politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Donald Trump has a hitlist. Hunter is on that list. I don't think he deserves the pardon, but he needs it. Republicans will crucify him given the chance. I don't really want to see Republicans holding his head up on a pike for all to see, as much as they'd love that.
If you switch some of those names around it's sounds just like four years ago when Trump was leaving office....
You get that, right?
Like, Hunter was a crackhead that lied to get a gun, and then they abandoned the gun in a trashcan like, right next to a school, and then said when they went back for it, someone had taken it
Hunter is not some innocent child. He's a crackhead in his 50s who has lived a life of luxury free of consequences due to political connections.
Don't forget Biden wrote the 92 crime bill, he's ruined innumerable lives of actual children because of that.
If you can't see the hypocrisy, you probably don't understand why 1/3 of voters dont vote.
His situation is over publicized, so he can't have a fair case. I agree. He sounds like a piece of shit. There's a reason there's not supposed to be cameras in court, though.
His situation is published...
His auto biography provides the whole story, there's hard evidence to line up when the gun was bought, rehab records for drug use...
He's guilty. I dont think he's even tried to deny it...
And you realize your logic could be applied to people like Rudy, Mike Pillow, and trump himself?
You're inventing reasons why Hunter should escape consequences, but the thing is anything you come up with, can be applied to republicans in the exact same way.
Seriously. Before you try to excuse his behavior, replace it with "Don Jr" and think about if you still think it's a good reason.
Maybe you can? Maybe your consistent on anyone born into the ruling wealthy class gets zero consequences. But lots more people only want it for their "team".
So I'm hoping changing the name helps you understand.
You've lost sight of why Biden pardoned Hunter. It had nothing at all to do with the merits of case of the interests of criminal justice. It had to do with preserving the institutions of democracy for the immediate years to come.
You can't "both sides" this one.
You think to do that, Biden's one and only course of action was pardoning his soon, and now it's mission fucking accomplished?
No. They quite literally cannot get that. They will find a way to contort themselves into believing that Biden is a responsible dignified statesman who is forced into every stupid, evil or corrupt thing he does, up to and including genocide.
It's a national security risk to give custody of the former president's son to Donald Trump.
The idea right now is to give Trump less avenues of control over institutions of democracy, and that includes a former law abiding president, his pulpit, and his classified knowledge.
Can you see that?
You replied to me a couple times saying that, without ever explaining how you think that's true...
You can't just repeat nonsense over and over and it becomes true eventually
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-suggests-hunter-biden-death-penalty-1234786435/
Seems obvious.
I am pretty sure that Trump would have had that man killed in prison. In my books his dad did the right thing, fuck the optics.
I just made a post commenting that it's a national security risk to have a former president's family member incarcerated or under prosecution by the DoJ as Trump is planning to run it. He flat out said he's planning to use the DoJ to incarcerate political rivals.
It's like
Looked through to find one of these takes near the top.
That is a ridiculous idea.
A doddering, old, ex-president that is known to be forgetful is somehow going to help Trump, the current sitting president?
One step further: All the things above, but everyone Joe could talk to knows that his son is a political prisoner? Maybe we can add a footnote to this thought, too that questions why someone who got ran out of politics by his own party would care to meddle in the affairs of democratic institutions or those of our allies. (With the understanding that certain actions and certain conversations are violations of the Hatch act, which, under a vindictive DOJ, would see Joe in prison.)
In this absolute farce where he’s emerging from his quiet sundown to try to engage with people about politics, does anyone see Joe as anything but a prisoner himself?
Who would trust any words from him about anything other than Amtrak or ice cream?
You’d have to be a complete fucking moron to think that scenario could play out. That’s the sort of dumb shit that happens on TV, and may be something that Trump tries, but is not something competent humans fall for.
Today’s word of the day is: Specious.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-suggests-hunter-biden-death-penalty-1234786435/
What I’m seeing is proof that Trump (rather, the Republican Party) failed to use the justice department to go after Hunter for tax evasion.
And while I do see that Trump clearly wanted to use the DOJ vindictively, and that he apparently wanted to put Hunter to death over tax evasion, I’m not seeing anything to support your claim that Trump would use the DOJ to manipulate Joe.
So what point are you trying to make here? That if Trump wants to manipulate Joe, leading off by killing Hunter is his go-to? Removing your leverage in the opening play is kind of a shit strategy, if I’m honest.
Are you trying to imply some other claim and hope I’ll validate it in the absence of an actual argument from you?
You’re just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick.
Is the above an accurate read of why you shared that article on two separate comments I made? Comments submitted without elaboration or clarifying why you think they support the statements you’ve made.
Look — Trump is a dangerous old fool, and he will do awful things. Possibly, even awful things that are vaguely similar to what you are describing. But your arguments, reasoning, and supporting ‘evidence’ aren’t good. If you’re going to be argumentative, insulting, and present conspiracy theories online, at least do it well.
Appreciate your comment. Nobody can prove something that is a matter of intuition. Can't prove what anyone might do in the future.
You agree, at a minimum, with me that there are clear conflicts of interest.
That fact alone is a national security risk.
People often lose their security clearance if they go into debt or get arrested. It's not because of the risk they are bad with money or even that they've committed a crime. It's because they are in a position where they are vulnerable to being exploited.
And it's a sliding scale. The more someone knows, or the more control someone might wield, there is increasingly less tolerance in the national security world for possible avenues of exploitation.
Ex presidents are loose ends on the nation's closest secrets, right? Also, potentially very powerful, even after their terms end, right?
Trump absolutely has a history of demanding loyalty and trading favors. "Hey, Joe, as you know, we have your son, Hunter, and we're holding him over there, and we have some of the boys watching him, and we were wondering if you wouldn't come out and publically say US weapons are prolonging the war in Europe, and that we need to leave well enough alone...."
We have literally heard that rhetoric from Trump with our own ears.
Are you the same person that was trying to both sides this? You can't compare turning over the former president's criminal kid to a bunch of alt right trumpists and Russian loyalists with turning over the ex president's criminal kid to lib dems, Merrick Garland and Jim Comey types. They bag this dude's shit when he travels. You think they were going to let him let Trump keep his kid?
Edit: : we will see after The noise dies down and insiders start spilling the beans about what happened in the room. My confidence level that the national security conflict of interest was a principal consideration is very high.
It seems like you’ve been focusing a lot on opportunity in your statements, but you also have to consider motive.
After Biden’s term is up, the Republican Party is being handed full control of the U.S. government. They have the presidency, the house, and the senate. They simply do not need Biden.
Regarding Ukraine, Trump can just not send any more aid, and (illegally) stop any in-progress aid while calling it an official presidential act.
I think Trump is really weak. The instances of him taking advantage of other people relate to money, sex, power, and his ego. (In a topical sense - I don’t think he’s smart enough to get ego fulfillment from things like achieving policy goals.) He doesn’t engage in a hard push for matters of statecraft or policy goals. He leaves that to the sycophants around him. Surely they could conceive of such an idea, but even if they did try to put something like that in motion, do you think he would grant anyone in his circle enough power to carry out such a plan? And if they could carry out such a plan, I just don’t see Trump’s ego accepting help from ‘the competition’, let alone other nations viewing a Democratic-led Trump envoy with anything but suspicion. Other countries have intelligence services. They’ll be able to figure out why someone pulls a policy 180, and they’ll do whatever is best for their country.
And to your point about Trump demanding loyalty - absolutely. But from his sycophants. He doesn’t need any particular democrat to be a sycophant. I think, honestly, he’s a lazy slob who is so used to money and power carrying water for him that he just finds the next person. He doesn’t have the grit to be malevolent unless it’s for money, sex, power, or his ego.
And, for the record, I am not the ‘both sides’ person. I have no idea what that line of thought is about. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t make that argument because I don’t think Trump loves his male children enough to care what happens to them. I believe he’d only care if something affected his public image.
More well reasoned takes.
I'm lumping the sycophants in with the leader. He is the leader. He susceptible to influence, and easy to manipulate, but give him credit. There is no way he hasn't already had people killed. He's had the kgb looking out for him for decades, and a lot of the people around him, too. Some of the sycophants are so shamelessly devout because they are ideological allies, some, it's because they're compromised. Someone, maybe, got to their families. Too loose of an end for my tastes, and I think those around Biden would see it similarly. I hope you're right for everyone's sake. I think you understate Trump's role in the criminal enterprise and his willingness to use violence.