> There was all the crack anfter Joe spent decades enforcing laws to disproportionately punish users of that drug.
Many people, on all sides of the political aisles as well as the population, supported the "war on drugs". It's not really fair to single out Joe Biden for a policy that was unquestionably popular during the time.
> And the more actionable complaints that he was selling influence to Joe while complaining about his cut.
And yet, not enough to be worthy of judgement by Republican-led committees. Of course, the question remains if the committees didn't see an issue because if they'd have held the Bidens to that standard, they'd have to resign en masse as well.
> That Joe was involved in the businesses that Hunter had zero qualifications for.
People leading businesses without being (formally) qualified to do so? If there is one thing that's a defining feature of modern capitalism, then this.
> But yea, it’s OK you aren’t aware of those things. You were by design protected from those nasty truths by “the many”. And even now, if it doesn’t say it on Wikipedia, it must not be true!
My POV is that when even a bunch of Republicans can't find more actionable (!) evidence of wrongdoing than illegally acquiring a gun and questionable policy decisions decades ago, the entire matter was blown up to a size it should never even have got to.
>Many people, on all sides of the political aisles as well as the population, supported the "war on drugs". It's not really fair to single out Joe Biden for a policy that was unquestionably popular during the time.
>> And the more actionable complaints that he was selling influence to Joe while complaining about his cut.
Right, the good old, “well there is no evidence except for the evidence that isn’t enough to convict”. These people knew exactly what they were doing and covered their tracks except for the crackhead son of course, because crackhead.
You don’t need to protect him. His being a bad person doesn’t mean his opponent is a good person.
Many people, on all sides of the political aisles as well as the population, supported the "war on drugs". It's not really fair to single out Joe Biden for a policy that was unquestionably popular during the time.
> And the more actionable complaints that he was selling influence to Joe while complaining about his cut.
And yet, not enough to be worthy of judgement by Republican-led committees. Of course, the question remains if the committees didn't see an issue because if they'd have held the Bidens to that standard, they'd have to resign en masse as well.
> That Joe was involved in the businesses that Hunter had zero qualifications for.
People leading businesses without being (formally) qualified to do so? If there is one thing that's a defining feature of modern capitalism, then this.
> But yea, it’s OK you aren’t aware of those things. You were by design protected from those nasty truths by “the many”. And even now, if it doesn’t say it on Wikipedia, it must not be true!
My POV is that when even a bunch of Republicans can't find more actionable (!) evidence of wrongdoing than illegally acquiring a gun and questionable policy decisions decades ago, the entire matter was blown up to a size it should never even have got to.