11th October 2022, 10:11 AM
SCANDALOUS!
The man loves his son. Now, what I see here is just another attempt to implicate Joe as conspiring to get Hunter out of legal trouble. Look elsewhere. All this proves is that a father loves his son. We always knew the motive was there, the same one any parent has. Evidence is needed to demonstrate something.
As it is, it is rather hilarious to hear republicans branding Hunter as "gun toting", to suggest his gun rights should be removed. I mean, maybe they should be, but be consistent. It's also entirely irrelevant to me. I really don't care about Hunter, and neither should anyone else until such time as he's appointed in some position of power where his escapades, real or imagined, might actually have some real effect.
We need to stop with this notion of dynasties. It was foolish with the Kennedy family, it was foolish with the Clintons, and it was foolish with the Bushes. We should stop idolizing royal families and stop trying to reproduce them politically here in the U.S. Stop seeking the next president by seeing who's related to the last, and stop trying to tar a political figure by going after their family.
There is of course, one glaring exception. Nepotism. If someone's put their loved ones in positions of authority, you are free to go after them as people in positions of power. You know who did that? Trump. (As an aside, I have never been a fan of this far too old tradition of "First Ladies" being put in charge of government projects. It's simply trussed up nepotism that once again comes across as a "royal family" sort of thing and it needs to end.)
The man loves his son. Now, what I see here is just another attempt to implicate Joe as conspiring to get Hunter out of legal trouble. Look elsewhere. All this proves is that a father loves his son. We always knew the motive was there, the same one any parent has. Evidence is needed to demonstrate something.
As it is, it is rather hilarious to hear republicans branding Hunter as "gun toting", to suggest his gun rights should be removed. I mean, maybe they should be, but be consistent. It's also entirely irrelevant to me. I really don't care about Hunter, and neither should anyone else until such time as he's appointed in some position of power where his escapades, real or imagined, might actually have some real effect.
We need to stop with this notion of dynasties. It was foolish with the Kennedy family, it was foolish with the Clintons, and it was foolish with the Bushes. We should stop idolizing royal families and stop trying to reproduce them politically here in the U.S. Stop seeking the next president by seeing who's related to the last, and stop trying to tar a political figure by going after their family.
There is of course, one glaring exception. Nepotism. If someone's put their loved ones in positions of authority, you are free to go after them as people in positions of power. You know who did that? Trump. (As an aside, I have never been a fan of this far too old tradition of "First Ladies" being put in charge of government projects. It's simply trussed up nepotism that once again comes across as a "royal family" sort of thing and it needs to end.)
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)