Spoiled brat

PART TWO RESPONSE

Yes, quite likely, but that is not-the-point! The point is "daddy" was thinking aloud at the time of being a candidate for the presidency! Why is it that you cannot imagine this was the very reason why Donald Dork wanted to get info regarding the son's role! To use it against Biden!

Frankly, that Biden should help his son find a job is Biden-the-father's business. But, one cannot have it both ways. Playing politics AND helping sonny! That is the sort of PATRONAGE that should be made illegal in the US given that it has been around for thousands of years and never ever works well! Except to make the wrong-people very rich! Thus, people who do not deserve the job get the job!

Either you are a candidate for office or you are retired and happen to know a lot of people who might be interested in hiring your child. They are separate entities and also morally distinguishable!

No, a candidate for public-office can't have it BOTH WAYS - political-office and furthering their child's personal career. (It is far too easy for the child to obtain "services payments" that in fact belong to "daddy".)

Thus, meaning what? Meaning this - we need a Very Comprehensive law that outlines what elected officials cannot do that are beyond their "remit" (and therefore illegal) - which is defined thusly:

 

What memo? There was a vote of the Senate not-to-"impeach" him. Despite his indictment by the HofR.

To impeach him meant automatic destitution from governing and the Vice PotUS takes his place ...

 

It is obvious that you have not the slightest idea of how impeachment works.

The HofR votes to impeach, yes. But first it must make an investigation of the reasons why. And in this case, the proof was ample.

Donald Dork had no business trying to FORCE a country to do his bidding by withholding funds that were predestined (that is VOTED BY CONGRESS) to that country!

Moreover, the Senate's Replicant response was wholly inadequate and the fact that they FORBADE further evidence (Bolton's) is sufficient indication of their faulty cover-up!

Furthermore again, Trump could still be brought before a court of law upon leaving office. See here: How Trump Could Be Prosecuted After the White House - excerpt:

Donald Dork is desperate to get reelected. But, sooner or later, the Dems will have their PotUS, and DD is going to have his-day facing once again a criminal investigation ...

 

We didn’t have a presumption of innocence. We had an investigation, actually THREE into Donald trump with no crimes committed.

Bidens turn. Let’s see if he committed a crime.

 

Red states on average have more blacks than blue ones as a percentage of their overall population.

 

Which in a fair and just society would mean that those Red state legislature's should contain a majority of blacks in elected positions.

 

Well in a fair and just society whites wouldn’t be explicitly discriminated against with government policy. But we are.

 

Really?

Exactly how are whites "explicitly discriminated against with government policy"?

 

Wow where do I start. Everyone knows affirmative action so I’ll skip that one.

But we have government grants and loans to minority farmers that I can’t get access to because the color of my skin is white.

The SBA through program 8a provides grants, loans and government contracts to minority business owners that I either can’t access or have to jump through a bunch of hoops to access that others don’t simply because of the color of my skin.

The government provides tax credits to businesses who hire minority... excuse me non-white contractors that they don’t receive for hiring a white one. Effectively paying businesses to hire ANYONE except a white person.

And I haven’t even begun to discuss the dozens of state and local programs such as NY setting aside $1.5B in taxpayer funds for minority businesses that I can’t access because the color of my skin is white.

 

So the LONG history of whites DISCRIMINATING against blacks just NEVER happened according to you?

And that long history of whites discriminating against blacks NEVER resulted in blacks being DISADVANTAGED in today's society?

But NOW whites are the "victims" of "discrimination" according to those who are BENEFICIARIES of the long history of whites discriminating against blacks?

That is just TWISTED!

 

The white people being discriminated against today did NOTHING to create the discrimination against blacks from decades ago.

To now discriminate against them for something they had NOTHING to do with is unconstitutional.

 

There is a memo from the Justice Department saying that one cannot indict a sitting President. It comes from Watergate. Mueller cited it several times

What you are referring to seems to be the Senate vote not to remove him. He already was impeached and remains so.

Once he is defeated in the next election and his term runs out I am quite certain that he will be indicted, prosecuted and convicted of one or more of the several offenses that the Mueller Report quite clearly proved he had done. I hope he is incarcerated for a long time.

https://fortune.com/2019/05/30/indict-a-sitting-president-doj-policy/

 

I don't follow your reasoning. Biden's son is providing a valuable service to his employer and it is one only he can provide through his unique position as the son of a man who has written lots of environmental regulation concerning energy companies. We might have here an appearance of possible corruption but I see no corrupt act itself, if you do can you point it out to me?

 

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”

 

"Dad, thus-and-so law has been brought up in regard to the situation of this-and-that what was the legislature's specific intention here. Why did you write this law and how did it work out?"

That would be a difficult question for anyone but Biden's son to ask Biden the Elder, involving much possible misinterpretation as well as potential hefty legal fees

 

I've made made a good number of consulting-jobs and the rule is that all contacts are known members of the group doing the work.

Biden the father was not "part of the package" offered to employ the son. Biden likely did not want it that way ... so he was not part of the deal.

You are surmising that Biden-the-father brought "added value" simply by means of kinship ...

 

From here: Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia

The impeachment process - the equivalent of a legal indictment - requires passage in both parts of Congress.

Not if he is reelected - a legal indictment can be obtained but as you say, but it would have to wait 4 years for it to be applied to a sitting PotUS.

Which is what he is counting on if any indictment should occur. This guy is pig-headed ...

 

Which is not the case, is it. So, something is very wrong if blacks like to vote but do not generally seek to be elected.

Like women ..which is why all that has to change. And it IS changing.

But change takes one helluva lotta time in politics - sometimes decades ...

 

Of course he did. But all the evidence, and Sondland's testimony, proves otherwise.

 

From here: There are 10 states where only white candidates have won statewide office (NB: this article is three years old):

Excerpt:

Is the above in red a telltale sign of a highly developed democracy that encompasses the nation? Methinks not ...

 

A shameful reflection of the fact that racism does still very much exist in our nation/