I don’t know. Joe says “look, we know we have an apparent ethics problem, we’re very sorry, here’s what we’ve done to fix it.” Maybe Hunter learns to code? I have no idea.
I don’t think I have to become Hunter Biden’s career coach in order to demand that he stop with the relentless nepotistic bullshit.
Joe loves his son. One of two remaining children he has left. A son he knows is almost certainly incapable of making his own way in life. I think Joe is more likely to be indulgent of Hunter than politically prudent. The evidence for that is that Joe hasn’t seemed to have learned from the Burisma lesson.
A lot of us Democrats don’t like it either, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to hear any criticism from anybody who supported the Trump Crime Family.
The Trumps were bad. Hunter Biden is bad. Both things can be true. In fact, can we be done with the Bushes and Clintons as well? Dynastic connections and corrupt influence just needs to fuck off into space. The Republicans certainly aren’t going to do anything about it, so the Democrats should.
I didn’t say that and I’d prefer you not to suggest I did.
No problem there, it’s like talking to a brick wall or at least a broken record.
None of that makes any sense.
Joe can say all that stuff and probably has, now what? There’s nothing Joe can do to fix Hunter selling art. What do you have in mind? Hunter has a law degree from Yale, why would he need to learn to code?
Um… why, exactly? So Democrats can have the moral high ground? They’ve had that for decades (remember Carter’s farm?), and it hasn’t exactly accomplished anything for the DNC or America.
Just so I can be completely clear, is this a Hunter scandal or a Joe scandal?
Because I only voted for one of those two dudes.
If it’s a Hunter scandal–if it’s 100% about his shitty decisions–then I’m sorry, but I only care the same amount that I care about any shitty decision made by any other shitty rich guy who was born into money.
If it’s a Joe scandal–if Joe has made a bad decision here–then what, exactly, is the evidence for the bad decision that Joe made?
Because all I’m seeing is a Hunter scandal that people are trying to rub off on Joe, and decent people shouldn’t help with that smear.
What specifically could Joe have done about Hunter selling art that would indicate that he learned from Burisma?
It’s actually not bad art, IMO.
I think Democrats need to be realistic about the fallout regardless of any ethics questions. Even if it can be proven 100% that this is above board, so what? The right doesn’t care about proof. Stuff like this is the perfect kind of fuel that gets them fired up. The more Democrats offer proof that it’s ethical, the better it is for the right. That’s just more stuff for them to “refute” with their “experts” 24/7 on Fox News.
High-ranking Democrats should say that stuff like this is always going to be problematic and that everyone should look at these kinds of transactions under a microscope no matter what kinds of assurances they are given. They should not try to hand wave or justify it as a nothingburger. These kinds of transactions are exactly the kind of fuzzy payoffs in politics we should all scrutinize extensively no matter which side is doing it.
Why is it suddenly my job to figure out how to solve the Bidens’ family and political problems? They created the mess, it’s on them to fix it.
As a constituent I demand that they do better, and that’s all I have to do. It’s their responsibility to figure out how to be better.
Since when do “the Bidens” have constituents?
I mean are you unable to think of one person in the world named Biden who has constituents? Is this really that hard?
I can think of exactly one. But you referred to Bidens, plural, and then used plural pronouns four more times to pound it in.
I’m not asking you to solve their problems, I’m asking you what Joe could do that would satisfy you?
He has probably talked to Hunter about this. What else can he do?
When you resort to nitpicking grammar, you’ve lost the argument.
Two ideas come to mind:
He could have insisted that Hunter use a pseudonym when working with the art broker.
He could have insisted that Hunter wait until his term is over (more of an imposition, arguably, but it doesn’t strike me as Hunter is in financial dire straights).
Assuming Joe insisted on those or similar things, as he likely did, now what?
This is how things work for the rich and politically connected. Shit, this is half the reason why people strive to become rich and politically connected.
He can say that adult children and relatives of politicians have the right to make a living. He can say that he doesn’t feel there’s anything wrong with Hunter earning a living by selling art. But he can add that these types of transactions should always be examined and that he supports the press ensuring that no buyer is doing so with the intent to curry favor. He can say that he won’t be swayed by anyone who buys Hunter’s art, but that no one should blindly take his word on that, or any politician’s word for that matter. So acknowledge that there could be a conflict of interest in situations like this. He should not discount concerns as right-wing nonsense and that everyone should trust him that everything is above board.