Facebook and Twitter reducing distribution of New York Post Hunter Biden story [merged threads]

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Steve confirms that Hunter Biden's lawyer called and emailed (so it's in writing!) the Mac store owner and demanded Hunter's laptop back. So there's proof that the Biden people know the laptop (and therefore the contents on the hard drive) is legit, and is not "Russian disinformation." (This is about the 14 to 15 minute mark on the video, in case you don't have time to watch the whole thing) 

The whole reason why Hunter's lawyer demanded the laptop back is because he acknowledges it's Hunter's property! (But of course, legally it ceased to be Hunter's legal property when he abandoned it for more than 90 days at the repair shop - and stiffed the Mac store owner on the bill. That gave the store owner the legal right to take possession of it. This is Delaware law, so there is no question that the laptop is the store owner's legal property, and he had the legal right to give it to Rudy Giuliani, or anyone else) 

Meanwhile, as has already been noted, by Friday night Fox News was able to reach some people on Hunter's email chain, and they confirmed the emails are legit and they had received them at the time they were sent. So the emails are now, indeed, "confirmed." 

Which is also why the Biden people aren't claiming they are fake...and (as Bannon emphasizes in the interview) it's why they haven't sued the hell out of Rupert Murdock and the NY Post. Because they know they would be hit with a massive counter-suit, and in the discovery process everything would come out. 

It will be interesting to see, come the start of the new week, if CNN and MSNBC are willing to double down and continue to lie, by claiming that the emails are "not confirmed" and are "Russian disinformation." Don't see how they continue to get away with that - the lie is just too brazen. 

Especially when Bannon states in this interview that sometime in the next few days he will "drop" the email from Hunter's lawyer, wherein the lawyer demands the return of the laptop to its owner, Hunter Biden... 

Should be another interesting week coming up....esp. with the debate on Thurs! 

 

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

5 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Steve confirms that Hunter Biden's lawyer called and emailed (so it's in writing!) the Mac store owner and demanded Hunter's laptop back. So there's proof that the Biden people know the laptop (and therefore the contents on the hard drive) is legit, and is not "Russian disinformation." (This is about the 14 to 15 minute mark on the video, in case you don't have time to watch the whole thing) 

The whole reason why Hunter's lawyer demanded the laptop back is because he acknowledges it's Hunter's property! (But of course, legally it ceased to be Hunter's legal property when he abandoned it for more than 90 days at the repair shop - and stiffed the Mac store owner on the bill. That gave the store owner the legal right to take possession of it. This is Delaware law, so there is no question that the laptop is the store owner's legal property, and he had the legal right to give it to Rudy Giuliani, or anyone else) 

Meanwhile, as has already been noted, by Friday night Fox News was able to reach some people on Hunter's email chain, and they confirmed the emails are legit and they had received them at the time they were sent. So the emails are now, indeed, "confirmed." 

Which is also why the Biden people aren't claiming they are fake...and (as Bannon emphasizes in the interview) it's why they haven't sued the hell out of Rupert Murdock and the NY Post. Because they know they would be hit with a massive counter-suit, and in the discovery process everything would come out. 

It will be interesting to see, come the start of the new week, if CNN and MSNBC are willing to double down and continue to lie, by claiming that the emails are "not confirmed" and are "Russian disinformation." Don't see how they continue to get away with that - the lie is just too brazen. 

Especially when Bannon states in this interview that sometime in the next few days he will "drop" the email from Hunter's lawyer, wherein the lawyer demands the return of the laptop to its owner, Hunter Biden... 

Should be another interesting week coming up....esp. with the debate on Thurs! 

 

 

Where have we seen that the emails have been confirmed? 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Where have we seen that the emails have been confirmed? 

 

Above

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

If  run for King of Visa Journey, I will provide you my 1040. Unfortunately, right now I am under audit.

 

   Seriously though, I'm not sure why a few people (like VOR) keep using that argument. The reason it has become standard for the candidates to release documents like tax information is because people wanted it. People usually need to know the character and the morals and the integrity of the person they are choosing to support and lead them. 

 

  I get that all went away with Trump. Many don't care that he has no morals and no integrity. They don't care what he did in the past. I have always said I am fine with that criteria. We all have a choice. Some people want their guy to win no matter what and will put up with whatever flaws he has. We all get to make our vote. However making up this disingenuous argument that we all don't have to show our taxes so why does the president? It is just another one of the excuses and deflections supporters have made to rationalize their decision. We can vote for any person for any reason, so there is no need to rationalize.  I don't even mind if people resort to cognitive dissonance to support their choice. However I don't get why they project it on to others. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

12 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Seriously though, I'm not sure why a few people (like VOR) keep using that argument. The reason it has become standard for the candidates to release documents like tax information is because people wanted it. People usually need to know the character and the morals and the integrity of the person they are choosing to support and lead them. 

 

  I get that all went away with Trump. Many don't care that he has no morals and no integrity. They don't care what he did in the past. I have always said I am fine with that criteria. We all have a choice. Some people want their guy to win no matter what and will put up with whatever flaws he has. We all get to make our vote. However making up this disingenuous argument that we all don't have to show our taxes so why does the president? It is just another one of the excuses and deflections supporters have made to rationalize their decision. We can vote for any person for any reason, so there is no need to rationalize.  I don't even mind if people resort to cognitive dissonance to support their choice. However I don't get why they project it on to others. 

That comes under the general "dissolving of norms" that seems to have accelerated under Trump, but didn't start with him, he simply raised it to a new art. I expect an equal and opposite reaction to these erosions (we are seeing that move in the polls) not to the left but to some sort of normalcy. Covid-19, Climate change, technology shifts and automation are all mixing it up and people are just worn out 

 

The Republican leaders have already moved into the post Trump era and are just going through the motions of this election(Ben Sasse's "leaked" tape is just one example). The next Senate cycle doesn't favor a Republican restoration of leadership so it will be an interesting 4 year "rebuilding" cycle for Republicans.

 

[laylalex 7,300]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

No she had it right, you were rude.

I rediscovered the block function, so I'm going with that today.  We can always disagree without being disagreeable.

[Dashinka 24,726]

51 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Seriously though, I'm not sure why a few people (like VOR) keep using that argument. The reason it has become standard for the candidates to release documents like tax information is because people wanted it. People usually need to know the character and the morals and the integrity of the person they are choosing to support and lead them. 

 

  I get that all went away with Trump. Many don't care that he has no morals and no integrity. They don't care what he did in the past. I have always said I am fine with that criteria. We all have a choice. Some people want their guy to win no matter what and will put up with whatever flaws he has. We all get to make our vote. However making up this disingenuous argument that we all don't have to show our taxes so why does the president? It is just another one of the excuses and deflections supporters have made to rationalize their decision. We can vote for any person for any reason, so there is no need to rationalize.  I don't even mind if people resort to cognitive dissonance to support their choice. However I don't get why they project it on to others. 

People didn’t seem to care in 2016.  What Trump did disclose was what people need to see such as list of judges.  With Joe we get his tax returns which doesn’t reveal a darned thing as to how he will govern, but he refuses to answer the question on judges, SCOTUS and the end of the filibuster in the Senate, you know, things that really matter.

 

As you said about President Trump also applies to Joe Biden relative to a lack of moral and integrity, so in the case of the two it is a wash on that account, so now we get to look at the other things out there, all the corruption on the Left, etc.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Seriously though, I'm not sure why a few people (like VOR) keep using that argument. The reason it has become standard for the candidates to release documents like tax information is because people wanted it. People usually need to know the character and the morals and the integrity of the person they are choosing to support and lead them. 

 

  I get that all went away with Trump. Many don't care that he has no morals and no integrity. They don't care what he did in the past. I have always said I am fine with that criteria. We all have a choice. Some people want their guy to win no matter what and will put up with whatever flaws he has. We all get to make our vote. However making up this disingenuous argument that we all don't have to show our taxes so why does the president? It is just another one of the excuses and deflections supporters have made to rationalize their decision. We can vote for any person for any reason, so there is no need to rationalize.  I don't even mind if people resort to cognitive dissonance to support their choice. However I don't get why they project it on to others. 

If there's any reason not to, it's called the Constitution. Try reading it. It doesn't say a single thing about taxes as a requirement, so people pretending, lying, and inventing things out of thin air are in dire need of justifying it themselves, and they don't even come close.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

28 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

If there's any reason not to, it's called the Constitution. Try reading it. It doesn't say a single thing about taxes as a requirement, so people pretending, lying, and inventing things out of thin air are in dire need of justifying it themselves, and they don't even come close.

The are laws, ethics and mores not called out in the constitution. We (some of us) learned that in middle school.

 

There is no law that mandates any presidential candidate release their taxes, their is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the citizens from asking that their norms be upheld either. 

 

We don't really need snarky "try it sometime"  jabs , but if you want to create throwaway hypocritical moral superiority lines, it is a free country. I doubt if Hillary Clinton had released anything less than multiple years if taxes, you would use that same line. 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by CanAm1980

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

The are laws, ethics and mores not called out in the constitution. We (some of us) learned that in middle school.

 

There is no law that mandates any presidential candidate release their taxes, their is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the citizens from asking that their norms be upheld either. 

 

We don't really need snarky "try it sometime"  jabs , but if you want to create throwaway hypocritical moral superiority lines, it is a free country. I doubt if Hillary Clinton had released anything less than multiple years if taxes, you would use that same line. 

 

 

Nah you're lying.. releasing taxes hasn't mattered to me because nearly all voters don't read them and if they did they'd realize that those tax releases give very little information one can make financial conclusions on. Instead the point of them is as they were just used, media smear fodder. Thankfully there are rational people that voted in someone that didn't release them, likewise demonstrating its non requirement to be President. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

People didn’t seem to care in 2016.  What Trump did disclose was what people need to see such as list of judges.  With Joe we get his tax returns which doesn’t reveal a darned thing as to how he will govern, but he refuses to answer the question on judges, SCOTUS and the end of the filibuster in the Senate, you know, things that really matter.

 

As you said about President Trump also applies to Joe Biden relative to a lack of moral and integrity, so in the case of the two it is a wash on that account, so now we get to look at the other things out there, all the corruption on the Left, etc.

 

   Many people didn't care, but many did. In the end it will catch up to him if there is anything illegal. In the mean time he doesn't get votes that he probably needs. That is what it is, but the false narrative has turned that into people just opposing Trump for no real reason. If you open your eyes, there always were many reasons. Winning became more important than morals and I get that, but eyes have opened. Soon all these Trump supporters running for reelection will be bailing and trying to wash their hands of the mess they created and pretending they always were against the guy. Hopefully when it comes time to cast votes, their constituents don't let them forget that actions have consequences.

 

  As to the liberals, yeah I agree they have done many of the same things. It takes a unique set of circumstances for people to think the Trumps of the world will be the ones who solve anything. The liberals had 8 years to help create those conditions and alienate enough people for Trump to succeed. Hopefully they do better next time. I wouldn't really bet on that either.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Steeleballz

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Many people didn't care, but many did. In the end it will catch up to him if there is anything illegal. In the mean time he doesn't get votes that he probably needs. That is what it is, but the false narrative has turned that into people just opposing Trump for no real reason. If you open your eyes, there always were many reasons. Winning became more important than morals and I get that, but eyes have opened. Soon all these Trump supporters running for reelection will be bailing and trying to wash their hands of the mess they created and pretending they always were against the guy. Hopefully when it comes time to cast votes, their constituents don't let them forget that actions have consequences.

 

  As to the liberals, yeah I agree they have done many of the same things. It takes a unique set of circumstances for people to think the Trumps of the world will be the ones who solve anything. The liberals had 8 years to help create those conditions and alienate enough people for Trump to succeed. Hopefully they do better next time. I wouldn't really bet on that either.

 

 

There were no real reasons.. the ones stated were either made up (eg Russia) or irrelevant criteria (orange man bad). So.. no reason. 

 

While it's good you recognize those on the left alienated people (but didn't give much context as to how), you conveniently ignore the ramping up of that behavior to where it's further alienating people, like me, they need to win elections. The best take was the movie villain approach in bold.. "you think your pathetic orange man can change anything?" 😂

[Dashinka 24,726]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Many people didn't care, but many did. In the end it will catch up to him if there is anything illegal. In the mean time he doesn't get votes that he probably needs. That is what it is, but the false narrative has turned that into people just opposing Trump for no real reason. If you open your eyes, there always were many reasons. Winning became more important than morals and I get that, but eyes have opened. Soon all these Trump supporters running for reelection will be bailing and trying to wash their hands of the mess they created and pretending they always were against the guy. Hopefully when it comes time to cast votes, their constituents don't let them forget that actions have consequences.

 

  As to the liberals, yeah I agree they have done many of the same things. It takes a unique set of circumstances for people to think the Trumps of the world will be the ones who solve anything. The liberals had 8 years to help create those conditions and alienate enough people for Trump to succeed. Hopefully they do better next time. I wouldn't really bet on that either.

 

 

I tend to think that anyone in his position for as many years as he has been in the property business and subject to both state and federal tax audits regularly is probably not doing things illegally.  I think the media and the Dems only want the taxes to run a Trump worth narrative play.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

26 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I tend to think that anyone in his position for as many years as he has been in the property business and subject to both state and federal tax audits regularly is probably not doing things illegally.  I think the media and the Dems only want the taxes to run a Trump worth narrative play.

Right? They knew the whole "we want to see his taxes to make sure he's not in the pockets of the Russians" was a joke. The point of it was obvious, to maintain a drip of anti-Trumpism in the news cycle and send a message to Trump and anyone around him that they're going to endure endless amounts of this stupidity unless they lose or give up.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

49 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I tend to think that anyone in his position for as many years as he has been in the property business and subject to both state and federal tax audits regularly is probably not doing things illegally.  I think the media and the Dems only want the taxes to run a Trump worth narrative play.

 

    That could be. There are certainly other reasons not to release them. It was Trumps choice, but it certainly could have ended the narrative if there was nothing to see.