politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Republicans are going to say stupid shit anyways...
They're already saying it.
The only reason to hide the tapes, is they make Biden look bad. If he had his shit together, they'd be trying to release them to show people the report was biased.
Candidate:
Everyone else:
Candidate:
This is a bad thing regardless of the letter next to a candidates name.
Edit:
...
That's what you're doing..
The overall findings was Biden knowingly committed crimes.
That's what you're doing.
You latched on "charges not recommended" and are ignoring the rest of the sentence that says the only reason is because due to Biden's age and confusion, it's unlikely he'd be found guilty as people would be sympathetic.
You're not even focusing on a single sentence...
"The only reason to hide the tapes, is they make Biden look bad. If he had his shit together, they'd be trying to release them to show people the report was biased."
But they already released the transcripts. They are just refusing to release the audio. There isn't new information to be gained. Just an opportunity for Republicans to splice and dice the audio for partisan purposes.
It is, and it's a god damn world salad...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/full-text-robert-hur-biden-classified-documents-interview-pdf-rcna142956
At one point he talks about how NASA can cure cancer with protons...
Americans don't like to read, I'm not sure how an American hasn't noticed that.
But all the shit we (rightfully) give trump shit about with his speaking ability and making up random shit is stuff Biden does too.
A clip of him talking about how NASA has a cure for cancer is going to hurt him.
And it does make sense he wouldn't want that released.
But be better than republicans. Hold your "team" to higher standards than just the letter by someone's name.
I don't think Biden having dementia and spewing nonsense is news to anyone. Yes it hurts him and will draw more attention in audio than in text, which is one of the reasons they aren't releasing it.
"But be better than republicans. Hold your "team" to higher standards than just the letter by someone's name."
No. Fuck that. We tried that and ended up with a conservative majority on SCOTUS. Don't do anything to give Republicans or Trump an advantage. I'm just as disappointed as anyone that Biden is the best candidate the Dems can produce, and that his campaign slogan is effectively "better than Trump". But I don't agree with making it easier for Republicans to hurt your campaign just for the sake of taking the moral high ground. Save that conversation for when your opponent isn't a literal fascist. Make the Republicans work for it. If the transcript doesn't titillate your Fox News braindead audience then too bad.
...
Refusing to fight for Obama's SC pick so that it could be used to get people to vote for a candidate disliked by most people from either party is not "having standards".
It's wild to hear someone even suggest that's what happened...
If this is what you think happened in 2016 after Senate Republicans openly admit that they blocked Obama's SC pick, then I hope nobody is listening to you because you've lost all credibility. They even said that they would do the same thing to a Republican president, but then they moved faster than I've ever seen Congress move to install a new Justice just a few weeks before the 2020 election. There's video of Lindsey Graham telling people to use his words against him if they behaved differently with roles reversed, and he behaved differently, and then that interview video went viral right before the election. There's no excuse for not knowing what happened, so I have to assume that you're just arguing in bad faith, trying to sow division.
Between the insults, you said I don't know what happened, then said what happened was the same thing I said?
Is it just because I pointed out Dems didn't fight or try anything to get Obama his pick?
Or that the reason they didn't was in an attempt to motivate voters to turn out for someone they don't like?
I just don't see anywhere else we disagree, but if you keep the insults up I'm probably just going to block you and be done with this.
If you want a political group ok with juvenile insults, republicans are on the other side of the aisle.
Senate majority leader McConnell refused to even bring it to a vote. And laughed about it. How do you propose that they should've fought that?
It's written that the Senate may vote to confirm, not that they have to.
If republicans refused to hold the vote because they didn't have the votes to stop it, Obama should have just sat his pick (not the bullshit "compromise") to the SC.
Republicans would have challenged it, and it would have went to the SC.
Would it have been guaranteed to work? No, it wouldn't.
But it would have been better than a year out from the election just fucking giving up.
Can you explain any downside to trying anything more than accepting it?
Source:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
Rather than do it and fight the battle that they were able to do it, we ran out the clock talking about if we could.
That's the main difference between the parties.
Republicans do shit then we try to undo what they managed to get thru.
Dems have the fight before doing anything, and keep running out of time.
The entire premise of moderate politics doesn't work anymore. We spend all our time trying to undo what republicans do, but they do so much bullshit there's not enough time for everything, let alone anything's ng we want to do.
How do people not see that if you've been paying attention to politics since at least 2016?
It's incredibly obvious what's happening...