Well, he and his people repeatedly said he wouldn't, and he made a big show of how we should respect the legal system and let it run its course, in contrast to Trump. It's such bullshit. He just made Trump's case for him.

It doesn't matter anymore, of course. But this will be all the justification anyone needs to continue "both sides"-ing everything that happens, with a perfect example.I don't care how minor the crime was. Fucking pay for your crime. If it's minor enough, your setencing will reflect it.

Just awful.

I mostly agree with Ksyrup, but I don't think this makes any difference in terms of what Trump will do. Hard to imagine a situation where Trump would think, I shouldn't do this because Biden didn't pardon Hunter.

No, I agree, but it provides justifiication for what he's about to do. Dems spent 8 years talking about how Trump is a threat for many reasons - including ignoring the rule of law - and then Biden does this shit.

No one is above the law.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 31, 2024

https://theonion.com/feds-wistfully-...on-1850556827/

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Love to see some Dems push for an amendment to end pardoning. It's one of the most abused powers and too much like a king. They could pretty quickly and smartly turn this around.

Justification for whe?

MAGA wouldn't care either was and anyone else with a brain will realize it's a false equivalency.

Yeah what's good for the goose, etc., we've dispensed with norms a long time ago. Now we know why they orchestrated the whole inviting him to the White House thing, this was always the long play either way.

I teach AP Gov and my kids are working on an Amendment project. One of the groups is working on a pardon reform proposal. I worked with them through this, and suggested a 2/3 reversal from Congress similar to veto overrides. This means the pardon power would have to be delayed (like 30 days or something), but I think it has some merit.

It's just crazy dangerous now that the President is above the law. Being for reform or abolition of this should be a pretty easy position for Dems to take.

My kids are usually pretty stunned that this is a power without a formal check on it. And the main informal check (that it will hurt the party/politician later) just doesn't really work anymore. The Hunter Biden pardon will not be a topic in the 2026 midterms.

Still, I think abolition goes too far. There is a good reason for the pardon power to exist, but it definitely needs limitations.

For everyone other than MAGA, actually. That's the problem. They spent 8 years arguing against normalizing his behavior, and then when push comes to shove, they emulate his behavior.

Dems should impeach Biden.

This is a big opportunity if they have the stones to take it.

I agree, Biden can eat dicks. Terrible response to the ward, cost any chance of beating Trump and then this.

There are things he should be impeached over but the pardon is perfectly legal even if it is morally repugnant. A final fuck you to the country from him and all the liberals who supported him. Well done.

What a shithead. Way to further sully your legacy.

Wow, all the pearl clutching from the Karens.



Maybe if Hunter Biden had stormed the capitol to keep Trump in power, or maybe if he was related to the rich and powerful daughter of a president, or maybe if he was a homeless looking scumbag that defrauded his own supporters, or if he was a Russian plant (a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found Manafort’s role as Trump’s campaign chairman along with his ties to people affiliated with Russian intelligence services)....


The point is Trump has already destroyed all norms associated with pardons. For every Hunter Biden pardon there is 10 scumbags that trump pardoned and there will be 20 future scumbags that trump will pardon. Trump is installing scumbags as leaders of the FBI and CIA, who will do exactly what he said happened to him. Anyone with a brain knows that it's just a pathetic criminal playing the victim. You idiots keep falling for it.



You idiots keep electing a criminal. This criminal will destroy democracy for his own gain.

That's a bit extreme. Biden pardoning his son really isn't against "norms." I agree that he shouldn't have done it after claiming ge wouldn't, it is far from impeachable.

Stolen from Bluessky:

I just think it's smart politically and comes with no cost. It breaks from Biden and forces the GOP to fold on actually doing anything about corruption.

I don't expect Dems to do it, but this is the kind of hard ball they need to play procedurally.

Jimmy Carter pardoned Jefferson Davis which is so fucking weird.

Carter and Bush weren't running against an ex-President felon who made flaunting the rule of law and promising to pardon convicted felons a key campaign plank. And they didn't explicitly promise (to my knowledge or memory) not to pardon their relatives or make a major theme of their campaign that "no one is above the law."

Biden should have just released a video saying, "Fuck it, why try anymore? You voted for a felon who's pardoned people for money/loyalty and is going to pardon a bunch of criminals, so I'm taking care of my own while I can."

Well, Jefferson Davis was a cross-dresser, so that was just Uncle Jimmy being "woke."

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I know you were joking but I honestly think he should have done this. Democrats could do with a lot more plain talking.

Plus, over half the voting public is clearly OK with the president being above the law, so why the big fuss?

I mean Biden has been breaking the law repeatedly by giving weapons to Israel. His crimes are far worse than Trump's at this point.

Yep, I would have respected him more if he just came out and said this. Maybe added something to address the fact that he repeatedly said he wasn't going to pardon him.

"As far as the lies, well, I just rolled the dice that Harris would win because then she would have pardoned him for me."

Can't figure out how these fucking idiots lost.

This is horrifying news and a terrible loss for the business and health care community in Minnesota.

Minnesota is sending our prayers to Brian’s family and the UnitedHealthcare team. https://t.co/6lAL2lJXzn

— Governor Tim Walz (@GovTimWalz) December 4, 2024

That murder is interesting. The police disclosed that the shell casings had the words "deny," "defend" and "depose" on them. That suggests to me someone who had a claim dispute with UHC and probably ended up saddled with a huge medical bill or lost someone to whatever the health issue was. The wife said he had mentioned threats recently, although she didn't seem to know too much about them (which is either odd or she just wasn't going to provide that information to the public). But, she did mention "lack of coverage" which, now, would seem to fit the shell casing words as a motive.

I kinda assumed it was something like that when I heard about the shooting.

No idea how good the poll really is so take it FWIW. Couple nice graphics in link but too big to embed

Poll reveals whether any Taylor Swift fans backed Trump and MAGA's favorite bands | Daily Mail Online

Do you think Tim Walz should've posted something praising the murderer?

Personally I would be more concerned about the following:

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-c...onahan-2000237

UHC is the 10th largest employer in the state of Minnesota, and the 7th largest private employer.

It's also the industry with some of the largest taxpayer subsidies in the country. They aren't paying for those jobs, you are.

Strategically denying claims on treatment for children with autism. IDK where Brian Thompson is right now but it's definitely not in heaven sipping on a martini.

While all insurance companies have long denied claims for stupid and/or bureacratic reasons, UHC was the one that pioneered the idea of denying claims as part of a bigger cost-savings practice.

They did this specifically based on the knowledge of how many patients would give up after the first denial, second denial, etc.... In fact, for some treatments, it makes considerably more business sense (looking across all patients) to deny all the way to the point that a judge forces you to pay for the procedure, because the number of patients that will actually make it that far against UHC's bureaucracy, enforced arbitration, and armies of lawyers is miniscule.

I'm glad more people are learning about this, specifically that denying claims is a planned practice, not just bureacrats being idiots.

Not health insurance, but my mom is has been going through this for over a year dealing with car insurance. Someone hit her coming home from seeing family last Thanksgiving and did several thousand dollars in damage to the vehicle and both her and my step dad required some physical therapy as part of their recovery. Despite having a police statement identifying the other driver as the person at fault that person's insurance company kept saying it was 50/50 and denied claims. My mom had to get an attorney and it's just now wrapping up with them agreeing to cut the checks earlier this month. My mom's vehicle has been sitting at a shop since the accident waiting to be repaired. Most people aren't in a position to give up a vehicle for year and hire an attorney to get their money.

Not surprisingly, they dragged this out until a trial date was set before they accepted that she was at fault.

Does your mom not have collision on her policy?

I'd have to ask but I don't think so. I know she said she learned her lesson and changed her policy after this accident.

How about no.

Democrats eye Harris 2028 presidential run as they devise political comeback | Kamala Harris | The Guardian

This letter to the editor in The Guardian (UK) is in response to a columnist talking about what Labour should do, but I feel is applicable here in the discussion on how Harris lost the election:


Ironically, the Clinton-aligned consultant class that created the modern loser-iffic DNC that Rainmaker rails about (rightly) didn't learn what it was about Clinton (Bill) that won two elections, and specifically it was his focus on the above. "It's the economy, stupid" was, of course, a pithy unofficial slogan, but it was also a campaigning ethos that every subsequent Democratic POTUS candidate either forgot about (Gore, Kerry, Clinton), rose above and managed to win anyway, mainly on the back of a great GOTV operation (Obama), or won because people were tired of shenanigans (Biden).

The lesson of Bill Clinton isn't to follow a "third way", court moderates (or Cheneys), and talk all wonkish, it's to focus on pocketbook issues, stay away from identity politics, and be comfortable with the occasional promise that you know you probably can't deliver (i.e. lie).

Well, that's the electoral lesson, at least. Given the way that Clinton almost immediately cratered from a legislative perspective, and then treaded water for the rest of his two terms, there's clearly something to be learned about using your wins, or, as W put it "I've earned political capital, and now I'm going to spend it." Sadly, for an example of a Democratic President willing and able to do this, we have to go all the way back to LBJ, or just look at the Republicans, who've got this down to a science.

At its core, you're right. However, part of the problem is the double standard between dems and the GOP when it comes to voters. If dems do what the GOP does and just lie about lower prices and make vague promises then they get hammered for not having a detailed plan or policy. If they go into detail then they lose voters that just want to hear those promises plus those details tend to alienate either the moderate or the progressive wings of the party. The progressives will stay home and the moderates will vote GOP.

What dems are up against is a party that has voters that are going to vote for their guy no matter what while dems are trying to sell different things to different subsets of their party. Dems can improve messaging and policy all they want but until their voters are on the same page or close to it, they're not going to win elections unless the GOP really shits the bed.

*cough*

Teamsters union president says Kamala Harris told him, "I'm gonna win, with you or without you." pic.twitter.com/0Ajt4TrOTm

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) December 24, 2024

Wonder what he's going to say after MAGA crushes his union in the next four years?

Unions voted overwhelmingly in favor of Harris. Maybe turnout among members would have been higher if she acted like she cared about them.

But continue to be mad about your losing strategy.

You have zero clue what overwhelmingly means. I’m actually glad you are so fucking miserable on Christmas. Explains a lot of this thread.

55-43 is overwhelming in an American election to non-morons.

Ok. Assume those numbers are true, because there are also polls that showed it 53-45 and everything in between. Still changes my opinion not at all about that guys union. He has a responsibility to his people to advocate for their best workplace interests, but he neglected it because he didn’t feel like he was getting the attention he wanted from that side that is more union friendly. My opinion of him couldn’t be any lower.

He begged her to talk to him and union members to answer questions they had. She blew him off and told him she didn't need him to win. They still voted for her.

Maybe the anger should be with the loser candidate who ran a dumb campaign and not the people who voted for her.

Her campaign sucked. I really don’t know what you want us to say about it at this point but I’d take anything that prick saved to say on Tucker Carlson with a grain of salt because it proves my point exactly. I don’t know that any campaign would have altered the results. I hope you get what you want out of the next four years. Weren’t you basically a one issue voter? I hope Trump brings what you want him to Palestine. I have serious fucking doubts but maybe he can bring some hope and change to those people in a few months.

This is spot-on. What can you do in a democracy if you want to be a good-faith broker a large, politically active segment of the population has zero interest in honest truth seeking (both independently and as partners in democratic discourse)? Democracy demands more than just rights—there are certain fundamental duties incumbent on participants.

It is ironic that the Trump crowd includes so many that think mocking DEI is the apex of witty repartee; as seen with their mantra-like intonations of conversation-preempting sound bites to the “branded” apparel wardrobes, there is no greater example of identity politics than the MAGA hardliners.