5 ms·

> Is it "false and misleading" to say that (say) Joe Biden is corrupt? I certainly think so, but there are literally tens of millions of people who would profes

by lapcat 3y ago

> Is it "false and misleading" to say that (say) Joe Biden is corrupt? I certainly think so, but there are literally tens of millions of people who would profess to disagree. Serious question: Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? As far as I've seen, which is a lot, he's been a paid tool of the Delaware financial industry for his entire career. (By the way, I don't identify with any political party or politician, in case you think this criticism is partisan.)

pstuart 3y ago
Corrupt to what degree? Ensuring his donors get their money's worth or actually committing crimes for self-enrichment? It's clear he was beholden to the financial industry and that stinks but is technically above board. I'm going to hazard a guess that his legacy matters more to him then cash in the bank. I find it fascinating that those that obsess over "Crooked Joe" seem to change their tune when their preferred candidate comes under scrutiny. Maybe I'm too stupid but it's almost like they don't care about the crime, only in destroying their political enemies.
- nailer 3y ago
  Not a US citizen, but the main issues seem to be: - Hunter Biden extracting 5 million dollars from the Chinese businessman with apparent knowledge of Joe Biden (per the taped phone call) - His son's Burisma appointment with little to no experience in the energy industry and nothing to add apart from his father's connections (matter of public knowledge). - FBI election tampering regarding suppressing the true story of his son's laptop (revealed during the Twitter files). However: - they haven't been tried, much less proven in a US court - these actions may be less severe than previous instances of corruption amongst US presidents - Biden may not have been aware of the FBI's action concerning suppressing the laptop story
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Joe Biden has no control over his adult son. Hunter Biden clearly was engaging in shenanigans based off of his father's name (the board membership was technically legal, morally unpalatable). There's no evidence that Joe actually sold his influence directly. Virtually all Biden supporters agree that if Hunter did illegal acts he should face trial and resulting consequences, and the same for his father. But we also agree that such rigor be applied across the aisle. Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I am not aware of any such agreement on the other side. Again, it's almost like they don't care about the crime, only in smearing their political rivals. But the party of law and order wouldn't do that, right? The suppression of the laptop story was trying to tamp down a political ops maneuver (an October surprise). I can understand the frustration in seeing that happen, as it worked so well when they did the same thing to HRC in the prior election. There's a reason why the phrase "buttery males" exists -- for this is the exact same "buttery males" playbook: all that matters is that the story exists and is damaging and voters will lap it up. Disclaimer: I voted for the current president but I'm not a member of his party and am strongly anti-partisan.
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      > The suppression of the laptop story was trying to tamp down a political ops maneuver (an October surprise). I can understand the frustration in seeing that happen, as it worked so well when they did the same thing to HRC in the prior election. It's also worth noting that Joe Biden was not President during the 2020 election season.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - nailer 3y ago
      > Joe Biden has no control over his adult son. Sure but Hunter has stated on tape that Joe was in the room with him. That could be a lie but it’s definitely worth investigating. > Virtually all Biden supporters agree that if Hunter did illegal acts he should face trial and resulting consequences, and the same for his father. I don’t think most Biden supporters even realise the tape exists, so the idea of criminal investigation would be so far fetched. In their minds China / Burisma didn’t happen and they probably don’t know about government agencies suppressing the laptop story to influence the election. Not because they’re bad but because the US treats politics like a team sport and TV news only reports on what benefits their ‘team’. And sure, investigate Trump over paying Stormy using campaign money. > The suppression of the laptop story was trying to tamp down a political ops maneuver (an October surprise). Government agencies (who falsely briefed Twitter and Meta about the laptop being Russian disinformation) should not be working for any candidate. > so well when they did the same thing to HRC in the prior election. I haven’t heard about gov agencies doing anything in aid of Trump or against HRC.
      - pstuart 3y ago
        Again, we recognize that corruption took place but is unfortunately legal and endemic (certainly not limited to one specific party). This corruption should be ended, but there's one little problem. You. And all the others making a stink about this. You don't care about corruption, only in smiting your political enemies. Neither does any of the members of the senate committee or anyone else obsessed with this. The only thing that matters is "the story" and the taint of its implications. This is frustrating beyond belief, because most of us non-believers in this nonsense would love to right these wrongs but it will only happen if addressed in a bipartisan manner. That would require an interest in good government rather than power, and day by day it's clearer and clearer that power itself is the only goal. Meanwhile, the cult continues its worship of a man who is literally corrupt to the core whose only interest is in self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement. I take no pleasure in these observations (quite the opposite, in fact). As with any other cult, there is no possibility for reason or reflection and the only reaction to that engagement is to double down on their beliefs. Political discussion is usually avoided in polite society because it devolves into tribal warfare. That's most unfortunate because the actions of the political class have literally life and death repercussions and strongly shape the health of the country. So while I did point out flaws in your tribe, I didn't do it to claim my tribe is better. First and foremost, I am not a member of any political party, and equally important, I believe we should have a nation that operates under the rule of law in a manner that serves us all the best it can (regardless of affiliation). The committee reports: https://oversight.house.gov/report/ https://oversight.house.gov/report/ edit: the committee's been at it for some time and the only thing they've come up with is the appearance of impropriety. That's it. One would think that with all their resources and zeal to stamp out this corruption that they'd have a smoking gun by now and would use that to try and convict Biden Sr. But they won't (because it's quite likely nothing exists) and they don't want their game to end as it works so well to keep you and others up in arms and ready to "vote the bad guys out".
- lapcat 3y ago
  > It's clear he was beholden to the financial industry and that stinks but is technically above board. IMO your definition of "corruption" has a very low bar. ;-) > I'm going to hazard a guess that his legacy matters more to him then cash in the bank. Legacy requires election which requires campaign donors. It's quid pro quo. Theoretically, elected representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, not their donors. > I find it fascinating that those that obsess over "Crooked Joe" seem to change their tune when their preferred candidate comes under scrutiny. I just said literally "I don't identify with any political party or politician, in case you think this criticism is partisan."
lisper 3y ago
> Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? I have no idea. But I do think that if he were the most corrupt in history, there would be more evidence. Donald Trump set the bar pretty high here. I think it's actually quite likely that Biden is not corrupt at all, because if there were even the tiniest shred of credible evidence of corruption against him, the Republicans would have impeached him for it already. I think the only reason they haven't done it is that there is no evidence. That doesn't mean he's not corrupt. But if he is, he seems to have concealed it pretty effectively.
- lapcat 3y ago
  I'm baffled that some people don't consider it corruption when politicians are owned by campaign contributors. I would call that legalized bribery. Legal because of course the bribed are themselves the lawmakers.
  - lisper 3y ago
    If that's your definition of corruption then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. And no, I see no evidence that Biden has done that.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > If that's your definition of corruption I wouldn't say it's my definition. I don't invent words. > then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. I agree that it's extremely difficult. > So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. How is the truth vacuous? > My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. Ok, but that's an overly narrow conception.
      - lisper 3y ago
Volundr 3y ago
> Is it "false and misleading" to say that (say) Joe Biden is corrupt? The post your replying to says "the most corrupt American history", and links to and article about someone saying that. Is there corruption? Almost certainly. Is there the "most in American history"? I seriously doubt it.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > The post your replying to says "the most corrupt American history" That post was edited after my reply, possibly in response to my reply. My quote was accurate at the time.
  - lisper 3y ago
    Actually, I edited it before I saw your replay, because it occurred to me after I posted that the way I had originally phrased it was open to exactly that criticism. But it's neither here nor there. The only thing that matters is that there are examples of things being advanced as truth by large numbers of people that pretty clearly are not actually true (even though they sound plausible), and I think it's pretty clear that that is true even if a specific example that I picked out of a hat wasn't a particularly good one.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      I agree that I was following a bit of a tangent. However, I do wonder how it's even possible to be committed to the idea of truth if one can so easily overlook the obvious flaws of one's own "side", always immediately changing the subject to the badness of the other side.
      - lisper 3y ago
        Do you think I was doing that? What do you think my "side" is?

by lapcat 3y ago

pstuart 3y ago

Corrupt to what degree? Ensuring his donors get their money's worth or actually committing crimes for self-enrichment? It's clear he was beholden to the financial industry and that stinks but is technically above board. I'm going to hazard a guess that his legacy matters more to him then cash in the bank. I find it fascinating that those that obsess over "Crooked Joe" seem to change their tune when their preferred candidate comes under scrutiny. Maybe I'm too stupid but it's almost like they don't care about the crime, only in destroying their political enemies.

nailer 3y ago
Not a US citizen, but the main issues seem to be: - Hunter Biden extracting 5 million dollars from the Chinese businessman with apparent knowledge of Joe Biden (per the taped phone call) - His son's Burisma appointment with little to no experience in the energy industry and nothing to add apart from his father's connections (matter of public knowledge). - FBI election tampering regarding suppressing the true story of his son's laptop (revealed during the Twitter files). However: - they haven't been tried, much less proven in a US court - these actions may be less severe than previous instances of corruption amongst US presidents - Biden may not have been aware of the FBI's action concerning suppressing the laptop story
- pstuart 3y ago
  Joe Biden has no control over his adult son. Hunter Biden clearly was engaging in shenanigans based off of his father's name (the board membership was technically legal, morally unpalatable). There's no evidence that Joe actually sold his influence directly. Virtually all Biden supporters agree that if Hunter did illegal acts he should face trial and resulting consequences, and the same for his father. But we also agree that such rigor be applied across the aisle. Perhaps I'm out of touch, but I am not aware of any such agreement on the other side. Again, it's almost like they don't care about the crime, only in smearing their political rivals. But the party of law and order wouldn't do that, right? The suppression of the laptop story was trying to tamp down a political ops maneuver (an October surprise). I can understand the frustration in seeing that happen, as it worked so well when they did the same thing to HRC in the prior election. There's a reason why the phrase "buttery males" exists -- for this is the exact same "buttery males" playbook: all that matters is that the story exists and is damaging and voters will lap it up. Disclaimer: I voted for the current president but I'm not a member of his party and am strongly anti-partisan.
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    > The suppression of the laptop story was trying to tamp down a political ops maneuver (an October surprise). I can understand the frustration in seeing that happen, as it worked so well when they did the same thing to HRC in the prior election. It's also worth noting that Joe Biden was not President during the 2020 election season.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - nailer 3y ago
    > Joe Biden has no control over his adult son. Sure but Hunter has stated on tape that Joe was in the room with him. That could be a lie but it’s definitely worth investigating. > Virtually all Biden supporters agree that if Hunter did illegal acts he should face trial and resulting consequences, and the same for his father. I don’t think most Biden supporters even realise the tape exists, so the idea of criminal investigation would be so far fetched. In their minds China / Burisma didn’t happen and they probably don’t know about government agencies suppressing the laptop story to influence the election. Not because they’re bad but because the US treats politics like a team sport and TV news only reports on what benefits their ‘team’. And sure, investigate Trump over paying Stormy using campaign money. > The suppression of the laptop story was trying to tamp down a political ops maneuver (an October surprise). Government agencies (who falsely briefed Twitter and Meta about the laptop being Russian disinformation) should not be working for any candidate. > so well when they did the same thing to HRC in the prior election. I haven’t heard about gov agencies doing anything in aid of Trump or against HRC.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      Again, we recognize that corruption took place but is unfortunately legal and endemic (certainly not limited to one specific party). This corruption should be ended, but there's one little problem. You. And all the others making a stink about this. You don't care about corruption, only in smiting your political enemies. Neither does any of the members of the senate committee or anyone else obsessed with this. The only thing that matters is "the story" and the taint of its implications. This is frustrating beyond belief, because most of us non-believers in this nonsense would love to right these wrongs but it will only happen if addressed in a bipartisan manner. That would require an interest in good government rather than power, and day by day it's clearer and clearer that power itself is the only goal. Meanwhile, the cult continues its worship of a man who is literally corrupt to the core whose only interest is in self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement. I take no pleasure in these observations (quite the opposite, in fact). As with any other cult, there is no possibility for reason or reflection and the only reaction to that engagement is to double down on their beliefs. Political discussion is usually avoided in polite society because it devolves into tribal warfare. That's most unfortunate because the actions of the political class have literally life and death repercussions and strongly shape the health of the country. So while I did point out flaws in your tribe, I didn't do it to claim my tribe is better. First and foremost, I am not a member of any political party, and equally important, I believe we should have a nation that operates under the rule of law in a manner that serves us all the best it can (regardless of affiliation). The committee reports: https://oversight.house.gov/report/ https://oversight.house.gov/report/ edit: the committee's been at it for some time and the only thing they've come up with is the appearance of impropriety. That's it. One would think that with all their resources and zeal to stamp out this corruption that they'd have a smoking gun by now and would use that to try and convict Biden Sr. But they won't (because it's quite likely nothing exists) and they don't want their game to end as it works so well to keep you and others up in arms and ready to "vote the bad guys out".
lapcat 3y ago
> It's clear he was beholden to the financial industry and that stinks but is technically above board. IMO your definition of "corruption" has a very low bar. ;-) > I'm going to hazard a guess that his legacy matters more to him then cash in the bank. Legacy requires election which requires campaign donors. It's quid pro quo. Theoretically, elected representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, not their donors. > I find it fascinating that those that obsess over "Crooked Joe" seem to change their tune when their preferred candidate comes under scrutiny. I just said literally "I don't identify with any political party or politician, in case you think this criticism is partisan."

lisper 3y ago

> Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? I have no idea. But I do think that if he were the most corrupt in history, there would be more evidence. Donald Trump set the bar pretty high here. I think it's actually quite likely that Biden is not corrupt at all, because if there were even the tiniest shred of credible evidence of corruption against him, the Republicans would have impeached him for it already. I think the only reason they haven't done it is that there is no evidence. That doesn't mean he's not corrupt. But if he is, he seems to have concealed it pretty effectively.

lapcat 3y ago
I'm baffled that some people don't consider it corruption when politicians are owned by campaign contributors. I would call that legalized bribery. Legal because of course the bribed are themselves the lawmakers.
- lisper 3y ago
  If that's your definition of corruption then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. And no, I see no evidence that Biden has done that.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > If that's your definition of corruption I wouldn't say it's my definition. I don't invent words. > then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. I agree that it's extremely difficult. > So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. How is the truth vacuous? > My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. Ok, but that's an overly narrow conception.
    - lisper 3y ago

Volundr 3y ago

> Is it "false and misleading" to say that (say) Joe Biden is corrupt? The post your replying to says "the most corrupt American history", and links to and article about someone saying that. Is there corruption? Almost certainly. Is there the "most in American history"? I seriously doubt it.

lapcat 3y ago
> The post your replying to says "the most corrupt American history" That post was edited after my reply, possibly in response to my reply. My quote was accurate at the time.
- lisper 3y ago
  Actually, I edited it before I saw your replay, because it occurred to me after I posted that the way I had originally phrased it was open to exactly that criticism. But it's neither here nor there. The only thing that matters is that there are examples of things being advanced as truth by large numbers of people that pretty clearly are not actually true (even though they sound plausible), and I think it's pretty clear that that is true even if a specific example that I picked out of a hat wasn't a particularly good one.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    I agree that I was following a bit of a tangent. However, I do wonder how it's even possible to be committed to the idea of truth if one can so easily overlook the obvious flaws of one's own "side", always immediately changing the subject to the badness of the other side.
    - lisper 3y ago
      Do you think I was doing that? What do you think my "side" is?