I'd support Biden over Trump in a heartbeat. Biden stepped over the ethical line.
Trump never had a line in the first place......
I'd vote for a fire hydrant before I'd vote for Trump.
I'd support Biden over Trump in a heartbeat. Biden stepped over the ethical line.
Could not agree more. I seem to recall having said something very similar a month or so ago. I am sure there is some minor dirt somewhere, he is human, but compared to the rest of Washington, he is a saint. At least that is my perception and I think it is also the perception of his longtime working class base. Said it before, Trump is going to have to work hard to dirty up Joe, he is not a Hillary Clinton.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:43 pmJoe is defending his son, pure and simple.a fan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:32 pm By the way...here's the exchange with Biden and a PBS reporter:
WOODRUFF: But, if you had known (about Hunter getting that board seat), would you have said, don't, or would you have believed — said, this (getting a fat corporate board seat) is wrong?
BIDEN: No, it's not wrong.
There you go. He's been in corrupt DC for so freaking long, he doesn't recognize corruption when he sees it....unless, of course, it's "someone else's" corruption.
And again, I don't believe for a second Joe Biden didn't know.
Fight to help the people of Ukraine get rid of corruption.....and then replace the old corruption with new corruption. Sweet, right? I'm sure the Ukrainian people are just thrilled.
And Biden thinks it's cool because "it's not illegal"
Joe can F right off.
Joe Biden is a lot of things, but he is not corrupt. Period. End of story. Please take that nonsense somewhere else.
We somewhat disagree on this. Yes, Joe is currently powerless to do anything in particular for these companies, but payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments. Same as donations to Clinton Foundation, same as whopping big fees for speeches by Hillary and Bill (Bill's price doubled when it started to become apparent that Hillary would be running). They put off the announcement, despite everyone knowing, and racked up the fees under the notion of 'hey' I might not even run'.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:27 pmI see it differently. Joe can't do anything for any of Hunter's companies unless or until he becomes president. Are you saying the spouse and children (should this include siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins?) of any candidate for president must resign from all boards from the moment the candidate announces? I think that is too broad. I don't think a "perception problem" develops until the candidate wins the election.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:54 pmBecause of the perception. Period.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:40 pmI don’t quarrel, and have never quarreled, with the proposition that Hunter used poor judgment. He has (very belatedly) acknowledged that. And I don’t quarrel with the conclusion that Hunter got the job because Joe was VP. Blame Hunter, of course, but I need to see a lot more evidence before I blame Joe.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:28 pmYes, not necessarily 'corrupt' but TLD's point was about judgment and the choice to simply go along with what seems obvious to anyone using their noggin, that Hunter got his job because his papa was VP, a political big wig.
Did Joe do anything for Burisma?
According to lots of efforts to find such, yet no evidence, probably not.
Did anyone actually treat Burisma differently because of a desire to please the VP?
Again, no evidence of such.
So...it's understandable that Joe would be miffed at suggestions otherwise.
But can he really not see why it was an unseemly choice?
This is a valid critique and he's gonna get more of it.
My wife reacted to Hunter's promise to get off all boards if his dad wins the general with a "what did he just say? why the heck doesn't he get off now, post haste, period?"
I don’t think Hunter needs to get off any boards unless or until his dad wins the election. Why should he do that?
If Joe loses and is no longer in a possible position to wield major political influence, have at it Hunter.
Is this standard fair in the era of outright corruption of Trump? Nope.
But want to beat Trump like a drum?
Need to not have this sort of perception issue.
It was a serious problem for HRC that she could not successfully attack on this front, needed to defend instead.
That may mean Mayor Pete or Mayor Bloomberg...
I see your point about Hillary and agree she didn't handle it particularly well, but think her situation was somewhat different. It was the perception that countries, etc. gave money to the Clinton foundation in order to curry favor with her if she became president (putting aside donations while she was SOS). Once Joe is president and Hunter is off the boards, why would Joe do anything to benefit the former companies? Because they paid Hunter directors' fees in the past? I think that connection is rather attenuated. But if country x gave big bucks to the Foundation, they might reasonably expect Hills could do something (aid, policy, other support) to help out as part of her general foreign policy initiatives. I see that as a bit different though concededly somewhat analogous.
He 'put his foot in it' from the perspective of folks like Lawrence O'Donnell, policy nerds of the left, but not from the position of moderate Dems and independents or disaffected R's like me.
Perception vs reality (O'Donnell). Pete is branding himself as a new kind of democrat (modern). He needs a reference point (perception) so he picks one that the republicans have invested in, successfully. Good strategy for the general, but it will cost him in the primaries.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:08 amHe 'put his foot in it' from the perspective of folks like Lawrence O'Donnell, policy nerds of the left, but not from the position of moderate Dems and independents or disaffected R's like me.
Come on, have Dems actually been "comfortable" talking about "deficit reduction" over the past 50 years, or have they been on the defensive as the 'tax and spend' party?
Yes, the reality is that when the GOP has been in power deficits have risen more and faster than when Dems have been in power, but Mayor Pete was speaking to Dems taking ownership of this reality and actually make it an effective argument for them for a change.
He's right.
But yeah, Warren's and Sanders' voters won't find Pete's position to be attractive. They want full-throated defense of much, much higher domestic spending and much higher, progressive taxation. That's fine, but has anyone heard either of those two challenge deficits? Or is it all about who benefits?
Yes, it probably does hurt him a bit in the primaries...but he's right and it will be interesting to see how he moves the discussion. He's going to take some heat and that too will provide an opportunity, attention to what he has to say about it.jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:08 amPerception vs reality (O'Donnell). Pete is branding himself as a new kind of democrat (modern). He needs a reference point (perception) so he picks one that the republicans have invested in, successfully. Good strategy for the general, but it will cost him in the primaries.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:08 amHe 'put his foot in it' from the perspective of folks like Lawrence O'Donnell, policy nerds of the left, but not from the position of moderate Dems and independents or disaffected R's like me.
Come on, have Dems actually been "comfortable" talking about "deficit reduction" over the past 50 years, or have they been on the defensive as the 'tax and spend' party?
Yes, the reality is that when the GOP has been in power deficits have risen more and faster than when Dems have been in power, but Mayor Pete was speaking to Dems taking ownership of this reality and actually make it an effective argument for them for a change.
He's right.
But yeah, Warren's and Sanders' voters won't find Pete's position to be attractive. They want full-throated defense of much, much higher domestic spending and much higher, progressive taxation. That's fine, but has anyone heard either of those two challenge deficits? Or is it all about who benefits?
Look at Carlyle Group for heavens sake.jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:23 pmI would bet on this. The organization looking to buy influence I would think almost always make the approach. Bad optics, perhaps more, but no evidence at this time, as you say. If you are going to go after Hunter Biden, lets be fair and go after the 20-30% (my guestimate) of the American white collar workforce that either sells themselves based on who they know or based on bringing more to the job than what they know. Let's go after every salesman who takes a new job in the same industry and brings their employer's contact / customer list with them (we would put 99% of all salesmen in jail). Most military officers who work a program or project and take a job in the related industry. They always trade on the General or Colonel they know who is still working the program or project. There are so many "bad optics, perhaps more situations" in the world.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:19 pmThose are not the only two options, of course. Another one is that Hunter was contacted for the position without any involvement of Joe.ardilla secreta wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:15 pm Either Joe used influence to get his kid a job he didn’t deserve or Hunter hates his dad and was willing to damage Joe’s aspirations by getting overpaid at a Ukrainian petro company own by a corrupt oligarch.
Again, what is the evidence Joe used his influence to get Hunter the job? If there is evidence, I would like to see it. But this story has been circulating for years and no one has come up with any evidence in that regard.
Is it a problem? Yes, but lets not pretend it is only politicians or Hunter Biden.
#QFP (Quoted for Posterity) Just to see how it turns out in 2020.wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:17 pm November Trump fav/unfav in the swing states per Morning Consult:
AZ -4
FL +1
GA -3
IA -13
MI -14
NV -7
NC -2
OH -5
PA -7
TX +3
WI -14
I see a big difference between Hunter's board position from inception (April 2014) through Jan. 2017 when Joe left office and his board position thereafter. I agree that Hunter shouldn't have taken that job for all the reasons I and others have stated. Nothing that has been posted, however, has altered my view that it would be inappropriate to criticize Joe for what Hunter did UNLESS Joe got him the job, encouraged him to keep the position, discussed Burisma-related issues with Hunter, or otherwise provided Hunter/Burisma with info, access, or the like. If evidence of some affirmative or active wrongdoing by Joe is disclosed, I would reconsider my position.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:59 amWe somewhat disagree on this. Yes, Joe is currently powerless to do anything in particular for these companies, but payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments. Same as donations to Clinton Foundation, same as whopping big fees for speeches by Hillary and Bill (Bill's price doubled when it started to become apparent that Hillary would be running). They put off the announcement, despite everyone knowing, and racked up the fees under the notion of 'hey' I might not even run'.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:27 pmI see it differently. Joe can't do anything for any of Hunter's companies unless or until he becomes president. Are you saying the spouse and children (should this include siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins?) of any candidate for president must resign from all boards from the moment the candidate announces? I think that is too broad. I don't think a "perception problem" develops until the candidate wins the election.
I see your point about Hillary and agree she didn't handle it particularly well, but think her situation was somewhat different. It was the perception that countries, etc. gave money to the Clinton foundation in order to curry favor with her if she became president (putting aside donations while she was SOS). Once Joe is president and Hunter is off the boards, why would Joe do anything to benefit the former companies? Because they paid Hunter directors' fees in the past? I think that connection is rather attenuated. But if country x gave big bucks to the Foundation, they might reasonably expect Hills could do something (aid, policy, other support) to help out as part of her general foreign policy initiatives. I see that as a bit different though concededly somewhat analogous.
Anything illegal? No. But it smelled bad.
And smelling bad hurt her ability to go after Trump's far worse lifelong corruption.
So, perception is an issue. It's a problem for Joe.
I think he's displayed a blind spot on this, seems to not actually understand, though is defensive.
I'm not sure why that is; I don't have the same sense that some do that Joe is actually corrupt, however he's definitely tone deaf.
I'd rather he own the mistake and move on.
We already have a template for all Federal officials, elected, or no.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:45 pm What I am trying to get at in this post, though, is what are the rules you think should apply, both in terms of which relatives are covered and which types of positions (director, I understand, but what about senior management, controlling stock interest, or the like?) must be terminated? Where are the lines drawn? TIA.
I assume you are referring to this rule:a fan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:18 pmWe already have a template for all Federal officials, elected, or no.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:45 pm What I am trying to get at in this post, though, is what are the rules you think should apply, both in terms of which relatives are covered and which types of positions (director, I understand, but what about senior management, controlling stock interest, or the like?) must be terminated? Where are the lines drawn? TIA.
Use the American Bar Association guidelines for "Personal Interest Conflicts". And wherever you see the word "client", substitute "American citizens".
So for example, " The Federal workers own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of American citizens."
Hunter's job could have an adverse effect on Biden's job promoting American interests in Ukraine.
So what could have been done? Simple. Either Hunter leaves the firm, or Dad recuses himself, and doesn't do his corruption work in Ukraine, and sends a proxy. In addition, Biden informs his client----American citizens----of the conflict.
Problem solved. American citizens' interests are served, and Hunter keeps his job.
Of course, these could remain the same and he still wins...all depends on the favorable/unfavorable of his opponent.youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:12 pm#QFP (Quoted for Posterity) Just to see how it turns out in 2020.wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 12:17 pm November Trump fav/unfav in the swing states per Morning Consult:
AZ -4
FL +1
GA -3
IA -13
MI -14
NV -7
NC -2
OH -5
PA -7
TX +3
WI -14
ahhh, I do see your issue.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:45 pmI see a big difference between Hunter's board position from inception (April 2014) through Jan. 2017 when Joe left office and his board position thereafter. I agree that Hunter shouldn't have taken that job for all the reasons I and others have stated. Nothing that has been posted, however, has altered my view that it would be inappropriate to criticize Joe for what Hunter did UNLESS Joe got him the job, encouraged him to keep the position, discussed Burisma-related issues with Hunter, or otherwise provided Hunter/Burisma with info, access, or the like. If evidence of some affirmative or active wrongdoing by Joe is disclosed, I would reconsider my position.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:59 amWe somewhat disagree on this. Yes, Joe is currently powerless to do anything in particular for these companies, but payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments. Same as donations to Clinton Foundation, same as whopping big fees for speeches by Hillary and Bill (Bill's price doubled when it started to become apparent that Hillary would be running). They put off the announcement, despite everyone knowing, and racked up the fees under the notion of 'hey' I might not even run'.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:27 pmI see it differently. Joe can't do anything for any of Hunter's companies unless or until he becomes president. Are you saying the spouse and children (should this include siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins?) of any candidate for president must resign from all boards from the moment the candidate announces? I think that is too broad. I don't think a "perception problem" develops until the candidate wins the election.
I see your point about Hillary and agree she didn't handle it particularly well, but think her situation was somewhat different. It was the perception that countries, etc. gave money to the Clinton foundation in order to curry favor with her if she became president (putting aside donations while she was SOS). Once Joe is president and Hunter is off the boards, why would Joe do anything to benefit the former companies? Because they paid Hunter directors' fees in the past? I think that connection is rather attenuated. But if country x gave big bucks to the Foundation, they might reasonably expect Hills could do something (aid, policy, other support) to help out as part of her general foreign policy initiatives. I see that as a bit different though concededly somewhat analogous.
Anything illegal? No. But it smelled bad.
And smelling bad hurt her ability to go after Trump's far worse lifelong corruption.
So, perception is an issue. It's a problem for Joe.
I think he's displayed a blind spot on this, seems to not actually understand, though is defensive.
I'm not sure why that is; I don't have the same sense that some do that Joe is actually corrupt, however he's definitely tone deaf.
I'd rather he own the mistake and move on.
Now, moving on, as it seems our positions are set in concrete on the above.
I want to get back to your position that Hunter should resign now from all board positions since his father is running for president. (Apologies if I have mischaracterized what you have said.) My position is that no relative needs to resign from anything unless or until the candidate wins election.
At the outset, we should observe that, to my knowledge, there are no laws, regulations, or rules that govern this "pre-election" time frame as to a relative of a candidate running for president. (Indeed, as has been noted, there aren't any rules prohibiting what Hunter did, though many say it was improper.)
My question to you is what do you say the protocols should be and where do you draw the line for relatives of candidates running for president? I don't understand you to be advocating for the passage of actual laws or regulations, but rather to be arguing for a sort of best practices guideline. I asked above: "Are you saying the spouse and children (should this include siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins?) of any candidate for president must resign from all boards from the moment the candidate announces?" Which relatives are covered? What about close friends or business associates? In addition to board positions, what about senior management positions or majority stock holdings as those potentially implicate the same type of "improper access mischief"?
I think a rule requiring the above family members to resign from boards and executive positions, etc., and to sell controlling stock positions when a candidate announces he or she is running for president is overly broad. Fundamentally, it is unnecessary because the "evil" such a rule would be designed to address is too remote. First of all, there could be no actual conflict of interest (no actual possibility of access) until the candidate won the election. Second, I don't think any theoretical appearance of a (future) possible conflict is significant enough to warrant such a prescriptive (and really draconian) rule. Here is where we differ, I think. You say: "payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments." My view is the candidate, now president, is much less likely to do favors for or grant inappropriate access to a company with which his relative is no longer affiliated (this assumes the resignations take place upon election of the candidate). I suspect neither one of us is going to budge on this.
What I am trying to get at in this post, though, is what are the rules you think should apply, both in terms of which relatives are covered and which types of positions (director, I understand, but what about senior management, controlling stock interest, or the like?) must be terminated? Where are the lines drawn? TIA.
Asked and answered. You're acting like we need to look out for Joe Biden's interest, and I don't know why. I don't care about Joe Biden's interests. What I care about is America's interests. Joe is a public servant, not British Royalty.