• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Didn't take long

^^Not the question needing to be asked.

If illegally, then no. Like Hunter and Joe, lmfao.
 
^^Still using deflection.

You left out a lot in your question.

Is your daddy a corrupt politician? Then no, no you can not, especially if you illegally obtained that money.

But you already know this.

Please, continue with the shallow games.
 
HenryChinaski said:
The GOP haven't had a platform in decades involving Infrastructure, jobs, education or healthcare. So beyond giving the super rich more money, this is expected..
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Like liberals are doing so much to reduce the cost of tertiary education? A problem that liberals themselves helped create?

Why was the labor participation rate higher 3 years ago than today?

Infrastructure spending has almost flatlined and it wasn't exactly a high point of Obama's 8 years either. We'll see where Biden's plans go from here I suppose and I'll refrain from commenting on his progress.
 
NatMorton said:
Ever consider approaching this story with an open mind?
Click to expand...
Why? It's the same song for over 25 years!
Whitewater! Travelgate! Vince Foster! Filegate! Her Emails! and BENGHAZZZIIII!

As long as Biden is the presumptive democrat nominee in 2024, he will be a GOP target in Congress. If at anytime he announces he will not seek re-election, the investigations into him and his family will come to a screeching halt. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Members of Congress are allowed to say any slanderous thing they want, throw out any outrageous claim, without the slightest shred of evidence or supporting testimony. That's the law. They are immune from slander and libel laws as long as they say it into the congressional record in the Capitol.

That is what we will hear - from members of the GOP, not the called witnesses. Those folks are subject to perjury even years later. So all the noise comes from MOC who want to make headlines.

Mark my words, there will be no referral for prosecution by any GOP committee. Just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
NatMorton said:
I asked you why you wouldn't keep an open mind, and that one word answer-question pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...
Given your obsession with what was meant in the text to Naomi Biden, your refusal to entertain another version of that and of the dinner Hunter arranged and Biden Sr attended, I would say it you who refuses to have an open mind.
 
Callen said:
Given your obsession with what was meant in the text to Naomi Biden, your refusal to entertain another version of that and of the dinner Hunter arranged and Biden Sr attended, I would say it you who refuses to have an open mind.
Click to expand...
You're just making things up at this point. I never said nor implied there was only one interpretation of that message.

Yours is a mind that is closed on this issue. My mind remains open to what this information could mean.
 
NatMorton said:
You're just making things up at this point. I never said nor implied there was only one interpretation of that message.

Yours is a mind that is closed on this issue. My mind remains open to what this information could mean.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only one version of what it could mean. It could mean that Biden was involved with Hunters business affairs and pro fitted by them or they could mean something else altogether, something not nefarious. You only entertain door number one.
 
Callen said:
Yes, but only one version of what it could mean. It could mean that Biden was involved with Hunters business affairs and pro fitted by them or they could mean something else altogether, something not nefarious. You only entertain door number one.
Click to expand...
Simply put, that is a lie. I have repeatedly said the evidence from that laptop and related circumstances does not prove Joe Biden is guilty of anything. I have said it's suspicious because of what it could mean, and it is entirely dishonest of you to mischaracterize my words in the way you're doing it here.
 
Hunter and Ukraine. Crime and the economy will just have to wait their turn.
 
Lycanthrope said:
Like I said - the GOP has more important things to do than address crime and the economy. Those are reserved for election cycles.
Click to expand...
Did the Democrats not care about the economy when they were impeaching Donald Trump, either time?
 
NatMorton said:
Did the Democrats not care about the economy when they were impeaching Donald Trump, either time?
Click to expand...
Um, if Donald Trump was guilty of crimes as POTUS, shouldn't investigating that be a priority? Paraphrasing your words.

Just once I'd like to see Republicans live up to their mantra of "bold contrasting colors" and not resort to whataboutisms as they demonstrate there is no discernable difference between themselves and Democrats.
 
Lycanthrope said:
Um, if Donald Trump was guilty of crimes as POTUS, shouldn't investigating that be a priority? Paraphrasing your words.
Click to expand...
Yes, he should have been, and I supported both impeachment probes.

Lycanthrope said:
Just once I'd like to see Republicans live up to their mantra of "bold contrasting colors" and not resort to whataboutisms as they demonstrate there is no discernable difference between themselves and Democrats.
Click to expand...
You’re dodging the question. You’re asserting that if the GOP investigates Biden they must be ignoring the economy. So I ask again, did the Democrats ignore the economy when they investigated Trump, twice?
 
NatMorton said:
Simply put, that is a lie. I have repeatedly said the evidence from that laptop and related circumstances does not prove Joe Biden is guilty of anything. I have said it's suspicious because of what it could mean, and it is entirely dishonest of you to mischaracterize my words in the way you're doing it here.
Click to expand...
It is not a mischaracterization it is my honest opinion of how you portray your preferred narrative and discount anything that counters it. You have decided what certain things mean and refuse to be open to a different view. Case in point

NatMorton said:
Correct, that is partly what the suspicion is based on. Hunter’s own words, in an unguarded moment, saying how much of his salary (i.e. lobbying income) he hands over to is father, then the Vice President of the United States. That statement, combined with other circumstances that fit a pattern of pay-for-access, create a reasonable suspicion that warrants further investigation.
Click to expand...
Hunter at no point indicated it was lobbying money or that it occurred when his father was VP. You assume facts not in evidence and then refuse to consider an alternative explanation instead demanding investigations. That is not an open mind.
 
sub1028 said:
Good, there something fishy, when the press and tweeter and Facebook refused to let you speak about it? Why the cover up?
Click to expand...
I wanna say, all the provable lies told? If ever there was a boy who cried wolf...
 
Callen said:
It is not a mischaracterization it is my honest opinion of how you portray your preferred narrative and discount anything that counters it. You have decided what certain things mean and refuse to be open to a different view. Case in point


Hunter at no point indicated it was lobbying money or that it occurred when his father was VP. You assume facts not in evidence and then refuse to consider an alternative explanation instead demanding investigations. That is not an open mind.
Click to expand...
Those are not lies nor are they the product of being closed minded.

It was absolutely an unguarded movement. Hunter had no expectation that text would become public.

Hunter did not qualify the term “salary.” It is irrational to think he was saying to his daughter “Unlike Pop, I won’t make you give me half of one-third of your salary, you know, the part that doesn’t come from lobbying.” He was almost certainly saying, in so many words, “half of what I earn,” and he earned a great deal of money from lobbying.

And if that statement about his income is true, it almost certainly covers a period of time when Joe was VP.

Sorry, you’ve got nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom