- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 62,152
Hunter Biden Testifies
- Thread starter Brian4Liberty
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 62,152
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 62,152
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 62,152
TheCount
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,543
It'd be awkward to arrest him for ignoring a congressional subpoena given that half of the representatives on the committee have also ignored congressional subpoenas.
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,113
I mean, ok. I guess we can go after those who benefit from a corrupted system, but at some point we really need to address the actual corruption. The system itself is corrupt. Almost all politicians and bureaucrats benefit from it, as well as their families and friends.
Even if they pin something on Hunter or Joe or Don or Mitch or Nancy, the system will survive. And then next one in line will trade favors for money and power. Nothing changes until you take away their ability to trade favors.
Even if they pin something on Hunter or Joe or Don or Mitch or Nancy, the system will survive. And then next one in line will trade favors for money and power. Nothing changes until you take away their ability to trade favors.
TheCount
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,543
That is the ultimate problem, absolutely.
From my point of view, neither "side" wants to reduce their own power while they're in power. This is why you end up with typical swing in opinion, even here, between one administration and the next. The same person who will loudly oppose every dollar of spending under an "opposing" administration looks the other way for record-breaking budgets from their team.
I'm honestly not sure how you overcome that inertia.
Anti Globalist
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2017
- Messages
- 44,384
I fully expect Biden to end up pardoning his son so he faces no jail time.
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,113
Well now, glad to see that you admit when it happens on your side. But from my vantage point, that happens far less frequently here. Oh sure, we have the Trumpsters and you lefties that try to stir shit up here, but the Ron Paul folks don't fall into that Team Red vs. Team Blue nonsense that you guys do.
We want to take away their ability to trade favors by making their power so inconsequential that it's not worth it to anyone to buy it.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 70,961
TheCount
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,543
I think that you are engaging in "no true scotsman" with "oh but those aren't Ron Paul folks."
The Republican party is extremely adept at using wedge issues to create a lot of "I'm for small government but in this case" and "I'm against government spending but in this case" even among the standard folks here on RPF.
Easy examples are election security (mandatory ID, federal control), immigration/border security (verify, spending, policy, visas), culture war (gay marriage, trans everything), economy (protectionism) and even military (so long as you choose the correct opponent.
It's just a matter of finding the one issue that is the "but in this case" for the person and then it's off to the races. Which, of course, is the real reason the de facto GOP platform is a shotgun blast of fear mongering on seemingly unrelated issues.
There are very few people here who don't have an issue that causes the above. Including me, I struggle with it.
And I'm not anything even vaguely close to a leftist. If you think I am, you must've never met one.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 70,961
Either that, or you spend all your time playing snarky devil's advocate, and never just lay off that and talk. Nobody can reach a useful conclusion on data that skewed.
So, like, want some cheese..?
Last edited:
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 9,019
Well, I've found the ONE thing that I agree with TheCount on... that's an exactly correct analysis and a splendid description of it.
Substitute "non-aggression" for "small-government" and "aggression" for "government spending" and you will finally achieve true Rothbardian nirvana. When people finally understand that aggression is always, always, always wrong, no matter what the excuse, we might finally be ready for that government which is best...
TheCount
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,543
I don't think that everyone would categorize, for example, anti-gay and anti-trans policies as aggression, which is why I prefer the term small government.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 70,961
Kind of prefer the term myself. Can't even get people to see that most of the current pro-gay and (particularly) pro-trans policies are deadly aggression.
TheCount
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2014
- Messages
- 11,543
I think that both gay and trans issues are major failures for small government advocates.
In both cases, all prominent voices were either pro or anti. That's a losing argument, because 1) both sides are big government and 2) the framing forces all of the "I don't care, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" people to the pro side.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 62,152
It's a relevant point to make, but it is also diversionary tactic being used by the Bidens and Democrats right now. Focus only on Hunter's vices, and it's just a one man, personal issue. It doesn't lead back to PedoHitler, Obama, Hillary, etc. And it always ends with: "Don't pick on the poor sick addict. It's not his fault, it's a disease. He's the victim here!"
