Depends on the critique. "Joe is a hypocrite for pardoning his son" is reasonable. "Joe proves that it's normal for politicians to act unethically, therefore criticisms of all unethical behavior are invalidated by the rule of whataboutism" is a transparent defense of Republican corruption.

[–] AnneVolin@lemmy.ml 65 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The pretense that the Hunter pardon is the first time that Joe Biden has acted unethically is rich given he's instrumental in a current genocide that he's lied repeatedly about.

Also you know his entire history from being anti-bussing and eulogizing Strom Thurmond then turning around an telling people they aren't black if they don't vote for him.

He's the best at being part of a big mess, saying that everyone was doing it, then pretending to be the solution, wiping his hands clean and not even rectifying half the damage he's personally caused.

Just look at his involvement with finance, war on drugs, Iraq, etc.

He's a good retail politician which is why he's a classic beneficiary of "we didn't know any better when we were doing this horrible thing but we were the good guys" type shit that Americans love to do.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I assumed that this meme was just a reference to his latest bullshit. I'm well aware of Biden's record, and have been a consistent critic of his for my entire adult life. The earliest memory I have becoming aware of him was when he presided over the Anita Hill testimony.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I have never and will never give the slightest fuck about Hunter Biden.

I hate that everyone has just given Diamond Joe a pass for pulling an RBG to hand the country back to Trump. Whatever else Democrats might have done differently, the single biggest campaign mistake is that the Cryptkeeper stomped on our primaries and wouldn't hand over power until the last minute.

The entire goal of his presidency should have been anointing of a successor. I'm not a huge Kamala fan, but he could have set her up for success instead of waiting. Whoever won real primaries would run a much better general election campaign than Kamala could have this year.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

I agree. If the aim was to avoid a primary, he should have stepped down two years ago and given Kamala a chance to establish a track record as the incumbent president. I don't like either of them, but anything is better than a rapist, insurrectionist, kleptocratic felon.

[–] smackjack@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I hate this discourse that what Joe did is okay because Trump did something similar. Trump did a lot of horrible things. That doesn't make it okay for the next schmuck to come along and do the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. I shouldn't have to explain this to people.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think it's OK, but I think it was entirely expected. I agree that his prosecution was political, and that most other defendants would have gotten much less focus. I also agree that he broke the law and should serve his time.

Ultimately, our entire system is corrupt and we should do something to fix it. Sadly, we'll have to wait at least two years for the next election to hopefully at least take back the House and/or Senate. But even if Dems take both, nobody seems to be interested in actually addressing the injustice baked into our government.

[–] smackjack@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

There needs to be a constitutional amendment that says that presidents can't pardon themselves, family members, or anyone that worked for them.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Can't do that the best I can do is say they are all fully immune to prosecution.

[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

The supreme court, after such an amendment miraculously passes:

"Well actually, this sentence doesn't mention the president of the United States in particular, so it means every president of every company ever. But a company president doesn't have pardoning powers, so this makes no sense. So this amendment is invalid!"

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 4 points 2 weeks ago

Drag thinks it's okay. The SCOTUS decided that the president is a king. Trump had decided to be a king. But Biden won't be a king. For the next month, drag wishes Biden would just be a little bit of a king and use his power to disrupt Trump's plans. We're looking at a fascist dictatorship, the ends justify the means.

[–] BlastboomStrice@mander.xyz 13 points 2 weeks ago

Is this why such posts get so downvoted? Do people on lemmy really think that those posters defend the other party?

Aren't we (the users of lemmy) supposed to lean vaguely on the left by a large factor?😅

When I see posts like this one here, I just get frustrated to see that guy using his mighty power for this, when the US is about to sink further into fascism, harming many many people in the process.

I don't even really care that much that he lied in the past that he wouldnt pardon his son, I just get angry to see that of all things that he could do in this very critical time he has, he's essentially securing his family while he is peacefully letting the country and its people sink. It just kinda verifies it once again that they don't care much about the people, losing the elections for them it meant that they might have reduced profits.

I get that people would react badly on such post during the election, cuz they could allow the fascists to win, but the elections are now over, the results can't change very much.😅

Doesn't the majority of the people here see it as I do?

Disclosure: I'm Greek :)

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You would think so but every critique is #2.