candide

I have no esteem for Hunter, he's mainly parasiting his family name. If he's convicted, no problem for me. However, there's nothing new there. Most of it has been known for years. 1 to 4 are strictly personal so doen't concern Biden. Influence peddling could be a problem but there's no evidence he obtained anything from his father it t has already been investigated by a GOP committee for what was known during Trumps mandate (i.e. the Ukraine conspiracy theory). What came up recently was the large amount of money Hunter got from a Chinese firm (linked to the CCP and the army, as any strategic industry in China). However, it was in 2017 and there was nothing to obtain from Joe as he had no public mandate. No influence peddling because no influence.

Same news everywhere

Answer which questions? Which crimes has his son committee and how is his father responsible for it?

A better job situation and wage level (thanks to ALENA?) probably played à role. Now it's increasingly coming from poorer and more disturbed countries in Central American.

Right, lots of money spent for nothing. Events have shown they were not ready, and further analyses have identified that they were used to fight in complement to the U.S. army, not as stand-alone army. But it's Trump who made the deal. The Obama administration did not train the Afghan army in order to be able to apply Trump's deal. So Trump made a deal while one key element of it was not ready to play its role (and also not allowed to participate in the peace talks). Poor job from Trump.

The problem was that the Afghan army was not ready to operate alone. It takes long time (years) to train and prepare such an army, and the Trump administration did not do it properly.

The problem is that it seems Trump had no plan. It was initially scheduled in May and Biden found out he had to delay it more until the last possible moment (August). This kind of operations need to be prepared long time in advance. The problem is not the withdrawal itself, but the preparation of the Afghan army. They were simply not prepared enough by the Trump administration. Then Biden had a choice: either apply the agreement or fight again with the Talibans. I guess it is not what Americans wanted. If Biden had chosen to fight again, I have no doubt you would have complained about war mongering Biden, while Trump had negotiated the perfect peace agreement.

And 86% are not "not confident at all, so they agree with me! ????

You wrote 80% and I used your sources.

From the same article. "Follow-up interviews with people who participated in the poll suggest that the driving factors behind Republicans' and Democrats' views on elections are near-opposite. But there is a common thread: Concern" Basically, Republicans are not confident because of the big lie, while Democrats and independents are concerned about voting rights limitations by Republicans, and risk of having elections overturned by some GOP members.

No win. You claimed that 80% of American were thinking like you, and it has been proven wrong by any link you posted.

Glad to see that you don't claim MSN are biased any more! ???? Anyway, still far from 80% agreeing with you.

You may not have done it on purpose, but it remains that it is not true that 80% of people agree with you, Only 41% do.

No. It's the way it is presented by the authors in the table. Total not confident 41%. It's you who cherry picked the "very confident" replies in order to falsely claim that 80% of Americans were thinking like you. It was an obvious distortion of poll results.

It seems you also didn't read the report with enough attention. It's not 80%, It's 41%.

It's you who came up with it in order to claim that 80% of Americans agreed with you. If not relevant, why did you quote it? Anyway 65% thought Biden's election was legitimate. That wasn't about "all elections", right?

You should read the reports from the links you provide. There are also 39% "somewhat confident" so that makes 59% confident. In the same poll, 65% replied that Biden's victory was legitimate.

Liberal is not the same as socialist (by international standards).

Which issues do they address in the link? - death penalty. Being against death penalty is not being socialist - same sex marriage: allowed in plenty of western countries governed by right-wing parties, - public health insurance: Implemented in plenty of countries governed by right-wing parties. First time by Bismarck who surely wasn't socialist. The most extreme version, the British NHS, has been promoted by right-wing Brexiters as a reason for leaving the EU,

What does it tell? That Clinton was not left-wing (I.e. compared to Sanders)? It only tells what they (Christian monitoring Science, gulp) consider as "left-wing". Let's be practical. Which current Dem policies do you consider as being "Socialist"? I can already bet they have been implemented in other Western countries by right-wing or centrist parties. Tell me.

From The Christian Science Monitor! A reference! ????

Storm in a tea cup....

Come on! By international standards, the Democratic party is far from being socialist. In other western countries, it would be considered as being center, or even right of center. As concerns its "leftist" policies, such as those about health and social security, they have been implemented by right-wing parties and people, starting with Bismarck in the 19th century.

So it' just a misunderstanding. They just got inflamed by his other statements and did not notice this particular statement including "peacefully" ... Wait! Why didn't he quickly told them that they misunderstood him, instead of watching the assault on TV for 3 hours? ????

Right. However, I have observed a recurring pattern: when the assault topic is addressed, Trump supporters and assimilated) systematically come up "but security at Capitol...". I guess I just wrongly assume that may be a way to dilute responsibilities.... or do I wrongly assume that It's a tactic to divert attention from the main issue?