Hunter Biden artwork attracts ethics scrutiny

You also don’t need to assist Republicans in this kind of bullshit that doesn’t matter. You can choose to treat it as the utter irrelevancy it is, which reflects nothing on anyone aside from Hunter.

Once again, turning every difference of opinion into a referendum of which side it supports vs. which side it undermines, is fucking obnoxious. Not everything or everyone you disagree with is an unwitting tool of your enemy.

In the scheme of things it doesn’t matter that a random internet person is giving this bullshit oxygen. But it also doesn’t matter that another random internet person is giving you grief over it.

So quit whining and take your medicine!

Find me a single individual who would have voted for Biden, but won’t now because Hunter is an artist who is likely fast tracking in the art world due to his family name. I’ll wait.

You first!

I would point to the effect the email scandal had on the 2016 election, as stated by Hillary herself:

The voters who were affected by the email controversy are the same kinds of voters who will be affected by the painting controversy. On the day the email server hit the news, it probably didn’t have much effect. But the Republicans were able to gin up contrived controversy over it continually until the election. In a tight election it doesn’t take much to tip the balance. A few scandals here and there will make the difference. And just like the email server was a whole lot of nothing, so are the painting sales. Whether the painting sales continue to be a controversy depends totally on how much the Republicans can keep it in the public eye. Whether it breaks a rule or not is irrelevant.

Some would call that getting one’s life back together after going through a hard part, but others will insult them for daring to rise above the station that they have assigned them.

What exactly is it that you have against someone getting their act together? Or do you think that once a failure, always a failure? Once someone has a drug problem, may as well just end their life now, as you will never accept them as anything but a failure?

I honestly have no idea what you are arguing. You have agreed that Hunter has done nothing illegal, unethical, or improper. You started complaining that people will pay for someone’s name, but now you are saying that’s not what you are complaining about.

Rather than running around in circles and saying that there is something the matter, but never actually coming out and saying what that something is, why not just be straight here, and explain what it is that you think that Hunter or Joe Biden did wrong, and what they should have done instead.

Also, has anyone else ever been told that they cannot sell art under their own name? Should we remove the names from all art, to ensure that they are only being bought based on the true artistic merit of the piece, and not based on the name of the artist?

I did. I don’t expect saying it twice will be the charm.

Actually, any sale would be like that. The buyers of art are not required to be disclosed to the public. You have no right to know the details of a private transaction that you are not a part of.

So, explain how a blind sale prevents you from knowing something that you wouldn’t be privy to in a regular sale, please.

I really don’t get this. He had a drug problem, yes. He’s done his best to overcome that.

But some people just won’t let him. Anything he does other than fail is considered to be “failing up” or be only based on who his father is.

You’ve already judged him, and will twist all of his successes as actually being failures, because that fits your narrative.

Anyone else with his resume would be considered a resounding success, but not Hunter, for… reasons.

I never said that Hunter has forfeit any right to happiness or financial security for the rest of his life. I merely argued that his art career could maybe wait for 2.5 years when his dad is no longer president.

I’m not circling back for another round of explaining why it should be different for him than any other adult.

Yes, he struggled with drug addiction.

And apparently can never be forgiven for it. He will always be known as the “failson” because of it, because some people just cannot accept that someone can have a drug addiction and not be a failure.

It’s not just Hunter, this is a societal problem. As soon as anyone hears drug problem or addiction, many doors are closed to them, no matter what they do to try to attone. It’s one of the reasons why it’s so hard for people to overcome a drug addiction, when people refuse to see the person, and only their addiction, only judging them by that.

So yeah, this attitude is damaging to far more than just Hunter, I think that it’s harmful to our entire nation, but this thread is about Hunter, where the hatred is focused.

Pick somebody else. I’m clearly not getting through.

Don’t see how that’s possible without being required to kill his whole family, to be quite honest.

Much of his family has already passed on, so there’s not much left, I suppose.

Maybe lock him up in Guantanamo for the remainder of his term?

And what position are you taking in this court? It seems you’ve already made up your mind, so either prosecutor or corrupt judge.

In either case, it doesn’t seem as though there is any value in trying to actually sway your opinion on this, as you have already pointed out your distaste for anything that Hunter does, so rather, I simply point out the gaping flaws in your arguments.

Because you are sitting here, saying how that public servant is not doing their job correctly. It’s a job that you have taken on yourself here.

This isn’t about Russia or international diplomacy. This is about how you feel about his actions. Your perception. That’s why it is asked to you what would they do differently to make you feel differently.

Well, if being a Yale trained lawyer isn’t enough to qualify someone to sit on a board of directors, what do you think he should be allowed to do?

Why was he not qualified for the jobs he had? Did it help him to get them as to who his dad was? Probably. Does who his dad was mean that he was unqualified? You have only asserted this, you have not demonstrated it to be true.

The perpetual stink is because people like you insist there is one, not because there actually is.

It is above and beyond what would be asked of any other president and their family, but that’s not enough for you. What is sad is how far the bar has sunk is how easy it is for the right wing scandal machine to get people riled up about nothing.

Which is what this thread is all about. Democrats doing their best to fan the flames out of nothing.

I really don’t get why they play along with the right wing scandal machine. Perhaps they have some art they are looking to sell?

Your suggestion was pretty nonsensical. Has there ever been an artist that was not allowed to put their name on their art?

How about a real suggestion?

You have claimed that everything that he has had was due to his father, and that he has only failed up.

Your saying that is saying that he doesn’t deserve any happiness or financial security.

You’ve not really done a good job of it in the first place, so I doubt a second time would be any better.

I did specify that he should do something that looks like work. It’s right there in the part you quoted.

Though I don’t actually know how much work is involved in sitting on a board, I suspect it’s minimal. And I do know that board members are heavily selected specifically for their connections. As is being a highly-paid artist.

I mean, just spitballing here, but a law-school grad could maybe… practice some law? How about public defender? It’s a highly respected, hard-working, in-demand job that earns a salary that’s reliable if not lavish. If that doesn’t suit you, I’m sure you can think something up, it’s not my job to be a career coach for a Yale law school graduate with the best connections on earth.

Hunter Biden did think up something to be other than a lawyer: an artist.