A SCOTUS Opening

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2020, 03:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Just out of curiosity, what are Dems saying about the Hunter Biden allegations?

What allegations?

[jj22]

(09-23-2020, 03:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Al Franken says "No way!" 

Or maybe there are actions and then there are "actions."

I don't see Dems turning a blind eye to Biden laundering hush money to a porn star through his campaign and using the DOJ to block investigations into his finances. I don't seem them turning a blind eye to rape accusations, nor to a "couldn't-have-because-she-was-too-ugly" defense.

I DEFINITELY don't see them turning a blind eye to Biden's actions if those include ignoring Russian intervention in our election or the recommendation of epidemiologists during a pandemic killing thousands of Americans, or comments about Mexican "rapists" and "shithole countries." 

I remember when Nancy was brought to her knees in apology by American voters for ripping up a speech at the end of the State of the Union. Republicans gained seats and never even had to apologize for yelling YOU LIE! at Obama DURING his speech.

Biden as Bfine mentioned "slurred" a whole race and had to apologize, while Trump insults whole races to cheers from his crowds at rallies. But Democrats could never get away with such talk.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2020, 03:47 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Remember when Al Franken was funny ?

No

[*PhilHos*]

(09-23-2020, 03:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What allegations?

You serious, Clark? The ones where Joe Biden threatened the Ukraine government to supposedly not pursue corruption charges against Hunter?

[Dill]

(09-23-2020, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All I have to go on is anecdotal for this, but I'm going to see if anyone has done research on it. I'm genuinely curious and almost certain that there has been a journal article or research paper done on this topic.

The difficulty with researching a topic like that is that you'd have to have a fairly stable definition of 'actions' which both sides could agree are good or bad, and to what degree. There might not be a whole lot of difference before Trump. Certainly not before Gingrich.

Remember that before Trump, neither party would support candidates who openly called women "ugly" and praised Russian autocrats.

Hermann Cain was knocked out the 2012 primary because two sexual harassment allegations surfaced, dropping his numbers. That was Republican voters holding him accountable. Gingrich had difficulty getting broad support because of his marriage history.

One of the oddities about the current situation is that as Republicans have rather suddenly embraced Trump regardless of his history of sexual assault accusations, marital infidelity, public misogyny, racism, covering for Putin and MBS, abuse of power, and calling military members "losers," some are now equally adamant that Dems would do the exactly same. 

Nevermind that even Republicans would not do the same BEFORE Trump.   

I think that is part of the general effort to mitigate behavior that is over-the-top ugly in any human being, let alone the leader of the free world, and normalize Trump. Dem candidates are just or nearly as bad. (Biden once "slurred a whole race"--did you hear?)

[CJD]

(09-23-2020, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's actually a pretty common thing to see that Democratic voters tend to hold their people accountable more than Republicans do. Some of the talking heads discuss this being a big liability for the part on a regular basis. This is what he was getting at, I think. In general, Democratic politicians face both Republicans and their own voters holding them accountable whereas Republicans are given a pass by their voters more often.

If you want to see an example of this in action, the number of times Democrats have to "win over the moderates" with their policies is mentioned, at least, 100 times as often as the same sentiment regarding the Republicans.

When is the last time Republicans courted moderates? It just doesn't really happen. They can go as far right as they want (and have). It's the Democrats that need to play to the center because if they don't offer centrists exactly what they want, they'll just move to the right.

This is the nature of left - right politics. the right wing is inherently the "default" option because it is the one that ensures the system stays mostly the way it is. They may want to crack down on immigration or sexual rights, but those don't affect the majority of the country so they are easily swept under the rug. And besides, most of the things that the right wants to change are just reverting to the ways of old. Less regulation. Less interference by the government (except for abortion) etc. We've lived through a time with those policies, so going back to them isn't nearly as threatening as trying something new that could potentially catastrophically fail (like many believe medicare for all may).

The left is the side that, generally, wants to change things. To try new ideas (such as medicare for all). So if the left is threatening to change something that moderates or centrists don't like, such as a healthcare system that they know at least works for them (to the extent that it doesn't cause their death or serious bodily injury or the inability to mend these injuries), they will happily just move in with the right. Not because they necessarily believe the same things the right wing does but because they know, for better or worse, the right isn't going to try to radically change all that much. At least not for them (them being straight white people and especially straight white men). They may even give us a tax cut!

I know conservatives don't like it when you phrase their beliefs this way, but it's the fundamental reason that the left has to constantly fight for the middle, whereas the right just inherits what the left cannot convince to come aboard. And, depending on the issue that the left is trying to change, those people inherited by the right are different people. If you're trying to expand the rights of gay or trans people or try to expand accessibility to abortion, they gain the Christian vote. 

It isn't because the right is offering much to the Christians. Their president certainly has absolutely NOTHING to do with Christian values (in fact, he's the exact opposite of nearly all of their values). But the right isn't trying to actively provide something for a group of people they consider to be "sinners."

The same can be said of those with material interest in corporations, insurance companies and other profitable measures. If the left wants to properly tax the wealthy, they will happily side with the right and take their donations with them. This is exactly why there has been so little progress in reforming our healthcare system.

It's a tricky game trying to get elected as a leftist. That's why so many people on the left are forced to just suck it up and vote for corporatists like Biden. Lest they be saddled with 4 more years of Donald Trump.

[jj22]

(09-23-2020, 03:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You serious, Clark? The ones where Joe Biden threatened the Ukraine government to supposedly not pursue corruption charges against Hunter?

None of that was true tho.

[Dill]

(09-23-2020, 03:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You serious, Clark? The ones where Joe Biden threatened the Ukraine government to supposedly not pursue corruption charges against Hunter?

Well as it turns out, that was simply another Fox/Giuliani mischaracterization of what actually happened.

I.e., it never happened.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-23-2020, 03:59 PM)jj22 Wrote: None of that was true tho.

Well, it was supposedly for a different reason other than pursing corruption charges on Hunter Biden, but Biden still threatened to withhold aid to a foreign government. 

[Dill]

(09-23-2020, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can you think of any difference between the Al Franken case and that other other recent accusations?

I mean other than him been a "held to a higher standard" Dem. 

Got to be more specific.  

[jj22]

(09-23-2020, 04:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, it was supposedly for a different reason other than pursing corruption charges on Hunter Biden, but Biden still threatened to withhold aid to a foreign government. 

Biden along with about 20+ other offcials from our Ally Countries over corruption. That wasn't a unilateral move, and it's unfortunate it's being spun that way given that info is out there and seemingly everywhere.

[Dill]

(09-23-2020, 04:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, it was supposedly for a different reason other than pursing corruption charges on Hunter Biden, but Biden still threatened to withhold aid to a foreign government. 

Biden was publicly representing the position of the US Government, as well as the EU, when he made that threat.

I.e. doing his job. 

The point of the whole exercise was to remove a prosecutor who wasn't addressing corruption in the Ukraine, and US aid was predicated on Ukraine taking action to stop it.  Biden or no, the aid would have been withheld had that prosecutor remained.

The Fox tack on this was to present Biden's official, public action as EQUIVALENT to Trump, in a private phone call, linking aid already cleared for Ukraine to an announcement of dirt on Biden. Not doing his job. Abuse of power.

Here's the latest on this topic.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/biden-inquiry-republicans-johnson.html

WASHINGTON — An election-year investigation by Senate Republicans into corruption allegations against Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee, and his son, Hunter, involving Ukraine found no evidence of improper influence or wrongdoing by the former vice president, bringing to a close a highly politicized inquiry its leaders had hoped would tarnish President Trump’s rival.

The report asserted that Hunter Biden traded off his father’s name to close lucrative business deals around the world, and that his work for Burisma Holdings, a corrupt Ukrainian energy company while the former vice president was directing American policy toward Kyiv gave the appearance of a conflict of interest and alarmed some in the State Department. But the 87-page document released on Wednesday by the Senate Homeland Security Committee contained no evidence that the former vice president improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed.

[Benton]

(09-23-2020, 02:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: First, why word it as "not incorrect"?

More importantly, I don't doubt there were some that legitimately thought they were doing it for the right reasons. The problem was the constant cry for impeachment for so long kinda ruins it for those who were trying to do the right thing.

First, I dunno? There wasn't any trickery. I'm just saying I agree with what you said.

To the more importantly, that still doesn't make it wrong though. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2020, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Got to be more specific.  

A picture is worth 1,000 words

[*PhilHos*]

(09-23-2020, 04:23 PM)Benton Wrote: First, I dunno? There wasn't any trickery. I'm just saying I agree with what you said.

I know, but it felt like you were saying that way 'cause you didn't like agreeing with what I said. 

(09-23-2020, 04:23 PM)Benton Wrote: To the more importantly, that still doesn't make it wrong though. 

By itself? Maybe not. But, you gotta admit, crying for impeachment before he's sworn in and then actually moving forward with impeachment sure does look shady, does it not?

[Dill]

(09-23-2020, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A picture is worth 1,000 words

You mentioned "other" allegations. 

That's what I was asking about.

[*bfine32*]

(09-23-2020, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: You mentioned "other" allegations. 

That's what I was asking about.

The one's that the GOP are more forgiving of:

Kavanaugh

Trump

come to mind. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2020, 03:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You serious, Clark? The ones where Joe Biden threatened the Ukraine government to supposedly not pursue corruption charges against Hunter?

(09-23-2020, 04:08 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, it was supposedly for a different reason other than pursing corruption charges on Hunter Biden, but Biden still threatened to withhold aid to a foreign government. 

Yeah, those were debunked a long time ago. Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine as a part of a multi-national and bipartisan effort on Ukraine to reduce corruption. It was an official act of US diplomacy and completely above board.

[jj22]

(09-23-2020, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: A picture is worth 1,000 words

How many words is a audio recording admitting sexual assault worth? 

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2020, 05:16 PM)jj22 Wrote: How many words is a audio recording admitting sexual assault worth? 

Honestly, why bother? The back and forth just reinforces what we have been saying.