Poll of the Day > House Republicans Lay Out Case Of Biden Family's Alleged Corruption

(+) Yeah! (+)

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it's normal to read that kids got shot up at a school these days, and you argue that there's nothing wrong with that, because it isn't more. no one is fearmongering. it's not fearmongering to tell someone that there is a very, very real chance for their kid to get shot at a school because it keeps happening more, and more and more. it's happening more on an exponential curve.

Again! Where am I arguing that?! It's all horrible. I never said it wasn't!
The number of times people put words in my mouth around here is staggering. It's like there's some kind of impenetrable wall between the actual words I put in front of them, and how they want to perceive what I'm saying.

Here's an article that pretty much highlights my whole argument. Maybe it will sink in if you see it written by someone else.

https://tinyurl.com/mv8wfyj2

BeerOnTap posted...

This was already addressed in my first reply, which it seems you did not read. Yes, it does seem apparent the Trump kids enriched themselves in some shady stuff. I dont like that one bit. Id like to see it fully investigated.

See? Objectivity. Would you care to try it? Would you like to go on record and condemn Joe and his family for this? Because your attempt at whataboutism backfired.

I mean, you're still being defensive. To what end? There's definitely some proportionality to consider here. Someone pushing you to acknowledge something you rarely touch on isn't abnormal.

The writing of The Daily Wire is also exceptionally poorly sourced and rather emotional.

https://www.axios.com/2019/10/02/joe-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-trump

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/19/fact-checking-claims-about-hunter-biden-joe-biden-/

"Mesires later released a statement on Oct. 13, 2019, saying that Hunter Biden would be resigning from the BHR board, without receiving any return on his investment or shareholder distributions."

So where did this $10 million number come from? Thin air? Looks like it. You should provide the article if it interests you, but also should be more aware of how poorly it's written.

Also, why is the Daily Wire's only reference a fucking tweet? Anyone using a tweet as a reference should be fucking embarrassed.

Also hilarious when an article uses the word 'allegedly' 8 separate times.

Who is the Greg Wilson clown that wrote this? Does he understand the hilarity of these two sentences put one after the other? Bitch, that ain't 'laying out evidence' lmfao. Was that actually the best example the author could find of evidence being laid out???

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/7/4/AAUdByAAEdqa.png

Ozmose posted...

First of all that is an outright f***ing lie.

Your position was literally "it doesn't happen often enough to be worth worrying about it," presented with the intent of shutting down efforts to do something about the problem. Whether it's what you intended to say or not, you were 100% modded for saying that child murder wasn't a big deal.

Ozmose posted...

Second, I only had three posts in that topic, every single one was modded. Feel free to go look for yourself.

It was only one the last time I looked, but given that your other posts were doubling down on insisting that children dying at a massively inflated rate isn't indicative of a problem, I'm not overly surprised.

Ozmose posted...

I was making the point that the way it was being portrayed is total fearmongering.

And you did that by downplaying the fact that the risk is still way higher than it should be. Nobody in that topic was saying "I'm afraid to send my kids to school." Everybody was saying "this happens too often." You invented a position nobody was expressing, shot it down in a way that dismissed a very real problem in the process, and now are wondering why your conduct was deemed unfit for civilized discussion. Child murder isn't the time to break out strawman fallacies.

Regardless of how likely it is for any given child to be shot, guns are the #1 cause of mortality for those between the ages of 1 and 19 in the US. That's a problem. School shootings are only a part of that (iirc, the breakdown is something like 5% accidents, 30% suicides, 65% violent crimes, with mass shootings falling into the last category), and they do indeed get a disproportionate amount of media attention and public reaction for the level of risk they present, but the problem to which they call attention is a very real one. You can acknowledge and look past the shock value of a mass shooting (though who's really shocked at this point, with 1-2 happening every day) while still recognizing the actual scale of the problem. You didn't, entirely for the sake of pushing the agenda that there should be no improvements to American gun control regulations because you don't want to have to give up your toys (despite the fact that you're already compliant with most of the new regulations people suggest and therefore woudln't have to give up anything except filling out a bit of extra paperwork). That's why you got modded.

Don't believe me? Feel free to check the posts in which I acknowledged how low the risk is at an individual level and agreed with that part of what you were saying. They haven't been modded. Clearly, it's more than just that message that got your posts deleted, so maybe instead of throwing yourself a pity party while insisting that that was all, try thinking about how you can express your opinions in a manner more conducive to civil discussion.

so

a) Where is actual evidence of bribes from the Chinese Communist Party?

b) Comparing Sonia Sotomayor to Clarence Thomas is also not proportional. You're acting like she received a bribe from Penguin House. She did not. She received payment from them for a book she wrote. You can take issue with whether or not she recussed herself from Aaron Greenspan v. Random House, but her profits aren't a bribe. There are far more things to take issue with in regards to Thomas's gifts/bribes, not to mention the shit with his wife.

sToP gIvInG iN tO tHe FeArMoNgErInG1

Meanwhile, he can't go outside without being armed and has to stop himself from knocking on a guy's door and shooting him in the face because his dog barked at him.

I'm going to lowball it and say 60% of the federal government needs to be investigated for corruption.

Agreed.

Wonder which party is more likely to pass anti-corruption legislation.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/05/682286587/house-democrats-introduce-anti-corruption-bill-as-symbolic-first-act

ReturnOfFa posted...

so

a) Where is actual evidence of bribes from the Chinese Communist Party?

b) Comparing Sonia Sotomayor to Clarence Thomas is also not proportional. You're acting like she received a bribe from Penguin House. She did not. She received payment from them for a book she wrote. You can take issue with whether or not she recussed herself from Aaron Greenspan v. Random House, but her profits aren't a bribe. There are far more things to take issue with in regards to Thomas's gifts/bribes, not to mention the shit with his wife.

Their only interest is putting on a clown show to defend their actual criminals. They don't legitimately think they're just as bad. It's all about "triggering the libs".

Hmmmm....Seattle....Portland....Tallahassee (in 2014).....San Franciso......more in Oregon....implemented then taken away in South Dakota....hmmmm!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act

Quite a few more people for Ozmose to block here.

slacker03150 posted...

I'm going to lowball it and say 60% of the federal government needs to be investigated for corruption.

Those are rookie numbers, gotta pump that up

ReturnOfFa posted...

Also, why is the Daily Wire's only reference a fucking tweet? Anyone using a tweet as a reference should be fucking embarrassed.

Also hilarious when an article uses the word 'allegedly' 8 separate times.

it's a lawsuit thing.

even when someone is caught with a murder weapon, news often say they are an alledged murderer

Krazy_Kirby posted...

it's a lawsuit thing.

even when someone is caught with a murder weapon, news often say they are an alledged murderer

what lawsuit are you refering to?

ReturnOfFa posted...

what lawsuit are you refering to?

I do believe he is referring to a defamation lawsuit if they don't use the term "alleged" and instead use terms that indicate guilt or fact.

Zareth posted...

Projection. They worship Trump so we must worship Biden.

Biden is a fuckin' wet turd but awww yeah i voted for him

You mean a lifelong politician might be corrupt? I'm shocked! SHOCKED!

ReturnOfFa posted...

Comparing Sonia Sotomayor to Clarence Thomas is also not proportional. You're acting like she received a bribe from Penguin House.

Not once did I use the word bribe to describe the situation. All I said was she received a boatload of cash, and she did indeed.

You can take issue with whether or not she recussed (sic) herself from Aaron Greenspan v. Random House

Thats literally the point I made. Thats it.
So Ill ask, do you take issue with her not recusing herself?

And when it comes to Thomas, he didnt rule on, nor participate in, any case involving the folks who gave him gifts. As much as you dont want to acknowledge it, it is way less severe when compared to what Sotomayor has done.

BeerOnTap posted...

And when it comes to Thomas, he didnt rule on, nor participate in, any case involving the folks who gave him gifts. As much as you dont want to acknowledge it, it is way less severe when compared to what Sotomayor has done.

Absolutely fucking not lmao

Receiving money as part of a contract to write a book is not nearly as egregious as allowing a right wing billionaire to buy your mother's house while she lives in it and pay for your grand nephew you raise as your own son to go to private school when you could afford both those things yourself. Do you think that man did those things out of the kindness of his heart?

Zareth posted...

Projection. They worship Trump so we must worship Biden.

I havent said anything at all to worship Trump. In fact I said that it seems evident his kids have done similar shady deals and Id like to see it fully investigated. Meanwhile, folks on your side have pretty much refused to be objective on the Biden family receiving money through phony shell companies, desperate to showcase their blind allegiance to the party.

This is a major reach, and a dishonest one at that.

BeerOnTap posted...

Not once did I use the word bribe to describe the situation. All I said was she received a boatload of cash, and she did indeed.

You said she "*took* a boatload of cash," a word choice which overwhelmingly suggests it was a bribe, gift, or something other than a business transaction for services rendered. Why would you choose a wording that is likely to misinform those not familiar with the situation instead of just saying that she had received revenue for a book she published? That's a pretty crucial piece of information for characterizing the money received, after all. The only reason I can see for leaving it out is a disingenuous effort to make people think it was more than just a question of professional conflict of interests.

Jen0125 posted...

Absolutely fucking not lmao

Receiving money as part of a contract to write a book is not nearly as egregious as allowing a right wing billionaire to buy your mother's house while she lives in it and pay for your grand nephew you raise as your own son to go to private school when you could afford both those things yourself. Do you think that man did those things out of the kindness of his heart?

So far its not clear that Thomas violated any law or decorum. But, and please stick with me on this, he very well may have. And it should be investigated. See? An objective take.

Sotomayor sat on a case from a company who basically employed her. This is a violation of the procedures of the court. It may be a violation of law.

Now Im doubtful Ill get any honesty from you on this, so let me try it another way: if you, Jen, were having a case tried in court against a company, and the Judge of your trial had worked for said company, and been paid a couple million dollars for his/her work, wouldnt you have a problem with that?

Im eager to hear your answer on this one.

It's very clear he violated ethics and decorum to anyone with ethics and morals. I'm not reading the rest of your right wing fellating.

Jen0125 posted...

It's very clear he violated ethics and decorum to anyone with ethics and morals. I'm not reading the rest of your right wing fellating.

So its okay for a judge to not recuse herself from a case in which she received millions of dollars from one of the involved parties?

adjl posted...

Why would you choose a wording that is likely to misinform

Not all that surprising given the sites they source their "news" from employ the same tactic

BeerOnTap posted...

So its okay for a judge to not recuse herself from a case in which she received millions of dollars from one of the involved parties?

If it was literally just a paid contract for a book - yes.

Jen0125 posted...

If it was literally just a paid contract for a book - yes.

Beer is also ignoring the fact that Sotomayor disclosed her earnings. It was public knowledge. Thomas hid his dealings. The two cases aren't even on the same planet ethics-wise

Also, Gorsuch had a book deal and didn't recuse, either. Wonder why Beer isn't crying about that one

SwollenColon posted...

Beer is also ignoring the fact that Sotomayor disclosed her earnings. It was public knowledge. Thomas hid his dealings. The two cases aren't even on the same planet ethics-wise

Also, Gorsuch had a book deal and didn't recuse, either. Wonder why Beer isn't crying about that one

Well obviously it's because he's fair and balanced. Didn't you see him in here twice saying he thinks maybe the Trump family should be investigated? Where were his topics saying as much the entire time Trump was president?

All the more vocal "centrists" on this site sure do seem to lean in one particular direction... Strange, that.

SwollenColon posted...

Beer is also ignoring the fact that Sotomayor disclosed her earnings. It was public knowledge. Thomas hid his dealings. The two cases aren't even on the same planet ethics-wise

Also, Gorsuch had a book deal and didn't recuse, either. Wonder why Beer isn't crying about that one

Gorsuch had a book deal and sat on a case that directly involved the publishing company as a participant in said case? I didnt know this, and Id be interested in a source. And if true, thats definitely not good at all and should be investigated.

Its amazing that you guys keep trying to use half-baked whataboutisms and yet I remain consistent and objective each time. I sadly cant say the same for you.

In summary, it is BAD for any judge to oversee a case where they have a business relationship with one of the participating parties. Its awful. No matter who it is.

You don't remain consistent though. You specifically call out the left in your topics and posts. You never proactively call out the right. Then when someone points out your inconsistency you feign like you hold the same standards when you clearly don't lol.

Jen0125 posted...

You don't remain consistent though. You specifically call out the left in your topics and posts. You never proactively call out the right. Then when someone points out your inconsistency you feign like you hold the same standards when you clearly don't lol.

For someone who says Im not gonna read the rest of your comment, you sure are thoroughly reading all of my comments.

The reality here is youre a hard-left partisan but you dont want to have to face that realization.
Youre easily one the most dishonest people on this site.

I read that comment, yes. Did I specifically state I wasn't reading the rest of that comment like the previous ones? I did not.

I'm also not reading the rest of that comment because the first half of it was so dumb

BeerOnTap posted...

Not once did I use the word bribe to describe the situation. All I said was she received a boatload of cash, and she did indeed.

Thats literally the point I made. Thats it.
So Ill ask, do you take issue with her not recusing herself?

And when it comes to Thomas, he didnt rule on, nor participate in, any case involving the folks who gave him gifts. As much as you dont want to acknowledge it, it is way less severe when compared to what Sotomayor has done.

Yes, I do, but proportionally, it doesn't hold a candle to Thomas'. You also can't claim that he didn't rule on or participate in any cases involving the folks who gave him gifts because he refuses to provide information on said gifts. I mean, you keep asking me if I stand for certain things involving prosecuting 'my side'. Usually the answer is yes. In the other direction, I point something out regarding 'your side' and you decide to muddy the waters and present inconsistent information regarding them.

The Washington Post reported in February 2021 that Ginni Thomas apologized to a group of Thomas's former clerks on the email listserv "Thomas Clerk World" for her role in contributing to a rift relating to "pro-Trump postings and former Thomas clerk John Eastman, who spoke at the rally and represented Trump in some of his failed lawsuits filed to overturn the election results". In March 2022, texts between Ginni Thomas and Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows from 2020 were turned over to the Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. The texts show Ginni Thomas repeatedly urging Meadows to overturn the election results and repeating conspiracy theories about ballot fraud. In response, 24 Democratic members of the House of Representatives and the Senate demanded that Thomas recuse himself from cases related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the January 6 attack at the U.S. Capitol on the grounds that Ginni Thomas's involvement in such efforts raised questions about his impartiality.

BeerOnTap posted...

Gorsuch had a book deal and sat on a case that directly involved the publishing company as a participant in said case? I didnt know this, and Id be interested in a source.

You new to the internet? Don't know how to Google?

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

This is what can happen when someone uses sources like Dummywire and stays inside an insulated bubble of ignorant bias

MeatiestMeatus posted...

You new to the internet? Don't know how to Google?

https://www.businessinsider.com/justices-didnt-recuse-themselves-from-cases-with-their-book-publisher-2023-5

This is what can happen when someone uses sources like Dummywire and stays inside an insulated bubble of ignorant bias

"A key difference between the revelation about Gorsuch and Sotomayor compared with the recent news about Thomas, however, is the manner in which the news was collected. In Sotomayor and Gorsuch's case, the impropriety was discovered due to the diligent record-keeping of their earnings in their financial disclosures. In Thomas' case, however, his accepted gifts were only discovered due to whistleblowers and leakers coming forward to ProPublica.
Prior to the news of Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Thomas' mishaps, a group of 15 Democratic senators declared they want to withhold $10 million from the Supreme Court's funding until the group high court institutes a public code of ethics."

Nice, yup, always nice to have...further context.

I love the "I'm the only one here being objective and impartial" bullshit lmao

Dude, if you're sourcing your news in a way that keeps you ignorant to the failings of one group, while simultaneously honing your disdain for another group, you are not impartial lmao

Being ignorant is no excuse. Stop getting your "news" from clearly biased sources and start culling news from multiple sources and do some fucking fact-checking once in a damn while

People love staying ignorant if it means they can hold on to their outdated, biased beliefs it's pathetic

BeerOnTap posted...

So its okay for a judge to not recuse herself from a case in which she received millions of dollars from one of the involved parties?

Provided those earnings are disclosed and neither the plaintiff nor defendant is concerned that they might present a conflict of interests? Sure. If everybody knows what's going on and nobody involved has a problem with it, there is no problem. If those earnings aren't disclosed or an involved party is concerned that it might bias the judgement, then that's reason to call the verdict into question.

In the case of Thomas (and other, more analogous cases), however, the bribes he has taken present a conflict of interest for every single case over which he presides for which those who bribed him have a preference as to the outcome. One must question whether he voted to overturn Roe v. Wade because of his personal interpretation of the law or because people who bribed him wanted it overturned. Because he has accepted bribes, one must ask that question for every single decision Thomas weighs in on moving forward, which completely undermines his professional integrity.

Conflicts of interest are bad, certainly, but when it's something like "I've worked for these people in the past" or "I'm related to this person," their potential harms can usually be pretty easily identified and the scope tends to be limited to the issue at hand (making them fairly easy to correct and/or accept if those identified harms aren't significant enough to constitute a problem). When somebody accepts a bribe, however, the extent of the conflict of interest that creates becomes pretty much impossible to determine, especially when the details of the bribe are not disclosed. By accepting the bribe, every single decision that person makes in the future has the potential to be compromised by the bribe, and there's no real way for anyone else to figure out when that is and is not the case. Any semblance of professional integrity and accountability goes out the window when a bribe is accepted.

That's mostly what it comes down to: Accountability. Conflicts of interest for which those involved can be held accountable are okay, because that means there's an opportunity to prevent or mitigate any harms it might cause. Conflicts of interest for which it's impossible to hold the conflicted party accountable, however, can cause all sorts of problems purely for the personal gain of the conflicted party. That's bad.

On the flipside:

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-elena-kagan-rejected-bagels-clarence-thomas-paid-vacations-2023-5

Jen0125 posted...

On the flipside:

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-elena-kagan-rejected-bagels-clarence-thomas-paid-vacations-2023-5

I think that might be taking ethical concerns a bit too far, but I do have to respect the commitment to integrity.

adjl posted...

I think that might be taking ethical concerns a bit too far, but I do have to respect the commitment to integrity.

Yeah I agree but better safe than sorry when you're in a high ranking position that is highly based off of your ethical integrity

his whole message that he snipped from is in post 50

Jen0125 posted...

Yeah I agree but better safe than sorry when you're in a high ranking position that is highly based off of your ethical integrity

Indeed. Realistically, given that she could easily buy her own bagels and lox, it's more the thought behind the gift that matters, and turning it down for ethical reasons doesn't really count against that at all.

In practice, there should be a code of conduct that outlines a minimum cost threshold over which gifts must be disclosed (probably like $20) and a second minimum cost threshold (probably like $500) over which gifts must be refused. Toss in some means of adding them up so you don't get somebody buying a judge 40,000 $10 gift cards, and you make sure judges can have normal social lives while still making sure they aren't taking bribes.

As an insurance adjuster I'm not allowed to take any gifts so that there is no impropriety. I don't see why SCOTUS is held to a lower standard lol

I like how half of this forum's weekly activity continues to be three or four people sticking to objectively bad sources and calling themselves the real centrists or moderates when everyone else has evidence to the contrary, and one or two of the radically farcical folks bitch and moan about the consequences for the awful things they said. Then they say they A) never said it, B if they said it, it's not that bad, or C) both A and B in the same breath; yet everyone else continues to call them out until the conversation dies.

...Until the next week.

If your modus operandum is to spam bad opinions and imbecilic sources, and then to block so many people who call you out on it, then maybe you're doing something wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer that shooing you away, ostracizing you, is how you end up sticking to a cult because at least they accept your hivemindedness to their cause, but maybe you should rethink what you're doing here where the vast majority of non-lurkers will ask questions, look up articles and definitions, and cross-reference all of our own individual beliefs. Maybe take a seat and challenge yourself with thoughts that are not your own, rather than cordoning off such intrusive truths and possibilities that prevent you from being utterly wrong (but you feel so right).

Maybe instead of kicking and screaming when you are found in the midst of a lie, try to pick yourself up and rise above the lie, rather than burrow deeper into the radioactive cesspool you have found yourself in. How is that for a thought? Or would you rather take the easy way and leave, and embed yourself with the loud, oft-violent super minority who have been in a spiral of a like-minded and diminishing state of mental faculties since the Republican party became a faux-Christian beast in the 1970s? Because letting yourself go would be a damned shame.

Cut your loss, dude. Accept that you were in the wrong. Good people are wrong from time too time. Like I said, try being better than that - let go.

Come back, TC!

You instantly lose all credibility for citing the Dailey Wire. As non-joke sources show, the GOP admits they have nothing, which no shit. It's a common Right-wing tactic form their playbook to try to mirror whatever REAL scandal or corruption they are guilty of back at the opposition. This was obviously a wild goose chase.

Look no further than the disparity of ethics on the Supreme Court.