Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??

[Faun]

If you have evidence someone else got him they job, prove it...

That's the point, it's supposition based on incredulity that it could be any other option, much like that upon which the case against Trump is based. In all seriousness, it is very unlikely indeed that Hunter decided, completely on his own, to apply for and get that job. Clearly he did not get it because of his qualifications, but because of who his father was. Maybe we need a WB that says they heard someone say they heard a phone call between Joe and a high ranking official in the company discussing the job application and Joe leaning on him to hire his son. You know, to kick off an investigation and stuff.

I already said Hunter got that job because his dad was VP, even though you edited that out of my quote in your previous post.

There is nothing illegal about Hunter getting that job for that reason. Now if there's evidence that his father got him that job, that's different; but your lack of evidence to support that indicates you don't know that to be the case. Try again when you have such evidence.

1. I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post. I know you say Hunter got the job because of who his dad was, but you're splitting hairs when it comes to admitting that Joe most likely got him that job.
2. "The lack of evidence" is what makes the case against Trump so weak, and is why the democrats are desperately hoping some new revelation will come out at the last moment to save the day, like they attempted to do against Kavanaugh. You do remember the onslaught of ever weaker allegations when it became obvious that there just wasn't enough to the original one to sink the nomination. I expect nothing less this time around. Expect democrat shrieks to include stuff that isn't in the original articles, which they can't do without voting on it.

"I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post."

Liar.

I posted...

Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him.

... and you cut out all but...

He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.

Seriously? You think that was editing out part of your post? The entirety of your post is right there. I merely responded to one part of it, which I indicated in quotes. I edited nothing out.

You're a lying skeeve. You literally quoted just a portion of what I wrote, he "get the job on his own," and then you commented on just that portion, saying, okay, that's a stretch.

When in fact I said he got that job on his own because his father was VP, which is not a stretch at all.

There's zero evidence Joe Biden got that job for his son. Hunter Biden's friend, Devon Archer, had already landed that same job prior to Hunter joining. And there's zero evidence Joe Biden ever endorsed Burisma.

 

[Faun]

So? Unlike Horowitz, they have not fully investigated the matter. What we have is the long awaited IG report stating the reason for investigating collusion were "justified."

Horowitz has looked at it long but not very hard

Sadly for you, he's the only one who investigated the matter. His report stands.

No

dunham is doing a criminal investigation

Until he completes it, he doesn't have all the facts. The IG investigation spanned some 2 years and was completed. It stands as the authoritative position on what occurred. Folks can certainly bitch and moan about it, but there is nothing in evidence to refute it.

The investigation was justified.

I dont agree

the IG is a creampuff who has to live with the Deep State after trump is gone

Then you still have nothing but opinion since there is no other report on the matter.

 

[Faun]

Most of the jobs that Obama created were in the private sector. Not dependent on tax dollars.

Most of the jobs that trump has created are low paying service jobs and jobs dependent on tax dollars in the military industrial complex.
.

Me thinks you have your presidents confused.

Most of OBAMA'S jobs were low paying jobs and unlike you, I have proof.

Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

So while liars like Faun love to look at "jobs created" he'll put his fingers in his ears and his head up his ass when confronted about WHAT KIND OF JOBS.

Obama: part time menial work
Trump: Manufacturing

Manufacturers Added 6 Times More Jobs Under Trump Than Under Obama's Last 2 Years

Mining:

Construction:

This chart shows jobs in industries like mining and construction are thriving under Trump

"Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract"

Lying human scum, that was actually a study from 2005-2015. Obama was president from 2009-2017. Rendering that claim false as it includes 4 years under Bush, who produced the fewest jobs since Herbert Hoover, and it doesn't cover Obama's entire presidency.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

Says a lying uneducated little yellow coward who has been dismissed as the idiot he is. So you now claim that stat is false because it doesn’t include ALL of Obozo’s FAILURES. You just continue to look stupid. By the way asshole, STILL NOT IMPEACHED! Cue pawn’s idiotic deflection to the House having power though they haven’t finished the process yet.

LOLOL

You poor, triggered cuck. Not even the actual study started, "Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract." Obsma's name doesn't even appear in the study since it encompasses a period of 4 years before he was even president.

What the study actually showed was...

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

"A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth
in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements."​

Poor baby. The years include Obozo’s years too moron. Keep laughing as you get bitch slapped over and over you little yellow coward. Learn how to spell you uneducated eunuch. Then again, a lying, desperate, stupid little yellow coward who’s been beaten down constantly shows he has nothing. As usual. You are dismissed idiot. STILL NOT IMPEACHED!

So what if their study covered part of Obama's time in office? The study covered the years from 2005 to 2015. Good luck showing that a majority of those jobs were attained after the recession and not while Bush was president. Oh wait, look at that, the increase occurred under Bush and decreased under Obama...

part time jobs 2005-2015​

​

 

[Mac-7]

Horowitz has looked at it long but not very hard

Sadly for you, he's the only one who investigated the matter. His report stands.

No

dunham is doing a criminal investigation

Until he completes it, he doesn't have all the facts. The IG investigation spanned some 2 years and was completed. It stands as the authoritative position on what occurred. Folks can certainly bitch and moan about it, but there is nothing in evidence to refute it.

The investigation was justified.

I dont agree

the IG is a creampuff who has to live with the Deep State after trump is gone

Then you still have nothing but opinion since there is no other report on the matter.

Nothing says you have to agree with me

and obviously you dont

 

[Faun]

Sadly for you, he's the only one who investigated the matter. His report stands.

No

dunham is doing a criminal investigation

Until he completes it, he doesn't have all the facts. The IG investigation spanned some 2 years and was completed. It stands as the authoritative position on what occurred. Folks can certainly bitch and moan about it, but there is nothing in evidence to refute it.

The investigation was justified.

I dont agree

the IG is a creampuff who has to live with the Deep State after trump is gone

Then you still have nothing but opinion since there is no other report on the matter.

Nothing says you have to agree with me

and obviously you dont

Well I'm citing a report following 2 years of investigation while you're citing opinions.

 

[Mac-7]

No

dunham is doing a criminal investigation

Until he completes it, he doesn't have all the facts. The IG investigation spanned some 2 years and was completed. It stands as the authoritative position on what occurred. Folks can certainly bitch and moan about it, but there is nothing in evidence to refute it.

The investigation was justified.

I dont agree

the IG is a creampuff who has to live with the Deep State after trump is gone

Then you still have nothing but opinion since there is no other report on the matter.

Nothing says you have to agree with me

and obviously you dont

Well I'm citing a report following 2 years of investigation while you're citing opinions.

The IG was investigating his homeboys

durham has less to fear from the Deep State

 

[hadit]

That's the point, it's supposition based on incredulity that it could be any other option, much like that upon which the case against Trump is based. In all seriousness, it is very unlikely indeed that Hunter decided, completely on his own, to apply for and get that job. Clearly he did not get it because of his qualifications, but because of who his father was. Maybe we need a WB that says they heard someone say they heard a phone call between Joe and a high ranking official in the company discussing the job application and Joe leaning on him to hire his son. You know, to kick off an investigation and stuff.

I already said Hunter got that job because his dad was VP, even though you edited that out of my quote in your previous post.

There is nothing illegal about Hunter getting that job for that reason. Now if there's evidence that his father got him that job, that's different; but your lack of evidence to support that indicates you don't know that to be the case. Try again when you have such evidence.

1. I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post. I know you say Hunter got the job because of who his dad was, but you're splitting hairs when it comes to admitting that Joe most likely got him that job.
2. "The lack of evidence" is what makes the case against Trump so weak, and is why the democrats are desperately hoping some new revelation will come out at the last moment to save the day, like they attempted to do against Kavanaugh. You do remember the onslaught of ever weaker allegations when it became obvious that there just wasn't enough to the original one to sink the nomination. I expect nothing less this time around. Expect democrat shrieks to include stuff that isn't in the original articles, which they can't do without voting on it.

"I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post."

Liar.

I posted...

Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him.

... and you cut out all but...

He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.

Seriously? You think that was editing out part of your post? The entirety of your post is right there. I merely responded to one part of it, which I indicated in quotes. I edited nothing out.

You're a lying skeeve. You literally quoted just a portion of what I wrote, he "get the job on his own," and then you commented on just that portion, saying, okay, that's a stretch.

When in fact I said he got that job on his own because his father was VP, which is not a stretch at all.

There's zero evidence Joe Biden got that job for his son. Hunter Biden's friend, Devon Archer, had already landed that same job prior to Hunter joining. And there's zero evidence Joe Biden ever endorsed Burisma.

Oh, get over yourself. I left your entire post untouched. Would you have preferred I simply said, "okay, that's a stretch", with no indication of what I was referring to?

 

[Faun]

I already said Hunter got that job because his dad was VP, even though you edited that out of my quote in your previous post.

There is nothing illegal about Hunter getting that job for that reason. Now if there's evidence that his father got him that job, that's different; but your lack of evidence to support that indicates you don't know that to be the case. Try again when you have such evidence.

1. I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post. I know you say Hunter got the job because of who his dad was, but you're splitting hairs when it comes to admitting that Joe most likely got him that job.
2. "The lack of evidence" is what makes the case against Trump so weak, and is why the democrats are desperately hoping some new revelation will come out at the last moment to save the day, like they attempted to do against Kavanaugh. You do remember the onslaught of ever weaker allegations when it became obvious that there just wasn't enough to the original one to sink the nomination. I expect nothing less this time around. Expect democrat shrieks to include stuff that isn't in the original articles, which they can't do without voting on it.

"I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post."

Liar.

I posted...

Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him.

... and you cut out all but...

He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.

Seriously? You think that was editing out part of your post? The entirety of your post is right there. I merely responded to one part of it, which I indicated in quotes. I edited nothing out.

You're a lying skeeve. You literally quoted just a portion of what I wrote, he "get the job on his own," and then you commented on just that portion, saying, okay, that's a stretch.

When in fact I said he got that job on his own because his father was VP, which is not a stretch at all.

There's zero evidence Joe Biden got that job for his son. Hunter Biden's friend, Devon Archer, had already landed that same job prior to Hunter joining. And there's zero evidence Joe Biden ever endorsed Burisma.

Oh, get over yourself. I left your entire post untouched. Would you have preferred I simply said, "okay, that's a stretch", with no indication of what I was referring to?

I would prefer if you would be honest.

 

[hadit]

1. I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post. I know you say Hunter got the job because of who his dad was, but you're splitting hairs when it comes to admitting that Joe most likely got him that job.
2. "The lack of evidence" is what makes the case against Trump so weak, and is why the democrats are desperately hoping some new revelation will come out at the last moment to save the day, like they attempted to do against Kavanaugh. You do remember the onslaught of ever weaker allegations when it became obvious that there just wasn't enough to the original one to sink the nomination. I expect nothing less this time around. Expect democrat shrieks to include stuff that isn't in the original articles, which they can't do without voting on it.

"I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post."

Liar.

I posted...

Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him.

... and you cut out all but...

He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.

Seriously? You think that was editing out part of your post? The entirety of your post is right there. I merely responded to one part of it, which I indicated in quotes. I edited nothing out.

You're a lying skeeve. You literally quoted just a portion of what I wrote, he "get the job on his own," and then you commented on just that portion, saying, okay, that's a stretch.

When in fact I said he got that job on his own because his father was VP, which is not a stretch at all.

There's zero evidence Joe Biden got that job for his son. Hunter Biden's friend, Devon Archer, had already landed that same job prior to Hunter joining. And there's zero evidence Joe Biden ever endorsed Burisma.

Oh, get over yourself. I left your entire post untouched. Would you have preferred I simply said, "okay, that's a stretch", with no indication of what I was referring to?

I would prefer if you would be honest.

I am. What part of, "I left your entire post untouched" is unclear to you?

 

[lantern2814]

Me thinks you have your presidents confused.

Most of OBAMA'S jobs were low paying jobs and unlike you, I have proof.

Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

So while liars like Faun love to look at "jobs created" he'll put his fingers in his ears and his head up his ass when confronted about WHAT KIND OF JOBS.

Obama: part time menial work
Trump: Manufacturing

Manufacturers Added 6 Times More Jobs Under Trump Than Under Obama's Last 2 Years

Mining:

Construction:

This chart shows jobs in industries like mining and construction are thriving under Trump

"Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract"

Lying human scum, that was actually a study from 2005-2015. Obama was president from 2009-2017. Rendering that claim false as it includes 4 years under Bush, who produced the fewest jobs since Herbert Hoover, and it doesn't cover Obama's entire presidency.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

Says a lying uneducated little yellow coward who has been dismissed as the idiot he is. So you now claim that stat is false because it doesn’t include ALL of Obozo’s FAILURES. You just continue to look stupid. By the way asshole, STILL NOT IMPEACHED! Cue pawn’s idiotic deflection to the House having power though they haven’t finished the process yet.

LOLOL

You poor, triggered cuck. Not even the actual study started, "Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract." Obsma's name doesn't even appear in the study since it encompasses a period of 4 years before he was even president.

What the study actually showed was...

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

"A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth
in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements."​

Poor baby. The years include Obozo’s years too moron. Keep laughing as you get bitch slapped over and over you little yellow coward. Learn how to spell you uneducated eunuch. Then again, a lying, desperate, stupid little yellow coward who’s been beaten down constantly shows he has nothing. As usual. You are dismissed idiot. STILL NOT IMPEACHED!

So what if their study covered part of Obama's time in office? The study covered the years from 2005 to 2015. Good luck showing that a majority of those jobs were attained after the recession and not while Bush was president. Oh wait, look at that, the increase occurred under Bush and decreased under Obama...

part time jobs 2005-2015​

​

Oh so now it doesn’t matter if Obozo has to take the blame for his failures. What q quick backpedal there by a little yellow coward. Decreased under Obozo? Of course, since more people actually dropped out of the work force under Obozo. Lowest participation rate since the 1970’s. Try again.

 

[Faun]

"I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post."

Liar.

I posted...

​

... and you cut out all but...

​

Seriously? You think that was editing out part of your post? The entirety of your post is right there. I merely responded to one part of it, which I indicated in quotes. I edited nothing out.

You're a lying skeeve. You literally quoted just a portion of what I wrote, he "get the job on his own," and then you commented on just that portion, saying, okay, that's a stretch.

When in fact I said he got that job on his own because his father was VP, which is not a stretch at all.

There's zero evidence Joe Biden got that job for his son. Hunter Biden's friend, Devon Archer, had already landed that same job prior to Hunter joining. And there's zero evidence Joe Biden ever endorsed Burisma.

Oh, get over yourself. I left your entire post untouched. Would you have preferred I simply said, "okay, that's a stretch", with no indication of what I was referring to?

I would prefer if you would be honest.

I am. What part of, "I left your entire post untouched" is unclear to you?

The part where you chopped it up and then falsely claimed the chopped up part was "a stretch." When it's not a stretch when the entire sentence is read and read in context.

 

[Faun]

"Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract"

Lying human scum, that was actually a study from 2005-2015. Obama was president from 2009-2017. Rendering that claim false as it includes 4 years under Bush, who produced the fewest jobs since Herbert Hoover, and it doesn't cover Obama's entire presidency.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

Says a lying uneducated little yellow coward who has been dismissed as the idiot he is. So you now claim that stat is false because it doesn’t include ALL of Obozo’s FAILURES. You just continue to look stupid. By the way asshole, STILL NOT IMPEACHED! Cue pawn’s idiotic deflection to the House having power though they haven’t finished the process yet.

LOLOL

You poor, triggered cuck. Not even the actual study started, "Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract." Obsma's name doesn't even appear in the study since it encompasses a period of 4 years before he was even president.

What the study actually showed was...

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

"A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth
in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements."​

Poor baby. The years include Obozo’s years too moron. Keep laughing as you get bitch slapped over and over you little yellow coward. Learn how to spell you uneducated eunuch. Then again, a lying, desperate, stupid little yellow coward who’s been beaten down constantly shows he has nothing. As usual. You are dismissed idiot. STILL NOT IMPEACHED!

So what if their study covered part of Obama's time in office? The study covered the years from 2005 to 2015. Good luck showing that a majority of those jobs were attained after the recession and not while Bush was president. Oh wait, look at that, the increase occurred under Bush and decreased under Obama...

part time jobs 2005-2015​

​

Oh so now it doesn’t matter if Obozo has to take the blame for his failures. What q quick backpedal there by a little yellow coward. Decreased under Obozo? Of course, since more people actually dropped out of the work force under Obozo. Lowest participation rate since the 1970’s. Try again.

Fucking moron, why should Obama take the blame for Bush's failures? As I showed you, that increase of part time jobs between 2005-2015 occurred while Bush was president. It's not Obama's fault you're too rightarded to read a graph.

 

[hadit]

Seriously? You think that was editing out part of your post? The entirety of your post is right there. I merely responded to one part of it, which I indicated in quotes. I edited nothing out.

You're a lying skeeve. You literally quoted just a portion of what I wrote, he "get the job on his own," and then you commented on just that portion, saying, okay, that's a stretch.

When in fact I said he got that job on his own because his father was VP, which is not a stretch at all.

There's zero evidence Joe Biden got that job for his son. Hunter Biden's friend, Devon Archer, had already landed that same job prior to Hunter joining. And there's zero evidence Joe Biden ever endorsed Burisma.

Oh, get over yourself. I left your entire post untouched. Would you have preferred I simply said, "okay, that's a stretch", with no indication of what I was referring to?

I would prefer if you would be honest.

I am. What part of, "I left your entire post untouched" is unclear to you?

The part where you chopped it up and then falsely claimed the chopped up part was "a stretch." When it's not a stretch when the entire sentence is read and read in context.

So you disagree that it's a stretch to believe Hunter went out all by himself to apply for that job with no help from his father. That his dad didn't set things up for him, make some introductions, etc. That's as convincing as insisting that Trump made all of his money by himself with no starting assist from his dad.

 

[Faun]

You're a lying skeeve. You literally quoted just a portion of what I wrote, he "get the job on his own," and then you commented on just that portion, saying, okay, that's a stretch.

When in fact I said he got that job on his own because his father was VP, which is not a stretch at all.

There's zero evidence Joe Biden got that job for his son. Hunter Biden's friend, Devon Archer, had already landed that same job prior to Hunter joining. And there's zero evidence Joe Biden ever endorsed Burisma.

Oh, get over yourself. I left your entire post untouched. Would you have preferred I simply said, "okay, that's a stretch", with no indication of what I was referring to?

I would prefer if you would be honest.

I am. What part of, "I left your entire post untouched" is unclear to you?

The part where you chopped it up and then falsely claimed the chopped up part was "a stretch." When it's not a stretch when the entire sentence is read and read in context.

So you disagree that it's a stretch to believe Hunter went out all by himself to apply for that job with no help from his father. That his dad didn't set things up for him, make some introductions, etc. That's as convincing as insisting that Trump made all of his money by himself with no starting assist from his dad.

His own personal friend already worked there and you actually don't have even an iota of evidence his dad got him that job. You're literally making that up because it's what you want to believe.

 

[hadit]

Oh, get over yourself. I left your entire post untouched. Would you have preferred I simply said, "okay, that's a stretch", with no indication of what I was referring to?

I would prefer if you would be honest.

I am. What part of, "I left your entire post untouched" is unclear to you?

The part where you chopped it up and then falsely claimed the chopped up part was "a stretch." When it's not a stretch when the entire sentence is read and read in context.

So you disagree that it's a stretch to believe Hunter went out all by himself to apply for that job with no help from his father. That his dad didn't set things up for him, make some introductions, etc. That's as convincing as insisting that Trump made all of his money by himself with no starting assist from his dad.

His own personal friend already worked there and you actually don't have even an iota of evidence his dad got him that job. You're literally making that up because it's what you want to believe.

I am extremely skeptical that he did it on his own, which is a far cry from insisting he didn't. Perhaps you could stop projecting absolutist beliefs. Hey, perhaps an investigation is in order. You know, since we suspended the whole, "Gotta have reason to believe a crime was actually committed before looking for one" stuff a long time ago. More precisely, about the time it became apparent that Hillary was headed into retirement.

 

[Faun]

I would prefer if you would be honest.

I am. What part of, "I left your entire post untouched" is unclear to you?

The part where you chopped it up and then falsely claimed the chopped up part was "a stretch." When it's not a stretch when the entire sentence is read and read in context.

So you disagree that it's a stretch to believe Hunter went out all by himself to apply for that job with no help from his father. That his dad didn't set things up for him, make some introductions, etc. That's as convincing as insisting that Trump made all of his money by himself with no starting assist from his dad.

His own personal friend already worked there and you actually don't have even an iota of evidence his dad got him that job. You're literally making that up because it's what you want to believe.

I am extremely skeptical that he did it on his own, which is a far cry from insisting he didn't. Perhaps you could stop projecting absolutist beliefs. Hey, perhaps an investigation is in order. You know, since we suspended the whole, "Gotta have reason to believe a crime was actually committed before looking for one" stuff a long time ago. More precisely, about the time it became apparent that Hillary was headed into retirement.

So investigate it. Who cares?

 

[hadit]

I am. What part of, "I left your entire post untouched" is unclear to you?

The part where you chopped it up and then falsely claimed the chopped up part was "a stretch." When it's not a stretch when the entire sentence is read and read in context.

So you disagree that it's a stretch to believe Hunter went out all by himself to apply for that job with no help from his father. That his dad didn't set things up for him, make some introductions, etc. That's as convincing as insisting that Trump made all of his money by himself with no starting assist from his dad.

His own personal friend already worked there and you actually don't have even an iota of evidence his dad got him that job. You're literally making that up because it's what you want to believe.

I am extremely skeptical that he did it on his own, which is a far cry from insisting he didn't. Perhaps you could stop projecting absolutist beliefs. Hey, perhaps an investigation is in order. You know, since we suspended the whole, "Gotta have reason to believe a crime was actually committed before looking for one" stuff a long time ago. More precisely, about the time it became apparent that Hillary was headed into retirement.

So investigate it. Who cares?

Anyone who wants to be sure politicians are not using their offices to benefit themselves. You know, like the democrats have been pretending is a big issue.

 

[Faun]

The part where you chopped it up and then falsely claimed the chopped up part was "a stretch." When it's not a stretch when the entire sentence is read and read in context.

So you disagree that it's a stretch to believe Hunter went out all by himself to apply for that job with no help from his father. That his dad didn't set things up for him, make some introductions, etc. That's as convincing as insisting that Trump made all of his money by himself with no starting assist from his dad.

His own personal friend already worked there and you actually don't have even an iota of evidence his dad got him that job. You're literally making that up because it's what you want to believe.

I am extremely skeptical that he did it on his own, which is a far cry from insisting he didn't. Perhaps you could stop projecting absolutist beliefs. Hey, perhaps an investigation is in order. You know, since we suspended the whole, "Gotta have reason to believe a crime was actually committed before looking for one" stuff a long time ago. More precisely, about the time it became apparent that Hillary was headed into retirement.

So investigate it. Who cares?

Anyone who wants to be sure politicians are not using their offices to benefit themselves. You know, like the democrats have been pretending is a big issue.

Meanwhile, you still possess zero evidence that Joe got that job for his son.

 

[hadit]

So you disagree that it's a stretch to believe Hunter went out all by himself to apply for that job with no help from his father. That his dad didn't set things up for him, make some introductions, etc. That's as convincing as insisting that Trump made all of his money by himself with no starting assist from his dad.

His own personal friend already worked there and you actually don't have even an iota of evidence his dad got him that job. You're literally making that up because it's what you want to believe.

I am extremely skeptical that he did it on his own, which is a far cry from insisting he didn't. Perhaps you could stop projecting absolutist beliefs. Hey, perhaps an investigation is in order. You know, since we suspended the whole, "Gotta have reason to believe a crime was actually committed before looking for one" stuff a long time ago. More precisely, about the time it became apparent that Hillary was headed into retirement.

So investigate it. Who cares?

Anyone who wants to be sure politicians are not using their offices to benefit themselves. You know, like the democrats have been pretending is a big issue.

Meanwhile, you still possess zero evidence that Joe got that job for his son.

Never said I had any. It's still a stretch.

 

[lantern2814]

Says a lying uneducated little yellow coward who has been dismissed as the idiot he is. So you now claim that stat is false because it doesn’t include ALL of Obozo’s FAILURES. You just continue to look stupid. By the way asshole, STILL NOT IMPEACHED! Cue pawn’s idiotic deflection to the House having power though they haven’t finished the process yet.

LOLOL

You poor, triggered cuck. Not even the actual study started, "Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract." Obsma's name doesn't even appear in the study since it encompasses a period of 4 years before he was even president.

What the study actually showed was...

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

"A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth
in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements."​

Poor baby. The years include Obozo’s years too moron. Keep laughing as you get bitch slapped over and over you little yellow coward. Learn how to spell you uneducated eunuch. Then again, a lying, desperate, stupid little yellow coward who’s been beaten down constantly shows he has nothing. As usual. You are dismissed idiot. STILL NOT IMPEACHED!

So what if their study covered part of Obama's time in office? The study covered the years from 2005 to 2015. Good luck showing that a majority of those jobs were attained after the recession and not while Bush was president. Oh wait, look at that, the increase occurred under Bush and decreased under Obama...

part time jobs 2005-2015​

​

Oh so now it doesn’t matter if Obozo has to take the blame for his failures. What q quick backpedal there by a little yellow coward. Decreased under Obozo? Of course, since more people actually dropped out of the work force under Obozo. Lowest participation rate since the 1970’s. Try again.

Fucking moron, why should Obama take the blame for Bush's failures? As I showed you, that increase of part time jobs between 2005-2015 occurred while Bush was president. It's not Obama's fault you're too rightarded to read a graph.

Making you cry is so easy. So Obozo is blameless despite the study that INCLUDES years he was president. Your utter stupidity is rivaled only by your cowardice. Noting your total dodge of that pesky fact of work force participation rate. Not my fault you’re too uneducated, illiterate, and cowardly to face facts. Try again lifelong loser.