A Deeply Fractured US

[Remius]

Thanks for proving my point that this is not the Fractured US thread, but the Get Trump thread. There's lots of info here about the Trump troubles, but you just insist in piling on Trump. They call that TDS. They have lots of trials on the go. Enough to satisfy most, except those that that have an unhealthy hatred of Trump. For you to go ballistic because I shifted the narrative to Biden is both telling and humorous.

Biden is a proven liar. They are doing this right by gathering evidence. Real physical evidence. Not Shifty Adam Schiff's, non materializing evidence for his Russian Collusion scam and impeachment proceedings.

As for Trump, they have over 40 charges against him. If they have a case they can make it. Whether or not Trump has done these things doesn't change the fact that the Biden Crime Family, is a family of hangers on, greasy, fraudulent white collar criminals. See how that works?

So are you a Biden fan then? A sitting, lying POTUS involved in money laundering, influence peddling, consorting with Red China, phony LLCs and bank accounts? That's not important to discuss? In a thread supposedly about all US politics. Sorry to drag it off your favourite whipping post. Like I said earlier ask to have the thread title changed.

Not being beholden to you for anything, you don't get to tell me what to post and what to believe. Maybe in Biden’s America you can, but not here.

Your whiny closing para isn't worth responding to.

To be fair, No one is very enamoured with Biden here to be honest. No one is jumping aggressively to his defence but that doesn’t mean we buy into the « evidence » you (or rather what maga types in the US) are presenting.

It’s an interesting topic when a former POTUS is up on so many charges and legal cases. It’s news. News gets talked about. You may feel like it’s a get trump thread. But when things make news that goes to a « fractured US » it gets discussed. Like the speaker race for example or what not. Right now Trump is juggling a pile of legal cases. Unprecedented for any former POTUS. So it’s normal that it would get discussed a bit more but also varies on people’s interests.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Thanks for proving my point that this is not the Fractured US thread, but the Get Trump thread. There's lots of info here about the Trump troubles, but you just insist in piling on Trump. They call that TDS. They have lots of trials on the go. Enough to satisfy most, except those that that have an unhealthy hatred of Trump. For you to go ballistic because I shifted the narrative to Biden is both telling and humorous.

Biden is a proven liar. They are doing this right by gathering evidence. Real physical evidence. Not Shifty Adam Schiff's, non materializing evidence for his Russian Collusion scam and impeachment proceedings.

As for Trump, they have over 40 charges against him. If they have a case they can make it. Whether or not Trump has done these things doesn't change the fact that the Biden Crime Family, is a family of hangers on, greasy, fraudulent white collar criminals. See how that works?

Biden might be as well, but so far the people out to get him haven't actually put any evidence in the impeachment trial, and their attempts so far have been, poor.

They have a shit tonne of actual evidence already out on Trump as well, all of which you dismiss out of hand.

So are you a Biden fan then? A sitting, lying POTUS involved in money laundering, influence peddling, consorting with Red China, phony LLCs and bank accounts? That's not important to discuss? In a thread supposedly about all US politics. Sorry to drag it off your favourite whipping post. Like I said earlier ask to have the thread title changed.

No, I don't like either really (although most of your accusations are wildly unproven). But every time Trump comes up, you 'whataboutBiden', 'ButHerEmails' or whatever other non-sequitor is your train of the day.

They can both get sent to jail for all I care, but so far only one of them has had rioters storm the Capitol building looking to hang his VP and other senior elected officials, paid off porn stars, lied on tax returns and bank loans, have had multiple lawyers lose their licence, and kept top secret documents in the bathroom of a golf course.

With the amount of money required to get elected in the US and lack of controls, the system is designed to corrupt so assume most of them are beholden to some kind of corporate interest, backroom movers and shakers or whatever. George Santos got kicked out only because he was really really shit at hiding it and did way too much lying up front while committing election fraud from the get go.

 

[brihard]

So are you a Biden fan then? A sitting, lying POTUS involved in money laundering, influence peddling, consorting with Red China, phony LLCs and bank accounts?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

To be fair, No one is very enamoured with Biden here to be honest. No one is jumping aggressively to his defence but that doesn’t mean we buy into the « evidence » you (or rather what maga types in the US) are presenting.

It’s an interesting topic when a former POTUS is up on so many charges and legal cases. It’s news. News gets talked about. You may feel like it’s a get trump thread. But when things make news that goes to a « fractured US » it gets discussed. Like the speaker race for example or what not. Right now Trump is juggling a pile of legal cases. Unprecedented for any former POTUS. So it’s normal that it would get discussed a bit more but also varies on people’s interests.

I'm not denying he should be discussed. He has enough haters here to prove that.

You don't think a sitting POTUS accused of his failings isn't worthy of discussion? I know most media is trying to downplay it and keep it out of circulation, but c'mon. Influence peddling, bribery, graft, etc. I don't know whether they can make a case for RICO, but it is certainly possible.

Biden and his lawbreaking are just as important here as Trump. He is after all, supposedly and on the face of it, the most powerful person in the US.

Biden is expected to get mired in his own pile of legal cases. How you can slough that off as not worthy of discussion here is beyond me.

 

[KevinB]

I'm not denying he should be discussed. He has enough haters here to prove that.

You don't think a sitting POTUS accused of his failings isn't worthy of discussion? I know most media is trying to downplay it and keep it out of circulation, but c'mon. Influence peddling, bribery, graft, etc. I don't know whether they can make a case for RICO, but it is certainly possible.

Biden and his lawbreaking are just as important here as Trump. He is after all, supposedly and on the face of it, the most powerful person in the US.

Biden is expected to get mired in his own pile of legal cases. How you can slough that off as not worthy of discussion here is beyond me.

The problem with the majority of the complainants on the POTUS claims is that they clearly have axes to grind and their criminal culpability makes them significantly suspect and questionable witnesses.

 

[brihard]

I'm not denying he should be discussed. He has enough haters here to prove that.

You don't think a sitting POTUS accused of his failings isn't worthy of discussion? I know most media is trying to downplay it and keep it out of circulation, but c'mon. Influence peddling, bribery, graft, etc. I don't know whether they can make a case for RICO, but it is certainly possible.

Biden and his lawbreaking are just as important here as Trump. He is after all, supposedly and on the face of it, the most powerful person in the US.

Biden is expected to get mired in his own pile of legal cases. How you can slough that off as not worthy of discussion here is beyond me.

I’m not a CNN fan, but they do at least seem to be following this and doing further digging beyond what the committee Republicans have allowed to be released. It appears that the Republicans have a ways to go yet before they can plausibly allege that Biden check to be criminal: Fact check: Evidence supports Democrats’ case that Joe Biden made a personal loan to his brother | CNN Politics

One big difference between speeches by a house majority committee figure, and an actual criminal prosecution is that in the course of a criminal prosecution it’s necessary to disclose information that’s exculpatory. It’s not necessary to do that when giving a presser, and the privilege that comes with congressional activity in a committee setting is a very useful shield against action for defamation. Either party, in the course of committee proceedings, can allege or offer innuendo on just about anything.

Time will tell whether the Republicans gather up enough that they’re willing to see their innuendo or allegations tested through any sort of due process. I’m sure we’ll all be interested if they do.

 

[Remius]

I'm not denying he should be discussed. He has enough haters here to prove that.

You don't think a sitting POTUS accused of his failings isn't worthy of discussion? I know most media is trying to downplay it and keep it out of circulation, but c'mon. Influence peddling, bribery, graft, etc. I don't know whether they can make a case for RICO, but it is certainly possible.

Except I didn’t say it wasn’t worthy of discussion. Discuss away. I’m just not sure the evidence is that convincing at this time. There is plenty of coverage of the attempts to go after Biden. Even a lot of republicans are wary of the current efforts.

Biden and his lawbreaking are just as important here as Trump. He is after all, supposedly and on the face of it, the most powerful person in the US.

Sure. And if evidence leads to that I am sure it would be bigger news than it might be at this time.

Biden is expected to get mired in his own pile of legal cases. How you can slough that off as not worthy of discussion here is beyond me.

Again. I have not said at any time that it is unworthy of discussion.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Nope, sorry Bri, the SubCommittee is not using allegedly and they know better about it than you or I. I will follow their example on the matter.

Besides, none or few here, use 'allegedly' when talking about the yet unproven court evidence of Trump’s cases. He did this, he did that, the evidence is clear and yet it hasn't even gone to trial, Why should Biden not be treated the same?

I have used alleged and allegedly more than anyone here. You're late to the party.

So, no I won't use it for Biden

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The problem with the majority of the complainants on the POTUS claims is that they clearly have axes to grind and their criminal culpability makes them significantly suspect and questionable witnesses.

The same can be said for Trump Kev. Are you contending Biden has done nothing serious and it's just a bunch of sour grapes?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Biden might be as well, but so far the people out to get him haven't actually put any evidence in the impeachment trial, and their attempts so far have been, poor.

They have a shit tonne of actual evidence already out on Trump as well, all of which you dismiss out of hand.

No, I don't like either really (although most of your accusations are wildly unproven). But every time Trump comes up, you 'whataboutBiden', 'ButHerEmails' or whatever other non-sequitor is your train of the day.

They can both get sent to jail for all I care, but so far only one of them has had rioters storm the Capitol building looking to hang his VP and other senior elected officials, paid off porn stars, lied on tax returns and bank loans, have had multiple lawyers lose their licence, and kept top secret documents in the bathroom of a golf course.

With the amount of money required to get elected in the US and lack of controls, the system is designed to corrupt so assume most of them are beholden to some kind of corporate interest, backroom movers and shakers or whatever. George Santos got kicked out only because he was really really shit at hiding it and did way too much lying up front while committing election fraud from the get go.

Right off the hop, there is no impeachment trial, yet, so your starting from a false pretence already.

There is an impeachment inquiry and they have evidence. They are not showing it because they are following the process. Maybe once they depose Hunter about the evidence they have, they'll release it. They want to determine just what their evidence entails and how the Big Guy is involved. Or maybe they'll hold it until they decide to impeach. Because they are not letting anything out doesn't mean they don't have it. The dems shove and leak, leak, leak everything out there so they can convict Trump in the court of public opinion. Smart lawyers hold their evidence until required by discovery. They don't show the opposition what they have until they need to.

I'll accept you're no freind of Bidens.

The rest of your opinion on my supposed posting style is immaterial.

 

[brihard]

Nope, sorry Bri, the SubCommittee is not using allegedly and they know better about it than you or I. I will follow their example on the matter.

Besides, none or few here, use 'allegedly' when talking about the yet unproven court evidence of Trump’s cases. He did this, he did that, the evidence is clear and yet it hasn't even gone to trial, Why should Biden not be treated the same?

I have used alleged and allegedly more than anyone here. You're late to the party.

So, no I won't use it for Biden

Your claim isn’t at all supported by the facts.

Here’s three pages of search results of me using ‘alleged’ or variants thereof in this thread: Search results for query: Alleg

Here’s a single page plus a single further spillover post of you doing the same: Search results for query: Alleg

And about eight pages total across all users, again in this thread: Search results for query: Alleg

Some of course are quoted replies, but my point is made, and those searches take seconds to do. So you definitely have not “used alleged and allegedly more than anyone here” - I think that’s me - and a number of other members refer to the Trump allegations as exactly that.

Speaking only for myself, I’ve been quite cautious about taking anything to conclusions, and I believe I’ve been one of the most reluctant to actually opine that Trump himself will (or would?) face criminal jeopardy over any of this. I’ve long held that the evidence of offences is compelling, but that who prosecution would land on remained (and to an extent still remains) up in the air.

Anywho, you do you, but if we’re back to just calling politicians criminals without compelling evidence, that’s gonna be a challenging backslide in tone to manage on this particular thread…

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I’m not a CNN fan, but they do at least seem to be following this and doing further digging beyond what the committee Republicans have allowed to be released. It appears that the Republicans have a ways to go yet before they can plausibly allege that Biden check to be criminal: Fact check: Evidence supports Democrats’ case that Joe Biden made a personal loan to his brother | CNN Politics

One big difference between speeches by a house majority committee figure, and an actual criminal prosecution is that in the course of a criminal prosecution it’s necessary to disclose information that’s exculpatory. It’s not necessary to do that when giving a presser, and the privilege that comes with congressional activity in a committee setting is a very useful shield against action for defamation. Either party, in the course of committee proceedings, can allege or offer innuendo on just about anything.

Time will tell whether the Republicans gather up enough that they’re willing to see their innuendo or allegations tested through any sort of due process. I’m sure we’ll all be interested if they do.

I don't see us disagreeing here.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Your claim isn’t at all supported by the facts.

Here’s three pages of search results of me using ‘alleged’ or variants thereof in this thread: Search results for query: Alleg

Here’s a single page plus a single further spillover post of you doing the same: Search results for query: Alleg

And about eight pages total across all users, again in this thread: Search results for query: Alleg

Some of course are quoted replies, but my point is made, and those searches take seconds to do. So you definitely have not “used alleged and allegedly more than anyone here” - I think that’s me - and a number of other members refer to the Trump allegations as exactly that.

Speaking only for myself, I’ve been quite cautious about taking anything to conclusions, and I believe I’ve been one of the most reluctant to actually opine that a Trump himself will (or would?) face criminal jeopardy over any of this. I’ve long held that the evidence of offences is compelling, but that who prosecution would land on remained (and to an extent still remains) up in the air.

Anywho, you do you, but if we’re back to just calling politicians criminals without compelling evidence, that’s gonna be a challenging backslide in tone to manage on this particular thread…

Your search skills are better than mine. I got this Search results for query: Allege

I did this before I posted what I wrote. Sloppy. I just realized that you didn't show in my search because of the ignore feature. Mea culpability. Have the crown.

I'm certainly not going to get in a pissing contest about it. Revised, I've used it a lot. More than most. Better?

Maybe if we can get everyone to use 'alleged' when talking about Trump evidence, not proven in court, it'll work. I've shown I (and you) can use it. All you have to do is convince the others and I can fall back in line easy enough.

 

[brihard]

I don't see us disagreeing here.

Your search skills are better than mine. I got this Search results for query: Allege

I did this before I posted what I wrote. Sloppy. I just realized that you didn't show in my search because of the ignore feature. Mea culpability. Have the crown.

I'm certainly not going to get in a pissing contest about it. Revised, I've used it a lot. More than most. Better?

All good, I wasn’t suggesting dishonesty, it’s an easy mistake to make and I’m a search nerd. It just didn’t jive with what I know about my own posting style, so I checked.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All good, I wasn’t suggesting dishonesty, it’s an easy mistake to make and I’m a search nerd. It just didn’t jive with what I know about my own posting style, so I checked.

I did an edit at the bottom of the post so you likely missed it. Here it is

Maybe if we can get everyone to use 'alleged' when talking about Trump evidence, not proven in court, it'll work. I've shown I (and you) can use it. All you have to do is convince the others and I can fall back in line easy enough.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The issue right now isn't whether or not conclusive proof has been shown that Joe Biden has been accepting bribes. The issue right now is whether enough red flags have been raised that a DoJ investigation at least as prolonged and wide in scope as the "Russian Collusion" investigations is merited.

Assuming today's news holds up, Joe Biden received payments out of one of Hunter's companies, into which money from foreigners flowed. Not sure how regular payments from a business isn't some kind of business relationship. Definitely sure that if clean and dirty money are mingling in accounts, there can be no "clean" payouts. That's the essence of laundering.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The issue right now isn't whether or not conclusive proof has been shown that Joe Biden has been accepting bribes. The issue right now is whether enough red flags have been raised that a DoJ investigation at least as prolonged and wide in scope as the "Russian Collusion" investigations is merited.

Assuming today's news holds up, Joe Biden received payments out of one of Hunter's companies, into which money from foreigners flowed. Not sure how regular payments from a business isn't some kind of business relationship. Definitely sure that if clean and dirty money are mingling in accounts, there can be no "clean" payouts. That's the essence of laundering.

Hmm. Given past performance, I'm not sure the Biden DOJ will do anything except stonewall it.

 

[brihard]

The issue right now isn't whether or not conclusive proof has been shown that Joe Biden has been accepting bribes. The issue right now is whether enough red flags have been raised that a DoJ investigation at least as prolonged and wide in scope as the "Russian Collusion" investigations is merited.

Assuming today's news holds up, Joe Biden received payments out of one of Hunter's companies, into which money from foreigners flowed. Not sure how regular payments from a business isn't some kind of business relationship. Definitely sure that if clean and dirty money are mingling in accounts, there can be no "clean" payouts. That's the essence of laundering.

By all means if there’s smoke, call the firefighters and check. With that said, the mere commingling of monies from and for different purposes within an account are not inherently indicative of criminality. They would need to actually show criminal origin or use.

My work in money laundering has been super limited- one investigation, low seven figures over a span of a decade or so, and with simple methodology (writing warrants for it was fun though). What was quickly apparent is that picking the wheat from the chaff can be tough, and that a lot of legitimate money movement can really obfuscate what’s not- or vice versa. Proving which party(ies) had criminal knowledge can be a challenge.

As said before, the Republican house committee are being awfully selective in what info they do share, and it’s quickly coming out in rebuttals that when they say “look at this!”, so far there’s generally been a “yeah, that’s because that.” What I’m reading of so far that actually touches Joe Biden seems to be family repayment of personal loans.

Do I think it’s likely there’s more criminality attached to Hunter Biden? Yeah, probably. He seems to be a bit of a dumpster fire, slimy in general, and definitely seems willing to trade on his old man’s name and position. But, it will take more than shared family ties to rope Joe Biden into criminal suspicion for anything. Should any probable cause affidavits emerge alleging that, I’ll race you all to read a copy.

 

[WLSC]

I tried to find the link for the t-shirt. I just found that picture of it. It seems to be a popular word today.

 

[Remius]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/nikki-haley-social-security-medicare-reform

Interesting policy position from Haley. Entitlement reform is likely needed and if done right could be a great thing long term. Something that is needed here (discussed in another thread recently by coincidence).

So far I am liking what Haley is saying and how she is presenting herself.