Crime Joe pardons Hunter

[Deleted member 267581]

Which one got a blanket pardon for 11 years for all known and unknown crimes? I'll wait.

Which one got a post in the government after being pardoned? Don’t worry I’ll wait

Eh, they both had Presidential pardon powers. I already said I would've done the same if I was him. But the hypocrisy on display from you nutballs deserves to be highlighted.

Wait isn’t the hypocrisy on the right for ignoring the pardons when it happened?

You can't even pretend your side owns the moral high ground anymore.

 

[Darkballs]

Yeah.


Another lie. There were no questions asked in my post you quoted. I remarked how another poster tended to run away from arguments they were losing, much like you do. And are.


You'll be fine with yourself looking like an ass after lying and showing you don't know how to man up and admit you were wrong for mouthing off. Everybody has to learn that lesson at some point in life. It's embarrassing that you have to learn it here.

Mate, we've all watched you quit arguments this way, time and time again. You get your point refuted, then you abandon the topic and start looking for a way to back out. And it's often some version of "That's not EXACTLY what I said, therefore your all lying and I'm gonna run away now."

You were clearly stating that liberals couldn't answer the incredible question "Why isn't it da backdated then?" Then when I came around and did so, you started complaining that it was the other guy who asked the original question (that you were agreeing with) and so I'm dishonest because I responded to you.

Here's that series of posts:

Hey just checking in. Any thoughts on why it’s backdated?

Followed by Fox, quoting Rob:

I love the dancing around that issue.
Expect some more bbbut Trump replies.

And here's you quoting Fox:

This is kind of routine when trying to engage in a debate with Jack. While he is well versed in talking circles and deflecting, he will always run away when you pin him down on a point he doesn't want to address.

You then continued to ask me the same original question. Here's you doing it just a few posts ago:

Also, you didn't explain why the pardon was backdated.

Now everyone can go look at this series of exchanges and see that not only were you supporting the idea that no one could answer that stupid question, but that you yourself were asking it.

This is really kinda embarrassing. If you don't like my answer, you can just quit or ignore it. No need for this weird "I didn't ask the original question so you're lying about me when you answered it."

Honest to god man, do you wear a helmet at the dinner table?

 

[The Diplomat]

Joe pardoned Hunter?

He shouldn't have done that.

Boom. Done.

 

[Confucamus]

Mate, we've all watched you quit arguments this way, time and time again. You get your point refuted, then you abandon the topic and start looking for a way to back out. And it's often some version of "That's not EXACTLY what I said, therefore your all lying and I'm gonna run away now."

lmao at this projection. You lied and ran away when I asked you to back up what you said. You're just trying to save face now but you're making yourself look worse.

You were clearly stating that liberals couldn't answer the incredible question "Why isn't it da backdated then?" Then when I came around and did so, you started complaining that it was the other guy who asked the original question (that you were agreeing with) and so I'm dishonest because I responded to you.

Your reading comprehension is trash. I get that you're trying to be a good little doggie for the left, but that doesn't change my original post where I was referencing a poster's bad habit of disappears when his logic faces scrutiny.

Here's that series of posts:



Followed by Fox, quoting Rob:



And here's you quoting Fox:

And?? What does this change, exactly?

You then continued to ask me the same original question. Here's you doing it just a few posts ago:

Well after your original accusation that I had already asked the backdated question, which was false.

Now everyone can go look at this series of exchanges and see that not only were you supporting the idea that no one could answer that stupid question, but that you yourself were asking it.

I supported the idea that one specific poster wasn't.

This is really kinda embarrassing. If you don't like my answer, you can just quit or ignore it. No need for this weird "I didn't ask the original question so you're lying about me when you answered it."

You made the claim, bud. All I asked was for you to back it up. You haven't been able to and you're just vomiting nonsense now to distract. Maybe you're not used to getting called out for lying. Maybe you get away with that a lot in life. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Honest to god man, do you wear a helmet at the dinner table?

 

[Sara]

I just don’t get how it why some can’t see it’s not just that joe pardoned hunter, like everyone said we kinda saw it coming even though he said he wouldn’t. It’s that he gave a blanket pardon.

 

[SKYNET]

I just don’t get how it why some can’t see it’s not just that joe pardoned hunter, like everyone said we kinda saw it coming even though he said he wouldn’t. It’s that he gave a blanket pardon.

I think there's a huge issue with the lie Biden told.

The legacy media and the DNC went on a well documented crusade in order to report on this lie in the final months and weeks before a most crucial election cycle. They used it to frame Biden as holier than thou, THE rule of law champion of America whilst portraying Trump as the evil anti-rule of law candidate because he will pardon his family members.

They acted in conjunction and with reckless abandon in order to propagandize their constituents and the msm viewership in order to mislead their viewers and American voters at large.

I have a huge issue with this. The fact that it is a blanket pardon covering specific years in the past where seemingly no crimes were supposedly committed means the left wing media and the DNC is suspect in my view.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Except I didn't pretend Joe took bribes. I said that I suspect he or hunter did but have no way to be certain. I think you believe in punishing people for thought crimes.

You suspect it based on what? It's an insane claim. And what punishment do you think I support for thought?

My position is that it is uncertain and impossible to know for sure what happened, but that it is reasonable to suspect something did, but I've also said it's reasonable for a person to think something didn't happen.

Why is it reasonable to think something happened? The accusation was never plausible, had no basis, and has been investigated with no evidence turning up.

My position is that certainty in either direction is probably unwarranted and certainly mocking someone who thinks maybe something corrupt did happen or didn't happen goes too far.

You seem to want to punish people for thinking and seem to fail to make accurate distinctions between a court of law passing a sentence on somebody and thinking clearly about a subject outside of a court of law.

Why are you making up this lie about punishing people for thinking?

It seems that under your regime people wouldn't be allowed to think at all unless of course they think the way you do.

I'm actually a liberal so no, this is false (as, of course, you know). I do think that making false accusations is immoral and shouldn't be done. I don't believe that freedom of speech means that other people shouldn't be allowed to criticize you when you behave like that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have seen it from Jack himself

You're lying, here, aren't you?

who says it's a sleazy attack just because I think it's possible Joe Biden had some corruption. I specifically stated that I'm not certain about that, but that it's reasonable to think there was

He called that a sleazy attack and I can only assume that emotion is the reason he did since it's factually incorrect.

Pot meet kettle.

You don't think it's sleazy to make false accusations for no reason other than people are in the wrong party (and spare us the sophistic game that leftist populists play)?

I remember when you were super offended that anyone would question the sincerity of your religious beliefs. The Bible is very clear about false accusations (it is a grave sin).

 

[Deleted member 577981]

You're lying, here, aren't you?

You don't think it's sleazy to make false accusations for no reason other than people are in the wrong party (and spare us the sophistic game that leftist populists play)?

I remember when you were super offended that anyone would question the sincerity of your religious beliefs. The Bible is very clear about false accusations (it is a grave sin).

I haven't made any grave accusations and you've accused me of doing so and you know I haven't. You're just lying. My position is very clear.


Why don't you quote my sleazy grave accusations?

 

[Sara]

I think there's a huge issue with the lie Biden told.

The legacy media and the DNC went on a well documented crusade in order to report on this lie in the final months and weeks before a most crucial election cycle. They used it to frame Biden as holier than thou, THE rule of law champion of America whilst portraying Trump as the evil anti-rule of law candidate because he will pardon his family members.

They acted in conjunction and with reckless abandon in order to propagandize their constituents and the msm viewership in order to mislead their viewers and American voters at large.

I have a huge issue with this. The fact that it is a blanket pardon covering specific years in the past where seemingly no crimes were supposedly committed means the left wing media and the DNC is suspect in my view.

What have his kids been charged with? Or investigated for?

 

[Sara]

You're lying, here, aren't you?

You don't think it's sleazy to make false accusations for no reason other than people are in the wrong party (and spare us the sophistic game that leftist populists play)?

I remember when you were super offended that anyone would question the sincerity of your religious beliefs. The Bible is very clear about false accusations (it is a grave sin).

It also says not to judge others, love the sinner not the sin, do unto others as you’d have done to yourself and of course let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

 

[SKYNET]

What have his kids been charged with? Or investigated for?

I'm not sure if Trumps family has been charged or investigated, but the video clips all feature DNC officials and media pundits in lockstep making the assumption that Trump will pardon them

 

[Jack V Savage]

I haven't made any grave accusations and you've accused me of doing so and you know I haven't. You're just lying. My position is very clear.

You accused Biden of taking bribes! With no evidence at all! How do you justify that? Even putting aside what it reflects about the sincerity of your religious conviction, don't you feel shitty doing that? C.S. Lewis notes in his argument for Christianity that we have a kind of universal moral intuition that doesn't appear to be invented by people. I think accusing people of horrible crimes just because you don't like them would clearly be something that we all recognize is bad. Similarly, you lying about my position is something that would make normal people feel bad about themselves. Where do you get the idea that as long as someone is on your outgrown list, it's OK to lie about them?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've disagreed with @koquerelle on plenty of things and it never devolved into hateful rhetoric. You should probably take some time and think about why you tend to always be the one who winds up in conversations that turn into petty insults. I'll give you a hint: The answer is not "Everyone else is an immature hack."

You guys have had a dozen interactions, and no disagreements. Try to have an honest discussion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Joe pardoned Hunter?

He shouldn't have done that.

Boom. Done.

Not really. Most liberals (at least that I've seen) agree with that. But you have hacks trying to argue that it lends support to the ridiculous Joe/Ukraine CT.

 

[syct23]

Not really. Most liberals (at least that I've seen) agree with that. But you have hacks trying to argue that it lends support to the ridiculous Joe/Ukraine CT.

Well,

From what I understand the Liberals got their asses handed to them in the elections and every conversation after..

They have no leg to stand on for the next few years, so why do you still take what they have to say?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well,

From what I understand the Liberals got their asses handed to them in the elections and every conversation after..

They have no leg to stand on for the next few years, so why do you still take what they have to say?

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Almost 50% of people voted for Trump, therefore ... every crazy CT is now true? Civil liberties are bad? Reason-based governance is bad? Did you embrace liberalism in 2020 after Biden got 51.3% of the vote?

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I just don’t get how it why some can’t see it’s not just that joe pardoned hunter, like everyone said we kinda saw it coming even though he said he wouldn’t. It’s that he gave a blanket pardon.

That is why the years Biden did the pardon for are key. Certain tax crimes already reached statutes of limitations. This implies Joe knows that if the scab is licked, lots puss will ooze out and take down more than just the bidens.

How many senators and those in the state department had their own and their family interests involved in Ukraine? And once that is shown to the public, it would be easy to see the same money laundering operation basically everywhere the US is providing aide too in basically every context.

I had posted in one of the threads about Hunter that Liz Cheney, prior to running for the house was involved in the state department in the Middle East, getting basically a buffet of tax money

It is just a scam. So he dad starts a war and she gets a plush job to launder millions. One year given 130 million? Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan now. What was the money used for? Such a disgrace

Liz Cheney - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Cheney's appointment was "the most intriguing sign that America is getting serious about Middle East reform" and "a measure of the seriousness with which the administration was taking Middle East programmes for literacy, education, and reform."[39] The appointment followed publicized policy divisions between the vice president's office and the State Department on Middle East policy. In that position, she was given control of the Middle East Partnership Initiative, designed to "foster increased democracy and economic progress in a troubled region". The program spent $29 million in 2002, increased to $129 million in the following year. Cheney's task was to channel money to prescreened groups, some of which were not identified publicly for fear of retaliations from extant governments they sought to undermine. For the budget year 2004, the project sought $145 million.[40][41]

 

[syct23]

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Almost 50% of people voted for Trump, therefore ... every crazy CT is now true? Civil liberties are bad? Reason-based governance is bad? Did you embrace liberalism in 2020 after Biden got 51.3% of the vote?

I didn’t embrace anything in 2020, I was told to stay home..

 

[Darkballs]

You made the claim, bud. All I asked was for you to back it up.

More like I answered the questions as to why it was backdated, which was to prevent the trump administration from launching retaliatory investigations into that period.

And every time I give that answer, rather than take it on, you start crying about how someone else asked the question, before once again claiming the question hasn't been answered.

Now I'm all for you either responding, or quitting and moving on. But if it's the later, there's no need for long drawn out post explaining your decision. Just leave.