-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger and @Rembrandt (as you seem to be the most excited about this) can I ask how you would feel if you lost a laptop and instead of wiping it someone decided that despite no illegality on your behalf they would publicly release the contents to try and paint you and your family in a bad light. This could include naked shots of you and photos other people took with your phone when you were wasted.
Forget all the SM and MSM crying for a second and tell me whether this is acceptable behaviour by Rudi G.Not excited. More like concerned (and disgusted) by it all (I would sooner it wasn't true)
And Hunter didn't lose his laptop. That in itself is interesting. Why would he do this? Drop it off with all this information on it and then not pick it back up and pay for the work done
Concerned and disgusted by what? You are still shouting at clouds.
The guys a druggie. Dropped his laptop of to be fixed and not only didn't bother to return and pay for the work but was dumb enough to hand it over to a Trump supporter that was enough of a scumbag to go through his client's emails and pass them on.
I would certainly hope I could trust a tradesperson more than that (even if I didn't pay them). I'd say that every day businesses wipe hard drives without going through them and respecting people's privacy.
Why do you find it 'interesting' ? Do you have a conspiracy theory to regale us with?So if you so illegal stuff on a laptop what would you do?
For the umpteenth time. What illegal stuff?
You seem inable to coherently answer that question.
A question that might have been handy when you were promoting Russiagate 😉
Don't think I 'promoted' Russiagate. I have always said that there was plenty of smoke there to check out though and that the authorities would not have been doing their jobs properly if they hadn't investigated. When the players were caught lying then the investigation hardens.
In the same vein I think that the Bidens/Burisma thing also required investigation. It got that and no wrongdoing was found.
So the latest email stuff has added nothing further that adds to or contradicts the investigations. The Republicans themselves admit no wrongdoing.
My comments on this latest stuff were simply asking why some people found them valuable or important or were getting excited. I was asking for someone to poiint me to new evidence. So far no one has been able to do that. At least @Rembrandt has had a crack (which I will address below)
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger and @Rembrandt (as you seem to be the most excited about this) can I ask how you would feel if you lost a laptop and instead of wiping it someone decided that despite no illegality on your behalf they would publicly release the contents to try and paint you and your family in a bad light. This could include naked shots of you and photos other people took with your phone when you were wasted.
Forget all the SM and MSM crying for a second and tell me whether this is acceptable behaviour by Rudi G.Well I'm not the son of a presidential nominee whom looks to have been involved in illegal activities and maybe even along with the father potentially dodgy and maybe even treasonous dealings with foreign entities. Quite different circumstances.. might even be in the publics interest just before a presidential election.
Also remember this was provided to the FBI in the first place but nothing came of it. It is certainly in a IT repair stores remit to report illegal activity to authorities.
From what has been released so far I think there are 3 main points.
- Hunter is a complete druggie loser degenerate who thanks to who his daddy is has been given high positions at a ridiculously high salary in firms he has no knowledge or experience with. As you rightly say this is hardly new information.
With zero relevance to the fitness of his father to be POTUS (apart from judging him on his children). Again. No need to release these private photos except salaciousness.
- There is now evidence in emails released, contrary to what Joe Biden has publicly stated, that he has been involved in Hunter's business dealings with Barisma with an introduction, the Biden camp has denied there was an official meeting on Biden's schedule however importantly don't rule out an unofficial one during the blank space on his schedule. This is important when tied together with the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Barisma, a firing that Biden publicly on video bragged about causing through his influence.
You seem to still have that story really wrong, despite much being investigated and written about it. I totally agree that it was a bad look for Hunter to be on the Burisma board. But no wrongdoing and no illegality. Here is a good article that explains the culture of companies like this using 'name' westerners in an attempt to gain prominence and/or legitimacy. Burisma and Hunter are not alone. But no wrongdoing and no illegality. The bit I find the funniest is the misinformation implying that Jo got the prosecutor fired to protect Hunter where the reason that everyone wanted the guy fired was that he was the corrupt one and was being too lenient in his investigations. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hunter-bidens-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804/
- There is emails talking about a split in equity for a deal with a Chinese energy firm (a firm with ties to CCP and a chairman who has since 'vanished'). This had 20% going to Hunter Biden, 10% of which Hunter is to hold on to for "The big guy". Fox news has reported that they now have confirmation from one of those on the email trail that "The big guy" is Joe Biden. (Initials used in the email matches the names on the email thread)
I completely fail to see how that has any difference to the many deals that Trump Inc has around that world and with his children and spouses. Is this illegal? No. Has Biden hidden an overseas investment that he hasn't declared? That is the only potential here and it has also been investigated.
There is no 'head-shot' here. But there is enough to raise very significant questions on someone who might yet be the next US president. The fact that the Biden camp has not denied the authenticity of this data is very relevant. In my mind the mass unprecedented censorship from Twitter and Facebook is also relevant, if Biden can't deny the authenticity for fear of trapping himself in a lie then the only option they have left is to prevent the spread of this information.
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
So I'm not sure how to answer the last bit here as it goes of in tangents, but 'what are the significant questions'? What has been raised that is so bad that it warrants someones personal photos and emails being spread around except for reasons of mudslinging?
To me you cannot disconnect that from the actions of FB and Twitter. 'Hacked' (yeah, grey area) material with no valid reason for dissemination except to make personal attacks.
As I have answered above, yes they show actions of bias at times. But they draw lines and act when they get crossed.
In the case of Twitter they have already adjusted their policy to avoid blanket banning that stops discussion. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
They are actively trying to clamp down on the spread of disinformation
No they aren't. They are clamping down on mostly conservative / pro Trump or anti Biden viewpoints they don't agree with or like and using 'clamp down on the spread of disinformation' as a reason for doing this.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not trying to claim that they are completely independent, but also think that they aren't quite the one-eyed monster many make them out to be. After all they provide Trump himself with his biggest lie and inference tool It's only when he directly pushes known disinformation that they 'block' it.
Are you the best person to fairly adjudicate on this matter though
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
The Republicans themselves admit no wrongdoing.
Not exactly (and this is from the BBC)
Beneath the headlines, however, the report does detail the breadth of Hunter Biden's connections to questionable foreign interests and business leaders in Ukraine and China - creating "criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns". It suggests Joe Biden's son was profiting from his family name - a potential conflict of interest that is unsavoury but not unusual in Washington's corridors of power. **The report acknowledges there are still unknown details,** but time is running out for Republicans to turn this topic into something voters will care about. If Joe Biden wins in November, however, his political opponents are likely to continue to dig, in hopes of building on the information in the report to come up with more tangible evidence of misconduct that could damage his presidency.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not trying to claim that they are completely independent, but also think that they aren't quite the one-eyed monster many make them out to be. After all they provide Trump himself with his biggest lie and inference tool It's only when he directly pushes known disinformation that they 'block' it.
Are you the best person to fairly adjudicate on this matter though
It is funny you should call Crucial's judgement into question
Based on his own post regarding Trump. I doubt if am the best person to pass judgement as well. But who is now. Most are either pro or anti Trump and see everything through these (often invisible to them) beliefs.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not trying to claim that they are completely independent, but also think that they aren't quite the one-eyed monster many make them out to be. After all they provide Trump himself with his biggest lie and inference tool It's only when he directly pushes known disinformation that they 'block' it.
Are you the best person to fairly adjudicate on this matter though
It is funny you should call Crucial's judgement into question
Based on his own post regarding Trump. I doubt if am the best person to pass judgement as well. But who is now. Most are either pro or anti Trump and see everything through these (often invisible to them) beliefs.
This is true. Many who post on here are firmly in one camp or another. Which is the same on most political threads. But this thread, like the situation in the US, is more polarised
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not trying to claim that they are completely independent, but also think that they aren't quite the one-eyed monster many make them out to be. After all they provide Trump himself with his biggest lie and inference tool It's only when he directly pushes known disinformation that they 'block' it.
Are you the best person to fairly adjudicate on this matter though
It is funny you should call Crucial's judgement into question
Based on his own post regarding Trump. I doubt if am the best person to pass judgement as well. But who is now. Most are either pro or anti Trump and see everything through these (often invisible to them) beliefs.
Read the post again. I'm not sure that you didn't stop reading at certain words you bolded.
Trump uses twitter as a main communication tool, doesn't he? He also tells lies (endless independent fact checkers back this up). Do Twitter stop his ability to use the platform for that reason? No.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
The bit I find the funniest is the misinformation implying that Jo got the prosecutor fired to protect Hunter where the reason that everyone wanted the guy fired was that he was the corrupt one and was being too lenient in his investigations
The reason that you happen to accept as the truth. My view is this action by Joe stinks (really bad). And whats worse (as I believe a good number of politicians are corrupt as all hell) the fool bragged about it on video.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
The bit I find the funniest is the misinformation implying that Jo got the prosecutor fired to protect Hunter where the reason that everyone wanted the guy fired was that he was the corrupt one and was being too lenient in his investigations
The reason that you happen to accept as the truth. My view is this action by Joe stinks (really bad). And whats worse (as I believe say up to 50% of politicians are corrupt as all hell) the fool bragged about it on video.
Read the facts
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
The bit I find the funniest is the misinformation implying that Jo got the prosecutor fired to protect Hunter where the reason that everyone wanted the guy fired was that he was the corrupt one and was being too lenient in his investigations
The reason that you happen to accept as the truth. My view is this action by Joe stinks (really bad). And whats worse (as I believe a good number of politicians are corrupt as all hell) the fool bragged about it on video.
You seem intent to trial Biden by twitter. I am sure the authorities have more in depth methods of investigation, and they seem to think its all clear. But keep digging if you must
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
The bit I find the funniest is the misinformation implying that Jo got the prosecutor fired to protect Hunter where the reason that everyone wanted the guy fired was that he was the corrupt one and was being too lenient in his investigations
The reason that you happen to accept as the truth. My view is this action by Joe stinks (really bad). And whats worse (as I believe a good number of politicians are corrupt as all hell) the fool bragged about it on video.
You seem intent to trial Biden by twitter. I am sure the authorities have more in depth methods of investigation, and they seem to think its all clear. But keep digging if you must
Who has said its all clear?
And the recently released emails point to (thats all so far) Joe getting a cut. It's an area that needs further investigation. And if the mainstream media wasn't so controlled and useless it would have happened by now.
Beneath the headlines, however, the report does detail the breadth of Hunter Biden's connections to questionable foreign interests and business leaders in Ukraine and China - creating "criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns". It suggests Joe Biden's son was profiting from his family name - a potential conflict of interest that is unsavoury but not unusual in Washington's corridors of power.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
The bit I find the funniest is the misinformation implying that Jo got the prosecutor fired to protect Hunter where the reason that everyone wanted the guy fired was that he was the corrupt one and was being too lenient in his investigations
The reason that you happen to accept as the truth. My view is this action by Joe stinks (really bad). And whats worse (as I believe a good number of politicians are corrupt as all hell) the fool bragged about it on video.
You seem intent to trial Biden by twitter. I am sure the authorities have more in depth methods of investigation, and they seem to think its all clear. But keep digging if you must
Who has said its all clear?
And the recently released emails point to (thats all so far) Joe getting a cut. It's an area that needs further investigation. And if the mainstream media wasn't so controlled and useless it would have happened by now.
Beneath the headlines, however, the report does detail the breadth of Hunter Biden's connections to questionable foreign interests and business leaders in Ukraine and China - creating "criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns". It suggests Joe Biden's son was profiting from his family name - a potential conflict of interest that is unsavoury but not unusual in Washington's corridors of power.
Did you read the link I posted from 'The Atlantic'?
-
I'm over this Twitter/Facebook censorship debate. Why is anybody surprised that they act in their own self interest? Why does anybody think they have a duty to be fair or even-handed? Was anybody really expecting them to behave like anything except the corporate chancers they are?
I have never had a Twitter or Facebook account, because it was clear that their business model was to source and sell my data and my interaction history, and the best way to get those was to manipulate me as a user. So I find it ironic that people complain that they are being manipulative.
Seriously, if you don't like the way they behave, stop being their product! They aren't political organisations, they're businesses that act politically because their models tell them it's more likely that they will get your saleable data if they do.
You don't have to be part of their ecosystem. There are other ways to get news. There are other ways to conduct a discourse. Use them, and if enough of you do they will change their practice.
-
@JC said in US Politics:
I'm over this Twitter/Facebook censorship debate. Why is anybody surprised that they act in their own self interest? Why does anybody think they have a duty to be fair or even-handed? Was anybody really expecting them to behave like anything except the corporate chancers they are?
I have never had a Twitter or Facebook account, because it was clear that their business model was to source and sell my data and my interaction history, and the best way to get those was to manipulate me as a user. So I find it ironic that people complain that they are being manipulative.
Seriously, if you don't like the way they behave, stop being their product! They aren't political organisations, they're businesses that act politically because their models tell them it's more likely that they will get your saleable data if they do.
You don't have to be part of their ecosystem. There are other ways to get news. There are other ways to conduct a discourse. Use them, and if enough of you do they will change their practice.
That's ignoring the network effect and the reach of these platforms (and the consolidation of multiple platforms).
For hundreds of millions of people these plaforms are the internet. It's like going back to the early days of electricity and saything these oil lanterns work fine, just don't use it.
They wield enourmous influence and deserve all the criticism they get.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
They wield enourmous influence and deserve all the criticism they get.
which fierce criticism is right though?
The criticism from the Right that Facebook is trying to influence everyone to the left, and censoring everything that paints the Left in a bad light?
Or the criticism from the Left that Facebook has become a Right Wing echo chamber (in response to calls it is biased to the left)?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/facebook-conservatives-2020-421146
There are articles like this one all over, from a bunch of different outlets. From this article
"In the final stretch of the 2020 campaign, the Facebook posts with the most engagement in the United States most days — measured by likes, comments, shares and reactions — are from conservative voices outside the mainstream media: Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, David Harris, Jr., Franklin Graham and “Blue Lives Matter,” according to the Facebook-owned tool Crowdtangle. Trump’s personal page also regularly makes the top of the list, in effect allowing him to become a publisher in his own right and navigate around the traditional media.
Left-wing posts make the daily top-25 much less frequently. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and the Facebook savvy Occupy Democrats are among the pages that occasionally hit such levels of engagement".
As far as i can tell, Facebook gives zero fucks what colour hat you are wearing, the only colour they see is green. They don't give a fuck if you share some shady shit because you agree, or because it pisses you off. They only care that you clicked the button.
-
@mariner4life I saw few minutes of an article on Sunday TV show. It was about cyber bullying and featured some woman who fronts an NRL news show and Anthony Sebold. They had an interview with a guy who used to work high up for FB who said they purposely don't censor content because stuff that enrages users makes them use the platform more than not. As you say they are profit driven not politically driven
US Politics