3 ms·
> the only reason why this story was blown up as much as it was was because it was used to damage his father politically, not because there was anything of subs
by vuln 4y ago
> the only reason why this story was blown up as much as it was was because it was used to damage his father politically, not because there was anything of substance there.
Have you reviewed all of the information contained on said laptop? How can you state an opinion and present it as a fact? Do you have any data or evidence that the data contained within the laptop was compromised or had “lack of substance?”
- jacquesm 4y ago> Have you reviewed all of the information contained on said laptop? This is not a productive discussion I think so you're going to have to talk to yourself.
- vuln 4y agoRight you haven’t. You present your opinion as fact as you have throughout this thread. I’d ask that YOU please stop pushing your opinion as fact when it is just your opinion.
- frumper 4y agoTo be fair, that's pretty much what Terence Samuels did and he stands behind him.
- vuln 4y ago[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- fortuna86 4y agoThe burden of proof justifying posting stolen materials from the laptop belonging to the family member of a politician is not on the person asking if this is in bounds, it is on the person defending obvious muckraking.
- dpkonofa 4y agoThe people making the claims about the laptop are the ones that need to provide evidence. To date, nothing of substance has been released from the laptop (which has supposedly been in the possession of the parties making the claims for at least 3 years) that validates any of the claims that have been made about the laptop, Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
- vuln 4y ago> To date, nothing of substance has been released from the laptop (which has supposedly been in the possession of the parties making the claims for at least 3 years) that validates any of the claims that have been made about the laptop, Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden. The evidence is there for anyone to view it. Just because the media doesn’t seem interested doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be interested. Just because the media doesn’t report on it doesn’t mean it’s not an interesting story. Here is evidence from the laptop. Sure we can poke holes and say there was no “chain of custody” but if CoC didn’t matter for an election ballots why does it matter here? Just take an unbiased view of the data. Disregard the source and form you own opinion. Without actually looking at the data anything said is an assumption. Again I may not like the source but I don’t tend to shoot the messenger. https://bidenlaptopreport.marcopolousa.org/ https://bidenlaptopreport.marcopolousa.org/
- dpkonofa 4y agoThat is not evidence. What is the crime that has supposedly been committed and what is the evidence that supports that accusation? Dumping the contents of a laptop and then shouting conspiracies isn't the same as making a claim and then providing evidence for it. The media doesn't seem interested because there's nothing there. If there was, Fox News, Breitbart, and all the others would be all over it and pushing it daily.
- vuln 4y agoThe media seemed to care when the narrative was 51 IC members says the laptop has “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Hell every network ran with that lie and bullshit. Even twitter was involved and we can see the fallout within the twitter files. Some retracted. Some updated when the laptop and data was deemed “authentic”.