4 ms·

a. If by "materially moved" you mean were their policies influenced by Hunter Biden, probably not. b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actua

a. If by "materially moved" you mean were their policies influenced by Hunter Biden, probably not. b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actually happened with the emails. c. I think it would have hurt his campaign badly if the story were not suppressed. d. Yes. e. Yes. f. Yes. Ok, I read the essay. It's an opinion / explainer that Hunter's laptop did not contain any actionable proof of Joe's corruption. As for "seeing truth in it", I honestly don't know enough about the topic. Again, let's grant it as true in all respects. I am not religious. I think I might be understanding where your Socratic method is attempting to lead me. Is it your contention that the suppression of the laptop scandal is far less important than keeping an actually corrupt President out of the White House? That while Hunter Biden may have traded on his father's position, Joe Biden is not corrupt and so, we should let the suppression slide? As a partisan, you might have an idea that all people who criticize "your side" are necessarily on "their side". Not true in my case. In my opinion, both parties are deeply corrupt, and worse, they have legalized their corruption. As a duopoly, they get away with it. We voters only have the option to switch back and forth between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I liked Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his incorruptibility, but that was not allowed. Worse, whenever we bring up corruption of anyone, there's a peanut gallery primed to talk about the corruption of "the other side". Questions of Hunter's acquiring millions of dollars with no apparent qualification other than "son of US VP"? "You know, Ivana Trump worked out a copyright deal in China". Questions about foreign diplomats staying in Trump's hotel while working out trade treaties with the President? "You know, Hillary Clinton made millions in speaking fees while Secretary of State". Questions of Hillary's emails? "Trump also took classified documents." But worse than any of that... yes, even worse... the fourth estate has entirely abdicated its function as a non-partisan release valve to all this nonsense (if it ever actually did that at all anyway). So, honestly, I'm less upset about Biden's laptop than I am about official attempts to suppress it. You should be upset about that, too, even though it helped "your side". Next time, it won't be your side. Next time, it might be somebody really dangerous. So, I ask yet again, and please take time with your answer: given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?

pstuart 4y ago
The point of the laptop story was not to root out corruption, it was just to smear Biden. I've yet to see anything that indicates otherwise. I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. If there was compelling proof many of his supporters would no longer support him (self included). Of course there's plenty of corruption and the most blatant form of that is campaign financing -- legalized bribery. There's ways to change that but one side is fully opposed to it.
- rendall 4y ago
  > I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. The evidence may be on that laptop. Which was suppressed as a story. By the request of the FBI. Who has the laptop in their possession. It is your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of corruption there that makes me believe you have been unduly influenced by partisan news.
pstuart 4y ago
> what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant? First and foremost is how many outright lies I find in the output of that source (e.g., Tucker Carlson makes claims that are consistently outrageous). Next up would be getting a feel for the bias of the source (blatant vs innate) Then it's compare and contrast across different media feeds.
- rendall 4y ago
  I'd submit that this is not adequate, because it allows for too much bias towards that which you already believe to be true; and to too-easily reject that which does not already fit in with your preconceptions. Actively falsifying claims you already believe is pretty key. Doing that on your own is essential. It's difficult, especially if you're embedded within a social context that believes "the other side" is stupid at best.

pstuart 4y ago

The point of the laptop story was not to root out corruption, it was just to smear Biden. I've yet to see anything that indicates otherwise. I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. If there was compelling proof many of his supporters would no longer support him (self included). Of course there's plenty of corruption and the most blatant form of that is campaign financing -- legalized bribery. There's ways to change that but one side is fully opposed to it.

rendall 4y ago
> I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. The evidence may be on that laptop. Which was suppressed as a story. By the request of the FBI. Who has the laptop in their possession. It is your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of corruption there that makes me believe you have been unduly influenced by partisan news.

pstuart 4y ago

> what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant? First and foremost is how many outright lies I find in the output of that source (e.g., Tucker Carlson makes claims that are consistently outrageous). Next up would be getting a feel for the bias of the source (blatant vs innate) Then it's compare and contrast across different media feeds.

rendall 4y ago
I'd submit that this is not adequate, because it allows for too much bias towards that which you already believe to be true; and to too-easily reject that which does not already fit in with your preconceptions. Actively falsifying claims you already believe is pretty key. Doing that on your own is essential. It's difficult, especially if you're embedded within a social context that believes "the other side" is stupid at best.