Thoughts on the 4th democratic debate

Saint of M

Elite Member
Legacy
Jul 27, 2010
813
34
33
Country
United States
Going over the various parts, there were quite a few candidates t the point they had to not allow the normal opening speeches and just go straight to the questions. Keep in mind I am recording my thoughts on what they said, and I am typing as I am looking at the videos so my thoughts may change with them.

As this will be a very long one, some not so political posts to go with this political thread.


The first series of questions were all on Impeachment, and they all agreed on it. That Trump has done enough illicit things, namely an obstruction of justice, its to hold him accountable, and hold the office to a higher standard than is currently being presented. Its also one to set a standard as it will send a message to the next president and the next one after that. Also something that multiple people have mentioned, its their job to proverbially walk and chew bubble gum so they can all seek this while still working towards other goals.

The statement that impressed me was Mayor Pete Buttigieg who said he was still working on climate change, and the fact he and the other candidates were working on being the President after Trump. Regardless how he leaves office, that is their goal and none of the other issues of the day have ?gone on vacation? during this time. Whoever wins enters the Oval office in a much more divided county. Frankly I am still watching the old videos as I am typing so as of writing this I am hoping he still keeps at it like this.

I also like Andrew Yang?s statement that even if Impeached it won?t fix the underlying problems that got him in office to beguine with.



Next series of Questions the Economy:

Senator Elizabeth Warran wants to increase taxes on the wealthy and big business to pay for medicare as its not good. I do like the idea of her plan to eliviate student debt and the payments for community college, so lets see how she does. While she says she won?t sign something that won?t increase the taxes on the middle class, BUTTTT I don?t know how she plans to do so when human nature and rich people acting like rich people is still a thing.

The whole Medicare issue became a three-way fight with Berny Sanders and Buttigieg saying she didn?t give a clear answer on how it was going to be paid and her defending her point, repeating how to pay for your cancer plan and the like. Sentiments that others seemed to feel as they either say outright its going to suck tax wise but its going to elevate the pains of paying for healthcare. They also felt their methods were achievable now, and hers was a pipedream at best. SO, I might not vote for her.

After that, it was mostly focused on it, but it was a verbal brawl on their views, with some complimenting others, while others saying its not going to be cheap.

It did eventually move onto getting Jobs, and I like Yang?s argument against Sander?s guaranteed job plan. Namely the fact that there are a lot of issues when you do the government planning, does not take individuals into consideration, does not take into account individual?s like Yang?s wife who is a stay at home Mom with one of their two sons being on the autistic spectrum. Also when you have government target plans for employment you get a lot of jobs no one asked for, retraining that goes no where, and a whole lot of wasted time, money, and energy. Speaking as someone with a learning disability or two (autism, dyslexia, ADD) I know what that feels like first hand. It sucks. And I?ll add in most of us don?t have our shit together by the time we are legal adults to know what we want to do for the rest of our lives. I do not think Sanders will work, but I will look into more with Yang.

Yang also questioned the questionability of Automation being a factor of loosing jobs as everywhere you go there is self checkout. Therea re even automated long haul trucks out there.

Sentator Tusli Gabbard said they need to addressed the general fears have of both the global issues when it comes to the economy and automation.

Senator Cory booker wants to raise the national minimum wage to 15 dollars and hour, and to ?try and put back dignity into work.? To incentivize keeping jobs in the US. To encourage unions, the latter he has been fighting along side with. How he plans this, I am not sure.



I found Congressman Beto O?Rourk?s idea interesting is to make deals with Mexico when it comes to trade and commerce that incentives unions on their end, as this would make the markets more competitive which its not really over there (his words not mine). It will be interesting to see how he does this, but I agree with his statement that most people don?t want a handout and they have to be given an opportunity to work for it.

Biden wants to cut the loopholes in tax cuts as billions are lost this way.

When it came to the taxing on the wealth issue, Warran accused everyone else on the debate except for Sanders for protecting the Billionaires, which Senator Amy Klobuchar rebutter saying none of them are wanting that, including the lone Billionaire on the panel (who says he was one of the first to suggest such a tax). The more Warran speaks the nuttier she sounds to. She says a lot but a lot of it sounds like a whole lot of nothing.


Cory Booker also made a point that they have one shot at keeping Trump?s tenure just one term, and tearing into each other isn?t helping.


Next Series of Questions: Syria.

Yeah, the pulling out and abandoning the Kurds and other allies weakened our trust, he weakened out standing, and we need to strengthen it.

Near universally, they seem to age that they need to hold Russia and Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia with their wars. This means face potential attacks by freezing Puttin?s assets if needs be.

We cannot solve the climate crisis alone, and need to work with other nations. We will need to be the leaders in this, but need other?s help.

I also find it sadly ironic Trump can get defenseless families in cages on the boarder, but can?t be bothered enough to deal with escaped ISIS prisoners that only escaped because of the half hazard manor this withdrawal has been.



Domestic Issues

The Assault Weapons ban.

Its seemed pretty split with mandatory confiscation and voluntary buy back, and it was ugly. It didn?t seem clear on how it was going to be enforced.


It was an emotional issiue for many who have either been comforting civilian or police families that had loved ones killed with one of these, or as in the case of Texas, the Latin comunites worried a massacure could happen to them from Trump?s racist rhetoric, with at least one of the presidential hopefuls mentioning a friend that he grew up with in their home neighborhood was killed by an assult weapon.

The biggest argument againts the mandatory came from Julian Castro after Anderso Cooper asked him about preventing handguns from getting out more as they cause the majority of deaths. Besides how illdefined the methods and definitions are, and to quote him ?if you are not going door to door [to confiscate the guns] its not mandatory.? Castro also mentioned the neighborhood he grew up and the fear for his life as gunshots were a common background noise. He also remembered neighborhoods like his ?were not looking for another reason for police to come banging on the door.?

This makes a good point as this will inevitably be targeted on the minorities. I am going to throw in an example here, most of the stringent gun laws in California: a lot of them were put in by NRA member Ronald Reagan as a targeted policy against the NRA, which may have been a crippling factor in their eventual fall. Who?s to say this won?t happen again. If not as an official policy, as one by a bunch of racist bullies hiding behind a badge. I have too many family members in uniform not to have love and respect for law enforcement, but there are too many people that should never have been allowed to be cops for this reason.

Castro also added that police violence was gun violence as well, and used an example that will hit us gamers hard. Two days prior to the debate in Fort Worth, a law enforcement officer showed up at the doorstep of Atatiana Jefferson at 2 in the morning while she was playing videogames with her nephiew. The officer didn?t announce himself and just shot and killed her through her window. Castro is afraid, and justifiably so, many would take this as an excuse to commit more acts that shame the badge.


Opioid Epidemic

The fist Question on this was brought up by a teacher, and that was how to deal with it in the rural areas where access to both jobs and rehabilitation are in short supply.

Amy Klobuchar wants to make the pharmaceuticals that got this plague going in the first place to pay for it. It?s a 2 cent tax but it would pay for these much needed aids.

Tom Stayer, the billionair of the group, wants to make it harder for these corporations to vote, to stop treating them like people when it comes to voting.

Yang and O?Rourke wants to decriminalize small amounts of opioids and to focus more treating these people of their disease than throwing them in a jail cell.

When senator Kamala Harris and Castro think the corporations should be treated as criminals, with calling them large scale dope dealers (a fair statement all things considered). SO, they need jail time. We need to hold them accountable.



Pundent's Health:

Well, we have a bunch of old people here, so we had people defending their health.

Biden used his experience, and will be releasing both his tax and health information that is needed.

Sanders invited people to join him at a rally he is going to when asked about his heart attack,

Warren, who at 71 could be the oldest first term elected president, said she is going to work twice as hard as her colleagues and rambled a bit.

Gabbard at age 38, the youngest hopeful of the group, was asked if age should be a factor in this at all. She said that why are only the three oldest ones being asked about their health as she maybe younger than them but she also kept in good health by her military training regiment. She rather ask who is fit, in general, to be commander in chief, and said she has experience in a varieties of areas, including areas that would help her in her office.

Next questions: Should big tech companies be broken up.

When asked this of Yang, it won?t solve the issiue. More competition won?t be a solution (and used the Bing search engine as an example?no one is using it for a reason). It also won?t stop the increased depression and anxiety that is occurring with increased social media usage, which as a parent scares him. We need a new 21st century solution not a 20th century one he says. He also wants them to hold them accountable for holding our data.

Warren and Booker say breaking up the monopolies have to happen.

Stayer focused more on Trump and proving he was the better businessman and soon to be better president.

O?Rourke doesn?t think it?s a President?s job to say which ones need or need not be split. Protect your privacy, hold them accountable, treat these publishers as content as the rouges they are but its not a president?s job to split them.

Sanders wants a president that will get an attorney general with the balls to fight these monopolies.

Harris wants to shut down Trump?s tritter account. She also got into a fight with Warren that went nowhere on semantics.



Women?s reproductive health

Harris and Klobucha want Row v Way to be a national law and fight laws that would prevent woemen from having woman a choice in the manners of their body and reproductive rights.

Booker added that codifying Row v Way would help people that are poor as much of this

Gabbard quoted Hillary Clinton in saying Abortions should be Safe, Legal, and rare (the one thing she agrees with Clinton). Its one of the most serious decisions a woman can make in her life. She believes there are restrictions, such as the third trimester abortions emergencies only (life of the mother at risk).

Biden says if the court denied Row v Way, he wouldn?t support it. He would support privacy, which a woman?s right to choose is based upon.

Buttigieg wants reforms that will try to make choosing the next Supreme court judge that wasn?t an apocalyptic political fire fight.

Castro would like term limits or cycling out judges

After some political dick measuring,

Final Question:

After Ellen DeGeneres defended her friendship With W. Bush, each candidate was to say a friendship everyone would find surprising. I was glad to see they could quickly come up with names and excamples.

Overall I like Yang the best, he seems to make the most sense to me.

I think Biden has the strongest chance though of winning this.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
saint of m said:
I think Biden has the strongest chance though of winning this.
That was definitely the best debate performance Joe Biden has had during this campaign. He should drop out immediately.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/leftyaaron/status/1184271696674476032"]
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/banditelli/status/1183474202382225408"]
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Dec 6, 2010
5,655
24
13
I'd love to watch the whole thing, but CNN is a dick and restricts it to their website/app in the form of multiple thirty minute segments that are a ***** to watch on mobile. Of what I got, I think mostly everyone did okay. For Medicare for all, I'm glad to see Bernie explained in a level of detail that taxes will go up for the middle class which will be balanced out by medicare costs going down. Warren needs to fucking say this. She jumps around the question and it makes her look bad. I also think her response to the question on automation was bad, but she earned back some points by admitting she wasn't super knowledgeable about it.

I'm hoping the news that broke of the power squad backing Bernie after the debate gives him a boost. I don't want Biden in the White House.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,376
973
118
Country
USA
It was fun watching lower polling candidates activate their moderate powers to try and claim the increasing void Biden is leaving behind as he fails to impress. I don't think the media is going to just let the attacks on Warren stick without a fight, but I appreciate the other candidates for trying to disrupt the obvious plans of the 4th estate.

There are only a few candidates here I wouldn't give fair consideration (no New Jersey politicians allowed), particularly if they came out strong for nuclear power at any point, but as a Republican who has no say in the primary, I'm trying not to judge too harshly while they're still in primary pander mode.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
Well that's interesting: [tweet t="https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1184843838919184389"]

I guess it becomes easier to make the case that Warren and Bernie are the same so why don't you just support the candidate already doing well with affluent whites when you attribute Bernie's quotes to her.

Also, Bernie on the intent of his wealth tax (as covered by Majority Report w/ Sam Seder): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvBTgrtIKiw

And then there's this: [tweet t="https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1185254592805769216"]
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,155
3,086
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I really liked how they didn't ask Biden about whether his son sound have gotten that job while he was VP [/sarcasm]

Can I point out again that generation X are probably going to be skipped for president. A bunch of 70s are going to contest the next election
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,196
4,050
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
trunkage said:
I really liked how they didn't ask Biden about whether his son sound have gotten that job while he was VP [/sarcasm]

Can I point out again that generation X are probably going to be skipped for president. A bunch of 70s are going to contest the next election
The interesting thing about the whole Biden son thing is, what is the requirements for being on the board for a company? I mean I've heard that he wasn't qualified, but what are the qualifications, are there even any? I mean beyond being rich and having rich friends.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
Worgen said:
trunkage said:
I really liked how they didn't ask Biden about whether his son sound have gotten that job while he was VP [/sarcasm]

Can I point out again that generation X are probably going to be skipped for president. A bunch of 70s are going to contest the next election
The interesting thing about the whole Biden son thing is, what is the requirements for being on the board for a company? I mean I've heard that he wasn't qualified, but what are the qualifications, are there even any? I mean beyond being rich and having rich friends.
It's either bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,196
4,050
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Seanchaidh said:
Worgen said:
trunkage said:
I really liked how they didn't ask Biden about whether his son sound have gotten that job while he was VP [/sarcasm]

Can I point out again that generation X are probably going to be skipped for president. A bunch of 70s are going to contest the next election
The interesting thing about the whole Biden son thing is, what is the requirements for being on the board for a company? I mean I've heard that he wasn't qualified, but what are the qualifications, are there even any? I mean beyond being rich and having rich friends.
It's either bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!
Is it? I mean you didn't answer any of those questions so that probably means you don't know the answer. Cause I'll bet no one really knows who makes up the board of directors for most things, not that its unlisted or something but we love to be able to talk about the one person on top, while barely acknowledging others that helped. I mean this in general. For instance, we like to give almost all the credit for Starwars to George Lucas but we don't talk much about all the other people that made it not suck.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
Worgen said:
Seanchaidh said:
Worgen said:
trunkage said:
I really liked how they didn't ask Biden about whether his son sound have gotten that job while he was VP [/sarcasm]

Can I point out again that generation X are probably going to be skipped for president. A bunch of 70s are going to contest the next election
The interesting thing about the whole Biden son thing is, what is the requirements for being on the board for a company? I mean I've heard that he wasn't qualified, but what are the qualifications, are there even any? I mean beyond being rich and having rich friends.
It's either bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!
Is it?
Yes. Either the standard for Hunter Biden was made lax due to connection to VPotUS (bad for Joe Biden), or being on a board isn't that demanding in general (bad for capitalist mythmaking). It is also quite possible that a mix of those is more explanatory, in which case bad all around.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,196
4,050
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Seanchaidh said:
Worgen said:
Seanchaidh said:
Worgen said:
trunkage said:
I really liked how they didn't ask Biden about whether his son sound have gotten that job while he was VP [/sarcasm]

Can I point out again that generation X are probably going to be skipped for president. A bunch of 70s are going to contest the next election
The interesting thing about the whole Biden son thing is, what is the requirements for being on the board for a company? I mean I've heard that he wasn't qualified, but what are the qualifications, are there even any? I mean beyond being rich and having rich friends.
It's either bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!
Is it?
Yes. Either the standard for Hunter Biden was made lax due to connection to VPotUS (bad for Joe Biden), or being on a board isn't that demanding in general (bad for capitalist mythmaking). It is also quite possible that a mix of those is more explanatory, in which case bad all around.
You're still not getting it, was he actually unqualified and if he was, what should the qualifications have been?
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,239
1,090
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Seanchaidh said:
Worgen said:
Seanchaidh said:
Worgen said:
trunkage said:
I really liked how they didn't ask Biden about whether his son sound have gotten that job while he was VP [/sarcasm]

Can I point out again that generation X are probably going to be skipped for president. A bunch of 70s are going to contest the next election
The interesting thing about the whole Biden son thing is, what is the requirements for being on the board for a company? I mean I've heard that he wasn't qualified, but what are the qualifications, are there even any? I mean beyond being rich and having rich friends.
It's either bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!
Is it?
Yes. Either the standard for Hunter Biden was made lax due to connection to VPotUS (bad for Joe Biden), or being on a board isn't that demanding in general (bad for capitalist mythmaking). It is also quite possible that a mix of those is more explanatory, in which case bad all around.
Except it's actually nothing of the sort. "Lax standards due to a connection to VPotUS" may be damning to the company if true, but it is entirely irrelevant to Joe Biden outside of two hypothetical situations, neither of which has been evidenced. The first hypothetical situation would be Joe using the influence of the office to get Hunter the job in the first place, and the second would be Joe's actions and decisions were affected by that connection. Again, neither of these hypotheticals have any supporting evidence, and outside of those hypotheticals - wherein Joe would have either used his influence unduly or was unduly influenced - whether or not Hunter had the job would not be "bad for Joe Biden".

To the latter, "being on the board isn't demanding" is an interpretation that seems principally based on the presumption that Hunter couldn't have been qualified. Shot in the dark here, but I'm guessing you didn't actually review his education and job history. So let's take a quick peek.

Graduate from Yale Law School, stared his career with MBNA America (eventually becoming a Senior Vice President), was appointed by Clinton to be a Director in the Department of Commerce from 1998-2001, he was a lawyer and federal lobbyist from 2001-2008, and served on the Board of Directors for Amtrak from 2006-2009 (appointed by Bush). He was one of the founders of the investment firm Rosemont Seneca and venture capital firm Eudora Global, and served as an attorney for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.

And then of course there were also his positions as director for the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, The Center for National Policy, and the Chairman's Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute, member of the bar in the State of Connecticut, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Federal Claims, and chairman of the Board of the World Food Program USA.

So, lawyer and member of the bar for several jurisdictions, co-founder of several companies, and leadership experience with several companies and humanitarian organizations. How, exactly, does that make him underqualified for a Board of Directors position, specifically a position putting him in charge of their legal unit? Because that looks like a pretty robust resume to me.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,155
3,086
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Worgen said:
Seanchaidh said:
Worgen said:
Seanchaidh said:
Worgen said:
trunkage said:
I really liked how they didn't ask Biden about whether his son sound have gotten that job while he was VP [/sarcasm]

Can I point out again that generation X are probably going to be skipped for president. A bunch of 70s are going to contest the next election
The interesting thing about the whole Biden son thing is, what is the requirements for being on the board for a company? I mean I've heard that he wasn't qualified, but what are the qualifications, are there even any? I mean beyond being rich and having rich friends.
It's either bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!
Is it?
Yes. Either the standard for Hunter Biden was made lax due to connection to VPotUS (bad for Joe Biden), or being on a board isn't that demanding in general (bad for capitalist mythmaking). It is also quite possible that a mix of those is more explanatory, in which case bad all around.
You're still not getting it, was he actually unqualified and if he was, what should the qualifications have been?
Also, did the company turn a profit? Ive never checked it, but I cant imagine him retaining the position if they weren't making big bucks.

Becuase qualifitcation are irrelevant if your becoming rich of other people's decisions.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
Asita said:
but it is entirely irrelevant to Joe Biden outside of two hypothetical situations, neither of which has been evidenced.
Really now? How well did making the case for "technically not illegal" go last time around?

Asita said:
How, exactly, does that make him underqualified for a Board of Directors position, specifically a position putting him in charge of their legal unit?
Well, for one thing, because none of that shit you listed has anything to do with the Ukrainian legal system...

For another, his position at MBNA conspicuously coincided with Joe Biden pushing the bankruptcy bill. So it's not clear that was "qualifying" either, except perhaps as a way to facilitate the passage of favorable legislation.

Oh, hey, that doesn't look good for Joe Biden already. QED.

(Did you think I framed my comments around optics by accident or something?)
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,239
1,090
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Seanchaidh said:
Asita said:
but it is entirely irrelevant to Joe Biden outside of two hypothetical situations, neither of which has been evidenced.
Really now? How well did making the case for "technically not illegal" go last time around?

Asita said:
How, exactly, does that make him underqualified for a Board of Directors position, specifically a position putting him in charge of their legal unit?
Well, for one thing, because none of that shit you listed has anything to do with the Ukrainian legal system...

For another, his position at MBNA conspicuously coincided with Joe Biden pushing the bankruptcy bill. So it's not clear that was "qualifying" either, except perhaps as a way to facilitate the passage of favorable legislation.

Oh, hey, that doesn't look good for Joe Biden already. QED.

(Did you think I framed my comments around optics by accident or something?)
Well to the first part, excuse you? "Not technically illegal"? The question of legality doesn't even enter into the picture here. I'm not sure how this even makes sense to you as a retort, because this is so damn basic. If Joe Biden did not improperly use his position to get his son a job, and his policies were uninfluenced by his son's position, then Hunter getting the position does not reflect on Joe at all, as Joe didn't do anything. This really should not be a controversial point. Heck, it should be self-evident that a third party to a hiring process - who neither affected the process nor was influenced by the results - is detached from that hiring process. Put simply, when you say that it's "bad for Joe Biden" based on the premise that Burisma had "lax standards due to a connection to the VPotUS", you're reaching, to say the least. If Joe Biden didn't leverage his influence or be influenced by his son's connection, then his son getting a job is not "bad news for Joe Biden".

To the latter...Well first of all, you didn't "frame your comments around optics". That's just what you're backtracking to now. You framed it as "bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!", suggesting direct evidence of corruption, not optics. Optics are an issue of Public Relations, focusing on the difference between what is and what the public might perceive. See for instance judicial recusal, which is done to prevent the perception that a judge's verdict was influenced by a connection to the accused/plaintiff.

Second, I am obliged to point out that this is not for a lead attorney position, but for a board of directors position with a focus on the legal unit and support for the company among international organizations. That's a supervisory and corporate governance position, not a lead attorney position. To further clarify, the role of the Board of Directors is to make decisions as a fiduciary on behalf of shareholders. They're the ones responsible for hiring and firing senior executives, and making policies about dividends, options, and executive compensation. They're the ones responsible for helping the corporation set broad goals, supporting executive duties, and ensuring the company has adequate, well-managed resources at its disposal. Consequentially, the typical qualities looked for in Board candidates are along the lines of Senior Leadership Experience, Relevant Sector Experience, Corporate Governance, Strategic Skills, and Interpersonal Skills. So while Ukrainian law experience would certainly be nice for an internal board member, it's unlikely to be a requirement for an external board member.

Third, I find it interesting how quickly you pivoted to MBNA there. Setting aside for a minute that we're talking about Hunter Biden's resume for Burisma, not implications about how he earned the experience listed on that resume, that you seemed to go down this route for the sake of another unsubstantiated "doesn't look good for Joe Biden" feels very telling.
 

Saint of M

Elite Member
Legacy
Jul 27, 2010
813
34
33
Country
United States
So, my attempt to lurk as I am hoping to glean some more political insight, seems to not going well.

Biden sounds problematic, but if he didn't do anything wrong himself, I don't see why we need to keep bringing his kid into this. You don't bring up the Mob connection JFK's Dad had in most discussions about the man, and this situation with the Bidens sounds less dubious
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
Asita said:
Seanchaidh said:
Asita said:
but it is entirely irrelevant to Joe Biden outside of two hypothetical situations, neither of which has been evidenced.
Really now? How well did making the case for "technically not illegal" go last time around?

Asita said:
How, exactly, does that make him underqualified for a Board of Directors position, specifically a position putting him in charge of their legal unit?
Well, for one thing, because none of that shit you listed has anything to do with the Ukrainian legal system...

For another, his position at MBNA conspicuously coincided with Joe Biden pushing the bankruptcy bill. So it's not clear that was "qualifying" either, except perhaps as a way to facilitate the passage of favorable legislation.

Oh, hey, that doesn't look good for Joe Biden already. QED.

(Did you think I framed my comments around optics by accident or something?)
Well to the first part, excuse you? "Not technically illegal"? The question of legality doesn't even enter into the picture here.
Trump is literally accused of trying to get Ukraine to perform *ahem* legal investigations on Hunter and Joe Biden concerning corruption. The idea that 'legality doesn't even enter the picture here' is prima facie ridiculous. But that's what you're arguing: it's not illegal, so it's fine.

Asita said:
I'm not sure how this even makes sense to you as a retort, because this is so damn basic. If Joe Biden did not improperly use his position to get his son a job, and his policies were uninfluenced by his son's position, then Hunter getting the position does not reflect on Joe at all, as Joe didn't do anything.
Joe literally interacted with Ukraine as Vice President. Why is it do you think that when someone has a conflict of interest, the recommended course of action is generally not "well, just power through and don't let it affect you"?

Because "Joe didn't do anything" (which is to say change his behavior with respect to Ukraine as a result of his son's position) is something you cannot possibly demonstrate as it necessarily includes what Joe could have done but didn't as well as the details of each particular of what he did, in fact, do.

But even if, the above problem aside, Joe Biden was truly not influenced whatsoever by any consideration of Hunter's position at Burisma, the idea that someone like Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma because he's truly the most qualified and not because of who his father is is so ludicrous as to defy explanation. Why would you think that?

Do you also think that Meghan McCain being on The View also has nothing to do with who her father is? Do you think Chelsea Clinton being paid millions of dollars for a few television segments has nothing to do with her parents?

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...nt-inquiry-shows-hallmarks-of-the-overpromise

Just for a little bit of context here, Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter Biden $50,000 per month to sit on its board, supposedly to improve its governance. Hunter Biden isn't an expert in governance, isn't a transparency expert, has no expertise in energy or the Ukraine. The largest independent energy company in the world is, of course, Exxon mobile. On their board, they have corporate legends like Ursula Burns, former CEO and Chairman of Xerox, and Ken Fraser, current CEO and Chairman of Merck. Know how much each of these three were paid monthly for their board service to Exxon, including cash and stock? Less than $30,000 per month. You mean to tell me that Hunter Biden was more valuable than these people who led billion-dollar corporations successfully, just on his own merits?
Asita said:
This really should not be a controversial point. Heck, it should be self-evident that a third party to a hiring process - who neither affected the process nor was influenced by the results - is detached from that hiring process. Put simply, when you say that it's "bad for Joe Biden" based on the premise that Burisma had "lax standards due to a connection to the VPotUS", you're reaching, to say the least. If Joe Biden didn't leverage his influence or be influenced by his son's connection, then his son getting a job is not "bad news for Joe Biden".
It is not clear that Joe Biden was "not influenced". The best you can say is that it is not clear that he was influenced, which is not the same thing as that he was "not influenced."

I'll suggest again that what you're saying there is either bad news for (Joe) Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Because it's at least one of those.

Asita said:
To the latter...Well first of all, you didn't "frame your comments around optics". That's just what you're backtracking to now. You framed it as "bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!", suggesting direct evidence of corruption, not optics.
Now you're just making shit up. "Bad news" means "bad news"; "SUGGESTING DIRECT EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION" you have just invented out of whole cloth. Were you aware that Joe Biden is in fact running to become President of the United States? He obviously has concerns that go beyond merely avoiding prosecution. Of course his son receiving positions principally because of who his father is would be bad for him. And then there is capitalist mythmaking which is entirely optical. That's literally all it is.

Then there's the context: "Thoughts on the 4th Democratic Debate". Sure seems to be a thread about perceptions and how that impacts presidential campaigns, doesn't it?

Asita said:
Optics are an issue of Public Relations, focusing on the difference between what is and what the public might perceive. See for instance judicial recusal, which is done to prevent the perception that a judge's verdict was influenced by a connection to the accused/plaintiff.

Second, I am obliged to point out that this is not for a lead attorney position, but for a board of directors position with a focus on the legal unit and support for the company among international organizations. That's a supervisory and corporate governance position, not a lead attorney position. To further clarify, the role of the Board of Directors is to make decisions as a fiduciary on behalf of shareholders. They're the ones responsible for hiring and firing senior executives, and making policies about dividends, options, and executive compensation. They're the ones responsible for helping the corporation set broad goals, supporting executive duties, and ensuring the company has adequate, well-managed resources at its disposal.
And it just so happens that the best man for the job is an incredibly politically connected American. To quote Joe Biden, "Come on, man..."

Asita said:
Consequentially, the typical qualities looked for in Board candidates are along the lines of Senior Leadership Experience, Relevant Sector Experience, Corporate Governance, Strategic Skills, and Interpersonal Skills. So while Ukrainian law experience would certainly be nice for an internal board member, it's unlikely to be a requirement for an external board member.

Third, I find it interesting how quickly you pivoted to MBNA there. Setting aside for a minute that we're talking about Hunter Biden's resume for Burisma, not implications about how he earned the experience listed on that resume, that you seemed to go down this route for the sake of another unsubstantiated "doesn't look good for Joe Biden" feels very telling.
You mentioned MBNA and cited it as relevant experience. That makes its role in his later hiring at Burisma a foundational premise of your argument. And it is even more questionable than the Ukrainian position because Joe Biden literally was pushing the passage of bankruptcy legislation obviously favorable to credit card companies like MBNA at the time, voting against the majority of his party much of the time. If Hunter's consultancy at MBNA is indeed relevant to his being hired at Burisma, the question of why it is relevant certainly should be examined. To treat this as a 'pivot' appears massively disingenuous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/us/politics/25biden.html

During that time, executives at MBNA, which was bought in 2006 by Bank of America, began donating heavily to both major political parties and many national politicians, including Mr. Biden.

In late 1996, the company hired the younger of Mr. Biden's two sons, Robert Hunter Biden, known as Hunter, who had just graduated from Yale Law School, as a lawyer. The company promoted Mr. Biden to senior vice president by early 1998
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/us/politics/25biden.html

Consumer advocates say that Senator Biden was one of the first Democratic leaders to support the bankruptcy bill, and he voted for it four times ? in 1998, 2000, 2001 and in March 2005, when its final version passed the Senate by a vote of 74 to 25.
MBNA's return on investment certainly looks like something Burisma would be well advised to consider when paying Hunter $50,000 per month which is notably more than the CEOs on Exxon's board make for their services to Exxon.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-life-scandals-ukraine-involvement-with-trump-giuliani-2019-9#the-controversy-was-revived-nearly-five-years-later-9

It's pretty clear that Hunter Biden is where he is principally because of whose son he is. Maybe he has some relevant skills which justify such compensation or maybe not; nothing either of us has presented suggests he does, though-- just credentials. Now, that is either bad for the Biden's because it represents a gratuitous departure from even the normal way in which capitalists don't seem to deserve their winnings, or it is bad for capitalist mythmaking because actually this sort of meandering upward career trajectory is pretty normal for the well-connected elite.

After all, conspicuously absent from any of these examinations of Hunter Biden's business dealings is any reference to anything specific that he accomplished in the roles that he inhabited. What you do see in some of these cases is that Joe Biden accomplished something legislatively that is beneficial to the people who hired his son. Hunter's appears to be a career of holding positions, and rocketing up the corporate ladder for... some reason. Especially in this political environment, that doesn't look great, either for him or for capitalist myths of meritocracy.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,239
1,090
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Seanchaidh said:
Asita said:
Well to the first part, excuse you? "Not technically illegal"? The question of legality doesn't even enter into the picture here.
Trump is literally accused of trying to get Ukraine to perform *ahem* legal investigations on Hunter and Joe Biden concerning corruption. The idea that 'legality doesn't even enter the picture here' is prima facie ridiculous. But that's what you're arguing: it's not illegal, so it's fine.
That's non-sequitur. Setting aside the fact that what Trump's accused of has no similarity to what we're discussing, I'm not arguing "it's not illegal, so it's fine", I'm arguing that you're throwing logic out the window for the sake of trying to imply misconduct on Joe Biden's part. Let's return for a moment to the actual point we're arguing over: "the standard for Hunter Biden was made lax due to connection to VPotUS (bad for Joe Biden)". What I have been arguing is not that it's "not technically illegal", but that the argument doesn't follow at all. It's effectively making the claim that Burisma's actions are somehow Biden's responsibility and thus thus Burisma having lax standards reflects poorly on Joe Biden. It's a flat out nonsensical claim unless we assume that Biden was more than a bystander and helped to arrange for those claimed lax standards. If he had no input, then Burisma having lax standards to try and cozy up to Biden - the apparent thrust of the statement - would reflect poorly on Burisma, not Biden.


But even if, the above problem aside, Joe Biden was truly not influenced whatsoever by any consideration of Hunter's position at Burisma, the idea that someone like Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma because he's truly the most qualified and not because of who his father is is so ludicrous as to defy explanation. Why would you think that?

Do you also think that Meghan McCain being on The View also has nothing to do with who her father is? Do you think Chelsea Clinton being paid millions of dollars for a few television segments has nothing to do with her parents?
Irrelevant. For starters when it comes to Hunter Biden I'm not arguing that he was the best candidate for the job or even that there weren't better ones but that he wasn't as grossly under-qualified as implied. To use academia for ease of understanding, I'm arguing against the notion that he didn't graduate, not arguing that he graduated with honors. More to the point, what I was addressing in what you quoted was - again - about whether Burisma hiring Hunter Biden reflected poorly on Joe Biden outside of circumstances wherein Joe influenced the hiring process or was demonstrably influenced by his son being hired.

Though let's clear the air here a moment: Were there better candidates? Probably. Did they choose him over such candidates because his last name was Biden? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the celebrity status of family influenced a hiring decision. Does that mean that his hiring indicates misconduct? Not in the sense you've been implying. There's some evidence suggesting that Burisma was trying to 'whitewash' its image at the time, which it was attempting with high-profile hires (Such as the former president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski) in hopes that name recognition would grant them a sense of legitimacy. As put by Daria Kaleniuk of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, "Adding these people with these fancy names to the board made Burisma, [which] got licenses to extract gas in Ukraine through very suspicious means, look like a Western, legitimate company". And that's a very different breed of shenanigans than what you've been implying.


Asita said:
To the latter...Well first of all, you didn't "frame your comments around optics". That's just what you're backtracking to now. You framed it as "bad news for Biden or bad news for capitalist mythmaking. Or both!", suggesting direct evidence of corruption, not optics.
Now you're just making shit up. "Bad news" means "bad news"; "SUGGESTING DIRECT EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION" you have just invented out of whole cloth. Were you aware that Joe Biden is in fact running to become President of the United States? He obviously has concerns that go beyond merely avoiding prosecution. Of course his son receiving positions principally because of who his father is would be bad for him. And then there is capitalist mythmaking which is entirely optical. That's literally all it is.

Then there's the context: "Thoughts on the 4th Democratic Debate". Sure seems to be a thread about perceptions and how that impacts presidential campaigns, doesn't it?
Forgive my saying, but I get the impression that you aren't familiar with the concept of optics. That the thread is about "perceptions on the 4th Democratic Debate" does not mean that everything or even anything within it necessarily concerns optics. When you're talking about your opinions of an event and making claims about its significance, you are not talking about optics. When you are making a claim that "x is bad for y", that's a positive claim regarding the significance of x, not optics. Optics are perhaps best summed up in the phrase "do you have any idea what message that sends".

When you're talking about optics, it's not about the actions, but the aspect of those actions that specifically relate to public perception; how an action appears as contrasted with the substance of the action. One of the better known examples of this is Kennedy and Nixon's famous televised debate, wherein Kennedy appeared young and composed while Nixon old, sickly, and sweaty. That debate is famous for how strongly optics influenced people, how the visual difference between those candidates shaped people's perceptions about them as candidates, to the point that it's commonly said that Kennedy effectively won the election that night. Rare is the individual that can tell you what was covered in the debate, but rarer still is the individual who is ignorant of how the optics of that debate - what the candidates physical appearance meant to the viewers - influenced the election. You are not talking about optics until you're talking about how people are likely to process the scene they perceive. Not the significance of the scene, but specifically how the scene looks to an outside viewer, regardless of its actual substance.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,908
3,587
118
Country
United States of America
Asita said:
It's a flat out nonsensical claim unless we assume that Biden was more than a bystander and helped to arrange for those claimed lax standards.
It absolutely reflects poorly on Joe Biden that his family members are taking advantage of his position as vice president. You might not be bothered by soft corruption, but plenty of people are.

Even if we assume that Joe Biden is not directly responsive in his politics to his family getting cushy consultancies and board positions-- that there is no explicit quid pro quo-- the fact that some corporations are rewarding his family for their connections to him suggests that they like what he's done enough to throw money at him or his family, and those rewards and the possibility that they will either continue or stop are part of the incentives that we must assume influence his behavior.

However much you want to wish this is somehow a failure of logic, it's just not.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,454
6,524
118
Country
United Kingdom
Asita said:
When you're talking about optics, it's not about the actions, but the aspect of those actions that specifically relate to public perception; how an action appears as contrasted with the substance of the action. One of the better known examples of this is Kennedy and Nixon's famous televised debate, wherein Kennedy appeared young and composed while Nixon old, sickly, and sweaty. That debate is famous for how strongly optics influenced people, how the visual difference between those candidates shaped people's perceptions about them as candidates, to the point that it's commonly said that Kennedy effectively won the election that night. Rare is the individual that can tell you what was covered in the debate, but rarer still is the individual who is ignorant of how the optics of that debate - what the candidates physical appearance meant to the viewers - influenced the election. You are not talking about optics until you're talking about how people are likely to process the scene they perceive. Not the significance of the scene, but specifically how the scene looks to an outside viewer, regardless of its actual substance.
Well, isn't that precisely what's under discussion? Not the substance of whether Biden actively influenced things in his son's favour, but the image it creates in the mind of the observer when the son of the VPOTUS gets lucrative positions.