The Biden Crime Family is exposed each & every day - Truth always prevails!!

Author: TWS1405_2
Crime
Biden
Corruption
Hunter
CCP

Posts

Total: 32
Topic's author
#1
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7

Senator Grassley and Johnson’s investigation into Biden Inc criminality highly detailed here in this hearing statement. 

It is clear that the Biden’s and all their co-conspirators did as Grassley laid out. An FBI agent was caught conspiring with foreign agents that ties that FBI agent to Hunter and the Biden family. 

If the Biden Criminal Organization can disrupt a 4 year term of a sitting president with constant barrages of illicit and fallacious attacks, effectively setting that POTUS up for failure, it is more than plausible and more probable that they also conspired to rig the 2020 election (which is more or less self-evident at this point).

As these hearings continue, more truth will see the light of day and the snakes in the swamp will continue to be exposed. 

This country is on the brink of total ruin if our government and GOP do not get their act together and clean house from the very TOP to the lowest basement level. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. Neither can the fact that the CCP has every hand, tooth and nail dug deep into our country on multiple levels. 

Things for America and our way of life are at serious risk, and if something doesn’t change soon…that movie Red Dawn may become a very reality present day. 
#2
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
That’s a lie. Grassley is a liar. No jacket Jordan is a wack job.

Right off the bat Grassley lied about Crossfire Hurricane. That was investigated by Bill Barr’s Special Counsel John Durham for years and and he got zero convictions.

Grassley is ready for a nursing home. What a rambling rant.

FBI Director Ray, appointed by Trump, just laughs at these Bozos and won’t give them any serious consideration.
#3
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
I’ve been told that Chuck Grassley has a long history of  molesting little boys. I don’t know if it’s true, but that’s what has been alleged to me. You have to admit he resembles those Catholic priests who were known to be child molesters.
Topic's author
#4
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. 

We all know you cannot prove ANY of your fallacious claims. So, as well already know, you’re the resident forum liberal Democrat LIAR-IN-CHIEF!!  🖕🏿
#5
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
It is clear that the Biden’s and all their co-conspirators did as Grassley laid out. An FBI agent was caught conspiring with foreign agents that ties that FBI agent to Hunter and the Biden family. 

If the Biden Criminal Organization can disrupt a 4 year term of a sitting president with constant barrages of illicit and fallacious attacks, effectively setting that POTUS up for failure, it is more than plausible and more probable that they also conspired to rig the 2020 election (which is more or less self-evident at this point).
This seems like conspiratorial babble. In your own words, Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.

Topic's author
#6
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@dustryder
It’s ALL common knowledge. As such, it doesn’t require proof. 

Oh, and it’s clear you didn’t even take the time to watch the video. Which is in and of itself, proof. 
#7
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
It’s ALL common knowledge. As such, it doesn’t require proof. 
All claims require evidence before they can be taken seriously. The fact that this filth has spread all throughout right wing eco chambers across America does not change that.

Oh, and it’s clear you didn’t even take the time to watch the video. Which is in and of itself, proof.
Chuck Grassley making a bunch of claims is not proof of anything. The fact that he was reading them off of a paper again, does not change that.
Topic's author
#8
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Even the leftist media has been reporting on the investigative results. They cannot deny the truth, it only makes them look bad. As if they could make themselves look anymore worse than they already are. But they have been flipping on the democrats, Biden and the FBI as of late. 

Clearly you live in either a plastic bubble or have your head in the sand! It’s common knowledge. It’s all over the internet and MSM, both sides. More on the truth telling side than the lying side, but it’s still there too. 

You don’t want evidence. You want cliff notes. 

Grassley made no claims. He stated facts. And everyone reads off paper or a teleprompter. Such a stupid comment to make on your part. 
#9
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


Topic's author
#10
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@dustryder
“Common knowledge does not need to be cited in your paper, because it is widely known, undisputed, easily verified, and generally not attributable to a specific author.”
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,361
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
So once again, you make a claim that you refuse to explain, then tell everyone who asks you to support your BS to go watch a YouTube video.

Why are you here? What is your point on this site?
#12
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405_2
Grassley made no claims. He stated facts. 
Facts? Grassley’s facts go like this - “it has been alleged to me…

“And just because we used Russian disinformation to conduct our investigation doesn’t mean people should be mean to us, laugh at us and disregard our 
effort. And then we were set up. It wasn’t fair! It wasn’t fair. Everyone laughed at us! I’m a senior goddamit!” “the Democrats asked my witness about Russian disinformation, thereby introducing Russian disinformation into the record”

So it’s a fact some people are saying TWS is a moron - that’s proof you are a moron. It’s a fact.

#13
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
“Common knowledge does not need to be cited in your paper, because it is widely known, undisputed, easily verified, and generally not attributable to a specific author.”
1. You are citing the requirements for academic papers, not persuasive argument or fruitful discussion.

2. None of the assertions you've made are widely known, undisputed and easily verified.

The fact you seem to think the assertion that there is a Biden criminal organisation that disrupted Trumps presidency and probably rigged the 2020 is widely known, undisputed and easily verified is easily the most dumbest thing that I've ever encountered on this site.
Topic's author
#14
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
So once again you refuse to watch/read information provided by a DART member with the intent to educate others and initiate a discussion. 
Your laziness knows no bounds. Your denialism is infinite. You expect everyone else to do your work for you. Even if they drew you a damn picture you'd still ask for cliff notes. 

Why are you here? What is your point on this site?
Right back at ya, fucking clown. 
Topic's author
#15
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@dustryder
->@TWS1405_2
“Common knowledge does not need to be cited in your paper, because it is widely known, undisputed, easily verified, and generally not attributable to a specific author.”
1. You are citing the requirements for academic papers, not persuasive argument or fruitful discussion.

2. None of the assertions you've made are widely known, undisputed and easily verified.

The fact you seem to think the assertion that there is a Biden criminal organisation that disrupted Trumps presidency and probably rigged the 2020 is widely known, undisputed and easily verified is easily the most dumbest thing that I've ever encountered on this site.
LOL!! It's a general definition, and even then, it applies to all things asserted. Even here. In an online discussion forum. 

If I say the sky is self evidently blue, which IS common knowledge, you'd still ask for evidence. 

Yes, every assertion I made in the OC are widely known (to the educated who actually make an effort to stay abreast of world events), the left's dispute is bunk, so it remains undisputed, and it is easily verifiable. 

Are you related to Double_R? Doppleganger perhaps? Cause you act/behave JUST LIKE HIM (her, it, they, Z). 
Topic's author
#16
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Your greatest hits - psychological projection
#17
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
to the educated who actually make an effort to stay abreast of world events
So not widely known.

 the left's dispute is bunk
So it is in dispute

This is just lazy. If you want people to swallow your propaganda, do better.
Topic's author
#18
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@dustryder
So not widely known.
When it’s ALL OVER THE INTERNET & MSM, yeah, it meets the definition of widely know AND easily verifiable. 

So it is in dispute
No, not really. The only ones disputing anything is the left. The fbi. The democrats. All those who would be ostracized for their illicit activities. Which is precisely why the FBI and democrats (like Schiff) kept espousing Russian disinformation, disputing the truth. 

The only thing in dispute is the truth, which the left, FBI, DOJ, Biden Inc and their cohorts have been disputing. 

Grow a brain. Troll. 


#19
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Why are you here? What is your point on this site?
You know, TWS is a big Star Trek fan. That's an indication of his maturity level.

#20
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
When it’s ALL OVER THE INTERNET & MSM, yeah, it meets the definition of widely know AND easily verifiable. 
You've conflated widely available with widely known.

And of course, just because something is widely available does not necessarily make it easily verifiable. 

No, not really. The only ones disputing anything is the left. The fbi. The democrats. All those who would be ostracized for their illicit activities. Which is precisely why the FBI and democrats (like Schiff) kept espousing Russian disinformation, disputing the truth. 

The only thing in dispute is the truth, which the left, FBI, DOJ, Biden Inc and their cohorts have been disputing. 
So it sounds like it is in fact in dispute by more than half of your country. I don't know why you're trying to so hard. You're the one who brought out this definition.

No single person or group is the sole arbiter of truth. If you wish to make a persuasive argument as to what is the truth in this matter, that's up to you. Though at that point, we would've gone full circle.


Topic's author
#21
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@dustryder
You've conflated widely available with widely known.
Nope. 

Just because you’re not a part of the self-educated widely knowledgeable ones doesn’t negate the fact that it is widely available and easily verifiable. 

So it sounds like it is in fact in dispute by more than half of your country.
Conservatives and educated folk outnumber the leftist idiocracy. We just don’t get all militant and destructive like they do. Forcing tolerance while being intolerant themselves. Remarkably gullible and willingly walking up to the cart to buy the snake oily democrats sell them on a daily basis. 

#22
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
Nope. 

Just because you’re not a part of the self-educated widely knowledgeable ones doesn’t negate the fact that it is widely available and easily verifiable. 
Exactly. Widely available, not widely known. QED your claims demand evidence.

Conservatives and educated folk outnumber the leftist idiocracy. We just don’t get all militant and destructive like they do. Forcing tolerance while being intolerant themselves. Remarkably gullible and willingly walking up to the cart to buy the snake oily democrats sell them on a daily basis. 
What an interesting tangent. The points you've made are still in dispute. QED your claims demand evidence.
Topic's author
#23
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@dustryder
Not my fault or problem you lack the readily available and widely known knowledge that I and others possess whereas you do not. 

If we say it’s common knowledge, it is more so than not. You fall in the not since you don’t even live here. 
#24
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
Your claims which are asserted without evidence are equally dismissed without evidence. Both your original statements, and the claim that the original statements are common knowledge.

Should you actually want to reach an audience that will hear you, you need to bring that evidence, otherwise you are just speaking to an echo chamber.
Topic's author
#25
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@dustryder
Well, to date (or this post), you have NOT proven me wrong. 

So…

FU!!
#26
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
That's because positive claims are to be proven correct rather than proven wrong. If you don't provide the proof....

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

#27
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405_2
You’re a child molester- prove me wrong.
Topic's author
#28
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You’re a child molester- prove me wrong.
Easy. 

Loon in the mirror, you degenerate pedophile. 

It’s called psychological projection for a reason. 

#29
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405_2
No, that doesn’t prove you are not a child molester. Try again or I will have to assume you’re guilty.
Topic's author
#30
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We all know you are a pedophile, and the resident DART troll. 
So keep on trolling, troll.