4 ms·

> He was held to a different standard when Twitter removed people posting pictures and articles about his crime. If I committed a crime would Twitter ban those

> He was held to a different standard when Twitter removed people posting pictures and articles about his crime. If I committed a crime would Twitter ban those pictures? Doubt it. First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted. Second, you can ask to have content removed, nobody is stopping you, no executive orders or legal threats were issued. > How did he get his job in Ukraine No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own. > and why did the prosecutor get fired at Joe Biden's request Citation needed. > if it wasn't for cronyism? Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent. Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government. > He did make millions in a nongovernmental position that he was given due to his relationship with his father though. It does make quite a bit of a difference between inside and outside, don't you think? I hope you were proportionally outraged over Ivanka and Jared: > Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump reported between $172 million and $640 million in outside income while working in the White House, according to an analysis of financial disclosures by CREW. It is impossible to tell the exact amount as the income is sometimes reported in broad ranges and cover four months of income before Ivanka Trump officially joined her father’s administration and nearly one month before Jared Kushner joined. While Jared (Trump's son in law, appointed to __FEDERAL__ position, ergo more cronyism) signed a 2 billion dollar deal with Saudis. So are you equally outraged over this level of cronyism? Again, here is a definition of cronyism to help you: > the practice of favoring one's close friends, especially in political appointments. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/jared-and-ivanka-made-up-to-640-million-in-the-white-house/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/cre... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-in...

flavius29663 4y ago
> no executive orders or legal threats were issued. that is a pretty interesting high bar to uphold > No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own. That was an open and shut case of corruption, you playing innocent ("no idea") does not make it less so. > Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent. Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government. This is literally whataboutism. In the meantime, twitter did not remove information about Ivanka and the Trumps, on the contrary. In an alternate reality, wouldn't you be pissed if Google removed all bad information about the Trumps?
_-david-_ 4y ago
>First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted. There are literally pictures of him smoking crack. I don't fully remember, but there may have been a video of it as well. Do you think it is a deep fake? >Second, you can ask to have content removed, nobody is stopping you, no executive orders or legal threats were issued. That isn't what happened with the Hunter pictures and articles though. The government asked for it to be removed. > No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own. I never suggested that happened. > Citation needed. Joe Biden said it himself: "I'm not going to -- or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said -- I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." This was the prosecutor investigating the company Hunter Biden was working at. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but there was a clear conflict of interest. > Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent. Of course I am against this. The difference is Twitter didn't ban any articles about this like they did with Hunter. >Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government. I don't think this matters. The only reason (as far as I can tell) that Hunter got the job is because his dad was in an official position in the government. No different than the Trumps. > It does make quite a bit of a difference between inside and outside, don't you think? No. Corruption is corruption. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior. >I hope you were proportionally outraged over Ivanka and Jared: I am proportionally outraged at Ivanka and Jared as I am Hunter. I am not proportionally outraged over the situation since only one was censored by Twitter.

flavius29663 4y ago

> no executive orders or legal threats were issued. that is a pretty interesting high bar to uphold > No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own. That was an open and shut case of corruption, you playing innocent ("no idea") does not make it less so. > Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent. Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government. This is literally whataboutism. In the meantime, twitter did not remove information about Ivanka and the Trumps, on the contrary. In an alternate reality, wouldn't you be pissed if Google removed all bad information about the Trumps?

_-david-_ 4y ago

>First, if a crime was committed, which you have no proof of except accusations from shady or borderline criminal entities, he could very well get prosecuted. There are literally pictures of him smoking crack. I don't fully remember, but there may have been a video of it as well. Do you think it is a deep fake? >Second, you can ask to have content removed, nobody is stopping you, no executive orders or legal threats were issued. That isn't what happened with the Hunter pictures and articles though. The government asked for it to be removed. > No idea, but I am fairly certain that Biden can't appoint people as board members to companies he does not own. I never suggested that happened. > Citation needed. Joe Biden said it himself: "I'm not going to -- or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said -- I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." This was the prosecutor investigating the company Hunter Biden was working at. Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but there was a clear conflict of interest. > Umm, I take it you took issue with Ivanka's positions and the 2 billion $ deals with the Saudis, yes? I am just asking questions here to make sure you are consistent. Of course I am against this. The difference is Twitter didn't ban any articles about this like they did with Hunter. >Also, unlike Ivanka and co(-conspirators), he was __NEVER__ appointed to an official position in the US government. I don't think this matters. The only reason (as far as I can tell) that Hunter got the job is because his dad was in an official position in the government. No different than the Trumps. > It does make quite a bit of a difference between inside and outside, don't you think? No. Corruption is corruption. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior. >I hope you were proportionally outraged over Ivanka and Jared: I am proportionally outraged at Ivanka and Jared as I am Hunter. I am not proportionally outraged over the situation since only one was censored by Twitter.