This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I fully agree with this.
Strongly disagree with this. I've yet to see anyone present any compelling evidence despite the massive Republican fishing expedition on the topic. Incredulity and demands to "stop living in denial" are not arguments.
I wasn't trying to bring new evidence. If the mass of evidence already widely available on the topic did not convince you, it's the matter of choice, not the quality of evidence. It's like O.J Simpson looking for the "real killer", or Jussie Smollett still claiming MAGA thugs assaulted him. It's not about quantity or quality of evidence by this point. More evidence will inevitably appear, as it always does, but nothing prevents people who do not want to believe it from rejecting it too. Frankly, I do not see any way available for me - or anyone - to convince anybody who has decided on not being convinced. There must be a voluntary act of opening oneself to this possibility.
I see it as quite analogous to the Trump-Russia investigation, i.e. there was plenty of smoke, and several people under the President were up to no good. However, there was no fire despite extensive searching by the opposition party. The connection incriminating the President himself was always missing.
Come on. Literally his son met with his business partners in his presence. He also complained privately about having to share with Joe. Sure, there's no fire. The whole family lived off this grift for years, and it's obvious to any non-partisan observer. I mean, why the heck did Burisma paid Hunter, for his artistic talents? What could he deliver to them but the link to his father? Please, live in denial as long as you want, this is really not the case I'm willing to spend any time on, it's just ridiculous by now.
Nope, in that investigation there was no "smoke" beyond the infamous Steele dossier, which as we know now was wholly manufactured and paid for by Clinton campaign and promoted by the same campaign operatives, either official or de-facto. Trump has some dirt on him (like Trump University, or $TRUMP, or some of other deals which can reasonably raise some eyebrows) but the whole Russia thing is a pile of pure shit. And, as I said, these things eventually come out - we now know who invented this shit, who paid to whom for this shit, who promoted this shit and who operated the whole shit farm. We will, eventually, also know who operated the shit farm and who paid to whom and how much for the Biden RICO family too. Until then, feel free to deny it.
Hunter wanted to make it seem like Joe was in on it so Hunter could plausibly "sell access", but no money ever made it to Joe. Hunter was obviously corrupt, but there wasn't a link to Joe. Joe even agreeing to make small talk with Hunter's associates was bad no matter how Hunter lied and said they were just his "friends", but far worse was the pardon he gave his son. That's a clear example of corruption. Basically all Presidents have abused the pardon power and it would be better if it was simply abolished outright.
For the Trump-Russia investigation, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and Roger Stone were all engaged in a bunch of shady stuff. What they were doing was by no means a "pile of pure shit". The issue for Dems is what those individuals did didn't really reach up to Trump.
Right. Joe Biden knew his son is a corrupt degenerate who is selling access to him, and let his business partners, who Joe knew expect benefits from him and pay his son for this, to meet him, but he totally wasn't in on the deal. And this kept repeating for years on and he wasn't even curious about what's up with that. And for some reason Hunter, in private communications, felt the need to falsely complain about having to pay Joe off because he foresaw all of it being published one day and wanted to create a false impression in advance. And also he somehow convinced other people to lie about it, for absolutely no benefit to them. And the partners, getting absolutely no benefits from Joe and actually nothing at all as a return for their money, kept coming back to Hunter for years, and paying him enormous sums, because he was just that good. Because that's how bribes usually work - you give somebody a bribe, he does absolutely nothing for you, you give another one, same thing, and then more and more people come and give you millions of dollars, for nothing at all. Just how dumb do you think one should be to buy it? I'm afraid I can't.
Dated from the date he started dealing with Burisma (and Romanians, and Kazakhs, and China, and Russians, and...). Come on, man. I mean, you can in as deep denial as you want but I feel very uncomfortable being expected to seriously address stuff like this. It's like trying to prove the Nigerian prince doesn't really want to share his wealth with you. By this point, if you want to believe he is, I really shouldn't.
That's not what the claim was. The claim wasn't "certain people in Trump campaign did some ''shady stuff''". The claim was Trump personally is a Russian asset, who was in direct and active cooperation with Russia, or as members of Party of Civility and Decency pungently expressed it, "Putin's cock holster". And multiple prominent Democrat figures swore they personally saw ample proof of that, with their own eye. They all brazenly lied of course, there was no such proof in existence (and none of them by the way suffered any consequences for it). Manafort et all may have been a bunch of shady assholes, but the claim wasn't "Trump sometimes hires assholes". That claim would never fly because everybody in politics sometimes hires assholes. Democrat operatives ranks are full of ginormous assholes, as are Republican ones. But the claim was Trump campaign and he personally has been directly collaborating with Russian government - and that was a very specific claim, not some vague ill-defined "shady stuff". And that claim has been completely false, and literally every single person involved in its creation knew it was false from the very start - we now have evidence that describe how this idea to create this claim was originated and who and how produced the whole show. It wasn't some honest mistake that they thought Trump is bad but they got carried away. They created the whole thing on purpose. So please do not motte-and-bailey me here - it wasn't about Manafort's "shady stuff".
First off, cut it out with this crap, please. Denigrating people who disagree with you as "being in denial" adds nothing productive to the conversation.
In terms of Joe, the best evidence that he didn't take bribes was that Republicans (a hostile party) subpoenaed his bank accounts and repeatedly found nothing of the sort. Joe gave excessive leeway to his son Hunter -- partially from Beau's death, partially from not wanting Hunter to spiral again -- but never discussed anything but simple chitchat with Hunter's "friends". That’s consistent with a father who keeps family and state separated on paper while ignoring the obvious optics problem. Yes, companies will pay decent sums even for this. A few million dollars here and there might be quite a lot in politics, but its chump change for many businesses that would pay even higher sums for (legal) lobbying that also doesn't guarantee outcomes, and which don't even come with access to the President. Some might be willing to pay millions just for the novelty of their firm having dinners where the President makes an appearance.
In terms of the Trump stuff, I broadly agree that the most histrionic Dem attacks weren't true. But that wasn't my point. My point was that there was indeed an issue with Trump's underlings being shady scoundrels. This could easily make a reasonable person think the guy at the top was doing the same sorts of stuff -- but eventually this wasn't proven to be true. Still, there's some degree of a problem with Trump hiring corrupt people just like there's a problem with Joe putting on the blinders when it came to his son.
Im not up to speed on how this discourse went, but I dont think kickbacks to Joe personally are especially relevant? He could have just played his part so that Hunter would have money. I mean whatever he was taking in at that point was mostly for the next generation anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
I am not denigrating you, but also you are not just "disagreeing" with me, in a matter of opinion. You claim widely known facts do not exist. How else am I supposed to describe it? And to be honest, it's not like your party haven't been habitually throwing this exact word at literally every person disagreeing on it on any matter, fact or opinion. So you can't really claim it's some particularly bad word that is taboo from being used. People have been called "denialists" for questioning dozens of things that are completely legitimate to question (and often these very people were found to be correct or at least not less correct than the opponent), so you have absolutely no leg to claim "denial" is some special insult that can't be used in a polite company and out of place in a political discussion. In this particular instance, its usage is entirely appropriate, as it concerns claiming that things that evidently happened did not.
And the concept of a person holding money in an account under the name of different person or a corporation had not been invented yet. Seriously. I mean, surely the personal accounts needed to be checked, just in case Joe had been brazen and dumb enough to just put money right there in plain sight. But if he was not, that doesn't prove much. Most people are smart enough to do that, especially people that run a large corrupt enterprise for years.
I'm sorry, "excessive leeway" is when you let the kid live in your basement rent free, poach on your beer in your fridge, drive you car and not fill it up, leave the pizza leftovers on the couch, smoke the weed indoors, that kind of thing. It's not when you allow him to sell access to you, President of the United States, to foreign powers, including China and Russia, and get millions of dollars in exchange for it. Biden may have been non compos mentis by 2025, but in 2015, when it all was at its peak, he surely was sane enough to know it. It's not "leeway", it's RICO. He didn't "close his eyes" or "put blinders" or any stuff like that. He knew everything, he couldn't miss it, his family knew everything, everybody knew everything and participated in it - that was the family business. There are witnesses and testimonies for it. And they got as brazen as invent those "Hunter artwork" scheme - which was selling nicely while his father was the President and turned out completely worthless the second he was out. Again, how naive can one be here?
Oh sure, on paper I am sure Biden never signed a contract with CCP saying "I will help you do stuff and you pay me through my son Hunter". Nobody is ever that dumb. Hunter just told them "I will be your conduit to my father, and to prove that, I will talk to you in his presence", and Joe knew exactly what is going on, and participated in it. Not once, not twice, but many times over many years. And he for sure knew millions of dollars are changing hands in connection to that. The fact that there's no paper saying "I, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., got this sum of money from CCP as a bribe and confirm it with my notarized signature" is not a big clue you pretend it to be - there's never such paper, nobody is so dumb as to make it. People have been taking and given bribes for millenia by now, and there are many ways to give and take bribes while avoiding creating such papers, and I am sure Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. can name a few of them.
And by "most" you mean every single one of them. At least as it concerns the "Russian collusion". And nobody still admitted anything or suffered any consequences for brazenly lying about it. Moreover, they keep mentioning it as if it's somehow a counterexample to corruption coverups under Biden administration.
Saying "denial" is something that has gotten me warned by the mods in the past, and I was only using it in a vague general sense. You're using it as a personal attack. The moderators on this site are heavily tilted towards conservatives so I doubt anything will happen to you on that front. Still, personal attacks make me just not want to respond to people who make them.
I'm not sure which specific "widely known facts" you think I'm disputing, but the overall "Joe took bribes" story is disputed not only by Dems, it was completely abandoned by Republican House members since there was just nothing there despite all their fishing and their dozens of subpoenas. Filling in that hole, that there's just no evidence, with unfalsifiable claims that Joe was crafty enough to evade all detection, then claiming "it's obvious" while making personal attacks that people who disagree are naive and "in denial" is one way to go about it I suppose. Did you know Dem partisans made similar attacks when the Russia investigation failed to show much in regards to Trump's collusion? Flip the valence of what you said, how it's ludicrous to expect any sort of evidence, that Trump would never be so stupid to sign a big contract saying "I, President Trump, agree to sell out the USA to Russia", and it would sound very much like something a never-Trumper would say.
In any case I doubt we'll change each other's minds, so I'm going to drop this conversation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From what I remember he was claiming that to other members of his family (his kids?).
Was Joe audited?
IIRC every president gets a routine audit from the IRS, but I'm not sure how far it goes in terms of looking for the specific types of wrongdoing R's alleged.
Instead, the House Oversight Committee (under Republicans) subpoenaed his bank accounts and found no wrongdoing.
I suppose that's not nothing, but I can't call that convincing evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link