Just a couple weeks ago I had a comment downvoted and flagged for saying what this confirms. The political bias in tech circles is unreal sometimes.
What you're seeing here is the "left" learning to not take everything the right screams about at face value. They watched Hillary get dragged through the mud with Benghazi over absolutely nothing of substance, including months of Congressional hearings. Thus this new "Hunter Biden Laptop" story smells like the same exact ratfucking playbook.
Complaining that Twitter didn't amplify an unproven story isn't bias. It's successful pattern recognition.
What do you mean by “didn’t amplify”? They actively suppressed/banned the story (based on a policy that didn’t even apply in this case) instead of “not amplifying it”, these are two totally separate things.
Joe Biden denied any involvement with his son's business but there is evidence that he was involved from witnesses (including attending business meetings) and emails on the laptop to indicate he was involved but they were conscious of the need to publicly at least, keep his name out of it.
It's the kind of thing for which, if it was Trump, we would have seen 24/7 media meltdown for years but because its a Biden well "media companies are privately owned and can do what they want".
Parent asked for an unbiased summary. Right off the bat you’re providing the right wing narrative. There is nothing in the laptop or elsewhere to show that:
- the “big guy” referenced in the email is in fact Joe Biden
- that even if it is, Joe Biden was aware of the e-mail
- that even if he was, that Joe was actually taking a cut.
The evidence before you is so far off from the narrative you’re spouting that you might as well be making it all up. But sadly you’re not, you’re just regurgitating the leaps of logic that have been fed to you.
> they were conscious of the need to publicly at least, keep his name out of it.
The lack of evidence of a crime is evidence of how well the crime was covered up. Classic conspiratorial thinking.
> if it was Trump, we would have seen 24/7 media meltdown
Here’s the thing. If it weren’t for Trump, this would be a bigger deal because Trump normalized government corruption during his presidency. Even the worst case scenario imagined by Republicans about Biden is mild compared to Trump’s least concerning corruption.
Conservatives can’t get any traction with their “Biden’s corrupt!” narrative as long as they ignore and excuse Trump’s corruption. It’s impossible to convince the world that Joe Biden who takes the train to work from Delaware is corrupt, while Trump who flies around in a jet with his name on it is squeaky clean. As dumb as people are, there appears to be a limit to what they will accept.
This sort of skepticism would make sense in a court of law, but on an online forum it is risible. Hunter knows nothing about Ukrainian energy, nor does he speak any Slavic languages. Also he is an unstable drug addict. There is only one possible explanation for his lucrative employment by Burisma. There certainly was an attempt to influence Joe, and that was the topic considered by that email. Your other caveats might well be correct; one suspects Hunter may be too much of a fuck-up to successfully convey an attempted bribe to its intended target.
Secondly just because something reflects badly on the Democrat party doesn't mean it's a "right-wing narrative". If one team does something bad, then of course they are going to try to cover it up, and it's up to the opposing team to hold them to account. This is human nature, and this is what democracy is designed to compensate for.
One of Hunter Biden's business partners confirmed Joe Biden was the "Big Guy".
I believe also there was some discussion in the emails on Hunters laptop of the need distance themselves from Joe Biden at least publically.
Trump is not relevant to whether Joe Biden is corrupt is or not. He is also not relevant as to whether the media should cover important stories that aren't about Trump.
Need to get away from this idea that the Dems can do whatever they want "because Trump".
Then just stick to the facts.
> Secondly just because something reflects badly on the Democrat party doesn't mean it's a "right-wing narrative"
It’s a narrative precisely because the story you presented is ahead of the facts. You’re telling the story you want to tell and backfilling it in with facts as necessary when they become available, making omissions as necessary. The problem with this is you’ll keep telling this story like the facts support it even if they never come.
> One of Hunter Biden's business partners confirmed Joe Biden was the "Big Guy".
I wasn’t aware this was confirmed, but unfortunately all this proves is that someone was trying to gain access to Joe Biden. Not exactly surprising. Showing Joe Biden was receptive to the overture is much harder to prove.
> Trump is not relevant to whether Joe Biden is corrupt is or not.
One thing I have said and I will keep saying is that if Hunter did something wrong he should be investigated and prosecuted. If Joe Biden did something wrong he should be investigated and prosecuted as well. I haven’t met a single left leaning person who disagrees with me there. (And believe me, I’m no fan of Joe Biden, he was like my 6th choice). In that sense you’re right, it doesn’t matter what Trump has done.
But not all corruption is equal, and Republicans have spent the last 7 years excusing and equivocating some of the most egregious examples of corruption I’ve ever seen.
So now they are out there saying we should all be very concerned about Joe Biden’s corruption. Their problem is that we can pull up any number of sound bytes from the same people excusing Trump’s corruption.
Hell, we just have to use Trump’s own impeachment argument against them: if the executive believes what he is doing is for the benefit of the country, then his motives cannot be corrupt, even in the case of extorting a bribe as Trump did. Republicans bought that argument and in doing so set a precedent.
To me, this shows the outrage is all just political theatre, on the order of Benghazi, election denial, Whitewater/Clinton impeachment, or the Hillary Clinton emails.
> Need to get away from this idea that the Dems can do whatever they want "because Trump".
I believe in equal justice under the law, one of the foundational pillars of democracy. If Trump can get away with crimes but Biden is prosecuted for the same, this is actually a miscarriage of justice and a danger to democracy. Either the law is applied equally to everyone, or it is applied to no one.
I've always considered the Dems to be incredibly corrupt. I dont really know what Trump has or hasn't done because my only sources are the media and the media is garbage.
But for me the Democrats politicizing/weaponizing the FBI/Justice system for example, is way more corrupt than whatever stupid real-estate developer BS Trump has done (if he has in fact, done something). The long-term impact of this kind of behaviour is incredibly corrosive to democracy.
Outsourcing your breaches of the constitution to private enterprise (suppressing free speech totally legal!!) would be another.
I know, more "right-wing narratives blah blah etc".
Okay, then stick to primary sources who are Republican.
The Mueller Report was authored by Republican Robert Mueller, was authorized and overseen by Republican Rod Rosenstein and was signed off by Republican Bill Barr. It details that Russia hacked the Democrats in 2016, attacked the 2016 election, and Trump obstructed the investigation into said hacking.
Or read the Senate Intel report on Russia, authored by the Republican senate and chaired by Republican Marco Rubio. It shows that Trump’s campaign collaborated with a Russian Intel officer to exchange day during the 2016 election.
Or look at primary sources like court filings. When you say the Dems have politicized the Doj and FBI, I’m assuming you’re talking about the recent raids on Trump’s home. But wouldn’t you agree that if the raid was properly authorized by a judge based on the facts, that wouldn’t be politicization?
Since the raid, the DOJ has won in court over and over again as Trump has challenged the basis of the raid. The only wins he has gotten have been overturned on appeal, with those decisions saying that Judge Aileen Cannon (who Trump appointed and forum shopped to hear his case) abused her power in deciding for Trump.
Or take the January 6 insurrection. If you don’t trust Democrats about that day, just listen to Republicans. The 1/6 hearings had testimony from 90% Republicans — from Republican staffers to Republican political operatives to life-long Republican politicians (maybe some you’ve voted for). Their testimony shows Trump planned and was responsible for that day.
At this point if you don’t know who Trump is and what he’s done, that’s not on the Dems or the media. That’s on you for not paying attention.
> Outsourcing your breaches of the constitution to private enterprise (suppressing free speech totally legal!!) would be another.
You do realize Matt Tiabbi says in his story the Trump admin was doing the same thing as the Biden Campaign. If you think what Biden did was violating the constitution by outsourcing, you must think the same of Trump and Republicans. Anything less and you’re being intellectually dishonest with yourself.
Remarkable to see the "it wasn't him, and if it was... and if he did, he didn't... and if it is..." play out in earnest.
The idea is to show just how far one is from properly supporting the assertion. You can’t claim Joe Biden is corrupt because someone was trying to solicit a deal from a family member. In order to make a convincing case, the parent would have had to show Biden not only knew of the communication but also was receptive to it. The mere existence of an inbound solicitation is not evidence of corruption.
It was an uncharitable characterization, my apologies.
>The mere existence of an inbound solicitation is not evidence of corruption.
This is true. The counterpoint is that there's a lot of evidence that people found solicitation of Hunter Biden worthwhile (illustrated by the fact that they kept paying him).
A healthy skepticism suggests those payments were not made on the basis of his business acumen, in the same way we can suspect purchases of his paintings were not made on the basis of his artistic skill.
https://www.amazon.com/Laptop-Hell-Hunter-Secrets-President/...
I have, in the course of my travels, been told many times that I need to read such-and-such a book on a topic before I can "really have an opinion". I get the taste in my mouth that such books tend to serve a defensive role in conversations (like barbed wire, with a machine gun pointed at it) instead of an educational one, and put the recommendee on the back foot where they're refusing to read a source as offered.
It works because--going back to point 1--there's so many books out there that reading them all doesn't scale and never will. They take far, far more than they give. The youtube videos of the genre "three hours of some guy talking into the camera" occupy a similar niche.
There are plenty of smart people on the right, and lots of bad behaviour on the left that needs highlighting (and vice versa). And of course it's only people in opposition that will do this.
We can't rely on the media because they are clearly partisan, so to dismiss anything beyond the media leaves you in an information desert basically.
Oh no I'm accused of being anti-intellectual. Wait, see:
>put the recommendee on the back foot where they're refusing to read a source as offered
Let's circle back--did you honestly expect people to buy and read a 224 page book that you couldn't be bothered to summarize (besides touting the Amazon reviews?)? What's the conversion rate on that? Or is it more that you can recommend a book, people don't read it (surprise), and then it's their fault for not finding out the facts?
Ok to summarise...(you really have to read the book to get the detail so this is just a skim)
Joe Biden home is in Delaware, the US geographical center for businesses that like doing things privately. Joe has operated firmly in the center of this milieu of financially sophisticated elite for decades. Joe Biden likes to pretend he's a man of the people and not interested in financial wealth. I'm "middle-class Joe", "don't fault me because I don't own a single stock or bond" etc.. you get the get the drift.
However he lives in a large mansion in Brandywine Valley (home of rich elite), is worth millions of dollars and has a remarkable history of incredibly good real estate investments. Usually buying directly from business people and donors.
Note: this is a very typical way for corruption to be completely above board.
"I'II give you a million bucks discount on a nice bit of property and you repay the favour when my business needs it". And of course the presented optics are just that Joe is a "really good real estate investor". Circumstantial I guess? But not really to anyone with a bit of commonsense. The rich elite in Delaware are financially sophisticated and used to dealing with power. They know how to move money around and still maintain plausible deniability. I'm sure this kind of "deniable" corruption is common across parties, so I'm not suggesting Joe is unique in this. I am suggesting though that Joe is more than likely just as corrupt as Trump or anyone else.
Hunter Biden's career is 100% pure nepotism at every level. His entire history in terms of schools, consecutive board positions etc is due to Joe pulling strings with business people and donors.
The Biden family structure has typically been Joe and Hunter's brother Beau (now deceased) sought power and influence whilst it was Hunter's role to "monetise" the influence whilst maintaining a wall of plausible deniability back to the family. Hunter Biden is on record complaining about having to give 50% of his income (millions) to Joe Biden. So this would mean things like Hunter paying for all the upkeep of Joe's mansions etc. There is also evidence of them sharing co-mingled bank accounts.
So it seems what happened is that they took their approach they'd been using for decades in Delaware and just went global with their influence-peddling schemes. And Hunter was playing the same role except now on a global scale. This means, for example, forming a business partnership with a Chinese company connected to CCP intelligence for which they were hoping to get 100's of millions. This fell through in the end.
I recommend reading a book called "Red-Handed" by Peter Schweizer (yes another "right-wing culture war book"!) where he talks about the well-documented Chinese "elite capture" program where they ensnare foreign elites (business, govt, academia) in lucrative business deals (millions of dollars) to ensure they remain pro-China's interests. Clearly Hunter Biden was a target for this, he has zero relevant experience or track record to justify his involvement in anything beyond organising a drug deal.
Hunter Biden's laptop provided clear and direct evidence of the stuff I'm talking about however the story has been suppressed (did I mention the media is garbage?)
Hunter Biden's business partner, Tony Bobulinski, has stated that Joe Biden was the effective chairman of the enterprise (just not on paper). Joe was present at multiple meetings (Joe Biden lied about this). Tony Bobulinski also mentioned to Jim Biden (Joe's brother) he was concerned about some of the things they were doing. In reply Jim smirked and commented about "plausible deniability". Tony also took all his evidence to the FBI but they also suppressed the story.
Whatever you think of this story, there is certainly enough evidence to justify further investigation and hopefully this will happen next year.
Did you read my comments before you showed up and started shooting holes in the floor? Specifically:
>A healthy skepticism suggests those payments [made to Hunter Biden] were not made on the basis of his business acumen, in the same way we can suspect purchases of his paintings were not made on the basis of his artistic skill.
I don't think you are very good at debating.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/z3isaw/whats_...
You'll have to do your own digging around to build up your own opinion if you want more info. From my digging, it still seems like pretty much nothing we didn't already know.
And of course, read the user reviews for some insight on the book.
This line of thinking is so weird to me. When I tweet that’s me speaking. If the story turns out to be false I should feel guilty about that, and apologize to my followers. Twitter has little to do with it.
To me Twitter e.g. censoring direct messages feels like the postal service reading letters and filtering those that they deem untrue. Absolutely dystopian. Who would want this…?
1. If a law was passed that said twitter cannot moderate user content, Twitter would be ecstatic. It is a tremendous cost to them to do so, and not having to do so would largely be a win in their books (they'd still probably have to generate tools to allows users to moderate their own content, so not a total win)
2. If UPS shipped your products for free, but there were ads on the boxes, and they examined the contents to make sure there wasn't any content that they didn't want to ship, I'm guessing it would be a pretty popular service!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33497772
Those are some very strong claims. What specifically in this thread supports them? For example, we know that Twitter received these requests from both campaigns, whereas deliberate collusion would only have been with one, and the most hyped up claims are a handful of tweets which contained non-consensual nudity, which doesn’t exactly seem like it would shift the election.
The comments discussing process (was this appropriate moderation?) are much more in line with my experience in the community.
Fox News is the most watched news channel on the continent.
All tech companies at the very least are pro-capitalist, it's often a choice of whether they're outwardly more pro-market or more technocratic, which has nothing to do with political lefts and rights.
They have high viewership in spite of the fact that liberals have complete dominance over so-called "official" news media & centers of cultural production, as well as universities. Conservatives don't control government or anything else in any meaningful sense. Just look at American govt over the course of the 20th & 21st century to see that progressives squarely won in terms of shaping the size, scope & spending of govt.
> has nothing to do with political lefts and rights
You're supposing a True Scotsman that "liberals" aren't true left or something, that's complete nonsense. You may as well be regretting that a horse isn't a unicorn.
Tech companies are overwhelmingly biased towards liberals. Don't play dumb.
6/3 conservative Supreme Court and the House. That’s half of the federal government.
That conservatives have any power at all is a testament to progressives ability to catastrophically & embarrassingly mismanage themselves and fail to deliver.
But really progressives are just complaining that things aren't changing fast enough, it's inarguable that govt as it exists today is nothing remotely like limited govt.
Political violence was pioneered by far-left terrorists, famously when they bombed Congress.
More recently, Rand Paul got violently attacked. And a Bernie supporter committed a mass shooting & shot a Republican congressman. Of course you can't ignore there was the pervasive political violence throughout 2020 during BLM rioting.
Remember the guy who mowed down a Christmas parade?
Really the worst was when Hilary Clinton was the first to go all-in on election denial in 2016. And then spawned an entire 4 years of conspiracy theories surrounding Russia. Liberals largely failed to call her out & hold her accountable. They just project all of their worst crimes on their opponents.
You whatabout this with several examples that aren’t even political violence. Rand Paul’s neighborhood spat isn’t political violence. How is the Waukesha attack political violence, I just don’t see it.
Republicans have shown us exactly what political violence looks like. Thousands of people, flying the banner of a political party, organizing to attack the government. Seditious conspiracy is coming from the right, and nothing even approaching that severity is seen on the left. The FBI director is right to draw a distinction between left- and righ-wing violence.
The age of small-scale lone wolf attacks being the worst of political violence in the US are over thanks to the right. Now the biggest problems are homegrown terror cells like the oath keepers, and terror attacks instigated by media and the high ranking government officials, as the former President did on Jan 6.
> 4 years of conspiracy theories surrounding Russia
You need to catch up; the only ones still denying Trump’s collusion with Russia are Trump and Russia. Even Trump’s campaign manager has admitted to his role of coordinating campaign strategy with a Russian intel officer, which is a fact reported by Senate Republicans in their investigation.
The Trump tower meeting with the Russian spy is known by all and admitted to by all participants. The Trump Tower Moscow deal is known by all and admitted to by Trump. We know Russia hacked the DNC and Trump admits to welcoming that help, as shown in the Mueller report. Hillary Clinton was largely vindicated.
The conservative Supreme Court just unilaterally gutted fundamental human rights for everyone in the country. That’s serious power that not even the President has. It’s a joke to pretend conservatives have no political power in the face of that.
The third highest government official is the Speaker of the House, who will be a Republican in January, so it’s pretty hard to say Republicans have no power when they control the Speaker. It’s crazy how much power that is.
But to call the media a branch of government and to assign “control” of media to Democrats is really a stretch. Pretty hard to make that case with Fox News around.
Liberals almost never fail to be utterly unlikeable & unrelatable.
This is because progressism is associated with the left. The tech space lives on the edge of innovation, so of course it leans toward progressism.
so minorities should be abused?
Even worse that you're apparently ableist saying that it's better if it's on the basis of skill rather than race.