You’re talking about the origins of the conflict, and even that is a bit more complicated, but I won’t really argue on that.
I’m talking about the conflict as it currently stands as well as other current issues adjacent to but not intrinsically part of the conflict.
I should also point out that by “complicated”, I don’t mean factually per se, but morally or opinion-wise, not to mention difficult to resolve. If it was that simple, it would’ve been resolved much sooner.
Depends on your definition of “mainstream”, but fine. It’s irrelevant because neither birtherism nor how Hunter got the job with Burisma were pushed much harder in mainstream news, either, so that fails to explain any differences between how they were treated.
I’m a bit annoyed how many times users her throw about FNC crap expecting me to understand when I don’t watch the station.
I, personally, only did so to explain what mainstream news has covered in general or where Fox News was specifically brought up. I’ve never accused you of getting your news from there.
Fox’s print news service Fox News Feed, is totally separate from the tv “Fox News Channel”. It will occasionally post a “host said” or “host interviewed” but I nearly always skip past that.
I won’t argue the point too much because it’s ultimately irrelevant to anything I’ve said, but while they are technically distinct entities, many would consider it to be a distinction without a difference given who runs and founded them.
The laptop is out of the FNF cycle, election fraud lasted a while but it’s been a long time since there was any claim about fraud in voting.
Again, I won’t argue about FNF really. I’ll take your word for it that both the laptop and election fraud claims have not been covered on there for some time. I fail to see how that’s relevant to anything I’ve said.
Like I keep saying, my two primary reads are NYT (despite a short break do to ‘an error’ that shut down their feed behind a paywall) and FNF, the fox ‘print’ service. Which is a collation of local fox stations. Not FNC. And which as zero editorial link to the RMP services.
Feel free to turn on a local fox station and look for anything positive about trump in the current cycle. You won’t find much from most of the stations.
Video news comes from BBC and NHK. Occasionally I’ll watch CNN-I or AlJ.
Fair enough. Again, though, I fail to see how this relates to what I’m talking about. I haven’t accused you of bias or of getting your news from anywhere in particular or some biased source(s) in general.
Personally, I’ve seen most stories like the Biden employment disappear when people say ‘sure, and…’
True in my experience as well. Which is why I’m so perplexed why you keep bringing it up.
Personally on the whole pussy thing I which trump was more ‘so what’ than ‘it’s not what I meant’
Also true.
10 years ago we would have ignored it as what it is: bullshite banter.
I would argue that that is—in itself—a problem. I don’t think that’s okay for someone to say, especially if their defense is “so what?” At least regarding the Trump thing.
And if he hit it hard day one, it’s unlikely people would be pretending it was anything but.
As I said, the truth of his claims isn’t the only problem here.
That some people think he, again, a germaphobe, was actually doing that?
He goes out of his way to not shake hands.
“He goes out of his way to not shake hands”? Ah, yes. That’s why people have ridiculed/criticized him for how he shakes the hands of other people—dragging them in and sort of wrestling or something to achieve dominance or whatever. /s
Seriously though, I’ve never noticed him going out of his way to avoid shaking hands. Kinda the opposite, actually. In fact, later in that same Access: Hollywood tape, he was hugging a woman. Not exactly germaphobic behavior. Besides, some people are germaphobes outdoors or in public places but not so much in private.
Also, I find the fact he felt comfortable saying that—whether he was telling the truth or not—to be a problem in and of itself. And I believe that—given what other comparable to him have done—it’s not that implausible.
The reality is Biden, H, has had jobs handed to him. Maybe he did well, maybe not. I don’t know.
I don’t know for sure whether that’s actually true or not. One job likely was, at least in part, but it’s an open question whether or not that was always the case.
I wouldn’t be holding his bank position as a gold star though.
I have no comment on that.
There’s nothing wrong with being handed in my view. But when someone asked, say yes, and walk away.
Story dies out quickly.
You clearly know nothing about progressives, then. I also fail to see why you care whether he admits it or not. If we shouldn’t judge him for it, why should you care?
I don’t know what you’d get out of fox l, what, 4-midnight, or MSNBC, most of the day… neither are news. They’re purely political commentary.
I find political commentary interesting. If I didn’t, why would I be visiting blogs like this?
I’ve given up on FNC by 2019 when it became Fox Trump Network. All Trump, all day.
Good for you! I agree with that sentiment. I used to actually watch it—not just a few noteworthy clips—on occasion just to see the other side, no matter how ridiculous it may be. However, whatever merit it may once have had bad essentially died thanks to their coverage of Trump.
I’m no loyalist. I made my choices. I stand by there not being a better choice than what I made. You can disagree on things. I tend to agree with much of what you “disagree”’on.
Fair enough.
But I’m sure Clinton would have been worse for me, as an American.
…I’m not going to really address this given how it has nothing to do with what I’ve said, but I honestly have no idea why you think that.
And right now I have no idea who the ‘real’ president is. The one behind the cardboard prop.
You have presented no evidence that “the ‘real’ President” is not Biden. None whatsoever. You haven’t even alleged facts that—if true—would prove you correct. We have presented evidence that he is. You have failed to counter that evidence. Frankly, identifying another person who is “the ‘real’ President” would be the best and simplest way of presenting a remotely plausible claim, but if you claim to not know at all, that only makes your claim less plausible on its face, but you should still provide some evidence.
Aside from a brief mention of Amtrak in passing, no you did not, at least not in this thread.
Amtrak being a political appointment
Irrelevant. Biden wasn’t responsible for the appointment, Hunter did well enough to be promoted, and he was considered decent at it under Presidents from both sides. He only left once Biden became VP in order to avoid nepotism. Plus, every government position that is not an elected position is a political appointment. That has no bearing on his qualifications or experience—then, when hired by Burisma, or now.
the troubles of the bank he worked for, some during his charge
I don’t know what troubles you’re referring to, but as I recall, he was given that position on a temporary basis while the then-CEO was being replaced, so I don’t see how that’s reflective of Hunter himself. Plus, given how corrupt Burisma is, even ignoring his father, that wouldn’t necessarily be disqualifying.
and lack of law practice.
Irrelevant. Many competent people who obtain a law degree don’t end up practicing law or even taking the bar exam. Many go into some other career, like running a business, lobbying, consultancies, journalism, writing, or politics. That doesn’t make him any less qualified or experienced insofar as being on the board of directors for a large company.
Plus, a law degree is useful for other reasons, as outlined in another reply.
“ Nepotism of varying kinds and degrees is and has been a real problem ”
We disagree, I don’t consider it a problem at all. Admit it for what it is and move along.
Some of The most successful companies in the world are based on this very method, entire countries, some quite prosperous, are based on it. No reason to thumb our nose over it.
Well, okay, but we agree it is a thing that happens to some extent.
Also, if you don’t have a problem with it, why does it matter to you so much? If a fact is irrelevant, why push it so hard?
He had no qualifications to be on the board of an energy company.
Even if you disregard anyone who got their position because of nepotism, most people on the board of directors of a company are not knowledgeable or experienced with the main focus of the company. Plus, Hunter did have experience regarding energy and stuff given his lobbying regarding energy-efficiency and running Amtrak—which requires work with energy companies. So nepotism is not necessary.
Especially an international multiplayer.
My aforementioned statement about the knowledge held by members of boards of directors tends to be—if anything—more true for multinational/international corporations.
An appointed executive position [with] minimum interaction,
Again, this is true for most executive positions.
A company that was proven corrupt during his time in management, […]
And well before and since his time in management. I fail to see how that is reflective of Hunter Biden.
If you mean to say that Burisma was corrupt and, therefore, likely had Hunter’s father in mind when hiring him, that’s likely true. I don’t know how significant or decisive that factor was in the decision, but it’s probable that it at least played some role. I would say it likely wasn’t the only reason, but it could have been a reason, perhaps even the main reason.
That doesn’t mean that Hunter was unqualified for the position, at least compared to most other people who serve on boards of directors.
[…] and no (verified that I can find) legal practice.
I find it had to believe that an international company of this size would have zero in-house legal reps or legal counsel or anything like that.
Plus, people with law degrees end up in high positions in large businesses all the time. One previous president of Nintendo of America had previously acted as legal counsel and legal representative for NoA before attaining that position. There was no corruption or nepotism involved there at all. And—in this case—you’ve previously noted that there’s no evidence that Hunter had any experience as legal counsel to begin with, so I fail to see how that’s in any way suspicious. Really, the law degree is useful in that it shows a better-than-average familiarity with the law (good for anyone in any career that involves decision-making, not just law firms), a strong educational background, and the willingness to work hard over long periods of time to achieve a goal (getting a law degree is up there with medical degrees in terms of the level of commitment needed).
What Hunter did have experience in was in speaking on behalf of business interests, running and starting businesses, being in executive positions for a business, and dealing with politicians. All of these would be useful for a member of a board of directors for any business. So, again, the lack of a dedicated law practice is irrelevant.
All he had to say was daddy’s name got me the job. Even say maybe, I don’t know. Anything besides nah-ah.
I’m not sure that he has ever explicitly denied that, but regardless, especially since he no longer has that job, I fail to see why I should care. It’s also not 100%—or even 98%—certain that that was the case, so I don’t see the point in addressing it. As I said, he did have plenty of qualifications for the position relative to most people on a board of directors (including non-corrupt ones), so he certainly has plausible deniability.
I also don’t care because 1) Burisma has no real effect on my life at all, 2) I don’t care about Hunter personally all that much (I only learned as much as I did to address specific questions you asked), 3) it doesn’t really make the laptop story any more or less plausible, and 4) I fail to see how that reflects on Joe Biden at all or any American company.
But—again—you haven’t made a strong case to begin with. Of the points you brought up, all but one were false and/or not indicative of nepotism or corruption of any sort, and the only one that differs is one that Burisma is corrupt, which is not exactly proof, or does it reflect on Hunter at all.
There is zero evidence that Biden has dementia, nor has there ever been. His public-speaking skills and cognitive abilities don’t appear to be substantially less than they were over a decade or so ago. He also doesn’t appear to be worse cognitively than Trump, so I fail to see how that would be a factor that favors Trump over Biden.
There is also no evidence to suggest that anyone else besides Biden himself is or has been acting as President since he was inaugurated. As I’ve said, he’s taken numerous actions as President since taking office, all of which are fully consistent with what he ran on and his previous positions.
It also wouldn’t be empty even if true, since Kamala Harris would be the acting President should Biden be unable to serve (which is—again—not in evidence).
That wasn’t “the whole of it”. That was, at most, half of it.
It also shows that the allegations weren’t in there solely to benefit the DNC, and that the people actually putting it together weren’t personally Democrats per se. Unlike with the laptop, where everyone involved—from the repairman to Rudy Giuliani to the NYP—were all pro-Trump, conservative, Republican, and anti-Biden. So, unlike the Steele dossier, everyone involved from the start had a clear agenda and no reason to be accurate. (Opposition research generally has to be based on something reasonably or definitively true, even if parts are exaggerated or left out.)
tax returns don’t guarantee anything regarding foreign entities, and as far as wealth, it only covers reportable income, not non-reportable holdings.
It’s an extremely invasive request that would do little for the public.
I fail to see how “[i]t’s an extremely invasive request.” In many countries, everyone’s tax returns are public records. Furthermore, Trump is literally the only presidential candidate since Nixon who complained about disclosing their tax returns, let alone refused to do it. And even he mostly made excuses about why he hadn’t yet and (falsely) promised to release them.
Plus, while they’re not going to show everything, they still offer a good baseline, so saying they offer little value to the public is incorrect.
I’d also argue that reportable income (which includes pretty much all income derived within the US somehow, taxable or not) is particularly relevant when someone makes public claims about it. For example, if someone claims to have low or middling income, a tax return that reports a high income would show them to be lying, and someone who claims to be a “great businessman” should have to demonstrate that.
Regarding the birther thing, I fail to see how it’s relevant. Why should the “author card” of a book should show that such claims are still reasonable even after being presented with the massive amount of evidence showing that Obama was born in Hawaii? Regardless of how it started, it makes no sense how it continued and still continues today to some extent. People filed lawsuits over it pretty much throughout Obama’s presidency.
Plus, as long as your mom or dad was a US citizen when you were born, it doesn’t really matter where you were born regarding being a natural-born citizen. Both Ted Cruz (born in Canada) and John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) were born outside of the US but were not considered to be ineligible to be President. So even if Obama was born in Kenya (which he clearly was not), it would make no actual difference. Even according to the author card, the time he supposedly spent in Kenya was brief, spending far more time in Indonesia, Hawaii, or Illinois. So, even if true (which it definitely isn’t), it makes no sense why people should care.
Also, while the agency in question does (or did) include Obama as a current client now, it’s not clear from that article whether that was the case at the time his half-brother’s book was written.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to
First of all, MSNBC and CNN are very different. The former is significantly more biased (in favor of progressives) than the latter. Not that either are unbiased or anything, but I hate it when people lump them in together. It’d be like lumping the WSJ with Fox News, except MSNBC is more reasonable than Fox.
Second, even assuming any part of the laptop story was true, at best that proves a direct connection Hunter Biden and an indirect connection with Joe Biden. And, indeed, that appears to be the focus of the FBI’s investigation: potential wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, the guy he was allegedly exchanging emails with, and associates of the latter. We already know that the meeting with Joe Biden described within the emails did not actually occur.
Additionally, the evidence of what Trump did was more clearcut and was acknowledged as having actually happened by Trump, even if he dismissed it as “locker-room talk”. More proof = more relevant.
Also, I’m pretty sure that MSNBC did mention it at least once, though not as a plausible allegation.
they need to police themselves and eliminate the bad cops from their own ranks
While I agree, that’s basically what they were supposed to have been doing this whole time, so that’s clearly insufficient. I’d say we should also have independent oversight committees handle it as well.
they need to be paid more...they're only putting their own lives on the line everyday while witnessing the worst of us (motor vehicle accidents, murder scenes, suicides, abused children and women, etc.)
Setting aside the fact that most cops get paid fine (above the median income for their area), this cop clearly got paid too much. He wasn’t putting his life on the line for the past 2+ years, in fact he was barely doing anything, and nothing at all for the past year or so!
they need to be held EQUALLY accountable when they do wrong. Yes, killing unarmed civilians is wrong!
No arguments here! I mean, I think that they should be held to a higher standard, but holding them to an equal standard would be better than what we do right now!
the laptop story was just as newsworthy as the Republican-funded portfolio.
FTFY
But seriously, the Steele dossier isn’t as false as you claim that it is, and the MSM didn’t really cover it until Buzzfeed brought it up and it was known that the FBI was investigating the allegations contained therein. It also was far more plausible than the laptop story.
“Yes, yes, you’re pissed that property was hurt.”
Did they break the law when they
Damaged property
Broke into stores
Took items from within that property
Set buildings on fire
Set cars on fire
Shot people randomly
Damage historical landmarks that had nothing to do with race?
Most of that was instigated or done by people not associated with BLM or didn’t happen until after cops started using force. In particular, most if not all of the BLM protestors were unarmed, so they didn’t shoot people at all.
Also, what monuments are you even talking about?
Furthermore, there is still the question of proportionality.
“how many of those people would still be alive today?”
One, that we can be sure of.
A veteran murdered by a cop for filming the riots from a distant corner.
I guess your happy she got killed? You don’t seam to care if a person isn’t black.
Uh, what? Where the hell did you get that idea? Also, who are you even talking about?
So we’re already over your “insurrection”.
How exactly does that follow from the article you linked?
“Neither is trying to prevent people of color and poor people from voting.”
Oh, ID laws.? Yep, stop people who generally have ids from voting by requiring them to verify who they are.
Sure, those IDs should be free. To all. But since the Dems won’t do anything to secure voting further… we have no social aspect in these laws.
You haven’t demonstrated a need to do so. Voter fraud is incredibly rare, never enough to influence election results in the past few decades at least, and that’s the only thing voter ID laws would address.
Voter ID laws were calculated (according to the courts, BTW) to require forms of ID that black and/or poor people were less likely to have, and then make it even harder to get those forms of ID on top of that.
It’s not just the ID laws, either. They make registering for and casting a vote harder in areas with a larger minority population (as well as making it harder for them to get the necessary forms of ID) in a number of ways, like restricting the number of polling places, making places where you can get an ID or register to vote in those areas only open for, like, a few hours every month, restricting voting on Sundays (when black people often vote), and so on.
Instituting these law should be done only after (or at the same time as) making those IDs free and fixing the other mentioned problems.
Contrary to your assertion, Democrats have offered ways of securing the ballot, like ensuring that voting machines are secure and that there should always be a paper trail. They’ve also proposed amendments to voter ID laws and other bills that tried to restrict/“secure” voting, but they were rejected by Republicans.
“They love the America where poverty is a moral failing”
Says who in the last 20 years.
You clearly haven’t been paying attention to what Republicans and conservatives have been saying. I already know you don’t watch Fox News, which constantly says things like that.
Aside from the green new steal
Have you actually read the Green New Deal? Because it’s largely aspirational and mostly intended to mitigate climate change. Unless you deny manmade climate change (which I’m not saying you do), I honestly have no idea why you’d have a problem with it.
But they handed us a rich white person intent on hurting everyone above the poverty line (except the Uber rich).
It to mention twice supporting genocide. Ukraine (actually kill ethnic Russians) and Iran (wants to kill Jews).
[citation needed] both regarding either Hillary or Biden (I don’t know which you’re referring to) being “intent on hurting everyone above the poverty line (except the Uber rich)” and supporting Iran (supporting the Iran Nuclear Deal is not the same as supporting Iran), as well as the claim of Ukraine committing genocide. (Mostly the former.)
“Democrats don’t generally support raising” … income tax.
Rather they raise sales tax, excise tax, service tax. Anything other than income tax.
Uh, no… That would be the Republicans. Every time Democrats suggest raising taxes, it’s almost exclusively the income tax, primarily for the high-income brackets.
“but the wealthiest Americans. That the wealthiest Americans still find loopholes is both a failing of government in general …”
And you may want to look at tax law. How many of those loopholes you bring up were passed by Democrats.
The Republicans tend to put forward plans that would, yes, lower taxes across the board, AND close loopholes.
Dems just want higher taxes.
Again, no. Just as many, if not more, of those loopholes were passed by Republicans as Democrats. Additionally, the loopholes Republicans try to close generally don’t affect the rich but the lower-to-middle class. And, again, Democrats generally try to raise and close loopholes for income taxes—primarily on the rich—and other taxes that primarily or solely affect the rich. When they have done otherwise, it’s usually to satisfy Republicans, who generally categorically oppose income taxes and taxes on the rich. The one exception in the past decade or so I can think of is the individual mandate for the ACA, which was only applied to those who both can afford it and either don’t have health insurance or get it through the ACA, and 100% of the funds from that were earmarked to fund the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid.
“ahahaha, you think the Dems did that shit”
Obama didn’t run on shutting down every fossil file service in the country. He didn’t run on outsourcing jobs with tax credits. He didn’t run on wide open borders. He didn’t run on tax everyone.
Fossil fuels:
No one was saying to shut them down immediately. At most, it was just to phase them out. It’s also worth noting that Obama increased fossil fuel regulations while in office and signed the Paris Climate Agreement.
Outsourcing jobs with tax credits:
That happened well before Obama. In fact, I can’t recall Obama or the Dems doing that during Obama’s presidency. I do recall Republicans (and probably some Democrats) proposing and passing such a bill that was signed by George W. Bush, though…
Wide-open borders:
Literally no US politician has ever so much as suggested such a thing or attempted to push such an agenda. This is flat-out false.
Tax everyone
Again, that is not something that Dems have pushed for, either. Raising taxes on the rich? Yes. Closing tax loopholes (which are mostly used by the rich)? Yes. Raising taxes for everyone? No.
So, basically, all of those were either things done primarily or solely by Republicans, not Democrats, a gross exaggeration, or flat-out false.
“I’m sorry to disappoint you, but he is the current sitting President of the United States”
In name. Not in act.
Uhhh, what? He’s personally pushed/been pushing for the infrastructure bill (including the taxes within), the pandemic stimulus, right-to-repair, and protections for voting rights and been personally involved in negotiations regarding those bills. He’s also signed a number of executive orders. While exactly two of the Dems (Sinema and Manchin) and basically the entire Republican Party have been stymieing his efforts to get most of the bills passed, I fail to see how he is not the current sitting POTUS “in act”.
Also, a lot of what you questioned came from a hypothetical America that Trump supporters and/or Republicans (allegedly) dream of. It was not intended as a description of America as it is now or even as it actually was under Trump.
Go against my morals, principles, and ethics—not to mention my fears and common sense—and take a massive risk that could lead me to be locked up, all for a small chance to get relatively little personal gain, or
Set fire to a bunch of votes for Trump.
That’s a tough one…
P.S. For those who can’t take a joke, I’m obviously kidding and being hyperbolic here.
“That’s what I mean. That is something you have to explicitly enable”
Again I am not aware of the source situation of the files.
However, no, it’s not something wou need enable.
Microsoft outlook, and Mail, both save to disk unless you turn it off.
That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app. If it was, I could’ve accessed my emails even while offline, but I could not.
Also, on a somewhat related note, while I can’t remember off the top of my head exactly when the emails were allegedly sent, keep in mind the emails in question were—at a minimum—4 years old by the time this laptop would have ended up at the repair shop, likely even older (assuming they’re authentic). Most companies will have everyone clean out their inboxes on a regular basis (usually 1-4 years), not just for security reasons but also for legal reasons, unless they are explicitly told to retain that information for a pending or current lawsuit, criminal charge, or investigation. And these were particularly incriminating emails, too, and they were time-sensitive on top of that, so there was all the more reason to delete them.
And it’s not like Hunter wouldn’t have known that they would have been problematic. Even before Biden ran for VP, while Hunter was a lobbyist, lots of people alleged that Hunter was using his father as a way to increase his influence or that Biden made biased decisions in favor of whatever or whomever Hunter was lobbying on behalf of. They even took active steps to try to address those concerns, and they took some of those steps before any allegations of impropriety ever came up. Even if those allegations were indeed true, or became true later on, Hunter would have known very well that he should do his best to avoid making it appear as those there was anything shady going on in that regard, and certainly wouldn’t be so careless as to retain that kind of evidence for so long.
So why were those emails still on the laptop more than four years later?
“ Still not something I would say is advisable”
Nor I. But I’ve worked with people who went fishing.
Below me,l, under me, I don’t take it. Nuke the drive. Start over.
But I’ve worked under companies that license fish. I never stayed long when I became aware of it.
It’s one of the many places where my idea of private property works out better for general society.
Not my data. BC wipe.
Every tech has looked once, even I. Without permission.
It’s literally something everyone will try ~once~.
But for some… it’s a thrill. They’re sick and need help. But it’s still legal in most cases of a situation such as in discussion.
First, re: license-fishing, which is the least bad reason you’ve given thus far—why would that require checking emails? And why wouldn’t you use search terms to narrow down the search to ones likely to yield licenses. Plus, again, this email was over four years old at the time (allegedly). If someone has an inbox containing emails that old (especially ones that are incriminating or have no good reason to be retained for so long, both of which are true for these emails), that’s a lot of emails to go through, so, again, one would expect some sort of filter to be used.
Second, and more importantly, I again wouldn’t trust that information disseminated by such a person—particularly one who has a motive for wanting to make the victim look bad—was authentic and unmodified.
If we were discussing someone whose job (official or not) is to test security measures, that would be one thing, but that’s not the case here.
My point over all is unlikely? Yes. Improbable? No
I don’t think you know what “improbable” means… If something is unlikely, it is also—pretty much by definition—improbable. Perhaps you meant “implausible”?
Regarding the citations, thank you for providing links to support your claims. I really appreciate it. There are some problems, though.
Re: the citation on Hunter saying the laptop could be his, you missed an important detail:
“Of course, certainly,” Biden replied. “There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me. It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me.”
So, not exactly great support for your claim that he actually dropped it off and simply forgot about it. Kind of the opposite, actually. He also never said, “I don’t recall,” or anything like that in that story.
Now, he may not be being entirely truthful, but this certainly isn’t the sort of admission that bolsters your claim.
Additionally, as I’ve already pointed out, neither the repairman nor Giuliani definitively identified the person who dropped off the laptop at the repair shop as Hunter. They have claimed that both the laptop and the emails were his, but they never claimed that the guy who dropped it off to begin with was him. They didn’t say it wasn’t Hunter, but they didn’t say it was either. So, really, the story doesn’t even require that Hunter was ever in that area to begin with.
Now, I understand why you would be trying to justify that it was him, as it adds another potentially problematic link in the chain of custody, but given how problematic the existing links are, it doesn’t matter that much whether it was Hunter>repairman>Rudy or Hunter>?>repairman>Rudy.
Re: the tarmac, Loretta Lynch wasn’t AG or even in the DOJ in any capacity when the laptop story allegedly took place. It was William Barr, who was definitely a Trump supporter, who was AG at the time. So, even if one could have reasonably doubted federal law enforcement under the Obama administration, that is irrelevant here, where the events were far more recent.
Speaking of, not only did the Tarmac story take place four years before the laptop story, it also was reported on soon after the story took place, so saying it was “not that long ago” isn’t quite accurate. While the particular article you cite was written in 2020, that wasn’t because they just found out about it or had just uncovered any new information about the event or anything. It was because the guy who first broke the story—a Christopher Sign who worked for the people publishing this article—had just died. And it also makes it clear that the story became public years ago, as it says not only did the events occur in 2016, but also that it hurt Hillary’s election chances. When the laptop story took place, Biden was the one running for President.
While I suppose it’s technically possible that the guy had gained some distrust of federal law enforcement from that story, it doesn’t explain his actions in the laptop story, particularly given that that story wasn’t new at the time and happened under very different leadership.
“because they only cared about taking out Biden.”
Not supporting it. But makes sense. Politicians suck.
I won’t deny that, but the problem is that—with such clear improper motivations behind it and such, and given the lack of any supporting evidence or any way we could possibly verify the authenticity of either the laptop or the emails—it becomes entirely plausible—even likely—that the emails were tampered with or falsified or that the laptop was never Hunter’s to begin with.
Also, Rudy was once a politician, sure (though, to my knowledge, he isn’t one any longer and hasn’t been for a while), but the repairman was not, so I don’t see the relevance of the “Politicians suck,” comment. If anything, it only bolsters my point.
And given how fast anti-Trump gets covered with no actual personal fact checking, […]
Aside from the Steele dossier being covered by Buzzfeed and then other covering their coverage and the alleged pee-pee tape—which was basically mentioned at most once each by any serious news sources and mostly mentioned in humor rather than seriously since then—I am unaware of that being the case. Plus, those were presented as claims, not evidence of claims. Major news sources had already covered the underlying allegations of the laptop story—that Hunter was helping people get access to Biden—long before the laptop story came out.
I also already mentioned several other distinctions between the anti-Trump coverage and the laptop story. For example, the laptop story could easily be discredited with just a modicum of research, while the anti-Trump stories could not and—in the case of the pee-pee tapes—were likely unfalsifiable. They weren’t immediately proven wrong with evidence after they came out, either.
[…] this story being completely buried… shows partnership considerations.
“Partnership considerations”? Are you suggesting that the media colluded to bury the story? When has that ever happened?
I’m not saying MSM aren’t biased or are trustworthy or anything like that—that’s a whole 'nother issue—or that any mass media—including MSM—hasn’t previously buried stories for selfish reasons or because they were paid off or something—something that definitely has happened—or that the government has never exercised its influence to silence the media—which is both a separate issue and would make no sense for the Trump administration to be doing—because those aren’t what you’re alleging here (or at least not the major thing you’re claiming). You’re alleging that every MSM source—along with other news media—colluded together to bury this story.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. That is unsupported by your other claims or any other known information (so it goes against Hitchen’s Razor), it goes against Hanlon’s Razor as it alleges malicious intent behind not covering the story despite the existence of other equally plausible explanations that would still go along with your other claims that don’t require malicious intent (like unconscious bias, being incompetent or lax with regards to fact-checking outside of an election year, or—rightly or wrongly—personally finding the anti-Trump stuff more plausible or more serious than the laptop story), it goes against Occam’s Razor as it adds multiple unneeded assumptions that have not been shown to be demonstrated, not to mention the other problems it shares with any conspiracy theory—too many people involved but no leaks from anyone involved, among others.
Look, even if I grant that MSM buried the story for invalid or improper reasons and that they were handling it unfairly compared to anti-Trump stories, it is entirely plausible—and far more likely—that they did so completely independently from each other. Assuming there were any partnership considerations involved is entirely unwarranted here.
Immaterial. That doesn’t make criticisms of Israel antisemitic.
The whole Israel-Palestine situation is sufficiently complicated that, even if it is false, people can reasonably come to completely different conclusions about all sides of the conflict—including ones that are clearly wrong to someone “better informed on” the issue—without being antisemitic or islamophobic. So, really, even if I grant everything else you’ve said, you haven’t actually demonstrated that the criticisms of Israel from the squad are motivated by antisemitism.
Plus, although you say it’s the squad doing this, I only recall Ilhan Omar doing so, so that’s just one person to the other side’s… What was it? 4 examples? And I recall Omar being called out on occasion by other elected Democrats, so that wasn’t exactly ignored or defended by the Democratic Party.
Still, for the sake of this discussion, I’ll take one Democratic example. That’s still not enough, though. Considering, for example, MTG’s space laser comment and comparison between a mask mandate and Nazis’ treatment of Jews leading up to the Holocaust, even if the squads’ statements about Israel are antisemitic, they are rather tame by comparison.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t help your case at all.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re talking about the origins of the conflict, and even that is a bit more complicated, but I won’t really argue on that.
I’m talking about the conflict as it currently stands as well as other current issues adjacent to but not intrinsically part of the conflict.
I should also point out that by “complicated”, I don’t mean factually per se, but morally or opinion-wise, not to mention difficult to resolve. If it was that simple, it would’ve been resolved much sooner.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Depends on your definition of “mainstream”, but fine. It’s irrelevant because neither birtherism nor how Hunter got the job with Burisma were pushed much harder in mainstream news, either, so that fails to explain any differences between how they were treated.
I, personally, only did so to explain what mainstream news has covered in general or where Fox News was specifically brought up. I’ve never accused you of getting your news from there.
I won’t argue the point too much because it’s ultimately irrelevant to anything I’ve said, but while they are technically distinct entities, many would consider it to be a distinction without a difference given who runs and founded them.
Again, I won’t argue about FNF really. I’ll take your word for it that both the laptop and election fraud claims have not been covered on there for some time. I fail to see how that’s relevant to anything I’ve said.
Fair enough. Again, though, I fail to see how this relates to what I’m talking about. I haven’t accused you of bias or of getting your news from anywhere in particular or some biased source(s) in general.
True in my experience as well. Which is why I’m so perplexed why you keep bringing it up.
Also true.
I would argue that that is—in itself—a problem. I don’t think that’s okay for someone to say, especially if their defense is “so what?” At least regarding the Trump thing.
As I said, the truth of his claims isn’t the only problem here.
“He goes out of his way to not shake hands”? Ah, yes. That’s why people have ridiculed/criticized him for how he shakes the hands of other people—dragging them in and sort of wrestling or something to achieve dominance or whatever. /s
Seriously though, I’ve never noticed him going out of his way to avoid shaking hands. Kinda the opposite, actually. In fact, later in that same Access: Hollywood tape, he was hugging a woman. Not exactly germaphobic behavior. Besides, some people are germaphobes outdoors or in public places but not so much in private.
Also, I find the fact he felt comfortable saying that—whether he was telling the truth or not—to be a problem in and of itself. And I believe that—given what other comparable to him have done—it’s not that implausible.
I don’t know for sure whether that’s actually true or not. One job likely was, at least in part, but it’s an open question whether or not that was always the case.
I have no comment on that.
You clearly know nothing about progressives, then. I also fail to see why you care whether he admits it or not. If we shouldn’t judge him for it, why should you care?
I find political commentary interesting. If I didn’t, why would I be visiting blogs like this?
Good for you! I agree with that sentiment. I used to actually watch it—not just a few noteworthy clips—on occasion just to see the other side, no matter how ridiculous it may be. However, whatever merit it may once have had bad essentially died thanks to their coverage of Trump.
Fair enough.
…I’m not going to really address this given how it has nothing to do with what I’ve said, but I honestly have no idea why you think that.
You have presented no evidence that “the ‘real’ President” is not Biden. None whatsoever. You haven’t even alleged facts that—if true—would prove you correct. We have presented evidence that he is. You have failed to counter that evidence. Frankly, identifying another person who is “the ‘real’ President” would be the best and simplest way of presenting a remotely plausible claim, but if you claim to not know at all, that only makes your claim less plausible on its face, but you should still provide some evidence.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aside from a brief mention of Amtrak in passing, no you did not, at least not in this thread.
Irrelevant. Biden wasn’t responsible for the appointment, Hunter did well enough to be promoted, and he was considered decent at it under Presidents from both sides. He only left once Biden became VP in order to avoid nepotism. Plus, every government position that is not an elected position is a political appointment. That has no bearing on his qualifications or experience—then, when hired by Burisma, or now.
I don’t know what troubles you’re referring to, but as I recall, he was given that position on a temporary basis while the then-CEO was being replaced, so I don’t see how that’s reflective of Hunter himself. Plus, given how corrupt Burisma is, even ignoring his father, that wouldn’t necessarily be disqualifying.
Irrelevant. Many competent people who obtain a law degree don’t end up practicing law or even taking the bar exam. Many go into some other career, like running a business, lobbying, consultancies, journalism, writing, or politics. That doesn’t make him any less qualified or experienced insofar as being on the board of directors for a large company.
Plus, a law degree is useful for other reasons, as outlined in another reply.
Well, okay, but we agree it is a thing that happens to some extent.
Also, if you don’t have a problem with it, why does it matter to you so much? If a fact is irrelevant, why push it so hard?
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if you disregard anyone who got their position because of nepotism, most people on the board of directors of a company are not knowledgeable or experienced with the main focus of the company. Plus, Hunter did have experience regarding energy and stuff given his lobbying regarding energy-efficiency and running Amtrak—which requires work with energy companies. So nepotism is not necessary.
My aforementioned statement about the knowledge held by members of boards of directors tends to be—if anything—more true for multinational/international corporations.
Again, this is true for most executive positions.
And well before and since his time in management. I fail to see how that is reflective of Hunter Biden.
If you mean to say that Burisma was corrupt and, therefore, likely had Hunter’s father in mind when hiring him, that’s likely true. I don’t know how significant or decisive that factor was in the decision, but it’s probable that it at least played some role. I would say it likely wasn’t the only reason, but it could have been a reason, perhaps even the main reason.
That doesn’t mean that Hunter was unqualified for the position, at least compared to most other people who serve on boards of directors.
I find it had to believe that an international company of this size would have zero in-house legal reps or legal counsel or anything like that.
Plus, people with law degrees end up in high positions in large businesses all the time. One previous president of Nintendo of America had previously acted as legal counsel and legal representative for NoA before attaining that position. There was no corruption or nepotism involved there at all. And—in this case—you’ve previously noted that there’s no evidence that Hunter had any experience as legal counsel to begin with, so I fail to see how that’s in any way suspicious. Really, the law degree is useful in that it shows a better-than-average familiarity with the law (good for anyone in any career that involves decision-making, not just law firms), a strong educational background, and the willingness to work hard over long periods of time to achieve a goal (getting a law degree is up there with medical degrees in terms of the level of commitment needed).
What Hunter did have experience in was in speaking on behalf of business interests, running and starting businesses, being in executive positions for a business, and dealing with politicians. All of these would be useful for a member of a board of directors for any business. So, again, the lack of a dedicated law practice is irrelevant.
I’m not sure that he has ever explicitly denied that, but regardless, especially since he no longer has that job, I fail to see why I should care. It’s also not 100%—or even 98%—certain that that was the case, so I don’t see the point in addressing it. As I said, he did have plenty of qualifications for the position relative to most people on a board of directors (including non-corrupt ones), so he certainly has plausible deniability.
I also don’t care because 1) Burisma has no real effect on my life at all, 2) I don’t care about Hunter personally all that much (I only learned as much as I did to address specific questions you asked), 3) it doesn’t really make the laptop story any more or less plausible, and 4) I fail to see how that reflects on Joe Biden at all or any American company.
But—again—you haven’t made a strong case to begin with. Of the points you brought up, all but one were false and/or not indicative of nepotism or corruption of any sort, and the only one that differs is one that Burisma is corrupt, which is not exactly proof, or does it reflect on Hunter at all.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is zero evidence that Biden has dementia, nor has there ever been. His public-speaking skills and cognitive abilities don’t appear to be substantially less than they were over a decade or so ago. He also doesn’t appear to be worse cognitively than Trump, so I fail to see how that would be a factor that favors Trump over Biden.
There is also no evidence to suggest that anyone else besides Biden himself is or has been acting as President since he was inaugurated. As I’ve said, he’s taken numerous actions as President since taking office, all of which are fully consistent with what he ran on and his previous positions.
It also wouldn’t be empty even if true, since Kamala Harris would be the acting President should Biden be unable to serve (which is—again—not in evidence).
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That wasn’t “the whole of it”. That was, at most, half of it.
It also shows that the allegations weren’t in there solely to benefit the DNC, and that the people actually putting it together weren’t personally Democrats per se. Unlike with the laptop, where everyone involved—from the repairman to Rudy Giuliani to the NYP—were all pro-Trump, conservative, Republican, and anti-Biden. So, unlike the Steele dossier, everyone involved from the start had a clear agenda and no reason to be accurate. (Opposition research generally has to be based on something reasonably or definitively true, even if parts are exaggerated or left out.)
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tech
I fail to see how “[i]t’s an extremely invasive request.” In many countries, everyone’s tax returns are public records. Furthermore, Trump is literally the only presidential candidate since Nixon who complained about disclosing their tax returns, let alone refused to do it. And even he mostly made excuses about why he hadn’t yet and (falsely) promised to release them.
Plus, while they’re not going to show everything, they still offer a good baseline, so saying they offer little value to the public is incorrect.
I’d also argue that reportable income (which includes pretty much all income derived within the US somehow, taxable or not) is particularly relevant when someone makes public claims about it. For example, if someone claims to have low or middling income, a tax return that reports a high income would show them to be lying, and someone who claims to be a “great businessman” should have to demonstrate that.
Regarding the birther thing, I fail to see how it’s relevant. Why should the “author card” of a book should show that such claims are still reasonable even after being presented with the massive amount of evidence showing that Obama was born in Hawaii? Regardless of how it started, it makes no sense how it continued and still continues today to some extent. People filed lawsuits over it pretty much throughout Obama’s presidency.
Plus, as long as your mom or dad was a US citizen when you were born, it doesn’t really matter where you were born regarding being a natural-born citizen. Both Ted Cruz (born in Canada) and John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) were born outside of the US but were not considered to be ineligible to be President. So even if Obama was born in Kenya (which he clearly was not), it would make no actual difference. Even according to the author card, the time he supposedly spent in Kenya was brief, spending far more time in Indonesia, Hawaii, or Illinois. So, even if true (which it definitely isn’t), it makes no sense why people should care.
Also, while the agency in question does (or did) include Obama as a current client now, it’s not clear from that article whether that was the case at the time his half-brother’s book was written.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to
First of all, MSNBC and CNN are very different. The former is significantly more biased (in favor of progressives) than the latter. Not that either are unbiased or anything, but I hate it when people lump them in together. It’d be like lumping the WSJ with Fox News, except MSNBC is more reasonable than Fox.
Second, even assuming any part of the laptop story was true, at best that proves a direct connection Hunter Biden and an indirect connection with Joe Biden. And, indeed, that appears to be the focus of the FBI’s investigation: potential wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, the guy he was allegedly exchanging emails with, and associates of the latter. We already know that the meeting with Joe Biden described within the emails did not actually occur.
Additionally, the evidence of what Trump did was more clearcut and was acknowledged as having actually happened by Trump, even if he dismissed it as “locker-room talk”. More proof = more relevant.
Also, I’m pretty sure that MSNBC did mention it at least once, though not as a plausible allegation.
On the post: Techdirt Is Fighting A New Lawsuit
Re: Re: I'm not surprised...
In defense of Jhon Smith + aliases, they aren’t a lawyer, nor did they explicitly say something that basically proves that it’s not defamation.
On the post: Police Union Gives 'Officer Of The Year' Award To A Cop Who Spent Last Year Suspended
Re: Re: Re: what cops need
Well, they also suggested holding them to a higher standard.
On the post: Police Union Gives 'Officer Of The Year' Award To A Cop Who Spent Last Year Suspended
Re: what cops need
While I agree, that’s basically what they were supposed to have been doing this whole time, so that’s clearly insufficient. I’d say we should also have independent oversight committees handle it as well.
Setting aside the fact that most cops get paid fine (above the median income for their area), this cop clearly got paid too much. He wasn’t putting his life on the line for the past 2+ years, in fact he was barely doing anything, and nothing at all for the past year or so!
No arguments here! I mean, I think that they should be held to a higher standard, but holding them to an equal standard would be better than what we do right now!
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
But seriously, the Steele dossier isn’t as false as you claim that it is, and the MSM didn’t really cover it until Buzzfeed brought it up and it was known that the FBI was investigating the allegations contained therein. It also was far more plausible than the laptop story.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re:
Most of that was instigated or done by people not associated with BLM or didn’t happen until after cops started using force. In particular, most if not all of the BLM protestors were unarmed, so they didn’t shoot people at all.
Also, what monuments are you even talking about?
Furthermore, there is still the question of proportionality.
Uh, what? Where the hell did you get that idea? Also, who are you even talking about?
How exactly does that follow from the article you linked?
You haven’t demonstrated a need to do so. Voter fraud is incredibly rare, never enough to influence election results in the past few decades at least, and that’s the only thing voter ID laws would address.
Voter ID laws were calculated (according to the courts, BTW) to require forms of ID that black and/or poor people were less likely to have, and then make it even harder to get those forms of ID on top of that.
It’s not just the ID laws, either. They make registering for and casting a vote harder in areas with a larger minority population (as well as making it harder for them to get the necessary forms of ID) in a number of ways, like restricting the number of polling places, making places where you can get an ID or register to vote in those areas only open for, like, a few hours every month, restricting voting on Sundays (when black people often vote), and so on.
Instituting these law should be done only after (or at the same time as) making those IDs free and fixing the other mentioned problems.
You clearly haven’t been paying attention to what Republicans and conservatives have been saying. I already know you don’t watch Fox News, which constantly says things like that.
Have you actually read the Green New Deal? Because it’s largely aspirational and mostly intended to mitigate climate change. Unless you deny manmade climate change (which I’m not saying you do), I honestly have no idea why you’d have a problem with it.
[citation needed] both regarding either Hillary or Biden (I don’t know which you’re referring to) being “intent on hurting everyone above the poverty line (except the Uber rich)” and supporting Iran (supporting the Iran Nuclear Deal is not the same as supporting Iran), as well as the claim of Ukraine committing genocide. (Mostly the former.)
Uh, no… That would be the Republicans. Every time Democrats suggest raising taxes, it’s almost exclusively the income tax, primarily for the high-income brackets.
Again, no. Just as many, if not more, of those loopholes were passed by Republicans as Democrats. Additionally, the loopholes Republicans try to close generally don’t affect the rich but the lower-to-middle class. And, again, Democrats generally try to raise and close loopholes for income taxes—primarily on the rich—and other taxes that primarily or solely affect the rich. When they have done otherwise, it’s usually to satisfy Republicans, who generally categorically oppose income taxes and taxes on the rich. The one exception in the past decade or so I can think of is the individual mandate for the ACA, which was only applied to those who both can afford it and either don’t have health insurance or get it through the ACA, and 100% of the funds from that were earmarked to fund the ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Fossil fuels:
No one was saying to shut them down immediately. At most, it was just to phase them out. It’s also worth noting that Obama increased fossil fuel regulations while in office and signed the Paris Climate Agreement.
Outsourcing jobs with tax credits:
That happened well before Obama. In fact, I can’t recall Obama or the Dems doing that during Obama’s presidency. I do recall Republicans (and probably some Democrats) proposing and passing such a bill that was signed by George W. Bush, though…
Wide-open borders:
Literally no US politician has ever so much as suggested such a thing or attempted to push such an agenda. This is flat-out false.
Tax everyone
Again, that is not something that Dems have pushed for, either. Raising taxes on the rich? Yes. Closing tax loopholes (which are mostly used by the rich)? Yes. Raising taxes for everyone? No.
So, basically, all of those were either things done primarily or solely by Republicans, not Democrats, a gross exaggeration, or flat-out false.
“I’m sorry to disappoint you, but he is the current sitting President of the United States”
In name. Not in act.
Uhhh, what? He’s personally pushed/been pushing for the infrastructure bill (including the taxes within), the pandemic stimulus, right-to-repair, and protections for voting rights and been personally involved in negotiations regarding those bills. He’s also signed a number of executive orders. While exactly two of the Dems (Sinema and Manchin) and basically the entire Republican Party have been stymieing his efforts to get most of the bills passed, I fail to see how he is not the current sitting POTUS “in act”.
Also, a lot of what you questioned came from a hypothetical America that Trump supporters and/or Republicans (allegedly) dream of. It was not intended as a description of America as it is now or even as it actually was under Trump.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would those be the choices I have available?
And honestly, that’s a tough call there:
Go against my morals, principles, and ethics—not to mention my fears and common sense—and take a massive risk that could lead me to be locked up, all for a small chance to get relatively little personal gain, or
That’s a tough one…
P.S. For those who can’t take a joke, I’m obviously kidding and being hyperbolic here.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically lega
That wasn’t the case with my emails on my laptop on the Mail app. If it was, I could’ve accessed my emails even while offline, but I could not.
Also, on a somewhat related note, while I can’t remember off the top of my head exactly when the emails were allegedly sent, keep in mind the emails in question were—at a minimum—4 years old by the time this laptop would have ended up at the repair shop, likely even older (assuming they’re authentic). Most companies will have everyone clean out their inboxes on a regular basis (usually 1-4 years), not just for security reasons but also for legal reasons, unless they are explicitly told to retain that information for a pending or current lawsuit, criminal charge, or investigation. And these were particularly incriminating emails, too, and they were time-sensitive on top of that, so there was all the more reason to delete them.
And it’s not like Hunter wouldn’t have known that they would have been problematic. Even before Biden ran for VP, while Hunter was a lobbyist, lots of people alleged that Hunter was using his father as a way to increase his influence or that Biden made biased decisions in favor of whatever or whomever Hunter was lobbying on behalf of. They even took active steps to try to address those concerns, and they took some of those steps before any allegations of impropriety ever came up. Even if those allegations were indeed true, or became true later on, Hunter would have known very well that he should do his best to avoid making it appear as those there was anything shady going on in that regard, and certainly wouldn’t be so careless as to retain that kind of evidence for so long.
So why were those emails still on the laptop more than four years later?
First, re: license-fishing, which is the least bad reason you’ve given thus far—why would that require checking emails? And why wouldn’t you use search terms to narrow down the search to ones likely to yield licenses. Plus, again, this email was over four years old at the time (allegedly). If someone has an inbox containing emails that old (especially ones that are incriminating or have no good reason to be retained for so long, both of which are true for these emails), that’s a lot of emails to go through, so, again, one would expect some sort of filter to be used.
Second, and more importantly, I again wouldn’t trust that information disseminated by such a person—particularly one who has a motive for wanting to make the victim look bad—was authentic and unmodified.
If we were discussing someone whose job (official or not) is to test security measures, that would be one thing, but that’s not the case here.
I don’t think you know what “improbable” means… If something is unlikely, it is also—pretty much by definition—improbable. Perhaps you meant “implausible”?
Regarding the citations, thank you for providing links to support your claims. I really appreciate it. There are some problems, though.
Re: the citation on Hunter saying the laptop could be his, you missed an important detail:
So, not exactly great support for your claim that he actually dropped it off and simply forgot about it. Kind of the opposite, actually. He also never said, “I don’t recall,” or anything like that in that story.
Now, he may not be being entirely truthful, but this certainly isn’t the sort of admission that bolsters your claim.
Additionally, as I’ve already pointed out, neither the repairman nor Giuliani definitively identified the person who dropped off the laptop at the repair shop as Hunter. They have claimed that both the laptop and the emails were his, but they never claimed that the guy who dropped it off to begin with was him. They didn’t say it wasn’t Hunter, but they didn’t say it was either. So, really, the story doesn’t even require that Hunter was ever in that area to begin with.
Now, I understand why you would be trying to justify that it was him, as it adds another potentially problematic link in the chain of custody, but given how problematic the existing links are, it doesn’t matter that much whether it was Hunter>repairman>Rudy or Hunter>?>repairman>Rudy.
Re: the tarmac, Loretta Lynch wasn’t AG or even in the DOJ in any capacity when the laptop story allegedly took place. It was William Barr, who was definitely a Trump supporter, who was AG at the time. So, even if one could have reasonably doubted federal law enforcement under the Obama administration, that is irrelevant here, where the events were far more recent.
Speaking of, not only did the Tarmac story take place four years before the laptop story, it also was reported on soon after the story took place, so saying it was “not that long ago” isn’t quite accurate. While the particular article you cite was written in 2020, that wasn’t because they just found out about it or had just uncovered any new information about the event or anything. It was because the guy who first broke the story—a Christopher Sign who worked for the people publishing this article—had just died. And it also makes it clear that the story became public years ago, as it says not only did the events occur in 2016, but also that it hurt Hillary’s election chances. When the laptop story took place, Biden was the one running for President.
While I suppose it’s technically possible that the guy had gained some distrust of federal law enforcement from that story, it doesn’t explain his actions in the laptop story, particularly given that that story wasn’t new at the time and happened under very different leadership.
I won’t deny that, but the problem is that—with such clear improper motivations behind it and such, and given the lack of any supporting evidence or any way we could possibly verify the authenticity of either the laptop or the emails—it becomes entirely plausible—even likely—that the emails were tampered with or falsified or that the laptop was never Hunter’s to begin with.
Also, Rudy was once a politician, sure (though, to my knowledge, he isn’t one any longer and hasn’t been for a while), but the repairman was not, so I don’t see the relevance of the “Politicians suck,” comment. If anything, it only bolsters my point.
Aside from the Steele dossier being covered by Buzzfeed and then other covering their coverage and the alleged pee-pee tape—which was basically mentioned at most once each by any serious news sources and mostly mentioned in humor rather than seriously since then—I am unaware of that being the case. Plus, those were presented as claims, not evidence of claims. Major news sources had already covered the underlying allegations of the laptop story—that Hunter was helping people get access to Biden—long before the laptop story came out.
I also already mentioned several other distinctions between the anti-Trump coverage and the laptop story. For example, the laptop story could easily be discredited with just a modicum of research, while the anti-Trump stories could not and—in the case of the pee-pee tapes—were likely unfalsifiable. They weren’t immediately proven wrong with evidence after they came out, either.
“Partnership considerations”? Are you suggesting that the media colluded to bury the story? When has that ever happened?
I’m not saying MSM aren’t biased or are trustworthy or anything like that—that’s a whole 'nother issue—or that any mass media—including MSM—hasn’t previously buried stories for selfish reasons or because they were paid off or something—something that definitely has happened—or that the government has never exercised its influence to silence the media—which is both a separate issue and would make no sense for the Trump administration to be doing—because those aren’t what you’re alleging here (or at least not the major thing you’re claiming). You’re alleging that every MSM source—along with other news media—colluded together to bury this story.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. That is unsupported by your other claims or any other known information (so it goes against Hitchen’s Razor), it goes against Hanlon’s Razor as it alleges malicious intent behind not covering the story despite the existence of other equally plausible explanations that would still go along with your other claims that don’t require malicious intent (like unconscious bias, being incompetent or lax with regards to fact-checking outside of an election year, or—rightly or wrongly—personally finding the anti-Trump stuff more plausible or more serious than the laptop story), it goes against Occam’s Razor as it adds multiple unneeded assumptions that have not been shown to be demonstrated, not to mention the other problems it shares with any conspiracy theory—too many people involved but no leaks from anyone involved, among others.
Look, even if I grant that MSM buried the story for invalid or improper reasons and that they were handling it unfairly compared to anti-Trump stories, it is entirely plausible—and far more likely—that they did so completely independently from each other. Assuming there were any partnership considerations involved is entirely unwarranted here.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Immaterial. That doesn’t make criticisms of Israel antisemitic.
The whole Israel-Palestine situation is sufficiently complicated that, even if it is false, people can reasonably come to completely different conclusions about all sides of the conflict—including ones that are clearly wrong to someone “better informed on” the issue—without being antisemitic or islamophobic. So, really, even if I grant everything else you’ve said, you haven’t actually demonstrated that the criticisms of Israel from the squad are motivated by antisemitism.
Plus, although you say it’s the squad doing this, I only recall Ilhan Omar doing so, so that’s just one person to the other side’s… What was it? 4 examples? And I recall Omar being called out on occasion by other elected Democrats, so that wasn’t exactly ignored or defended by the Democratic Party.
Still, for the sake of this discussion, I’ll take one Democratic example. That’s still not enough, though. Considering, for example, MTG’s space laser comment and comparison between a mask mandate and Nazis’ treatment of Jews leading up to the Holocaust, even if the squads’ statements about Israel are antisemitic, they are rather tame by comparison.
On the post: Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review
Re:
“This is fine.”
On the post: Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
Re: Re: innocuous leader
Not really.
On the post: Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
Re: Re: innocuous leader
First rule of headlines that pose a yes-or-no question: the answer is usually no. This is no exception.
Next >>