Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts


9 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

No, he didn't.  The reason he did it is because he was told to do it with bipartisan backing (YES REPUBLICANS ALSO WANTED HIM TO DO IT!!!!) as well as international backing (our allies wanted him to put pressure on Ukraine for investigation into corruption).

 

Also, if he wanted to have the corrupt company benefit his son...he wouldn't have put pressure to dismiss a prosecutor who WASN'T investigating corruption don't you think?

 

LOGIC man, you need a heavy dose in your life.

No, if I was doing something like, giving my son an amazing job and it sort of looked sketchy (with that said, I have ZERO problem with him hooking his kid up with that job and I am totally for using all the connections you can to get what you want) I would, after getting my kid that position, do everything I could to make it look like I did not act all sketchy.  So, yes, I think Biden would have done that because it makes the first sketch thing look less sketchy.  It is smart.

 

I guess I am saying I would always try to be one step ahead of the game.  And again, let me be totally clear.  Not only am I okay with Joe using his power/position to get his son a gig, I am in love with that idea and would do exactly the same if I could.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

So he did it to protect his son you say. Was Viktor Shokin good at his job? How many people did he prosecute in his time in the position? 

 

Him being corrupt isn't the point, of course he was and I have no problem with what Biden did.  I have a problem with it being called legal then illegal because of who is doing it.  Hypocrisy is the problem.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, BlitzFirst said:

You guys shouting that Biden did the same thing as Trump are BATs#!t crazy.  On no logical earth will this ever be true.

Trump Derangement Syndrome, indeed. Like Trump, these people are constantly projecting.

Link to comment
Just now, BlitzFirst said:

You guys shouting that Biden did the same thing as Trump are BATs#!t crazy.  On no logical earth will this ever be true.

I don't think it was the same.  I also don't care about either of the issues in the sense that they are "bad".

 

Biden put his son first, good for him.  I would do the same, so would you, so would all of us, even the biggest phony posters on this site would do the same thing if they could.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

5 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

You guys shouting that Biden did the same thing as Trump are BATs#!t crazy.  On no logical earth will this ever be true.

 

Except this one where it is.  Political leveraging on a national and world scale is kind of the jobnof the president.  Saying what henor a VP does is illegal because of which suits are in congress is silly.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, QMany said:

Trump Derangement Syndrome, indeed. Like Trump, these people are constantly projecting.

 

Except I don't care of Trump and Biden are guilty or not, I just want some consistency and less hypocrisy.  But it's easier to just call people deranged Trump supporters than admit it's hypocritical.

 

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I don't think it was the same.  I also don't care about either of the issues in the sense that they are "bad".

 

Biden put his son first, good for him.  I would do the same, so would you, so would all of us, even the biggest phony posters on this site would do the same thing if they could.

 

Exactly

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I don't think it was the same.  I also don't care about either of the issues in the sense that they are "bad".

 

Biden put his son first, good for him.  I would do the same, so would you, so would all of us, even the biggest phony posters on this site would do the same thing if they could.

Was Joe Biden actively involved in getting Hunter that job? Because there is no evidence of that. How exactly did he put his son first in this situation?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

That's because they weren't the same thing.  In one case, a guy benefited personally and that benefit is obvious. 

 

Yes, Joe Biden.  Agreed.

 

1 minute ago, BlitzFirst said:

Read it this way:  When Trump did what he did...no congressmen or women were involved.  No backing from international allies was present.   It was all him and for his benefit.

 

In the Biden situation, bipartisan support from congress and international backing told Joe Biden to put pressure to dismiss that prosecutor.

 

See the difference?  Biden didn't act to personally benefit himself.  He acted on behalf of the United States and its interests.

 

Put it this way.  The President, looks at a situation and wonders what the hell the former staff and VP were doing, so he looks into it.  Simple as that.  The president, of the United States.  Red or Blue, should be able to do that without backlash.  VP too.

 

Yes, you are going to take it at face value.  That's fine.  But don't cry foul and read between lines when it's the other guy.  That's the point.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Just now, Redux said:

 

Yes, Joe Biden.  Agreed.

 

 

Put it this way.  The President, looks at a situation and wonders what the hell the former staff and VP were doing, so he looks into it.  Simple as that.  The president, of the United States.  Red or Blue, should be able to do that without backlash.  VP too.

 

Yes, you are going to take it at face value.  That's fine.  But don't cry foul and read between lines when it's the other guy.  That's the point.

That's fine but that should go through US agencies and investigative services. That is not a foriegn policy issue.

Just now, Redux said:

 

eb3d921db89f5e606074e69f8b3e2270.jpeg

Explain it to me. How did he put Hunter first in this situation?

Link to comment
Just now, teachercd said:

Geeze, I am not sure.  :)

Funny. How about a real point next time or I'll just assume you have limited knowledge on the situation.

 

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

And if he did, would he have been given that leeway?  Hell no.

With his self appointed AG, full control of House and Senate he wouldn't have been able to do that? I call BS

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...