Hunter Biden isn't running for president is he? — Benkei

Not sure, but I think his dad is, but he spends a lot of time in the basement not answering questions or appearing in public, so I'm not completely sure.

How much attention should it receive if both the intelligence community and two senate commissions, led by republicans, looked into it but haven't found any proof of corruption? — Benkei

Not exactly a fully clean bill of health: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-09-23/senate-republicans-issue-findings-on-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work

EU pressured firing of Shokin, not the Burisma organisation. Burisma was/is under investigations of things that happened before Hunter Biden was part of the board. You're confusing facts. — Benkei

No, I pointed this out. Quoting myself, an always reliable source:

The left's position is that Burisma was corrupt, that Obama had tried to stop the corruption, that Shokin refused to investigate Burisma, that Shokin himself was corrupt, and that Biden's firing of Shokin was at the request of Obama and the EU for proper purposes. They agree Hunter probably shouldn't have sat on Burisma's board, but it occurred after the Burisma investigation was dormant and it was without Joe's knowledge. They also say the leaked computer information might be a Russian set up. — Hanover

Biden bragged on camera that it was his withholding of $1b in US aid to Ukraine that resulted in a vote by Parliament soon thereafter to fire Shokin. The EU also wanted Shokin out, as I noted above. Biden was the point man for the Obama administration in trying to reduce Ukrainian corruption at the time, which makes Hunter's involvement with Burisma all the crazier. At least admit that much.

But yes, I know the respective arguments from each side, but that Hunter, a pretty useless crackhead, earned $80k per month from a known corrupt organization and that there are now emails (of still questionable veracity) indicating Joe's involvement in that is troubling. I mean, really, do you think Hunter's involvement with Burisma had nothing to do with his dad being VP and his dad having made prior efforts to clean the place up? Do you really think Joe got zero financial benefit from that or that he had no idea what his little boy was up to? But more importantly, do you think there is no story here at all and that it ought not be reported by any news outlet other than Fox and that Facebook and Twitter should block it?

If you really care about "transparancy" what about Trump's recorded instances of obstruction of justice in the Müller report? Shouldn't proven cases carry much more weight than an alleged case concerning Biden? Which case has actually been warned by the intelligence community to be Russian interference and already refuted by Senate Republicans as Michael pointed out. — Benkei

If I'm inconsistent in my treatment of Trump versus Biden, that just means I'm hypocritical, not that I'm wrong. Regardless, maybe Biden nor Trump are deserving of the presidency, which actually really is where I do think things fall.

What Michael pointed out was that the Ukrainians were found not to have tried to interfere in the US elections which conflates the issue at hand. I'm not trotting out that old argument, but I'm just pointing out that there has been some incriminating evidence presented by the Washington Post pointing to some corruption between Joe, Hunter, and the Ukraine which I think deserves more attention than it's getting. As I also noted to Michael, how would the left respond if Donald Jr. did this or if somehow Trump orchestrated that the issue be muted by the major social media outlets.

What else is there to say? If that's enough a reason to not vote for him (given my previous clarifications that Biden isn't responsible for what the media does or doesn't do, that the Senate found the Ukraine conspiracy to be unfounded, and that the story in the New York Post seems to be lacking credibility even to themselves and Fox News) then I think you're just looking for an excuse to not vote for him, rather than admit to whatever your real reason is. — Michael

You're awful dismissive of Hunter Biden's involvement with an organization that the Obama administration and the EU believed to be corrupt, so much so that they were willing to interfere in the Ukrainian elections process and demand that he be fired. Do you truly believe that Hunter's involvement had nothing to do with Joe and that Joe didn't financially benefit in any way?

Suppose Donald Jr. did what Hunter did? No big deal?

Enacting that would basically bypass the electoral college, and in doing so probably doom the Republican party in its entirety, since they haven't won a popular vote in over 30 years. — Pfhorrest

The last Republican prior to Trump, GW Bush, won over 50% of the popular vote in 2004.

Seems strange to not vote for someone because third parties choose not to talk about some possible scandal. — Michael

Actually the first party refuses to talk about it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-response-hunter-biden-emails-business-dealings

If you don't vote in this election (assuming you can) then you deserve what you get and forfeit any decent claim to complain. And the revilement of those who do vote. It's that simple. If you refuse to pull your oar, then why should not you be thrown overboard? — tim wood

I think you misunderstood my post. I didn't say I wasn't voting in this election.

Biden isn't responsible for Twitter and Facebook blocking posts or for the media not talking about it. — Michael

Why they're his shill seems problematic. Your position is that he's just the lucky beneficiary of a cover up. Seems unlikely. In any event, I don't want a politician that is handled with kid gloves.

WASHINGTON — An election-year investigation by Senate Republicans into corruption allegations against Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter, involving Ukraine found no evidence of improper influence or wrongdoing by the former vice president, closing out an inquiry its leaders had hoped would tarnish the Democratic presidential nominee.

This was obviously prior to the recent leak from Hunter's computer, but it begs the question of why no other news source has picked it up and others are actively blocking its discussion.

As I understand the recent news cycle as it pertains to Trump and Biden:

As told from the right, Burisma is a Ukrainian gas and oil producer that was being subjected to an anti-corruption investigation by Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin when he was fired at the behest of then VP Joe Biden, who bragged that the firing occurred as the result of his withholding of $1b in aid from the Ukraine. Joe's son Hunter, after the firing, joined the board of Burisma, and even though he had no expertise for that position, earned over $80k per month while there.

Joe denied having any knowledge of Hunter's interactions with Burisma or in using his personal influence over anything having to do with Burisma. Some recently revealed emails found on Hunter's alleged computer by a computer repair person indicate direct involvement between Joe and Burisma. Those emails were provided to Trump's personal lawyer, Giuliani , who then shared it with the Washington Post, who then published this story.

The left's position is that Burisma was corrupt, that Obama had tried to stop the corruption, that Shokin refused to investigate Burisma, that Shokin himself was corrupt, and that Biden's firing of Shokin was at the request of Obama and the EU for proper purposes. They agree Hunter probably shouldn't have sat on Burisma's board, but it occurred after the Burisma investigation was dormant and it was without Joe's knowledge. They also say the leaked computer information might be a Russian set up.

Twitter and Facebook have blocked any reference to the Washington Post story, effectively censoring it on their platforms. This story doesn't appear on CNN or MSNBC and Biden refuses to respond to it.

That's why I'm not voting for Biden. Censorship, evasion, and lack of transparency. So, sure, I understand the reasons provided why you shouldn't vote for Trump, but why not the reasons for not voting for Biden? His son earns $80k per month from a known corrupt entity that was being investigated by someone who his father fired? Maybe it is all innocent (???), but shouldn't it get a little more play time that it has, and are we not at all concerned that the media has taken a side on this?

. Could originalism in the court could lead to cival war? — frank

Had the original Constitution contained the 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery, then the civil war would likely have been averted, so you could argue that it's original form did lead to the civil war. Of course, had it contained that amendment in the original, the south would have never signed the Constitution and entered the union in the first place, so there'd never have been a civil war.

But, to the general proposition, if you can create a hypothetical that results in such massive death and destruction as we saw in the civil war and that can be averted by an unprincipled and illogical Constitutional interpretation, I'm in favor of intellectual dishonesty over mass death. My fidelity to the law and logical reasoning has its bounds..

Do you think the Dred Scott decision was originalist? — frank

I've not read it in a while, so I'm not sure I can comment on that specifically. I think it's held out as a terrible decision from a legal analysis perspective, not to mention its political ramifications (like it being a precursor to an attempted overthrow of the US government). https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision

Can you elaborate a bit more about these two concepts, purpose and use? What differentiates them? What they entail, and so on? — TheMadFool

Purpose implies meaning, whereas use doesn't require it. It's the difference between the teleos and the cause. If you look at the world as every event having a cause, then wherever you arrive is explainable in terms of where you've been. If you look at the world as every event having a higher purpose or goal, then wherever you arrive is explainable in terms of where you're supposed to be.

It's really a matter of perspective, and perhaps faith, but it breeds an optimism entirely missing in the causal approach. It imparts meaning to every shift in every blade of grass in the wind. Whatever journey you might be on is not understood as a transitional phase from point A to point B, but each and every second is a separate purposeful destination. There are no transitions, but an infinite number of destinations you were meant to be on. For example, should you be in college trying to get that philosophy degree you've always wanted, but along the way you stumble, do poorly in class and lose your funding, that destination, that being in the moment of stumbling is your meaningful purpose. Perhaps the challenge was necessary to elevate you to an even higher purpose.

If you accept there is a purpose behind everything, your scientific inquiry would entail figuring out what that purpose is so that you can better understand your existence. While a scientist concerned with causes looks at each mechanical part of every organism and object to determine why it behaves as it does, a scientist concerned with purpose asks why this moment or this object should be intended to be the way it is.

Why did our lives intersect right now, for example? Just because pool ball A struck pool ball B and after a few bouncing around of pool balls or whatnot and here were are? If that's the case, I get your pessimism. What difference does it make? On the other hand, if you accept that there is a higher purpose for every moment, then you must necessarily be satisfied that you are exactly where you ought to be.

And despite how faith based this might be and how it might contradict too much else you otherwise believe, who cares? You can choose to believe whatever you want, so why believe in a horrible pessimistic world devoid of meaning? At the end of your life of despair should you learn from some irrefutable source that you were absolutely correct in your belief that life had no meaning, will you gain comfort in knowing that you were properly miserable and not deluded like all those poor, optimistic, and joyous souls who didn't know better?

Even if a god existed, that wouldn’t help with my kind of existential crises. — Pfhorrest

That's likely because you wouldn't believe in him.

Finding myself in a rough spot lately, I've been wondering if my existence is of any benefit in the sense whether I could be used for some purpose, any purpose at all. I've seen a lot of movies in my life, not all award winners I must confess, and from watching the many plots, actors, actresses, good and bad — TheMadFool

This is only a problem because you worship the idol of utility, believing that usefulness is the highest good.

I'd aim for purpose over use.

Sisyphus is use without purpose. The fact that he is used to roll a rock for eternity might distinguish him from you because you believe yourself to be entirely useless, but why would you prefer his plight to yours?

So, you can rephrase the OP to ask what is your purpose, which would place you in the existential crisis as the rest of the godless, but you'd at least be relieved of the angst caused by your concerns over your uselessness.

My brother used to hide a piece of the puzzle so he could come by at the end and finish it.

Maybe that describes a type of philosopher too, the type that really adds nothing to the otherwise finished product but who gets credit for finished product.

I've been thinking about this. I like having both on the court. It's good to have justices ram through social changes that most Americans want, but congress cant create for whatever reason.

But I like having originalists around to temper that sort of thing. — frank

Well, you're suggesting that the originalists temper the meaning and the liberals expand the meaning, which is to concede that what's occurring is judicial activism and not judicial interpretation. I think even the liberalist of liberals would argue that their interpretation is based upon textual support at some level. They wouldn't come out and admit, for example, that gay marriage isn't addressed by the Constitution, but that they find its prohibition personally offensive, so they allow it. They cite to the text for their propositions. Activism can happen on both sides, and it's just as possible for a conservative to be results oriented as a liberal. For example, the conservatives found a right to corporate free speech in the 1st Amendment that the liberals could not locate, yet the liberals were able to find the right to abortion in the 14th Amendment and they still cannot find the right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment. More on conservative activism: https://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2015/04/9-1_Whitehouse.pdf

So far, the Dems grill Barrett on how she would rule on California v. Texas, a constitutional challenge to the ACA that is set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Nov. 10.
Senator Feinstein: "This well could mean that if Judge Barrett is confirmed, Americans stand to lose the benefits that the ACA provides… More than 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage or charged more to obtain health insurance." At the same time, the GOP's position is the independence of the field of justice of the current political issues. — Number2018

So what's the principle you advocate here, that the 9 Justices act as philosopher kings and either re-write or strike down every law that, in their opinion, results in a bad consequence? Perhaps the ACA is unconstitutional, but perhaps it is not, but what difference does it make for the analysis to look at how many Americans will be lose coverage when making that determination?

Just pack the court. — Baden

Since what's good for the goose is good for the gander, you must be suggesting that if Barrett isn't confirmed in time, then the Republicans should await the next opportunity they're in power to pack the court.

I was actually about to vote for Biden (true story) until he took the stance that he didn't have to take a stance on the court packing issue, which he took after declaring the Barrett nomination was unconstitutional. Nothing like a good dodge and lie to distinguish himself from Trump.

The kingdom of heaven, therefore, is like a shrewd employer and good businessman. — Ciceronianus the White

Actually more complex than that. Under the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), if you treat an exempt salaried employee as an hourly employee by pro rating his wages by hour, you risk having him reclassified as non-exempt and requiring that he receive time and a half for all overtime.

Jesus was just complying with federal law to avoid an HR nightmare by paying him hourly and not by the week. My guess is that he was crucified in the past for this and didn't want to repeat it.

Why are we so inclined to frequently judge and criticize others, especially those in our vicinity? — philosophience wordpress com

We judge everything, from the clouds to decide if we think it might rain to the bridge to see if might collapse, so why not judge people as well in order to predict and possibly control future actions? And why do you judge judgment of people as bad, as if that's assumed. In what way would a world without judgment be preferable?

First thing I remember
Was asking Papa, "Why?"
For there were many things I didn't know
And Daddy always smiled
Took me by the hand
Saying, "Someday you'll understand"

Well, I'm here to tell you now each and every mother's son
You better learn it fast, you better learn it young
'Cause someday never comes

How's it looking for you at this point? Are you going to vote Trump while gagging or Biden while gagging? — Benkei

I could go on record as now announcing I'm voting for Biden. It'd be a breaking news story that could cause a little excitement around here, but maybe I'll tease this one out for a while, leaving the masses wondering what Hanover might do. It's good for the ratings.

The truth is that I've never been a big Trump fan, mostly because of the buffoonery problem he suffers from. I was relieved that the dementia narrative about Biden was untrue. He did seem engaged and did well in the sandlot fray, but I'm not completely sure that's what we need in a President either.

Then there's the Kanye option that was pointed out. If I have my facts straight on him, he's kind of bipolarish and he sings songs I've never heard, but he gets props for fucking a Kardashian. Maybe I'll vote for him. What's his position on the KKK?

Is adding new states as simple as an act of Congress? — Michael

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iv/clauses/46

We might admit the UK. Other than changing flags, it shouldn't be too much of a hassle. Remember that it's "color" and not "colour" and stuff like that and we should be good.

You'll have to join the Proud Boys for research and report back. — Michael

I've been studying. So there's Cocoa Puffs, Apple Jacks, Lucky Charms, Fruity Pebbles, and Count Chocula. I just hope I remember them while they're kicking me in the nuts.

So gay and bisexual men are exempt? That's discrimination. — Michael

Perhaps it allows the gay men to masturbate because there might be another provision (and I've not had a chance to read through all the rules) that proscribes man on man sex, which would then leave non-straight men an inability to ejaculate, which would be understandably frustrating, thus the unlimited monthly ejaculatory allowance. Makes sense.

Is this a reference to something, or are you just being you? — Michael

It's from the Wiki article I cited above:

"According to David Neiwert, they recruit with emphasis on right-wing 15–30 year old white males who come primarily from suburbs and exurbs.[54] The Proud Boys say they have an initiation process that has four stages and includes hazing. The first stage is a loyalty oath, on the order of "I’m a proud Western chauvinist, I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world"; the second is getting punched until the person recites pop culture trivia, such as the names of five breakfast cereals; the third is getting a tattoo and agreeing to not masturbate; and the fourth is getting into a major fight "for the cause."[20][31][55][56][57][58]

The Daily Beast reported in February 2018 that the Proud Boys have amended rules. Prohibition against cargo shorts, use of opioids and crystal meth. The article states restrictions were not placed on cocaine. The masturbation policy was modified to read: "no heterosexual brother of the Fraternity shall masturbate more than one time in any calendar month".[59]

Women aren't allowed to be Proud Boys[42] and the unnamed president of Proud Boys Los Angeles told the Los Angeles Times the group only admits "biological men".[60] In July 2018, the group had 160 members and up to 300 pending applicants, according to the unidentified president.[60]"

Yes, although I reckon they got that message a long time ago. Probably the only thing Trump is honest about is his support for white supremacists and neo Nazis. And Republicans love it. Strange world. — Baden

He wouldn't condemn Proud Boys, a far right organization, but, to be fair, it has liberalized since its founding. Its original rules banned masturbation among its members, but it now permits it once monthly. One area where they might wish to consider reforms is in their admissions process. They currently beat their applicants while making them recite the names of breakfast cereals, and I wonder if there is a better screening method for determining quality members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

Seriously, though, I am deeply troubled by Trump's refusal to condemn the fringe racist groups, and it makes any defense of Trump not being racist difficult to make. Pragmatically, it also makes no sense to protect those groups because they offer him very few votes (Proud Boys has only 160 members), and it's not like a condemnation will cause them to vote for Biden. At any rate, I don't think "Republicans love it," at least not me, and I'm very much hoping he will attempt a correction at some point by openly condemning racism and racist groups. If not, it could cost him many Republican votes.

The Prosecutor's 'theory of the case' which secured only a single indictment for a charge of "wanton endangerment" will be shown to have been justified or not justified shortly. Someone tell me what I'm missing. — 180 Proof

It sounds like a grand juror watched the news and compared it what they heard in the grand jury room and felt their decision would have been different had they heard what was on the news. If this results in new charges being brought, the question will be whether the evidence was withheld from the grand jury because (1) the prosecutor is well aware that the additional charges will not result in convictions, or (2) the prosecutor wanted to protect the police officers who he has a cozy relationship with.

If #1, this is stupid. If #2, justice will prevail. I'll stayed tuned for the outcome, but I have my prediction.

For the record, I do think if it's #1, the prosecutor shouldn't have tried to hide behind the grand jury to do his dirty work, but he just should have stepped up to the podium, explained his decision as to what he was going to charge, and dealt with the consequences. Or, he could have provided the grand jury every scrap of evidence and offered his opinion as to what they ought to do. Leadership involves making difficult and unpopular decisions sometimes and now he has to deal with lack of transparency allegations.

Maybe Green Day isn't so deep, but these lyrics about moving on grabbed aholt of me. Such freedom in offering good riddance to all that draining sentimentality:.

So take the photographs, and still frames in your mind
Hang it on a shelf in good health and good time
Tattoos of memories and dead skin on trial
For what it's worth it was worth all the while

It's something unpredictable, but in the end is right
I hope you had the time of your life

I think there's another way to interpret her words and actions, though. I don't see that you have any reasonable grounds to rule out that other way. It's just that you want her to be a slug? — frank

I just don't believe that's what she meant. She has made prior comments that were negative about Trump:

From https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ginsburg-says-she-regrets-comments-on-trump:

"Ginsburg had given an interview to The New York Times saying she didn’t “even want to contemplate” the country and court under a President Trump.

She later called him a “faker” in a separate interview with CNN.

"He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that," she said."

Her more recent comments are consistent with that. What she said was ""My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.'” New means different in this context and no amount of generosity of interpretation changes that.

She understood that her brand of liberalism would not be replaced by the current president and so she wanted a new one to be there prior to her death.

Why is it worthy to note that judges aren't supposed to be politically biased? Is that a new idea for you? — frank

I noted that it was worthy to note that is what you believed, not what ought be believed. At any rate, you've left yourself with little room in between. Either RBG is scum of the earth or she speaks in hieroglyphics but is best understood once deciphered that she is entirely apolitical and above the fray.

I think you're ruling out the possibility that she didn't have the underhanded amoral slug mentality that's so fashionable these days. Maybe she just meant that the people should be allowed to influence events.

People are nuanced and complicated arent they? — frank

You're the only person with that strained interpretation, but it is worthy to note your belief that if she did mean what the rest of the world thinks she meant that she's an underhanded amoral slug.

I believe there exists the possibility that it will be Trump. Did she have crystal ball or something? — frank

She said "new," which I take to be distinct from "old," as in when I get a new car, I'm no longer driving the old one, like if the old president was Trump, the new one would be Biden, although I concede they're both old in terms of age.

But, sure, maybe she meant that she had a fervent wish for her appointment to be named by Trump in his second term because for some reason that was her oddball dream, to have a second term president name her successor and not a first term one because that makes a whole lot of sense.

Actually all she said was "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.'”

You added the "hopefully Biden". So all we can expect from you is a politically biased response. Good to know. — frank

I stand corrected. I should have said, "hopefully Biden or Jorgenson," since it is possible the "new" president may not be Biden, but there exists the possibility that Libertarian powerhouse might take the nation by storm in the next few weeks.

Quite literally fuck the law and all involved in upholding it if it leads to bad outcomes. — StreetlightX

Interesting philosophy. Not sure why we really need a legislature, since the Court under your system is permitted to make the law whatever it is it thinks will lead to the best outcome.

You cant deny that when she had a chance to bypass the electorate and act for political reasons, she chose not to. — frank

Except that she specifically said her dying wish was survive the Trump presidency so that her successor could be named by hopefully Biden.

I'm just saying that if manipulating the system for political reasons was a high priority for her, she would have retired when Obama had a chance to replace her with a liberal. She was intelligent. She knew her course of action would allow the American electorate have a say regarding her replacement. That's the way it's supposed to work (ideally). — frank

People are nuanced, complicated, and not entirely consistent in their thinking or actions, so I don't think you can really figure people out that accurately. Why she held on until the undertaker carried her out is going to require some speculation, and it's doubtful she fully knew exactly what drove her.

Weirdest of all, the vast majority of Trump supporters are working class and cheer at her nomination. — praxis

Do you believe that those whose economic position would improve under a Marxist system are logically compelled to believe in the virtue of Marxism? It seems people on both sides are more ideological than that and not entirely concerned about how a particular policy might or might not work to their immediate financial advantage. If that weren't the case, every rich person would be logically compelled to believe in the virtue of laissez-faire capitalism, yet they don't.

Question: if RBG knew she could affect the make up of the court by retiring earlier, why didn't she? Was it because she didn't want to play politics? The notion that it was because of arrogance makes no sense. — frank

The reason she provided suggests that she didn't believe a Republican Senate would have approved someone as liberal as she was, so she felt she was protecting a liberal seat. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reveals-why-she-didnt-retire-during-obamas-term-2019-09-19

I think she hoped to make it to a Democratic President and Senate, or, maybe, she just loved going to work every day.