The New York Times - They're even more evil now
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
you can't ever establish that he didn't get involved.
sheesh
but, after all this time, there is no evidence that he did.
if there was a quid pro quo, that could be established. But I haven't seen any credible claims that there was.
You'd think the GOP would be alleging something if there was any hint.
you're talking about proving he did something.
smedley was talking about missing proof that he didn't do something, which of course can never be proved.
Smedley said:
PVW said:
Yes, I read the NYT piece. The key paragraph for non-Republicans seems to be this:
These details are not pretty. The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise. That story is notably different from past Republican lies about Obama’s birthplace or Kerry’s war record.I thought ml1's response was sufficient? What's missing, in your view?
is it established fact that "the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals."? To my knowledge it's not. That's what's being looked at.
There's been at least one false statement and lots of stonewalling from the administration.
See ml1 for a response on whether the statement was actually "false." If that's the most you've got, then it seems your complaint comes down to wishing people on this board would be more willing to engage in baseless speculation.
Reluctantly, I’ve come to the conclusion that neither #HunterBiden nor #DonaldTrump should be elected President in 2024.
— Larry Sabato (@LarrySabato) August 12, 2023
Occasionally both sides-ism makes sense.
PVW said:
Smedley said:
PVW said:
Yes, I read the NYT piece. The key paragraph for non-Republicans seems to be this:
These details are not pretty. The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise. That story is notably different from past Republican lies about Obama’s birthplace or Kerry’s war record.I thought ml1's response was sufficient? What's missing, in your view?
is it established fact that "the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals."? To my knowledge it's not. That's what's being looked at.
There's been at least one false statement and lots of stonewalling from the administration.
See ml1 for a response on whether the statement was actually "false." If that's the most you've got, then it seems your complaint comes down to wishing people on this board would be more willing to engage in baseless speculation.
My original point here, in a thread about the New York Times, was to say the NYT op-ed was a good take. That's a compliment, not a complaint.
It seems you're the one with the complaint about the coverage. You can voice your complaint to Editorial@nytimes.com
Smedley said:
PVW said:
Smedley said:
PVW said:
Yes, I read the NYT piece. The key paragraph for non-Republicans seems to be this:
These details are not pretty. The current president’s son made substantial sums of money from the perception of his proximity to top government officials, and the president has claimed otherwise. That story is notably different from past Republican lies about Obama’s birthplace or Kerry’s war record.I thought ml1's response was sufficient? What's missing, in your view?
is it established fact that "the POTUS didn't personally get involved in the deals."? To my knowledge it's not. That's what's being looked at.
There's been at least one false statement and lots of stonewalling from the administration.
See ml1 for a response on whether the statement was actually "false." If that's the most you've got, then it seems your complaint comes down to wishing people on this board would be more willing to engage in baseless speculation.
My original point here, in a thread about the New York Times, was to say the NYT op-ed was a good take. That's a compliment, not a complaint.
It seems you're the one with the complaint about the coverage. You can voice your complaint to Editorial@nytimes.com
It did seem, at some points in your postings, that you were suggesting that president Biden was somehow involved in Hunter Biden's unethical business dealings. That's going beyond what the NYT article said. But if, as you say now, you weren't trying to say anything beyond that article, well, as ml1 has pointed out, no one here has said anything opposed to the article's main thrust.
It seems that, once again, you've found yourself largely in agreement with the more left leaning posters here and as a result have been trying hard to argue against... something... to try and create some space.
It's ok -- one more election cycle and Trump won't be a factor and you won't have to vote for the same far left radical socialists as everyone else on this board. Hold tight -- we're almost there.
Your statement “Why are we still talking about (Hunter)?” doesn’t seem especially aligned with the NYT running a feature op-ed that’s about 50% why we should be talking about it. But if you’re saying you’re not opposed to the article’s main thrust, then please join me in raising a glass to the Old Gray Lady.
Smedley said:
Your statement “Why are we still talking about (Hunter)?” doesn’t seem especially aligned with the NYT running a feature op-ed that’s about 50% why we should be talking about it. But if you’re saying you’re not opposed to the article’s main thrust, then please join me in raising a glass to the Old Gray Lady.
It was the lead topic du jour of a daily NYT newsletter.
Toasts as well as complaints can be sent to letters@nytimes.com. There is no editorial@.
Smedley said:
Your statement “Why are we still talking about (Hunter)?” doesn’t seem especially aligned with the NYT running a feature op-ed that’s about 50% why we should be talking about it. But if you’re saying you’re not opposed to the article’s main thrust, then please join me in raising a glass to the Old Gray Lady.
The NYT can run whatever it likes -- the question was why we, here on MOL, are talking about it. As I've noted several times, nothing in that article seems at odds with what people here have been saying. Hunter Biden's behavior was unethical. Republican attempts to implicate Joe Biden in this behavior are unsupported. These are things we know thanks to reporting (always willing to raise a glass to that), including by NYT journalists. What remains unclear is what more you believe there is to be said.
PVW said:
The NYT can run whatever it likes -- the question was why we, here on MOL, are talking about it. As I've noted several times, nothing in that article seems at odds with what people here have been saying. Hunter Biden's behavior was unethical. Republican attempts to implicate Joe Biden in this behavior are unsupported. These are things we know thanks to reporting (always willing to raise a glass to that), including by NYT journalists. What remains unclear is what more you believe there is to be said.
I don't think the NYT deserves any kudos for that article. It doesn't suck as much as they usually do with regard to false equivalence, but it's in that direction.
As I wrote above, it's addressing something of a straw man. Democrats and liberals generally aren't defending Hunter Biden's business dealings. I for one didn't need Leonhardt to tell me that there is actual wrongdoing on Hunter's part. And I don't think too many other liberals did either.
Yes, we're saying the same thing. If the point of the article is that no one should be defending Hunter, and no one is defending Hunter, then, as I said, what exactly is there to talk about?
PVW said:
what exactly is there to talk about?
As I've said, I think it's a legit campaign issue, worthy of discussion by journalists, pundits, and on online forums such as MOL.
Joe Biden has always portrayed himself as an honest Everyman, and this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven. Did Joe do anything criminal? In all likelihood, no. But is criminality the only criteria to judge a candidate on? I don't know the Biden family dynamics, but I really think if I was Joe and I saw that my useless adult son was raking in millions trading on my elected position, I'd have been like son, WTF, you can't be doing this in a way that's gonna come back to bite me. Did he do that? Or did he condone it and/or look the other way? If the latter, that's pretty questionable ethics, honesty and judgement if you ask me. Worth talking about.
And then there's Joe saying Hunter made no money in China, which is pretty questionable. Has he clarified or corrected this? Not to my knowledge, so it continues to just hang out there. Worth talking about.
In an ideal world Joe would put this whole thing to rest with some kind of Nixon Checkers-like speech, which I think the Joe Biden of 10 years ago would have done. But he couldn't pull that off today.
So to recap, there's been nothing that indicates criminality on Joe Biden's part. And even if there was, it would be a thimbleful compared with Trump, who is as corrupt as the day is long. So yeah, if your criteria for whether this topic is worthy of discussion is only (1) criminality and (2) is he cleaner than the other guy, then there's nothing to talk about. But to me, if someone's running for President -- the highest elected office in the land -- their ethics, honesty and judgement SHOULD be put under a microscope. In this situation, there's stuff worth talking about on all three fronts.
There's no evidence at all
Smedley said:
PVW said:
what exactly is there to talk about?
As I've said, I think it's a legit campaign issue, worthy of discussion by journalists, pundits, and on online forums such as MOL.
Joe Biden has always portrayed himself as an honest Everyman, and this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven. Did Joe do anything criminal? In all likelihood, no. But is criminality the only criteria to judge a candidate on? I don't know the Biden family dynamics, but I really think if I was Joe and I saw that my useless adult son was raking in millions trading on my elected position, I'd have been like son, WTF, you can't be doing this in a way that's gonna come back to bite me. Did he do that? Or did he condone it and/or look the other way? If the latter, that's pretty questionable ethics, honesty and judgement if you ask me. Worth talking about.
You admit that you don't know what Joe said to Hunter, but for you it's precisely because those conversations were private and not public that you consider Joe's behavior unethical? There's no indication Joe condoned or benefited in any way from Hunter's actions. The ethical "breach" you are accusing him is of failing to publicly throw his son under the bus.
Would it help Joe politically to publicly disown his son the way you're asking for? Maybe -- I'm sure he'd win the approval of Niccolo Machiavelli. But I find "failed to sacrifice his son to advance his political interests" a difficult "failing" to get worked up over.
Smedley said:
In an ideal world Joe would put this whole thing to rest with some kind of Nixon Checkers-like speech, which I think the Joe Biden of 10 years ago would have done. But he couldn't pull that off today.
So to recap, there's been nothing that indicates criminality on Joe Biden's part.
The “Checkers speech” was because Nixon was accused of criminality.
PVW said:
There's no evidence at all
Smedley said:
PVW said:
what exactly is there to talk about?
As I've said, I think it's a legit campaign issue, worthy of discussion by journalists, pundits, and on online forums such as MOL.
Joe Biden has always portrayed himself as an honest Everyman, and this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven. Did Joe do anything criminal? In all likelihood, no. But is criminality the only criteria to judge a candidate on? I don't know the Biden family dynamics, but I really think if I was Joe and I saw that my useless adult son was raking in millions trading on my elected position, I'd have been like son, WTF, you can't be doing this in a way that's gonna come back to bite me. Did he do that? Or did he condone it and/or look the other way? If the latter, that's pretty questionable ethics, honesty and judgement if you ask me. Worth talking about.
You admit that you don't know what Joe said to Hunter, but for you it's precisely because those conversations were private and not public that you consider Joe's behavior unethical? There's no indication Joe condoned or benefited in any way from Hunter's actions. The ethical "breach" you are accusing him is of failing to publicly throw his son under the bus.
Would it help Joe politically to publicly disown his son the way you're asking for? Maybe -- I'm sure he'd win the approval of Niccolo Machiavelli. But I find "failed to sacrifice his son to advance his political interests" a difficult "failing" to get worked up over.
it's one of those issues that mostly seems to trouble people who don't like Joe Biden anyway.
There is no doubt that it's sleazy for a relative of an office holder to trade on their supposed influence to make lots of money. But I'm not sure how anyone can expect a Vice President to forbid his adult, fortysomething child to do it. "Forbidding" doesn't even work with a wayward teenager, so why do we think Hunter Biden would have turned down the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands of dollars because his dad told him not to?
that said, there's a special prosecutor investigating all this, so if there's any wrongdoing on the part of Joe Biden, it will likely come out.
then we might have something of substance to discuss. Right now, all we have is "this looks really bad." And the House GOP is holding hearings and throwing all sorts of accusations around. But the reality is that no matter what kind of response Joe Biden were to give, the Republicans will keep right up with their "Biden crime family" accusations.
That's the reality of our politics -- Republicans don't really care what the truth is, or what the president's response is. So why should Joe Biden give a speech or blame it all on Hunter, or do anything else other than ignore it, if the Republicans are going to keep accusing him of crimes anyway?
PVW said:
There's no evidence at all
Smedley said:
PVW said:
what exactly is there to talk about?
As I've said, I think it's a legit campaign issue, worthy of discussion by journalists, pundits, and on online forums such as MOL.
Joe Biden has always portrayed himself as an honest Everyman, and this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven. Did Joe do anything criminal? In all likelihood, no. But is criminality the only criteria to judge a candidate on? I don't know the Biden family dynamics, but I really think if I was Joe and I saw that my useless adult son was raking in millions trading on my elected position, I'd have been like son, WTF, you can't be doing this in a way that's gonna come back to bite me. Did he do that? Or did he condone it and/or look the other way? If the latter, that's pretty questionable ethics, honesty and judgement if you ask me. Worth talking about.
You admit that you don't know what Joe said to Hunter, but for you it's precisely because those conversations were private and not public that you consider Joe's behavior unethical? There's no indication Joe condoned or benefited in any way from Hunter's actions. The ethical "breach" you are accusing him is of failing to publicly throw his son under the bus.
Would it help Joe politically to publicly disown his son the way you're asking for? Maybe -- I'm sure he'd win the approval of Niccolo Machiavelli. But I find "failed to sacrifice his son to advance his political interests" a difficult "failing" to get worked up over.
Well ultimately the Biden family was enriched via Joe's political position which is pretty much the textbook definition of corruption. If you want to be President, and run for President, you have to have a thick skin and be willing to make some tough choices which may include stepping on toes. Family is family, but at the same time if every elected leader could just cite family privacy and sensitivities as a free pass for coming clean on family enrichment, that wouldn't be a very good system of government.
Smedley said:
Well ultimately the Biden family was enriched via Joe's political position which is pretty much the textbook definition of corruption.
No, actual corruption is “the textbook definition of corruption”, and you’ve already said that “there's been nothing that indicates criminality on Joe Biden's part.”
Smedley said:
Well ultimately the Biden family was enriched via Joe's political position which is pretty much the textbook definition of corruption. If you want to be President, and run for President, you have to have a thick skin and be willing to make some tough choices which may include stepping on toes. Family is family, but at the same time if every elected leader could just cite family privacy and sensitivities as a free pass for coming clean on family enrichment, that wouldn't be a very good system of government.
it may be corrupt, but it's legal. And if there's no evidence that an officeholder gave any favors to relatives' business associates, it's not corruption on the part of the officeholder him or herself. From a moral standpoint, the person doing wrong is the relative who's basically duping clients into thinking they will benefit from the association, even if they won't.
and fwiw, it's been going on forever. I recall a president's son getting a sweetheart deal to buy a stake in the Texas Rangers baseball club. Didn't seem to raise too many eyebrows, and didn't hurt either the dad or son's political careers.
but IOKIYAR I guess.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Well ultimately the Biden family was enriched via Joe's political position which is pretty much the textbook definition of corruption.
No, actual corruption is “the textbook definition of corruption”, and you’ve already said that “there's been nothing that indicates criminality on Joe Biden's part.”
the "pretty much" is doing some heavy lifting there.
As I wrote above what's "corrupt" is the practice of handing out lucrative jobs to people with no qualifications because they are related to people of influence. I'm not sure how that could actually be made illegal. It seems like spouses could and should be prevented from such activities, since the officeholder would directly benefit financially.
But siblings, adult children, I don't see how that would be enforceable, or even legal. People have to earn a living, and a president's relative in almost any job could be argued that the president has some sort of sway over their industry. And where does that stop? Would grandchildren be far enough removed? Nieces, nephews?
Sure it looks bad, and it's unfair for people with connections to use them for their benefit, but it's pretty much how the world works. Dad is CEO of a Fortune 500? Mom is the head of hospital? Brother is a famous actor? You've hit the genetic lottery!
Smedley said:
PVW said:
There's no evidence at all
Smedley said:
PVW said:
what exactly is there to talk about?
As I've said, I think it's a legit campaign issue, worthy of discussion by journalists, pundits, and on online forums such as MOL.
Joe Biden has always portrayed himself as an honest Everyman, and this Hunter stuff stinks to high heaven. Did Joe do anything criminal? In all likelihood, no. But is criminality the only criteria to judge a candidate on? I don't know the Biden family dynamics, but I really think if I was Joe and I saw that my useless adult son was raking in millions trading on my elected position, I'd have been like son, WTF, you can't be doing this in a way that's gonna come back to bite me. Did he do that? Or did he condone it and/or look the other way? If the latter, that's pretty questionable ethics, honesty and judgement if you ask me. Worth talking about.
You admit that you don't know what Joe said to Hunter, but for you it's precisely because those conversations were private and not public that you consider Joe's behavior unethical? There's no indication Joe condoned or benefited in any way from Hunter's actions. The ethical "breach" you are accusing him is of failing to publicly throw his son under the bus.
Would it help Joe politically to publicly disown his son the way you're asking for? Maybe -- I'm sure he'd win the approval of Niccolo Machiavelli. But I find "failed to sacrifice his son to advance his political interests" a difficult "failing" to get worked up over.
Well ultimately the Biden family was enriched via Joe's political position which is pretty much the textbook definition of corruption. If you want to be President, and run for President, you have to have a thick skin and be willing to make some tough choices which may include stepping on toes. Family is family, but at the same time if every elected leader could just cite family privacy and sensitivities as a free pass for coming clean on family enrichment, that wouldn't be a very good system of government.
Hunter Biden was enriched. That's not the same as "the Biden family."
There is a general problem we can talk about here, which is the way in which wealth perpetuates itself in an unjust manner that widens inequality. The son of a vice president absolutely has advantages over most people, just as, say, the son of a wealthy South African landowner is more likely to find material success than most people. But the way to deal with that is to try and arrange our social and political systems so that the playing field is more level and being born ahead doesn't translate into in insurmountable lead. One major way to do this is with tax policy -- I've long and consistently advocated in support of higher taxes on the wealthy. I'm an unapologetic redistributionist -- the wealthy should pay more, and tax money should be directed toward things like public transit, public education, universal healthcare, etc.
It looks like Hunter Biden, like many wealthy, privileged people, attempted to avoid paying his fair share, and that this might have even crossed the line into being criminal. He looks increasingly likely to be prosecuted for this. That's appropriate. And despite GOP claims to the contrary, there's no evidence his father has done anything to block this.
What you seem to be advocating for is something different -- you seem to be saying that parents ought to have some kind of control or responsibility over what their grown children do and, failing to exercise such control, ought to publicly denounce them and cast them off. You seem to find Joe Biden's failure to do so unethical. I guess we just differ on this. I don't find Joe's reluctance to denounce his troubled son a sign of moral or ethical failure, or to be at odds with his "everyman" image. To the contrary, I find it very human that a father, having lost one son, is reluctant to cast away a second.
Maybe it's also worth discussing exactly what we mean by corruption, and why it's a problem.
A public official is supposed to act on behalf of the public, not on behalf of themselves. Corruption is when they pursue actions and policies aimed at their own personal gain instead -- it's a violation of the the power and responsibility we the public have entrusted them with.
The fear, and legitimate question, around Hunter Biden's actions is whether Joe Biden, either when he was VP or now that he is POTUS, acted to direct gain toward his son. That would have been a big problem. Despite years of both journalistic and political investigation here, though, there's no evidence that this ever happened. And absent that, innuendo that it happened and there's just nothing found yet is simply baseless speculation.
Should news outlets continue to follow this story? Yes -- if it turns out that Joe Biden ever did in fact corruptly use his position as VP or POTUS to direct gains to his son, the public needs to know about it. Should the GOP continue to make wild, unsubstantiated allegations? Well I wish they wouldn't, but it's rather naive to think they would stop.
But what about us regular citizens? If we complain that our political culture is too often venal, cynical, and shallow, I think we have to realize that we are part of the creation of that culture. And if we want it to be better, then we have to be part of that. Declining to indulge in baseless cynical speculation is part of that.
PVW said:
What you seem to be advocating for is something different -- you seem to be saying that parents ought to have some kind of control or responsibility over what their grown children do and, failing to exercise such control, ought to publicly denounce them and cast them off. You seem to find Joe Biden's failure to do so unethical. I guess we just differ on this. I don't find Joe's reluctance to denounce his troubled son a sign of moral or ethical failure, or to be at odds with his "everyman" image. To the contrary, I find it very human that a father, having lost one son, is reluctant to cast away a second.
In addition to Joe Biden saying Hunter made no money in China, he has said Hunter "has done nothing wrong", and "nothing was unethical" about Hunter's business dealings. You're fine with these statements? I guess we just differ on this.
Smedley said:
In addition to Joe Biden saying Hunter made no money in China, he has said Hunter "has done nothing wrong", and "nothing was unethical" about Hunter's business dealings. You're fine with these statements? I guess we just differ on this.
Don’t strain yourself as you move those goalposts.
Smedley said:
In addition to Joe Biden saying Hunter made no money in China, he has said Hunter "has done nothing wrong", and "nothing was unethical" about Hunter's business dealings. You're fine with these statements? I guess we just differ on this.
If Joe Biden is running US policy to benefit his son, I care. If he isn't, I don't.
Alright, well there's defending a son as any father would be inclined to do as you point out, and there's making some reeeeeeeeeeally suspect statements in doing so. But if you're good with them, okay then.
I honestly don't care. So long as Joe Biden is faithfully attending to his duties as president, the rest is noise.
Smedley said:
Alright, well there's defending a son as any father would be inclined to do as you point out, and there's making some reeeeeeeeeeally suspect statements in doing so. But if you're good with them, okay then.
the most suspect statement is about whether Hunter made money in China. And none of us know what was in Biden's mind when he answered the question. As referenced in the WP fact check earlier, if he meant while he was VP, it's not untrue at all.
with regard to whether the work was unethical, that means something very specific in government. It means an officeholder took something of value from someone who might benefit from the officeholder's work. Last I checked, Hunter Biden isn't an officeholder.
if you're bothered by a politician interpreting and answering questions in the most narrow way possible to make himself look better, okay then.
in the grand scheme of things these potatoes are small. very small.
unless of course Weiss turns up compelling evidence of bribe taking or other quid pro quo involving the POTUS. Then there would be something to be bothered about.
Perhaps next you'll quote Al Gore and say there was no controlling legal authority.
When you say "with regard to whether the work was unethical, that means something very specific in government. It means an officeholder took something of value from someone who might benefit from the officeholder's work." can you please provide support for this. To my knowledge in government there are codes of ethics that cover stuff broadly and with some gray areas. I would like to see this something very specific you refer to.
Smedley said:
Perhaps next you'll quote Al Gore and say there was no controlling legal authority.
When you say "with regard to whether the work was unethical, that means something very specific in government. It means an officeholder took something of value from someone who might benefit from the officeholder's work." can you please provide support for this. To my knowledge in government there are codes of ethics that cover stuff broadly and with some gray areas. I would like to see this something very specific you refer to.
you're the one alleging corruption and reeeeeeeeally suspect statements. Perhaps you can point to ethics guidelines covering the adult children of officeholders.
that's what I'm referring to with regard to specifics in ethics codes -- they cover the people in office. Not people who aren't.
OK, ml1 Esq.
It's fine to be all lawyerly with narrow definitions and parsed words. You'll serve your client well in a court of law.
But, come on, man. Hunter the smack addict was unethical in accepting millions of dollars from foreign corporations and individuals, for no work or token work. Period. Even if accepting these payments wasn't to the detriment of American interests, presumably it shut out honest companies and people who could have been awarded the work otherwise.
I'm sure you're familiar with the reasonable person standard. Reasonable people would judge Hunter's "business" dealings to be unethical, and by extension, those same reasonable people would side-eye Joe saying nothing was unethical. But to Biden defenders, it's fine.
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Math Tutoring with Certified Teacher
May 7, 2024 at 7:16pm
-
On call house cleaning service
May 6, 2024 at 7:17pm
-
May 6, 2024 at 10:11am
Help Wanted
-
Driving Legal Nanny is needed in Paramus, NJ
May 10, 2024 at 12:22pm
-
FHF604 PT Nanny for 2 (Mid-June Start)
May 9, 2024 at 7:42pm
-
HF801 PT Nanny for 1 Infant (ASAP)
May 9, 2024 at 1:18pm
-
Very Rewarding Position as a Dog Walker/Pet Sitter
May 8, 2024 at 11:37am
-
SF5002 PT or FT Nanny/FA for 3 (Aug/Sept Start)
May 8, 2024 at 10:59am
-
CF583 PT Nanny for 2 (July Start)
May 7, 2024 at 2:07pm
-
May 7, 2024 at 7:32am
Lessons/Instruction
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
if there was a quid pro quo, that could be established. But I haven't seen any credible claims that there was.
You'd think the GOP would be alleging something if there was any hint.