Biden Tracker (11 Viewers)

MT15 said:

Well part of the reason was that the paternity was questioned. It was tied up in court for a bit. And now he is acknowledging. But you don’t really give a shirt about ethics and morals at all, do you? You act like this is some kind of team sport or something and it’s childish and boring.

People aren’t perfect, and Hunter put his dad in a terrible position here. If you are perfect then you can sit up there on your high horse and judge. But we all know you only judge one way.

Click to expand...

cuddlemonkey said:

Exactly. The article even says that while the legal battles were playing out, Joe was taking a cue from Hunter and staying quiet in public while the situation was resolved. Anyone reading the article would have seen that and realized that this is a delicate, complicated situation. And anyone trying to use this to get in a pot shot at "the other side" is behaving like a heartless butt crevasse that uses a child as a political tool. It's forking gross.

Click to expand...

LA - L.A. said:

What kind of a horrible person asks how horrible another person is without being upfront with everyone else about all the facts about that other person?

Click to expand...

Yall are all misinformed about the facts. What a surprise. CNN and the AP left ourt this detail.

SaintForLife said:

Yall are all misinformed about the facts. What a surprise. CNN and the AP left ourt this detail.

Click to expand...

Since you're so sure of yourself, surely you must have looked up the court records for yourself to verify that your unsourced source is actually telling the truth. You did that, right?

Please provide the link you found to the court records that verifies what your source is saying is true.

If you didn't look up the court records to verify your source was telling the truth for yourself, then you are not informed, you are just parroting something you heard on twitter because it fits with your world view.

That is not being informed. That is being gullible, because you're only seeking bias confirmation.

LA - L.A. said:

Since you're so sure of yourself, surely you must have looked up the court records for yourself to verify that your unsourced source is actually telling the truth. You did that, right?

Please provide the link you found to the court records that verifies what your source is saying is true.

If you didn't look up the court records to verify your source was telling the truth for yourself, then you are not informed, you are just parroting something you heard on twitter because it fits with your world view.

That is not being informed. That is being gullible, because you're only seeking bias confirmation.

Click to expand...

Do your own homework. If it's not accurate then post something to disprove it. If not your complaining means nothing.

SaintForLife said:

Do your own homework. If it's not accurate then post something to disprove it. If not your complaining means nothing.

Click to expand...

Nope, you are the one making allegations. You prove it.

SaintForLife said:

Do your own homework.

Click to expand...

Just like I thought:

1. You didn't check to see if the unsourced claims your source made are actually true.
2. You went looking for something to back up what they said after being called on it, hoping you could show us how wrong and uninformed we are.
3. You couldn't find a single thing to support the claims made by your source.

SaintForLife said:

If it's not accurate then post something to disprove it. If not your complaining means nothing.

Click to expand...

Pot, let me introduce you to this big arsed Kettle.

LA - L.A. said:

Just like I thought:

1. You didn't check to see if the unsourced claims your source made are actually true.
2. You went looking for something to back up what they said after being called on it, hoping you could show us how wrong and uninformed we are.
3. You couldn't find a single thing to support the claims made by your source.

Pot, let me introduce you to this big arsed Kettle.

Click to expand...

You are crying about what i posted not being credible yet you won't show why it's not credible.

SaintForLife said:

You are pointing out that what i posted is unfounded and not supported by anyone or anything credible and that I can't provide anything to support the claims the source made without any supporting references, so you don't need to show it's not credible to not accept it as true, because no reasonable person would just accept it as true.

Click to expand...

I fixed your post for you. You're welcome!

LA - L.A. said:

Just like I thought:

1. You didn't check to see if the unsourced claims your source made are actually true.
2. You went looking for something to back up what they said after being called on it, hoping you could show us how wrong and uninformed we are.
3. You couldn't find a single thing to support the claims made by your source.

Pot, let me introduce you to this big arsed Kettle.

Click to expand...

If I claim something yall post is inaccurate I show my work. You all just post vague responses that don't refute anything.

SaintForLife said:

If I claim something yall post is inaccurate I show my work. You all just post vague responses that don't refute anything.

Click to expand...

Your source didn't cite the court records that allegedly support their claims. How am I supposed to prove the court records don't support their claims when I don't know what court records they are allegedly referring to?

I can't. If you can't provide a citation to a court case that supports what your source claimed, without citing any support for their claim, then no reasonable person should take your source and their claim at their word.

That's how reasoned, open minded people operate.

If I posted on twitter that SaintForLife is a 67 year old, 350 lb trans woman that lives in her mother's basement, should anyone take my word for it? The answer is a resounding, no, no they shouldn't.

SaintForLife said:

Yall are all misinformed about the facts. What a surprise. CNN and the AP left ourt this detail.

Click to expand...

The fact still remains that anyone trying to use this to get in a pot shot at "the other side" is behaving like a heartless butt crevasse that uses a child as a political tool. And it's still gross.

cuddlemonkey said:

The fact still remains that anyone trying to use this to get in a pot shot at "the other side" is behaving like a heartless butt crevasse that uses a child as a political tool. And it's still gross.

Click to expand...

Oh give me a break. If Trump refused to acknowledge a grandchild, you guys would be saying the same thing.

Anyone who refuses to acknowledge they have a grandchild is a complete piece of shirt whether they are in politics or not.

The polling must have been really bad for Biden to change course and finally acknowledge the grandchild.

LA - L.A. said:

Your source didn't cite the court records that allegedly support their claims. How am I supposed to prove the court records don't support their claims when I don't know what court records they are allegedly referring to?

I can't. If you can't provide a citation to a court case that supports what your source claimed, without citing any support for their claim, then no reasonable person should take your source and their claim at their word.

That's how reasoned, open minded people operate.

If I posted on twitter that SaintForLife is a 67 year old, 350 lb trans woman that lives in her mother's basement, should anyone take my word for it? The answer is a resounding, no, no they shouldn't.

Click to expand...

If you want additional details then look them up yourself. They have thing thing called Google.

You are just focusing on what court case it is to deflect. That's all you can do in this situation because Biden is obviously a huge piece of shirt for refusing to acknowledge the grandchild until now.

Despite the increasingly desperate attempts to deflect attention (and these attempts do look really desperate BTW), Biden is doing a really good job at actually being president. SFL can post laughing emojis all he wants, the president of US Steel praising a legislative accomplishment is significant. So is this:

SaintForLife said:

If you want additional details then look them up yourself. They have thing thing called Google.

You are just focusing on what court case it is to deflect. That's all you can do in this situation because Biden is obviously a huge piece of shirt for refusing to acknowledge the grandchild until now.

Click to expand...

He's not the one deflecting, lmao. He asked a legitimate question. If you can't source the claim, the claim is absolutely worthless. He's not and shouldn't verify your claims for you.

Farb said:

1. I wonder why Hunter was brought on the board?

Click to expand...

If I had to guess, I’d say it’s probably because Zlochevsky knew the entire world wanted Shokin fired, and he thought the son of the US VP could give him some leverage to get the US to prevent Shokins firing. We all saw how that went.

Farb said:

Do we know what the corrupt prosecutor was investigating?

Click to expand...

Yeah, we do. NOTHING. Zlochevsky was being investigated by the UK for money laundering. They submitted a records request to Shokin, pursuant to a mutual aid treaty, and Shokin never responded with the documents. Zlochevsky was also accused of giving Burisma sweet leases while he worked for the government (in violation of the laws), years before Hunter Biden was brought on board. Shokin was not investigating/prosecuting Zlochevsky for that. In other words, the “investigations” in question had nothing to do with anything Burisma did, or anything that happened while Hunter Biden was there.

Farb said:

2. Does a president (VP in this case) have the right to withhold military aid to a country or countries in order to get a desired foreign policy action?

Click to expand...

Yes and no. The president can withhold money, as long as he notified congress of why it was withheld, for how long, and the conditions under which it will be released. In this case, it appears that congress was aware of it, as a bipartisan group of Congress members agreed that Shokin needed to be fired.

As for Biden, in this case, HE was not withholding anything. He didn’t make the decision. He was executing the stated policy of the US government.

DaveXA said:

He's not the one deflecting, lmao. He asked a legitimate question. If you can't source the claim, the claim is absolutely worthless. He's not and shouldn't verify your claims for you.

Click to expand...

This took me one minute to find. You would think CNN and the AP would have known that too, but I'm guessing they left that detail out intentionally.