68
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
68 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3780 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No. They just know that Republicans and their cable news sycophants will do the exact thing they did with the Hur report.
Ignore the overall findings, find one sentence in it that spins it negative, soundbite the fuck out of it, and repeat it ad nauseum.
And yes, this is the same thing Trump did. And Obama. And Bush. This has been a standard move for decades. It's just news now because of the regressive morons in congress and their orange dictator-in-waiting.
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...
Not “may”, the wording is “shall” and “with””. And while I would have rather they try to end run around the road block, shall and with have specific meaning in legal documents that is much less wishy-washy than “may”
But the transcripts show that the "due to age and confusion" was a mischaracterization by Hur. It's like when Barr declared the Mueller report exonerated trump.
There are a lot of podcasts that break it down if you're not interested in looking at the transcripts yourself.
Literally just posted it and I've read it...
Most people aren't politically active to be on a sub about it, they're not going to read it.
Like, I run into this all the time, Biden supporters just don't seem to understand how disengaged people are with Biden as president.
If the I tervirw makes him look good like you claim, what's wrong with releasing it so people can hear the good bits?
Why care if Republicans are going to talk shit if they're already talking shit and won't stop for any reason?
The optics of Biden hiding it are worse
If people are disengaged, there are no optics to hiding it because the only people who will even know already have their minds made up.
Releasing it just gives Fox and their ilk material to chop and edit to make Biden look bad.
There's no upside to releasing it when the transcript is already out there.
Because anybody with even a basic awareness of how Republicans operate knows that people won't hear the good bits. The statements will be chopped up and released as distorted propaganda pieces.
They already have the transcript. There is nothing to be gained by giving them the audio. All it would do is allow them to further rile up their bases with disinformation.
Who cares?
We aren't going to flip Republican voters, he's not gaining any he doesn't already have.
Elections are won and lost on dem turnout, and if the audio makes Biden seem capable, that makes the "old and confused" reason for not charging him bullshit.
And that might be enough for them to also write off the reasoning for not charging him, and maybe even the fact that the report found him guilty
They call Biden a fucking communist, no matter what happens, republicans will always tell their voters it's the worst thing ever.
So who cares what they're going to say?
If this gets more voters to the polls, it's a win for Biden.
If we don't care what republicans think then why do we care about meeting their demands to release the tape?
If elections are won and lost on dem turnout then why give republicans the opportunity to create misleading sound clips? Do you think more dems are likely to listen to the entire tape or just a few moments stitched together played on the radio?
...
Because if it shows a capable well thought Biden it might convince voters who aren't voting for him because he's 82 years old...
How do people not understand?
It's been explained over and over. Nobody will listen to 5 hours of recorded tapes. They will hear out of context snippets stitched together out of chronological order.
How do you not get this?
Because out of 5 hours of tapes, I'd expect some good things...
But hey, I'm an optimist, maybe everyone else is right and Biden just sounds like a senile old fool for 5 hours straight...
I just can't rationalize how that's true and it's bullshit the reason he wasn't charged was he's old and confused.
Gotta be one or the other.
It's been explained over and over. They will hear out of context snippets stitched together out of chronological order.
How do you not get this?
Well thinks for making the decision to block easy I guess.
Whatever keeps you in that echo chamber of flawed logic and selective comprehension!