The stunning hypocrisy of the Trump family's attacks on Hunter Biden

[dqhall]

I guess I missed the part where converting to the religion of one's spouse or intended spouse--which is done countless times by Americans of all faiths--is supposed to be criminal.

Converting to Orthodox Judaism is not a crime, but some may not consider it to be good judgement.

In 2018 Jared Kushner’s company was hit with $210,000 worth of fines for falsifying construction permits. These were not the first fines Kushner has accumulated.
Kushner Cos. Fined For Falsifying Construction Permits

 

[Hans Blaster]

The report states all presidents divested, and l still don't believe a word of it...im surprised you all do.

I don't know what's in this report you speak of, but I do know that you misused the word "divest" in what appeared to be a lack of understanding of the term.

(The "report" probably says "modern presidents" or infers such as none of the early presidents sold the people they owned.)

 

[Albion]

Converting to Orthodox Judaism is not a crime, but some may not consider it to be good judgement.

In 2018 Jared Kushner’s company was hit with $210,000 worth of fines for falsifying construction permits. These were not the first fines Kushner has accumulated.
Kushner Cos. Fined For Falsifying Construction Permits

That's all well and good, but the post to which I replied said this:

Talk about a crime syndicate, Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism in order to marry her sweetheart Jared Kushner.

 

[Kentonio]

Republicans have been following the strategy for decades now of attacking their opponents on the topics they’re strongest on or which they themselves are weakest on. It’s a surprisingly effective tactic (if you don’t care about truth).

 

[FireDragon76]

Republicans have been following the strategy for decades now of attacking their opponents on the topics they’re strongest on or which they themselves are weakest on. It’s a surprisingly effective tactic (if you don’t care about truth).

If you tell a lie often enough, people begin to believe it, and I suppose the same is true with these kinds of accusations. Truth or fairness stopped mattering for the Right when they made Nixon a martyr.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Donald Trump is the first president in modern history to refuse to divest from his business interests upon taking office.

I thought he did divest, and let his kids run the business?

No, he didn't.

Were you all expecting him to get rid of his business?

That's what the word "divest" means."

Is the op really saying all prior presidents shut down or got rid of their business prior to them taking office?

No. Did you read the OP? Why would you think that that's what it says?

The report states all presidents divested, and l still don't believe a word of it...im surprised you all do.

No, it doesn't say that.

I don't know what's in this report you speak of, but I do know that you misused the word "divest" in what appeared to be a lack of understanding of the term.

(The "report" probably says "modern presidents" or infers such as none of the early presidents sold the people they owned.)

DING DING DING!!!

From the article:

After all, if Trump really cared about corruption, he would have done what every other modern president did before taking office and divested from his business before taking office.

Nobody is claiming that Washington and Jefferson sold off their plantations. But I suppose ridiculing strawmen is easier than reading.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it doesn't say that.

It does.

Donald Trump is the first president in modern history to refuse to divest from his business interests upon taking office.

Meaning, all other presidents divested... it's not that complicated.

 

[Triumvirate]

It does.

Donald Trump is the first president in modern history to refuse to divest from his business interests upon taking office.

Meaning, all other presidents divested... it's not that complicated.

Bruh, this is embarrassing to watch

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, he didn't.

Tell it to the one who wrote the article. lol

 

[Kenny'sID]

Bruh, this is embarrassing to watch

Yet you make no comment at all in the post.

 

[Triumvirate]

Yet you make no comment at all in the post.

Other people are handling this nonsense ably, so they don't need my help.

I'd simply suggest that your interpretation that 'modern' refers to anything post 1776 is a mite...optimistic, to put it diplomatically

 

[iluvatar5150]

It does.

Donald Trump is the first president in modern history to refuse to divest from his business interests upon taking office.

Meaning, all other presidents divested... it's not that complicated.

Tell it to the one who wrote the article. lol

Are you going to keep overlooking the word "modern" like it's not there? You know that word is there for a reason, right?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Other people are handling this nonsense ably, so they don't need my help.

I'd simply suggest that your interpretation that 'modern' refers to anything post 1776 is a mite...optimistic, to put it diplomatically.

Then you basically have nothing...how embarassing is that

 

[Triumvirate]

Then you basically have nothing...how embarassing is that

And even if this were a valid point, what's the next step for you? It's ok for Trump to break a longstanding norm just because?

I would have thought good Christians would long for truth and transparency - aren't these good things to have?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you going to keep overlooking the word "modern" like it's not there? You know that word is there for a reason, right?

Oh I see, were stooping to taking advantage of obvious errors that l gave inelegant people enough credit to get past.

If you are that desperate to win an argument, gee, you sure showed me. Lol

 

[Triumvirate]

Oh I see, were stooping to taking advantage of obvious errors that l gave inelegant people enough credit to get past.

If you are that desperate to win an argument, gee, you sure showed me. Lol

Only obvious error is the person misreading the piece, and it's not iluvatar.

Words have meaning - words like 'modern'

 

[Kenny'sID]

And even if this were a valid point, what's the next step for you? It's ok for Trump to break a longstanding norm just because?

I would have thought good Christians would long for truth and transparency - aren't these good things to have?

I don't see a problem at all with it. As far as a good Christian goes, completely irrelevant.

 

[Triumvirate]

I don't see a problem at all with it. As far as a good Christian goes, completely irrelevant.

Yes, it does seem rather irrelevant in this case.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Oh I see, were stooping to taking advantage of obvious errors that l gave inelegant people enough credit to get past.

If you are that desperate to win an argument, gee, you sure showed me. Lol

What the heck are you talking about? You repeatedly misquoted the article, alleging that it was making a claim about all past presidents, when it clearly wasn't. The word "modern" is fundamental to the difference between their actual claim and your mischaracterization of it.

The only thing inelegant here is you, with your misreading of the article and your refusal to admit your error. Don't try to pin your mistakes on us.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Only obvious error is the person misreading the piece, and it's not iluvatar.

Words have meaning - words like 'modern'

Milk it.