|
Post by robeiae on Oct 2, 2019 6:27:17 GMT -5
Fine. Let us assume HUNTER Biden is not a good egg. HUNTER Biden is not running for office. The relevant question is whether JOE Biden did something wrong. And I agree, if JOE Biden did something wrong, that's bad and for the record, I'd care. But all your quote there does is note that maybe HUNTER Biden did something wrong. You throw in this vague "not saying anything when one's son is doing something wrong". Where are you getting this from? Do you have a cite for the assertion that Joe was in fact aware of proven wrong-doing on his son's part, had a duty to disclose it, and failed to disclose it? Can you be more specific about what it was Joe was supposed to disclose and to him? Because damn, that's vague. It's not vague at all. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Joe Biden knew his son was working with this Ukraine company. Joe Biden knew his son got the gig simply because of being Joe Biden's son. Joe Biden should have avoided the Ukraine like the plague at the very least. It's a very simple and very obvious conflict of interest. Really, he should have told his son--or maybe the US government should have told the Ukrainian government to tell the company this was a no-go. Of course, the problem there is that patronage is still the way things work in a lot of places, as a matter of course. But Biden knew better, that's why he's say things like he doesn't ask his son about his son's business. It's a thread. Conversations go where they go. In this case, it went here because I used Trump's Ukraine problems to make a larger point about corruption in general. And to expand: in my view, Trump's troubles again reflect his lack of subtly when it comes to "playing the game." He could have very easily gotten the same message across to the Ukrainian President without saying anything that would have gotten him in trouble. But he sucks at this sort of thing, he sucks at diplomacy. He's better at being a dick on twitter (which, by the way, now seems to be the primary goal of every pundit out there: being the biggest dick on twitter). And I think that Trump's lack of subtly is serving to not only make it clear that he's unfit to be President but that we've been letting too many pols get away with too much shit for a long, long, time. One might even argue that a Trump Presidency is the culmination of such a lax attitude... So again, Trump has stepped in it big time. He's in hot water (though sadly, he may still come through it). I think he should resign, because I think he can be and should be impeached. That's pretty heavy stuff, I think. Is that me saying "exactly what Trump and his cohorts were aiming for"? But Trump needing to go doesn't mean there's no one else out there doing anything wrong, that no one else can be criticized. Newsflash: criticizing some other pol or pointing out something else that is wrong doesn't mean one is ignoring Trump's misdeeds, doesn't mean one is equating this other things to Trump's misdeeds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 8:46:48 GMT -5
You think that because his son was working in a Ukrainian business, he should have recused himself from his administration's efforts to rout out corruption in Ukraine? Efforts that, were they successful and were his son's company in fact engaged in corruption, would inevitably hurt rather than help his son's interest?
Tell me, should Trump recuse himself from pursuing corruption in China and Saudi Arabia and Russia and all the other places his family does business? (Ha ha! Trick question. Trump doesn't have any interest in pursuing corruption unless it's to get a share of it. But if, for the sake of argument, he were interested in fighting corruption, you think he is conflicted out?)
It's not that I'm obtuse. It's that I think it's a false equivalency argument desperately seeking for a way to "both sides" this horrendous mess.
As I feared, I am finding this conversation exhausting and depressing rather than enjoyable. And I doubt anyone will emerge any the better or wiser for it.
I leave the field to you.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 2, 2019 9:42:44 GMT -5
*shrug*
As you wish. What's depressing--to me--is the cadre of people so wrapped up in hating Trump that they are unwilling to accept any notion that doesn't feed that hatred.
As to Trump recusing himself: I think that if any of his immediate family are jumping into business dealings with entities where Trump as President has input, such dealings should not be allowed. If they are allowed, then yes Trump should recuse himself and his admin as much as is possible.
Again, such situations reflect corruption that we've all just kind of accepted as the way things are.
You're a lawyer, ffs. What would you assume, given these facts: Politician's son gets sweetheart deal from company in a business he knows nothing about. Company may a target of an investigation. Politician squashes the investigation with threats.
Sometimes, the appearance of impropriety is enough, imo. Biden should have stepped away, and I think he knows it.
But then again, the public has accepted Solyndra, Haliburton, and a host of other things, so I can understand why he may have thought it wouldn't be a problem.
Still, if Trump IS removed from office for the Ukraine mess, Biden's candidacy will never survive, imo. Biden would, I think, actually aid the impeachment push if he ended his campaign (and remember, I say this as someone who prefers Biden by a long shot over the rest of the Dem field).
And there's no "false equivalency" here. What Biden did--or didn't do--isn't comparable to Trump's actions at all, imo. But that doesn't mean there was nothing wrong, nothing questionable about what Biden did.
Your problem here is that I'm not saying "well if what Trump did was wrong, then so was what Biden did, so if what Biden did wasn't wrong, then what Trump did wasn't wrong." I think you think that I'm saying that, but I'm not. You can insist that you think Biden did nothing wrong, and I can disagree with you. But we can both still agree that Trump should be gone. Or is that too much to ask?
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Oct 3, 2019 17:26:33 GMT -5
Maybe I'm reading these sories wrong but Rob, you said:
"Politician's son gets sweetheart deal from company in a business he knows nothing about. Company may a target of an investigation. Politician squashes the investigation with threats."
Those first two lines may well be true but I'm not sure what you mean by the third line. That Joe Biden helped quash an investigation into the company? Because if that's what you mean, it's factually incorrect. Joe Biden helped push out a prosecutor, one identified by the US and other European nations as corrupt. That prosecutor was NOT looking into Hunter B's company. By getting rid of (or helping to) that prosecutor, Joe Biden increased the likelihood his son's new company would be investigated.
I see why Cass says it's a false equivalency because I can't see how Joe Biden used his power improperly (the guy they got rid of was corrupt) OR to help his son (he put his job in more jeopardy).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 4, 2019 11:56:45 GMT -5
Well again, it's not 100% clear that the prosecutor wasn't looking into Hunter's company. There are competing narratives on this and I, for one, am not prepared to decide which Ukraine officials are absolute truth tellers.
But look, you're acting like I'm saying Biden needs to be punished, or that there needs to be an investigation--ala Trump--into his actions, to find out if he did act to protect/help his son. I'm not saying that. Trump, in contrast, does need to be punished/investigated. So there's no equivalency from the get go.
But my feeling is that what went on with Hunter Biden is bullshit, that such activities shouldn't be allowed. We may not be able to stop all patronage, but we can certainly put a limit on some of it, by restricting family members of politicians from doing this kind of stuff,imo.
Biden, himself, may not have done anything technically wrong. But come on, he knew what his son had pulled off; willful ignorance isn't a meaningful defense. So I think that Biden should simply excuse himself from politics, should allow that even if he didn't do anything wrong, the mere appearance of impropriety in this sort of situation is something he should have not let happen. And I think that if Biden did this, it would move the needle towards impeachment, would put more pressure on Trump and his legions of fanboys.
Beyond that, we have--as a country, as a people--come to accept a lot of stuff that it is functionally simple corruption as simply "the way things are." Reaching back to just the Obama admin, there was Solyndra and the much more egregious case of Siga, just to name two. Trump is--imo--letting similar stuff happen, but he's not even trying to be clever about it. But it's not more wrong simply because it's Trump. Wrong is wrong. Corruption is corruption. Patronage is patronage.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 4, 2019 16:27:07 GMT -5
What exactly is it that you think "went on with Hunter Biden?" What do you think it is that "Biden's son pulled off?"
I'm really intrigued to figure out what it is that conservatives find so egregious about either of the Bidens' actions here. I can't tell if it's that many of them (the loudest voices, at least) really do perceive that some sort of great ethical/moral violation happened or if it's just mostly captious pearl-clutching.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 4, 2019 17:41:08 GMT -5
I think that people making money off of their political connections--while as old as the hills--is something that we should try to minimize, as a matter of course. I think this is especially true of relatives. Hunter Biden magically ended up on the board of Burisma Holdings, despite having basically nothing to offer, aside from his last name. And that's a freebie gig that netted him as much as 50 grand a month, just for being named Biden.
This was at a time when the Obama admin--largely through the person of its VP--was trying to help the Ukraine distance itself from Russian influence (a worthwhile thing, imo). This isn't such a difficult thing to fathom, imo. Questions were raised at the time, in fact. And that's because Burisma was founded by a pro-Russian (or at least pro-Yanukovych) Ukrainian, making the appointing of Biden's son a very obvious political move, a means of (hopefully) protecting Burisma to some extent.
Given these circumstances, I think Joe Biden should have stepped away as point-man in the Ukraine. That's pretty much it. I mean ideally, Hunter should have never accepted the gig to begin with (I am of the opinion that he went to the Ukraine looking for this kind of gig), or the US should have forbid it as a conflict of interest. Neither of those things happened. Now, I'd like to see Biden end his Presidential ambitions, or at least serve up a "you know what, I should have handled all that much differently." Again, I don't think he needs to be investigated or otherwise punished; I think it almost a certainty that he did nothing illegal.
I don't know what's "pearl clutching" about this; I think it quite obvious that Hunter Biden is (or at least was) something of an entitled douche. That sucks for Joe Biden, but it's hardly the first time relatives have fucked things up for a politician.
And the larger issue here: Trump's relatives who are looking to pull this same sort of crap need to have the rugs pulled out from under them imo, whenever possible. We really need to start cutting this shit out across the board, because I think it's getting more and more out of hand. It just took a really big douche to shine a light on lots of other smaller douches (fyi, Manafort and other players like him are doing this too; they just do it sneakier, most of the time).
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 6, 2019 6:31:57 GMT -5
I think if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that Trump HATES nepotism. He tries to root it out whenever possible, and that's the only reason he did what he did regarding Hunter Biden and Ukraine.
He wants to make sure every American truly earns the positions they've attained, and if that means politically connected family members get the short end of the stick, then so be it.
That's exactly why Trump appointed Jared Kushner as senior White House adviser.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 6, 2019 14:06:58 GMT -5
Ha, you joke but there might be some truth to it in a "wrong for thee but not for me" kind of way.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 14, 2019 7:49:42 GMT -5
Of course there is (some truth to it), Trump is a raging hypocrite on such matters...well, on pretty much all matters. Regardless, I think it's obvious that Biden is between a rock and a hard place now. If the impeachment inquiry gears up any more, Repubs in Congress are going to be able to subpoena Biden, his son, and others (in what will be mostly a smear job, true), and Biden's numbers are already tumbling. Imo, going forward with impeachment means a functional end to Biden's campaign. Again, it sucks for Biden, but he's gonna have to take one for the team--the country--imo, one way or another. Hunter Biden, by the way, IS trying to do damage control to help his father: www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-13/hunter-biden-steps-down-from-chinese-board-in-bid-to-fight-backHunter Biden's full statement: medium.com/@george.mesires/a-statement-on-behalf-of-hunter-biden-dated-october-13-2019-d80bc11087ab
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 22, 2019 22:40:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 23, 2019 8:00:58 GMT -5
The Onion bit is funny. But at the same time, of course: www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/23/joe-biden-sorry-lynching-remark/4069082002/Biden argues that Trump's use of the term is worse, however, because--from what I can glean--Trump is meaner. I'm still onboard with impeachment moving forward, but the dimwits on the left need to focus on the problem, and not get wrapped up in trying to score political points, because they suck at it. They only give Trump's fanboys more ammo.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 23, 2019 9:06:17 GMT -5
IMO, that's one of the weaknesses Biden is going to have, if he ends up being the nominee. Maybe not every dumb Trump comment has a Biden equivalent, but pretty much every dumb Trump comment could have a Biden equivalent. There's hardly anything Trump could say where I would think, "Biden would never have said that, ever."
And I would bet Biden doesn't even remember a lot of the dumb comments he's made over the years. So he'll likely just end up in this situation repeatedly, where he tries to take down Trump for something he did himself at one point.
Well, at least the election will have some irony.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 2, 2019 0:02:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 15, 2019 9:48:22 GMT -5
I am of the opinion that the Dems have hopelessly fucked this thing up completely, mostly because of Schiff. It all looks like an attempt to get Trump on some sort of technicality, given the way Schiff is stage-managing the hearings. And from what I've seen, the witnesses are giving as much ammo to Trump's defenders as they are to his detractors.
I'm sorely disappointed with the Dems here (again, mostly with Schiff). This should have been done in the full light of day from the get-go, as opposed to the staged show that it seems to be.
They (the Dems) aren't gonna get Trump, imo. Those Dems in tight races who supported this are already worried that the leadership has hung them out to dry.
|
|