So When Do REPUBS IMPEACH BIDEN?

The only issues that Republicans care about are culture war issues.

They have no actual governing policies.

 

Biden is sniffer deep in the swamp.

Four business partners, a vice president, and two assistants at Hunter Biden’s now-defunct firm visited the White House more than 80 times when his father was vice president in the Obama administration, Fox News Digital has found.

President Biden has repeatedly insisted he had no knowledge of Hunter's business dealings amid dual criminal and congressional investigations into the first son and his family.

However, Joan Mayer, who says she was the vice president of Hunter’s now-defunct investment firm Rosemont Seneca Advisors from 2008 to 2017 on Linkedin, made at least 17 visits to the White House during that time, according to visitor logs reviewed by Fox News Digital.

Hunter Biden's business partners, assistants visited White House over 80 times when Biden was VP | Fox News


A son of billionaire George Soros has quietly become a de-facto White House “ambassador,” making at least 14 visits there on behalf of the far-left kingmaker since President Joe Biden took office, records reviewed by The Post show.

Alexander Soros — a prolific Democratic fundraiser in his own right who likes to boast about his relationships with world leaders on social media — scored at least a dozen meetings with White House officials in 2022, according to recently updated White House visitor logs. Soros, 37, also participated in two other confabs there in late 2021, the records show.

George Soros' son has easy access to White House honchos (nypost.com)

 

Yes.... Soros has bought his way into a lot of the DA's.... I find his plot to take down any and all countries very disturbing. I question what his objective is..

 

First of all, if you were not aware of it, there was a very public, Republican debacle, during the President's State of the Union address, in which Pres. Biden alluded to actual plans, and actual comments, made by Republicans in the House & Senate, which would have the effect of putting Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block, at least every 5 years, in Senator Rick Scott's plan, and every single year, in Senator Ron Johnson's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/03/ron-johnson-medicare-social-security/

And Representative Mike Lee, of Utah, was videotaped at a fundraising event, saying
"It will be my objective to phase out Social Security; to pull it up, by the roots."



In fact, one wonders how much attention you have ever paid to politics, if you are unaware that this is a perennial hope of Republicans, to get rid of "entitlement" spending. I still think of it as fairly recently, when whiz kid Paul Ryan, had a plan to do just that. And not too far back, The George W. Bush Administration, had talked of privatizing Social Security. But don't expect me to fill you in, on your missing of the last quarter century or more of what's been going on, in Republican politics.

As a result of Biden's so skillfully playing the Republicans, during his nationally televised, prime time speech, the whole country got to see & hear Republicans standing & applauding to not cut those social programs. Though Speaker Kevin McCarthy could be seen behind the President, mouthing the word "no," when members of his caucus began to boo back at Biden's mention of Republican plans to "sunset" Social Security & Medicare, I believe that even he stood & applauded when President Biden got them all to agree to the idea of leaving those programs untouched. This, obviously, greatly weakened McCarthy's bargaining position, and forced him to change his demands, to Biden.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnew...-intensifies-deadline-looms/story?id=98288811

<Snip>
House Republicans are demanding significant spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling to avoid an unprecedented and economically catastrophic default. In his letter this week to Biden, McCarthy outlined several areas where federal spending could be reduced: lowering "excessive non-defense" spending to pre-inflation levels, reclaiming unspent COVID-19 funds and strengthening work requirements for social programs.

 

Your claim was that Senator Mcarthy issued a letter stating that "They were going to stop the government from raising our Debt Limit, without first exacting deep cuts in Social Security (as for cost of living increases, as well as towards creating a path to end it), and Medicare (and Medicaid)", and I asked you for the text of that letter so that we can evaluate how honestly you were conveying what was contained in that letter. You provided this long rambling response, and the closest that you came to providing that text is the short snippet below which in itself is yet another leftist characterization rather than providing the actual words. But even this snippet does not come anywhere near to what you claimed that it says even if your aource did add in the words "significant" to his suggestion of spending cuts to make it sound worse than his actual words. If we saw the actual text it is even further from your initial description or else you would have simply given the link to that letter that you referenced. With that being said, even what is below does not support your claim even remotely.

So you think that this is saying "exacting deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?"

Huh?

In the quest to see how honest you were being in your characterization of McCarthy's letter, I would say that we can rate your characterization as a BIG FAT LIE. Apparently, in your world, non defense spending automatically means deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

LOL...Fear monger much?

 

The comment you had asked about, was written 5 months ago, in early November, 2022. The Budget negotiations are only set to begin, now. That means, I was relating what the news was, about Republican future intentions. I also explained why, between November & today, the Republican House plan had been forced to change, because of circumstances arising during February's State of the Union address. Even an idiot should be able to understand that no one can guarantee someone else's future actions. IOW, I believe you are the only one who would judge me as being dishonest, because McCarthy's plans changed.

I could give you a ton of links to articles focused upon the difficulty the House Republicans have had, trying to find some Budget consensus, among themselves. That is part of the appeal of the "easy" fix, to finding Budget cuts, the GOP sees no down side with, in just saying, "cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security." These are huge expenditures, that the GOP would not have to worry about any of the particulars, of how the cuts would be achieved-- all they would need do, is toss out a number. Then, when people complained about the result, they would point to Biden's Administration, as the ones who'd decided how to "cut the fat."

If you have not been able to follow the simple description, which I just here abridged from my last post, I am not going to waste my effort, to indulge your facade of wanting an honest debate. As I had initially, I will again encourage you to learn something about the political storylines in between November & today. The facts I am relating to you are well known, at this point. It is not my responsibility, to make you aware of common knowledge. Still, I might be willing, if you did not clearly have no interest in learning any new information, demonstrated by your ignoring, in your reply, most of the references I already provided you, in my last post.

So we are done. Do your little dance, or whatever, and announce yourself as victorious, as if that means anything. I've got better things to do.

 

LOL...You know darned well that you were called out on your claim, and when called, the facts did not and could not deliver what you promised. Spin is one thing, but you took spin so far over the line that it went clearly into the dishonest category.



Rather than owning up to the undeniable reality of this conversation, you have instead opted to give the above long and rambling reply, presumably in an attempt to throw around enough sand so that no one can see.

Since all of this supports my original comments, it is worth repeating them...

"This is a country of over 300 million people. One can find instances of people saying darned near darn near everything from that large number. The things that you cite, while undoubtedly uttered by some, were nowhere near being mainstream or taken seriously as an impending future direction.

Only a fool would have heard these outlier positions and believe they were going to happen. It looks like you are one of them, unless of course you are not being truthful about believing they were going to happen, in which case you would be a liar.

Which is it?


P.S. Intelligent, honest people understand that a vote for split government is a vote for gridlock, and control of the committees in whichever chamber is won. That about sums it up."

 

They ran on MANY issues
Abortion rights
Improving economy
Climate Change
Economic disparity

But "Save our Democracy" probably is the most important one. Fail in that one and the rest of them don't matter.

 

True and for good reason. Social spending has two problems with being done by federal government. The first is that the 10th amendment sends all of it to the states. The second is that social spending flies in the face of the concept of equality. We want government to treat everyone the same while the left wants to have some people benefit at cost of other people which is the opposite of equality.

And he is right. It has no business being in federal government. If we want a government retirement benefit then we need to put it in the states.

More important than paying attention to politics is paying attention to the law and the concepts around which the nation was founded. Politics is humanity at its worst. At least the law attempts to remove some of the chaos it causes.

 

Right. Government cannot be about wealth redistribution.

 

You'll have to prove that Biden got favors requested and granted. Otherwise, the public is allowed to visit the white house.

You don't indict without direct evidence. 'Suggest' "looks like' or 'looks bad' doesn't cut it.


Besides, the article offered no proof of it's claims.

 

So the super rich bombard washington with lobbyists to create legislation, gain favors, game the system to their advantage, etc., that gives them unfair advantages, concentrating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands, at the expense of everyone else, and you have a problem if a Democratic administration seeks to correct these wrongs.

Such as:

1. Lobbying Efforts: Some wealthy individuals and corporations have been known to employ lobbyists to influence legislation in their favor. This might include pushing for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich or regulations that favor specific industries.
   
   
2. Tax Avoidance: By taking advantage of legal loopholes, international tax havens, and complex financial structures, some wealthy individuals and corporations are able to minimize or even avoid taxes in ways that are not accessible to average citizens. This has been a point of controversy in many countries.
   
   
3. Campaign Contributions: Wealthy donors can have a significant influence on political campaigns. In some jurisdictions, there are few restrictions on the amount of money that can be donated to political candidates or causes, allowing wealthy individuals to potentially exert disproportionate influence over political outcomes.
   
   
4. Regulatory Capture: This is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Wealthy individuals or corporations might have a hand in this through close relationships with regulators.
   
   
5. Revolving Door Phenomenon: In some cases, individuals move between roles as legislators or regulators and positions in the industries they were formerly responsible for overseeing. This can create potential conflicts of interest and foster relationships that may unduly favor particular businesses or individuals.
   
   
6. Access and Influence: Wealth can provide access to influential politicians and decision-makers that are simply not available to the average citizen. This might include private meetings, event invitations, or other avenues where ideas can be exchanged, and interests can be promoted.
   
   
7. Bailouts and Subsidies: Some argue that government bailouts and subsidies have at times disproportionately favored large corporations or industries where wealthy individuals have significant investments, rather than focusing on broader public interest or small businesses.
   

To name a few.

See, it all depends on how you frame your argument, and yours doesn't actually reflect the real world.

 

You're obviously not afraid to contradict yourself. If you want to treat everyone the same, then it must be a federal retirement benefit.

 

Florida Republican files articles of impeachment against Biden



4 counts

1. Bribery
2. Extortion
3. Obstruction of justice
4. Fraud Financial involvement in drugs & prostitution

BRIBES/EXTORTION: Biden 'abused the power of his office, accepted bribes, committed Hobbs Act extortion and honest services fraud related to the use of his position.'

OBSTRUCTION: 'cites IRS whistleblower testimony that “members of the Biden campaign improperly colluded with Justice Department (DOJ) officials to improperly interfere with investigations into tax crimes alleged to have been committed by Hunter Biden.”'

Steube’s bill – the “Helping Understand Narcotics Traces at the Executive Residence (HUNTER) Act.”

'My legislation demands information on the closed investigation into the cocaine found at the White House in July and focuses on how Congress can provide oversight to prevent future illicit usage of controlled substances in the White House.”'

 

the above must be a joke..

for 10 years the Clintons were in the news DAILY

it started because Hillary bought into a real estate development in Arkansas named Whitewater,,

she sold it and made BIG bucks

the investigation finally concluded when ole slick willie was found to be getting hummers in the oval office

then he made the biggest sin possible...He lied about getting the shiners

then one of Hillarys staff ate a bullet,,then she was rumored to have had the guy killed when it was an obvious suicide

then Obama spanked Hillary in 2008..she was not in the news so much because Obama took the main stage

then for 4 years it was ben gazi ben gazi ben gazi....the GOP did NOTHING except cry and make silly accusations, but never made any formal charges ...

then it was emails emails emails ..for an entire election cycle we were forced to hear about her damn emails

then trump spanked her in 2016 and for the next 4 years all trump did was talk about crooked Hillary

and despite 2 years of the GOP having control of all 3 branches of government..

the GOP never even pressed charges against Hillary much less lock her up..

the democrats are getting ole T-rump indicted ..

I would bet, secretly, many chicken $hit republicans are glad he is being charged

 

What? I want government to treat people the same. I also want federal government out of social spending.I didn't say all states have to have the same laws.

 

Federal Government IS Government.

If you rely on a mish mash of state laws then ALL people will not be treated the same.

 

LOL: according to you, it is against "the law," to have Social Security or Medicare, as part of the federal government's purview. Pray tell, how has this escaped the attention of enough people, so that first, it slipped past the Congress, and became part of the federal system, and has-- for almost a century, in the case of S.S., and for better than half a century, with Medicare-- remained the law, and not faced the reproval of our Supreme Court? Oh wait-- that's right-- I'd forgotten that you know better than everyone else (or so, you believe).

To be clear, I have not personally studied the Constitutionality of this question. I am trusting, over a long term basis, our Supreme Court and our Congress, over your personal word (no offense). Now, maybe you have a point; but to make an assertion which "flies in the face" of the policies that have been widely accepted for so long, you seem to not realize, requires of the claimant, to put forth not just a well reasoned case, but one that is well supported, with documentary evidence-- if one expects to be taken seriously, that is.

All that you have offered, in defense of your paradigm-reversing argument, is "the tenth Amendment," and the concept of "equality." Since it was apparently too much trouble for you, the person who is actually making the argument-- as half-assed, as an effort that is-- to quote the Amendment you reference, I will do it for you.

<Snip>

Tenth Amendment Rights Reserved to the States and the People

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
<End>

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-10/#:~:text=Tenth Amendment Rights Reserved to,respectively, or to the

LMFAO: you feel that no further explanation, there, is necessary.

Since it is not as obvious to you, as I think it is to virtually anyone else: when these programs were debated and created, they were found to fall under those powers delegated, by the Constitution, to the United States federal government. So, as this is turning into a remedial class in presenting an argument, I will tell you that it should be understood, by any credible debater, that your case would require you to cite the principle in the Constitution which had been, and has since been, used to justify these programs, and then debunk that reasoning. It is not incumbent upon those *accepting what our "laws" have all accepted as being proper, to defend that tradition, without the challenger of those laws (you), first making an actual case.

So for the record, in case you feel strongly enough, to put forth a real argument, here is your position, as best as I can make out:

1) The 10th Amendment gives jurisdiction of all social welfare programs to the states, because there is no Constitutional basis for this authority, of the federal government.

My counter argument: in the very Preamble, the Constitution names promoting the general welfare, as one of the federal goverent's purposes. So much for the 10th.


2) Equality is & was a primary goal of our American government.

Counter argument: Of course, you have not supported your assertion. But even granting, for the sake of argument, that this is correct:
A) that Social Security is anti-equality, is not manifestly true-- so you would need explain that;
B) it is very easy to consider that enabling all people, regardless of their income level or health conditions, to be able to access reasonable healthcare services, which they can afford, defines "equality."

So it seems-- again, from your deficiently explained reply-- that you are merely presenting a different interpretation, of the concept of "equality," than that which is generally held. You apparently have an Ayn Rand, survival of the fittest, sort of philosophy. There is a reason, however, that Libertarianism isn't the country's top political Party, and never has been.

 

I would bet the same thing.

Best of both worlds for them. They get to continue to suck up to the base while claiming the charges are baseless but they still get what they want when Trump goes on trial.

The only problem is that there are those of us who are going to remember who called the charges baseless.

 

Yup no question that I disagree 100% with you. Your counter argument is the opposite of what the founders had in mind when they wrote the bill of rights. The reason is the government's need for power and control and the voters' need to accept handouts against the better interests of the nation to keep government away from that. All social spending in federal government is unconstitutional but has been ignored since the great depression and has grown into a monster.

I am a lone voice in the woods. I understand that. But I trust you are young enough that you will experience the fall of the nation at the hands of its government. Perhaps you will remember me then.

 

That depends on what the states do. They can also treat people equally with their laws if they are smart enough to do it. The plus side is that the states have competition from other states and competition breeds efficiency and innovation. Federal government has no competition. It shows. Enjoy it. It is temporary.

 

I agree with most of this. As they say "talk is cheap." Politicians know this because they practice it constantly. Action is hard so they avoid that whenever possible. I would guess that about 1/2 the republicans are happy about the indictments and the other half are not. For me working to keep him out of office is a good thing. But using political prosecutions to do it is not a good thing.

 

Its very much their intention, and they have already filed the paperwork several times

 

According to you.

You still unable, or unwilling, to supply an argument, to go along with your assertions?

A prognosticator of doom, is all you are. According to one of your brethren, @doombug, we should currently be in the throes of a national economic depression. As he has done, you are trying to give your ideas a patina of credibility, by falling back on the "you just wait," technique, employed by soothsayers, everywhere-- in lieu of a rational argument.

 

trump is NOT being politically prosecuted,,trump is not in office and technically holds no political power

trump is being CRIMINALLY prosecuted because of his crimes

if trump were president none of this would be happening

there are 2 paths for trump

1. the presidency
2. the prison system