Biden's corruption

[Gori the Grey]

It would have been an open-and-shut case of corruption

Of all people, Alan Dershowitz does not believe that.

Trump Attorney Says Hunter Biden Emails Not Enough to Incriminate President

"I think there's a long, long road to hoe before you get anywhere close to the president of the United States," former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz said.

www.newsweek.com

And that sets aside all the questions regarding chain of custody on the laptop. It's a non-story, rightly ignored (not suppressed) by the legitimate press that some people keep trying to make a story.

 

[Lexicus]

All politicians are corrupt

That's why we need a strong man, above politics, amirite?

 

[João III]

this mentality is EXACTLY what brought Trump to power since he wasn't a "politician"

The politicians and the capitalists are on the same team

That's why we need a strong man, above politics, amirite?

Not what I said but okay

 

[Gorbles]

The politicians and the capitalists are on the same team

Not what I said but okay

I think it's more people are trying to work out what you meant by saying "all politicians are corrupt" in a response that was, in-context, about specific (alleged) corruption. Personally, it seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur.

 

[El_Machinae]

Of all people, Alan Dershowitz does not believe that.

Trump Attorney Says Hunter Biden Emails Not Enough to Incriminate President

"I think there's a long, long road to hoe before you get anywhere close to the president of the United States," former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz said.

www.newsweek.com

And that sets aside all the questions regarding chain of custody on the laptop. It's a non-story, rightly ignored (not suppressed) by the legitimate press that some people keep trying to make a story.

I don't think that in 2023 the discussion is still whether there was an alternative to Biden. It really should become a discussion about whether such corruption should be tolerated by the voter for the next election. Dershowitz is pointing out that there is way too little evidence for criminal prosecutors to move forward, and that's true. I don't know if there is insufficient evidence for the court of public opinion.

Except for the fact that we live in the world of lesser evils, I would hope that the Bidens have crossed what we would consider acceptable. The world is full of qualified people, I don't see a reason why having bribes funneled through a child of a candidate should be tolerable.

Finding somebody who can beat Trump in 2024 really is getting urgent.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The politicians and the capitalists are on the same team

Yeah NOW you think that but did you think that back when Trump was a nominee?
Also funny that left politicians like Bernie are on the same team as capitalist.

 

[JollyRoger]

Finding somebody who can beat Trump in 2024 really is getting urgent.

We have found him - his name is Trump

 

[Lexicus]

Not what I said but okay

It is interesting how many people choose not to believe in subtext.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think that in 2023 the discussion is still whether there was an alternative to Biden. It really should become a discussion about whether such corruption should be tolerated by the voter for the next election. Dershowitz is pointing out that there is way too little evidence for criminal prosecutors to move forward, and that's true. I don't know if there is insufficient evidence for the court of public opinion.

Except for the fact that we live in the world of lesser evils, I would hope that the Bidens have crossed what we would consider acceptable. The world is full of qualified people, I don't see a reason why having bribes funneled through a child of a candidate should be tolerable.

Finding somebody who can beat Trump in 2024 really is getting urgent.

Who do you think should run in the Democratic primary against Biden?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Katie Porter would get my vote, if she were to run. I could vote for Swalwell, but he's got to get more fire in his voice.

 

[RobAnybody]

Except for the fact that we live in the world of lesser evils, I would hope that the Bidens have crossed what we would consider acceptable.

How so? What did they do?

 

[El_Machinae]

Who do you think should run in the Democratic primary against Biden?

No idea. But someone acceptable should really be found in that multi-million person, billion dollar organization.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And that sets aside all the questions regarding chain of custody on the laptop. It's a non-story, rightly ignored (not suppressed) by the legitimate press that some people keep trying to make a story.

sites like facebook admit to suppressing it.

they also admit to acting as government agents for the purposes of controlling "misinformation", regardless of whether it was actually misinformation, since they made those choices at behest/recommendation of the biden administration

Finding somebody who can beat Trump in 2024 really is getting urgent.

desantis might take care of that, should he run. if he does, trump's ego probably won't allow for stepping aside and he'll run independent. among votes that will split to trump, it's hard to imagine many of them would otherwise be democratic.

another issue is that the democratic candidate that "can beat trump" should ideally be better wrt policy implementation than trump. biden administration openly admitted to attempting to push past constitutional restrictions during this term, so whatever candidate the democrats try to ballot harvest up next time should at least not blatantly go against their oath? "better than trump and biden" shouldn't be a high bar to clear, but it's notable that we just failed to clear it last time.

 

[Gori the Grey]

sites like facebook admit to suppressing it.

facebook's not the press

 

[TheMeInTeam]

facebook's not the press

looks, walks, quacks, and propagates like a duck. it's a duck. people get their news there. apparently as enough of a % that government felt inclined to take an active role in controlling the narrative there, ignoring the constitution yet again in doing so

not that mainstream news sources have been particularly good with how they've covered some high profile stories that go against narrative (covington, rittenhouse, flloyd, blmfraud + riots of 2020 vs 1/6 riot to name a few examples). it seems some reporters walked over alleged suppression too, though i don't have that handy atm and unlike facebook i don't think crap like cnn have openly claimed that they behaved as government agents to suppress information, they're at least more experienced/know better i guess.

 

[Gori the Grey]

it's not the press in the sense inno was using it in my response to him.

Facebook has to positively take things down, if posters there post it. The press gets to decide what it wants to cover. The press can therefore ignore something without suppressing it. As they rightly did with this non-story.

 

[Remorseless1]

looks, walks, quacks, and propagates like a duck. it's a duck. people get their news there. apparently as enough of a % that government felt inclined to take an active role in controlling the narrative there, ignoring the constitution yet again in doing so

not that mainstream news sources have been particularly good with how they've covered some high profile stories that go against narrative (covington, rittenhouse, flloyd, blmfraud + riots of 2020 vs 1/6 riot to name a few examples). it seems some reporters walked over alleged suppression too, though i don't have that handy atm and unlike facebook i don't think crap like cnn have openly claimed that they behaved as government agents to suppress information, they're at least more experienced/know better i guess.

Actually, Gori is incorrect. One does not have to be a journalistic enterprise. Freedom of speech attaches to everyone. However, private companies may limit or suppress speech, which Facebook and Twitter did so. After all, newspapers may decline to report certain stories or distort them in certain ways like the National Enquirer does in every issue.

I don't know if Biden benefited financially from his son's position with Bursima. I do know his predecessor did quite handsomely -- almost all of his golf weekends were at his golf clubs (government had to pay lodging for security and other officials accompanying trump) and foreign government officials stayed at his Washington DC. Not to mention the Orange Turd's attempting to overthrow the government on J6. Heck, Bentdick Donald just put out a video saying America needs to trash the Constitution and reinstate him as president.

So there's corruption, and then there's BIGLY CORRUPTION.

 

[JollyRoger]

Trump's Social Media is suppressing my 1st Amendment rights by banning me. Lock him up!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually, Gori is incorrect. One does not have to be a journalistic enterprise. Freedom of speech attaches to everyone. However, private companies may limit or suppress speech, which Facebook and Twitter did so.

nope, facebook does not get to claim this. when you are operating at behest of government, which they've publicly stated more than once + has been further backed by evidence, you are an agent of the government in the context of those actions. us gov't is not (legally) allowed to bypass 1st amendment protections (or any other) by using 3rd party agents to do so on their behalf.

twitter, youtube, and many others could reasonably have unjust enrichment/breach claims put against them for vague tos that can be demonstrably shown to be unfair treatment between users (for example, penalizing individual channels for the exact same footage that mainstream media uses, placing age restrictions or outright takedowns on only one of them based solely on that footage). however, unlike facebook's openly admitting they listened to government for which information to suppress, youtube's unethical conduct is not obviously a first amendment violation and is more of a tort claim.

Trump's Social Media is suppressing my 1st Amendment rights by banning me. Lock him up!

using equal basis, they will lock him up along with you. in order to maximize the suffering, neither of you will be allowed to physically do anything to each other, nor have access to any means to prevent hearing the other one speak/make noise. one might very reasonably claim this is cruel and unusual punishment, but since gov't apparently doesn't care about constitutional rights, what's one more?

The press can therefore ignore something without suppressing it.

not entirely true; the press is not a single person. news organizations can, and do, influence which stories are presented. they can, and do, punish employees who dissent, even if the information presented is accurate. case by case whether that's justified, obviously, but it's core to their model and thus can also be corrupted.

 

[JollyRoger]

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom. . . of the press.

How is the press deciding what to publish and what not to publish a Constitutional violation?