ADVERTISEMENT

Hunter Biden on trial

This is gonna be an absolute shit show. Can't wait to hear Aloha's explanation for all this.
Why would I explain this? Why would I care what a snot nosed college Trumpster Twitter Twit posts?
 
Oh my God, you're dense. Biden is making excuses for pardoning his son, so he claims Hunter is being prosecuted because of politics. Well, whose DoJ is it?

You're right - it makes no sense. But yet, you blame a future Trump DoJ?

Sorry, I can't dumb it down any further for you. Have someone else explain it to you.
Do you think the DOJ under Trump would have gone after Biden? What would do if you were in Biden's shoes?
 
No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong,” President Biden Biden said in a statement.
Fair enough. I do think this was also at least a little bit pre-emptive. It's not like the DoJ under Trump would have taken their foot off the pedal. I still think that played into account.
 
Do you think the DOJ under Trump would have gone after Biden? What would do if you were in Biden's shoes?
Issue a sweeping, unprecedented pardon that predates the actions that gave rise to his indictments and convictions in an effort to insulate the big guy and anyone else in his circle potentially implicated
 
No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong,” President Biden Biden said in a statement.

The entire statement explains it further, that tax evaders who pay the back taxes and penalties and interest are rarely if ever criminally charged, nor are those who dishonestly check off a box on the gun check form.


Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
 
Do you think the DOJ under Trump would have gone after Biden? What would do if you were in Biden's shoes?
'Gone after'? Define that. Would they have continued an investigation if that's where the facts led? Of course.

If he's innocent, he has no reason to fear it, right?

Do you still believe no one is above the law, or was that just politically expedient bullshit to you?
 
The entire statement explains it further, that tax evaders who pay the back taxes and penalties and interest are rarely if ever criminally charged, nor are those who dishonestly check off a box on the gun check form.


Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
No one is above the law, right?

You have no idea how many are, or are not, criminally charged. So quit parroting the media.
 
The entire statement explains it further, that tax evaders who pay the back taxes and penalties and interest are rarely if ever criminally charged, nor are those who dishonestly check off a box on the gun check form.


Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
So, he IS saying his own DOJ was weaponized to target Hunter Biden.
 
The entire statement explains it further, that tax evaders who pay the back taxes and penalties and interest are rarely if ever criminally charged, nor are those who dishonestly check off a box on the gun check form.


Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
Like people that exaggerate real estate valuations? 🤣🤣🤣
 
The entire statement explains it further, that tax evaders who pay the back taxes and penalties and interest are rarely if ever criminally charged, nor are those who dishonestly check off a box on the gun check form.


Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
The judge in the case disagrees:

 
Issue a sweeping, unprecedented pardon that predates the actions that gave rise to his indictments and convictions in an effort to insulate the big guy and anyone else in his circle potentially implicated
Do we actually believe this guy was cognizant enough to write a pardon?

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
There's a case to be made that Obamacare flattened the cost increases in healthcare. Personally, I don't think it tells the whole story (it's based on the assumption that we consume healthcare the same as we did before). But, leaving that aside, there's an argument to be made.

And I have a slew of issues with the pre-existing conditions provision. I think it's one of those things where the impression is that public policy made a bugaboo for all of us go away by putting the screws to the insurers and providers who had been putting the screws to all of us. The reality is, there are no solutions...there are only tradeoffs. And the coverage of pre-existing conditions is pretty obviously a cost item that insurers simply have to account for, which they pass along to all of us.

I don't necessarily have a problem with them requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions. But the entire thing should be transparent as to how those costs are incurred and distributed. Because (a) they are, and (b) most people skip over that part

 
I'd love to hear what your point is with this.

Healthcare administration costs are out of control and clearly a significant driver of our systems excess compared to others.

We’ve discussed this before and I’ve posted similar research from Athena.

Chart.jpg


 
Need to go to single payer?

Theoretically, it makes sense, assuming there was solely a single payor system. In reality there are two key issues imo:

1) in most countries with models routinely admired by nationalized healthcare advocates, there are supplemental insurance plans for many that cover additional procedures, provide more access, etc. therefore, it doesn’t simply become a single payor reimbursement regime.

2) there is an assumption that by going to a single payor system, it will be more efficient and cost effective. This sounds logical until you think about the inefficiency and waste in large government. Here’s another similar example of administrative costs getting out of control and reducing effectiveness and cost - this time in education…

 
Healthcare administration costs are out of control and clearly a significant driver of our systems excess compared to others.

We’ve discussed this before and I’ve posted similar research from Athena.

Chart.jpg


I've become so cynical about this place I thought you were going somewhere else. Apologies.
 
It's a perfectly fair argument to make. Absolutely.

My gripe is not with that argument. My gripe is with the rhetorical sleight of hand -- and it's hardly unique to the issue of pre-existing conditions. In fact, it's the very same sleight of hand that has been used to defend "forgiving" student loans.

And here's what it is: the arguments in favor of these things completely ignore the other side of the ledger. They are deliberately made without any kind of sense as to what doing it costs anybody. In fact, I'd say it's even worse than that: I think a clear message is that there is no cost...it's all benefit. At best, its cost is presented as being shouldered by somebody else.

A loan cannot be forgiven. A loan can either be paid back, along with its accumulated burden, or it can be assumed, in whole or in part, by its lender. But the people who promote "forgiving" student loans not only leave out the part that taxpayers have to assume the debts, I've literally seen people argue that it won't cost taxpayers a dime.

Similarly, insurance can be made to cover pre-existing conditions. But what does that cost -- and who bears that cost?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT