Jump to content

Hunter's laptop


bigbird

Recommended Posts





Just now, homersapien said:

OK, fine.

 

I know it is. You were the one struggling to understand. I'm glad I could set you straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bigbird said:

I know it is. You were the one struggling to understand. I'm glad I could set you straight.

Curious, why did you put it in quotes?  "case"

But obfuscation aside, like I said, I hope they can make a "case" against Hunter if there's one to be made.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

And man up.  Don't try to hide your embarrassment by hiding behind Titan.  You made your bed.  Own it.

Who's embarrassed? And by what?

You not following simple directions is embarrassing.

All I'm doing is echoing Titans statements. 

If you want to start a Jared thread to discuss his situation, then do it. This thread is about Hunter, his laptop, and everything else that goes along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Curious, why did you put it in quotes?  "case"

But obfuscation aside, like I said, I hope they can make a "case" against Hunter if there's one to be made.

 

To indicate that while some would call his open investigation a case, I knew some would be up in arms about that word so I tried to indicate that by the quotes.  

 

Obviously I wasn't wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

To indicate that while some would call his open investigation a case, I knew some would be up in arms about that word so I tried to indicate that by the quotes.  

 

Obviously I want wrong.

So, it wasn't cut and dried like you claim, huh?

The term is often used legally to refer to a criminal case.  It can also be used rhetorically in a general sense.

I just asked for clarification.  Sorry it offended you.  Snowflake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, it wasn't cut and dried like you claim, huh?

The term is often used legally to refer to a criminal case.  It can also be used rhetorically in a general sense.

I just asked for clarification.  Sorry it offended you.  Snowflake.

You know very well what you were trying to do. Don't play dumb, it's unbecoming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What exactly have I been hypocritical about?

Well for starters you like to scream whataboutism when someone brings up something to you in a discussion. Yet, here we are with daily…..but, but, Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

But What about _______?  I thought whataboutism was frowned upon?

Generally speaking, yes.

But sort of like "attacking the source," it's one thing to simply offer a whataboutism as your only response to a charge against your side.  It's another thing to have engaged in several post's worth of responding to the specific allegations and then include something like this.  Wouldn't you agree?

I mean, if you post some crazy story trashing Biden from some right wing blog and my only response it, "Biased MAGA crap website," that's simply attacking the source.  And maybe once in a while when it's just some utterly crazy QAnon level place, that might make sense to not give it any serious response.  But if I point out the factual problems with multiple points, maybe point out past instances where this source ran with stories that fell apart later under scrutiny, and I basically say, "this source is garbage," that's not really just attacking the source.  I've dealt with the arguments as well.

Same goes with whataboutism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Generally speaking, yes.

But sort of like "attacking the source," it's one thing to simply offer a whataboutism as your only response to a charge against your side.  It's another thing to have engaged in several post's worth of responding to the specific allegations and then include something like this.  Wouldn't you agree?

I mean, if you post some crazy story trashing Biden from some right wing blog and my only response it, "Biased MAGA crap website," that's simply attacking the source.  And maybe once in a while when it's just some utterly crazy QAnon level place, that might make sense to not give it any serious response.  But if I point out the factual problems with multiple points, maybe point out past instances where this source ran with stories that fell apart later under scrutiny, and I basically say, "this source is garbage," that's not really just attacking the source.  I've dealt with the arguments as well.

Same goes with whataboutism.

This whole thread is about Hunter’s laptop.  Trump is NOT a part of this at all and should not be.  If someone wants to discuss the lack of evidence about the laptop or believe the source is not credible, I can see that, but to get frustrated with the way the subject is going for your side and then use a whataboutism is not arguing *in good faith* as you like to put it.

Even if a poster uses a whataboutism on occasion I could overlook that and may not bring it up, but this particular poster has trashed Trump for close to 5 years and most every time he uses a whataboutism its about Trump.

I’ve been against Trump even running in 2024 and hope he doesn’t get the nomination if he does.  I’ve let him (Trump) go and I can see how deep it has affected some posters here, but enough is enough.  I have not control over his posts other than to call out his whataboutism when it happens.  You’ve call me out about whataboutism before and I am trying to understand and comply. It would be nice to see the rule applied equally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This whole thread is about Hunter’s laptop.  Trump is NOT a part of this at all and should not be.  If someone wants to discuss the lack of evidence about the laptop or believe the source is not credible, I can see that, but to get frustrated with the way the subject is going for your side and then use a whataboutism is not arguing *in good faith* as you like to put it.

Even if a poster uses a whataboutism on occasion I could overlook that and may not bring it up, but this particular poster has trashed Trump for close to 5 years and most every time he uses a whataboutism its about Trump.

I’ve been against Trump even running in 2024 and hope he doesn’t get the nomination if he does.  I’ve let him (Trump) go and I can see how deep it has affected some posters here, but enough is enough.  I have not control over his posts other than to call out his whataboutism when it happens.  You’ve call me out about whataboutism before and I am trying to understand and comply. It would be nice to see the rule applied equally.

But he has done that.  It's a 10 page thread where he's engaged the evidence about the laptop, engaged the arguments as to what the info on the laptop actually proves or doesn't prove.  If at some point on page 9 he throws in a post like that, I don't really think it's just "whataboutism" at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2022 at 9:03 AM, homersapien said:

While we investigate Biden's son (which I am all for), let's not omit investigating Trump's son-in law:

 

Kushner’s Saudi deal must be scrutinized to protect U.S. democracy

By Ali Al-Ahmed
 

The Saudi Arabia business managers knew the deal didn’t make sense, but Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved it, perhaps knowing that what he was buying couldn’t be measured as a simple dollars-and-cents return on investments.

That’s how Saudi Arabia ended up giving $2 billion to Jared Kushner, son-in-law of the former president who served as a senior adviser to Donald Trump in the White House. The deal has raised alarms for the obvious corruption in reflects — but the implications could be even more consequential.

Managers of the Saudi Public Investment Fund objected to the investment, citing “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management” — the firm was founded just last year by Kushner and other risk factors. But MBS was quick to overrule their objections and ordered the transfer.

For MBS, Kushner represents another powerful domestic proxy to interfere in American politics. The crown prince has not forgiven President Biden for speaking ill of him during the campaign and now he is out for blood. MBS has picked a side and has carefully cultivated ties with Republican leaders and former Trump officials.

MBS expects a substantial return for the billions he is showering on Republican figures. Of course, Saudi interference in U.S. elections is not new. Donations made by foreign agents hired to act on behalf of Saudi interests exceeded $1.6 million in the 2018 election cycle, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

But these days MBS can be even bolder. He is obviously confident that he is immune to any pressure coming from the United States — in fact, he’s confident enough to go on the offensive.

He is encouraged by the Biden administration’s continued support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen and American senior officials’ promise to protect the monarchy against external and domestic threats. There have been reports that Biden officials have discussed traveling to Saudi Arabia to repair the relationship and convince the kingdom to pump more oil.

MBS is responding with contempt. He has not condemned Russia on Ukraine, refused to increase oil production and probably leaked the news of him refusing to take Biden’s call. A few days ago a sketch on a state-funded TV station mocked Biden as a sleepy, forgetful old man.

The prospect of a dictator using his deep pockets to wield influence at the highest levels of the U.S. political system should be cause for deep concern and targeted action. Not all attacks on American democracy will take the shape of violent insurrections — the corruption of the Saudi-Kushner deal is an attack on democracy, too.

The Biden administration and Congress should look carefully into this and other suspicious transactions. Deals of this sort should trigger a legal and security review to guard the U.S. political landscape from foreign actors, especially dictators with blood on their hands, whose actions affect regular Americans at the pump every day.

Failing to scrutinize the deal will further erode trust in U.S. democracy, at home and abroad. This week, 30 members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken asking him to review Saudi-U.S. relations and chart a new path that addresses human rights concerns long ignored by the United States. More pressure such as this is needed to get the Biden administration to move forward with an actual policy change — a long, overdue departure from unconditional support for the Saudi monarchy.

But MBS appears to be ready to counter any change. It’s clear he is willing to use his vast resources to get what he wants.

 
Haven't heard much about this from the conservative media. 
 
Oh wait,
 

......Mr. Kushner and partners stand to get a $25 million per year management fee, plus a share of any profits, according to the Times.

It’s a troubling arrangement — in many ways. Mr. Kushner is well-known as having been the crown prince’s top advocate within the White House during the four years Mr. Trump occupied it. His ostensible rationale for courting MBS was to win Saudi backing for Arab recognition of Israel, which several countries did confer — though not Saudi Arabia. Mr. Kushner’s solicitude continued even after it became evident that MBS ordered the gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a regime critic and Post Global Opinions contributing columnist, at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. Playing down that crime and the MBS regime’s cover-up, the Trump administration later blocked efforts in the United Nations and Congress to curb Saudi excesses in its proxy war with Iran over Yemen. Instead, Mr. Trump boosted U.S. arms sales to Riyadh.

The crown prince’s financial backing despite contrary business considerations looks to all the world like a lucrative reward to Mr. Kushner. And it creates the additional impression that what MBS is really investing in is not some real estate venture but the Trump family’s political future — specifically, a possible White House comeback by Mr. Kushner’s father-in-law if he runs again, and wins, in the 2024 presidential election. It is yet another sign — along with his refusal to raise crude oil production when the Biden administration sought help tamping down gas prices — that MBS sees his government not as a U.S. ally, but as the ally of one side in domestic partisan politics.

Mr. Kushner’s dealings are, to be sure, similar in kind to the influence-peddling in Ukraine and China of President Biden’s son, Hunter. The important difference is that Mr. Kushner, unlike the younger Mr. Biden, was not just a high official’s family member, but a high official himself: assistant to the president and senior adviser. We look forward, though not with bated breath, to Republican outrage over the Saudi-Kushner connection being at least equal to that being vented over Hunter Biden. There should be nothing partisan about ridding U.S. foreign policy of even the appearance of self-interest by those who conduct it.

 

This should be in a separate thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Generally speaking, yes.

But sort of like "attacking the source," it's one thing to simply offer a whataboutism as your only response to a charge against your side.  It's another thing to have engaged in several post's worth of responding to the specific allegations and then include something like this.  Wouldn't you agree?

I mean, if you post some crazy story trashing Biden from some right wing blog and my only response it, "Biased MAGA crap website," that's simply attacking the source.  And maybe once in a while when it's just some utterly crazy QAnon level place, that might make sense to not give it any serious response.  But if I point out the factual problems with multiple points, maybe point out past instances where this source ran with stories that fell apart later under scrutiny, and I basically say, "this source is garbage," that's not really just attacking the source.  I've dealt with the arguments as well.

Same goes with whataboutism.

🤣🤣🤣

This further proves my point that you make up rules as you go and you do not apply said rule equally. 
 

So how many pages are required before we can jump to whataboutism? Will you provide a meter at the top of the thread so that we know when that threshold is met? Will there be two standards (obviously, based on recent activity) depending on which side of the aisle? 
 

It would be nice to see moderation done without bias….well we actually do see it but only from a couple on here. I knew when I saw Bird trying to be consistent in the thread moderation and in particular whataboutism you’d come in with some lame excuse that it’s ok in this instance. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

🤣🤣🤣

This further proves my point that you make up rules as you go and you do not apply said rule equally. 

Yeah, so I've heard.  It's still bull****.

 

22 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So how many pages are required before we can jump to whataboutism? Will you provide a meter at the top of the thread so that we know when that threshold is met? Will there be two standards (obviously, based on recent activity) depending on which side of the aisle? 
 

It would be nice to see moderation done without bias….well we actually do see it but only from a couple on here. I knew when I saw Bird trying to be consistent in the thread moderation and in particular whataboutism you’d come in with some lame excuse that it’s ok in this instance. 

donut-operator-cry-more.gif

 

I've never hammered every instance that could technically be called "whataboutism."  It's not my fault you dolts can't get through your head what is and isn't actually whataboutism, or attacking the source, or whatever other thing you're bellyaching about.

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But he has done that.  It's a 10 page thread where he's engaged the evidence about the laptop, engaged the arguments as to what the info on the laptop actually proves or doesn't prove.  If at some point on page 9 he throws in a post like that, I don't really think it's just "whataboutism" at this point.

Ok, maybe we can categorize is as *frustrated whataboutism* and allow it.  Is this where you are headed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Little late now don’t ya think? 😂

I just found out about this this morning.  Contrary to the beliefs of some, I don't live here 24/7.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Ok, maybe we can categorize is as *frustrated whataboutism* and allow it.  Is this where you are headed?

Look, I've never policed every single instance that could technically be "whataboutism."  Context matters.  We've got some here whose first (and often only) response to anything that makes their side look bad is finding something equally bad about the accusing side.  They never actually address anything about the original argument or accusation.  When I or TexasTiger see that, that's what we curtail.  But we've always treated that differently than someone who takes the time to address the points of an argument but then happens to also include something that either questions the credibility of the source or points out the hypocrisy of the accusing side.

I don't know how you aren't understanding the difference here.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 2
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, so I've heard.  It's still bull****.

 

donut-operator-cry-more.gif

 

I've never hammered every instance that could technically be called "whataboutism."  It's no my fault you dolts can't get through your head what is and isn't actually whataboutism, or attacking the source, or whatever other thing you're bellyaching about.

Keep telling yourself that. 
 

What us “dolts” did is make the mistake of is assuming that a mod on here would want to promote a legitimate back and forth. But we end up with a liberal hall monitor with a power trip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Look, I've never policed every single instance that could technically be "whataboutism."  Context matters.  We've got some here whose first (and often only) response to anything that makes their side look bad is finding something equally bad about the accusing side.  They never actually address anything about the original argument or accusation.  When I or TexasTiger see that, that's what we curtail.  But we've always treated that differently than someone who takes the time to address the points of an argument but then happens to also include something that either questions the credibility of the source or points out the hypocrisy of the accusing side.

I don't know how you aren't understanding the difference here.

You do realize that if it was one person saying this your words might have some merit? 
 

But you have at a minimum a handful of people that blatantly see what is going on. Might want to circle back and look at the common denominator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Keep telling yourself that. 
 

What us “dolts” did is make the mistake of is assuming that a mod on here would want to promote a legitimate back and forth. But we end up with a liberal hall monitor with a power trip. 

ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

You do realize that if it was one person saying this your words might have some merit? 
 

But you have at a minimum a handful of people that blatantly see what is going on. Might want to circle back and look at the common denominator. 

ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

ok.

Is tomorrow when we get an entire thread of you trying to justify your moderation? Similar to you trying to justify your voting record? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Is tomorrow when we get an entire thread of you trying to justify your moderation? Similar to you trying to justify your voting record? 

I don't value your opinion on moderation here enough to bother.

And I haven't justified anything on my voting record.  I simply told people what it was and expounded on where I stand on a range of issues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...