The Joe Biden Presidency II : He's too old...or something like that!

WRONG! The voters DEMAND law and order! The want the LAW to let them ORDER around the other side.

 

Nope.....Doesn't work that way. Bring facts to support your claims or we will call you out and call them complete bullshit. What cases appear "retaliatory" to you and based on what? Don't give me that nonsense about "per the right"....Show your hands or take a seat.

 

Only he cannot...

 

Edit: too early for that but 99% sure it is deserving.

go ahead…make your reasonable case.

 

I guess I can go back to work looks like @charlie15 has this covered.

 

Well, one can reasonably argue that the New York was excessively harsh: a lot of people would regard hush money as nothing more than a trifle.

However, here is the difference: Hunter Biden's gun violations and tax evasion is the worst he was charged with. In Trump's case, his New York conviction was the least.
Hunter Biden also submitted to the judicial process. Trump used every trick in the book and every lever at his disposal so that he would not even have to stand trial. The New York case just happen to be the only one where this strategy failed. The other three Trump got his way thanks to the complicity of the Supreme Court, of the judge Aileen Cannon and the incompetence of the Georgia prosecutor, all who allowed him to run down the clock.

Second, while the New York case might have been harsh in the abstract, an argument can also be made that the judicial system is fully within its right to bring down the full weight of the law, with no clemency considered, on an individual who has attempted to attack the Republic by subverting its electoral processes.
Hunter Biden, on the other way, did no such thing. He is not a threat to the Republic - the Republicans went after him in such a retaliatory manner just because who his father is.
In other words, Democrats went after Trump because of what Trump did. Republicans went after Hunter because of who he is. As for these being retaliatory, try to answer these two questions:

1. Is a polity within its rights to retaliate against an individual who tried to destroy it, in order to neutralize the threat?
2. Is a polity within its rights to make an example out of a president's son, just for the sake of it?

Which of these 2 questions is more reasonable?

Some said the cases against Trump are "political". Well, from a certain perspective, of course they are. What else could the prosecution of someone who attempted a coup be? Trump's cases are as political as Jefferson Davies' trial was.

 

But it’s actually per his right wing wife, I’m sure her chosen sources aren’t leading her astray!

 

You stole my thoughts.....Let me think...Newsmax? OAN? Bannon?

 

I like this Josh Marshall article / rant on this pardon...I should send it to the Jonathan Chait and other twats of the world...

by Josh Marshall
Over the past couple weeks, the thought of President Biden pardoning his son entered my head a few times. I tossed it around: good or bad idea? I could see it both ways. I still can. But I am fine with his decision. I’m glad he did it. Biden learned the right lesson: no one gives a ******** about norms. It’s unquestionably true that Hunter Biden wouldn’t be in this position if not for his dad. That’s basically the justification Biden gave. And he’s right. It may sound angry or cynical to say “no one gives a ********.” But I mean it both in a general way and in this particular way: the reason for Biden not to do this was to allow his son to remain collateral damage of the GOP war against his presidency and to leave him in the hands of the Trump DOJ for at least the next four years all to make a point of principle about being better, different, more righteous, more norm-honoring than Donald Trump.

Truly. No one gives a ********. If anything, that logic I just laid out sounds like one of those fastidious, hyper-process-oriented and baroque bits of reasoning that have of late left Democrats mesmerized while the real world is passing them by.

Either you know the difference or you don’t. This doesn’t shift the balance in anyone’s head.

 

I never trust anyone's sources on mere verbal citation - which causes some strain in our marriage but she's sort of used to it. I dig in and review the facts of the case. I was a bit surprised at some of the data. Not enough for me to vote for Trump but certainly enough that I had to rethink Harris. Harris was close to getting my vote because of her comparatively pro-Ukraine stance. In the end she did not get it because of the First Amendment comments by Walz.

 

Exactly. Alternatively, the guys trying to pin you to a crime look incompetent.

 

Dude, what data are you talking about? I don’t care about your issues with your wife, I just want you to present the facts.

As as aside, you didn’t vote for Harris because of first amendment comments by Walz…. Are you trolling? You must bed

 

To me, more like the system has bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of politicization until it looks like Livvy Dunne or Simone Biles going into a handstand...

 

My side comment…we’ve got about 7 more weeks before we’ll know for sure…but if Biden still gives a shit about the norms of deferring to Garland on the release of the Jack Smith case…or the norms of the DoJ’s redactions thereof…he can ******** right off to whatever nursing home he’s headed to.

 

If he had simply paid the hush money out of his own pocket instead of corporate funds there would have been no crime.

 

The claim by my wife was that the 34 counts of felony was an overreach and that the January 6th rioters were full of FBI informants. As it turns out the data implies that she has a reasonable case. Nothing determined but she does have a case. That was surprising to me. In the end, I do not see how those 34 checks are even one felony. Also, the FBI is continuously setting up would be terrorists so that also rang true. I would like to find out more about that and get a feel about it.

First amendment rights are a huge concern for me to the point where I think copyright law is abused and should be severely limited along with patents. If there were an NRA for free speech I would join it. I am not trolling and if my concerns seem wrong to you then so be it.

 

All right dude.....You are so far down the rabbit hole, I don't think you are worth the effort.

So you didnt vote for Harris out of concerns for 1st A rights, hein? That amount of selfishness, mixed with arrogance and stupidity, not to mention complete lack of self awareness is truly remarkable.

 

The pearl clutching from some democratic voices & quarters is truly ironic if not amusing......

“President Biden’s decision put personal interest ahead of duty and further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all.”

— Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), commenting on the Hunter Biden pardon.

 

Back the Blue?