• 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!

Shocking Harvard Poll: 67% Of Americans Say Biden Should Be Impeached If Hunter Biden Corruption Proves True

Joe Biden should be impeached for something a family member did? Even by the low, low standards of Republican conspiracy theories that doesn't make sense. But making sense obviously isn't the point.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
You’re providing specifics in your example, and that’s precisely what I’d want to say if we’re going to go through another impeachment process.

As to your last question, I agree. But that’s still circumstantial. A more curious media would be all over that.
Click to expand...
Of course the case against Joe Biden is circumstantial, but that's often how investigations start.
 
NatMorton said:
No thanks. I am only judging you by what you post here.
Click to expand...
So because I suggest there be solid evidence to impeach a president that means I’m “dogmatically left”? Sure thing dude.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
What?
Click to expand...

"Joe should be impeached because of the evidence we've seen of his crimes."
"What evidence?"
"This evidence."
"That's not evidence of crimes."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Well there's evidence in the laptop."
"What evidence is that?"
"It's in the laptop."
"Well what is that evidence?"
"You can't see it."
"Why not?"
"Because it's being investigated."
"So you haven't see this evidence."
"Are you seriously suggesting that the evidence isn't there?"
"I can't prove a negative."
"So you admit this evidence exists."
"What...no..."
"So you do admit there's evidence."
"Dude, that's not how anything works."
"There's also more evidence. It's a conversation of Hunter admitting he committed crimes."
"Let's see this conversation."
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because you'll just laugh at it and dismiss it."
"If you already know that people will laugh at it and dismiss it, I think that says something about the quality of your evidence."
"I'm putting you on ignore." (Starts new Hunter Biden Laptop thread)
 
NatMorton said:
Hunter's messages may have been taken out of context and may mean something other than he's handed over substantial amounts of his lobbying earnings to his father.
Click to expand...

Unless you see Naomi's emails you have no idea what the context of that comment was given he never says, when or why. To say it was his lobbying earnings is nothing more than a blatant, partisan supposition on your part. Without seeing the entire exchange, ie his emails in the context of the dialogue with his daughter, we have no idea other that the ones we make up.

You aren't going to get your wish until November ...if ever. I'm done with the headbanging!
 
NatMorton said:
And apparently you're unaware this OP isn't about Trump.
Click to expand...
You are the one who broached the subject of paying for access. You opened the door and I walked in.
 
Schism said:
Uh, no...all you need is "Joe was paid for through Hunter", and it's game over.
Click to expand...

Is this some kind of fantasy porn for Trumpers? Think you would get 60 votes in the senate after the GQP wouldn't even remove the shit stain former president?
 
Callen said:
The wording in that article is just another example of how the right willingly distorts the truth to establish a narrative and again we see it works! The "If these found to be true," part is very important!

There is no doubt in my mind that Hunter tried to sell access to his father. However, unless there is proof Biden Sr was part of that and did offer a quid pro quo then there is no impeachable event. I do not believe there will be any impeachment hearing that would be a very dumb move on the GOP's part. I do believe they will open an investigation but not an impeachment.
Click to expand...
they already did open an investigation a long time ago and found nothing.
 
Callen said:
You are the one who broached the subject of paying for access. You opened the door and I walked in.
Click to expand...
No, I think the leadership of the corrupt energy company paying Hunter Biden $50k a month for no discernible reason other than his surname are the folks who first broached pay-for-access.
 
Callen said:
The wording in that article is just another example of how the right willingly distorts the truth to establish a narrative and again we see it works! The "If these found to be true," part is very important!

There is no doubt in my mind that Hunter tried to sell access to his father. However, unless there is proof Biden Sr was part of that and did offer a quid pro quo then there is no impeachable event. I do not believe there will be any impeachment hearing that would be a very dumb move on the GOP's part. I do believe they will open an investigation but not an impeachment.
Click to expand...
They have to impeach Biden as revenge for Trump. The pretext is pretty unimportant.
 
NatMorton said:
No, I think the leadership of the corrupt energy company paying Hunter Biden $50k a month for no discernible reason other than his surname are the folks who first broached pay-for-access.
Click to expand...

LMAO... I detect some jealously...
 
NatMorton said:
No, I think the leadership of the corrupt energy company paying Hunter Biden $50k a month for no discernible reason other than his surname are the folks who first broached pay-for-access.
Click to expand...
Welp, time to throw the kids of every single powerful person in the country in prison (every single Trump kid included, I should hope it does not need to be said).
 
BlueTex said:
Is this some kind of fantasy porn for Trumpers? Think you would get 60 votes in the senate after the GQP wouldn't even remove the shit stain former president?
Click to expand...
Unless a smoking gun is found (and maybe not even that) it's incredibly unlikely Biden would ever be convicted in the Senate. If the Republicans are wildly successful this November, winning every contested seat and losing none I think they'd have something like 56 votes. Add Manchin and Sinema to that and they're close, but not quite there.
 
Callen said:
The wording in that article is just another example of how the right willingly distorts the truth to establish a narrative and again we see it works! The "If these found to be true," part is very important!

There is no doubt in my mind that Hunter tried to sell access to his father. However, unless there is proof Biden Sr was part of that and did offer a quid pro quo then there is no impeachable event. I do not believe there will be any impeachment hearing that would be a very dumb move on the GOP's part. I do believe they will open an investigation but not an impeachment.
Click to expand...
Don't you find it the least bit ironic that in your condemnation of "the right" for "distorting the truth" that you would select such a hyperbolic, broadbrush generality as you did?

I mean, basically what you've done is condemn EVERYONE on the right as distorters of the truth. Do you not see the irony in that? Or is it your belief that EVERYONE on the right actually is a liar?
 
Hypothetical said:
Are you saying it should be LEGAL to provide access to the presidential administration for money from just anyone?
Click to expand...
Well trump was selling pardons for a quarter of a million each…
 
And we can add yet another excuse: even if Joe Biden did accept a bribe Trump must have, too, so it's okay.
 
NatMorton said:
No, because I see you irrationally ignoring the evidence at hand.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m just waiting for the other thread to pan out. You know…the one promising the laptop is loaded with kiddie porn and all the five eyes countries are involved? I can only hold my breath for so much.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Don't you find it the least bit ironic that in your condemnation of "the right" for "distorting the truth" that you would select such a hyperbolic, broadbrush generality as you did?

I mean, basically what you've done is condemn EVERYONE on the right as distorters of the truth. Do you not see the irony in that? Or is it your belief that EVERYONE on the right actually is a liar?
Click to expand...
I should have said "some" on the right. I usually always qualify that it is not all because it isn't. Unfortunately, though it is a large and loud "some" but it's only some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom