Don't you find that odd?

Also, what are your thoughts on the performance of some of the Congressmen in the party you want representing you during this exchange?

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1707 ... de=profile

How about these statements identified by your party leaders?

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1707 ... de=profile

When this is all said in done, I think you'll wish you maybe left that spaghetti chart on whatever conservative antagonist blog you lifted it from.

I could be wrong. I certainly could be. But it's both quite telling and pretty amusing just how bad your party flailed today.

[Mister Moose]

Never a good thing when the spaghetti chart with names and amounts comes out....

Hey Moose, if this was so compelling, why ...
Don't you find that...

Also, what are your thoughts ....
How about these statements ...


When this is all said in done, I think you'll wish you maybe left that spaghetti chart on whatever conservative antagonist blog you lifted it from.

I could be wrong. I certainly could be. But it's both quite telling and pretty amusing just how bad your party flailed today.

Sorry, I don't take well to homework assignments, especially with multiple reading assignments and multiple questions. I'm not up on whatever day's events you're referencing. The spaghetti chart was part reference to the VT EB5 chart, and where that led, and the intertwining that is becoming apparent with the Bidens. Does that make everyone of the other party a saint? Of course not. Does each party have their irreputable members and scandals? Of course. Carry on.

I think the "conservative antagonist blog" was Facebook.

And the "election day instead of election month" was a characterization, not meant to be a literal 24 hour day. Of course we should still have absentee ballots for people who are traveling or ill. I'm fine with an accommodation for someone who can't make it that day. What I'm saying is we should all vote in the same close time proximity, with secure ballots, and we all should vote on the same set of facts. When you stretch election day into a month or more, things happen and we do not vote on the same set of facts/events.

[deadheadskier]

Homework assignments. Lol

You're the one that seems to think that the Biden's are quite corrupt, yet somehow really don't think Trump is. Because of this I would've thought today's little cosplay by the Republicans would have gotten your attention.

Let's say they're both guilty. Wouldn't that be something?

And if Biden is guilty, the Democrats said today that they would have no problem holding him accountable. When Republicans were asked if Trump should be held accountable if found guilty? Crickets

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1707461196247425294

Given this reality, which political party seems more honest? Which appears likely to not care about corruption like they claim to?

[easyrider16]

I'd give a slight edge to the democrats right now, but only a slight edge. When they claim they would hold Biden accountable, on the whole, I don't believe them. Some would, and probably more than those on the other side. But if push came to shove, I think a solid majority of Democrats would not hold him accountable.

I think it's extremely rare that any political party would willingly remove one of their own members from high office. That's the problem with partisan politics in this country - parties act to protect party members. It's why I think we'd be better off with more than two parties.