this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
308 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
4063 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 132 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This is far from the first time that one of Republicans’ star witnesses in the Biden corruption investigation has completely debunked their claims. One such witness was Devon Archer, another of Hunter’s business partners. In his testimony, Archer said he was “not aware of any” wrongdoing by the president and said he disagreed with the allegation that Biden accepted a bribe. Republicans then refused to let Democrats introduce Archer’s testimony as evidence during a September hearing.

This is the last paragraph and it's golden. Incredible how they refused to allow the evidence to be introduced - given that it wasn't the evidence they were hoping for...

[–] [email protected] 88 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

To wit: this is why they did not want to give him a public hearing.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Which is weird, because they seem to really enjoy looking at pictures of his dick in public settings.

[–] dhork 13 points 9 months ago

That would be a pubic hearing

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They wouldn't mind giving him a public sounding.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

I'll get the sounding rod and the lube!

[–] [email protected] 53 points 9 months ago

"Your Honor, I object!"

"Why?"

"Because it's devastating to my case!"

[–] [email protected] 40 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Republicans want to find anything on Biden that they can run with. They got nothing.

It reminds me of the the Simpson's Mr Burns trying to find dirt on his opponent Mary Bailey.

Republican advisor: And so far, the only negative thing we have found is from some guy who dated her when she was 16.

Burns: Ah. And?

Republican advisor: He, uh, he felt her up.

Burns: Bah! Not good enough!

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But for their base it has worked overall, as they don't operate on facts and have been trained to dismiss facts as the "deep state" working against them. It's all theater, they 100% don't want to do the work even if they had a case, it just to put shit out there that the base ingests without any follow up, and then passes it on as fact (but the kind they can believe).

[–] LavaPlanet 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Exactly. It should have crazy academic value, to study a cult of this size and power, and it's rise (and hopefully demise) right out in the open for everyone to see. Normally they have been regulated to some "compound" where they are discouraged by the leader from interacting with the rest of society. This cult is trying to take society/religion over. If it wasn't for all the fascism the Trump cult would be fascinating with the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance required to walk around in everyday life, with free access to everything in the "outside world", and still eat up all the leader guys shit and beg for more.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago

He must be guilty! Or else, why would we be investigating him so much??

[–] Badeendje 27 points 9 months ago

"We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence"

  • Rudolph "Four Seasons Total Landscaping" Guiliani
[–] Nobody 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

“In my discussions with the Vice President concerning his personal finances, he was always crystal clear that he wanted to take the most transparent and ethical approach consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the law,”

"No malarkey with the money, guys. I mean it."

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They’re baffled because they walk as close to, or as much over, the line as they can without getting caught and can’t understand that everyone else isn’t cheating the system at every turn.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

They’re blaming the opposition before they get caught, so that it sounds absurd when the news of their crimes comes out.

[–] jordanlund 13 points 9 months ago

Remember the "smoking gun" that turned out to be Hunter repaying a loan Joe made him?

https://newrepublic.com/post/177317/james-comer-logic-biden-truck-payment