this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
196 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19234 readers
3027 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kescusay 117 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Sharing this here because the difference in responses to this guilty verdict couldn't be more stark. During his time in office, Trump pardoned close associates of various crimes. Out of a sense of integrity, Biden has said he won't pardon his son.

The charges are absurd, but he was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and Biden won't put his thumb on the scales.

[–] [email protected] 81 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Trump put his children in the white house, making them politically relevant. If Trump had said anything about pardoning his children, thst would have been political news.

Hunter has nothing to do with politics other than Republicans trying to equate having children with nepotism. This is not politics.

[–] billiam0202 41 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Conservatives love making children political though.

  • Having sex but don't want children? You're a godless slut.

  • Pregnant and don't want children? You're not capable of making decisions about your body.

  • Had an abortion? You're an evil baby killing slut.

  • Have children you don't want? You're a slut who shouldn't have sex if you couldn't feed your kids.

  • Child of a Democratic president going through awkward teenage years? You're a horse face, Chelsea Clinton.

  • Try to reach American soil to claim asylum? We're gonna keep your kids in cages, argue in front of a judge that we're not obligated to give them any hygienic items like soap or toothpaste, and deport you. Hope your home country isn't as dangerous as you thought it was!

  • You're a loving couple in a committed relationship who want to adopt one of the many "unwanted" children in our foster system? Get fucked queers; our god says only the straights get to enjoy being parents.

  • Your child needs medical care? Why should my tax dollars pay for that?

  • Your local public school sucks? Well maybe you should have been able to afford private tuition to a school that definitely doesn't exist because public schools were forced to integrate. Oh, and we're gonna siphon more money out of your kids' school to pay for ours- that tuition ain't cheap, you know.

And, for international flavor:

  • You don't want your kids to be genocided by Israel? Then maybe they shouldn't have been one of the more than 50% of Gaza's population who either weren't born or weren't old enough to vote 16 years ago when Hamas held their last election.
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, conservatives love pretending that non-political things are political. Per your examples having children is political, which would make the term political meaningless if we let them define political.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

We need to stop politicising politics, clearly.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Trump, under a clear and disgusting display of nepotism, put his completely unqualified family members into positions of power.

Fixed that for you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

What did that fix?

[–] disguy_ovahea 3 points 6 months ago

I completely agree. Just like I agreed with Fetterman for defending Boebert’s kids from public judgement. These people aren’t politicians. They don’t deserve the press scrutiny of a politician.

[–] Zak 38 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The charges are absurd

Why? Lying on the gun purchase background check form is a felony. It says so right above the signature line on the form. The evidence he lied on the form looks pretty strong.

I do realize the crime is not prosecuted often, but that seems like a mistake. The Charleston church shooter, for example should have failed his background check and been prosecuted for the same crime.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Theres no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was on substances when he purchased the firearm. The form asks if you're a USER of drugs. If he was not using substances when he was buying the firearm, he didn't lie.

That's fine. If this is now precedent, the government needs to go and retroactively charge all users, and not just a spotlight democrat.

[–] Zak 7 points 6 months ago

27 CFR § 478.11 addresses that. The court is not making new law here.

Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

Right, the charges aren’t absurd at all. No one is above the law; not Hunter, not Trump. It applies to everyone. The evidence was provided to a jury of his peers, and they determined that that evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[–] SupraMario 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Good, it's less the right can point to and say biden is a hypocrite on.

[–] meco03211 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'd bet a large sum of money at least one dunce makes that claim.

[–] PunnyName 2 points 6 months ago

They go low, we go high.

And they get the Supreme Court: https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A