Hunter Biden Laptop

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

4 hours ago, Stumpy said:

What - you mean Hunter should be given a job in the administration by his dad?

Hi Stumpy,

Re:  Hunter should be given a job in the administration by his dad?

Yea, one that he is/was not qualified to hold. 

Now what family name comes to mind?  Hmmmmm . . . . 

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, jakee said:
 

Surely you are perceptive enough to have noticed that Brent’s argument is that Hunter Biden owns a laptop therefore Joe Biden is corrupt? Therefore the question ‘So what?’ to Brent pointing out that Hunter Biden owns a laptop is an invitation for him to fill in some of the blank space in between. An invitation which he has not in anyway taken up, which tells me the question is still a very good one.

No my point was that members of the intel community, big tech and the MSM, actively suppressed a new story to influence an election.

[olofscience 421]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

actively suppressed a new story

but after 4 pages of back and forth, you still haven't provided a new story.

not to mention any evidence it was suppressed...

[JoeWeber 2,299]

18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No my point was that members of the intel community, big tech and the MSM, actively suppressed a new story to influence an election.

Were they collaborating to suppress the story? 

[jakee 1,255]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No my point was that members of the intel community, big tech and the MSM, actively suppressed a new story to influence an election.

Ex members of the intel community said the release had Russian fingerprints on it regardless of the veracity of the data. As for the media, that's what they do. It's literally their job. Fox news was sure as fuck actively playing up the 'this must somehow mean Joe Biden is corrupt' angle that the Russians wanted playing up, and CNN etc. went the other way. No surprise that you're only concerned with one of those things.

 

Anyway I'm glad you're now saying that Hunter Biden's laptop is, in itself, an irrelevant sideshow that means nothing.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

but after 4 pages of back and forth, you still haven't provided a new story.

not to mention any evidence it was suppressed...

“Twitter prevented users from sharing links to the piece by showing those who tried a message that read, “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful,” and it went so far as to suspend the New York Post’s account completely, until the paper agreed to delete its tweets on the matter. Facebook, meanwhile, altered its algorithms so that it did not “place posts linking to the story as highly in people’s news feeds, reducing the number of users who [saw] it.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/washington-post-attempts-to-justify-media-suppression-of-hunter-biden-laptop-story/

How about now?

[olofscience 421]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“Twitter prevented users from sharing links to the piece by showing those who tried a message that read, “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful,” and it went so far as to suspend the New York Post’s account completely, until the paper agreed to delete its tweets on the matter. Facebook, meanwhile, altered its algorithms so that it did not “place posts linking to the story as highly in people’s news feeds, reducing the number of users who [saw] it.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/washington-post-attempts-to-justify-media-suppression-of-hunter-biden-laptop-story/

How about now?

The main problem is in the article you linked to - it's a non-story.

You can't suppress a story that doesn't exist.

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

“Twitter prevented users from sharing links to the piece by showing those who tried a message that read, “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful,” and it went so far as to suspend the New York Post’s account completely, until the paper agreed to delete its tweets on the matter. Facebook, meanwhile, altered its algorithms so that it did not “place posts linking to the story as highly in people’s news feeds, reducing the number of users who [saw] it.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/washington-post-attempts-to-justify-media-suppression-of-hunter-biden-laptop-story/

How about now?

So what?

[metalslug 31]

8 hours ago, jakee said:

First of all, you’re conflating two different subjects here. The DOJ probe into his taxes and the contents of his laptop not the same.

Nope. My very first sentence was "Returning to the OP.." which is "Hunter Biden's laptop". I intentionally made no mention of the DOJ probe which, I agree, is a separate issue. I was however referring to the 'so what?' line you've had since the laptop was authenticated. 

8 hours ago, jakee said:

Surely you are perceptive enough to have noticed that Brent’s argument is that Hunter Biden owns a laptop therefore Joe Biden is corrupt? Therefore the question ‘So what?’ to Brent pointing out that Hunter Biden owns a laptop is an invitation for him to fill in some of the blank space in between. An invitation which he has not in anyway taken up, which tells me the question is still a very good one.

Since those officials you’re mentioning are not participating in this conversation with Brent, I really don’t think there’s any meaning to be gleaned from the fact that they haven’t asked him a question. Honestly no idea why you think otherwise.

I'm unable to say with certainty, in my independent capacity, that the laptop content indicates anything directly negative towards Joe Biden, but  these 50 officials seem to believe that perception by association merits concern. You seem to be of the opinion that (alleged) dirt on Hunter has zero impact on US voter thinking and you're welcome to believe that. By contrast, these 50 officials do. If you trust their acumen and judgement that the laptop content is a Russian fabrication but distrust the same people on their opinion of it's influence on the election, then I find that to be curiously convenient for you.

For the left (including NYT) to fight so hard to debunk the laptop before the election and then have NYT concede it's legit after the election, is also rather convenient.

[metalslug 31]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

And not denying something is the same as confirming it.  Right.

Forgive my previous acerbic comment to you. Is this perhaps better?  Now compare that to "Hunter didn't deny that Putin ordered Trump to try to discredit his father". With all the effort from the left in attempting to debunk the laptop it would be really easy for Hunter to deny the laptop as his, would indeed be one of the strongest testimonies per his personal knowledge of it.  By comparison; I didn't deny it was my laptop and you didn't deny it was yours. Yet if either of us were asked the same question it would be an unequivocal response easily proven. Yet Hunter doesn't, keeping his options open for when it awkwardly comes clean.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

7 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Forgive my previous acerbic comment to you. Is this perhaps better?  Now compare that to "Hunter didn't deny that Putin ordered Trump to try to discredit his father". With all the effort from the left in attempting to debunk the laptop it would be really easy for Hunter to deny the laptop as his, would indeed be one of the strongest testimonies per his personal knowledge of it.  By comparison; I didn't deny it was my laptop and you didn't deny it was yours. Yet if either of us were asked the same question it would be an unequivocal response easily proven. Yet Hunter doesn't, keeping his options open for when it awkwardly comes clean.

The New York Post. Was the National Inquirer not interested?

[billvon 2,400]

8 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Yet if either of us were asked the same question it would be an unequivocal response easily proven. 

If someone who had tried to smear my family asked me, there is a very good chance I would simply refuse to answer, so as not to give them anything useful at all.  I suspect you might do something similar.  Would your refusal to answer indicate that it was or was not yours?  Or would it indicate that you simply did not want to help them in any way?

This is a lesson I've learned in part from this place.  You do not owe anyone an answer - especially if they are going to use that answer to attempt to damage you (or others.)

[jakee 1,255]

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

Nope. My very first sentence was "Returning to the OP.." which is "Hunter Biden's laptop". I intentionally made no mention of the DOJ probe which, I agree, is a separate issue. I was however referring to the 'so what?' line you've had since the laptop was authenticated. 

Then everything you said had zero relevance to the post you were replying to. 

Quote

I'm unable to say with certainty, in my independent capacity, that the laptop content indicates anything directly negative towards Joe Biden, but  these 50 officials seem to believe that perception by association merits concern.

Of course it does. So what?

Quote

You seem to be of the opinion that (alleged) dirt on Hunter has zero impact on US voter thinking and you're welcome to believe that.

I never said that.

Quote

By contrast, these 50 officials do. If you trust their acumen and judgement that the laptop content is a Russian fabrication

They never said that.

Quote

For the left (including NYT) to fight so hard to debunk the laptop before the election and then have NYT concede it's legit after the election, is also rather convenient.

Fight? In what way were they fighting?

[jakee 1,255]

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

With all the effort from the left in attempting to debunk the laptop 

Effort?

Debunk?

[BIGUN 1,053]

13 hours ago, jakee said:

So what?

So what?

So what?

Fight?

Effort?

Debunk?

You were gone for a bit and when you returned were engaging. Suddenly we have several pages of this. If you have a point - make it. 

[jakee 1,255]

54 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

So what?

So what?

Fight?

Effort?

Debunk?

You were gone for a bit and when you returned were engaging. Suddenly we have several pages of this. If you have a point - make it. 

I’m asking Brent to make a point and he is refusing. Until he does, I’ve not much more to add.

 

I also asked you to make a point and you flat out refused, so the whole pot/kettle thing comes to mind.

[BIGUN 1,053]

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

I also asked you to make a point and you flat out refused, so the whole pot/kettle thing comes to mind.

Incorrect. I posted the ethical laws concern, the DOJ probe, and that until they do their job . . ., and this has gone on too long until they determine "if" there's anything to discuss.

 

16 minutes ago, jakee said:

I’m asking Brent to make a point and he is refusing.

It may be more appropriate to ask that you stop feeding it.   

[jakee 1,255]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Incorrect. I posted the ethical laws concern, the DOJ probe, and that until they do their job . . ., and this has gone on too long until they determine "if" there's anything to discuss.

The ethical laws concern from what? Why did you post them?

You’ve done the same thing Brent has done by skipping directly from ‘Hunter Biden owns a laptop’ to ‘so Joe Biden might be on the take’, and you’re refusing to fill in any of the blank space in between.

If you’re calling him a troll, what does it make you?

Edited March 23, 2022 by jakee

[kallend 1,623]

32 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

 

 

It may be more appropriate to ask that you stop feeding it.   

Hmmm - Where have I seen that before?

[brenthutch 383]

On 3/21/2022 at 3:42 PM, SkyDekker said:

I share bank accounts with all my kids. What exactly is illegal about that?

You are not an elected official sharing an account and having your bills paid by someone being investigated for: tax fraud, money laundering, and illegally acting as a foreign agent just to name a few.

BTW 16% of Biden voters said they would have reconsidered had they know about the laptop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWxSz1Q15HY

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

You are not an elected official sharing an account and having your bills paid by someone being investigated for:

Just because they share an account doesn't mean Joe Biden is taking money from that account, or is paying bills out of that account. It also doesn't mean that account was the recipient of illegal funds. You show absolutely no evidence for the accusations you make.

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

BTW 16% of Biden voters said they would have reconsidered had they know about the laptop.

I am happy the percentage is relatively low. The laptop story was out there during the election. Good to see the far majority said they would not draw conclusions without evidence.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Just because they share an account doesn't mean Joe Biden is taking money from that account, or is paying bills out of that account. It also doesn't mean that account was the recipient of illegal funds. You show absolutely no evidence for the accusations you make.

I am happy the percentage is relatively low. The laptop story was out there during the election. Good to see the far majority said they would not draw conclusions without evidence.

Hi Sky,

If only more posters on here would do the same.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Just because they share an account doesn't mean Joe Biden is taking money from that account, or is paying bills out of that account. It also doesn't mean that account was the recipient of illegal funds. You show absolutely no evidence for the accusations you make.

I am happy the percentage is relatively low. The laptop story was out there during the election. Good to see the far majority said they would not draw conclusions without evidence.

Don’t you think it’s is at least a bit unusual?  What would be the purpose?

The story that was out there about the laptop was that it was Russian disinformation and fake news.  The truth about the laptop was systematically suppressed.  If half of those who said the laptop story made them reconsider, switched their votes Biden would have lost by millions 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Don’t you think it’s is at least a bit unusual?  What would be the purpose?

No. I won't speculate on what the purpose is, but I can dream up all kinds of innocent and nefarious scenarios. None of them would be rooted in any kind of fact so it really serves no purpose.

 

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The story that was out there about the laptop was that it was Russian disinformation and fake news.  The truth about the laptop was systematically suppressed.

What truth? That Biden owned a laptop? If people base their votes on whether or not somebody might own a laptop, they are idiots.

Secondly, even if the laptop contained information that Hunter Biden was laundering money, it could still be a Russian plant. Don't you find the timing at all weird or how this laptop came into the public? Do you believe a president should be judged based on the actions of their children, or maybe their spouses?

[BIGUN 1,053]

55 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Do you believe a president should be judged based on the actions of their children, or maybe their spouses?

If you can't lead your children or spouse down the right path; how in the fuck are you going to lead a whole country?!?!?!

/

/

/

/

/

/

Sorry, it was too good to pass up. Flame On!