You're not discussing this with some amorphous blob "left" of your own conception though, are you? You're talking to me, and perhaps you should address what I think rather than straw man onto some other entity of your imagination.
On this topic, you think what the news tells you to.
He is clearly relevant here, because this assault on Biden via his son derives in part from the investigations into Trump. I think it's very interesting to note the disparity between your attitude to Biden and Trump given the different evidential standards available. I am at least consistent in expecting high standards in either case, and justified to note that in terms of severity, the evidential standard and magnitude of corruption in Trump's cases is wildly more serious than is currently supportable for Biden. You, however, are not.
There is no disparity in my attitudes toward them. Both Trump and Biden are tied to people who went overseas to try and sell their influence in US politics. Both have had foreign powers try to influence them. Both had interactions with Ukrainian officials that could be seen as problematic, but further evidence strongly suggests neither Trump nor Biden was doing anything corrupt at the time. There are definitely things Joe Biden has done that look suspicious from the right angle, but I don't think Joe Biden was selling influence through Hunter. It's perfectly consistent for me to say that, I'm not calling for resignations from anyone.
When Ukrainians try to get to Joe Biden through his son, you declare him perfectly clean. When Ukrainians try to get to Trump through Giuliani, you declare Trump a mob boss. Like, I consume a reasonable amount of conservative media. I can tell you that right now, a lot of right-wing US pundits are referring to "the Biden crime family", and talking about how there's not going to be hard evidence tying Joe in, cause mob bosses give implied orders and the payments don't go back to them, they go back to "the family". I have no hesitation laughing at that perspective, it's a bunch of bologna. But it's exactly what you sounded like when they were impeaching Trump. The disparity in standards is yours.
The REPUBLICANS have looked into Hunter 4 separate times now in different committees with many house members and senators and produced 88 pages on it and THEY told us that Joe did nothing wrong. Hunter is a different story
Seems reasonable to me.
Sin? The word that is used to denote if someone is bad or good? And is used to segregate religious from the non-religious? By the religious? The very word that is used as an 'I win' button on various political topics by certain religious people because that makes other religious people agree with you automatically without putting any critical thinking into it? As a way to indoctrinate others and force your (I mean the church here) will onto others?
The word sin, used by the religious, has very little to Jesus, Mohammed or Moses (at least most of the time). But it sure is at the core of identity to those who are religious. And it's definitely used as propaganda
Edit: Er.. sorry. I don't know why this notification came up now, when we had already moved on
I don't know what personal experience you've had, but I have never seen any of what you're describing (outside of fiction). I'm pretty deep into political and religious content, and I don't see anyone saying "that's a sin, therefore I win". Though, to be fair, I am a member of the "everyone is a sinner from the moment they are conceived (except Mary and Jesus)" religion, so that's not going to do the segregation you described.
It's so cute you think this.
