Should Biden be impeached for ignoring courts over tyrannical mandate?

Author: Greyparrot
Biden
Corruption
DNC
Dictator

Posts

Total: 62
Topic's author
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
But you already know why Biden's handlers are waging a war against the American worker in the middle of an inflationary period.

It's all about the great reset. A massive transfer of wealth from the working class to Washington DC.

Also, according to radical left wing fuckmedia MSNBC, the amount of container ships hanging around California has grown from 58 to 78, an increase in 20 ships AFTER Brandon made his grand proclamation about his sweeping mandates to "fix the problem," Soviet style.

I hope you guys bought Crypto when it was low during the Trump days.


#32
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
But JoeBiden is not being looked at for those concerns, and the party who is looked at for impeachment on those matters cannot be impeached since that party has already left office; the one punishment impeachment and conviction on that impeachment can impose. Your 'if' is meaningless. Try reading the Constitution once in a while and comprehending its text.
It seems you've mistaken my response for someone suggesting Trump should be impeached (for a third time).  Certainly tilting at windmills has never been done with such fine technique, sir.
#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
A Zedku for Faux.


Both sides are conflicted.

And you don't get it.

Us and them.

It's gotta be civil war time soon.

So get your AR15's you brave nationalists

And sort it like the real gender non-specifics that you are.

Land of the free and all that constitutional bullshit.


No hiding in that Californian bunker now.

Stand up and be counted.

God's bound to be on your side.


#34
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's sure as hell a weird way of saying "sexually assaulting a White House intern"
Facts be dammed…

“as what transpired between Bill Clinton and myself was not sexual assault”
#35
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will
Hi, Double_R. Hope you're doing well!

It wasn't sexual assault in the sense of physical force. There was the facade of consent. But, considering she was a lowly White House intern and he was the literal most powerful man in the world, I think there is inherently some coercion present because of that power distance.

Do you think that she could reasonably have said 'no' to a request for a blowjob? Don't you think she considered that there could be severe consequences if she upset the president?
#36
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@bmdrocks21

It wasn't sexual assault in the sense of physical force. There was the facade of consent. But, considering she was a lowly White House intern and he was the literal most powerful man in the world, I think there is inherently some coercion present because of that power distance.

Do you think that she could reasonably have said 'no' to a request for a blowjob? Don't you think she considered that there could be severe consequences if she upset the president?


well stated
#37
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
well stated

Thank you, BPD <3
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
Forget moral fortitude, the Democrat5s violated their rules. Read them. I know you won't.
You’re right, I won’t, because this is an absurd attempt at deflection. The question at hand is whether the president of the United States used the prospect of withholding foreign aid in an attempt to coerce a foreign nation into helping his re-election campaign. If Biden did that your hair would be in fire and you know it. But it was your guy, so instead you want to sit here and talk about what rules the democrats set for themselves in the impeachment process and whether they followed those rules appropriately. It’s a blatantly obvious attempt to change the subject because you know your guy is guilty and you can’t just admit it.

or the actual transcript, which indicates that between the time Trump asked for a "favor" and mention of investigation of Punter Biden, seven other named subjects were discussed. Which was the favor? The last? Only in the minds of zealots. Read the transcript.
I suggest you take your own advice. Take note of the phrase “The other thing,” on page 4 line 6 that Trump uttered right before asking a foreign nation to investigate his top political rival’s son.. Let me know if you need help understanding what that means.

Really? Does that apply to the "common sense" that Rittenhouse is a racist, as suggested by Biden's campaign ad last summer, when both Rittenhouse and the three men he shot in apparent self-defense [because the video shows all three men coming after him, not the other way around] are all white. What racism? that's common sense? Maybe to you and your sock puppet.
This response was sent to the wrong person. You and I were just talking about the impeachment, but you seem to be responding to someone who said something about Rittenhouse being a racist. That’s another thread, and another user since I have made no such argument.
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you think that she could reasonably have said 'no' to a request for a blowjob? Don't you think she considered that there could be severe consequences if she upset the president?
Instead of injecting our own opinions of what must have happened, why don’t we just ask her? This is what she had to say almost 20 years later:

“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship”

You can all that many things, sexual assault is not one of them.
#40
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
The question at hand is whether the president of the United States used the prospect of withholding foreign aid in an attempt to coerce a foreign nation into helping his re-election campaign.
Wrong, and the statement makes obvious that you entirely misunderstood the timing of events then, and now.

1. The payment in question was paid on time, which was due by Sept. 30, and was actually paid two weeks prior to that deadline. The accusation that it was late, and that Ukrainian troops were left unprotected because of it is wrong, and here's why:

2. Aid payments to Ukraine, and everything other expenditure of the U.S. Government is paid according to a fiscal year schedule which begins Oct 1 of each fiscal year, and ends Sept 30 of each following fiscal year. Therefore, the payment due on Sept 30 was actually the first payment for the following fiscal year, not the current year, so, the Ukraine troops were already covered for the end of the current [then] fiscal year by the previous month's payment, which was also paid on time. You were apparently unaware of this fact, being educated only by your MSM, which is not entirely, ever accurate.

3. Who did threaten non-payment? JoeBiden. He bragged about it on video, about Jan 18, 2017 as then VP to Obama. Look it up.

Let's cite "The other thing" to see exactly what it says:  

"The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."  https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
and you claim it says

Trump... asking a foreign nation to investigate his top political rival’s son.. Let me know if you need help understanding what that means.
The timing of this telephone conversation between Trump and Pres-elect Zelensky of Ukraine is 7/25/2019. At that time, does Trump have a political rival? No, because 2020 presidential primaries had not yet begun, let alone not yet having either party's convention to select the presidential rival candidates. Speculation, yes, but what meaning does that have? Biden didn't place in the the top three candidates in the first two primaries of spring 2020, so, at the time, speculation didn't mean much.

Was Trump asking about Biden's son as the thrust of the pg. 4 commentary, or Biden's stopping the prosecution? By the transcript, one cannot tell. One can certainly speculate, and you do so well, but, we see just now the value of speculation... let me know if you need help with that.
#41
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
Wrong, and the statement makes obvious that you entirely misunderstood the timing of events then, and now.

1. The payment in question was paid on time, which was due by Sept. 30
The phone call in question happened on July 25th, a full 2 months prior. The idea that the payment being made on time has any relevance here is just silly.

91 minutes after the phone call on July 25th a senior White House official sent an email to the pentagon telling them to “hold off” on the aid to Ukraine. The White House would continue the freeze until after the story broke in Politico that the funds were being withheld on August 28th and news of the whistleblower complaint broke on September 10th. The funds were released the next day on September 11th.

You can’t seriously believe this is not obvious.

You were apparently unaware of this fact, being educated only by your MSM
The payment schedule is not relevant to the charge. If you want to know why these payments were so important, ask Ukraine, they could explain it to you. Ask Zelensky why he booked an appearance on CNN in early September that year to announce the fake investigation into Hunter Biden and then canceled that appearance on September 18th after the whistleblower News hit mainstream.

Who did threaten non-payment? JoeBiden. He bragged about it on video, about Jan 18, 2017 as then VP to Obama. Look it up.
I’ve seen the video a hundred times, it’s another nonsense deflection. The difference between these two scenarios is that Biden was acting on behalf of the United States, Trump was acting on behalf of his own reelection campaign. Let me know if I need to explain to you why those two things are not the same.

Let's cite "The other thing" to see exactly what it says: 

"The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." 
and you claim it says

Trump... asking a foreign nation to investigate his top political rival’s son.. Let me know if you need help understanding what that means.
Hey, that’s a nice family you got there. Would be a shame if something happened to them.

At that time, does Trump have a political rival? No, because 2020 presidential primaries had not yet begun, let alone not yet having either party's convention to select the presidential rival candidates. Speculation, yes, but what meaning does that have? Biden didn't place in the the top three candidates in the first two primaries of spring 2020, so, at the time, speculation didn't mean much.
Biden lead in every single poll for months before, months after, and was the clear winner as all the polls predicted. It’s a nice try though, using the whole two state primaries to pretend as if there was any real doubt who the front runner was. Unfortunately for you I was there.

Was Trump asking about Biden's son as the thrust of the pg. 4 commentary, or Biden's stopping the prosecution?
If the transcript wasn’t clear enough for you, pull your head out of the sand and look around. It’s not even being disputed.
Topic's author
#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
If there was any doubt Hunter wasn't being used for political influence, his 500,000 dollar paintings clear up any counter-arguments.

Corruption and money laundering is just part and parcel of being a Democrat.
#43
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
@Double_R
Actually bmdrocks has a point.

Let's see what we say when it's a prison guard, movie director, more powerful actor or college professor who would do that with an underling they have power over. 

There's many instanced especially with sex where we realise that consent is able to be manufactured if the one doing the initation and pressuring to continue is in a position of power over the one they engage sexually with.

The underling inherently has reasons to go along with due to implied consequences vs rewards and this is where their decision to engage sexually can seem consensual to them when that consent is very iffy. There's also reasons to fear accusing a man that powerful of any kind of coercion, even 20 years later. He'd get away with it now if she said different, after all.

We can't talk shit about Trump and what he does with women while being married if we don't hold Bill Clinton under the same scrutiny, Lewinsky isn't the only woman he has supposedly engaged with just the only confirmed one he had repeated encounters with.

#44
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Instead of injecting our own opinions of what must have happened, why don’t we just ask her? This is what she had to say almost 20 years later:

“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship”

You can all that many things, sexual assault is not one of them.
That's not my opinion, it's what the facts point to when they are all considered together. There are women who have been raped but don't think or say they have. They can call it a "bad encounter" or think they just regret it. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape just because they said it isn't, as a victim's words aren't how we determine if it occurred or not.

Therefore, simply quoting her words doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault.

So, do you think that a sexual relationship between the most powerful person and someone with little to no power has no coercive elements? If so, why not?
#45
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
The idea that the payment being made on time has any relevance here is just silly.
Talk about "silly!" Tell me how a payment that is due on Sept 30, and was actually pa0id, as you admit,  on Sept 11, is "withheld?" Kind of makes payment schedule important, doesn't it? Who's being silly? You, bud. I won't ask if you need help with that; it's obvious.

Biden was acting on behalf of the United States,
Biden's own commentary says otherwise, because Biden made it about family, not the U.S.  Biden's condition on releasing payment was not an issue affecting the U.S., or its national security, but firing the Ukraine prosecutor. What was the prosecutor doing? He was not threatening the U.S. https://www.nysun.com/editorials/well-son-of-a-bitch-biden-in-ukraine-part-ii/91270/. You have not seen the video sufficient times to understand that. 




Topic's author
#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
I like how it is assumed taxpayer money should go to foreign countries unconditionally.
#47
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Absolutely right. And let's not forget, either, that the Obama/Biden admin was so interested in helping Ukraine, that they sent them tax-paid blankets to protect themselves against Russia. Who colludes with Russia, again?
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
That's not my opinion, it's what the facts point to when they are all considered together. There are women who have been raped but don't think or say they have. They can call it a "bad encounter" or think they just regret it. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape just because they said it isn't, as a victim's words aren't how we determine if it occurred or not.

Therefore, simply quoting her words doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault.
So in other words, you know better whether it was sexual assault than the person who not only lived through it, but literally wrote a book and gives speeches about it in relation to today’s me too movement. Ok bro.

So, do you think that a sexual relationship between the most powerful person and someone with little to no power has no coercive elements? If so, why not?
The presence of coercive elements is not sexual assault.


#49
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@Double_R
The presence of coercive elements is not sexual assault.
yes that is.
being coerced into sex is still rape.
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
Tell me how a payment that is due on Sept 30, and was actually pa0id, as you admit,  on Sept 11, is "withheld?"
If you had bothered to pay attention to any of the charges against Trump, you would know that failing to make the payment was never one of them.

Trump was charged with attempting to coerce a foreign nation into investigating his political rival. The fact that he failed because his scheme became public knowledge before he could pull it off is not a defense a against that charge. You know that.

So no, the payment schedule is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that the pentagon was told to “hold off” 91 minutes after the phone call, and ultimately released the funds the day after news broke about the whistleblower complaint and congress demanding to see it.

If you walk into the kitchen and find your child with his hands in the cookie jar and he pulls his hand out as soon as you walk in, you aren’t seriously going to accept “but I never took a cookie” as a defense.

What we’re talking about here is Trump’s mindset, because the mindset of the person who holds the nuclear codes actually matters.

Biden's own commentary says otherwise, because Biden made it about family, not the U.S.  Biden's condition on releasing payment was not an issue affecting the U.S., or its national security, but firing the Ukraine prosecutor.
Biden’s commentary does not say otherwise and had absolutely nothing to do with family, that’s just completely made up BS.

The position that the prosecutor needed to be fired was US policy supported by every intelligence agency, the state department, the White House, and the entire western world. Even republicans were on the record in support of it. This was in no way controversial, no matter how hard you will try to revise history now.

In Biden’s recap of the conversation Ukrainian officials even told Biden that he as VP cannot withhold the aid, which is a fact - he cannot, and he told them to call Obama. The idea that Joe was somehow acting on his own volition is just remarkably ignorantly wrong.

And once again let me reiterate, the reason the US was about to withhold the aid is because Ukraine had a severe corruption problem so the administration was well within its rights legally and ethically to withhold US funds if it had real doubts about where the money would end up. That’s what administrations are supposed to do - protect US assets and investments.

Contrast this with Trump, who decided to withhold aid if Ukraine was unwilling to lie on their behalf about investigating the Biden’s to help Trump’s re-election. Using your position of authority for personal gain is the literal definition of corruption.

Topic's author
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The whole "fake investigation" into Hunter Biden is a laughable joke considering the public knowledge of his 500,000 dollar paintings that are obviously money laundering operations and obviously won't be investigated by DC elites who enjoy that level of corruption, as well as their supporters.

Even Vox, a radical left wing blowhorn knows this is corruption.

#52
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
If you had bothered to pay attention to any of the charges against Trump, you would know that failing to make the payment was never one of them.
If you bothered to pay attention to the result of the charges against Trump, you would know that the failure was on Nancy Pelosi and her keystone cops, Schiff & Nadler for the pathetic effort of prosecution of those charges. Not to mention - since I already have and you ignore it - that Nancy failed herself in disregarding her own House Rules in mounting the impeachment effort in the first place. All it takes a read of the House Rules to know it's true, but you cannot be bothered.

you aren’t seriously going to accept “but I never took a cookie” as a defense.
Of course, that is patent prog thinking, ignoring the consequence that no cookie was, in fact, taken. But, you would prosecute, anyway, because intent is, in your mind, all that is required in a criminal prosecution when the fact is, no one can read another's mind; you only think you can, because that's what progs do. Unfortunate for you, the House failed to convince the Senate it had a case, and broke its own rules in that failure. Some team you're on.
#53
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
Not to mention - since I already have and you ignore it - that Nancy failed herself in disregarding her own House Rules in mounting the impeachment effort in the first place.
I already addressed this and you had nothing to say about it. This is completely and utterly irrelevant to the charges against Trump. But when you have no argument all you got left is deflection, so I guess I don’t blame you.

Of course, that is patent prog thinking, ignoring the consequence that no cookie was, in fact, taken.
I don’t believe you are being serious. There’s no way I really need to explain these concepts to you, but I guess I will anyway…

If you were to catch your child with his hand in the cookie jar, the fact that no cookie was taken is irrelevant. The issue at hand is that your child has now shown himself to be untrustworthy around the cookie jar without supervision. That changes the way you do things.

Trump was the president of the United States, the most powerful man in the country and perhaps the world. He was in charge of making huge decisions that impact all of us including whether to use the nuclear codes, and in 2019 he showed himself to be unworthy of our trust. He showed that US interests came 2nd to his own personal interests. This is the literal definition of corruption and if it were Clinton, Obama, or Biden you wouldn’t have the slightest bit of trouble understanding this.

But, you would prosecute, anyway, because intent is, in your mind, all that is required in a criminal prosecution when the fact is, no one can read another's mind; you only think you can, because that's what progs do.
Establishing intent is one of the most basic elements of our justice system. Literally every person that’s ever been convicted of first degree murder has been found to have intended the act. So if you actually believed what you’re saying, you would be advocating for the abolition of first degree murder as a chargeable offense. But we both know you don’t believe that.

What really strikes me though about this comment is a pattern I’m starting to notice about you, where the very idea of using ones brain seems to be something you are against. You talk about us prosecuting Trump as if that were ever the conversation, where in reality all we’re talking about is using logic and reason to form a conclusion about what Trump did. And you talk about intent like it requires a mind reader even though assessing someone else’s intent is something every one  of us does everyday with nearly everyone around us. It’s one of the most basic parts of assessing whether we like another person or despise them. This is really basic stuff.
#54
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Even Vox, a radical left wing blowhorn knows this is corruption.
Did you even read the article? It made no allegation of corruption. All it talked about is how it is unethical of Hunter to sell his paintings at such a high price. An argument that really amuses me coming from such a staunch free market get government out of my business advocate.

public knowledge of his 500,000 dollar paintings that are obviously money laundering
Obviously is not an argument, it’s a substitute for one. Provide your evidence.

And BTW, I never did get an answer… why are you along with Rightwingville so obsessed with Hunter Biden? I mean, selling his paintings at a high price has you triggered? Really? Where were you while Trump was selling out his hotels to foreign nationals, when Trump’s daughter was accompanying him on state meetings with Chinese officials right before being fast tracked Chinese patents, when Trump was diverting US troops away from military bases and out of their way to stay in Trump hotels where he would charge them the maximum legal amount? But now you’re an ethics watchdog? Really?
#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
The presence of coercive elements is not sexual assault.
yes that is.
being coerced into sex is still rape.
Read the thread before commenting on it.

I never said she was coerced into sex, in fact I pointed out that to this day even she is still standing firm on the fact that the relationship was consensual. A consensual relationship is literally the opposite of coercion, and certainly rape.
Topic's author
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,981
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
As I said, Brandon's supporters are just fine with that level of corruption and misuse of the FBI.

This is how tyranny starts, when good people do nothing.
#57
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
So in other words, you know better whether it was sexual assault than the person who not only lived through it, but literally wrote a book and gives speeches about it in relation to today’s me too movement. Ok bro.

So in other words, you have no argument. You are utterly incapable of looking at the facts of the matter and coming to a conclusion.

The fact of the matter is this: you very likely know you are wrong but are too contrarian and prideful to admit it. So, you don't engage with anything I say and keep quoting her as if that in itself is somehow irrefutable proof.

If a battered woman says her boyfriend isn't beating her, I guess we should just assume that is the truth, right? No matter his bruised fists and her bruised face, because we can't possibly "know better", right "bro"?

The presence of coercive elements is not sexual assault.

It literally is. Sexual relations that someone is coerced into is sexual assault. Coercion doesn't need to be physical, either
#58
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
@RM 

I appreciate you guys going out of your way to support me on this even though you two don't like me lmao

8 days later

#59
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Suppose there were a call to impeach Biden, there isn't a single person in the entire judicial system that would do the job. A total waste of time and effort. Biden could murder new born infants on live television and nothing would come of it. His press secretary would just come out and say that never happened even though you saw it happen and that would be the end of it.


#60
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@sadolite
You’re confusing Biden and his administration for the former guy