The Hunter Biden Thread

[Orange_Crush]

Nope, not because I'm unconvinced that trumps crotch spawn aren't guilty of selling access and favor but because I'm really quite apathetic of trying to convince someone of something that should be relatively obvious. If you see the two as wholly different, great.

Awe shucks... From "evidence and actions are no different" to a double negative about just how convinced you are about what the dirty Trumpies have been up to, and how "obvious" it should be to everyone else.

From appeals to supposed "evidence", to your personal credulity. lol

Bravo. Bravo. Encore, and take a bow.

 

[AM64]

The MSM (whatever that is from day to day) does what they need to do to throw red meat to their bases. It'z a money thang, don't pretend that it isn't.

I mostly agree, but most "journalists" have had a left hook for a very long time - just the way they apparently come out of school. The problem with that is particularly with the older media outlets - papers and the three major TV networks. People were hooked on those because that's how news used to be delivered. It's a momentum thing - people learn habits from parents. I still watched the evening news because my wife still wanted to watch it. She didn't put out an announcement, but that all went away a few weeks ago when she gave up on the obvious bias. It's going to take a while before the money dries up and there's no pretense of news - just left and right opinion supported by their own worshipers. People like to pretend that even oldies like Walter Cronkite were unbiased - they weren't.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Biden's "bragging" about what he'd do was based on OPEN bi-partisan support of the wonton corruption in Ukraine. Acting like he was acting unilaterally and without justification is a revisionist history, foisted as a smoking gun. The right and left knew, agreed and supported the Obama administration putting the screws to Ukraine.

You keep acting like this was some clandestine, back room knife twist that Dementia Joe accidentally said, it wasn't...

So... you're agreeing that the accusation is different than "Rich kids are running rich daddy's business"...?

 

[VolnJC]

I believe EL even started a thread about it and CNN and MSNBC ran it all day

 

[Septic]

So... you're agreeing that the accusation is different than "Rich kids are running rich daddy's business"...?

nope

Awe shucks... From "evidence and actions are no different" to a double negative about just how convinced you are about what the dirty Trumpies have been up to, and how "obvious" it should be to everyone else.

From appeals to supposed "evidence", to your personal credulity. lol

Bravo. Bravo. Encore, and take a bow.

You don't believe that the Trump kids use their influence to line their pockets... I get it. You've rejected the linked evidence I've provided, are you really going to cry about me not bothering to provide you more?

Believe it, don't believe it. Either way.

 

[Orange_Crush]

nope



You don't believe that the Trump kids use their influence to line their pockets... I get it. You've rejected the linked evidence I've provided, are you really going to cry about me not bothering to provide you more?

Believe it, don't believe it. Either way.

Cry? Why would I do that?

When you've been reduced to having to claim that you believe that the accusation that:

(1) Joe Biden abused his position as VP and used taxpayer $$$ as blackmail to help his son out of a corruption scandal...

is no different than the accusation that:

(2) rich kids are running rich daddy's business to get richer...?




Cry?

I'm laughing my *** off at you.

 

[VolnJC]

nope



You don't believe that the Trump kids use their influence to line their pockets... I get it. You've rejected the linked evidence I've provided, are you really going to cry about me not bothering to provide you more?

Believe it, don't believe it. Either way.

Still waiting on your answer to if the NYTimes should be censored for illegally releasing Trump's taxes?

 

[Grand Vol]

@Septic

I have a serious question for you that I'd like you to be serious about.

You game?

 

[Septic]

@Septic

I have a serious question for you that I'd like you to be serious about.

You game?

Sure.

 

[Septic]

Still waiting on your answer to if the NYTimes should be censored for illegally releasing Trump's taxes?

You made the point, which I cited and agreed with in a different post. My answer is yes.

 

[37L1]

Sure.

 

[Septic]

Cry? Why would I do that?

When you've been reduced to having to claim that you believe that the accusation that:

(1) Joe Biden abused his position as VP and used taxpayer $$$ as blackmail to help his son out of a corruption scandal...

is no different than the accusation that:

(2) rich kids are running rich daddy's business to get richer...?




Cry?

I'm laughing my *** off at you.

Bellyaching about a source not meeting your journalistic expectations and then dismissing every other article on the Trump grift is intellectually lazy.

If you want to believe that the "rich kids" are actually running daddy's business' in any capacity more than on paper (or a Fox sound bite), then good for you. Your version of reality sounds pleasant and as I stated, after your rejection of the evidence of the crotch spawn using the WH as a launching pad to line their pockets - I'm disinterested in continuing to try and persuade you.

 

[05_never_again]

I mostly agree, but most "journalists" have had a left hook for a very long time - just the way they apparently come out of school. The problem with that is particularly with the older media outlets - papers and the three major TV networks. People were hooked on those because that's how news used to be delivered. It's a momentum thing - people learn habits from parents. I still watched the evening news because my wife still wanted to watch it. She didn't put out an announcement, but that all went away a few weeks ago when she gave up on the obvious bias. It's going to take a while before the money dries up and there's no pretense of news - just left and right opinion supported by their own worshipers. People like to pretend that even oldies like Walter Cronkite were unbiased - they weren't.

Cronkite and others back in the day were relatively unbiased because it was in their business interest to do so. They liked to be close to power (regardless who was in power), because being close to power meant you got the information first. When the major mass communication vehicles of the day were radio and TV, news orgs had an incentive to throw everybody a bone because radio and TV are blunt instruments that reach a massive amount of people with the same message. Hence it appeared to be less biased than today's news. I'm not saying it was totally objective, but it was certainly more objective than it is today.

What the internet and social media have done is revert the news media back to the model they operated under before mass communication. In the days before radio and TV, and before newspapers/magazines could be efficiently distributed over large distances, the news media of the day was openly partisan rags that today we'd call tabloids. Have you ever taken a look at political magazines from the late 1800s? It actually kind of makes some of the stuff that goes around today seem tame. Political news was covered in a gossipy fashion reminiscent of today's cable TV news and social media. The game changer is the internet/social media, which has essentially allowed news orgs to target specific audiences again.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think the current media environment is a revert back to what audiences actually want out of their media, which is red meat that confirms what they already believe. IMO, it's a relatively small number of people who actually want balanced coverage that shows multiple sides of an argument, including sides they might disagree with. They simply just don't want to hear it and block it out.

 

[Grand Vol]

Sure.

No one word answer to this though...

And no making this about Trump...

Do you believe our government (all three branches) as well as most State governments and agencies are so corrupt and rotten the only way of salvaging it is by a compete reset?

Furthermore, have the major political parties divided us so much we cannot compromise and the only acceptable alternative would be the "divorce" option and allowing states to seceed from the union?

 

[Septic]

No one word answer to this though...

And no making this about Trump...

Do you believe our government (all three branches) as well as most State governments and agencies are so corrupt and rotten the only way of salvaging it is by a compete reset?

probably, I think we're on the back side of the empire. Lots of folks believe that the "framers" got everything right - I don't. The lack of term limits created a state where corruption was inevitable. No way out of that... It's band-aids and duct tape from here on out.

Furthermore, have the major political parties divided us so much we cannot compromise and the only acceptable alternative would be the "divorce" option and allowing states to seceed from the union?

I believe it'd take a miracle for Washington to become a place of civility again. I have no opinion on a secession or "divorce" option - I can't see that as being a viable option for economic success under any circumstance.

 

[Sandman 423]

Weird man, Usually poster don't look like how you envision them, but I got you spot on

 

[MOOOOONEY]

Maybe you can find something in here to help convince you that the trump syndicate has been pretty much doing exactly what they are accusing the Biden syndicate of, less the nepotistic grift of putting some of them on the governments payroll...

Those Foreign Business Ties? The Trump Sons Have Plenty Too (Published 2019)

Trump's children take in millions overseas as president slams Biden's son

How Donald Trump's Kids Have Profited Off Their Dad's Presidency

Trump criticizes the Bidens, but his own family’s business raises questions

PolitiFact - Eric Trump’s false claim that the Trump family ‘got out of all international business’

World of Influence: A guide to Trump’s foreign business interests

PolitiFact - Fact-checking how many Trump relatives and friends are in the White House, administration

Maybe the Trump kid’s profited off his presidency or maybe not. Trump and his family owned businesses and properties before he became president.

Hunter Biden definitely profited and Joe used his position as VP to help him.

Maybe the story is not a big deal, but the bigger issue is Facebook and Twitter censoring one side and not the other.

 

[Grand Vol]

probably, I think we're on the back side of the empire. Lots of folks believe that the "framers" got everything right - I don't. The lack of term limits created a state where corruption was inevitable. No way out of that... It's band-aids and duct tape from here on out.

I believe it'd take a miracle for Washington to become a place of civility again. I have no opinion on a secession or "divorce" option - I can't see that as being a viable option for economic success under any circumstance.

Well, that's a decent answer.

However, if compromise cannot be reached, what other options are there? Mommy and Daddy constantly fighting isn't good for the kids.

As you said, we're on the downhill slide of the American Empire. Historically empires have either fallen from an external invasion or internal revolts from certain regions/areas that either were unhappy being annexed or weren't represented by the central government.

What other options are there?

 

[Septic]

Maybe the Trump kid’s profited off his presidency or maybe not. Trump and his family owned businesses and properties before he became president.

Hunter Biden definitely profited and Joe used his position as VP to help him.

Maybe the story is not a big deal, but the bigger issue is Facebook and Twitter censoring one side and not the other.

I think there's as much credible evidence to support that the Trump kids profited as there is that Biden did. This email bombshell is dubious, given its origins and the forged additions. Any certainty can only be dressed up as conjecture.

"The Chinese government granted a total of 41 trademarks to companies linked to Ivanka Trump by April of 2019—and the trademarks she applied for after her father became president got approved about 40% faster than those she requested before Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election"

 

[Septic]

Well, that's a decent answer.

However, if compromise cannot be reached, what other options are there? Mommy and Daddy constantly fighting isn't good for the kids.

As you said, we're on the downhill slide of the American Empire. Historically empires have either fallen from an external invasion or internal revolts from certain regions/areas that either were unhappy being annexed or weren't represented by the central government.

What other options are there?

The universe doesn't care what's good for the kids or not. Partisan pride will be be the sticky burr, too many people see politics as black and white when most people are shades of gray.

 

[AM64]

Cronkite and others back in the day were relatively unbiased because it was in their business interest to do so. They liked to be close to power (regardless who was in power), because being close to power meant you got the information first. When the major mass communication vehicles of the day were radio and TV, news orgs had an incentive to throw everybody a bone because radio and TV are blunt instruments that reach a massive amount of people with the same message. Hence it appeared to be less biased than today's news. I'm not saying it was totally objective, but it was certainly more objective than it is today.

What the internet and social media have done is revert the news media back to the model they operated under before mass communication. In the days before radio and TV, and before newspapers/magazines could be efficiently distributed over large distances, the news media of the day was openly partisan rags that today we'd call tabloids. Have you ever taken a look at political magazines from the late 1800s? It actually kind of makes some of the stuff that goes around today seem tame. Political news was covered in a gossipy fashion reminiscent of today's cable TV news and social media. The game changer is the internet/social media, which has essentially allowed news orgs to target specific audiences again.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think the current media environment is a revert back to what audiences actually want out of their media, which is red meat that confirms what they already believe. IMO, it's a relatively small number of people who actually want balanced coverage that shows multiple sides of an argument, including sides they might disagree with. They simply just don't want to hear it and block it out.

Yeah, I've seen some of that old stuff - pretty brutal. You almost tend to think WW1, the depression, WW2, etc almost back to back pulled us together in a more civil way until the Vietnam antiwar protests started tearing us apart again. My uneducated version - I stayed out of college history and social study type classes.

I think Cronkite knew exactly what he was doing with the Tet story, for example; and that was setting policy by undermining elected officials. He and others didn't do anything as far as pointing out the LBJ/McNamara war planning blunders that might have changed the course and saved lives; He just decided before Nixon got a chance to right things to call for pulling the plug. His ethics and his reasons seem pretty sketchy.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sep,

Let me remind you of the conversation. You said:

Heck, I actually think it's more than plausible that Hunter is a crackhead bag man for his old man but it's no different than the evidence and actions of trumps kids.

I called you on the claim that the evidence of Trump's kids being crack head bagmen for corrupt Trump is (and I've belabored this, Einstein) "no different than the evidence and actions" of the Bidens.

You posted articles that basically just said that the Trump kids are doing international business while Daddy is President, which was all Biden was accused of doing.

I pointed out:

(1) The VAST difference of evidence, as you sheepishly admitted when you retreated to your personal credulity argument, and trying to shame me for not having the same incredulity as you.

(2) That Hunter and Quid Pro Joe have been accused of VASTLY more than "doing international business while Daddy was VP".

All of this is fact, and recorded right here in the thread, no matter if your pride has you trying to dupe the peanut gallery into forgetting how idiotic your argument has been.

So, to make it painfully easy:

You claimed evidence of the Trump kids being bag men for Trump...

Heck, I actually think it's more than plausible that Hunter is a crackhead bag man for his old man but it's no different than the evidence and actions of trumps kids.

But could only post articles that accused them of doing international business while daddy was president.

When this was pointed out, you retreated to personal incredulity in absence of evidence.

Nope, not because I'm unconvinced that trumps crotch spawn aren't guilty of selling access and favor but because I'm really quite apathetic of trying to convince someone of something that should be relatively obvious. If you see the two as wholly different, great.

Then you try to distract from your dumbassery with this:

Bellyaching about a source not meeting your journalistic expectations and then dismissing every other article on the Trump grift is intellectually lazy.

If you want to believe that the "rich kids" are actually running daddy's business' in any capacity more than on paper (or a Fox sound bite), then good for you. Your version of reality sounds pleasant and as I stated, after your rejection of the evidence of the crotch spawn using the WH as a launching pad to line their pockets - I'm disinterested in continuing to try and persuade you.

As though there was any evidence to ignore in the first place, while simultaneously tripling down on admitting there is no evidence, and appealing to personal assumptions.

Eat some carbs. Have some fish as well. I think you're faint and could use some brain food.

 

[hog88]

Well, that's a decent answer.

However, if compromise cannot be reached, what other options are there? Mommy and Daddy constantly fighting isn't good for the kids.

As you said, we're on the downhill slide of the American Empire. Historically empires have either fallen from an external invasion or internal revolts from certain regions/areas that either were unhappy being annexed or weren't represented by the central government.

What other options are there?

Balkanization!

 

[BigOrangeD]

 

[BigOrangeD]

Could There Be Something Darker and More Sinister Lurking on Hunter Biden’s Hard Drive?