Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
56,274
64,825
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
There is a video of Biden bragging about having the investigation into the company his son was associated with being stomped.

One of the guys on the emails confirmed that when they spoke of holding over a cut for the big guy they were talking about Joe Biden.

All of that is what I expect of politicans.

There's an argument to be made that the space of mattress between the Pelosis at night has traded some of the most useful insider trading information of all time.

But again, doesn't really matter.
 

wayToGo_

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 24, 2015
15,256
48,164
AFL Club
Fremantle
There is a video of Biden bragging about having the investigation into the company his son was associated with being stomped.
The actions against Ukraine by Biden were in alignment with US foreign policy and that of its allies at the time. Claiming that it was about his son is considerably misleading. The Ukrainian prosecutor had nothing at all against Hunter Biden regarding Burisma, so Joe Biden taking action against Ukraine wasn't of any benefit to Hunter - if anything, it was to his detriment. Trump-appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, George Kent testified Biden was just carrying out official US government policy.

Meanwhile t***p's strong-arming of Ukraine was very different. It wasn't in alignment with US foreign policy and withholding aid was firmly against what the various Federal departments had recommended. It was very clearly motivated solely by self interest - the definition of corruption.

Again, I'm not a fan of Joe Biden and definitely not of Hunter Biden but there is a lot of manipulating of stories out there to try and make it seem like they are no better than t***p and family. But they are chalk and cheese comparatively. And the media landscape is a bit the same. CNN/MSNBC/BBC/etc are flawed like any media network but at least they aren't built on a foundation of lies like Fox. How anyone of sound mind can have a read of some of the court transcripts involving key people at Fox and still believe absolutely anything they say bewilders me? I don't like the fighting fire with fire as a strategy but when Murdoch's media empire is so influential what's the alternative to combat the web of lies?

One of the guys on the emails confirmed that when they spoke of holding over a cut for the big guy they were talking about Joe Biden.
Tony Bobulinski's claims about Joe Biden being involved due to a vague email yet to be verified as legitimate by anyone are about as credible as Sidney Powell and her Dominion claims. Tony sent a bunch of recordings/emails/messages/etc to Fox News and the WSJ saying it proved Joe Biden's involvement, and they reported that nothing they received implicated Joe Biden at all. If Fox News aren't willing to take a chance to bury Biden it is a pretty clear sign the claims are BS.

There's an argument to be made that the space of mattress between the Pelosis at night has traded some of the most useful insider trading information of all time.
No. Pelosi's husband's options would have expired, he had to exercise them. If he didn't, his broker would have. Nothing changed at the time - there was no inside word that could be relevant. It's like withdrawing money from your bank and people claiming you've done something illegal.
 

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
56,274
64,825
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
No. Pelosi's husband's options would have expired, he had to exercise them. If he didn't, his broker would have. Nothing changed at the time - there was no inside word that could be relevant. It's like withdrawing money from your bank and people claiming you've done something illegal.
Which particular time were we talking about?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

wayToGo_

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 24, 2015
15,256
48,164
AFL Club
Fremantle
You were very specific, so I'm curious which example you were talking about.
Because I like talking specifics because that is where facts, not vague conspiracies are found. I assumed you were talking about the most recent claim, not something that isn't from this year?

Maybe you mean the claim she made money off Coronavirus? Which has also been debunked. Or further back to investing in Tesla whilst a new environmental policy was being pushed through? That one is certainly vague enough to create doubt so would be a good choice for conspiracy theorists - "Maybe she did do something wrong? We can't prove it but neither can you prove she didn't!".

I'm really not interested in delving into a long discussion about Pelosi though. I think there are regular instances of conflict of interest on both sides and I think they need to tighten up to avoid them happening as often. But it shouldn't distract from much more severe cases of corruption that we saw during the last Presidency. And that's the Murdoch strategy in a nutshell - distract distract distract and create doubt so everyone is seen as equally bad.
 

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
56,274
64,825
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Because I like talking specifics because that is where facts, not vague conspiracies are found. I assumed you were talking about the most recent claim, not something that isn't from this year?

Maybe you mean the claim she made money off Coronavirus? Which has also been debunked. Or further back to investing in Tesla whilst a new environmental policy was being pushed through? That one is certainly vague enough to create doubt so would be a good choice for conspiracy theorists - "Maybe she did do something wrong? We can't prove it but neither can you prove she didn't!".

I'm really not interested in delving into a long discussion about Pelosi though. I think there are regular instances of conflict of interest on both sides and I think they need to tighten up to avoid them happening as often. But it shouldn't distract from much more severe cases of corruption that we saw during the last Presidency. And that's the Murdoch strategy in a nutshell - distract distract distract and create doubt so everyone is seen as equally bad.
I was referring to the possible conflict of interest that her husband running a managed fund while she is in a position of influence and has access to sensitive information. We agree that politicians should be held to a higher standard.

I'm also big into politicians being investigated for deals made in service of the people that award contracts to companies that send profits to the family of the politicians. Also when politicians are briefed with sensitive information then dump their investments before covid.

That's all of them. I said elsewhere that I think all communication should be monitored to and from politicians, no private at all given then position they hold.

It's so bizarre how everyone can see how many millions special interest groups contribute to political campaigns and how politicians leave their positions as millionaires, sometimes into lobby positions themselves and we don't ask questions. Or enough questions.
 

oldgoat

Debutant
May 22, 2017
141
180
fremantle
AFL Club
Fremantle
I was referring to the possible conflict of interest that her husband running a managed fund while she is in a position of influence and has access to sensitive information. We agree that politicians should be held to a higher standard.

I'm also big into politicians being investigated for deals made in service of the people that award contracts to companies that send profits to the family of the politicians. Also when politicians are briefed with sensitive information then dump their investments before covid.

That's all of them. I said elsewhere that I think all communication should be monitored to and from politicians, no private at all given then position they hold.

It's so bizarre how everyone can see how many millions special interest groups contribute to political campaigns and how politicians leave their positions as millionaires, sometimes into lobby positions themselves and we don't ask questions. Or enough questions.
I cant wait to see Gladys's and Christian's next career moves!
Should be a position in Corrective Services, but it ont be and it will be lucrative!
 

stax on the mull

Premiership Player
Dec 26, 2010
3,728
5,029
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Matildas
They have repeatedly defended their platform legal suits by claiming they are a platform and not a publisher, therefore they are not responsible for what is on the platform. Then they don't want the election to swing against Biden so they turn publisher when it suits them. Be one or the other.

They did go to another platform... then Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Amazon all joined forces to lock them out of the entire internet when they were the most downloaded app in america....

Finally, more of the story has been proven correct than incorrect. We know that it is at least mostly true as the NY Times had to edit a claim they made that the story was 'unsubstantiated'.

Given then that he sold info to China, Sold access to his Dad for massive $$ when Biden was the VP and more... how do you feel about Biden now?

MSM = CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NY Times, Washington Post, Forbes, and then Twitter itself who allowed people to say it was false in massive numbers...


My difficulty with believing the laptop story relates mostly to the claims by Giuliani. i.e. How he obtained the hard drive, how long he had it, what he claims were in the hard drive, how many hard drives there were, when he gave them to the FBI, whether they refused to take all the information he had - he's spouted so much contradictory crap about it that it shrouds anything related to what is being claimed at the moment. I also find it hard to believe the contrary claim that its part of a Russian attempt to release damaging information about Biden's son.

But also what you claim is proof is really one partisan media organization with dubious ethics accusing against another to claim that the other acted without ethics.

Propagandists know that the most believable lies are the ones with a small kernel of truth.
 

Reynolds Number

Premiership Player
Apr 29, 2016
3,587
4,594
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Stoke City, Dortmund, San José, As
"If you question man made climate change, you are not a sceptic": Well, it depends, if you don't think it's real you clearly are a skeptic (for man made climate change).

"If you support stronger borders you are not a racist": Well he is quite right on this one.

"If you support free speech you are not a bigot", "If you love your country you are not an extremist": No evidence of seeing claims like that from anyone (may exist among a few extreme idiots).
 

poshman

Club Legend
Oct 13, 2006
2,946
3,400
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
CFC, San Antonio Spurs
I still can't see anything resembling proof of corruption that implicates Joe Biden directly? Both articles are about the media being biased - and refusing to run the story and/or to discredit it. I'd imagine that's a daily occurrence at almost every media outlet. There are literally thousands of credible stories about t***p, his family and republicans that Fox News never ran and plenty they manipulated to discredit what other news agencies were reporting. Murdoch created the media landscape of lies and manipulation - why should we be outraged (or surprised) when the other side start using the same tactics?

As for Hunter using his father's standing to make money, that would not shock me at all. How many kids do you know that got their first job because of their dads? Have you been following Colin Barnett's son in the news? Do you think he might have used his father's standing similarly back in the day? Nepotism makes me cringe but unless Joe Biden offered something as VP in return is it really that important a story?

Like I said way way back in this thread if there is proof of corruption then let charges be laid. If Hunter has done something illegal, as a citizen, then let the legal system do its thing. Meanwhile we do have proof of corruption by t***p and his family members both domestically and involving foreign powers and somehow none of them are in an orange jumpsuit yet? Do you think there is a single article about t***p's many thousands of conflicts of interest whilst he was President? But they provide opinions not news according to their lawyers so that makes it ok doesn't it?
Where is the proof of Trump and his kid with corruption?

Haven't seen anything about Barnett's son. It is cringy - my point is that we know the Hunter is now selling art for $500k a pop... you don't think that is suspicious? Or the fact they won't let us know who the buyers are...
 

poshman

Club Legend
Oct 13, 2006
2,946
3,400
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
CFC, San Antonio Spurs
My difficulty with believing the laptop story relates mostly to the claims by Giuliani. i.e. How he obtained the hard drive, how long he had it, what he claims were in the hard drive, how many hard drives there were, when he gave them to the FBI, whether they refused to take all the information he had - he's spouted so much contradictory crap about it that it shrouds anything related to what is being claimed at the moment. I also find it hard to believe the contrary claim that its part of a Russian attempt to release damaging information about Biden's son.

But also what you claim is proof is really one partisan media organization with dubious ethics accusing against another to claim that the other acted without ethics.

Propagandists know that the most believable lies are the ones with a small kernel of truth.
Have you looked through Greenwalds article? Look at what Matt Taiibi (spelling?) has to say?
 

poshman

Club Legend
Oct 13, 2006
2,946
3,400
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
CFC, San Antonio Spurs
I still can't see anything resembling proof of corruption that implicates Joe Biden directly? Both articles are about the media being biased - and refusing to run the story and/or to discredit it. I'd imagine that's a daily occurrence at almost every media outlet. There are literally thousands of credible stories about t***p, his family and republicans that Fox News never ran and plenty they manipulated to discredit what other news agencies were reporting. Murdoch created the media landscape of lies and manipulation - why should we be outraged (or surprised) when the other side start using the same tactics?

As for Hunter using his father's standing to make money, that would not shock me at all. How many kids do you know that got their first job because of their dads? Have you been following Colin Barnett's son in the news? Do you think he might have used his father's standing similarly back in the day? Nepotism makes me cringe but unless Joe Biden offered something as VP in return is it really that important a story?

Like I said way way back in this thread if there is proof of corruption then let charges be laid. If Hunter has done something illegal, as a citizen, then let the legal system do its thing. Meanwhile we do have proof of corruption by t***p and his family members both domestically and involving foreign powers and somehow none of them are in an orange jumpsuit yet? Do you think there is a single article about t***p's many thousands of conflicts of interest whilst he was President? But they provide opinions not news according to their lawyers so that makes it ok doesn't it?
"From the beginning the evidence was overwhelming"

was a statement regarding the fact it was Hunters laptop and that he had sold influence to other countries. The emails were verified and a witness came forward.

What else are you looking for?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

wayToGo_

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 24, 2015
15,256
48,164
AFL Club
Fremantle
"From the beginning the evidence was overwhelming"

was a statement regarding the fact it was Hunters laptop and that he had sold influence to other countries. The emails were verified and a witness came forward.

What else are you looking for?
Perhaps actual evidence rather than a statement that apparently evidence exists somewhere? And specifically I would like some proof that Joe Biden had a role in it. I really don't give a sh*t about Hunter. Hunter wasn't running for President. If Joe Biden is implicated as the original story claimed then prove it and I will 100% agree it should have been a big story in the lead up to the election.

Where is the proof of Trump and his kid with corruption?
Um... the Articles of Impeachment for starters. As for the kids there was endless conflicts of interest and evidence of probable corruption as well. The sale of Ivanka's penthouse for well above market rate to someone strongly linked to Chinese government officials. The breaking of anti-nepotism laws in employing Ivanka and Jared at the White House in the first place. China approving several trademarks for Ivanka's fashion label. Numerous property and real estate deals enabled through their influence from the White House. There is honestly so much that I'm fairly certain I only know a small sample. It'd be far faster to find anything that happened during their time that wasn't a conflict of interest or corrupt.
 

Bigger

All Australian
Nov 9, 2001
928
2,339
East Fremantle
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fremantle
As to Jesus being a Socialist... there is nothing in the Bible that points to socialism.
Apart from that whole Acts 2:44-45 thing.

The Fellowship of the Believers
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common.
45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.


Say what now?
 

poshman

Club Legend
Oct 13, 2006
2,946
3,400
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
CFC, San Antonio Spurs
Apart from that whole Acts 2:44-45 thing.

The Fellowship of the Believers
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common.
45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.


Say what now?
This is even more proof of what I have said. thank you.

Were they forced to give by a government or did they give of their own charitable intent?

The two are very different and significantly different discussions.
 

Bicco

Premiership Player
Jun 23, 2013
4,316
6,242
Hobart
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Fremantle, Socceroos
I am not sure how many Evangelicals (as there are not many in Australia - in Australia (and correct me someone as this is murky for me) they are pentecostal and part of a broad group of churches in 'Australian Christian Churches - all are autonomous within the group not like the Catholic church' and from what I have been able to find there are pentecostal churches outside ACC. There are independents and some that are called C3 - no idea what that stands for...

From what I am looking at in the states and some comments here Christian friends of mine (call themselves - Catholic and some traditional or reformed - no idea what reformed is) criticise larger evangelical pastors and mega church pastors for moving away from the bible and being very left leaning.

I googled 'do republicans give as much charity as democrats' and these articles are on the first page:



It doesn't seem to indicate a greed or lack of care for those in need.

I will also state from personal experience when I have sought out people to give to hospitals. orphanages or other programs, I have gotten a better response from religious people (Jewish, Chrisitan, Catholic, Mormon, Scientology) than I have from non religious people. Some non religious people were extremely generous, but in my case not as many. That is anecdotal - so doesn't mean much, but is my experience.

I will also say how shocked on a few occasions I have been that friends of mine are going to countries for a holiday and when I ask what they are doing they are visiting children they have sponsored for years. Many of whom sponsored them at $40 per month (sometimes more) when they were earning less than $60k per year as a household. What I am saying is that I don't buy the religious people aren't generous argument.
You've focused more on the 'generosity' side of my post and that's fine. I'll address the links you've posted. But there's so much more.
To answer your evangelical question, an organisation such as 'Hillsong' is absolutely considered evangelical.
So how do Cristians balance the teachings of Jesus to 'love everyone' while at the same time support such draconian and inhumane policies such as off shore processing? Morrison being the chief policy designer and protagonist. It's such a clear and obvious contradiction to the teaching of Jesus as to be almost laughable if it's real world consequences weren't so devastating for the individual.
I'm going to pretend that you didn't write 'there's no mention of Jesus being a socialist in the bible' because you're smarter than that or being deliberately obtuse.
So to 'generosity'. The 1st article is wonderfully vague. The fundamental questions are who is giving what to whom.
The article addresses who (sort of) and very interestingly the top 10% of wealthiest Americans are referenced. $ for $, absolutely they should be more generous. To understand why is to understand the revolting scale of wealth the top 10% have.
The top 10% of wealth in America holds 70% of the wealth, the top 1% half of that (approx. 32% of the wealth in the US). The top 400 wealthiest people in the US hold a combined $3.7 trillion dollars, nearly x3 the Australian GDP. But what does this wealth mean in relation to your link?
If the top 10% weren't more generous on a $ for $ basis I would be horrified. Putting into context the wealth of the top 10%, if a 'normal ' person on $100k p/a was to donate 1% of their income to charity that is simply $1000p/a or approx. $20 per week. If a person with 1 billion was to donate on an equal percentage, they would be giving $10 million p/a or approx. $200k per week. Of course the top 10% give the most $$'s, but that's not to say they're more generous on a % of income, but saying that that should be on that metric also because they clearly have so much more expendable income than a 'normal' person. This is why Biden is calling out the fact that the wealthiest Americans only pay 8% income tax and the idea of individuals deciding where their money goes just doesn't work on any kind of medium to large scale.
Let's get onto the 'whom'
So why is it the 'Red' states are so against any kind of social policy? Let's pick Medicaid. Your opinion is that the individual wants low taxes so they, as an individual, can choose where there $$ go. Well they sure as he'll aren't going to improving medical outcomes for low income individuals. The Red states are lowest in practically every metric available to measure life quality outcomes. So who is getting all of this donated money? Maybe more importantly, what defines a charitable organisation? A political party perhaps? Church? Alumni for a major university?
So given the fact that conservative Christian states in America are all at the bottom of national health, education and social outcomes, how do Christians reconcile with this fact? What would Jesus do? Would he tell the lepers to pull themselves up by their boot straps? Tell the Meek to get a better job?
On a large social scale, there is just no evidence the Christian Right uphold any of the virtues and teachings as laid out in the bible. Infact it would fair to say they openly oppose and contradict them.
Personally I don't try to change THE world, I try to change MY world. I volunteer in some local organisations and donate a small amount of money to organisations I see as worthy. But I don't pretend for a second that can change homelessness for example. This is an issue for the state. Maybe if I was a billionaire and could afford to build new house every week I could, but the problem must be addressed by a government that is compassionate to the problem and understanding enough to solve. So why are the Christian Right so against government mandated social equality? The new Premier of NSW believes that social welfare is 'acting as a substitute for family values '
Why won't the Conservative Christian Right practice what they preach?
 

poshman

Club Legend
Oct 13, 2006
2,946
3,400
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
CFC, San Antonio Spurs
You've focused more on the 'generosity' side of my post and that's fine. I'll address the links you've posted. But there's so much more.
To answer your evangelical question, an organisation such as 'Hillsong' is absolutely considered evangelical.
So how do Cristians balance the teachings of Jesus to 'love everyone' while at the same time support such draconian and inhumane policies such as off shore processing? Morrison being the chief policy designer and protagonist. It's such a clear and obvious contradiction to the teaching of Jesus as to be almost laughable if it's real world consequences weren't so devastating for the individual.
I'm going to pretend that you didn't write 'there's no mention of Jesus being a socialist in the bible' because you're smarter than that or being deliberately obtuse.
So to 'generosity'. The 1st article is wonderfully vague. The fundamental questions are who is giving what to whom.
The article addresses who (sort of) and very interestingly the top 10% of wealthiest Americans are referenced. $ for $, absolutely they should be more generous. To understand why is to understand the revolting scale of wealth the top 10% have.
The top 10% of wealth in America holds 70% of the wealth, the top 1% half of that (approx. 32% of the wealth in the US). The top 400 wealthiest people in the US hold a combined $3.7 trillion dollars, nearly x3 the Australian GDP. But what does this wealth mean in relation to your link?
If the top 10% weren't more generous on a $ for $ basis I would be horrified. Putting into context the wealth of the top 10%, if a 'normal ' person on $100k p/a was to donate 1% of their income to charity that is simply $1000p/a or approx. $20 per week. If a person with 1 billion was to donate on an equal percentage, they would be giving $10 million p/a or approx. $200k per week. Of course the top 10% give the most $$'s, but that's not to say they're more generous on a % of income, but saying that that should be on that metric also because they clearly have so much more expendable income than a 'normal' person. This is why Biden is calling out the fact that the wealthiest Americans only pay 8% income tax and the idea of individuals deciding where their money goes just doesn't work on any kind of medium to large scale.
Let's get onto the 'whom'
So why is it the 'Red' states are so against any kind of social policy? Let's pick Medicaid. Your opinion is that the individual wants low taxes so they, as an individual, can choose where there $$ go. Well they sure as he'll aren't going to improving medical outcomes for low income individuals. The Red states are lowest in practically every metric available to measure life quality outcomes. So who is getting all of this donated money? Maybe more importantly, what defines a charitable organisation? A political party perhaps? Church? Alumni for a major university?
So given the fact that conservative Christian states in America are all at the bottom of national health, education and social outcomes, how do Christians reconcile with this fact? What would Jesus do? Would he tell the lepers to pull themselves up by their boot straps? Tell the Meek to get a better job?
On a large social scale, there is just no evidence the Christian Right uphold any of the virtues and teachings as laid out in the bible. Infact it would fair to say they openly oppose and contradict them.
Personally I don't try to change THE world, I try to change MY world. I volunteer in some local organisations and donate a small amount of money to organisations I see as worthy. But I don't pretend for a second that can change homelessness for example. This is an issue for the state. Maybe if I was a billionaire and could afford to build new house every week I could, but the problem must be addressed by a government that is compassionate to the problem and understanding enough to solve. So why are the Christian Right so against government mandated social equality? The new Premier of NSW believes that social welfare is 'acting as a substitute for family values '
Why won't the Conservative Christian Right practice what they preach?
Hillsong - quick google search. Was part of the AOG (assemblies of God) - Pentecostal. That became something called Australian Christian Churches. Also Pentecostal. And now they are an independent group of churches. No mention that they are part of the evangelical group of churches in Australia or the US. There are AOG churches in the states also.

what is your definition of equality? Let alone Government mandated social equality? Define it please.

provide a reference that Jesus is a socialist. I just asked a PHD in biblical studies and he said there was no such thing.

I think we can get through those points first and then go through your others.
 

Bicco

Premiership Player
Jun 23, 2013
4,316
6,242
Hobart
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Fremantle, Socceroos
Hillsong - quick google search. Was part of the AOG (assemblies of God) - Pentecostal. That became something called Australian Christian Churches. Also Pentecostal. And now they are an independent group of churches. No mention that they are part of the evangelical group of churches in Australia or the
Couldn't be bothered reading past the 1st paragraph of the Wikipedia page?
Hillsong was formerly affiliated with Australian Christian Churches (the Assemblies of God in Australia), part of Pentecostal Christianity. The church's beliefs are Evangelical and Pentecostal.[30]
what is your definition of equality? Let alone Government mandated social equality? Define it please.
Can't believe I have to define equality, I thought I was going to have an intelligent conversation. But here goes.
My definition of equality is that all people are treated equally.
Government mandated social equality means government policies that provide equal access for all citizens to a range of fundamentally important services such as healthcare and education. They would also provide assistance to all citizens to live their life to an acceptable minimum standard. Examples of this would be earning a minimum wage that reflects the cost of living, Access to childcare and financial assistance for low income families.
provide a reference that Jesus is a socialist. I just asked a PHD in biblical studies and he said there was no such thing.
Of course there's no biblical reference that Jesus is a socialist. Don't be so ridiculous. However his actions and teachings are very socialistic.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad