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

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

5 hours 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. 

evidently people did not want it bad enough not to vote for Trump. As you said no requirement

[Steeleballz 7,550]

50 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

evidently people did not want it bad enough not to vote for Trump. As you said no requirement

 

   Enough people didn't require it. I've always said that. Some people did, but it's hard to say whether or not they would have voted for Trump just because of that. I think that was Trumps take too. Releasing the taxes wasn't going to get him any votes, nor was it going to cost him any.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours 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. 

How many politician's tax returns have you perused in the past 20 years?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours 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. 

 

 

I assure you that whatever returns Hillary may have been willing to disclose, there would be NOTHING in them about the Clinton Foundation, the recipient of SO MANY foreign "donations" prior to her failure to achieve the presidency.  

 

There is the singular agency that looks into people's taxes, and I think they do a much better job than any of us could do.  Weird that you don't feel that way.  Do you do your own taxes, or does your husband do them for you?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

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

Awww damn, now ya went and hurt BOTH ofmyfeelings.  (Betcha went and clicked the unhide button just to see what I said to you)

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

How many politician's tax returns have you perused in the past 20 years?

 

   I have said every time we discussed this that viewing tax returns are not a criteria for me personally. However it is for some people. IIRC, every president since Nixon has made that information available, with the exception of Trump.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

   I have said every time we discussed this that viewing tax returns are not a criteria for me personally. However it is for some people. IIRC, every president since Nixon has made that information available, with the exception of Trump.

See?  We AGREE!!  And yet, you try to paint me in a bad light (mostly because you disagree with me on other topics, I reckon) on this one subject.  But you keep on being you, it's what you do best.

 

I don't care.  You don't care.  I'd wager that 98% of Americans don't care, nor have they ever viewed a politician's tax returns in their lives.  It's just THE IDEA that Trump is standing up for his rights that inflames the idiots so much.  And they keep bringing it up, as if by so doing, they can get someone new to hear their snowflakedness and somehow get a peek into the void.  

Well, we got an illegal peek into Trump's returns. And how did THAT work out for your party?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Voice of Reason said:

See?  We AGREE!!  And yet, you try to paint me in a bad light (mostly because you disagree with me on other topics, I reckon) on this one subject.  But you keep on being you, it's what you do best.

 

I don't care.  You don't care.  I'd wager that 98% of Americans don't care, nor have they ever viewed a politician's tax returns in their lives.  It's just THE IDEA that Trump is standing up for his rights that inflames the idiots so much.  And they keep bringing it up, as if by so doing, they can get someone new to hear their snowflakedness and somehow get a peek into the void.  

Well, we got an illegal peek into Trump's returns. And how did THAT work out for your party?

 

      Neither of us needs to see tax returns so we do have that in common. I think people do have the right to make tax information (or anything else) an issue if they are voting for someone. If enough of them do, the candidate can either release them or not and live with the consequences. We also agree that there is no requirement for them to do so.

 

    You must certainly realize its a false equivalence to maintain that people here should post tax returns first if they require Trump to do so. Don't ever suggest we agree on something as absurd as that. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

      Neither of us needs to see tax returns so we do have that in common. I think people do have the right to make tax information (or anything else) an issue if they are voting for someone. If enough of them do, the candidate can either release them or not and live with the consequences. We also agree that there is no requirement for them to do so.

 

    You must certainly realize its a false equivalence to maintain that people here should post tax returns first if they require Trump to do so. Don't ever suggest we agree on something as absurd as that. 

That's the crux of the issue... the absolute absurdity of it.  If you cannot see it, I am truly sorry for you.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

That's the crux of the issue... the absolute absurdity of it.  If you cannot see it, I am truly sorry for you.

 

    The crux of the issue is that just because you don't think something is relevant, it doesn't mean other people shouldn't.  We can agree that it's not required for him to release tax returns without resorting to comparing apples and oranges.   

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

I bet this whole hunter biden thing is a Russian disinformation campaign in  3 2 1 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I bet this whole hunter biden thing is a Russian disinformation campaign in  3 2 1 

 

   Too late! That was like 8 pages ago.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

   Too late! That was like 8 pages ago.

Darn 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

One of the sources revealed, and it isn't the Post, Giuliani, Russia, or Martians (I'm sure the left will try and find some persona criteria as to why this is fiction):

 

Quote

Peter Schweizer: Hunter Biden’s Flipped Business Partner Provided 26,000 Emails

Quote

Schweizer said this first round of emails published late last week—only a handful of the 26,000 obtained—is just the beginning. There are more, he said, including ones that further illustrate the relationship between Hunter Biden and the ex-wife of the former Moscow mayor Yelene Baturina—a payment from her to Hunter Biden was a major revelation in a recent U.S. Senate report on the Biden family corruption—as well as a clearer, more vivid description of just how the Bidens worked to develop a system to use Joe Biden’s position in government to enrich themselves.

Quote

“The emails, there are different types of emails,” Schweizer said. “Many of the emails are the business partners discussing, without Hunter’s participation, what Hunter’s role is in all of this. What’s very clear, and we will have reporting on this at Breitbart, what’s very clear is Hunter brings no money to the table. But he is considered the avenue to the administration. There are emails that talk about how they are going to do business deals where they want to get union pension money and that Hunter is going to leverage the relationships that his dad has with public employee unions to get that money. So part of it is just kind of a feel for what is the Biden business model, and we kind of knew this in a way but here it’s very explicit that it is trading off the Biden name, the Biden connections, and the Biden access. The other way I would categorize this is geographical. The one we have already broke was a story related to China. There are other emails involving China. The private equity deal—the billion and a half dollar private equity deal—that we’ve reported on. There are emails concerning that, which we will bring out which are quite interesting. There are ones that pertain to Yelena Baturina, she’s the Moscow mayor’s ex-wife who we should add the U.S. State Department has implicated as being tied with Russian organized crime. We’re going to be able to show that that relationship is much deeper and much longer than previously known and that Hunter Biden and his business partners performed various services for her in terms of deals in the United States. And then there are other geographical areas covered. There are deals involving Kazakhstan. There are deals in other parts of the world. There are references to Hunter Biden’s dealings in the Middle East. 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/18/exclusive-peter-schweizer-hunter-bidens-flipped-business-partner-provided-26000-emails/

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

7 hours ago, laylalex said:

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

So did you block VOR?