3 words. Yes and No!
The Trump administration suspects an ASML chipmaking machine made it into China. ASML says that's impossible.
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 509 +726
That estimate was incorrect and was from inaccurate counting apparently. According to this Snopes article examining how many vacation days Biden took, the RNC sources claiming Biden took 40% of his time on vacation made some methology mistakes in counting the days where Biden was barely there in a vacation setting (eg. counting days when he was at his house in Delaware for less than 1 hour as a vacation day) and miscounted other days when Biden was actually working in another state or doing other work.
Either way, neither Trump nor Biden are #1 in terms of taking the most vacations. Both George Bushes took more vacations than either of them on a per year basis and overall.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/04/biden-vacation-president/
"the committee's analysis failed to take into account how much or how little time in the day was spent traveling to or in a vacation setting. For example, on Sept. 3, 2021, the RNC calendar says Biden was on vacation. However, according to his public calendar and pool reports, he spent a vast portion of that day in Louisiana touring Hurricane Ida relief efforts, meeting local leaders and delivering remarks in his official capacity as president. He did not leave Louisiana until 7:08 p.m. local time, or 8:08 p.m. EST, before arriving at his personal residence in Delaware at 11:11 p.m. EST."
"For example, on Sept. 3, 2021, the RNC calendar says Biden was on vacation. However, according to his public calendar and pool reports, he spent a vast portion of that day in Louisiana touring Hurricane Ida relief efforts, meeting local leaders and delivering remarks in his official capacity as president. He did not leave Louisiana until 7:08 p.m. local time, or 8:08 p.m. EST, before arriving at his personal residence in Delaware at 11:11 p.m. EST."
"The RNC also said Biden was on vacation on days when he arrived at the White House early in the morning or departed for a vacation setting late in the day. In one instance, the RNC said he was on vacation on April 22, 2022. However, according to the pool report and a Reuters report, he was working and did not arrive at his home in Wilmington, Delaware, until 12:24 a.m. the next day. In another instance, the RNC said Biden was on vacation on Sept. 13, 2022, when, in fact, he hosted an event to celebrate the Inflation Reduction Act before leaving the White House to travel to Delaware, where he voted in the state's Democratic primary before returning to the White House all on the same day.
On May 30, 2023, Biden spent some time in Delaware visiting the gravestone of his first son, Beau Biden (who served a tour in Iraq as a member of the Delaware National Guard), and attending private Memorial Day services to commemorate deceased loved ones, such as his son. The RNC included it as a vacation day."
"...our analysis found 117 or 118 full days of his presidency on vacation and 76 or 77 days partially in a vacation setting, with 107 of the total 183 or 184 days showing evidence that Biden worked."
Endymio
Posts: 5,153 +4,811
You can't change facts by denying them:
"President Joe Biden has spent 570 days on vacation, marking 40% of his presidency..."
Endymio
Posts: 5,153 +4,811
Snopes became a well-known liberal disinformation site long ago. But let's ignore their reputation and focus on the facts here. Their analysis of Sep 3, 2021, for instance, when Biden arrived at his beach house for the start of a cozy 4-day break. Snopes says we shouldn't count that first day because Biden didn't actually arrive there till 11pm, after leaving Louisiana. But Biden's official calendar for that day shows only 2.5 hours of presidential duties (a 'briefing' on the "situation there", followed by a "tour of an impacted neighborhood" (aka photo-op).
Snopes contention is that while Biden might "be in a vacation setting", that one "is always working as President" and he may have been performing some duties during those periods. A fair claim -- but an argument that neither Snopes nor the OP in this thread allows to apply to Trump. It also presumes that all Biden's travel time to and from his vacations shouldn't count "as vacation time".
Snopes also fails to take into account that Biden's own staff regularly complained his work days while actually in the WH usually ran four hours or less. There's a reason he became known as 'President Autopen', after all.
you're just upset because Biden doesn't have a golf handicap unlike drumpf who is a handicap personified.
Last edited:
the little red hat wearing fanboys are at it again. trying to polish the turd that is trump.
torvuswalds
Posts: 127 +269
Its always Theinsanegamer and Endymio, both have way too much times on their hands and will NEVER enter good faith arguments, they always result to strawmans and complete re-directions to secure their point. Just two old AF boomers who when they retired decided that going on tech forums espousing political propaganda was their new day job.
Freddie159
Posts: 209 +119
Isn't that exactly what VPN's do, say I'm here when in reality I'm over there?
Give the company access to the US/EU market and they won't NEED to sell to the Chinese!!
Freddie159
Posts: 209 +119
Joe Biden is no longer President, time to upgrade your schtick. ;-))
Endymio
Posts: 5,153 +4,811
No, but the hypocrisy of those who supported him is still rampant.
torvuswalds
Posts: 127 +269
Endymio, this is the exact pattern again.
"Biden is no longer President" is a statement about the current reality. Instead of engaging with that, you pivot straight to "hypocrisy of those who supported him" backed, as usual, by selective or misleading claims.
Your replies consistently do this:
- -Claiming Obama "shielded Epstein for eight full years to protect the Clintons" (while downplaying or twisting timelines and Trump-era actions).
- -Immigration stats presented in isolation.
- -Other whataboutism that often cherry-picks, exaggerates, or ignores context.
It's not substantive debate; it's reflexive deflection with a side of misinformation. If you're going to lecture about hypocrisy, at least get the underlying facts straight instead of rewriting history to fit the narrative every single time.
Endymio
Posts: 5,153 +4,811
No timeline-twisting. Obama was President from 2009-2016: a period in which his DOJ refused to take action against Epstein, and Obama's media allies repeatedly killed story after Epstein story, in order to protect Hillary's chances at the Presidency. In 2017, Trump took office, the Epstein case was reopened, and him and Maxwell were both brought to justice.
Thanks for proving my point about hypocrisy, though.
Isolation from what? Biden spent 3 years claiming "the border was secure", then when the public overwhelmingly rejected that lie, spent his last year claiming that "new laws" and a trillion dollars in new spending was required to counterattack illegal immigration. Trump took office and reduced illegal immigration 99.7% in just one month -- with no new laws and no new spending.
Facts matter.
torvuswalds
Posts: 127 +269
Thousands of posts and you still can’t engage with the present without lying, twisting timelines, or cherry-picking stats to protect your team. Pure deflection, zero accountability. Just a broken whataboutism bot at this point.
It is really pathetic.
Endymio
Posts: 5,153 +4,811
What's pathetic is your refusal to accept reality. George Orwell called your syndome "DoubleThink": a condition in which liberal zealots espouse absurd, often contradictory beliefs simply to display their adherence to "the cause".
If you could dispute these facts, you would. Go virtue-signal elsewhere.
torvuswalds
Posts: 127 +269
George Orwell would have absolutely despised partisan hacks like you misusing his work while exhibiting the exact behaviors he warned about:
-Rigid ideological loyalty that prevents you from acknowledging any inconvenient reality on your own side.
- -Constant rewriting of recent history (Epstein timelines, 99.7% fairy tale immigration stats, etc.).
- -Doublethink-level refusal to ever criticize your team, no matter what.
You’re incapable of engaging with the present without deflection, cherry-picking, and whataboutism. That’s not fighting DoubleThink — that’s embodying it while LARPing as Winston Smith.
The pattern is so obvious it’s sad. Undecided readers: this is what full-time partisan hackery looks like. Same script, zero self-awareness.
Endymio
Posts: 5,153 +4,811
If you could dispute the factual timeline of the Epstein case, you would. Drop it and move on.
As for illegal immigration, even the anti-Trump NBC admitted Trump set new record lows for illegal immigration:
A huge difference from President Autopen telling us "the border is secure" as tens of millions of criminal illegals flooded into the country. Depending on which particular stat you focus on, illegal immigration is down from 93% all the way to 100% (zero catch-and-releases the past 12+ months).
torvuswalds
Posts: 127 +269
Here’s the actual Epstein timeline you keep lying about:
- 2008 (Bush Administration): Epstein gets his infamous sweetheart plea deal. Served 13 months with work release. Done under George W. Bush.
- 2009–2016 (Obama): Case stays dormant (the heavy lifting of protecting him was already done before Obama was even president).
- 2019 (Trump Administration): Epstein finally gets arrested on federal charges.
Yet you still claim Obama “shielded him for eight full years to protect the Clintons.” That’s not a “factual timeline.” That’s you deliberately rewriting history like a cheap propagandist.
Same **** with immigration: You started with the 99.7% in one month lie, got called out, and quietly switched to “record lows” from an old clip. Classic goalpost moving.
Log off, man. This **** is embarrassing.
Endymio
Posts: 5,153 +4,811
Oops! Multiple complaints were registered against Epstein in SDNY, the district where Epstein lived, the district which had primary jurisdiction. They refused to take action, due to Epstein's Clinton ties, and Hillary being a Senator of that state. The ONLY federal prosecutor willing to touch that case was Acosta in FL, and -- as he later testified -- he came under immediate pressure to cut Epstein a sweetheart deal, due to those same connections.
That happened in the last months of the Bush Presidency, and Bush himself knew nothing about it. Obama did, however, and Obama's DOJ refused to reopen the case from 2009 to 2016, falsely claiming their "hands were tied". That claim Trump's DOJ quickly debunked, as they reopened the case and brought Epstein to justice. No "heavy lifting" was required ... just the will to bring the man to justice.
Even worse than Obama's DOJ is what Obama's media allies did, as they intentionally kept this story out of the public eye for nearly a full decade. Once Hillary lost her presidential bid, though, and her political career was over, there was no need to protect her, and in 2017, the first batch of Epstein stories began to be aired.
As you say, "log off man, this is embarrassing".
torvuswalds
Posts: 127 +269
First, SDNY is not the FBI. Saying "multiple complaints were registered in SDNY" demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the federal justice system works. Complaints are generally made to law enforcement agencies such as local police or the FBI. Federal prosecutors decide whether to pursue charges based on investigations and evidence presented to them. Simply claiming that "complaints were registered in SDNY" doesn't establish that SDNY had a prosecutable case and deliberately refused to act.
Second, you're conflating multiple levels of government. Local police, the FBI, U.S. Attorney's Offices, DOJ leadership, and the President are all separate actors. Even if a prosecutor's office declined a case, that does not automatically translate into presidential involvement.
Third, your timeline still doesn't support your original claim. The 2008 plea deal occurred under the Bush administration. The renewed federal prosecution occurred in 2019. If your claim is that Obama personally shielded Epstein, you need evidence that Obama or his DOJ intervened to stop a prosecution. Merely pointing out that Epstein remained free during those years is not evidence of active protection.
Fourth, "Clinton connections" is not evidence. It's a theory. To support that claim, you would need documentation, testimony, communications, prosecutorial findings, or some other evidence showing decisions were made because of those connections. Simply asserting motive is not proof.
The irony here is that you're accusing me of rewriting history while replacing documented events with assumptions. If the claim is that influential people helped Epstein avoid accountability, that's a discussion worth having. If the claim is that Obama personally shielded him, then the burden is on you to provide evidence for that specific accusation.
Similar threads
