What is the difference between these two statements?

Sure there is.

They accepted money from the Chinese communist party to harvest American babies.

https://www.scmp.com/article/967934/aborted-fetuses-likely-source-stem-cells

The Nightmare of Human Organ Harvesting in China

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-nightmare-of-human-organ-harvesting-in-china-11549411056

 

It's all fun and games until you start f*cking with beer! Damn you trump!

 

This is disingenuous bunk.

 

Biden’s statement is objective; Trump’s statement is ”the art of the smear”.

 

I guess you don’t want China to change their unfair tasing practices and theft of intellectual property. You don’t care if the U.S. is abused economically.

 

Karla Jurvetson donated money for something she supports which is a United States law that's been in place since 1973 which gives women the right to choose what they do with their own bodies without the judgments of sanctimonious heretics with the moral platitudes stopping them, the same moral judgments they don't feel applies to their own president.

 

Its not a law. Its a supreme court decision.

 

...What in the...LOL.

This is new, so investing in foreign stock is now colluding? Danm, I think I heard a snap from you bending so far backwords to make that BS stick.

No, that's just correctly handling ones money in a world economic system.

 

The Justice Department under William Barr does not want Americans to see what is in Trump's tax returns. For 50 years American Presidents have released their tax information and placed their holdings in a blind trust.

But not Trump, and the DOJ supports him.

Also, Trump's Justice Department is breaking the law. The federal tax code states that the Treasury secretary "shall furnish" tax returns sought by the chairmen of Congress's tax committees, so long as the documents are viewed in a closed session.

The Hill reports, ""While the Executive Branch should accord due deference and respect to congressional requests, Treasury was not obliged to accept the Committee’s stated purpose without question, and based on all the facts and circumstances, we agreed that the Committee lacked a legitimate legislative purpose for its request," Steven Engel, an assistant attorney general in DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, said in the 33-page opinion."

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/...acking-treasurys-refusal-to-release-trump-tax

First, the law says nothing about a "legislative purpose." Two, there is a "legislative purpose." And three, Trump is just wasting everyone's time. His administration is so busy fighting Congress, so busy with litigation, it is unable to govern.

 

Not really. I’ve discussed different foreign policy issues with Sandy, and his solution is always to capitulate. Without exception, a white flag.

 

We have one of the highest rates of underemployment ever, which no one ever mentions.