Still making this claim unequivocally, huh?
Doesn’t this analogy fail in that there is an actual crime committed (arson)? Given a crime, what are facts that incriminate or exculpate or are irrelevant.
Sam’s and the GOP’s argument is ass backwards: Given this “evidence,” it’s likely a crime was committed. Isn’t it fair to ask what crime? Isn’t the starting point in a criminal investigation the fact that a crime was committed?
In your analogy, arson was committed and a police station was burned down. What’s the analogue with Joe Biden?
Joe’s a thief! He stole an election!
Just a reminder all:
I will take “The question that won’t be answered” for $500 Alex
Does that matter? Hunter was saying that his dad is connected. He and his friends will make trouble. He wouldn’t have to be in office to do that.
Also, the FBI transcripts with Rob Walker have Walker admitting that Biden was meeting with Hunter’s associates while VP.
Fighting ignorance? This all started with a straightforward cite refuting factual statements being made.
People keep accusing me of being some MAGA right winger, to the right of even Alberta conservatives. They know this isn’t true, and I keep pointing out my actual positions that are nowhere close to what they claim. A week or two later, they start saying it again. I guess it’s important to believe that everyone who might disagree from the right is a MAGA lunatic.
My flaw is that I’m a contrarian, and I have a hard time fitting in with groups because I don’t have a very good filer sometimes and I’ll pop up to correct something when I should have kept my mouth shut. So if I’m on Twitter and some idiot says, “Trump would NEVER have allowed the VAX!” guess who steps up to tell him otherwise, then gets shit on by a bunch of people who will brook no criticism of Trump?
I actually agree with a lot more of what you all say than you think, but you don’t see it much because I don’t tend to post affirmations. It’s when I disagree that I speak up - like a lot of people.
That’s also why, even though I’m a fan of a lot o what Musk has done, I had no problem mocking him mercilessly over Hyperloop. I don’t pick sides, I go where I think the truth is. And the reality is, no political party has a monopoly on the truth, and both sides try to gaslight each other constantly. Assuming your side is always truthful and the other side is a pack of liars is childish thinking.
Today, it seems like people pick a side, then assume that their job is to defend that side against all comers and all arguments, no matter what. I try to guard against that kind of thinking. Which is one of the reasons I’m on the SDMB in the first place. Safe spaces and purity protectors are for suckers. That’s where I’m coming from.
For the record, since I got called an ‘extreme right winger’ again, my basic positions are reproductive choice for women, support for LGBTQ rights, support for harm reduction interventions instead of jail for drug addicts, a belief in anthropogenic global warming that will be a problem, etc.
Where I am not on the side of the left is in my belief in free speech, free assembly, free markets, and smaller government. I don’t believe in ‘hate’ speech as an exception to free speech. In fact, the only speech that needs protecting is speech you hate, because you don’t try to stop speech you agree with or like.
I don’t believe in government control of ‘disinformation’, because governments guaranteeing that you will only see what’s true is a sure way to infantilize the population, ensure they do not engage critically with your material, and get the government to lie to you. The way to deal with misinformation and disinformation is to develop critical appraisal skills in people, and controlling their information is not the way to do that.
The only way free countries and free economies can work is if everyone has access to the same information. Informatiojnal gatekeepers are one step from totalitarianism. The left used to understand that. I wish they would again.
I believe that decisions made locally are better than decisions imposed from central authorities, which is the most Republican part of me in the literal sense. Mostly my economic positions are classic liberal modified by my understanding of complexity theory.
In any other era I’d be considered a cllassical enlightenment liberal, with a few heterodox beliefs.
Hey, that’s a great idea for you. You should definitely stop posting in any conversation I’m in. Brilliant idea! Thanks.
Yeah I mean this place is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not propagandists.
Lot of words there. I’m not seeing the specific crime that Joe Biden is accused of in all those words.
That settles it. I’m not voting for Hunter Biden.
You are not of the body hive, be gone MAGA lunatic!
To me this is more of a security issue before it is a crime. A president or VP should be held to the highest levels of scrutiny and any suspected or even suggested possibility of bribery should be looked at as it would be in any high secure position. They have reason to believe that at least $24,000,000 went through those accounts with no apparent product or service exchanged. that should be all they need.
No, they don’t and no, it shouldn’t.
Starting now, right?
Any reason beyond one Republican saying “I think this happened”, and the others bleating in unison “It is said…”?
Just so that Sam knows that not everyone is piling on him about everything, I agree with him that the talking point about Hunter likely getting a lighter sentence after paying off his taxes (after the fact, after he was caught) seems like bullshit. In this case, ironically, people are claiming that the cites support the idea that this should be weighted in Hunter’s favor. Yet the cites don’t say that. Nor does that even make any sense; why would something someone is forced to do by law be something in their favor?
Now, that’s a very minor and probably unimportant point in a huge debate about whether or not Hunter was getting a sweetheart deal, and whether he’s now being treated disproportionately due to Republican political machinations, but it’s funny because I see people doing what Sam typically does; misrepresenting cites. Maybe that’s karma, I dunno.
But I do agree that in terms of the Joe Biden investigation, Sam is repeatedly saying that because there’s evidence that Joe was at a meeting or dinner where Hunter’s business associates were, that’s evidence that Joe discussed business. Which it’s not. No more than proving that Joe didn’t have an alibi for a time when Hunter was having a business discussion, or that Joe was in the same town as a discussion. Evidence is something that shows a likelihood that Joe discussed business. An impartial witness testifying that it happened, a recording, maybe some minutes from a meeting that showed Joe being involved in a discussion.
Evidence isn’t necessarily proof, true. But neither is it speculation based on proximity. I have photos showing me meeting celebrities. That isn’t evidence that they know me or have worked with me.
These are all baseless Republican lies that you’re spreading. I doubt you’ll care, but just wanted to note this.
It’s debunked because it’s not notable. It’s not evidence for any lies or wrongdoing. It’s like saying “Joe Biden is corrupt - look at this evidence of him paying his mortgage on time!” It’s nothing. Why are you repeating the nothing like this as if it provides any information about supposed wrongdoing or lies? Why?
Once again:
This is true for me in the thread re: paying back taxes being an element considered in how a case turns out. I could have sworn it was in that Slate cite. I’m still not sure I didn’t read it elsewhere, since I’m not one to manufacture facts.
That said, here’s where Sam and I differ: I’m now embarrassed and I apologize to anyone who relied on that detail. Mea culpa.
It’s all good, I’ve made the same damn mistake before on this board. I think most people have. The problem is, as you said, when someone doubles and triples down, etc.