Biden’s contempt for the average American voter knows no bounds

[BSC911]

1) I'm sorry his tax returns didn't show Putin owns him.

But he never built his tax returns for public consumption like a lifelong politician does - he built them for maximum profit/revenue.

But ultimately the fact that you're comparing that to someone permanently politicizing and fundamentally changing one of the three core branches of gov't are all I need to know about the strength of your argument.

And while it might seem awesome now, with Biden leading in the polls, the party in power always oscillates. You won't like it one bit when the shoe is on the other foot.

2) The Pubs turned it into a ruse? You mean the same republicans who - at the very last second - trotted out Ballsy Ford to do her scared college girl act with literally zero corroboration? Or the second girl who claimed rape trains, and later copped to making everything up?

The same repubes who came up with the Anita Hill BS and tried to ruin Clarence Thomas?

The Democrats have a pretty solid record of making these confirmation hearings complete theater, where truth doesn't matter at all...the only goal is to destroy the nominee that they fear will try to be an originalist.

The current placement, while unfortunate for Democrats, is supported by precedent.

So much BS, all in one post.

1. Us citizens aren’t wanting to see the tax returns because it shows Trump is in Putin’s pocket. We already know that.
2. if his returns are to maximize revenues and profits, he’s doing a really poor job of it, showing losses in 10 out of 15 years.
3. The Pubs started this politicizing the S.C. justice by not holding hearings for Garland for the people to see.
4. Ford was a credible witness. Very few sexual assaults have corroberation.
5. Anita Hill was also credible. You guys just automatically attack anyone who claims assault. It’s part of your MO.
6. The ”truth” depends on who you believe. I doubt you are one to judge.

 

[theswamp15]

That’s pretty much all we do on here. It is a political message board after all.

The point is that all Politicians are liars and hypocrites. This is not news.

But if you get mad when Trump does it why don’t you get equally as mad when Biden does it?

 

[IrishPokerDog]

4. Ford was a credible witness. Very few sexual assaults have corroberation.
5. Anita Hill was also credible. You guys just automatically attack anyone who claims assault. It’s part of your MO.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.....

wait, wait.....(inhale)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣😂

 

[BSC911]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.....

wait, wait.....(inhale)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣😂

Both professional women who knew the persons they accused. Whether they were actually assaulted assaulted is only known by the two of them, and there may be a reasonable difference of opinion.

But to claim to know they weren’t is just your partisan hat showing. You probably don’t believe Trump nailed Stormy while Melanie was preggo.

 

[BSC911]

But if you get mad when Trump does it why don’t you get equally as mad when Biden does it?

I don’t get mad when either does it. I’m not naive. I understand that’s the nature of politics.

Now if you want to ask why do I only point it out when Trump does it, then you’ll have to ask yourself the same question.

 

[theswamp15]

I don’t get mad when either does it. I’m not naive. I understand that’s the nature of politics.

Now if you want to ask why do I only point it out when Trump does it, then you’ll have to ask yourself the same question.

What same question would I have to ask myself? I don’t like either Joe or Trump and won’t be voting for either one of them.

So again I’ll ask why do you only point it out when Trump does it? Same question applies to the Trumpers who ignore Trumps lies.

 

[gator1776]

So much BS, all in one post.

1. Us citizens aren’t wanting to see the tax returns because it shows Trump is in Putin’s pocket. We already know that.
2. if his returns are to maximize revenues and profits, he’s doing a really poor job of it, showing losses in 10 out of 15 years.
3. The Pubs started this politicizing the S.C. justice by not holding hearings for Garland for the people to see.
4. Ford was a credible witness. Very few sexual assaults have corroberation.
5. Anita Hill was also credible. You guys just automatically attack anyone who claims assault. It’s part of your MO.
6. The ”truth” depends on who you believe. I doubt you are one to judge.

Just curious, have you ever run a business?

 

[BSC911]

Just curious, have you ever run a business?

LOL. You must be new here.

Several.

 

[IrishPokerDog]

Both professional women who knew the persons they accused. Whether they were actually assaulted assaulted is only known by the two of them, and there may be a reasonable difference of opinion.

But to claim to know they weren’t is just your partisan hat showing. You probably don’t believe Trump nailed Stormy while Melanie was preggo.

there was not a damn thing about EITHER account that was credible - really dude??!?? A pubic hair on her Coke can??? And it could have ONLY been Thomas’s because it was black??

get frigging real

 

[gator1776]

So much BS, all in one post.

1. Us citizens aren’t wanting to see the tax returns because it shows Trump is in Putin’s pocket. We already know that.
2. if his returns are to maximize revenues and profits, he’s doing a really poor job of it, showing losses in 10 out of 15 years.
3. The Pubs started this politicizing the S.C. justice by not holding hearings for Garland for the people to see.
4. Ford was a credible witness. Very few sexual assaults have corroberation.
5. Anita Hill was also credible. You guys just automatically attack anyone who claims assault. It’s part of your MO.
6. The ”truth” depends on who you believe. I doubt you are one to judge.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.....

wait, wait.....(inhale)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣😂

Is it Dr. I would agree that Anita Hill was a far more credible witness. I have zero trouble believing that Clarence Thomas referenced a pubic hair on a coke can.

But as a doctor I can tell you that Ford’s testimony was not nearly as credible and much more suspect. There are certain patterns of behavior that note, I don’t want to go so far as to say line, but the note searching for answers when you don’t know what the answer is already. Her testimony was a textbook on what to look for when people are trying to make up the answers as they go along or when they’ve been coached and rehearsed on answers if they don’t necessarily agree with or have developed them selves. Those regards Ford’s testimony was not credible and there was not a shot of evidence or proof to back It up. In terms of a legal argument it really boils down to her word against his and that’s not a very strong legal argument when you don’t come across as believable.

 

[gator1776]

LOL. You must be new here.

Several.

No I’ve never really talked about your personal life so I was asking. iPhone to and frequently show losses because of the size of the businesses and the fact that we tend to put large amounts of money back into the business. Some years we bank the money so we have something to live off of plus we live off my physician salary. So I don’t find it unusual at all that 10 out of 15 years he showed a loss on his income tax. More importantly I don’t really care because it has nothing to do with whether or not I support him as president.

 

[BSC911]

What same question would I have to ask myself? I don’t like either Joe or Trump and won’t be voting for either one of them.

So again I’ll ask why do you only point it out when Trump does it? Same question applies to the Trumpers who ignore Trumps lies.

To answer your question, because on message board Arguments, you have to take sides. Very rarely does one criticize both sides equally. Do you? if you are one of those, then you’re the exception, not the rule.

 

[BSC911]

Is it Dr. I would agree that Anita Hill was a far more credible witness. I have zero trouble believing that Clarence Thomas referenced a pubic hair on a coke can.

But as a doctor I can tell you that Ford’s testimony was not nearly as credible and much more suspect. There are certain patterns of behavior that note, I don’t want to go so far as to say line, but the note searching for answers when you don’t know what the answer is already. Her testimony was a textbook on what to look for when people are trying to make up the answers as they go along or when they’ve been coached and rehearsed on answers if they don’t necessarily agree with or have developed them selves. Those regards Ford’s testimony was not credible and there was not a shot of evidence or proof to back It up. In terms of a legal argument it really boils down to her word against his and that’s not a very strong legal argument when you don’t come across as believable.

Thats still just your opinion and proves nothing.

Personally, I don’t believe what she testified to was assault, but merely a drunk high school kid trying to get some action. Maybe that’s assault and maybe it’s not, but I doubt she just made up the whole thing.

But most importantly, I don’t think it rises to the level to reject his nomination. How’s that for fair and balanced.

 

[gator1776]

Thats still just your opinion and proves nothing.

Personally, I don’t believe what she testified was assault, but merely a drunk high school kid trying to get some action. Maybe that’s assault and maybe it’s not, but I doubt she just made up the whole thing.

But most importantly, I don’t think it rises to the level to reject his nomination. How’s that for fair and balanced.

Oh I completely agree that’s my opinion, but how is that any different from the fact that all you’re stating is your opinion that she is credible and where is the actual proof that he did what he was accused of?

Or if you prefer to point out the fact that this is a court of both public opinion and Senate opinion then all we are left with is our opinions so why is mine any less valid than yours?

So as you see I’m arguing the points with you, but I agree it would not, based off of what we were given, eliminate him from being a Supreme Court justice. And if you and I agree then how do you explain the fact that all Democrats voted against him in on what grounds?

 

[BSC911]

No I’ve never really talked about your personal life so I was asking. iPhone to and frequently show losses because of the size of the businesses and the fact that we tend to put large amounts of money back into the business. Some years we bank the money so we have something to live off of plus we live off my physician salary. So I don’t find it unusual at all that 10 out of 15 years he showed a loss on his income tax. More importantly I don’t really care because it has nothing to do with whether or not I support him as president.

As a former CPA, I understand how it works. I also invest in many real estate deals so also understand the favorable treatment given to real estate investors.

My complaints are not about whether it’s legal (although I understand the IRS is questioning his refund claims), but rather a question of propriety. If billionaires like Trump aren’t paying taxes, who is funding the government? Answer: the working class schlubs. That’s a problem IMO.

 

[gator1776]

As a former CPA, I understand how it works. I also invest in many real estate deals so also understand the favorable treatment given to real estate investors.

My complaints are not about whether it’s legal (although I understand the IRS is questioning his refund claims), but rather a question of propriety. If billionaires like Trump aren’t paying taxes, who is funding the government? Answer: the working class schlubs. That’s a problem IMO.

Well as a CPA though you do realize that by being a businessman and a billionaire he does pay taxes, probably millions of dollars in taxes, it’s just not all in income tax. But he obviously pays a sales tax and FICA taxes in matching for all of his employees and probably 20 or 30 other taxes I don’t think of because I’m not an accountant.

He also creates jobs for thousands of people who didn’t pay taxes. So I guess it’s a interesting argument, his fair share define by a dollar amount or by a percentage?

For example I assume I probably pay about anywhere from 20 to 25% of my income to Texas. But I also pay enough in taxes to employee three or four people full-time. So am I paying my fair share? I guess that’s the crux of the question

 

[BSC911]

there was not a damn thing about EITHER account that was credible - really dude??!?? A pubic hair on her Coke can??? And it could have ONLY been Thomas’s because it was black??

get frigging real

I said the witnesses were credible, ie both professional women with no history of spurious sexual assault claims.

As far as their actual claims, I have no idea if they were true or not. They both seem plausible, because men do stupid stuff. But neither should have been disqualified even if true IMO. Hell, Trump is actually accused of rape and nobody cares.

 

[theswamp15]

To answer your question, because on message board Arguments, you have to take sides. Very rarely does one criticize both sides equally. Do you? if you are one of those, then you’re the exception, not the rule.

But isn’t your side that lying is wrong? Do you agree with Joe that we don’t deserve to know his stance on certain issues? I guess I’m confused on what exactly your stance is. I do criticize both sides because they are the same at the end of the day.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

To a person, the people closest to Anita and Clarence, sided with Clarence.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

LOL. You must be new here.

Several.

On the internet, anyone can be a dog.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

But isn’t your side that lying is wrong? Do you agree with Joe that we don’t deserve to know his stance on certain issues? I guess I’m confused on what exactly your stance is. I do criticize both sides because they are the same at the end of the day.

That's because most decent people have one stance applied equally to all. The stance for the average dem like @BSC911 changes and morphs to adapt to whatever they need it to be at any moment.

IOW, they are hypocrites.

 

[BSC911]

But isn’t your side that lying is wrong? Do you agree with Joe that we don’t deserve to know his stance on certain issues? I guess I’m confused on what exactly your stance is. I do criticize both sides because they are the same at the end of the day.

I will never defend outrig lies. Joe refusing to answer a question is not a lie. In fact, his refusal to answer should tell you all you need to know.

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[theswamp15]

I will never defend outrig lies. Joe refusing to answer a question is not a lie. In fact, his refusal to answer should tell you all you need to know.

When did you stop beating your wife?

I have no idea what you are talking about

 

[BSC911]

Oh I completely agree that’s my opinion, but how is that any different from the fact that all you’re stating is your opinion that she is credible and where is the actual proof that he did what he was accused of?

Or if you prefer to point out the fact that this is a court of both public opinion and Senate opinion then all we are left with is our opinions so why is mine any less valid than yours?

So as you see I’m arguing the points with you, but I agree it would not, based off of what we were given, eliminate him from being a Supreme Court justice. And if you and I agree then how do you explain the fact that all Democrats voted against him in on what grounds?

The difference is you are convinced she is lying. My opinion is that it’s plausible, but I don’t have an opinion either way. My point was that the individuals were credible, not that their stories were true.

As far as you last question, it’s partisanship and nothing else. Just payback for Garland. obviously if the roles were reversed the Dems would all vote to confirm and the Pubs would vote against, or not hold a vote at all.

 

[BSC911]

I have no idea what you are talking about

Good answer.


So you’re not denying it.

 

[gator1776]

The difference is you are convinced she is lying. My opinion is that it’s plausible, but I don’t have an opinion either way. My point was that the individuals were credible, not that their stories were true.

As far as you last question, it’s partisanship and nothing else. Just payback for Garland. obviously if the roles were reversed the Dems would all vote to confirm and the Pubs would vote against, or not hold a vote at all.

No I’m not convinced she’s lying. I’m convinced she’s telling a story from something that may or may not of happened over 30 years ago and can’t really remember the details and I think she’s been coached up quite a bit by her lawyers. But where did you see me say that she was lying? Again I went so far as to say I don’t want to say she’s lying because in her mind I think to some extent She believes what she is saying. That does not make it true, it’s just opinions on whether you think it’s the truth or not and no actual proof or evidence other than his word against hers.

 

[BSC911]

No I’m not convinced she’s lying. I’m convinced she’s telling a story from something that may or may not of happened over 30 years ago and can’t really remember the details and I think she’s been coached up quite a bit by her lawyers. But where did you see me say that she was lying? Again I went so far as to say I don’t want to say she’s lying because in her mind I think to some extent She believes what she is saying. That does not make it true, it’s just opinions on whether you think it’s the truth or not and no actual proof or evidence other than his word against hers.

Sorry, that must have been someone else. We are in agreement then.

 

[BSC911]

Well as a CPA though you do realize that by being a businessman and a billionaire he does pay taxes, probably millions of dollars in taxes, it’s just not all in income tax. But he obviously pays a sales tax and FICA taxes in matching for all of his employees and probably 20 or 30 other taxes I don’t think of because I’m not an accountant.

He also creates jobs for thousands of people who didn’t pay taxes. So I guess it’s a interesting argument, his fair share define by a dollar amount or by a percentage?

For example I assume I probably pay about anywhere from 20 to 25% of my income to Texas. But I also pay enough in taxes to employee three or four people full-time. So am I paying my fair share? I guess that’s the crux of the question

Sure, he pays property taxes as well.

But neither sales taxes, payroll taxes nor property taxes help fund the federal government. Someone has to pay those. If not billionaires, then who?

 

[theswamp15]

Good answer.


So you’re not denying it.

I can’t stop something I never started.

What is wrong with you and what point, if any, are you trying to make?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

To answer your question, because on message board Arguments, you have to take sides. Very rarely does one criticize both sides equally. Do you? if you are one of those, then you’re the exception, not the rule.

Are you still being a snowflake? Man up and answer the question.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I will never defend outrig lies.

But you've been busted lying here numerous times. I'm not sure I believe you here, either.

 

[NavigatorII]

As a former CPA, I understand how it works. I also invest in many real estate deals so also understand the favorable treatment given to real estate investors.

My complaints are not about whether it’s legal (although I understand the IRS is questioning his refund claims), but rather a question of propriety. If billionaires like Trump aren’t paying taxes, who is funding the government? Answer: the working class schlubs. That’s a problem IMO.

As an actual CPA, your attempt at a lie is appalling. Did you have your license yanked? Income is taxed on an ANNUAL basis, not on your cumulative wealth. (though I suspect you are a Bernie Bro and want a tax on that too, like Florida's old defunct intangible asset tax) DJT's personal taxes in no way reflect his corporate returns. I can guarantee you a billionaire funds a good portion of the general tax revenues that way, as well as providing jobs who in turn fund taxes to the economy. Karl Marx is not a good look for you, he was a loser and pilferer vagrant living like a trust fund baby on Engel's money.

 

[gatordad3]

Joe Biden: Every Racist Moment

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

Obama didn't have the Senate. Why have a hearing when the outcome of the vote is already known?

The only reason Obama nominated Garland was to enable whining and cries about how unfair it was. He knows how the system works.

Offering up a moderate SCOTUS candidate was a legitimate proposition at a time when most politicians and pundits were confident that Hilary would win.

 

[BamaFan1137]

Offering up a moderate SCOTUS candidate was a legitimate proposition at a time when most politicians and pundits were confident that Hilary would win.

I know you are probably going to hate this phrase but much of that confidence was based on fake news.

In fairness, it was also based on actual misinterpreted data and an unwillingness for some to admit publicly that they supported Trump because that somehow made you a racist (see fake news).

 

[gatordad3]

For them playing “Despacito” on your cell phone to pander to us! Hell no! You got to give us some credit for having heads on our shoulders.

Statement By Popular Latino UFC Fighter Jorge Masvidal Knocks Out Creepy Senile Groper Joe Biden - USBACKLASH.ORG

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy - usbacklash.org

usbacklash.org

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

As a former CPA, I understand how it works. I also invest in many real estate deals so also understand the favorable treatment given to real estate investors.

You also know if you don't keep paying Rivals $9.99 a month, you lose your premium membership. I think we are starting to see why you are a 'former' CPA.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Offering up a moderate SCOTUS candidate was a legitimate proposition at a time when most politicians and pundits were confident that Hilary would win.

Ummmm....that happened 8 months before the election. obama knew the Senate would never have a hearing on any nominee he made, that's why he sent a moderate. If dems had controlled the Senate, he would have sent another radical leftist like Kagan and Sotomayer.

 

[gatordad3]

You also know if you don't keep paying Rivals $9.99 a month, you lose your premium membership. I think we are starting to see why you are a 'former' CPA.

 

[Uniformed_ReRe]

Ummmm....that happened 8 months before the election. obama knew the Senate would never have a hearing on any nominee he made, that's why he sent a moderate. If dems had controlled the Senate, he would have sent another radical leftist like Kagan and Sotomayer.

If he thought that no nominee would get a hearing, why would he send a moderate? Sending a moderate only makes sense he if felt there was a chance to win them over. The implicit threat was “take this moderate now, or you’ll get stuck with another liberal after the election (when Hillary wins).”