5 ms·

Nobody on the left cares about protecting Hunter Biden. IF he broke any laws, then he should be in jail. AFAIK, there's no current legal case against him. What

by boc 4y ago

Nobody on the left cares about protecting Hunter Biden. IF he broke any laws, then he should be in jail. AFAIK, there's no current legal case against him. What you're seeing here is the "left" learning to not take everything the right screams about at face value. They watched Hillary get dragged through the mud with Benghazi over absolutely nothing of substance, including months of Congressional hearings. Thus this new "Hunter Biden Laptop" story smells like the same exact ratfucking playbook. Complaining that Twitter didn't amplify an unproven story isn't bias. It's successful pattern recognition.

M4v3R 4y ago
> Complaining that Twitter didn't amplify an unproven story isn't bias. What do you mean by “didn’t amplify”? They actively suppressed/banned the story (based on a policy that didn’t even apply in this case) instead of “not amplifying it”, these are two totally separate things.
chrisbaker98 4y ago
What was actually on Hunter Biden's laptop? Can someone give me a link to a succinct, non-partisan list of facts?
- gilbetron 4y ago
  Unbiased, factual descriptions are really hard to come by. Here's an ok take on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/z3isaw/whats_up_with_hunters_biden_laptop/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/z3isaw/whats_... You'll have to do your own digging around to build up your own opinion if you want more info. From my digging, it still seems like pretty much nothing we didn't already know.
- lazyeye 4y ago
  Joe Biden (AKA "The Big Guy") was taking a cut from Hunter Biden's ridiculous business dealings with foreign entities (otherwise known as "influence peddling"). With zero relevant business experience Hunter Biden was getting highly lucrative business deals with all kinds of shady people connected to foreign govts. Joe Biden denied any involvement with his son's business but there is evidence that he was involved from witnesses (including attending business meetings) and emails on the laptop to indicate he was involved but they were conscious of the need to publicly at least, keep his name out of it. It's the kind of thing for which, if it was Trump, we would have seen 24/7 media meltdown for years but because its a Biden well "media companies are privately owned and can do what they want".
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > Joe Biden (AKA "The Big Guy") was taking a cut from Hunter Biden's ridiculous business dealings with foreign entities Parent asked for an unbiased summary. Right off the bat you’re providing the right wing narrative. There is nothing in the laptop or elsewhere to show that: - the “big guy” referenced in the email is in fact Joe Biden - that even if it is, Joe Biden was aware of the e-mail - that even if he was, that Joe was actually taking a cut. The evidence before you is so far off from the narrative you’re spouting that you might as well be making it all up. But sadly you’re not, you’re just regurgitating the leaps of logic that have been fed to you. > they were conscious of the need to publicly at least, keep his name out of it. The lack of evidence of a crime is evidence of how well the crime was covered up. Classic conspiratorial thinking. > if it was Trump, we would have seen 24/7 media meltdown Here’s the thing. If it weren’t for Trump, this would be a bigger deal because Trump normalized government corruption during his presidency. Even the worst case scenario imagined by Republicans about Biden is mild compared to Trump’s least concerning corruption. Conservatives can’t get any traction with their “Biden’s corrupt!” narrative as long as they ignore and excuse Trump’s corruption. It’s impossible to convince the world that Joe Biden who takes the train to work from Delaware is corrupt, while Trump who flies around in a jet with his name on it is squeaky clean. As dumb as people are, there appears to be a limit to what they will accept.
    - lazyeye 4y ago
      Firstly, it's difficult to talk about this because discussing anything the media wilfully chooses to ignore sounds like a conspiracy theory (media self-censorship is incredibly powerful). Secondly just because something reflects badly on the Democrat party doesn't mean it's a "right-wing narrative". If one team does something bad, then of course they are going to try to cover it up, and it's up to the opposing team to hold them to account. This is human nature, and this is what democracy is designed to compensate for. One of Hunter Biden's business partners confirmed Joe Biden was the "Big Guy". I believe also there was some discussion in the emails on Hunters laptop of the need distance themselves from Joe Biden at least publically. Trump is not relevant to whether Joe Biden is corrupt is or not. He is also not relevant as to whether the media should cover important stories that aren't about Trump. Need to get away from this idea that the Dems can do whatever they want "because Trump".
- lazyeye 4y ago
  The Laptop from Hell https://www.amazon.com.au/Laptop-Hell-Hunter-Secrets-President/dp/1637584857 https://www.amazon.com.au/Laptop-Hell-Hunter-Secrets-Preside... And of course, read the user reviews for some insight on the book.
bjornsing 4y ago
> Complaining that Twitter didn't amplify an unproven story isn't bias. It's successful pattern recognition. This line of thinking is so weird to me. When I tweet that’s me speaking. If the story turns out to be false I should feel guilty about that, and apologize to my followers. Twitter has little to do with it. To me Twitter e.g. censoring direct messages feels like the postal service reading letters and filtering those that they deem untrue. Absolutely dystopian. Who would want this…?
- gilbetron 4y ago
  The postal service is a governmental entity, you do see the difference between it and Twitter, a private company, don't you?
  - bjornsing 4y ago
    Well let’s say UPS then. When I send a document through UPS, should they take some responsibility for the truthfulness of its contents…? That’s just a very weird way to organize society…
    - gilbetron 4y ago
      Two things: 1. If a law was passed that said twitter cannot moderate user content, Twitter would be ecstatic. It is a tremendous cost to them to do so, and not having to do so would largely be a win in their books (they'd still probably have to generate tools to allows users to moderate their own content, so not a total win) 2. If UPS shipped your products for free, but there were ads on the boxes, and they examined the contents to make sure there wasn't any content that they didn't want to ship, I'm guessing it would be a pretty popular service!

by boc 4y ago

M4v3R 4y ago

> Complaining that Twitter didn't amplify an unproven story isn't bias. What do you mean by “didn’t amplify”? They actively suppressed/banned the story (based on a policy that didn’t even apply in this case) instead of “not amplifying it”, these are two totally separate things.

chrisbaker98 4y ago

What was actually on Hunter Biden's laptop? Can someone give me a link to a succinct, non-partisan list of facts?

gilbetron 4y ago
Unbiased, factual descriptions are really hard to come by. Here's an ok take on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/z3isaw/whats_up_with_hunters_biden_laptop/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/z3isaw/whats_... You'll have to do your own digging around to build up your own opinion if you want more info. From my digging, it still seems like pretty much nothing we didn't already know.
lazyeye 4y ago
Joe Biden (AKA "The Big Guy") was taking a cut from Hunter Biden's ridiculous business dealings with foreign entities (otherwise known as "influence peddling"). With zero relevant business experience Hunter Biden was getting highly lucrative business deals with all kinds of shady people connected to foreign govts. Joe Biden denied any involvement with his son's business but there is evidence that he was involved from witnesses (including attending business meetings) and emails on the laptop to indicate he was involved but they were conscious of the need to publicly at least, keep his name out of it. It's the kind of thing for which, if it was Trump, we would have seen 24/7 media meltdown for years but because its a Biden well "media companies are privately owned and can do what they want".
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > Joe Biden (AKA "The Big Guy") was taking a cut from Hunter Biden's ridiculous business dealings with foreign entities Parent asked for an unbiased summary. Right off the bat you’re providing the right wing narrative. There is nothing in the laptop or elsewhere to show that: - the “big guy” referenced in the email is in fact Joe Biden - that even if it is, Joe Biden was aware of the e-mail - that even if he was, that Joe was actually taking a cut. The evidence before you is so far off from the narrative you’re spouting that you might as well be making it all up. But sadly you’re not, you’re just regurgitating the leaps of logic that have been fed to you. > they were conscious of the need to publicly at least, keep his name out of it. The lack of evidence of a crime is evidence of how well the crime was covered up. Classic conspiratorial thinking. > if it was Trump, we would have seen 24/7 media meltdown Here’s the thing. If it weren’t for Trump, this would be a bigger deal because Trump normalized government corruption during his presidency. Even the worst case scenario imagined by Republicans about Biden is mild compared to Trump’s least concerning corruption. Conservatives can’t get any traction with their “Biden’s corrupt!” narrative as long as they ignore and excuse Trump’s corruption. It’s impossible to convince the world that Joe Biden who takes the train to work from Delaware is corrupt, while Trump who flies around in a jet with his name on it is squeaky clean. As dumb as people are, there appears to be a limit to what they will accept.
  - lazyeye 4y ago
    Firstly, it's difficult to talk about this because discussing anything the media wilfully chooses to ignore sounds like a conspiracy theory (media self-censorship is incredibly powerful). Secondly just because something reflects badly on the Democrat party doesn't mean it's a "right-wing narrative". If one team does something bad, then of course they are going to try to cover it up, and it's up to the opposing team to hold them to account. This is human nature, and this is what democracy is designed to compensate for. One of Hunter Biden's business partners confirmed Joe Biden was the "Big Guy". I believe also there was some discussion in the emails on Hunters laptop of the need distance themselves from Joe Biden at least publically. Trump is not relevant to whether Joe Biden is corrupt is or not. He is also not relevant as to whether the media should cover important stories that aren't about Trump. Need to get away from this idea that the Dems can do whatever they want "because Trump".
lazyeye 4y ago
The Laptop from Hell https://www.amazon.com.au/Laptop-Hell-Hunter-Secrets-President/dp/1637584857 https://www.amazon.com.au/Laptop-Hell-Hunter-Secrets-Preside... And of course, read the user reviews for some insight on the book.

bjornsing 4y ago

> Complaining that Twitter didn't amplify an unproven story isn't bias. It's successful pattern recognition. This line of thinking is so weird to me. When I tweet that’s me speaking. If the story turns out to be false I should feel guilty about that, and apologize to my followers. Twitter has little to do with it. To me Twitter e.g. censoring direct messages feels like the postal service reading letters and filtering those that they deem untrue. Absolutely dystopian. Who would want this…?

gilbetron 4y ago
The postal service is a governmental entity, you do see the difference between it and Twitter, a private company, don't you?
- bjornsing 4y ago
  Well let’s say UPS then. When I send a document through UPS, should they take some responsibility for the truthfulness of its contents…? That’s just a very weird way to organize society…
  - gilbetron 4y ago
    Two things: 1. If a law was passed that said twitter cannot moderate user content, Twitter would be ecstatic. It is a tremendous cost to them to do so, and not having to do so would largely be a win in their books (they'd still probably have to generate tools to allows users to moderate their own content, so not a total win) 2. If UPS shipped your products for free, but there were ads on the boxes, and they examined the contents to make sure there wasn't any content that they didn't want to ship, I'm guessing it would be a pretty popular service!